|
New engines have left us classic guys in a tough spot
|
| ancientTechied |
Posted on 06/03/15 - 8:20 AM
|
Member
Posts: 6
Comments:
0
Joined: 03/24/15
|
Some of the 3 cylinder Mercury four strokes offer considerable weight savings over the 4 cylinder versions. The 40 hp 3 cylinder weighs in at 216 lbs., for instance, while the 40 hp 4 cylinder tops the scale at 260 lbs. Specs are available at https://www.mercurymarine.com/en/us/engines/outboard/fourstroke/40-60-hp/.
|
| |
|
|
| dgoodhue |
Posted on 06/03/15 - 9:44 AM
|
Member
Posts: 278
Comments:
0
Joined: 10/04/05
|
AReinhart wrote:I always wanted a 15 because they fly and handle chop better. What it came down to though is fuel usage and my ability to handle the boat by myself. My 15 would have a 70 or 90 on it. That's just how I do things. I spend most of my time on the water so like I said, I burn a lot of gas. A 90 burns a lot more than a 50. It's a hole different level of boat. As is the 15 compared to the 13. I'm on one usable leg and the 13 is within my ability to move around. I got the right boat.
It is not fair comparison to say its going to burn a lot more gas with a 15' vs 13' classic whaler. I guess it some of it depends on how you drive your boats (ie WOT all the time no matter what or a lots of idling would favor the smaller motor).
A 13 with 50hp is 40mph boat, a 15 with 90 should be a 50+ mph boat. To match the performance of 13' with 50hp, a 15' would need 60hp. (~40mph) The fuel consumption would be about 20% more at WOT. A 70 or 90hp would likely be more efficient at 40mph than a 15' with 60hp would be, so the difference would be less than 20%.
Obviously your happy with your 13'; I am not trying to talk you into a 15', but I don't think of my 15' with 70hp as gas guzzler compare to a 13'.
Dave |
| |
|
|
| dgoodhue |
Posted on 06/03/15 - 10:00 AM
|
Member
Posts: 278
Comments:
0
Joined: 10/04/05
|
AReinhart wrote:Back to the weight issue and the reason for my rant: why is the etec so heavy? It's still a 2 stroke made with more modern materials than an Evinrude from the 90's. Shouldn't that have resulted in a LIGHTER motor? I think I need to scour the marinas and find a 13 with a 40/50 Etec on the back. I'd like to see how they sit in the water. As you can probably tell, I'm exploring all the options here. I've ranged from restoring an old motor to exploring the new so far.
I looked up the older 2 stroke 40, 48, & 50 OMC motor and they use to be ~45 ci displacement. The new ETEC motors are ~53ci and use a larger lower unit. The etec motor covers the 40, 50 & 60hp range. [I know that OMC did use to make a 60hp 2 cylinder stroke motor but it was when outboard were rated at the power head, the 2 cylinder 60hp went away when OMC changed the HP rating to the prop.]
I wish that Evinrude would make an ETEC based on the old 56ci 3 cylinder motor (or at least something lighter than 320#'s). The current 75 & 90 are 79ci motor. it would be a great motor for the classic 15', but it will probably never happen. At least Yamaha makes a light 4 stroke with 70hp motor that is great fit for the 15'.
AReinhart wrote:Has BW ever commented on repowering their classics? I mean, they have to know that their boats last and by now, many people are looking to modernize the power plant.
Since BW and Mercury are both owned by Brunswick, they would probably recommend a 25hp Mercury 4 stroke.
Dave |
| |
|
|
| wlagarde |
Posted on 06/03/15 - 3:24 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Project Albums
Posts: 442
Comments:
2
Joined: 07/21/13
|
Tohatsu now makes a 4-stroke 40 and 50 that both weigh in at 209#: http://www.tohatsu.com/outboards/50_4...0_4st.html
Edited by wlagarde on 06/03/15 - 3:28 PM
1976 Sport 15 w/ 2005 50hp Nissan 2 stroke |
| |
|
|
| AReinhart |
Posted on 06/03/15 - 4:55 PM
|
Member
Posts: 64
Comments:
0
Joined: 05/19/15
|
Ancient: I wonder why merc would put out a 3 and 4 cyc. engine of the same hp...But it is Mercury so I guess that's feasible. Remember the big "Tower of Power" engines? Good god.
