two stroke O/B operating range
DaveH USN
I thought I saw a comment in some thread(?) indicating that a 2 stroke o/b
should be run at high rpm and could be damaged by putting around at low speed.
Dealer tells me I can troll w/ a new 90( may req. baffel) What's the deal?
Marcus G Bell
The determining factor is "how is low speed obtained"?
If low speed is obtained by having a prop that's too big, such that at
full throttle the motor does not spin up to its rated RPM range, then
that's very bad. The effect is identical to running uphill with tour
car's transmission in too high a gear.
If low speed is obtained by simply pulling back the throttle on a
motor that is propped correctly, that's OK.
Now, about trolling. A conventional (as opposed to DFI) 2-stroke
outboard runs rich at idle. The richness of the mix in conjunction
with other factors leads to increased rate of carbon deposition in the
combustion chamber and exhaust system. A few minutes of high speed
running (cruise speed qualifies) for every hour of trolling will go a
long way to clearing this out.
I had the opportunity to examine a 1993 15 HP Johnson outboard that
was used solely for trolling purposes and never run at high speed. The
owner reported that over the course of the summer, he had to adjust
his idle throttle setting higher and higher, till finally he could not
keep it running at all. With the exhaust manifold cover pulled, we
could see that the exhaust stack beneath the manifold was completely
clogged. We sprayed some carb cleaner which was handy into the
manifold, and it just sat on top of the carbon deposits in the stack.
Hardening of the arteries lead to a heart attack! We had to poke a
hole in the carbon with a screwdriver and hammer. I recommended
removing the powerhead and pulling the stack from the bottom of the
powerhead to clear it out, but the other mechanic thought he could
pull the lower unit and attack it from the bottom and from the top
through the manifold, so I let him do it because it was his shop and I
was just visiting.
--
--
Marcus. ( be...@mail.med.upenn.edu )
Harry Krause
>
> I thought I saw a comment in some thread(?) indicating that a 2 stroke o/b
> should be run at high rpm and could be damaged by putting around at low speed.
> Dealer tells me I can troll w/ a new 90( may req. baffel) What's the deal?
The deal is, your information is wrong.
If you are looking for long life and economy from an outboard or any other
marine engine, you should find one that provides the cruising speed performance
you want at a reasonable RPM range. Cruising within that range and proper
maintenance will provide you with many years of relatively troublefree service.
Running any marine engine for long periods at WOT will shorten its life.
Outboards idle just fine, for hours at a time. Some of the older technology
outboards might load up a tad with unburned oil, but a bump on the throttle
usually will clear it out.
Whether you use a trolling plate will be determined by the speeds at which you
want to troll. I can drag baits at 1 mph to any speed I want. Most outboards
will troll right down.
Find a better informed dealer.
Don't buy anything until you water test it.
--
Harry Krause
EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
- - - - - - - - - -
"Shut up and pleasure me!" - Peg Bundy
Marcus G Bell
> I thought I saw a comment in some thread(?) indicating that a 2
> stroke o/b should be run at high rpm and could be damaged by putting
> around at low speed. ****Dealer tells me I can troll w/ a new 90
> (may req. baffel)**** What's the deal?
[my **** added for emphasis]
Harry Krause (hkr...@erols-nospam.com) wrote:
> ... Outboards idle just fine, for hours at a time. ... Whether you
> use a trolling plate will be determined by the speeds at which you
> want to troll. ... Find a better informed dealer.
You seem to be in direct agreement with the dealer about trolling.
So which of you needs to be better informed :-) Heh heh.
Harry Krause
I have a story about trolling plates you would not believe...
In the early 1950's, larger outboards had a hell of a time running slow enough
to troll. They simply would not idle down and run smoothly for any length of
time.
So my inventive father, the boat dealer, designed a bracket and movable plate
that you could mount on the lower unit to deflect the prop thrust. It worked. He
and a machinist friend made a few prototypes and got an aluminum casting shop
involved. They produced a thousand, which they sold in one short summer.
My adventurous father ordered 10,000 plates...and sales went very well until the
next season, when Evinrude and Merc, I believe, both came out with larger
engines that would troll just fine.
When dad died many, many years later, I was doing an inventory of one of his
large storage buildings and found...8,000 trolling plates. Did well on them...I
believe the aluminum scrap guy gave us something like 85 cents a pound.
Today's trolling plates look...very similar. But don't have my father's "brand
name," Bob's Hope Corporation. He hoped the trolling plates would enable him to
retire.
--
Harry Krause
EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
- - - - - - - - - -
"Damage control is easy. Reading Klingon....that's hard." -- Scotty
Harry Krause
>
>
>
> --
> ŠJa'me
> -------
Why the copyright mark? You think your posts have some monetary value?
Harry Krause
>
> In article <3630A64C...@erols.com>, Harry Krause
> <hkr...@erols-nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Why the copyright mark?
>
> Satire (aimed at myself), and some very minor potential future legal protection.
>
> > You think your posts have some monetary value?
>
>
> I do have a serious question concerning O/B operating ranges. How do the
> "redlines" compare for a 4 stroke and a 2 stroke DFI, of the same HP?
> Just curious. It may say something about how the respective motors are
> evolving.
