Mercury Optimax vs. Yamaha VMAX
John
on the Mercury Optimax engines vs. the Yamaha Vmax. I currently have a 6
year old Yamaha ProV 150 and It hasn't been in the shop one single time. I
haven't heard much bad about Yamaha's, but I can't say the same about some
Mercurys, but I haven't heard much either way about the Optimax. I'm
looking at the 200 - 225 HP range. Any input would be appreciated...
Thanks,
John
jo...@email.com
Jim Burmeister
world.
I have a 98 Optimax BlueWater DFI 225Hp on my 21 foot Whaler Conquest Cuddy.
SS Merc Mairage 19 pitch prop.........runs the boat around 58mph at 5200
rpms.
Starts first crank ......runs quiet.......great fuel economy and low oil
use......
about 1.75 gallons of QS Premium Plus oil to a tank of fuel which on my boat
is 93 gallons.
idles all day long and never even burps...........
smooth power instantly from any range of rpm........
Zero Problems ........I follow the service manual for upkeep to the letter
I selected Merc over Yamaha because I trailer the boat all over the country
and wanted
the service and parts easy to find every place. Just in case but have not
needed
that service at all so far. I did buy the thing for long term so dealer and
parts were considered a issue when selecting the motor.
Good luck....pick a winner..Jim
John <jo...@email.com> wrote in message
news:7po4op$5...@journal.concentric.net...
Dana Seero
> I am thinking about ordering a new boat and was wanting to get some feedback
> on the Mercury Optimax engines vs. the Yamaha Vmax. I currently have a 6
> year old Yamaha ProV 150 and It hasn't been in the shop one single time. I
> haven't heard much bad about Yamaha's, but I can't say the same about some
> Mercurys, but I haven't heard much either way about the Optimax. I'm
> looking at the 200 - 225 HP range. Any input would be appreciated...
>
> Thanks,
> John
> jo...@email.com
Yamaha also has a new engine series for 2000, the HPDI (High Pressure Direct
Injection) which is a direct injection motor for 2006 compliance. When exactly,
they will be in dealer showrooms isn't clear, but the catalog shows 150 and 200
SW Series and 150 VMAX.
The Bass and Walleye Boats and Motors forum has better participation from actual
owners and is more polite - it's a good place to get information.
http://www.wmi.org/bassfish/bassboard/boats_motors
I recently made this choice and bought a Yamaha 200 Ox66 EFI. Reliability really
impacts resale value, and Yamaha has an exceptional reputation. I spoke with a
number of owners, including two who had purchased this exact engine earlier in
the season, and many of them have owned a lot of engines but have come around to
Yamaha and have become quite loyal.
My second choice was a Suzuki. I looked into the OptiMax, which most owners say
has been reliable. But the dealer would not give me any references, I found a
number of owners (but not all) complaining of excessive oil consumption
(http://www.wmi.org/bassfish/bassboard/boats_motors/T25170.htm)
the warranty is one year for 2000, and it was $1,500 more than the Yamaha. It
also weighs 88 lbs more, and I didn't like the idea of a parasitic air
compressor.
The Ox66 system, which is a closed-loop fuel injection system has delivered
great benefits, including fuel economy that seems to compare well with actual
fuel use by OptiMax owners (I'm still compiling exact, I only have 20 hours on
the engine, but do have an hour meter so there's no guessing).
With deference to other views, I found the issue of dealer support a red
herring. There are 40 Yamaha dealers in Massachusetts alone. If there are enough
Yamaha dealers to support SeaTow nationwide, there are probably enough for me.
And there are only a subset of either Mercury or Yamaha dealers that have the
staff to support engines with electronic controls, anyway - the dealer that has
serviced all my putboards in the past doesn't have the systems to work on ANY of
the new engines.
FWIW, most owners of 200 FICHT engines seem to be fairly happy. This technology
has been skewered in the news, mostly because of the problems in the 150/175
engines.
This can be a good time of year to buy an engine, as the 2000's are out but some
dealers have stock of '99's. I think in '99 the VMAX came in both carb and EFI
versions, I can well recommend the Yamaha Ox66 EFI system. Plenty of competition
in the marketplace. Good Luck.
HarryKrause
>
> I am thinking about ordering a new boat and was wanting to get some feedback
> on the Mercury Optimax engines vs. the Yamaha Vmax. I currently have a 6
> year old Yamaha ProV 150 and It hasn't been in the shop one single time. I
> haven't heard much bad about Yamaha's, but I can't say the same about some
> Mercurys, but I haven't heard much either way about the Optimax. I'm
> looking at the 200 - 225 HP range. Any input would be appreciated...
>
> Thanks,
> John
> jo...@email.com
Yamaha makes ok engines, but their currently large engine technology is
obsolete. Their engines do not meet the federal standards for 2006. Yamaha
is supposedly introducing a couple of new larger engines for the 2000 model
year that are far more efficient and less polluting than their current
models. But these will be "first-year" models, subject to the usual
"first-year" jitters that the other manufacturers of direct fuel injection
engines (DFI from OMC and Merc) have suffered. By the time Yamaha gets the
bugs out of these new engines, Merc and, hopefully, OMC, will be producing
the *next* generation of more efficient, less polluting outboards, while the
Japanese play their usual role of copying technology rather than imitating
it.
Yamaha, OMC and Merc make good engines. They're widely sold. Some are
stronger in some markets than others. Suzuki is at best an also ran, but you
have to give the company credit for its never ending attempts to buy market
share.
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Lead me not to temptation, I can find it myself!
