Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
Interesting-Yamaha's new 150hp 4 stroke
|Author||Topic: Interesting-Yamaha's new 150hp 4 stroke|
posted 09-01-2003 09:40 PM ET (US)
I just got back in from a great day with my oldest son and daugher up on a lake in here in Utah. I have an 18 Outrage with a Johnson 150hp. Aside from the VRO oil smoke and occasional cough/stall at trolling speeds, I like my Johnson. I have a new Yamaha 8hp 4stroke that is quiet, no smoke. Other than the heavy off set weight to one side, I REALLY like it.
Utah is tighting up on emmissions. It is comming. I just noticed that Yamaha just came out with a 150 4 stroke weighing in at 468lbs. I think it is the first 150 4 stroke on the market.
Any opinions on that as a next motor for an 18 outrage which is 150 hp max rated? Would the 150 Johnson 2 stroke outperform it drastically, especially in hole shots? How does it compare in weight with a 88 Johnson 150?
posted 09-02-2003 10:02 AM ET (US)
Yamaha's 4-stroke seems like a great motor. The weight is on par with all other 150's. Although the 468# weight that is posted might be for a short shaft. (Add about 15 pounds.)
As for performing similar to an '04 Johnson 150. We would need to see the torque curves to have any idea as to a comparison. Plus, it will depend on the lower unit gearing and the prop that is used. More cubes usually means more motor torque, but the gearing is what gets it moving.
Your '88 Johnson most likely weighs more than this motor.
posted 09-02-2003 12:01 PM ET (US)
I have a 1985 150hp Evinrude that weighs in at 386 lbs. I also have a 1988 8hp 2 stroke for a kicker that weighs in at 58 lbs.. I do not want to add much more weight to the back of the boat then this.
You already have a heavier 4 stroke kicker motor then I do so I would be concerned about putting any more weight back there then necessary..
The Suzuki/Johnson 140hp 4 Stroke weighs in at about 425 lbs and seems to be a good replacement for most of the older 2 strokes.
The Yamaha 150hp 4 stroke is a little heavier and in my opinion would be great for people without a kicker.. Personnaly, I am going to wait and see about the Bombardier E-Tech engines that are coming out.. They state these engines will weigh 100 lbs less then the rival 4 strokes in the same engine sizes, burn 30 per cent less fuel, and much less emissions.
Many of the newer DFI 2 strokes have just as good fuel economy, or better, then the 4 strokes. These DFI engines also meet the newer emission standards. If the new E-Tech is even going to be better then that, I am going to wait as I am still not sold on the 4 stroke technology for Boats.. 2 strokes are light, powerful, a lot less moving parts, and are easy to work on... As long as they will meet emission regulations in the future, I will be buying a 2 Stroke.....
posted 09-02-2003 12:05 PM ET (US)
The '88 Johnson 150 weighs considerably less than 468 lbs.
The '04 Johnson is even lighter at 391 lbs for a 25 inch model. Advertised weight is usually with conditions such as shortest shaft, no propeller, and no oil in crankcase, VRO tank or gearcase. The actual weight of an operational Yamaha 150 4-stroke is likely to be close to 490 lbs when loaded with all of the omitted items. I believe that the 18 Outrage was designed to accept twin 75 hp motors with each weighing approximately 230 lbs (460 lbs total) so the weight of the operational Yamaha 150 4-stroke may be over the intended design limit.
A loop charged '04 Johnson 150 has more punch than the older cross-flow charged '88 Johnson 150. The '04 Johnson (158 cubic inches) turns the propeller through 1.85:1 gearing. I believe that the gearing on the '88 150 is about the same. The Yamaha (163 cubic inches) uses 2:1 gearing suggesting that it needs to get the revs up quicker because it doesn't produce as much torque at low rpm. The Johnson is rated at 150 hp at 5000 rpm. The Yamaha is rated at 150 hp at 5500 rpm.
posted 09-02-2003 01:41 PM ET (US)
If the 18 Outrages were designed for 460 lbs hanging off the back, this means that the 150 Yamaha HPDI, 150 Mercury Optimax, and 130 Honda (all longshafts, no props, no fluids) are all too heavy for this boat. I think we will upset quite a few people on this site if we say that these motors are too heavy...and hence, not use them. If we factor everything in, the carbed Johnson may be the only motor in this size range that will work on this boat. And this is assuming the oil tank and batteries are mounted in the console and we swing a 3-blade aluminum prop. This is NOT something I want to think about!
As far as the gearing, I swing a larger diameter, same pitch prop on my Suzuki as I did on my 150 Evinrude. The performance numbers are quite close too. The Yamaha might have better holeshot since it has more cubes and lower gearing. This means that it should be able to swing a larger diameter, same pitch prop and get a better "bite" on the holeshot. Or, one could run a smaller diameter, larger pitch prop to get better top end.
I am really anxious to see how the Yamaha performs even though I repowered 4-5 months ago and have a 6-year warranty to go thru before I will repower again. Finally the 150 hp market is catching up to today's technology!
posted 09-02-2003 01:51 PM ET (US)
Thanks for the answers.
Weight seems to be a key issue here. I am suprised and mentioned in previous post how my 18OR was affected by the 4 stroke 8hp Yamaha kicker motor weight. It is the heaviest, electric start and trim, but still only a kicker.
It has reduced my ability to trim down enough in chop and I porpose more easily. I have tried a cavitation plate device (turbo) and it helps, but still not the same as a main engine/no 4 stroke kicker set up. It handled great then.
With a 4 stroke main 150, I will probably make things worse.
