*THE HULL TRUTH is the world's largest FREE network for the discussion of Boating & Fishing. Whether you're researching a new boat, or are a seasoned Captain, you'll find The Hull Truth Boating & Fishing Message Forum contains a wealth of information from Boaters and Sportfishermen around the world.
Welcome to the updated THT!
If you are having trouble signing in, please email feedback@thehulltruth.com with your username and we will help you. We thank you for your patience as we help you access the new site!
Random Quote: Golf is for people who don't know how to fish!
285exp said it better than I did. Those of you who called me a fence walker with my prediction were justified in doing so. I actually feel these engines will definately have problems at least for the first year. I applaud Mercury for their effort which I feel certain will eventually be succesful. I despise Yamaha for their handling of the f250yz dirt bike which cost me $10,000 to own for 6 months. However, I also owned a 1982-4 (don't remember exactly) 150 XR2 Mercury. This engine fouled plugs so badly that I had to remove them 3 times a day on the water, just to get a guide trip finished.(that is not an exaggeration). After taking the boat to numerous dealers who all told me that Mercury had no answers as to why my or anyone else's engine wouldn't quit fouling plugs, I sold the boat. I am going with Mercury's on my new SEAVEE because the pain of the yamaha dirt bike is fresh on my mind and the merc's are $1800 cheaper. I wish mercury much succes with this program and wish the owner of these new engines the best of luck. I am not an expert engine builder, but when a guy who designs engines for Nascar teams tells me something, I listen. Less cubic inches + more horsepower = less longevity, the laws of physics don't bend........
__________________ At least when Texans retire to Florida we don't wear black socks with our sandals!
Well, I have to agree with the boat guy in SOME respects however, I have personally been in the automotive business for 20+ years now and I have seen the exact oposite happen. Automotive engines went through the turbo phase and the manufactures were able to see that they were able to get more horsepower out of a smaller engine with the same displacement. As we all know, that didn't go over too well with the public because of maint requirements and the frequency of failiers the turbo's experenced. Was this a problem with the turbo's? Not exactally IMO. Manufactures found that the general public would not change their believed vehicle service intervals and ended up with turbo failers everywhere and the cost to repair them was way too much. As a result the public steered away from them and the manufactures quit making them. (for the most part) Enough on that!
Now on Superchargers.... Some (very few) manufactures have used them again for the same reason, smaller engine with more horsepower. Some offer it as a high performance add on for the high horsepower enthusist. This could be for the reason of racing or heavy towing. (diesels are a good example for towing) A supercharger is a component that does not require the maint that the turbo's did in the past because they house their own lubricant. Therefore maint requirements are much less and are not nearly as crutial in everyday driving. (cool down and maint) As a result, they will tend to last longer and provide more power and in some cases, better economy.
That leads me to the statement of making more horsepower with less cubic inches. I for one know for a fact that the Japanese have pretty much perfected the normal asperated engine and fuel delivery process in smaller cubic inch blocks that will produce much more power. Take a small Nissan/Honda/Toyota with a 1.6/1.8 liter block that will produce 150+ horsepower. It's being done everyday and they are lasting for hundreds of thousands of miles. How would you equate that to hours on a hobbs meter, I have no clue but, I'm sure its a lot!! Yeah, with automotive engines you have the issue of less average RPM's than outboards but, the smaller engine is still producing lots of HP!! Remember the 85 HP Chevy Vega engine??? YUCK!!!!
So, with that said, I will have to say that Mercury MAY be on the right track. We all learn from each other. Engineers are no different!! I can assure you that the Mercury R&D team prob owns more of one brand outboard than any one of us will ever own in our lifetime!! They have been through those engines with microscopes and probes and whatever to figure out what the other is doing better. I am sure that Mercury has invested countless hours/moths/years into the R&D of these engines/outboards to produce the most advanced product that they could. I also feel that they will have problems from these new creatures and they will dive right in and correct them. Ya know, who's to say that Yamaha/Suzuki aren't banging their head wishing they had done the same thing but, just havn't completed their own R&D to quite pull it off yet. I will have to say that from looking at the new Mercury's and seeing the video, its very impressive. I wish I could afford one!! And another thing, If anyone were to go out and get one, I feel a company like Mercury would stand behind its products if ever a repetitive issue ever were to arise even at a later date. Again, you get more with sugar than with vinegar!!! It will be interesting to see what happens with this over the long haul. IMO, we all may have just seen a major turn in outboard power that will be available in the future from just about every manufacture!!