Dana Seero
>
<<>>
> Yamaha makes ok engines, but their currently large engine technology is
> obsolete. Their engines do not meet the federal standards for 2006. Yamaha
> is supposedly introducing a couple of new larger engines for the 2000 model
> year that are far more efficient and less polluting than their current
> models. But these will be "first-year" models, subject to the usual
> "first-year" jitters that the other manufacturers of direct fuel injection
> engines (DFI from OMC and Merc) have suffered. By the time Yamaha gets the
> bugs out of these new engines, Merc and, hopefully, OMC, will be producing
> the *next* generation of more efficient, less polluting outboards, while the
> Japanese play their usual role of copying technology rather than imitating
> it.
And as time marches on, the jury can also report on the long-term longevity of
OptiMax, which is unknown, and Yamaha owners will be enjoying exceptional
reliability, durability, operating economy, and resale value. But that's about
money, and some American consumers need to have the latest bell and whistle, even
if the detail execution of it does not allow the product to perform the intended
task.
Several OptiMax 200/225 owners have inquired how the Opti can possibly pass
emissions regulations with oil consumption averaging 30:1. The answer they have
gotten from Mercury, according to them, is "they all do that." In answer to the
claimed 300:1 oil consumption, Mercury indicated that they intend to rewrite their
sales literature.
The Yamaha HPDI will be on the market at the same time as the FICHT Ram Injection
and the new model OptiMax. And the marketplace will vote on who is meeting their
needs.
American light truck manufacturers just about wiped out the Japanese, who invented
the small pickup. They've waffle stomped them in SUV's, and minivans as well.
Apparently the management of Brunswick and OMC is not as strong as the American
automotive manufacturers, based on their continuing loss of market share.
HarryKrause
>
> HarryKrause wrote:
>
> >
>
> <<>>
>
> > Yamaha makes ok engines, but their currently large engine technology is
> > obsolete. Their engines do not meet the federal standards for 2006. Yamaha
> > is supposedly introducing a couple of new larger engines for the 2000 model
> > year that are far more efficient and less polluting than their current
> > models. But these will be "first-year" models, subject to the usual
> > "first-year" jitters that the other manufacturers of direct fuel injection
> > engines (DFI from OMC and Merc) have suffered. By the time Yamaha gets the
> > bugs out of these new engines, Merc and, hopefully, OMC, will be producing
> > the *next* generation of more efficient, less polluting outboards, while the
> > Japanese play their usual role of copying technology rather than imitating
> > it.
>
> And as time marches on, the jury can also report on the long-term longevity of
> OptiMax, which is unknown, and Yamaha owners will be enjoying exceptional
> reliability, durability, operating economy, and resale value. But that's about
> money, and some American consumers need to have the latest bell and whistle, even
> if the detail execution of it does not allow the product to perform the intended
> task.
You are basing this claim on the engines Yamaha doesn't even have for sale?
Hehehehe.
>
> Several OptiMax 200/225 owners have inquired how the Opti can possibly pass
> emissions regulations with oil consumption averaging 30:1.
So?
The answer they have
> gotten from Mercury, according to them, is "they all do that." In answer to the
> claimed 300:1 oil consumption, Mercury indicated that they intend to rewrite their
> sales literature.
Uh...the 300:1 ratio is for slow idle. And what is your source for the
"indication" from Merc? You have it direct, in writing?
>
> The Yamaha HPDI will be on the market at the same time as the FICHT Ram Injection
> and the new model OptiMax. And the marketplace will vote on who is meeting their
> needs.
That's right. The US builders will be on their third generation of DFI's,
while Yamaha competes with its first generation. Let's chat about this NEXT
year, when there are a few Yamaha DFI's out there. I wouldn't touch anyone's
DFI in the first year of production.
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Don't play stupid with me, I'm better at it!
John
Wsp770
>> Yamaha makes ok engines, but their currently large engine technology is
>> obsolete. Their engines do not meet the federal standards for 2006. Yamaha
>> is supposedly introducing a couple of new larger engines for the 2000 model
>> year that are far more efficient and less polluting than their current
>> models. But these will be "first-year" models, subject to the usual
>> "first-year" jitters that the other manufacturers of direct fuel injection
>> engines (DFI from OMC and Merc) have suffered. By the time Yamaha gets the
>> bugs out of these new engines, Merc and, hopefully, OMC, will be producing
>> the *next* generation of more efficient, less polluting outboards, while
>the
>> Japanese play their usual role of copying technology rather than imitating
>> it.
>
>And as time marches on, the jury can also report on the long-term longevity
>of
>OptiMax, which is unknown, and Yamaha owners will be enjoying exceptional
>reliability, durability, operating economy, and resale value. But that's
>about
>money, and some American consumers need to have the latest bell and whistle,
>even
>if the detail execution of it does not allow the product to perform the
>intended
>task.
>
>have
>gotten from Mercury, according to them, is "they all do that." In answer to
>the
>claimed 300:1 oil consumption, Mercury indicated that they intend to rewrite
>their
>sales literature.
>
>Injection
>and the new model OptiMax. And the marketplace will vote on who is meeting
>their
>needs.
>
>invented
>the small pickup. They've waffle stomped them in SUV's, and minivans as well.
>Apparently the management of Brunswick and OMC is not as strong as the
>American
>automotive manufacturers, based on their continuing loss of market share.
>
>
>
Dana-
Why waste your breath on this guy? By now, I think everyone realizes his
rah-rah Merc/USA crap is, just that...crap.
Harry refuses to acknowledge that HPDI development began the same time as
Optimax. Yamaha just chooses to get it right before they throw it out of the
factory in numbers.
Rob
Wsp770 wrote in message <19990823091816...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
>Harry refuses to acknowledge that HPDI development began the same time as
>Optimax. Yamaha just chooses to get it right before they throw it out of
the
>factory in numbers.