I think I will wait this out and see what the market brings
posted 09-02-2003 02:00 PM ET (US)
The maximum engine weight for the 19' Guardian, which is almost the same hull as the classic 18' Outrage, is 470 lbs.
posted 09-02-2003 02:09 PM ET (US)
When I repowered, I was also looking for a kicker. The owner of the dealership told me not to waste my money since "the way they build outboards nowadays, you'll never need it." This surprised me since we were talking about a $2000 sale for him. He then reasoned that the additional weight would cause me to not enjoy the new main as much and the motor would get "bad press" from me. I must admit, he was right!
onlyawhaler, where are your batteries and oil tank located? can you reload your boat so you have better weight distribution from side to side and bow to stern?
posted 09-02-2003 02:40 PM ET (US)
My Bombardier dealer told me if I repowered with a new DFI 150hp Evinrude that I would not really need the kicker either...
Well, I know the newer engines are more effcient than the older ones but I still cannot accept the fact that trolling with a new 6 Cylinder would be more effcient then trolling with my 8hp, 2 stroke, 2 Cylinder engine... I also cannot see why I would want to put so many hours trolling on a new 6 Cylinder engine... This just does not make sense to me... There is no way in my mind that a 6 Cylinder would be more effcient then a 2 Cylinder.
I have Dual Controls on my console, one for each engine... Although my kicker is pull start, I can control the trolling speed and forward and reverse shifter from the console... This to me is an excellent setup from anyone that trolls for any length of time during to day. All day sometimes for me.. There are a couple of other people on this forum that have almost the same setup on their 18 Outrage; Andy Gere and Dan Firth are a couple that I know of.. Dan just sold his boat but you can still view photos of his Dual Binnacle controls on his boat in Cetacea on page 16... Notice that the main engine control has only 1 Trim & Tilt switch... Obviously there is no need for 2 switches unless your kicker also has a Trim & Tilt option..
It is also nice to have a kicker just in case something should happen to the main motor, battery, or the main fuel system... I also use a separate 6 gallon tank just for the trolling motor... I feel very safe and confident in this type of setup... Of course, if all else fails, throw out the anchor and call for help on your VHF radio.....
posted 09-02-2003 03:10 PM ET (US)
The kicker does offer some backup advantages.
However, I have a new 75HP FICHT Evinrude motor that I repowered my Dauntless 15 with this year. I can tell you that once broken in (The computer plays with engine timing and oil usage in the break in period) this thing uses an amazing amount less of both gas and oil than my 1995 Johnson 2 stroke 70HP did.
I actually do believe that if you get rid of the kicker, a new DFI engine will troll as you want it to and use less gas than the combination that you have now (a lot less). The DFI engines idle right down and have none of the sputter and idle issues of a 2 stroke. There is also no smoke. I believe that I am getting between 5 and 6 miles per gallon with my motor. With my old motor this was closer to 3 to 4 mpg.
There is a weight issue. As long as you keep the weight increase to be moderate, you can get around it with Props, fins, motor vertical adjustment on transom and with trim tabs. You can solve the problem, but repowering is always a bit of a science project. In point of fact, my bet is that currently your motor is mounted too low on the transom (90% of them are)It can be done and it will very likely be better than the setup you had before. You just have to work through it and be prepared to invest the upfront time to experiment to get it right. Very simple if you normally trailer your boat.
DFI engines represent a significant weight advantage over 4 strokes. You get the oil and most of the oil sump parts etc.. weight out of motor to be mounted in the console - similar to the set up you have now.
The new E-TEC engines from Bombardier are even that much better. They are lighter again than the FICHT is. The word out too is that you can start them in one revolution of the flywheel. That means, alledgedly, that you can start a large motor with a pull starter if you are so inclinded!
I would strongly recommend a DFI motor over a 4 stroke right now. I think the performance is better, I think the weight problem is much, much less and you meet the emissions standards that are coming shortly.
posted 09-02-2003 03:19 PM ET (US)
Joe, You make an exceptional point about the fuel usage with a kicker!
The spare (aka - clean) gas is standard issue on a 60 mile offshore run, as is the spare battery and spare VHF. Actually, I carry all safety related items in duplicate, including flares and extinguishers on these trips. With all the shrimpers around the fishing grounds, a carton of cigarettes will probably even get me towed to port if need be.
I do have one question though, what speeds can be expected by using an 8, 10, or 15 hp kicker for trolling? I usually troll at 6-8 knots and occasionally troll up to 12 knots (Wahoo!). With my 4-stroke, my trip uses about 30 gallons (120 miles running with 50-60 miles of trolling) so I still have plenty of range.
posted 09-02-2003 04:19 PM ET (US)
Isn't the Yamaha 150, four stroke a four cylinder in line engine? I heard that it was just a reenginered 115 HP that Yamaha created to be the first to offer a 150 HP four stroke. Actual output is supposedly around 140 HP...True?
posted 09-02-2003 04:47 PM ET (US)
The F150 is a In Line 4 Cyl. I guess you could say a 150 is a re-engineered 115, though it must be a different block as it has over 900cc more displacement. You could say a Boeing 777 is a re-engineered B-17. You've been talking to those "two stroke guys". They believe all 2 Strokes put out at least 10% above rated HP, and all 4 Strokes put out 10% less. I would think that if Suzuki can get 140 HP from 2044 cc, a 2670 cc Yamaha should get 150 HP with no problem.
posted 09-02-2003 04:53 PM ET (US)
I only have the 8hp 2 stroke on my Outrage 18.... I believe both Dan Firth and Andy Gere have the 15hp kicker... Dan had the 15hp on his Outrage 18 and Andy has the 15hp on his 22 Outrage Cuddy... You might ask either one of them what their top speeds are... Dan Firth appears to now have purhased an Outrage 25 after selling his Outrage 18... His Outrage 18 also had the Suzuki 140hp 4 stroke. I assume that this is the same engine that you just repowered with Tom?
