Evinrude 40HP Outboard
Don Stone
I am looking at a new evinrude 40hp and would like some feedback on
performance and speed for a boat weighing around 1000#....Are you happy with
the motor and how low can you idle....
Brad Story
I have an Evinrude 40 on the back of my Lowe 170, about a thousand
pounds including the motor. According to the electronic spedo in my
depth finder, I normally run about 40-41 MPH. Reasonable fuel economy,
about 2GPH at full throtle. I am propped so that WOT is about 5200RPM.
--
***********************************************************************
THIS year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized
nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police
more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!
Adolf Hitler - April 15, 1935
THOSE who trade essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
FIREARMS stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are
the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence...A
free people ought to be armed.
George Washington - January 7, 1790
***********************************************************************
I reply to all junk E-Mail. Over, and over, and over... :)
If we all did, maybe we wouldn't get as much!
***********************************************************************
Blake
Dave Brown wrote:
>
> Blake wrote:
>
> > Something fishy here - When I was a kid, I had a 13' Whaler with 40hp on
> > it - top end was around 36mph and that hull is way lighter than 1000lbs
> > - more like 500lbs including motor, gas etc -
> > So, better check that speedo with a GPS or radar. I would be surprised
> > if you got 30mph with 1000lbs - what size prop ?
> > Also, the speed/gph don't make sense - no way would you achieve 20 mpg
> > at full throttle -
>
> Different hull, different motor, different year. :-)
>
> Seriously, today's motors are rated differently than their earlier
> counterparts (they are now rated at the prop instead of the crankshaft).
> Today's 40hp is yesterday's 50, plus it's got better torque and fuel/oil
> economy.
>
> Dave Brown
> Brown's Marina
Dave,
I realize the HP is rated at the prop and not the powerhead, but if
there is anybody out there that can supply this setup, (40 mph with a
17' 1000 lb rig with 40 ponies pushing AND get 20 mpg at WOT - Lowe's
are quasi lake fishing boats if I am thinking of the right model here)
they should let the world know about it - the rigs would be flying off
the lot as soon as they were unloaded from the trucks !
Reply if needed
Blake.Marriner at worldnet.att.net
Mike Eick
>I am looking at a new evinrude 40hp and would like some feedback on
>performance and speed for a boat weighing around 1000#....Are you happy with
>the motor and how low can you idle....
>
>
Have you considered a 4 stroke? Should be more efficient, quieter,
etc.. Buy American if you can, of course!
Mike
Dave Brown
Marcus G Bell
> Blake wrote:
> > Something fishy here - When I was a kid, I had a 13' Whaler with 40hp on
> > it - top end was around 36mph and that hull is way lighter than 1000lbs
> > - more like 500lbs including motor, gas etc -
Dave Brown (dave....@sympatico.ca) wrote:
> Different hull, different motor, different year. :-)
> Seriously, today's motors are rated differently than their earlier
> counterparts (they are now rated at the prop instead of the
> crankshaft). Today's 40hp is yesterday's 50, plus it's got better
> torque and fuel/oil economy.
That old 40 horse had a gearcase that was designed with only modest
thought towards hydrodynamics. Unless it was the electric shift
nightmare, it had lots of protruding screws to mess up the water in
front of the prop. And the prop! Just some "elephant ear"
thingy. Behind the prop, the exhaust outlet chute, right in the high
velocity propwash where it can creat plenty of drag. It just sort of
plows a hole in the water and lays the exhaust into it.
Modern 40 horse has a sleek unicast gearcase, computer designed. As
any racer will tell you, the new longer gearcase is better adapted to
high speeds, and the old short designs will have a very hard time
reaching the same speeds based solely on the hydrodynamics. New prop
is cupped and better optimized to the RPM and power. Exhaust exits
through the prop hub, decreasing the previous drag of the turbulent
water behind the hub, while eliminating the drag of the
behind-the-prop outlet.
In short, the new 40 makes better use of its horses, and it has more
horses at the prop to begin with.
--
--
Marcus. ( be...@mail.med.upenn.edu )
Member, Antique Outboard Motor Club
Editor, Antique Outboarder Magazine
See us at http://mail.med.upenn.edu/~bellm/aomc.htm
Blake
--
Hi Marcus,
I don't disagree that today's OMC lower unit is more hydrodynamic or the
powerhead is different with more HP , however the 36 mph speed was with
a 40 hp Merc whose gearcase was not quite the drag that the OMC was - my
friend's 40 hp Johnson went around 33-34. I would believe that today's
40 horse on the same 13 foot Whaler might get you up in the low to mid
40's for speed (that's what a earlier 1980's OMC or Merc 50 horse would
do).