>
> --
> 咐a'me
> -------
I think you are heading down a slippery slope here. Some Honda four stroke have
a 6,000 rpm top end, and so do some OMC two strokes. My Merc is WOT at 5,600
rpm. It's a 2.5 liter block. The Honda 130 is a 2.2 liter car block. The Yamaha
130 has a 6,000 rpm limit. In other words, the rpm ranges are about the same.
On a light vehicle, such as a motorcycle, a hi-revving engine may be a way to
go, but I don't think this principle applies too well to hard-working boat
engines. All else being equal (and it never is), the slower your engine can turn
to produce your favorite cruising speed, the longer it probably will last.
--
Harry Krause
EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
- - - - - - - - - -
"You're a vicious man." "It's in the job description!"
Marcus G Bell
> All else being equal (and it never is), the slower your engine can
> turn to produce your favorite cruising speed, the longer it probably
> will last.
And the bigger and heavier it will have to be to produce more torque
at lower RPM such that it develops the same HP as the "high revving"
motor. The bigger, heavier motor will move slower for the same HP, so
you'll opt for more HP and perhaps lower efficiency.
It is interesting that the outboards have evolved to 4500-6000 RPM at
WOT, regardless of 2 or 4 stroke. Certainly the technology exists for
them to turn 8000 for more HP per pound with some sacrifice in
durability, or 3000 for more durability but with decreased HP per
pound. Probably the 5000 region is the tradeoff between the competing
design considerations.
Based on their similar operating ranges, I would expect a lightweight
4 stroke outboard to achieve a service life as good as a comparable 2
stroke. There may be issues of valve adjustment and wear to the cam
and valvetrain not seen on the 2 stroke. But certainly Honda has done
a splendid job, as have the newcomers in that market.
Marcus G Bell
> I.E. 4 strokes still work better for extended slow speed operation,
> 2 strokes have advantages at high speeds........
I agree. But the gap is narrowing enough that these concerns may be
lessening.
For instance, DFI 2 strokes are becoming closer to 4 strokes in low
speed operation in terms of fuel consumption, emissions, and
"buildup". They do need to burn a bit of oil to stay lubricated,
which may make them a bit dirtier than 4 stroke. But since there is a
type of engine that burns oil instead of gas, so it can be done.
As for high speed, 4 strokes are getting lighter, though they have a
bit to go till their average HP/pound reaches 2 stroke standards. The
weight difference in many cases comes down to enough gas to fuel the
motor for an hour or less.
The other thing to consider is the transition from low to high
speed. 2 strokes continue to have the big advantage in low end torque
and accelleration, even as the other factors are getting closer. It is
no trivial matter to get a 4 stroke to deliver punch in the low end
and also deliver high power at 5000 the way a 2 stroke can.
Mark75H
<<<<SNIPPED A lot from previous posts mostly......>>>>
>On a light vehicle, such as a motorcycle, a hi-revving engine may be a way to
>go, but I don't think this principle applies too well to hard-working boat
>to produce your favorite cruising speed, the longer it probably will last.
>
RIGHT!!
In general the destructive forces involved inside your engine increase in direct
porportion to load (at constant speed), but are squared in porportion to speed.
That means roughly that a certain motor called on to produce 100 pounds of
thrust at 5,000 rpm will wear out twice as fast as the same motor producing 50
pounds of thrust at 5,000 rpm. And on the other hand the same motor running at
10,000 rpm won't have half the lifetime as it would at 5,000 rpm, it will
probably explode in a very short time. Intuition follows science very closely
in this example.
Sam
bill...@orbiter.com
>
> I had the opportunity to examine a 1993 15 HP Johnson outboard that
> was used solely for trolling purposes and never run at high speed. The
> owner reported that over the course of the summer, he had to adjust
> his idle throttle setting higher and higher, till finally he could not
> keep it running at all. With the exhaust manifold cover pulled, we
> could see that the exhaust stack beneath the manifold was completely
> clogged.
Marcus, That's the type of deposits we'd see years ago with 30W motor oil
mixed 24/1. Many of my customers troll for hours a day with large and small
engines and we never see those amounts of deposits using OMC or another OEM
oil. A lot of the time the thermostats are not operational and the engine
runs too cool and the mixture valve has to be adjusted richer to compensate.
That combined with an engine out of tune can raise havoc internally. Even
back in the '70s with TCW II lubricants, we'd backtroll for walleyes all day
and half the nite without problems. The secret to a good running trolling
motor is to break it in fully to get the rings seated, at least 20 hours.
That way there is no blow by and the rings do not carbon up excessively. --
Bill Grannis service manager
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mark75H
the vavles by fast soleniods and a CPU. Starting, load pulling, transition, and
high speed power will all be improved.
Sam
>On 23 Oct 1998 22:05:25 GMT, be...@mail.med.upenn.edu (Marcus G Bell) wrote:
SNIPPING TIME!!
>The other thing to consider is the transition from low to high
>speed. 2 strokes continue to have the big advantage in low end torque
>and accelleration, even as the other factors are getting closer. It is
>no trivial matter to get a 4 stroke to deliver punch in the low end
>and also deliver high power at 5000 the way a 2 stroke can.
>Marcus. ( be...@mail.med.upenn.edu )
Harry Krause
>
> Just wait until someone has the guts to do away with the camshaft and actuate
> the vavles by fast soleniods and a CPU. Starting, load pulling, transition, and
> high speed power will all be improved.