Dgood: Ill buy that. But there is a difference. And I wouldn't have a 60 on my 15. I would have the max or more. Fuel usage was one of many reasons I chose the 13 over the other 2. A big reason is that I have one good leg. The 13 is lighter and therefore easier for me to push around. The 15 is by no means a fuel hog but no matter how it's mixed a 70-90 burns more than a 40-50. I do not run WOT much. It's too rough here for that. Being the thread was about engines, the fuel was what I brought up in my post. Another reason was that I also have a 30' sailboat and a 2015 Achilles with a 7.5 Johnson. The Achilles will do every bit of 15 knots so it qualifies as a true boat. :). I needed an in between that would get me out and back quickly, be easy to clean and cheap to run. I have always wanted a 15 SS and let me tell you, it was very hard to cross it off the list. But in the end, the 15 is a much bigger, heavier and faster boat that would have been excess for my needs.
Regarding the 25 4 stroke. Uh huh...you're likely right. I'm not sure a 25 would be safe for me. Today, out in the sound, Mrs Ocean decided to throw a tantrum. Waves got pretty big. I had to modulate the throttle for 20 minutes straight racing a storm back in. In the troughs, I had to peg that Yamaha 40 everytime to climb the back of the breakers I was getting into. Me + gear + dog = needing every horse. My operating area requires a tough boat. There is NO other 13' I would go out there in. Come to think of it, I don't see many....any....other 13' anything's out there. Montauks abound though. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that whaler would be making a mistake to recommend a motor the size of the 25 for the 13. Considering the 11' runs nicely with a 20......
The whole point of my rant/thread is coming to light. I love my 13. It's size and performance match up to what I do almost perfectly. The problem is modern power. With my current setup, 1997 Dual carb 40 yammi, 800cca battery and 12 gallon fuel cell, very very rarely do I get even a drop over my 20" transom. Every once in a while, if the seas are right, ill get a splash. But would that be the case with an engine that weighed 100 pounds more? I dunno.....it would be a $6500 mistake though if it started to. But at the same time, in order to keep the weights where they are, I'd have to decrease power. Progress??
|
| |
|
|
| AReinhart |
Posted on 06/03/15 - 5:08 PM
|
Member
Posts: 64
Comments:
0
Joined: 05/19/15
|
Additionally, earlier I quoted 133 dry for my Yamaha. For some reason I suspect that's low. Given what's out there, considering all the different weights and such, if I HAD to repower tomorrow, (yammi fell off the back or something), I think an early 90's John/Rude 48SPL with a PT&T jackplate would result in the best performance. Obviously I might have to move the battery under the console. The combination of such a small weight gain, plus the added performance of the T&T jackplate and the modest increase in power- would likely scream and haul some bodies effortlessly. The repositioning of the 55 lbs battery should offset the small weight gain on the transom. I don't think ANY modern outboard would offer a better performance envelope than that package. And that....is in essence my rant. I want that envelope, plus a quiet and fuel efficient engine....tall order apparently....;) Sometimes I wish this was an outboard manufacturers forum and outboard engineers would read it and go "hmmmm, well darn Jimbo he has a point". "Our power to weight ratio does suck" "Better tell Bob over at advertising that he needs to put more pictures of clean mountains and clear water in the ads to distract people and make them think that they are compromising for the environment"......
|
| |
|
|
| DennisVollrath |
Posted on 06/03/15 - 5:19 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 298
Comments:
0
Joined: 08/29/10
|
I think the progress you'll realize is an increase in fuel efficiency. Using the Tohasu as an example, it will likely get 2x better fuel efficiency than your carb'ed Yamaha, so you'd have the same range using 6 gal of fuel as you currently do with 12. 6 gal of gas weighs about #36, so you are now down to #171 (for the lightest model, of course...). Still pretty close, and cheaper to run too, since you get better mpg and you could use that nasty old E10 from your regular gas station. I'm guessing you'll burn less oil too.
The progress wasn't entirely backward.
1985 Outrage 18 with Suzuki DF140A |
| |
|
|
| AReinhart |
Posted on 06/03/15 - 8:07 PM
|
Member
Posts: 64
Comments:
0
Joined: 05/19/15
|
Dennis: 2x better fuel economy? REALLY? If that's a fact, maybe you're on to something. BTW, I don't carry a 12 gallon tank because I burn that much everytime I go out. I picked up the 12 gallon tank because being handicapped, I can't carry gas cans or a gas tank without extreme difficulty. Therefore I fill up at a Marina down the river from where I keep the boat in its slip. I have the 12 so I don't have to deal with the fuel dock quite as much. I'd have to use the fuel dock even if regular gas was on sale for .99 gallon again.....I pay for marine fuel because I have to. But you're right, better fuel efficiency in most cases would allow a smaller tank. Though I think there are quite a few 13's with 40's running around with 6 gallon gas tanks. Ill make a safe bet that they might be the majority. Without inadvertently stepping into the worn out 2 vs 4 stroke debate, I buy my outboard oil in bulk so it's pretty cheap over the season. Not to mention, my year Yamaha runs at 100:1, so it uses very little oil. (I was warned that they had issues running 100:1 and changed their later engines back to 50:1. The reason was engines left sitting for long periods of time ((winter)), didn't have enough oil left on the cylinder walls and started rusting. This does not affect engines that are run often or fogged before storage) Regardless, I end up running 75 to 100:1.