I was under the impression that you cannot adjust the idle speed of the new 4 stroke engines as they are all computerized... I have also been told that the older 2 stroke engines, and newer 2 stroke DFI's, will troll (idle) slower than the new 4 Strokes....
I have never clocked the fastest speed my kicker would push the 18... I normally troll between 2 and 3 MPH for Salmon... According to a few reports from 4 stroke owners, the 4 stroke has a difficult time of idling or trolling this slow.
I will check my top speed this weekend as I am heading for the Coast for a couple of weeks of Salmon fishing... Unfortunately I will not be able to report the information until I get back... Maybe someone else has information they would like to provide here also...
Wahoo..... very fast fish..... I can see why you need the trolling speed...
posted 09-02-2003 07:43 PM ET (US)
I'm not too worried about upsetting 18 Outrage owners because the facts are what they are and I'm stating what my understanding of them is. I have always assumed that 18 Outrage owners are a smart bunch (must be if they have picked an 18 Outrage for a boat) and can decide for themselves what is the right power for their Outrage.
FYI, the Johnson 150 is not the only maximum horsepower motor under 450 lbs. The carburated Yamaha and Mercury models that weigh about 425 lbs. Also, I haven't said that a 150 Yamaha 4-stroke or the HPDI or Optimax won't work. However, I do believe that people should be mindful of exceeding the design limit for transom weight as it shifts the center of gravity of the boat rearward and alters the relationship between the centers of gravity and buoyency the designers had in mind. Relocating the battery or batteries to the console can help restore some balance but by doing so you take away some storage space in the console on a boat that has very little storage space.
I'm curious to know what your close peformance numbers are with the same propeller with the Evinrude and with the DF 140 which is what I assume you have.
posted 09-03-2003 03:38 AM ET (US)
As an expert on overloading your transom, I can safely say, the outrage 18 can take over 500 pounds of transom weight no problem. We have a 200 HPDI on the back of ours and it rides just the same as it did with our evirude 150, except faster and with less fuel of course.
We are on the other hand, still struggling with the added weight of the twin Honda 130's on the outrage 22 W/D. We've made some adjustments for the better, but the 1050 pounds is just really a lot. It rode much better and burned twice as much fuel with the 750 pounds of merc 125's. Still a work in progress, but we never know if the engines are on or not....
I'm fully confident that you can slap pretty much any motor made save the V6 4-strokes on the back of the 18's though...
posted 09-03-2003 07:24 AM ET (US)
Where are your batteries and oil tank?
posted 09-03-2003 10:34 AM ET (US)
"Life is full of compromises."
My performance numbers are posted on other threads but here goes again:
As for more motors weighing less than 450lbs, of course there are a bunch of them...Add on a 25-30 lb, 4-blade stainless prop and you just went over that mark. Oops!
Idle speed on my motor is about 600 rpm. At this engine speed, my boat moves about 0.5-2 mph depending upon whether I am reading my GPS or speed sensor and which direction I am heading (into wind/current or against it). It will do this all day without any problems.
Regarding a reengineered motor, consider the Dodge V-10 8.0 liter engine that Dodge has been using for over 15 years in their trucks and compare that to the reengineered V-10 8.0 liter that runs the Viper (I have friends that worked on this project that told me they started with the truck block and "reengineered it.") Which motor would you rather have?
posted 09-03-2003 12:10 PM ET (US)
Batteries(2) are under the console in both outrages. Oil tank is under the console as well in the 18, and the 22 w/the 4 - strokes has no remote oil...
posted 09-03-2003 04:06 PM ET (US)
As Joe pointed out, I have a 15 hp 2-stroke kicker on my Outrage 22 Cuddy. It easily pushes the boat to 6 mph, even in windy and choppy conditions. In terms of trolling speeds, I have no problems with sputtering or coughing, even at salmon speeds which are 1.5 to 3 mph. I also agree that there's no way even a four stoke I-4 or V-6 will burn less fuel at trolling speeds than the little 2-stroker, and I doubt that they'd be able to get down to salmon trolling speeds. The only downside is a bit of smoke, but the light weight allows me to carry both batteries and both oil tanks in the splashwell, simplifying rigging and keeping my console space available for storage.
posted 09-03-2003 04:23 PM ET (US)
For 17 years now, I have run & trailed my Outrage 18 with 610 pounds of engines on the transom, set back 10" on brackets, and including SS props and a combo starting/deep cycle battery in each splashwell corner. No oil tanks are involved with these pre-mix engines. I think the boat performs very well, and takes no water over the transom, even trolling in a following sea. There are photos on this site showing how the boat sits at rest in the water.
I do believe this to be the maximun allowable weight for an 18, however, and would not go heavier if brackets are involved. Minus the brackets, slighly heavier twins could be used.