> Sam
>
> >On 23 Oct 1998 22:05:25 GMT, be...@mail.med.upenn.edu (Marcus G
Yeah, and think of the terrific valve crash noise you'll hear when one of the
solenoids fails...
Rod McInnis
> I thought I saw a comment in some thread(?) indicating that a 2 stroke o/b
> should be run at high rpm and could be damaged by putting around at low speed.
> Dealer tells me I can troll w/ a new 90( may req. baffel) What's the deal?
Jumping in a little late here, I can see that your post has started a flame war
from several different camps, but they haven't really addressed your question.
Two cycle engines are not well equiped for low speed operation. When the
piston is at bottom dead center (BDC) both the input and exhaust ports are open,
allowing air/fuel to flow in while the exhaust flows out. During high speed
operation, the inertia of the incoming air delays its entry a little, and there
is a certain range of RPM where the engine breaths the best. At low speeds, the
incoming air/fuel mixture has plenty of time to flow to the exhaust port, and
continue on out along with the exhaust.
The result is that a 2 cycle consumes a lot more fuel and has a lot less
horsepower to show for it at low RPMs.
If the oil is mixed with the gas, there is an additional problem that is
encountered. Since the engine is drawing a lot more fuel than it really needs,
it is also drawing a lot more oil than it would at higher RPMs. In addition, the
internal cylinder temperature will be a lot lower than if the engine was being
run under load. The result is that an excess amount of oil can foul the plugs.
Engines with oil injection systems will automatically reduced the amount of oil
used to eliminate (or at least reduce) this problem.
But the real answer to your question is that the engine will not be damaged
from prolonged operation at idle. Operation may not be optimum, and you may have
a problem with fouling plugs, but other than that, it shouldn't hurt the motor
any.
You may find, however, that a 90 Hp motor may not idle slow enough for
trolling. You should also be aware of the possibility that the alternator output
at idle might be less than what the engine and various electronics you have on
are consuming, which can leave you with a dead battery after a day of trolling
around.
Rod McInnis
Harry Krause
>
>
> You may find, however, that a 90 Hp motor may not idle slow enough for
> trolling. You should also be aware of the possibility that the alternator output
> at idle might be less than what the engine and various electronics you have on
> are consuming, which can leave you with a dead battery after a day of trolling
> around.
>
> Rod McInnis
This is silly. I had a boat with a Merc 90. At 900 rpm, with a nothing special
prop, I could troll at under 3 mph. Now I have a 135 Merc and I can troll at 1.+
mph. Most of the place I've been fishing, if you troll at those speeds, the
current is moving faster.
--
Harry Krause
EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
- - - - - - - - - -
"I love you, you love" *BOOM!*
Mark75H
>My real world experiences just don't support 2 strokes having an advantage
>in low end torque.......particularly as related to motorcycles and to a
>lesser degree, boats.
We need to get you behind a good old fashioned crossflow reed valve motor on a
good boat. We used to set up boats to sell to skiing fanatics that could pull
your arms out of your sockets if you weren't both strong and ready! Steady,
smooth power from idle to WOT.
>In the dirt (enduros,motocross & trail riding) (I was/am a rider)
>motorcyle world, for years, 4 strokes have been known as real "stump
>pullers" compared to 2 strokes, with the 4 strokes having greater low rpm
>power, spread more evenly over a broader rpm range. 2 strokes are known
>for perhaps having more *peak* power, at a relatively higher point on the
>rpm scale and in a much narrower range, when "on the pipe".
If you do a bunch of research on motor development and evolution, you'd find the
reed valve 2 stroke is known for power characteristics simular to the 4 strokes,
but in a lighter, simpler package. None of the "on the pipe" peakiness that the
2 stroke bike motors are known for.
>When skiing behind large 2 stroke outboards, this same "on the pipe"
>effect is evident on the "pull"exerted on the skier. 4 strokes have a
>more even "pull" from even low rpms.
If this has been your experience with skiing behind outboards, I'd suggest you
haven't skied behind any good outboard rigs.
There are lots of so so and poorly set up rigs of both types, maybe you've had
bad luck with your outboard friends' boats. :-)
Sam
Marcus G Bell
> My real world experiences just don't support 2 strokes having an
> advantage in low end torque.......particularly as related to
> motorcycles and to a lesser degree, boats.
2 stroke Motorcycle:
- multiratio gearbox to allow operation in narrow RPM range
- very often rotary valve or piston porting, not as good as reeds at
low RPM
- exhaust "pipe" tuned to get big resonance for narrow RPM range
common 2 stroke Outboard:
- no gearbox, so needs torque over broad RPM range
- reeds with good low RPM breathing
- exhaust tuned for lower resonance over broader power band
> In the dirt (enduros,motocross & trail riding) (I was/am a rider)
> motorcyle world, for years, 4 strokes have been known as real "stump
> pullers" compared to 2 strokes, with the 4 strokes having greater
> low rpm power, spread more evenly over a broader rpm range. 2
> strokes are known for perhaps having more *peak* power, at a
> relatively higher point on the rpm scale and in a much narrower
> range, when "on the pipe".