Oh and last but not least, I don't own a Mercury......Twin Evinrude 200's for me!! I can't afford anything new right now.
For example, you can't compare the strength and longivity of a turbodiesel with a small supercharged gas engine as the inherent strength of the diesel will in 95% of the cases allow it to live more hours than the supercharged gas engine.
There is no reason that a diesel engine is inherently stronger than a gas engine.
Turbocharged/supercharged automotive gas engines were originally designed to be normally aspirated. Mercury stared with a clean sheet of paper designing the Verado so they could easily incorporate the necessary strength for the boost.
Not going to comment on the Verado, but lets face it, those Merc DTS controls are pretty slick. Even though I have and had Yamahas, Mercury sure has become inovative with these controls and the functionality of them. Wish the others would offer the same.
I am with Kevin on the controls, very slick. My biggest concern with these motors is what the additional weight (as much as 400#) does when put on the end of the transom. I have to believe it affects performance. This is quite the plunge by Merc, they have invested lots of time and big $$$, lets hope they have it right. I think it is way to soon to tell. Give it a year or so and we will be looking at 350 and 400 hp motors, both 4-stroke and dfi. Ain't it great>
Did anyone bother to think that maybe, just maybe the additional weight everybody is bitching about is an indication that Mercury knows that there are additonal stresses involved w/ supercharging a motor so they beefed it up quite a bit?
I did want to mention that I was very impressed with the Smartcraft gauges I saw the boat I sea trialed. That too played a part in my decision to go with Mercury.
__________________ At least when Texans retire to Florida we don't wear black socks with our sandals!
What? Of course the diesel will be stronger than the gasser...ever looked at a diesel block? They are enormously heavy and thick. That alone will contrinute to their longevity. Factor in fewer moving pars, less electronics, etc and you have a very long lived combination.
What? Of course the diesel will be stronger than the gasser...ever looked at a diesel block? They are enormously heavy and thick. That alone will contrinute to their longevity. Factor in fewer moving pars, less electronics, etc and you have a very long lived combination.
Harry
Why do you say that? Have you seen a Verado block?
How do you figure fewer moving parts on a a diesel inboard vs a 4 stroke outboard?
Modern diesels have plenty of electronic controls too.
Your comparison is invalid.
Did anyone bother to think that maybe, just maybe the additional weight everybody is bitching about is an indication that Mercury knows that there are additonal stresses involved w/ supercharging a motor so they beefed it up quite a bit?
I believe they did.
Most people can't look any further than the numbers Just1more. I'm sure the engine will prove itself in time, just like every other product Mercury has come out with over the past 65 years (yes including the OptiMax).
Talking about turbo charging.......Americans should be taking a lesson from the Sweeds.....Saab cars. All of their cars are small 4 cyl turbos that are amaizing. Great gas mileage and they will keep up with most American V-8's. Smaller engines = less weight and over there gas is 4-5 bucks a gallon. European cars have all had fuel injection way before it came to America. Why dont American care have diesels? Hell they had steam engines back in the late 1800's why dont we have cars that run off of water today? (sorry I am off the subject). I am sure that the new big Mercs are for those big offshore boats and I am sure you wont want one on the back of your bay boat....even tho some one will do that one day. Like some one said Mercury did their homework and started from scratch. They just didnt pull an old 225 off the shelf and put a turbo on it. Everything that man builds has a repair shop along with it...think about it....from Tv's to cars to houses to everything. Everything has it's problems in life but what to look for is a company that will stand behind their products.
Yes, I have seen the Verado block at the Miami show. It's a 2.6L block, and that block appears dimensionally smaller than the Yamaha and Suzuki 250 blocks. Smaller block equals LESS material. Higher HP per cubic inch equals the need for MORE material. Fewer moving parts on almost any diesel over almost any 4 stroke is a fact of design, and while modern diesels have electronic controls, they are hardly as complex as electrically controlled gassers, let alone the new buck rogers mercs.
BTW, my previous response was in reply to your statement "There is no reason that a diesel engine is inherently stronger than a gas engine." Any first year mechanical engineering student would laugh his pocket protector off at that one.
Do not get the ones with the black characters on the gray background on the faceplates. Get the traditional black characters on the white background.