Getting back to the original post, I would think the boat could easily handle the new Yamaha 150 4-stroke.
posted 09-03-2003 10:15 PM ET (US)
I've been looking at the new yam 150 with interest, but was wondering about the low rpm torque with only 4 cylinders. Now I see that it still has pretty good displacement, so it might work for heavier boats with the right prop.
posted 09-04-2003 11:41 AM ET (US)
My question for everyone is "Why do you believe that a 4-stroke cannot run slow enough to troll at 2-3 mph?" An engine turning at 600 rpm is an engine turning at 600 rpm regardless of whether it is a 2-stroke or a 4-stroke. With the lower gear ratio found in many 4-strokes, they should even troll slower than their 2-stroke counterparts.
posted 09-04-2003 11:48 AM ET (US)
I forgot to add: If you want your boat to move slower at idle trolling speeds, change to a lower pitch prop!
posted 09-05-2003 07:45 AM ET (US)
Tom2697 - I looked at another thread regarding performance of the DF 140. Here it is 45 mph at 6200 rpm and in another it is about 42 mph at 6000 rpm. I assume that your performance reported here is lightly loaded as in the case of the other thread it is medium loading.
However, based on the prop calculator on this site, in both reports your propeller is remarkably efficient producing slips of -2.2 percent and 1.2 percent respectively. Every piece of real speed and rpm data (including 15 Super Sport / 70 hp Yamaha, 18 Outrage / 150 Johnson, 22 Revenge / 225 Yamaha 2-stroke) that I have ever plugged into the prop calculator has never produced a calculated slip lower than 6 percent at WOT, which is in line with the expected 6 - 10 percent.
The reason why I raise a question here is I'm trying to determine whether you get an honest 140 hp out of an engine that displaces 122 cubic inches when for most of the other four cycle engines the ratio of advertised output to displacement is very close to 1:1 which would be the case for the Yamaha 150. Suzuki is allowed to advertise the output at 140 hp with the 10 percent leeway when it only produces about 125 hp which would be more in line with the 1:1 ratio.
posted 09-05-2003 02:58 PM ET (US)
I agree with Peter. It seems unlikely that the 140 Suzuki could keep up with a Mercury or Evinrude 135 V-6 DFI. The Honda 130 can't, and it's not even built on the same block used for their 90, like the Suzuki is. As someone else said on another thread about Suzuki, they're using very shrewd & predatory marketing these days! Like charging somebody for 140 horses when you're only getting 125. But then again that tail bob has got to be worth something!
I think the marketing idea here was to get as close as possible to the popular, and then unavailable, 150, while at the same time bettering Honda's 130. This type of marketing deception, however, I don't care for, inspite of it being a decent product.
posted 09-05-2003 05:48 PM ET (US)
First, I stand corrected. Displacement is 124.7 not 122 as I originally stated.
Second, I'm not sure I would go as far as calling it predatory marketing as it would be within industry accepted standards to advertise 140 hp if it produces something above 125 hp. However, I cannot detect that there are any differences between the DF 115 and the DF 140 other than the tail bob, 5.8 cubic inches and a different final drive ratio (2.59 to 2.38:1). Thus, I have been surprised for sometime that by boring out the 115 block to gain 5.8 cubic inches, putting a tail bob on the cowl and running through a taller drive that one can squeeze out 25 hp in a conventionally aspirated engine. I have been curious to see some WOT data on a known platform such as the 18 Outrage.
Based on displacement alone, I expect that the DF 140 is more likely to perform like a 125 and the Yamaha F150 to perform more like a 150. It will be interesting to see the performance of an F150 on a classic 18 Outrage. Who wants to be the Guinnea pig?
posted 09-05-2003 06:12 PM ET (US)
I cannot speak on how Suzuki makes the 140 hp that they claim they get. The motor could only produce 126 hp as some have stated. It could also produce 154 hp as no one has stated. The industry standards only state that the rating must be within 10% of the stated number. That is 10% below OR 10% above. I do know that, by changing the induction and exhaust on a Ford 302, an engine can go from 140 hp to well over 400 hp and still be naturally aspirated. (My friend did this to his Mustang and dynoed it out at 401.6 hp. My Bronco originally had 140 hp and now is about 270 hp.) I assume this is what Mercury will do with the 2.6 liter 250 hp outboard they are planning to introduce...Oh yeah, and this is what I was told about how Evinrude makes their 150 hp into a 175 hp motor. All specs are the same in their catalog but the motor produces 25 hp more at 300 rpm higher.
As for my numbers, loading is a major consideration when running the numbers..as is current, wind speed, rough water vs. smooth water, etc. The load in my boat changes from an estimated 2000 lbs to over 2800 lbs depending upon what I am doing that day. As for the effiency of my prop, I can only say that the calculator is a good estimate of what you should be able to achieve, not the exact speed. Obviously the paddle wheel type speedometer on my depth sounder is subject to variation since I have a calibration function on it. Even my GPS has errors introduced into the speed (I was moving at 1 mph one time when I was anchored and holding fast!) My radar unit can also calculate my speed with inaccuracies. Unless I have someone clock me with a radar gun, which I don't plan to do anytime soon, my performance numbers will most likely vary to some extent. However, I am happy with how my boat performs even if my numbers do fluctuate some. Most of the people who bought the DF140 probably are happy too!
I am greatly interested in how this Yamaha performs though. I was waiting a long time for a manufacturer to come up with a 4-stroke in the 150 hp range. Unfortunately, my old Evinrude decided not to wait...
posted 09-05-2003 06:19 PM ET (US)
Why do you think 1HP/1 cu" is a big deal. Chrysler did it in 1956 in a production car. Currently Ford gets 170hp out of 121 cu" and Dodge gets 150 from 122 cu".
posted 09-05-2003 08:55 PM ET (US)
Not intending to question anybody's hapiness here, just investigating a curiosity I've had about the DF 140 and asking some questions about posted data when that data didn't make complete sense to me based on my experience. Reasonbly accurate WOT speed reports with a DF 140 on a 18 Outrage can help me gauge the relative output of it compared to other power plants.
