|
Mercury introduces brand new lightweight 4-strokes
|
| 270whaler1212 |
Posted on 10/23/15 - 12:36 PM
|
Member
Posts: 7
Comments:
0
Joined: 04/27/14
|
MG56 wrote:
I like Green's Marine in Hooksett, NH but they are probably too far for you.
Mercury does have incentives until October 31 so you might be able to get close to $9300.
Thank you for the information. To save a few thousand I am willing to tow it around...Thanks again as I will call in a few weeks and get pricing mentioning this forum.
|
| |
|
|
| JRP |
Posted on 02/11/16 - 4:28 PM
|
Member
Posts: 755
Comments:
2
Joined: 08/29/14
|
Apparently Mercury has introduced a suped-up version of the 115 FourStroke. The new model is called the "115 Pro XS FourStroke". It is available in standard and Command Thrust gear cases. Here is some info about it released today at the Miami boatshow:
"The new engine should be particularly popular with freshwater and saltwater tournament anglers and guides. The 115 Pro XS FourStroke is based on Mercury’s current 115-hp 4-stroke — an inline four-cylinder engine – that debuted in 2014. Mercury has given the engine more power and torque, enabling it to crank up to 6,300 rpm.
“The engine is outstanding and carries the base features of the [115] platform, being the lightest, quietest, most compact and smoothest engine in its class, and now it’s the most high-performing,” said David Foulkes, chief technology officer at Brunswick Corp., Mercury’s parent company."
Quoted from here: http://www.tradeonlytoday.com/2016/02...outboards/
You can also see the engine on Mercury Marine's website:
https://www.mercurymarine.com/en/us/e...ourstroke/
|
| |
|
|
| tedious |
Posted on 02/12/16 - 5:16 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 1072
Comments:
2
Joined: 09/07/08
|
I am still trying to find out whether the displacement gain on the 90 was created by going to an unsleeved block - does anyone know?
I also wonder where this trend of having motors with the same nominal horsepower and quite different actual horsepower is going to go. Is someone eventually going to be able to get a 9.9 that actually pushes out 40, so they can ski on lakes where there's a 10-horse limit? I predict the party is going to end when someone has an accident and successfully sues the manufacturer for putting out a motor whose actual power is significantly higher than the nameplate power.
Tim
|
| |
|
|
| JRP |
Posted on 02/12/16 - 5:41 AM
|
Member
Posts: 755
Comments:
2
Joined: 08/29/14
|
tedious wrote:
I am still trying to find out whether the displacement gain on the 90 was created by going to an unsleeved block - does anyone know?
I also wonder where this trend of having motors with the same nominal horsepower and quite different actual horsepower is going to go. Is someone eventually going to be able to get a 9.9 that actually pushes out 40, so they can ski on lakes where there's a 10-horse limit? I predict the party is going to end when someone has an accident and successfully sues the manufacturer for putting out a motor whose actual power is significantly higher than the nameplate power.
Tim
I don't know whether the block is sleeved or not. Mercury collaborated with BMW in the design/enginering of this engine, so I expect it is well done regardless.
As for the power output, manufacturers are permitted a 10% variance in HP output from the nominal used for naming the model. So I don't think they are in any legal jeopardy there.
The reference to increased torque is more interesting to me. By re-mapping fuel delivery and timing, it's possible to increase the torque at a given rpm and/or widen the peak torque band of the engine without affecting the max HP rating. So this version of the 115 engine could offer a wider/deeper powerband than the other two that have been offered.
Incidentally, there are now three versions of the 115 CT. There is the "Fourstroke", the "SeaPro", and now this "ProXS Fourstroke". Studying the spec sheets for each of these variants, the only significant difference I notice is the peak horsepower rpm range: SeaPro, 5000-5500 rpm; FourStroke, 5000-6000 rpm; ProXS, 5300-6300 rpm.
|
| |
|
|
| tedious |
Posted on 02/12/16 - 7:26 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 1072
Comments:
2
Joined: 09/07/08
|
I am interested to see your note on BMW - as far as I know, BMW was a pioneer in the development of unsleeved motors for cars (Chevy Vega notwithstanding) so I am thinking that makes it more likely it's an unsleeved block. Someone earlier in the thread seemed to think I was critical of a motor being unsleeved, and it's exactly the opposite. I am tickled to see the technology make it down to smaller motors, as the weight savings is even more important there.