>
The American philosophy is hurry and get it out, we'll fix it latter. This
is driven by the expectations of quick profits multiplied by the "if nothing
goes wrong" factor.
The Japanese understand that it cost much more to fix it later. Money spent
up front saves money in the long run and builds a reputation. Some of this
philosophy was actually taught to them by an American - Deming.
Rob
HarryKrause
> >
>
> Dana-
> Why waste your breath on this guy? By now, I think everyone realizes his
> rah-rah Merc/USA crap is, just that...crap.
>
> Harry refuses to acknowledge that HPDI development began the same time as
> Optimax. Yamaha just chooses to get it right before they throw it out of the
> factory in numbers.
Uh-huh. You are heaping praise on an outboard motor no U.S. consumer has
even seen, let alone tried out or used.
My understanding is that the new DFI Yamahas are at least several and
perhaps many months away from the dealers, maybe longer. My local
large-volume Yamaha dealer couldn't even guess at a delivery date.
He also told me, and this should be interesting if true, that it is his
understanding that Yamaha *has licensed* some of Mercury's original DFI
technology and "tweaked it" for use on the upcoming DFI Yamaha 150's and
200's. Merc, of course, licensed its original DFI technology from an outside
source and has since modified it to its own specs. I wonder if it would be
possible to verify the claim that Yamaha bought Merc technology.
I also wonder *why* Yamaha would be manufacturing DFI engines in the large
horsepower ranges if it has its 200 hp, V-6 four cycle outboard so close to
production. You'd think it would be concentrating on the big four cycle
instead. And what's with that engine, anyway? It's been discussed for three
or four years now...Yamaha certainly has the resources to build the big
block four cycle outboards...what might the problems be?
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
All generalizations are false, including this one.
Del Cecchi
> >Optimax. Yamaha just chooses to get it right before they throw it out of
> the
> >factory in numbers.
> >
>
> is driven by the expectations of quick profits multiplied by the "if nothing
> goes wrong" factor.
>
> The Japanese understand that it cost much more to fix it later. Money spent
> up front saves money in the long run and builds a reputation. Some of this
> philosophy was actually taught to them by an American - Deming.
>
> Rob
A few questions are suggested by these posts:
How do we know that Yamaha began development the same time as Merc? If
it did, they doodled around for 3 extra years? And aren't Yamaha and
Merc pretty much in bed together these days, at least when it comes to
4strokes?
Do you really know anything about manufacturing, and Deming, and the red
bead experiment and all that, or are you just parroting the sound bites
you read in Time magazine in 1985? Have you noticed the state of the
Japanese economy these days? Have you seen where innovation is coming
from these days? Or are you just sitting on the toilet reading "the
Japan that can say no"?
del cecchi
HarryKrause
I *really* wish Yamaha well on its DFI two strokes, but, after reading
through the company's new literature that supposedly differentiates between
the Yamaha DFI's and Merc's, all I see are the following claims:
The Yamaha has a "smooth design" combustion chamber, while the Opti and
Ficht have an "interior obstruction" in their combustion chamber. This kind
of reminds me of the old Wonder Bread claim. You know...baked late at night
and delivered fresh to your store in the morning? In other words,
meaningless. All it really means is Yamaha has a different style fuel
injector.
And the Yamaha uses colder running spark plugs than the other two, and these
plugs are "prone to carbon buildup and durability problems."
Yahoo.
I was told today that Yamaha has licensed from Merc some of the latter's
Opti technology.
I also wonder how far Yamaha will go with DFI if its big V-6 four strokers
are around the corner.
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Capitalism is what people do if you leave them alone.
JamesGang
done better on a lot of things. They took a huge piece of our car market away
from the big 3 and still have it. They dominate the motorcycle industry. Both
markets were 95% american in the beginning. You can argue the theory all you
want, you can not argue with the results.
Dana Seero
> Do you really know anything about manufacturing, and Deming, and the red
> bead experiment and all that, or are you just parroting the sound bites
> you read in Time magazine in 1985? Have you noticed the state of the
> Japanese economy these days? Have you seen where innovation is coming
> from these days? Or are you just sitting on the toilet reading "the
> Japan that can say no"?
>
> del cecchi
A significant amount of Yamaha product design, packaging, and testing, is done in
the US: we can now insult engineers around the world on one product! I met Dr.
Deming in 1979, and he looked like he was a million years old, but was still sharp
as a tack and was able to dispense terrific insights in a very simple and
insightful fashion.
The most interesting thing about Deming's Japan connection was that he was brought
over there by Douglas McArthur. I found it fascinating that McArthur, a career
officer in his 60's, even knew who he was or why it mattered.
I bought a Yamaha recently, and I could care less if they stole the blueprints. I
cared about reliability, operating economy, and resale value. If OMC, Mercury,
Tohatsu, or Sea Gull come out with the best product for my needs, I'm going to buy
it. My customers don't Buy American - they buy the best. I'm glad the products we
sell (engineering software) is mostly American, and I'm damned glad it's so. That
only gets you in the door.
Funny thing though, I asked two Mercury dealers and an OMC dealer for references
for 200 hp OptiMax and FICHT. They gave me none. The Yamaha dealer looked through
their customer records to see who'd bought the engine I was considering and handed
me the list.
HarryKrause
>
> In article <37C1F186...@erols.com>, HarryKrause
> <hkr...@erols-nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > I also wonder how far Yamaha will go with DFI if its big V-6 four strokers
> > are around the corner.
>
> or OMC or the other outboard mfrs. It could indicate Yamaha is after all
> the outboard market.