Let it be known that my curiosity is not limited to Suzuki as I also have had the same curiosity regarding Yamaha's 225 V6 4-stroke which also has an advertised HP above the 1:1 ratio but yet seems to have reported consistent performance below its 2-stroke counterpart, namely Yamaha's now discontinued 225 EFI. There is nothing special about the 1:1 ratio but, like the Yamaha 225, the advertised HP on the DF 140 (and now the DF 250) simply deviates from Suzuki's prior 4-stroke track record of a ratio of less than 1:1.
Of course you could squeeze alot out of an engine if you want but those engines that are squeezed generally don't last long before a rebuild is needed (see the Merc racing engines for example).
I may be going out on a limb here but I believe that car engines and boat engines require different tuning as boat engines are usually operated under constant and often more severe load conditions for long periods of time. I would bet that the power curve of a DF 140 is quite different than Ford or Dodge examples mentioned here. Will the Ford or Dodge engine be operated at the rpms required to produce 150 or 170 hp for possibly minutes at a time? How about at 60 to 75 percent of maximum output and then idling for hours at at time? How long would either of those engines last when put into use under those operating conditions? Would they make it to 1000 or 1500 hours?
Keeping this discussion somewhat aligned with the original post, based on Yamaha's track record, I would not be surprised at all if Yamaha introduces an F175 on the same F150 block assuming that there is still a viable 175 HP market. At 163 cubic inches, they clearly have some room to tweak.
posted 09-06-2003 12:01 AM ET (US)
Peter and all...
The results of what a Yamaha F150 can do on an Outrage 18 will be known soon enough. I am volunteering to be the guinea pig. My F150 has been on order for a while and is expected to be delivered to the dealer any day now. As soon as it is rigged and in the water, I will be happy to share the info with everyone. anxiously waiting...
posted 09-06-2003 09:33 AM ET (US)
If you would like to see a few performance reports for the Yamaha F150, go to the Yamaha website:
There are a small number of boats tested with the F150. The Edgewater Sentinal 18 Commercial Package test may provide some idea of how this engine might perform on an 18 Outrage.
If you would like to see how this motor performs against a 150 HPDI, compare the performance report of the Lund 1800 Pro-V-SE rigged with a F150 at the above website with the Lund 1850 Tyee GS OB rigged with a 150 HPDI at the following website:
Although these are not identical boats, they are pretty close. There are also other 150 HPDI tests that may be compared.
If you would like to see several performance reports for the Suzuki 140, go to the Suzuki website:
posted 09-06-2003 12:05 PM ET (US)
Recognizing that the two Lunds aren't exactly the same boat, and that test conditions were considerably different, it appears to me, in general:
The 4S was 6-7 db quieter (about 3/4 as loud to average human hearing) and got 40-70% better mileage at displacement mode speeds (1000-2000 rpm).
The 4S was 0-2 db quieter (pretty much indistiguishable by average human hearing) but got 25-40% better mileage at medium planing speeds (3000-4000 rpm).
The 4S was as loud, used the about the same amount of fuel, and produced at least the same max hp and top speed, at WOT (recognizing the 2S is pushing a bit more weight).
Both motors are rated at about the same, easily believable, .92-.95 hp/ci, and put the same weight on the transom.
The F150 appears to me to be a real winner and a Mercury version of it (especially on new Whalers) would help fill the wide gap in Merc's four-stroke line.
posted 09-06-2003 06:54 PM ET (US)
posted 09-06-2003 07:59 PM ET (US)
Publication of on-line and downloadable Performance Reports using Mercury engines is, as far as I know, practically nonexistent. The absence of such reports is, to my mind, a glaring error on the part of Brunswick.
If I owned the market-leading maker of outboard motors, and also owned the market-leading makers of several styles of smaller boats that used outboard motors, I would inform the management of those operations that they should immediately begin to collaborate on the conducting of performance tests and the publishing of the results on the World Wide Web.
When you throw in the angle that Mercury also makes the best propellers, too, then this absurd lack of information is indicative of corporate marketing insanity on their part.
Some companies just don't "get" the web these days.
One the other hand, Brunswick is innovative with their quarterly Q and A sessions with their CEO available on line. But boat and motor performance reports? Nada.
posted 09-08-2003 11:15 AM ET (US)
Here are the numbers from my '89 18' Outrage with a 2003 Suzuki DF140 turning a 14.25x18 PowerTech 4-blade stainless steel prop. Estimated boat weight is 2400lbs. Max speed was 37.1 knots (42.7 mph) at 6000rpm. This was running across the current with a 10 knot cross wind in about 1' or less chop. Speed was measured with a GPS (Garmin GPSMAP 76S). Slowest trolling speed was 1.3 knots depending upon direction. Maximum trolling speed at idle was 2.1 knots.
Getting 1 hp/cu in out of an engine is not that uncommon nowadays. The more unbelievable fact is that many production engines are producing over 100hp per liter, or about 1.64 hp/cu in. Most performance motorcycles are doing this regularly. Oh yeah, and Yamaha and Suzuki are consistantly at the forefront of this market!
posted 09-08-2003 12:59 PM ET (US)
Does anyone have an Idea on how well the Yamaha F-150 will push 72 21' Outrage?? According to the Yamaha performance spec's, the closest I can find is the Pathfinder 22V. Will the older 21' Outrage have near the same #'s as this boat?? Here's the link. below.
posted 09-08-2003 01:21 PM ET (US)
Thanks for sharing the data. Speed for weight seems to suggest an output of 135-140 hp for the DF 140.