Back to your point though, you're right, not entirely backwards. But again, 15 years ago I had the choice between 7 different brands and numerous models within those brands. Nowdays you and others have presented me with 1. And it still weighs a LOT more than an engine made in 1990 with 10 more hp to boot.
Like I said earlier, I can't see the logic in it. Ok, the weight is more because it runs cleaner and gets better mpg....so technically, it has a worse power to weight ratio and costs more to buy BUT, you'll save a little on gas.....I drive a 4x4 Grand Cherokee with a Hemi, you may see what's important to me...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be an advocate for either type of engine. I'm playing a bit of devils advocate fishing for ideas. I WANT a lightweight, quiet, clean burning fuel efficient outboard for my whaler. Why can't I have that? My Hemi makes more power, is lighter, more fuel efficient and burns cleaner than any hemi engine in the past. My point is that I shouldn't have to restore a 20 year old outboard to get the best package for my boat.
Edited by AReinhart on 06/03/15 - 8:10 PM |
| |
|
|
| AReinhart |
Posted on 06/04/15 - 6:21 AM
|
Member
Posts: 64
Comments:
0
Joined: 05/19/15
|
WLA: that new tohatsu is a nice motor, but read the specs carefully. The little asterisk says "209 is for the lightest engine". Being that it's available as a 15" manual start tiller model.....good advertising though. Option that out in a 20" model with PT&T and let's see what it weighs.
|
| |
|
|
| wlagarde |
Posted on 06/04/15 - 8:39 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Project Albums
Posts: 442
Comments:
2
Joined: 07/21/13
|
AReinhart wrote:
WLA: that new tohatsu is a nice motor, but read the specs carefully. The little asterisk says "209 is for the lightest engine". Being that it's available as a 15" manual start tiller model.....good advertising though. Option that out in a 20" model with PT&T and let's see what it weighs.
Why don't you call tohatsu and ask them how much the remote/PTT/20" model weighs?
Are you confident your current engine weight was not rated in the same way? If it was it actually may weigh more than you think.
I would suggest getting the facts first rather than making decisions based upon assumptions.
Edited by wlagarde on 06/04/15 - 1:00 PM
1976 Sport 15 w/ 2005 50hp Nissan 2 stroke |
| |
|
|
| AReinhart |
Posted on 06/04/15 - 6:50 PM
|
Member
Posts: 64
Comments:
0
Joined: 05/19/15
|
You're missing my point. I'm not deciding on a new outboard. I don't need to. The lightest version is STILL heavier than what I have and STILL heavier than an SPL 48 from the 90's. I think it's a very safe assumption that a 20" weighs more than a 15". There's more there. Remember back to the beginning, this thread was a rant because I was shocked that I can't buy a new outboard that has the same power to weight ratio I'm used to having. And the fact that I have a lot less choices than I used to. It is a thread for discussion. Everyone asks "what should I buy". Know one really talks about what were talking about here.
On that note, I was just reading a thread here about a guy who replaced his 90 2,stroke with one of Mercurys new , higher cubic inch 90 4 strokes on his Montauk. He said that the engine weighed more but he gained almost 10 mph with the engine. Now THAT is an improvement. Maybe Merc underrated the engine, maybe he got one of those 1 in 10000 motors that just runs better. If this was across the board, maybe the weight penalty wouldn't matter as much.
You do have a point about the Tohatsu being lighter than the rest though. Maybe it's a trend in the right direction. I agree that my Yamaha likely weighs more than its supposed to. I noted that earlier. Once the difference is within the weight of a battery, the issue is then moot.
|
| |
|
|
| wlagarde |
Posted on 06/04/15 - 7:11 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Project Albums
Posts: 442
Comments:
2
Joined: 07/21/13
|
AReinhart wrote:
You're missing my point. I'm not deciding on a new outboard. I don't need to. The lightest version is STILL heavier than what I have and STILL heavier than an SPL 48 from the 90's. I think it's a very safe assumption that a 20" weighs more than a 15". There's more there. Remember back to the beginning, this thread was a rant because I was shocked that I can't buy a new outboard that has the same power to weight ratio I'm used to having. And the fact that I have a lot less choices than I used to. It is a thread for discussion. Everyone asks "what should I buy". Know one really talks about what were talking about here.