There is not enough contrast with the gray faceplate to clearly see without staring at dusk and dawn. It takes much too much effort, and way too much time off the road to look at them.
Yes, I have seen the Verado block at the Miami show. It's a 2.6L block, and that block appears dimensionally smaller than the Yamaha and Suzuki 250 blocks. Smaller block equals LESS material. Higher HP per cubic inch equals the need for MORE material. Fewer moving parts on almost any diesel over almost any 4 stroke is a fact of design, and while modern diesels have electronic controls, they are hardly as complex as electrically controlled gassers, let alone the new buck rogers mercs.
BTW, my previous response was in reply to your statement "There is no reason that a diesel engine is inherently stronger than a gas engine." Any first year mechanical engineering student would laugh his pocket protector off at that one.
Harry
You are just wrong about that. There is no reason that a diesel engine is inherently stronger than a gas engine.
Are you saying that a gas engine cannot be designed to be as strong as a diesel?
I also dispute your claim that a diesel is simpler than an outboard, even a high tech modern one. How are they simpler?
I'm not going to argue about this. Get some engineering education and some real world practical experience and then you'll see what I am talking about.
I'm not going to argue about this. Get some engineering education and some real world practical experience and then you'll see what I am talking about.
Harry
Last refuge of the ignorant is a personal attack.
Could have been an interesting discussion if you were able to explain your position a little better.
These motors have been tested to the extreme. Mercury now has the funding of Brunswick to do what they have to to get these motors right the first time and to keep them running right for years to come. There will not be another flop like some of the Optis, Mercury cannot afford it, especially not after the amount of cake they spent on the Verados. I will let you all know how they run when our new 34 arrives with a pair of 275s on the back in April.
I am a huge fan of progress. I am buying Mercury Optimax's on my 29 SEAVEE (check went out this morning.....woo hoo!) however, if Mercury is succesfull with their anti dumping suit it will probably mean higher prices on Yamahas. This is going to turn public sentiment against Mercury. We all know how popular the Yamahas are and if Mercury's legal action forces the public to pay more for a product they love, people are not going to be happy. I think win, lose or draw, Mercury will come out the loser on this law suit. I think it is a very stupid business move. I can understand their frustration trying to compete against a company with the resources of Yamaha but this isn't the answer. With the rebates figured in, Yamahas 200 hpdi's would have cost me nearly $3000 more. Come time to sell my boat (I hope many years from now) I may wish I had gone with the Yamahas as Mercury could be bankrupt or damn unpopular, time will tell.
I would like to make a point that I am sure has been made many times before. An outboard engine only makes its' rated horsepower. (in the case of the new f225's it doesn't quite make that). This horsepower is the same regardless of the engines weight. When four strokes weigh little more than the current two strokes I think they will be a great value. If you put a f225 on the back of your boat that only makes 217 h.p. and weighs 100 lbs more than a 200 h.p. two stroke that is actually making 200 h.p. then basically the 100 lbs is going to alleviate any gain found in the additional horsepower. Most people greatly underestimate the effect weight has on performance when that weight is place directly on the transom. The same 100 pounds difference placed at the front of the boat would have much less affect on performance. I guess my point is this. If a you have two engines of identical horsepower and one weighs 100 lbs more than the other, then realistically they aren't the same horsepower because the extra weight is going to eat up a certain percentage of that engines useful ability. The fuel consumption differences are by Yamaha's own performance figures negligible and one engine cost many thousands of dollars more. At this point, because of the additional weight and cost with little difference in mileage, I do not see the attraction of owning a four stroke.
I raced four stroke dirt bikes for several years and you couldn't have given me a two stroke bike. They didn't start out as equals, but the 4 stroke bikes caught up in a hurry. I think were are still a few years away from the outboards being equal at all levels. Having said that, if the price were the same on both types of engines...........you wouldn't be able to give me a two stroke outboard. Right now the companies are trying to recoop their R&D costs for the new technologies but it won't be long before the 4 stroke engines become more affordable and no doubt some day we will look back and laugh at those noisy two stroke engines and their expensive two cycle oil. The future looks bright.........let the bashing begin...........
__________________ At least when Texans retire to Florida we don't wear black socks with our sandals!
when that weight is place directly on the transom. The same 100 pounds difference placed at the front of the boat would have much less affect on performance.
RE: Mercury Verado.......run Forest, run........ 