Plugging your data into the prop calculator returns -0.2 percent slip which we all know is not possible and well outside of the expected 6 to 10 percent at WOT. In an attempt to reconcile this, I discovered from Power Tech's website that for some Power Tech propellers they instruct to reduce 1 to 2 inches in pitch. Thus, for example if you normally would use a 19 inch pitch propeller, their equivalent would be a 17 or 18 inch pitch. If a 6 percent slip is assumed for your 18 inch pitch propeller, your data seemingly confirms the Power Tech instructions and your propeller is functionally equivalent to a more conventional propeller with a 19+ inch pitch.
Commercially available peformance street vehicles often have hp/cubic inch ratios well above 1:1. I think they can get away with that because, unlike boats, they are designed with the knowledge that these vehicles are not likely to be operated at full throttle for more than 30 - 60 seconds in duration because the environment in which they operate will not permit it. Around these parts if you were to operate a high performance motorcycle for 60 seconds at full throttle we'd be scraping you off the side of a tree. Historically, if you look at the ratio data for outboards over time you'll find the outboard manufacturer's have tried to stick to a ratio around the 1:1 mark. They apparently have follow the "no replacement for displacement" rule for reliability reasons.
posted 09-08-2003 02:01 PM ET (US)
It sounds as though Mercury may change the 1:1 hp/cu in ratio when their new 2.5 liter(???) 250 horsepower motor debuts. Unfortunately, anyone would be insane to bolt this to the back of a boat rated for a 150. It would be fun though!
It is quite possible that PowerTech has done some interesting things to their props (progressive pitch???). I tried 3 versions of their props before selecting the one I did. I was surprised to find out that my performance was best when running the same pitched prop (uncupped) with the lower gearing that is in this motor as I did when I was running my old Evinrude.
I am really interested to hear what rjgorian has to say about his "guinea pig" boat. Let us know AS SOON AS that boat is back at the dock! Please repeat the info with each prop that you try so others can benefit from your experiences when their time comes.
posted 09-08-2003 02:17 PM ET (US)
Peter, the real-world GPS data for the 13-3/4" X 15" BlackMax on the 60HP BigFoot pushing a 150 Sport w/200 lb operator and 1 fuel tank (5600 rpm and 35 mph), when plugged into the Prop Calculator w/2.33:1, also gives about -2.5% slip.
The Mercury Prop Selector gives that 15" prop a "theoretical pitch" of 16.9" when pushing a flats fishing boat (closest I could find there that represents the Whaler hull) weighing 1600-something pounds (I forget exactly). If you plug that, instead of 15", into the Prop Calculator with the real-world 5,600 rpm and 35 mph, it yields 9% slip.
So this isn't unique to Tom's Suzuki.
Outboards have a long way to go to catch up to cars. My naturally-aspirated (non-turbo) '97 Acura GS-R DOHC VTEC got 170 hp at 7,600 rpm (8,000 rpm redline, 8500 rpm rev limiter), and 128 ft-lbs of torque at 6,200 rpm, out of about 110 cubic inches. And that was the tame version, not the 195 hp Type R. I've run that car at 5,500-6,000 rpm (110-120 mph, not full-throttle though) for HOURS at a time on long trips on the Interstate (Valentine One radar detector), and when I sold it 6 years later, the compression tests came out at the top of the spec. The Mobil 1 synthetic probably helped.
As I've said before, and it applies to outboards, keep any engine under 70-75% of redline most of the time and it'll last a LONG time.
posted 09-08-2003 04:52 PM ET (US)
Moe, never said it was the Suzuki. There was something in Tom's reported data that was inconsistent with my results which all fall into the ordinary slip expectations as expressed on the Continuouswave web page for the prop calculator. However, Tom's data seems to be reconciled once you take into account Power Tech's pitch designation and instructions.
As far as I know, you can't have negative slip in the water. So when ever one uses the prop calculator and gets a negative slip result, they should go back and reevaluate the accuracy of one or more of the inputs into the equation.
I'm not sure I read the Mercury Applet results exactly the same way as you. I believe it does a calculation to come up with a theoretical pitch based on some assumptions and then selects Mercury propellers that come the closest to the theoretical results. However, your results seem to suggest that the Blackmax 15 has an effective pitch of about 16.5. Strange why Mercury doesn't call it a 16 instead of a 15.
Back to the original thread... if the new Yamaha F150 is equipped with a Yamaha propeller, I expect it to follow the expected slip results I have seen at WOT with three different Whaler and engine combinations, namely not less than about 6 percent.
posted 09-08-2003 05:25 PM ET (US)
In their Prop Selector, the "theoretical pitch" changes with weight, which determines the speed they predict for that hull, weight, and other factors. They select the closest prop to the theoretical, which can be greater or lesser pitch than the recommended prop.
I agree slip can't be negative, so there must be other factors not accounted for by "published pitch" since there's clearly enough real-world evidence in these forums that indicates that some boat/motor/prop combos can go faster than would be indicated by published pitch and a reasonable slip number.
posted 09-17-2003 09:05 PM ET (US)
Sure, you can get more than 1.5 horsepower/cubic inch from a naturally aspirated engine, but in the displacement sizes that we're talking about for outboards, you will have the off idle torque of a lawnmower. The Acura that Moe refers to has a torque peak at over 6,000 rpm. By keeping the engine in it's powerband with proper gearing and running in a light car allows it to be a good performer, in our boats we get one prop, and one set of gears to do everything.