On that note, I was just reading a thread here about a guy who replaced his 90 2,stroke with one of Mercurys new , higher cubic inch 90 4 strokes on his Montauk. He said that the engine weighed more but he gained almost 10 mph with the engine. Now THAT is an improvement. Maybe Merc underrated the engine, maybe he got one of those 1 in 10000 motors that just runs better. If this was across the board, maybe the weight penalty wouldn't matter as much.
You do have a point about the Tohatsu being lighter than the rest though. Maybe it's a trend in the right direction. I agree that my Yamaha likely weighs more than its supposed to. I noted that earlier. Once the difference is within the weight of a battery, the issue is then moot.
No, I'm not missing your point. The difference between the 15 and 20" version of the Tohatsu 40 and 50 4 stroke is 5" of shaft housing (aluminum) and 5" of drive shaft - 5-10 lbs at most - thats not a lot. Believe me I love my 50hp 2 stroke but I'm lucky to have a very low hours basically new engine. However, it doesn't sip gas though and the new engines do. I think the other members point about needing less gas on board for the same range is valid.
What I'm suggesting is that you get all the facts so you can make a fair comparison. If restoring an SPL 48 is the way you want to go by all means go for it.
Information you need to make a decision if you wish to be objective:
Weight of SPL48 + PTT Solution + 12 gallons of gas (and cost to purchase and restore) vs
Weight of Tohatsu 50 or other 50hp option (and cost) + weight of 6 gallons of gas (or whatever would get you equivalent range to SPL48 with 12 gallons)
Edited by wlagarde on 06/04/15 - 7:49 PM
1976 Sport 15 w/ 2005 50hp Nissan 2 stroke |
| |
|
|
| AReinhart |
Posted on 06/05/15 - 6:49 AM
|
Member
Posts: 64
Comments:
0
Joined: 05/19/15
|
I see what you're saying. The gas tank is a non issue for me because I would have the 12 regardless of what engine I have for the reasons I listed earlier. The 48SPL with the jackplate should come in at just under 200 pounds. Your point is that the Tohatsu already has the PT&T and would come in somewhere around 220 or so, at a minimum. Then factory the gas savings and other benifits of a new engine. I'll buy that. I wonder what Tohatsu did to undercut the other brands by 20-40 pounds?
So out of all of this, whenever I decide to repower, I have the choice of one engine , and it will weight at least 50 pounds more than what I have now. BTW, I used the 48SPL as a reference simply because it has a very high power to weight ratio. A 1999 Johnson 40/50 with power tilt and trim weighs 190. Assuming your numbers, the Tohatsu will be within about 30 pounds of the Johnson. But, for the sake of this discussion, ALL the new engines we are talking about are within 50 pounds of that. My group 31 battery weighs about 47 pounds so all of this is within a small range. This all changes though when we compare what is on my boat now, and what was available in 1996. My current engine with power tilt, no trim, weighs 133. The Yamaha with power tilt and trim weighs 155. Now we're talking an 87 and 65 pound difference. The gas tank is irrelevant. The power trim, tilt and height adjustable jackplate weighs 14 pounds, and has the hydraulic motor mounted separately so less weight on the transom. That would put my current combination at 147. The top speed and holeshot advantages of the jackplate can't be ignored. But just on weight, take two identical 13' Super Sports and put my engine with the jackplate on one, a 220 pound Tohatsu on the other and see which boat is faster out of the hole, carries more weight and has a faster top speed. Not to mention sits higher in the water. These are issues that someone has to consider when they want to repower their 13' classic. As I said earlier, I don't really want the Yamaha I have. It came with The boat. For the sake of a classic boat, which a pristine 1977 13' Sport is, I would rather have a period correct engine available. Ideally, the everyday runner would be a new engine with all the above said benifits. Tohatsu seems to be leading the way in the right direction. Which doesn't suprize me given the kind of company Tohatsu is.