You probably would be worried. Since Merc has DFI under control *and* is
running a real sweet Merc V-6 four stroke on Lake X, I don't suppose Merc is
worried.
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
'i' before 'e', except in Budweiser.
Jeff
wrote:
>Funny thing though, I asked two Mercury dealers and an OMC dealer for references
>for 200 hp OptiMax and FICHT. They gave me none. The Yamaha dealer looked through
>their customer records to see who'd bought the engine I was considering and handed
>me the list.
>
And he could have pointed you to a website that gives performance
numbers for Yamahas rigged on different hulls. Try that with Merc and
OMC.
Jeff
Sorry, but email address disguised due to unscrupulous spammers. Please respond in Usenet.
HarryKrause
Oh, come on, Jeff. My friendly neighborhood SeaPro dealer has performance
sheets for SeaPros, Whalers, SeaRays and everything else he handles, matched
with a variety of motors. Very little original "research" material of *real*
value is on the web. You cannot click your way to boatloads of data you'd
like to have.
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Famous Last Words #72: No, it's not loaded.
Jeff
You must have fallen off of your stool onto a porcupine quill if you
think that the Yamaha performance bulletins isn't of "real" value. I
spent a year looking at boats and motors before I made my decision. I
even looked at SeaPro at two different dealers. While one dealer was
very giving in his information (he gave me the layup schedule and
materials), but NONE had any performance information. Same for the
SeaSwirl dealer.
Who did the testing at that dealer? Does it include fuel consumption
numbers? Why can't OMC and Merc put their money where their mouth is
on fuel consumption? Show me the numbers!
HarryKrause
The "numbers" I got from my SeaPro dealer were from the SeaPro factory. At
that time, it showed my model boat with four or five different outboards.
There were sheets available for the other boats, too.
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Ensign Walnut approaches Dr. Crusher with caution.
Rob
>How do we know that Yamaha began development the same time as Merc? If
>it did, they doodled around for 3 extra years? And aren't Yamaha and
>Merc pretty much in bed together these days, at least when it comes to
>4strokes?
>
>Do you really know anything about manufacturing, and Deming, and the red
>bead experiment and all that, or are you just parroting the sound bites
>you read in Time magazine in 1985? Have you noticed the state of the
>Japanese economy these days? Have you seen where innovation is coming
>from these days? Or are you just sitting on the toilet reading "the
>Japan that can say no"?
I am speaking comparatively between American & Japanese business practices.
Time is irrelevant. I believe American engineers are very creative, but it
is the Japanese who consistently bring quality & reliable products to
market. This is the result of a total business philosophy independent of
engineers or time spent. No matter who I am, if I produce a superior
product in terms of cost, performance, quality, reliability, service, and
reputation, profits will be the result. This is what I call a product
driven business. It is my opinion that many American companies are
short-circuited in this idea and are primarily focused on profits. This is
what I call a profit driven business (a bunch of greedy stockholders) which
the product is the result of.
As a consumer, I get the best value from a product driven business - whom
ever. As an investor, I look for profit driven businesses that have yet to
be exploited (I avoid buying their products).
Looks like I should have bought BC back in October last year for $13 - would
have doubled my money by now. Oh well, been to busy fishing to see that
one.
Rob
Jeff
<hkr...@erols-nospam.com> wrote:
What were the numbers? Did they give speed vs. rpm or did they also
include fuel consumption? Certainly odd that neither dealer I visited
was willing to give this up, even though one was willing to give me
layup specs. And I wasn't a "just passing through" type of customer.
I was ready to write a check for a 235 W/A by SeaPro. But, the dealer
dropped the ball and lost the business.
And more importantly, the question you overlooked, is why can't Merc
and OMC put their money where their collective mouths are and give out
some numbers on fuel consumption. What are they afraid of?
Hell, Harry, even you just this morning used the Yamaha site for
numbers for a boat similar to the one you want. I know it pains you
to admit that the information there is somewhat useful, even to a Merc
guy. But, you did find some use for it. Too bad you couldn't find
the same information by OMC or Merc.
Wsp770
>In article <37C1F186...@erols.com>, HarryKrause
><hkr...@erols-nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> I also wonder how far Yamaha will go with DFI if its big V-6 four strokers
>> are around the corner.
>
>I'd be worried about Yamaha having both DFI and 4 stroke, if I were Merc
>or OMC or the other outboard mfrs. It could indicate Yamaha is after all
>the outboard market.
>
>best, and also gives them a lower cost "performance" 2 stroke for the bass
>boat types, and a more expensive 4 stroke for the offshore and other
>markets better suited to 4 strokes.
>
>That's a distinct *advantage* for Yamaha, that Merc and OMC and Honda and
>Suzuki and Nissan don't have.
>
>--
>ja...@angelfire.com
>
>
Harry-
Whoever told you that HPDI has anything to do with licensed technology from
Brunswick is completely false. I would urge you to cease in posting such BS.
Second, it is my understanding that Yamaha will, by 2005, have in place a full
line of 4-strokes from 2-200 (most likely 300) and HPDI from 150-300.
I was told at IMTEC that, in the long run, it appears 2-stroke engines will
completely dissapear and that DI is simply a bandaid to get the industry
through to the next level of emmisions wrangling which will surely occur in
about 10 years or so.
A side not off the subject:
At IMTEC I heard for the first time considerable talk about the sale of OMC.
Soros (or whatever the hell his name is) is looking to pull out as he has
already lost considerable monies in Russian investment over the past 10 years
and does not believe Ficht to be the property of value for which he organized
the purchase of OMC. Look for the next 8-12 months to be a period of intense
brand-image building for OMC. Then look for a major move. The stockholders
were not pleased by the tacky display put on at the press gathering in Florida
when they carted in some messenger at the end of David Jones presentation to
announce his appointment as chairman of the board. Their doubts concerning his
leadership are stronger than ever. Even the press thought it a laughable
display.