The fact that a 2 stroke can be "piped" almost works against it in
such comparisons, because the need for speed from a light package will
demand a pipe and its high RPM characteristics, and it will give a
perception of peakiness that overshadows its low RPM performance. (If
it has any :-) To achieve similar torque at high RPM would require
more cubes for a non-piped motor, and of course more cubes will give
you more low end torque.
Mate that "single-speed" piped 2-stroke motor to a continuously
variable transmission, and you have infinite torque at very low RPM at
the output. But I digress, for a motorcycle ain't an outboard, and
they are tuned quite differently.
> When skiing behind large 2 stroke outboards, this same "on the pipe"
> effect is evident on the "pull"exerted on the skier. 4 strokes have
> a more even "pull" from even low rpms. (Before someone brings it
> up, I realize the motors being compared are different <ob vs i/o> ,
> but I think similar enough <same hp> to make a general comparison.)
You ain't going to get that I/O engine on its end over an outboard
lower unit :-) Even Honda has used bifurcated intake manifolds with
gates to get torque at both low and high end in their 4-stroke car
motors. Pretty big and complicated to fit that to an outboard, unless
you don't mind your 130 outboard being as big as the front end of your
Prelude. Maybe VTEC will have a place in their biggest outboards.
Stick it back inside the boat, and you have more room to play more
games with it (like double the cubes and keep the HP the same :-).
As for the feeling of "on the pipe" with a 2-stroke outboard, that has
some basis but it can depend on the outboard. Say you're looking at
approximately 120 HP. If you pick the Merc 125, you get a motor that
is "tweaked" to give good torque at high RPM relative to the 100 HP
motor based on the same powerhead. If you pick the OMC, you get a 140
which has been "detweaked" to 120 and can have a flatter power band
because of its decreased need for high RPM torque. You also get more
cubes than with the Merc. So some outboards are more "on the pipe"
than others.
Gearing and propping has an effect too (understatement).
> Perhaps better examples, are tests done by sailing magazines on 2 vs
> 4 stroke 9.9 hp outboards used for auxilary power. Every test, I've
> read, credited the 4 strokes with having more low rpm torque .....
> they actually measure the pulling power. If I can find a copy of a
> test, I'll post the numbers.
Low RPM torque when the throttle is floored is *not* the same as
thrust when the motor is throttled back to low RPM.
Shooting a bit more from the hip here... A lot of these magazine tests
try to be "fair" by using each motor "out of the box, as Joe Public
would" without paying as much attention to setting up each motor to
achieve its optimum, especially in the case of small motors. The 4
stroke 10 horse could be geared and propped with a different average
use in mind than would the 2 stroke. You can gear it and prop it for
speed or for thrust, or some point in between. As for low RPM thrust,
a motor with a high gear ratio combined with a large diameter, low
pitch prop can outpull a torquier motor matched to a speed prop,
within reasonable limits.
Very often the difference between one drive system and another comes
down to many more factors than the number of power strokes per crank
revolution.
> --
> \251Ja'me
> -------
--
--
(c) Marcus. ( be...@mail.med.upenn.edu )
Marcus G Bell
> Just wait until someone has the guts to do away with the camshaft
> and actuate the vavles by fast soleniods and a CPU. Starting, load
> pulling, transition, and high speed power will all be improved.
They were doing this with car engines in the '70s (or so) and each
solenoid required 120 amps or so to operate a single valve. I like the
idea nonetheless.
Marcus G Bell
> > Just wait until someone has the guts to do away with the camshaft
> and actuate > the vavles by fast soleniods and a CPU. Starting, load
> pulling, transition, and > high speed power will all be improved.
Harry Krause (hkr...@erols-nospam.com) wrote:
> Yeah, and think of the terrific valve crash noise you'll hear when
> one of the solenoids fails...
Kind of like that timing belt breaking, eh?
In the solenoid implementation I remember, springs hold the valves
shut, just like a "regular" 4 stroke. When a solenoid fails, the valve
simply does not open.
Marcus G Bell
> > . With the exhaust manifold cover pulled, we
> > could see that the exhaust stack beneath the manifold was completely
> > clogged.
bill...@orbiter.com wrote:
> Marcus, That's the type of deposits we'd see years ago with 30W
> motor oil mixed 24/1. Many of my customers troll for hours a day
> with large and small engines and we never see those amounts of
> deposits using OMC or another OEM oil. A lot of the time the
> thermostats are not operational and the engine runs too cool and the
> mixture valve has to be adjusted richer to compensate.
Hmmm. I hope mechanic thought to look for these other problems. I
missed a great opportunity to draw general conclusions based on the
owner's choice of oil for this single motor :-)
Makowicki
If you compare them of equal HP the 2 stroke will plane the boat faster. Unless
you over prop the 2 and under prop the 4. Two strokes are snappy and get up to
rpm quick. this helps get the boat up.
Marcus G Bell
> Interestingly, all the manufactures, that offer *both* 2 and 4
> stroke motors, choose the 4 strokes for what they often call their
> "high-thrust" models. I suspect that's to take advantage of the 4
> strokes inherent tendency to have better low rpm torque.......and to
> run better for extended periods at relatively lower rpm
> levels.......since these motors will typically be used on
> displacement type hulls, or at least, at displacement speeds.
