Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  rot roh..2004 vs 2005 mercury 115 EFI 4 stroke

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   rot roh..2004 vs 2005 mercury 115 EFI 4 stroke
AQUANUT posted 04-03-2005 11:56 AM ET (US)   Profile for AQUANUT   Send Email to AQUANUT  
well, I rigged one of the new generation Mercury 115hp EFI 4 strokes this week.
this is the motor many have rigged on your montauks.
this is also the motor that mercury is manufacturing the power head on now..instead of yamaha.
there are some subtle changes under the cowling.
the biggest being the shape of the air box for the fuel injection. appears to run and be the same awesome motor!
I riggged it with a jet pump, if it possible...I think it was even quiter than the 2004 model.


jimh posted 04-03-2005 02:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Terry--I think you are wrong about the origin of the power head on this motor. It has been made clear in numerous public documents that the power head for the 115-HP four-stroke sold by Mercury is manufactured by Yamaha and puchased from them by Mercury. Mercury even filed a law suit to demand that Yamaha continue to supply them with these powerheads. It seems completely unbelievable that this situation would be changed in a few weeks or monts.

On what basis to you assert that Mercury is now the manufacturer of the powerhead on this engine? This flies in the face of a great deal of very high profile public wrangling about this engine.

AQUANUT posted 04-03-2005 04:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for AQUANUT  Send Email to AQUANUT     
jimh...I'll post pictures this week
bigjohn1 posted 04-03-2005 08:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for bigjohn1  Send Email to bigjohn1     
Perhaps we could specifically quote a few of these
"Numerous public documents" so it does not sound so anecdotal. Inquiring minds want to know.
jimh posted 04-03-2005 09:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
This is really pretty funny if you think about it. Terry asserts, almost parenthetically, that somehow Mercury has climbed out of one of the biggest and most well known holes in their product line--the manufacture of their own 90 and 115-HP four-stroke outboards. When I raise the question about the amazing reversal of this huge problem, suddenly the burden of proof is on me. That is backwards, don't you think? If you want to reverse the common knowledge, please bring a little evidence with you, which is all I asked him to do when I replied.

Here is a quotation from a court document in the lawsuit between Mercury and Yamaha in the fall of 2004 in a case in Green Bay. Mercury is asking the court to force Yamaha into selling it power heads for the 90 and 115-HP engine according to the terms of a contract. Yamaha wants to change the terms of the contract or stop supplying the engine. Mercury tells the court:

“It is impossible for Mercury to substitute for the Yamaha powerheads within the remaining time frame of the agreement. If Yamaha stops providing powerheads under the agreement, then it would be impossible for Mercury to continue selling 75-115 HP four-stroke engines.
   “If Mercury were unable to sell 75-115 HP four-stroke engines, the impact to its business and the business of Brunswick would be incalculable, but certainly devastating. It would be impossible for Mercury to recover damages sufficient to compensate for the loss of these engines. Because these engines are a central part of the Mercury product offering, and because Mercury’s consumers demand a full line of engines, it is likely that a significant number of Mercury’s customers would shift their purchases to a different engine manufacturer who could offer a full line of engines. The loss of customers in this manner would cause incalculable harm to Mercury. It would be almost impossible to quantify these damages.”

I don't have a good citation for this quotation, as I don't think it is available on-line from the court at the moment, but it was quoted in a letter sent by Irwin Jacobs of GENMAR to his affiliates and dealers in October, 2004. Jacobs obtained it when the court made these documents available to the public. If you are a disbeliever, drop in at the courthouse and see for yourself.

There is also a great deal of discussion about these power heads in the USITC documents. We have multiple threads talking about those documents and where to find them, so if you really want to look them up you can right here on the website. Otherwise, use GOOGLE.COM and it will find thousands of pages of documents from the case.

I am totally open minded on this. All I need to change my mind is for someone to tell me some reasonable basis why I should suddenly believe that because Terry says so, all of this very public wrangling was a hoax and Mercury was suddenly able to begin manufacturing a power head which it swore to the court it could not just a few months ago.

And please don't post a picture of the word MERCURY on the valve cover--I am willing to stipulate that Mercury can make a valve cover for the engine. In fact, it was made known that Yamaha makes so many of these power heads for Mercury that they have a separate production facility to make them, as there are a too many differences between the Yamaha version and the Mercury version to built on the same line. The engines have similar valve covers, one says YAMAHA and one says MERCURY, but they might both be made by Yamaha, for all I know!

Unless you have something more substantial than a picture, I will have to base my opinion on the USITC and Green Bay Court documents. But, again, feel free to enlighten us all, as John says, enquiring minds want to know.

jimh posted 04-03-2005 09:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
By the way, the acid test for the origin of this power head is SmartCraft gauge compatibility. If the engine has that, it is a much stronger case for it being made by Mercury.
davej14 posted 04-03-2005 11:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for davej14  Send Email to davej14     
It is possible that Yamaha revised the powerhead from a previous configuration?
AQUANUT posted 04-04-2005 10:00 AM ET (US)     Profile for AQUANUT  Send Email to AQUANUT     
your points well taken.
I do remember reading many many memos from mercury to its dealers...of which the place I work for is one...also yamaha and I get a little feedback from the reps..however....I know that this mercury is different than the 50 or so others I have had my little paws on...that difference is noticable...could possibly be a a change...
I will do my homework....the comment on the smartcraft clinched it for me....I am prepared to stand corrected.
.and take the axe!

but I do remember all those memos saying mid-year 2005 ...saying they should be showing up bout then.

going to look for some ham and toast to go with this egg

regards terry

LHG posted 04-04-2005 01:12 PM ET (US)     Profile for LHG    
Jim's quote from Mercury on how they would be devastated without four stroke engines in the 75-115 range is of interest, and very revealing of the marketplace. After all, Mercury does have a full line of Mercury produced, Smartcraft enabled, 3 star, Optimax DFI 2-stroke engines in this HP range, that weigh less than the 4-strokes.

Just another example of how important 4-strokes are in the marketplace relative to 2-stroke DFI's.

I keep reading that the Verado block based 75-115's will be 2007 model year engines, available late summer 2006? Do not know whether they will be 3 or 4 cylinder models, but without supercharging, I would think the 4 cylinders would be necessary considering the cubes

bigjohn1 posted 04-05-2005 08:50 AM ET (US)     Profile for bigjohn1  Send Email to bigjohn1     
OK Jim, I see your point, I had not been following all of this Merc vs Yamaha legal stuff....I'm prepared to eat a slice of Humble pie to go with Terry's egg:-)

Post New Topic  Post Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.