That brings up the question as to who will buy it if this does, in fact, take
place.
Rumor has it that Detroit Diesal and Mr. Penske now have serious doubts about
the validity of widespread Ficht application. Still, he would be the most
interested suitor and would probably get a much better deal this time around.
The interesting conversations were those that, for the first time, focused
seriously on the possibilty of Suzuki aquiring a controlling interest. These
discussions sprang from talk concerning the closing of yet more OMC plants (in
Waukeegan this time) and the shift in assets/liabilities which are now opening
the doors to all sorts of different scenarios.
Just thought I'd share that.
Should be a real interesting year.
HarryKrause
>
> On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 09:22:07 -0400, HarryKrause
> <hkr...@erols-nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >Jeff wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> You must have fallen off of your stool onto a porcupine quill if you
> >> think that the Yamaha performance bulletins isn't of "real" value. I
> >> spent a year looking at boats and motors before I made my decision. I
> >> even looked at SeaPro at two different dealers. While one dealer was
> >> very giving in his information (he gave me the layup schedule and
> >> materials), but NONE had any performance information. Same for the
> >> SeaSwirl dealer.
> >>
> >> Who did the testing at that dealer? Does it include fuel consumption
> >> numbers? Why can't OMC and Merc put their money where their mouth is
> >> on fuel consumption? Show me the numbers!
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >
> >
> >The "numbers" I got from my SeaPro dealer were from the SeaPro factory. At
> >that time, it showed my model boat with four or five different outboards.
> >There were sheets available for the other boats, too.
> >
>
> What were the numbers? Did they give speed vs. rpm or did they also
> include fuel consumption?
I don't remember what the hell they said. It was more than a year ago. I do
know that when my boat arrived at the dealer's and the engine was rigged,
the performance was exactly as predicted by SeaPro. And there were a couple
of speed/rpm/prop comparisons. I don't recall if fuel consumption was
included. This information is not difficult to obtain. Both Boating Magazine
and Trailer Boat Magazine publish it all the time.
Besides the Yamaha site info is limited to its rather unrealistic test
conditions. That Parker 25 is tested with two persons aboard, one battery,
50 gallons of fuel and a couple of life jackets. And that's all. Not the way
I rig or use a boat. I'd typically have three persons aboard, three
batteries, at least 125 gallons of fuel and probably 500 pounds of "stuff."
I'm not saying the info on the Yamaha site is worthless. Obviously, it is
not. But it is limited and the same sort of info is available from dealers
for most boat lines. The fact that you were not able to get it for a SeaPro
sounds to me as if you visited a dealer who either didn't have it, didn't
know where it was or didn't want you to see it. Them's the breaks.
> And more importantly, the question you overlooked, is why can't Merc
> and OMC put their money where their collective mouths are and give out
> some numbers on fuel consumption. What are they afraid of?
>
> Hell, Harry, even you just this morning used the Yamaha site for
> numbers for a boat similar to the one you want. I know it pains you
> to admit that the information there is somewhat useful, even to a Merc
> guy. But, you did find some use for it. Too bad you couldn't find
> the same information by OMC or Merc.
>
> Jeff
>
> Sorry, but email address disguised due to unscrupulous spammers. Please respond in Usenet.
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
If ignorance is bliss, Congress has achieved NIRVANA!
HarryKrause
>
> >
> >In article <37C1F186...@erols.com>, HarryKrause
> ><hkr...@erols-nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I also wonder how far Yamaha will go with DFI if its big V-6 four strokers
> >> are around the corner.
> >
> >I'd be worried about Yamaha having both DFI and 4 stroke, if I were Merc
> >or OMC or the other outboard mfrs. It could indicate Yamaha is after all
> >the outboard market.
> >
> >It means Yamaha can go whichever way the technology and market indicate is
> >best, and also gives them a lower cost "performance" 2 stroke for the bass
> >boat types, and a more expensive 4 stroke for the offshore and other
> >markets better suited to 4 strokes.
> >
> >That's a distinct *advantage* for Yamaha, that Merc and OMC and Honda and
> >Suzuki and Nissan don't have.
> >
> >--
> >ja...@angelfire.com
> >
> >
>
> Harry-
> Whoever told you that HPDI has anything to do with licensed technology from
> Brunswick is completely false. I would urge you to cease in posting such BS.
Someone reliable passed that information along to me. I made no judgment on
whether it was true or false. I don't know. It could be either. If it were
true, you wouldn't necessarily know it, would you?
>
> Second, it is my understanding that Yamaha will, by 2005, have in place a full
> line of 4-strokes from 2-200 (most likely 300) and HPDI from 150-300.
That's nice. When will we see a 200 hp V-6 four stroke outboard from Yamaha?
> I was told at IMTEC that, in the long run, it appears 2-stroke engines will
> completely dissapear and that DI is simply a bandaid to get the industry
> through to the next level of emmisions wrangling which will surely occur in
> about 10 years or so.
You needed someone at IMTEC to tell you that?
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
I prefer spiders to lima beans.
HarryKrause
>
> In article <37C20AF4...@erols.com>, HarryKrause
> <hkr...@erols-nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > You probably would be worried. Since Merc has DFI under control *and* is
> > running a real sweet Merc V-6 four stroke on Lake X, I don't suppose Merc is
> > worried.
>
> something you read about in a consumer boating publication...or some kind
> of direct info from Merc...that is sent to their dealers and shills for
> newgroup posting?
It's direct info from Merc. After all, as the highly paid Merc newsgroup
shill, I am sent all sorts of "classified information."