Your writeup on torque is one of the few accurate reflections on the subject I have seen. Most people don't get that torque is just horsepower occurring at a particular RPM (T = HP * 5252 /RPM ) - they talk about motors making more torque, while the horsepower remains the same, which isn't actually possible. It's all in the shape of the curve!
Tim
|
| |
|
|
| butchdavis |
Posted on 02/12/16 - 7:45 AM
|
Member
Posts: 826
Comments:
0
Joined: 11/22/11
|
All the comments on lawsuits are pretty much baseless. When a new outboard motor is sold it will invariable comply with the 10% rule.
Throughout the history of engines buyers have always found ways to improve the engine performance. If one adds performance enhancements to an engine and the platform in/on which the engine is installed is involved in an accident is the owner liable for the resulting damage because the engine performance has been enhanced? I won't say definitely no but I challenge our members to cite a single example where such was the case.
As to the discussion of a basic Mercury outboard outputing various different outputs at different price points one need look no farther than the different ECUs installed in the different engines. BTW, Mercury does not make it easy to obtain a ECU different from the original for their engines.
Butch |
| |
|
|
| JRP |
Posted on 02/14/16 - 1:39 PM
|
Member
Posts: 755
Comments:
2
Joined: 08/29/14
|
I'm really impressed by this Merc 2.1L Fourstroke platform. in the 115 HP versions, the power-to-weight for a fourstroke is impressive. I was wishing that some variant of this motor with a CT gearcase might work as a repower candidate for my 19 Outrage II. But with input from a number of more experienced operators (among them Finnegan), I reluctantly concluded that it won't be quite enough.
Even this latest higher-end 115 XSPro version is still probably insufficient. It would likely be okay for solo excursions, but not for the full boat I usually run.
There is a big HP, displacement, and weight gap between these engines at 115 HP and 2.1L, and Mercury's next-larger 150 HP Fourstroke at 3.0L (the weight spread is around 100 lbs.) Too bad Merc wouldn't bridge that gap with a 135+HP modern fourstroke engine in the 2.5L displacement range that still weighs in under 400 lbs. I'd hang one on my transom in a heartbeat.
|
| |
|
|
| 270whaler1212 |
Posted on 08/14/16 - 8:45 AM
|
Member
Posts: 7
Comments:
0
Joined: 04/27/14
|
All,
I wanted to thank everyone for the help last fall. I did finally re-power my 2003 170 Montauk with a new (Better looking design from the fridge version) model non-command thrust Mercury 90 4 Stroke HP for less than 9K from Bass Pro Shops. They were the best and did a great job on mounting it and putting the new controls and gauges which were toast. I did not go with the digital controls, but don't need them on this boat in my mind like I have on my 270 Outrage...Seemed like overkill. That being said I now need to choose a prop for the boat. Does anyone have this package with the new 90 and a good prop that they like? Any ideas or other places I could find a good recommendation?
|
| |
|
|
| Finnegan |
Posted on 08/15/16 - 9:45 PM
|
Member
Posts: 1925
Comments:
16
Joined: 05/02/08
|
I would strongly recommend Mercury's brand new Spitfire X7 4 bladed SS prop. It's supposed to be their best performing mid-range propeller and should work very well on a Montauk 170 with the new 90 HP Merc. You can find information on it at mercurymarine.com.
For the best pricing ($389 shipped) , check out jacosmarine.com.
|
| |
|
|
| 270whaler1212 |
Posted on 08/16/16 - 3:34 AM
|
Member
Posts: 7
Comments:
0
Joined: 04/27/14
|
Finnegan wrote:
I would strongly recommend Mercury's brand new Spitfire X7 4 bladed SS prop. It's supposed to be their best performing mid-range propeller and should work very well on a Montauk 170 with the new 90 HP Merc. You can find information on it at mercurymarine.com.
For the best pricing ($389 shipped) , check out jacosmarine.com.
Finnegan,
Thank you for the advice and that price is awesome. Any idea on the size and pitch? Any recommendations?
|
| |
|