But what I am not believing is a hull that weighs twice as much as the
Whaler, with a conventional bottom design (it's not a pad bottom, step,
or air entrapment design) is going to go 40mph AND get 20 miles to the
gallon doing it.
Brad Story
Well.....
Since I own the combo, and my spedo on the Lowrance X-60 says 40MPH,
what else am I to believe? I should add that I have TNT, not common on
a 40HP and a cupped 11.75x17 prop. Also, I do in fact use about 2 GPH
at WOT, less if I am pulling a water toy (much less).
Marcus G Bell
Brad Story (brad....@nospamfirstsaga.com) wrote:
> Well.....
> Since I own the combo, and my spedo on the Lowrance X-60 says 40MPH,
> what else am I to believe?
Corroborate that reading with a measured and timed course, running it
both directions to compensate for wind/current? GPS?
Anyway, on the one hand, that your rig gets the numbers you get when
smaller, lighter ones are reported to not do as well does strain
credulity for some folks. On the other hand, I think it's possible
that what you say is true, in light of the following:
> I should add that I have TNT, not common on a 40HP and a cupped
> 11.75x17 prop.
But could you clear this up:
> Also, I do in fact use about 2 GPH at WOT, less if I am pulling a
> water toy (much less).
You're saying that consumption drops when towing a skier or something
at WOT?
Marcus G Bell
Blake (bl...@nospam.com) wrote:
> I don't disagree that today's OMC lower unit is more hydrodynamic or
> the powerhead is different with more HP , however the 36 mph speed
> was with a 40 hp Merc whose gearcase was not quite the drag that the
> OMC was - my friend's 40 hp Johnson went around 33-34.
Ahh. The older 40 horse Merc (I'm presuming it's a twin-cylinder
model) had the thru-hub exhaust and one piece gearcase. OMC's modern
40 gearcase is a bit more streamlined than that, but the Merc's
certainly was better than the old OMC. Your experience bears that
out. On the other hand, the old cross-charged 40 HP Merc 2-banger was
a weak 40, but a pretty decent 35. Today's OMC 40 is a better beast.
> I would believe that today's 40 horse on the same 13 foot Whaler
> might get you up in the low to mid 40's for speed (that's what a
> earlier 1980's OMC or Merc 50 horse would do).
Sounds OK. The modern loop-charged OMC 40 descends from their earlier
50 (which is still available) and has several more cubic inches than
the Merc 40 did. That same OMC powerhead got 60 HP at the crank in
stock form. Merc's old cross-charged 50-horse was a real nice motor
too.
> But what I am not believing is a hull that weighs twice as much as the
> Whaler, with a conventional bottom design (it's not a pad bottom, step,
> or air entrapment design) is going to go 40mph AND get 20 miles to the
> gallon doing it.
Well, I see your point, and I see the point of the other guy. I
wouldn't ming seeing the instruments firsthand before I believe it
100%, but it's not totally out of the question in my mind.
Marcus G Bell
Mike Eick (me...@sisconet.com) wrote:
> Have you considered a 4 stroke? Should be more efficient, quieter,
> etc.. Buy American if you can, of course!
Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure there are no
4-stroke outboards in the 35-50 HP range that originate in the US.
RWD10
My two cents on the speed issue.
My Lowrance LMS350A with speed wheel said my boat would routinely go 42 mph
and sometimes 46 mph. My GPS at the same time would read about 36 mph. I had
to enter a minus 18% correction factor into my LMS to match GPS speed. The 46
mph by the way occured when running into a current and turning the boat to the
right. ( The speed wheel was mounted on the port side of the boat.). I also
noted that at lower boat speeds there was less of a speed error in my LMS.
I am running a 16" boat, weight bare 720#, weight with all batteries, fishing
gear, full tank of gas, motor but no people is about 1200#. I was running a
late model 60 hp. mercury.
WHardy1902
But what I am not believing is a hull that weighs twice as much as the
Whaler, with a conventional bottom design (it's not a pad bottom, step,
or air entrapment design) is going to go 40mph AND get 20 miles to the
gallon doing it.
>>
20 miles to the gallon?? I never could get even half that with a ten hp on a
150 lb aluminum rowboat. Something fishy allright. The one that got away.
Del Cecchi
I have read several places that WOT fuel consumption in G/Hr is about
.11 times the horsepower of an outboard motor. That would make the
expected fuel consumption of a 40 HP motor about 4.5 gal/hr, and if the
speed is really in the mid 30s, the mpg drops into the single digits
where I would expect it to be. 20 MPG strains my credulity.