You really must dispense with this thinking that 4 strokes have
inherently better low RPM torque than 2 strokes :-) It really depends
on the 2 stroke in question and how it is tuned. There just isn't any
consumer outboard as peaky as the dirt bikes you are used to. They
couldn't get away with it, because hole shot reigns supreme.
The high thrust motors I'm thinking of are 10 HP. Almost every 10
horse 2-stroke outboard is a "depiped" 15. They are pecisely the
example of a 2-stroke with a flat power band that I spoke of earlier.
A high thrust motor is geared to turn the prop slower than does a
"regular" motor. Part of this is because a big, slow prop "slips" less
and therefore can create more thrust. But this gearing can also
compensate for inadequacies at low end, since it allows the engine to
spin up a bit without requiring large throttle opening, delivering
large torque to the prop while the engine itself is only slightly
loaded. Also, the torque required to spin the prop goes up roughly
linearly with RPM in a planing situation, but torque increases faster
than RPM in a displacement situation. The effect is that a high thrust
motor on a displacement hull spinning at half-max RPM is producing way
less than half-max torque, which cannot be said of the planing
situation. So a peaky motor operating through a large gear reduction
can do just fine at displacement speeds, and so the 4-stroke seems to
do alright :-)
Why aren't 2-stroke high thrust motors widely sold? Actually, there
are (were) several 2-stroke "sailor models" in the lower
echelons. Almost every British Seagull was a high thrust motor.
Marketing may figure into this too. You can bet if there weren't more
money in the 4-stroke "high thrust" motor, than the 2-stroke, they
wouldn't go to the trouble.
On a powerboat, the 4-stroke kicker can sip from the main engine's
straight gas without requiring an oil mixing accessory or separate
tank as would a 2-stroke. Freedom from premix helps the sailer too,
and for many folks premixing is a big deal. It also can't be denied
that compared to a *conventional* 2-stroke at the RPMs used in
auxiliary motor situations, the 4-stroke is much better in economy,
smoke, noise, and freedom from plug fouling. These factors may make it
worthwhile for the buyer to bear the 25% weight gain (on a 10HP) and
several extra dollars to have a 4 stroke. Would someone who won't pay
extra to lug more weight buy a 2-stroke high thrust if it were
offered? The marketing types might not think so anymore. So the
"cheapskates" just throw a standard 2-stroke over the transom and
maybe put a power prop on it. And lo, it works, but they pay at the
pump.
Moving out of the "kicker" range, some manufacturers sell 2-stroke
"bigfoot" motors for the pontoon and workboat market, up in the 50-90
HP range or thereabouts.
Marcus G Bell
> <snip> (nice explanation of differences between motorcycle and
> outboard 2 strokes-but basically agreeing the 2 strokes don't seem
> to have as much torque at low rpms as 4 strokes, and can have an "on
> the pipe" tendancy, regardless of application) :-)
Basically agreeing that a motor heavy "on the pipe" will have a lot of
high-end torque.
Basically agreeing that 2-stroke bikes are more "on the pipe" than
4-stroke bikes.
Basically not agreeing that outboards are very much "on the pipe".
Reiterating that to compete with a "piped" motor in maximum power, the
"unpiped" motor will have more cubic inches, hence it will have more
lower end torque. That is not a statement about inherent qualities of
2 vs 4 stroke, that's a statement about piped vs. unpiped.
> > Low RPM torque when the throttle is floored is *not* the same as
> > thrust when the motor is throttled back to low RPM.
> As I recall, all the magazines reported that the 4 strokes had more
> torque across the rpm range. Again, I'll try to post the results,
> when I have time.
Were these tests done on a dynomometer at wide open throttle to
measure the power/torque/RPM curves, or were these comparing thrust at
various RPM settings with the throttle partly closed? One of them
tells you something about how the motor will pop you up on plane when
you punch the throttle. The other tells you how the propping and
gearing behave to generate thrust at various engine RPMs.
Harry Krause
>
> In article <70uhre$bht$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>, be...@mail.med.upenn.edu
> (Marcus G Bell) wrote:
>
> <snip> (of nice description of 2 & 4 stroke characteristics.....as seen
> thru the eyes of a 2 stroke advocate) :-)
>
> > Moving out of the "kicker" range, some manufacturers sell 2-stroke
> > "bigfoot" motors for the pontoon and workboat market, up in the 50-90
> > HP range or thereabouts
>
> websites......for any "consumer" motors. All these manufacturers, over *4
> stroke* "high-thrust" or "bigfoot" motors from 10 to 50 hp.......and not 2
> strokes.
>
> They may have 2 stroke "commercial" motors, but I don't believe that's
> what we've really been discussing here. Those motors often have more to
> do with cost and special materials of construction.......than "thrust" or
> "torque" or "hole-shot".
>
> --
> 咐a'me
> -------
Really? Perhaps, then, you can explain the existence of the Merc 60-hp "bigfoot"
with the two-cycle engine.
I think you are off on the wrong tangent here. The major outboard manufacturers
are making the conversions that are necessary to meet several upcoming sets of
clean air and water standards. They're not introducing four cycle engines
because the four cycles are better engines than the two cycles. For the moment,
it is easier to tame the pollutants of a four-cycle, but as DFI advances into
newer generations, these differences will disappear. Hell, they're pretty close
to gone now.