That might be OK for a small, lightweight boat, but mount one on a bigger hull, or try to plane a twin rigged boat on a single. It'll never get out of the hole. In addition, these engines won't hold up at the rpms that they need to run to make the torque peak.
posted 09-17-2003 09:51 PM ET (US)
That Acura had a flat 100 ft-lbs from 1500 to about 4400 rpm and was VERY capable around town at those revs. It was FAR from gutless at low rpm. At 4400 or so, the VTEC switched cam profiles and you could feel the torque begin climbing. At 5500, it switched from long to short runners in the intake and continued to climb until its peak at 6,200 rpm. All this from an UNDERSQUARE engine with more stroke than bore. Hang in there. From what I hear, you'll soon see a VTEC outboard from Honda.
posted 09-17-2003 10:07 PM ET (US)
Pardon if I missed this, but does anyone know how much one of these will retail for?
posted 09-18-2003 07:57 AM ET (US)
Ed's Marine Superstore has the F150 listed at $10,299.
posted 09-20-2003 02:10 PM ET (US)
I know this is a little off topic for this thread but we had discussed the fuel usage of a kicker above so I am going to post the results here for now...
I just got back from an 11 day fishing trip.... I used my 8hp Evinrude 2 stroke kicker motor almost 100% of the time... I started the engine around 8 am and did not turn it off untill around 5 or 6 pm... I put on 80 to 90 hours on this engine during my trip...
I averaged about 2 to 2 1/2 gallons of fuel/oil per day as I was constantly trolling for Salmon... Even when a fish was hooked, and netted, the engine remained running.. The kicker motor ran excellent and there was virtually no smoke seen or smelled other then one time that I recall... I was very impressed about the lack of smoke...
Tom, on my Outrage 18, this kicker pushed the boat at a top speed of 5 to 6 mph with the main, 150hp engine, trimmed all the way down in the running position. The main engine being down does of course slow the top end speed down... The speed was measured on the paddle wheel of the fish finder..
I have owned an 8hp Evinrude 4 stroke before but never checked the fuel usage... If the 8hp 4 stroke were to burn 50% less fuel then my 8hp 2 stroke, it would only use 1 to 1 1/4 gallons of fuel in an 8 to 9 hour day.. I personally could not justify going out and buying another 4 stroke as it would only save me about $2 to $3 per day in fuel and the cost of the 4 stroke would take many years to outweigh the saving in fuel... As said above, the 2 stroke hardly smoked at all and was also very quiet, less total weight then a 4 stroke, and a lot less moving parts then a 4 stroke...
I am still not sold on 4 strokes yet I would also not want to troll all day long using my 150hp that burns a lot more fuel and smokes much more then my little 8hp...
posted 09-22-2003 09:42 AM ET (US)
I think you just sold me on a kicker! If an 8 hp could push me at 5-6 mph, I could troll in most conditions without a problem. I'll still need the main for the higher trolling speeds but once we locate a school, I could switch over and save a lot of fuel! Plus, I'll have a safety motor which I like....
Now, my only question is whether to go with a 4-stroke so I can run off my main tank or to save money and find a 2-stroke. I guess I can always carry a jerry can and refill it off my main. Then premix in this can...
One last question, I like the idea of being able to remove the motor for when I won't need it (waterskiing or flats fishing - I use an electric trolling motor for this, mounted on the stern). About how much does an 8 hp weigh and do they need to be bolted to the transom or do most have the screw attachments? I believe I've seen them attached both ways, right?
Thanks for the update!
posted 09-22-2003 10:39 AM ET (US)
If I didn't already own a 2 stroke, I am not sure which kicker I would buy. The 4 strokes are obviously quiter, more fuel efficient, and burn cleaner, which as one member mentioned on another thread, "one drop of oil in the water goes along way"..
The only draw back of the 4 stroke is a little heavier weight...
My kicker is not bolted to the transom. I only use the clamps provided but I do keep a safety chain and lock around the engine (a hole is provided) and the ski/lifting eye. This helps prevent theft a little bit. The engine takes me about 5 minutes to take it off...
Remove the quick disconnects for the 2 remote cables
My kicker has quick releases for the remote control cables as this engine needed to have a Remote Control kit added so it would be able to be controlled from the helm. I also have a 6 gallon portable tank which sits nicely in the splashwell...
I like the idea of an extra separate fuel system for the kicker and a backup for the main engine should anything happen to the main fuel system yet their is extra weight involved... About 45 to 50 pounds of fuel including tank... If you add the weight of the 2 stroke kicker plus the 6 gallons of fuel & tank, you would be around 105 to 110 pounds. You could buy a 4 stroke that weighs that and then just use the main fuel system..
Good Luck with your decision and keep us posted.
posted 09-22-2003 11:03 AM ET (US)
I forgot to mention something else about the kicker fuel system. You could use an Accu-Mix system for the 2 stroke kicker. This would eliminate the need for the extra 6 gallon fuel tank..
I have one of these systems on my Montauk and you can view photos here.
Just another possibility....
posted 09-29-2003 03:01 PM ET (US)
I just received my most recent edition of "Powerboat Reports" newsletter. It compares the Yamaha 150 four-stroke with the Honda 130 four-stroke on identical boats (a Triumph 21' CC). It also uses data from Suzuki's website regarding their 140 four-stroke on the same boat. Powerboat Reports (which usually raves about Suzukis) made particular note that Suzukis performance data has historically been very accurate.