> Many of us here read pretty much all the consumer boating mags. I don't
> recall anyone else posting on a Merc V-6 four stroke at Lake X.
Which means nothing.
>
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Refuse Novocaine...Transcend Dental Medication
Jeff
<hkr...@erols-nospam.com> wrote:
Neither of which are online. And I think I will scream if I read
another Proline or Cobia review. Do they realize there are other
manufacturers of saltwater boats? Or should I just grin and bear it
because they are the ones that spend big bucks and buy cover ads? I
would be surprised if they listed engine combos with anything more
than speed vs. rpm. Having fuel consumption numbers is more
meaningful to me.
>
>Besides the Yamaha site info is limited to its rather unrealistic test
>conditions. That Parker 25 is tested with two persons aboard, one battery,
>50 gallons of fuel and a couple of life jackets. And that's all. Not the way
>I rig or use a boat. I'd typically have three persons aboard, three
>batteries, at least 125 gallons of fuel and probably 500 pounds of "stuff."
>
Hmm. My boat was tested with full tanks, two guys, one battery, and I
think 50 pounds of misc. junk. I just looked at a Grady on there that
was tested with 130 gallons of fuel, 3 batteries, two people, and 100
pounds of gear. I don't think that is unrealistic at all. But, I'm
not you, and vice versa.
>I'm not saying the info on the Yamaha site is worthless. Obviously, it is
>not. But it is limited and the same sort of info is available from dealers
>for most boat lines. The fact that you were not able to get it for a SeaPro
>sounds to me as if you visited a dealer who either didn't have it, didn't
>know where it was or didn't want you to see it. Them's the breaks.
>
I don't know why I couldn't get the numbers in writing from them. It
seems that if a dealer would be willing to give me detailed layup
schedules that they would have motor info as well. Doesn't matter to
me anymore. I'm sure when I'm ready to upgrade to the new 26' Scout
that I will be able to get Yamaha numbers for it as well. That is
*several* years away, though.
HarryKrause
I have no idea why BOATING covers the boats it does. Ads surely have
something to do with it. Also, the mag spends, in my opinion, too much space
on "exotic" boats.
> >I'm not saying the info on the Yamaha site is worthless. Obviously, it is
> >not. But it is limited and the same sort of info is available from dealers
> >for most boat lines. The fact that you were not able to get it for a SeaPro
> >sounds to me as if you visited a dealer who either didn't have it, didn't
> >know where it was or didn't want you to see it. Them's the breaks.
> >
>
> I don't know why I couldn't get the numbers in writing from them. It
> seems that if a dealer would be willing to give me detailed layup
> schedules that they would have motor info as well. Doesn't matter to
> me anymore. I'm sure when I'm ready to upgrade to the new 26' Scout
> that I will be able to get Yamaha numbers for it as well. That is
> *several* years away, though.
>
> Jeff
I cannot think of a reason why a dealer should not be willing to share
performance data.
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
I live in my own little world, but they like me there.
Wsp770
>conditions. That Parker 25 is tested with two persons aboard, one battery,
>50 gallons of fuel and a couple of life jackets. And that's all. Not the way
>I rig or use a boat. I'd typically have three persons aboard, three
>batteries, at least 125 gallons of fuel and probably 500 pounds of "stuff."
>
>not. But it is limited and the same sort of info is available from dealers
>for most boat lines. The fact that you were not able to get it for a SeaPro
>sounds to me as if you visited a dealer who either didn't have it, didn't
>know where it was or didn't want you to see it. Them's the breaks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> and OMC put their money where their collective mouths are and give out
>> some numbers on fuel consumption. What are they afraid of?
>>
>> Hell, Harry, even you just this morning used the Yamaha site for
>> numbers for a boat similar to the one you want. I know it pains you
>> to admit that the information there is somewhat useful, even to a Merc
>> guy. But, you did find some use for it. Too bad you couldn't find
>> the same information by OMC or Merc.
>>
>>
>> Sorry, but email address disguised due to unscrupulous spammers. Please
>respond in Usenet.
>
>
>
>Harry Krause
Aw Harry!
You had to go and tell a big 'ol lie! I don't know what bullshit your local
dealer threw in front of your gullible face, but I just now got off the phone
with Jimmy Metz and Tommy Hancock at Sea Pro, and they don't have the slightest
idea what THE HELL YOU"RE TALKING ABOUT.
They have never published any performance data whatsoever on their boats and
they are sure that no dealer in Florida would possess anything which even
resembles such.
No wonder Jeff's local dealer didn't have anything.
Seems you either got duped...
or you're the pathetic bullsh**er most have always claimed you to be.
I know it's very hard for you to live in a world where Merc and OMC are
getting their collective asses kicked, but deal with it. It's only going to
get worse.
Another thing, Chad Kelley, the Louisiana rep for Mercury outboards...
has never heard of a 4-stroke V-6, thinks you're full of shit, and is willin
HarryKrause
> Aw Harry!
> You had to go and tell a big 'ol lie! I don't know what bullshit your local
> dealer threw in front of your gullible face, but I just now got off the phone
> with Jimmy Metz and Tommy Hancock at Sea Pro, and they don't have the slightest
> idea what THE HELL YOU"RE TALKING ABOUT.
> They have never published any performance data whatsoever on their boats and
> they are sure that no dealer in Florida would possess anything which even
> resembles such.
I'm afraid you are the liar. SeaPro includes sheets in its dealers'
notebooks that show the performance of various boats and motors. Somewhere
in my mess of an office I have a Xerox of the dealers' performance sheets. I
saw these sheets before I bought a SeaPro 180 and before I bought the V1900.