I would think that the major manufacturers would continue to develop and build
high horse two cycles well into the next century. The lower horsepower engines
may indeed be all four cycle, for any number of reasons, but not because they're
"better" at delivering torque at any particular RPM/gearing, but probably
because they are multi-national, and buying finished powerheads from the
Japanese is cheaper than developing your own.
If you want low RPM thrust for a boat...buy a diesel.
--
Harry Krause
EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
- - - - - - - - - -
"Hail, hail, to Michigan, the Champions of the West!"
Harry Krause
>
> In article <363355CC...@erols.com>, Harry Krause
> <hkr...@erols-nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Really? Perhaps, then, you can explain the existence of the Merc 60-hp
> "bigfoot"
> > with the two-cycle engine.
>
> year,and it's only Oct. 25th.......darn ;-)
>
> I tend to pay more attention to the "premium" outboard mfrs........Honda,
> Evinrude and Yamaha....than Merc.
What B.S. OMC and Merc engines are almost perfectly equivalent. Yamaha's rep
still suffers from its years of building "corrosion resistant engines" whose
steering and other mechanisms froze up solid after a season or two in the ocean.
The only thing "premium" about a Honda is its price.
>
>
> P.S A "trick" question for you, "Honest" Harry........how much does your
> own 18.5 SeaPro fishing boat *weigh* Back in the prop thread you said
> *1350* lbs, turns out SeaPro's own web site says *1750* lbs.........you do
> at least know the weight of your own boat........don't you? ;-)
>
> <try using the excuse, the boat weight includes the motor>......be careful
> with that, it could "bite" you later :-)
>
> http://www.seaproboats.com/seaproboats/html/prd003.html
>
> P.S.S. Nice boat.......really.
Duh...you looked up the *wrong* boat. If you had looked up the right boat, you
would have seen the weight I reported, 1350 pounds. And if you add a 400-pound
outboard to that you get...
That's your *second mistake* in one day. You ought to find an area of expertise
in which your lack of hard facts won't matter.
>
>
Harry Krause
>
> In article <36339110...@erols.com>, Harry Krause
> <hkr...@erols-nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Ja'me wrote:
>
> > > I tend to pay more attention to the "premium" outboard mfrs........Honda,
> > > Evinrude and Yamaha....than Merc.
> >
> > What B.S. OMC and Merc engines are almost perfectly equivalent. Yamaha's rep
> > still suffers from its years of building "corrosion resistant engines" whose
> > steering and other mechanisms froze up solid after a season or two in
> the ocean.
> > The only thing "premium" about a Honda is its price.
>
> get "what you pay for in boats and motors".........you've said the same
> basic thing in many many posts attacking others boats and motors........
>
> You've bragged (endlessly) about the cheap price you paid for a Merc.
> compared to other motors.......Merc seems to be the only major mfr. not
> actively discouraging it's dealers selling on just price by "mail order"
>
> I don't know, but it sure sounds to me like a *low price* oriented product......
You're just full of duhs today. I could have gotten a damned good price on an
OMC 130, but I preferred the V-6 Merc. There are also steep discounts available
on Yamahas and EVEN Hondas, if you spend some time looking around, making phone
calls and asking lots of questions. If you're too lazy for that...well, go ahead
and pay MSRP.
>
> All the boating mags. without exception, comment that the OMC DFI, appears
> to be a better approach than Mercs OptiMax..........I trust their opinion
> more than yours.
Cites, please? Specific ones...not ones you imagine you saw.
>
> > > P.S A "trick" question for you, "Honest" Harry........how much does your
> > > own 18.5 SeaPro fishing boat *weigh* Back in the prop thread you said
> > > *1350* lbs, turns out SeaPro's own web site says *1750* lbs.........you do
> > > at least know the weight of your own boat........don't you? ;-)
> > >
> > > <try using the excuse, the boat weight includes the motor>......be careful
> > > with that, it could "bite" you later :-)
> > >
> > > http://www.seaproboats.com/seaproboats/html/prd003.html
> > >
> > > P.S.S. Nice boat.......really.
> >
> > Duh...you looked up the *wrong* boat. If you had looked up the right boat, you
> > would have seen the weight I reported, 1350 pounds. And if you add a 400-pound
> > outboard to that you get...
>
> OK..........(all info from SeaPro's website)
>
> SeaPro 190 center console-18.5 c/l length-1750 lbs
>
> SeaPro 180 center console-17.5 c/l length-1500 lbs
>
> SeaPro 170 center console-17.0 c/l length-950 lbs
>
> SeaPro 190 dual console-18.5 c/l length-1750 lbs
>
> SeaPro 190 sport cuddy-18.5 c/l length-1850 lbs
>
> Not a 1350 lbs boat anywhere on SeaPro's website.
Tell you what...put up $500 cash to back up your mouth and I'll clue you in. If
I'm right, you send me the five dead Presidents...and if I'm wrong, I'll send
them to you.
Put up or shut up.
Harry Krause
>
> In article <36339E23...@erols.com>, Harry Krause
> <hkr...@erols-nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Ja'me posted earlier in the thread:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> *I know........make this easy.......prove me wrong......simply post the url*
>
I don't have to prove a thing, nor do I have to explain how you should be a more
careful surfer. The information is there to find. Are you admitting you are too
lazy or stupid to find it? And what would you think if we were discussing a boat
maker *without* a web page?