Edited by AReinhart on 06/05/15 - 7:06 AM |
| |
|
|
| AReinhart |
Posted on 06/05/15 - 7:17 AM
|
Member
Posts: 64
Comments:
0
Joined: 05/19/15
|
http://i1066.photobucket.com/albums/u...etcdzg.jpg
Here is how my boat sits with a full 12 gallons and full cooler.
|
| |
|
|
| MG56 |
Posted on 06/05/15 - 7:54 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 357
Comments:
0
Joined: 05/11/13
|
That looks low. Three men, gear & a dog on a 13 is going to stop being fun real quick, regardless of how much power you have on it. You should sell that boat to someone that likes it the way it is and go buy a Montauk. Seriously, the Montauk can handle the extra weight without destroying the fun factor. Let's put it another way, if I was one of the three men I'd sit the ride out.
|
| |
|
|
| AReinhart |
Posted on 06/06/15 - 12:36 PM
|
Member
Posts: 64
Comments:
0
Joined: 05/19/15
|
It's sits no different than the other 13's in the area. It must have been a while since you messed with 13' whalers. They don't have much freeboard as is. I agree,your Montauk is a nice boat. Way more than I would want or need though. My boat works just fine for what I use it for and I wouldn't want anything more. You must have missed the post comparing the 13 and 15. To catch you up, the thread is about modern engine choices compared to 10 years ago. What are you running on your boat and why did you choose it?
|
| |
|
|
| MG56 |
Posted on 06/07/15 - 6:31 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 357
Comments:
0
Joined: 05/11/13
|
I have a 1974 13 now that I bought without an engine, and I've been "messing" with Whaler 13's since about 1971. I ended up putting a 1987 Mercury 35 HP on it that weighs about 150 lbs.
Why did I choose that engine? Easy, I wanted "enough" power but I also wanted to keep the weight down. I saw a Yamaha 40 HP when I was looking, probably what you have now, but I'm a Mercury Fanboy. If a new engine was ever in the equation for that boat I suppose I would go with the Tohatsu 50 HP 2 stroke.
My nephew has the Montauk on my personal page, but that has a 1983 Mercury 70 HP that weighs about 190 lbs. The Montauk I have now has the original 1973 Mercury 65 HP, which is basically the same engine as the 1983 70. They have those engines because that is what came with them.
I have been going through the same exact thing with those Montauks that you are with your 13. I want more power and new engines are substantially heavier than what I have now, not to mention they are HUGE. It defies logic that a newer product is not smaller/better/cheaper.
Most people aren't like us. When I say I want more power I'm not talking about going 40 MPH vs 35 MPH. I'll most likely get a mid-eighties Mercury 115 HP that should do about 50 MPH. I'm guessing that engine will weigh 130 lbs more than what I have, but I have to accept the fact any engine I want will weigh at least that much. I did look at the new Mercury 115 HP, at an additional 40 lbs, and I haven't crossed it off the list yet.
|
| |
|
|
| AReinhart |
Posted on 06/07/15 - 3:11 PM
|
Member
Posts: 64
Comments:
0
Joined: 05/19/15
|
Agreed, your train of thought is exactly where I'm at. That is EXACTLY what my rant is about. It defies logic. I used to mess with the old blue stripe mercs on small hydros back in the mid 80's. Nothing could outrun them HP for HP. These whalers don't like going faster than mid to high 30's it seems and that's fine by me. What would be ideal would be being able to do mid 30's with three people on board. I see that you are doing the exact same thing though, keeping the older motors because they just offer more power for the weight.
|
| |
|
|
| tedious |
Posted on 06/07/15 - 6:30 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 1072
Comments:
2
Joined: 09/07/08
|
Don't mean to interfere with your ranting, gents, but I'll just point out that many of the older motors you reference were rated at the output of the crankshaft, while newer motors are rated at the prop. So while the smelly, noisy environmental disasters of yesteryear still probably had a better power to weight ratio than today's quiet, economical, odorless, environmentally sound motors, you are in some cases comparing apples and oranges.
Tim
|
| |
|
|
| wlagarde |
Posted on 06/07/15 - 7:19 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Project Albums
Posts: 442
Comments:
2
Joined: 07/21/13
|
tedious wrote:
Don't mean to interfere with your ranting, gents, but I'll just point out that many of the older motors you reference were rated at the output of the crankshaft, while newer motors are rated at the prop. So while the smelly, noisy environmental disasters of yesteryear still probably had a better power to weight ratio than today's quiet, economical, odorless, environmentally sound motors, you are in some cases comparing apples and oranges.
Tim
Yes the switch over occurred c.1983 - 1986 depending upon the brand/model of outboard which translates to a difference of ~3-4% between rating at the powerhead vs the prop. Another factor that must be considered.
1976 Sport 15 w/ 2005 50hp Nissan 2 stroke |
| |
|