Perhaps he could borrow a GPS or run across a lake of known width for
time. My neighbor at the lake only gets about 40 mph out of a 17 foot
crestliner with a 115 merc. It's a big 17 runabout, but still.
Del Cecchi.
Klas Karlgren
Mike Eick wrote:
> =
> On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 19:07:22 -0800, "Don Stone"
> <dst...@surfnetusa.com> wrote:
> =
> >I am looking at a new evinrude 40hp and would like some feedback on
> >performance and speed for a boat weighing around 1000#....Are you happ=
y with
> >the motor and how low can you idle....
> >
> >
> Have you considered a 4 stroke? Should be more efficient, quieter,
> etc.. Buy American if you can, of course!
> =
> Mike
Hi Mike,
good suggestion about 4 strokes. But please spare us the parochial
protectionism ("Buy American if you can, of course!". Of course!?) =96
arguments about performance and quality are slightly more interesting.
Regards,
Klas, Johnson owner, previously Mercury owner
Stockholm, Sweden.
Del Cecchi
Klas Karlgren wrote:
>
> Mike Eick wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 19:07:22 -0800, "Don Stone"
> > <dst...@surfnetusa.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I am looking at a new evinrude 40hp and would like some feedback on
> > >the motor and how low can you idle....
> > >
> > >
> > Have you considered a 4 stroke? Should be more efficient, quieter,
> > etc.. Buy American if you can, of course!
> >
>
> Hi Mike,
> good suggestion about 4 strokes. But please spare us the parochial
> arguments about performance and quality are slightly more interesting.
>
> Regards,
> Klas, Johnson owner, previously Mercury owner
> Stockholm, Sweden.
Like Europe doesn't have any trade barriers, tariff and non tariff. If
it didn't peugeut (sorry about spelling ) and renault would be out of
business. And of course we know about Airbus. So please examine the
log in your own eye before pointing out the mote in ours'. Of course
the Japanese have us both beat when it comes to barriers.
Del Cecchi
Rochester, MN.
Klas Karlgren
Del Cecchi wrote:
> =
>snip ----------------
> =
> Like Europe doesn't have any trade barriers, tariff and non tariff. If=
> it didn't peugeut (sorry about spelling ) and renault would be out of
> business. And of course we know about Airbus. So please examine the
> log in your own eye before pointing out the mote in ours'. Of course
> the Japanese have us both beat when it comes to barriers.
> =
> Del Cecchi
> Rochester, MN.
Hi
You're absolutely right about European trade barriers: The European
Union is no better than the US or Japan and seems to be getting even
worse in this aspect. Protectionism sucks whether it is European,
American, or Japanese and doesn't favor anyone in the long run. So
please don't buy Volvo Pentas because they're Swedish =96 buy them if and=
only if they're better or less expensive than OMC:s or MerCruisers!
Regards,
Klas
Stockholm
Marcus G Bell
Klas Karlgren (kl...@dsv.su.se) wrote:
> Hi You're absolutely right about European trade barriers: The
> European Union is no better than the US or Japan and seems to be
> getting even worse in this aspect. Protectionism sucks whether it is
> European, American, or Japanese and doesn't favor anyone in the long
> run. So please don't buy Volvo Pentas because they're Swedish -- buy
> them if and only if they're better or less expensive than OMC:s or
> MerCruisers!
This stuff is interesting, but I believe mooted by the fact that no
4-stroke outboard in the area of 40 HP is 100% American.
Mercury/Mariner: powerhead by Yamaha, lower unit by Merc.
OMC: built by Suzuki.
Honda: might/might not be assembled in the US, but parent company
sure ain't in the US.
Anybody know of any other 4-strokers in the 40 HP range?
No Spam
bl...@nospam.com says something like ...
> Something fishy here - When I was a kid, I had a 13' Whaler with 40hp on
> it - top end was around 36mph and that hull is way lighter than 1000lbs
> - more like 500lbs including motor, gas etc -
>
> if you got 30mph with 1000lbs - what size prop ?
Have a Merc ELO 40 and Turbo Hot Shot on a 17' aluminum V. Fully
loaded for a days fishing and 2 adults, I get 31 MPH according to my
GPS. Throw some light wind and chop in and it goes down to about 29.
Fastest has been with 1/2 tank (8 gallons) fuel , going with the wind,
and just me in the boat - 33 MPH. 40MPH with a 40 HP motor seems
almost impossible.