I am working from memory, so I may be off on the numbers a bit, but my recollection was that the Suzuki 140 comes off as the big loser in that the Honda 130 clearly outperformed it despite the fact that the Honda is very heavy. The Yamaha (as one might expect from a 150 in a comparison with a 130 and 140) was the clear performance winner, getting approximately the same mpg as the 130 and 140 while reaching a top speed of 5-6 mph over the Honda, which itself was slightly faster than the "more powerful" Suzuki 140. The article made particular note of the different displacements of the various motors - it seems displacement was a better predictor of performance than claimed horsepower figures.
It also seems that those who have questioned the performance of the small displacement Suzuki 140 may have had a point and that the performance of the Yamaha 150 may be in line with what one would expect from a 150 hp motor (surprise, surprise!).
posted 09-30-2003 10:59 AM ET (US)
If that Powerboats Report is correct (and I assume it is), then the Yamaha must be one helluva motor! If the Suzuki performed the worst of all three motors, that Yamaha sounds like the perfect motor for an 18' Outrage since the Suzuki performs awesome on my boat (my opinion).
Joe, my neighbor is selling a 4.5hp Merc (Yuk!...just kidding lhg...) from his 23' sailboat for a great price. It moved his boat along at around 6 knots. I realize that this is much smaller than most people recommend but I am only looking for a kicker to get me home should my main give me an attitude. My quesiton is this: would the Accu-Mix setup work on a Merc outboard (vintage 1979)? Does anybody know if Mercury offers a similar product?
posted 09-30-2003 12:36 PM ET (US)
I have seen other brands of engines using the Accu-Mix so brands is not a problem...
With the 4.5hp there may be a problem with the type of fuel pump...
posted 09-30-2003 09:50 PM ET (US)
Well...The F150 finally arrived at the dealer a few days ago and today I took the boat (Outrage 18) in so that he can get started with the repower and all the rigging. The dealer and I opened the box and I don't know...it's awfully tiny. I wonder if it will be enough to push the boat ;)
posted 10-01-2003 02:26 PM ET (US)
If the Powerboat Report results are accurate, this is the first time a 4 cylinder 4-stroke has been able to perform like a V-6 2-stroke or DFI. For several years now, Mercury has been insisting that the 135 Optimax is 5 mph faster than the Honda 130. So the Yamaha F-150 sounds like it will run with the 135 Optimax. Whether it will run with the 150 V-6's is yet to be known. I know that Mercury also believes that the 135-175 HP ranges of 4-strokes need to be 4 cylinders, to keep size and weight down. I have heard they have similar engines in the works, but no news as of yet.
posted 10-01-2003 07:24 PM ET (US)
Check this out for a comparison:[Honda's 150] . Jim
posted 10-01-2003 09:03 PM ET (US)
That 150 Honda seems a bit heavy at 490#. About the same as a Mercury 250 HP Optimax. Anyone want to race? If you're going to carry around the weight, why not have the max HP per pound?
Hopefully, somebody will eventually get the weight of a true 150HP 4-stroke down to 400#, where it should be. Mercury seems to be the last hope for this.
This engine does not bode well for the future of Honda's huge 6 cylinder 115's and 130's. 4 cylinder versions of those must be on the way.
posted 10-02-2003 01:07 AM ET (US)
[Fixed some broken hyperlinks]
posted 10-02-2003 12:41 PM ET (US)
I am hoping to see Honda put the supercharged engine that they use in their new PWC into an outboard (I think it is Honda...). THAT should be interesting!
posted 10-02-2003 03:34 PM ET (US)
Larry, Honda's BF 115 and 130 are hefty FOUR cylinder designs.
I'm not sure anyone is going to hold their breath waiting for the Mercury "breakthrough". Unless Mercury or the other manufacturers can come up with or find some kind of inexpensive light weight composite material, I don't think you are going to see a 4 stroke 150 hp outboard weighing in at 400lbs.
As long as 4-strokes have a weight and low end torque disadvantage, there is plenty of room for the direct injected two strokes in the market place, particularly in the lower horsepower ranges where paying attention to transom weight is much more critical.
posted 10-03-2003 02:20 PM ET (US)
Sorry about that mistake on the Hondas, Peter. The things just look so huge and heavy that I assumed they were 6 cylinders! They weigh 200#'s more than my older 6 cylinder Merc 115's, and aren't as fast. Just cleaner and more fuel efficient!
Actually, there are MANY (including me of course) waiting for the arrival of Mercury's new generation skipping (their term, not mine), lighter weight 2.6 liter 4-strokes. Did you read the article in a recent boating magazine about this new engine (there is a link somewhere here in the forum)? Sounds pretty exciting, and the poor guy running the Yamaha V-Max bass boat could only watch it walk away from him.
So I think there is some hope of a hotter performing, lighter weight, new technology 150 four stroke, from Mercury. I would not buy anybody's until I saw what Mercury has coming out. One of these days they'll arrive, hopefully! Keeping the old 150 running for another year will probably be worth it.
posted 10-06-2003 01:31 PM ET (US)
Not quite a 150 but Suzuki/Johnson 140's are only 416 lbs.
posted 10-06-2003 07:11 PM ET (US)
....and only 2 liters of displacement...here we go again..... ;)
posted 10-07-2003 11:06 AM ET (US)
Not spamming....here is my reason for my post:
"Mercury or the other manufacturers can come up with or find some kind of inexpensive light weight composite material, I don't think you are going to see a 4 stroke 150 hp outboard weighing in at 400lbs."
And my answer is above.
Also Mercury still makes a 2.5L 280hp 2 stroke so what is wrong with a 2.0L 140hp 4 stroke?
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.