They were not dealer prepared, they were prepared by SeaPro.
I doubt very much you got through to Tommy.
But nice try.
>
> Another thing, Chad Kelley, the Louisiana rep for Mercury outboards...
> has never heard of a 4-stroke V-6, thinks you're full of shit
Gosh. Yet another supplier who won't give you any information.
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Illegal aliens are a problem. Ask any Native American.
HarryKrause
>
> >
>
> >> >The "numbers" I got from my SeaPro dealer were from the SeaPro factory. At
> >> >that time, it showed my model boat with four or five different outboards.
> >> >There were sheets available for the other boats, too.
> >> >
> >>
> >> What were the numbers? Did they give speed vs. rpm or did they also
> >> include fuel consumption?
> >
> >
> >I don't remember what the hell they said. It was more than a year ago. I do
> >know that when my boat arrived at the dealer's and the engine was rigged,
> >the performance was exactly as predicted by SeaPro. And there were a couple
> >of speed/rpm/prop comparisons. I don't recall if fuel consumption was
> >included. This information is not difficult to obtain. Both Boating Magazine
> >and Trailer Boat Magazine publish it all the time.
> >
>
> You had to go and tell a big 'ol lie! I don't know what bullshit your local
> dealer threw in front of your gullible face, but I just now got off the phone
> with Jimmy Metz and Tommy Hancock at Sea Pro, and they don't have the slightest
> idea what THE HELL YOU"RE TALKING ABOUT.
> They have never published any performance data whatsoever on their boats and
> they are sure that no dealer in Florida would possess anything which even
> resembles such.
Good afternoon, dipstick. I rummaged through my filing cabinet and found an
old performance data sheet from SeaPro. It's not dated, but I know it goes
back to when I first purchased my first 180CC.
It includes the SeaPro/Citation line. You remember Citation. It even
includes something called a "Renegade," which was some sort of Merc-based
jetboat from the description.
Came right out of the SeaPro dealer's notebook, I'd guess 1994 or so. I'd be
delighted to FAX it to you just as it is, old, spotted and a little crumbly
around the ages. Just like me.
> No wonder Jeff's local dealer didn't have anything.
> Seems you either got duped...
> or you're the pathetic bullsh**er most have always claimed you to be.
>
> I know it's very hard for you to live in a world where Merc and OMC are
> getting their collective asses kicked, but deal with it. It's only going to
> get worse.
>
> Another thing, Chad Kelley, the Louisiana rep for Mercury outboards...
> has never heard of a 4-stroke V-6, thinks you're full of shit, and is willin
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
I'd like to help you out. Which way did you come in?
Jeff
>
>Aw Harry!
>You had to go and tell a big 'ol lie! I don't know what bullshit your local
>dealer threw in front of your gullible face, but I just now got off the phone
>with Jimmy Metz and Tommy Hancock at Sea Pro, and they don't have the slightest
>idea what THE HELL YOU"RE TALKING ABOUT.
>They have never published any performance data whatsoever on their boats and
>they are sure that no dealer in Florida would possess anything which even
>resembles such.
>No wonder Jeff's local dealer didn't have anything.
>Seems you either got duped...
>or you're the pathetic bullsh**er most have always claimed you to be.
>
I would think that if they had copies of the layup schedules that they
would also have access to performance numbers. It seemed odd that
they wouldn't.
>I know it's very hard for you to live in a world where Merc and OMC are
>getting their collective asses kicked, but deal with it. It's only going to
>get worse.
>
This I agree with. It is already happening, according to the sales
numbers you post. Do you have numbers going back several years? It
would be interesting to see the trendlines for the respective
manufacturers over a given time period.
>Another thing, Chad Kelley, the Louisiana rep for Mercury outboards...
>has never heard of a 4-stroke V-6, thinks you're full of shit, and is willin
You hit send too soon. What were you going to say?
HarryKrause
>
> On 24 Aug 1999 16:40:38 GMT, wsp...@aol.com (Wsp770) wrote:
>
> >
> >Aw Harry!
> >You had to go and tell a big 'ol lie! I don't know what bullshit your local
> >dealer threw in front of your gullible face, but I just now got off the phone
> >with Jimmy Metz and Tommy Hancock at Sea Pro, and they don't have the slightest
> >idea what THE HELL YOU"RE TALKING ABOUT.
> >They have never published any performance data whatsoever on their boats and
> >they are sure that no dealer in Florida would possess anything which even
> >resembles such.
> >No wonder Jeff's local dealer didn't have anything.
> >Seems you either got duped...
> >or you're the pathetic bullsh**er most have always claimed you to be.
> >
>
> I would think that if they had copies of the layup schedules that they
> would also have access to performance numbers. It seemed odd that
> they wouldn't.
They do. I have a copy of it and just scanned it. It's a .gif file, if
anyone wants it.
>
> >I know it's very hard for you to live in a world where Merc and OMC are
> >getting their collective asses kicked, but deal with it. It's only going to
> >get worse.
Hmmmm. Mercury Marines first and second quarter results (the conglomerate
spits them out), are better than they were the same time last year.
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
I'm so poor I can only afford a dust bunny for a pet.
Jeff
But how do they compare with the total market? If the market as a
whole grew at 12 percent, but Merc only grew at 5 percent, someone is
eating their lunch.
HarryKrause
I don't know what the total market is doing. Further, it ain't easy breaking
out numbers. For example, what was Yamaha's outboard sales volume in the USA
the first two quarters? How about Honda?
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
A cat is domestic only when it suits its own needs.