You were wrong today about the two cycle Big Foots, you were wrong today twice
about our little boat, you were wrong today about how much you have to spend on
an outboard...
Soon as you find what you're looking for, perhaps you'll admit your errors.
And *where* are those magazine articles you cite that claim the OMC system is
better than the Merc's? In your mind?
Again, put up or shut up.
Make it worth my while, though, and I'll point you at it.
Mark75H
wrote:
>Tell you what...put up $500 cash to back up your mouth and I'll clue you in. If
>I'm right, you send me the five dead Presidents...and if I'm wrong, I'll send
>them to you.
France, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, wise old geezer, big time
publisher, yes, yes, yes, yes. President? no. Right, Marcus?
Sam
Harry Krause
I'm sure you are right. OK. I'll do it for five Andy Jacksons.
--
Harry Krause
EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
- - - - - - - - - -
"Scary, scary! Don't we look mean!" -- Recoil
Marcus G Bell
> One issue, is which (2 or 4 stroke) will have the max. "hole-shot"
> or acceleration after opening the throttle to max. from
> idle......this is more likely to be the 2 stroke.........once it
> gets on the pipe. :-)
That's what I've been saying, except for the part about the pipe.
2-stroke outboards have a bit of exhaust tuning, but nothing as
radical as the bike engines. Without such machinations, the
reed-valved 2-stroke has a very fat power band. Adding a "pipe" can
give a boost to torque in high RPMs without sacrificing low end. Low
end is sacrificed only when cubic inches are taken away to depend only
on "the pipe" for top end HP. Outboards do not do this anymore, though
there was a slight move in that direction in the '70s and '80s.
Loop-charging allows for generous cubic inches without abominable fuel
consumption, so cubic inches are a selling point for reasons of
holeshot, and pipe dependence is not seen in this sector.
4-strokes have a bit of tuning issues themselves. For instance, to
gain low end punch, you lengthen the intake manifold. The longer
manifold is restrictive at high RPM, so to maintain high RPM torque,
the manifold must be kept short. Where does the outboard need good
torque, if you had to choose between low and high RPM? At the top, up
there at 5000 RPMs, where engine load is greatest (no variable ratio
gearbox, remember). Honda car engines were noted for high RPM torque
at the expense of low end, and it took a different shifting technique
to get the best accelleration from these RPM-loving beasties. Honda's
response was to add an auxilliary intake manifold which could resonate
at lower RPM and shove more air into the engine, with butterfly valves
to divert flow as needed. Then VTEC came along and made things more
complicated. Of course, they could have just tuned for peak torque at
lower RPM and made up the drop in top end by adding cubic inches, or
simply added more cubes. Then of course the engine would have gotten
heavier, and besides, it wouldn't be a very Honda way of doing things.
> Second issue, is which will have the most thrust, across a wide rpm
> range (but particularly low rpms).........this is more likely to be
> the 4 stroke......but it may fall behind in total "hole-shot"
Among similar HP motors, the motor with the highest gear ratio and
biggest prop blade area almost always wins the static thrust war. The
one that goes the fastest wins the high speed thrust war by
definition.
Actual thrust at any given RPM has little to do with the engine. It is
a function of the gearing and propping. The prop doesn't know what
engine is driving it, only how fast it is being spun and what its load
is. If the motor is running steady at that RPM, then it is by
definition matching the load and its torque at that RPM is
"sufficient", neither more nor less than it needs to be. For any given
prop and gear ratio, that number will be identical regardless of the
engine type.
I think a more interesting metric would be thrust vs. fuel consumption
rate. That is what the average low speed non-planing application will
really want to know. The 4-stroke should win that handily.
> The 4 stroke is a "tractor"........the 2 stroke is a "dragster".....
> Make sense.....expressed that way?
Yes it does, somewhat. A tractor can get its low end pulling power by
having an enormous gear reduction. This is what is done with a "high
thrust" outboard, regardless of 2 or 4 stroke. However, to achieve
similar top speed at similar top RPM, the 4-stroke will have to be
geared almost the same as the 2-stroke "dragster". It's torque/RPM
characteristic at WOT then becomes very important, and the typical
2-stroke has the advantage, where outboards are concerned.
> For the boating, I'm more generally interested in, (displacement
> hulls) a "tractor" motor is preferred. For others, (planing hulls
> looking for max. performance/holeshot) a "dragster" motor may be
> the best choice.
I agree with the above concept wholeheartedly. I also think that the
4-stroke's characteristics make it much better suited to operating in
"tractor" mode than is the 2-stroke, though I think DFI 2-stroke has
interesting prospects there. I don't think a conventionl (non-DFI)
2-stroke makes a very good choice as a "tractor" motor, where RPM
around 1/2 or less is quite normal.
> I actually suspect, modern versions of either 2 or 4 strokes, are
> quite close in holeshot, if optimized for it.
Those who are into speed will want to have their cake and eat it
too. Optimizing for holeshot is in many ways the same as optimizing
for high thrust: high gear ratio, big prop blade area. It's just that
a stunning 0-30 time will only go so far if your top speed is 30 and
competition is getting 60. At that point you start to want to bring
the gear ratio down and change the prop, and your engine's torque/RPM
and how it is achieved becomes more important.