Jeff
<hkr...@erols-nospam.com> wrote:
That is what I am asking. I don't know either, and that's why I
asked. It is hard to compare Brunswick's marine engine division as a
whole with Yamaha because they are presumably heavily weighted with
sales of I/O engines. I don't have access to Yamaha numbers, nor
Honda numbers. I still think it would be interesting to see a
trendline of the *outboard* market and each manufacturers
representative sales. That would show who is keeping up with the
market growth, who is exceeding the market growth, and who is lagging
the market growth.
I did see that Merc's 1998 marine engine sales were $1.482 billion
versus $1.411 billion in 1997, for an annual growth of 5%. They sold
$1.378 billion in 1996, for a growth of 2%. They had a 15% operating
margin in 1998, and a 13.1% operating margin in 1997. But, these
include i/o motors, so it is not an apples to apples comparison. I
would imagine that a marine trade organization would have market data
broken down by engine classification, such as saltwater outboard,
freshwater outboard, etc.
Dana Seero
> Rob wrote:
> >
> > Wsp770 wrote in message <19990823091816...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
> >
> > >Harry refuses to acknowledge that HPDI development began the same time as
> > >Optimax. Yamaha just chooses to get it right before they throw it out of
> > the
> > >factory in numbers.
> > >
> >
> > The American philosophy is hurry and get it out, we'll fix it latter. This
> > is driven by the expectations of quick profits multiplied by the "if nothing
> > goes wrong" factor.
> >
> > The Japanese understand that it cost much more to fix it later. Money spent
> > up front saves money in the long run and builds a reputation. Some of this
> > philosophy was actually taught to them by an American - Deming.
> >
> > Rob
>
> A few questions are suggested by these posts:
>
> How do we know that Yamaha began development the same time as Merc? If
> it did, they doodled around for 3 extra years? And aren't Yamaha and
> Merc pretty much in bed together these days, at least when it comes to
> 4strokes?
>
> Do you really know anything about manufacturing, and Deming, and the red
> bead experiment and all that, or are you just parroting the sound bites
> you read in Time magazine in 1985? Have you noticed the state of the
> Japanese economy these days? Have you seen where innovation is coming
> from these days? Or are you just sitting on the toilet reading "the
> Japan that can say no"?
>
> del cecchi
I don't think OMC's purchase of FICHT, or Mercury's licensing of Orbital's
technology really qualifies as a telling moment of innovation. I'm not sure the
the pressure-atomized Yamaha HPDI is that earthshaking, either, but at least they
developed it themselves.
HarryKrause
Both Ficht and Orbital have been drastically changed from the original
technology that OMC bought and Merc licensed.
How would you know whether Yamaha developed its version or simply bought it
from an outside contractor somewhere? Even if it is a licensed product,
Yamaha might not release that information. Plus, the new sales lit from
Yamaha alludes to the other systems and how Yamaha "improved" it. Which
makes it all sound like it was derived.
Hope it works. Any idea when it will be hitting dealers? My local Yamaha
dealer has gotten no answers from his reps.
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Every valuable idea offends someone.
Raymond T. Lowe
>
>>I don't think OMC's purchase of FICHT, or Mercury's licensing of
>>Orbital's technology really qualifies as a telling moment of inno-
>>vation. I'm not sure the pressure-atomized Yamaha HPDI is that
>>earthshaking, either, but at least they developed it themselves.
>
>Both Ficht and Orbital have been drastically changed from the original
>technology that OMC bought and Merc licensed.
>
>How would you know whether Yamaha developed its version or simply bought
>it from an outside contractor somewhere? Even if it is a licensed product,
>Yamaha might not release that information. Plus, the new sales lit from
>Yamaha alludes to the other systems and how Yamaha "improved" it. Which
>makes it all sound like it was derived.
>
>Hope it works. Any idea when it will be hitting dealers? My local Yamaha
>dealer has gotten no answers from his reps.
>
>Harry Krause
I wonder how much influence the large diesel engine venders had. All the
big three (Cat, Cummins, Detroit) use electronics and high pressure in-
jectors on their latest engines. A lift pump supplies fuel to the heads
and the tremendous pressure is built right inside the injector by mech-
anical leverage provided by the camshaft. This 20,000lb+ pressure is
fired electrically with precision by the ECM when the air charge is
fully compressed. When new, there is ZERO black smoke from these engines.
I don't think Merc or Yamaha invented the wheel.
RT
--
*Remove "bogus" when replying by e-mail*
Dana Seero
> <<>>
> I wonder how much influence the large diesel engine venders had. All the
> big three (Cat, Cummins, Detroit) use electronics and high pressure in-
> jectors on their latest engines. A lift pump supplies fuel to the heads
> and the tremendous pressure is built right inside the injector by mech-
> anical leverage provided by the camshaft. This 20,000lb+ pressure is
> fired electrically with precision by the ECM when the air charge is
> fully compressed. When new, there is ZERO black smoke from these engines.
>
> I don't think Merc or Yamaha invented the wheel.
>
> RT
> --
The Yamahaha 2000 brochure has a schematic of the system. It does have two
pumps, and says that the fuel atomisation is via high-pressure injection, but
doesn't go into detail on charge timing. It would be interesting to search for
their patents, perhaps it's just adapted automotive technology and not even
patentable.
billgran
lift pumps to deliver fuel to the vapor separator, and
electric pump for 40 psi starting pressure and delivering
fuel to the 6 lobed cam operated single piston high pressure
pump. There is an unique electric oil pump that furnishes
the small amount of lube to the vapor separator and a
regular outboard Kehin oil pump to lube the 6 cylinders.
How many of you know about the different cylinders in use
during different modes of operation?
Bill Grannis
service manager
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
HarryKrause
Sounds a tad complex...
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
What goes around usually gets dizzy and falls over.