Marcus G Bell
> I tend to pay more attention to the "premium" outboard
> mfrs........Honda, Evinrude and Yamaha....than Merc.
That's gotta be a troll.
> (All info. below from Trailer Boats Feb. 98, or Mercs. website) By
> the way.......Merc. also offers "Bigfoot" *4-stroke* ( models in the
> following HP sizes: 9.9, 15, 25, 40, and 50
My fuzzy memory tells me they used to have a few more bigfoot
2-strokes in the higher ranges than just the 60, back before they had
*any* bigfoot 4-strokes. The application does not scream for the
weight savings of a 2-stroke, but it can take advantage of the
4-stroke's better low speed fuel consumption characteristics (notice I
reserve judgement on low speed torque). So, the market for a bigfoot
2-stroke may not be there. It should be noted that OptiMax engines are
not yet available in these sizes, but the EPA regulations march
forwards.
> OMC offers "High-thrust" models in: 4-stroke 9.9 hp, no 2-strokes
> listed in Trailer Boats chart
Same thing is happening here. Sailmaster models *were* all
2-stroke. An 8 hp is still available. Once you go for more HP you
begin to give up the need for portability, hence you give up the need
for a 2-stroke.
> Yamaha offers "High-thrust models in: 4-stroke 9.9, 50 hp; no
> 2-strokes listed in Trailer Boats chart
> (see some pattern or trend here?)
Yes. They don't think they can sell a 2-stroke high thrust
motor. That's not a statement about any particular torque
characteristic. Remember, we said that a high thrust motor is a
non-planing application gets away with a lot less torque at
intermediate RPM than does the regular motor in a planing
application. But I personally cannot imagine why anyone would want
outboard of more than 80 pounds to be a 2-stroke in a non-planing
application. If I can't imagine it, then nobody else should either :-)
Harry Krause
>
> Ja'me ('@98.edu) wrote:
>
> > I tend to pay more attention to the "premium" outboard
> > mfrs........Honda, Evinrude and Yamaha....than Merc.
>
> That's gotta be a troll.
>
Ja'me does try hard, but he seems to get the simplest facts wrong.
Incidentally, Mercury had a poster at a recent boat show on which it made the
following claims of its 135 hp Optimax vs. the Honda 130:
1. For top speed on a lightly loaded boat, the Merc was 13% faster
2. For top speed on a heavily loaded boat, the Merc was 14% faster
3. Acceleration, "light boat," 0-20, the Merc was 77% quicker
4. Acceleration, "heavy boat," 0-20, the Merc was 95% quicker
5. Acceleration, "light boat," 0-30, the Merc was 75% quicker
6. Acceleration, "heavy boat," 0-30, the Merc was 92% quicker
7. Max Fuel Economy on Plane, the Merc produced 14% more MPG
8. Weight of Engine, Merc was 13% lighter
9. Actual propeller power, the Merc was 15% higher
10. Power to weight ratio, the Merc was 28% higher per pound
For specifics, you'll have to contact Mercury. But the company has been running
these kinds of tests for decades, and it does know how to conduct honest tests.
Actually, nothing in the results posted here are surprising, with the exception
of the higher MPG for the Merc. But even that is well within the range of
possibility.
The poster was duplicated at the RBBI site: www.rbbi.com. The poster is
contained within a story on the recent IMTEC trade boat show. RBBI is a pretty
good site, generally, and worth checking from time to time.
CSTMRNSAV
>> SeaPro 190 sport cuddy-18.5 c/l length-1850 lbs
>>
>> Not a 1350 lbs boat anywhere on SeaPro's website.
>
>If
>I'm right, you send me the five dead Presidents...and if I'm wrong, I'll send
>them to you.
>
>
>
Harry must be putting around in a V1900CC Bay Boat. 18'6" and 1350 lbs.
Leave him alone, he needs a nap.
By the way Harry, flip through the Sea Pro Catalog and try to guess which
person is me.
I'll give you 5 dead presidents...
Harry Krause
>
> >>
> >> SeaPro 190 sport cuddy-18.5 c/l length-1850 lbs
> >>
> >> Not a 1350 lbs boat anywhere on SeaPro's website.
> >
> >Tell you what...put up $500 cash to back up your mouth and I'll clue you in.
> >If
> >I'm right, you send me the five dead Presidents...and if I'm wrong, I'll send
> >them to you.
> >
> >Put up or shut up.
> >
> >
>
> Harry must be putting around in a V1900CC Bay Boat. 18'6" and 1350 lbs.
>
>
> By the way Harry, flip through the Sea Pro Catalog and try to guess which
> person is me.
>
> I'll give you 5 dead presidents...
You're the blonde on the cooler seat on the 190 CC? Or one of the two gals in
the 170 CC?
--
Harry Krause
EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
- - - - - - - - - -
"Men die and worms eat them - but not for love" - Shake
Harry Krause
>
> In article <19981026091351...@ng65.aol.com>, cstm...@aol.com
> (CSTMRNSAV) wrote:
>
> Ja'me posted earlier
>
>
> >
>
> was the original discussion...........I'm just not clarvoyant enough to
> "see" a SeaPro *catalog* not in my presence. :-)
>
> Is that some lightweight cheapo special that you don't want to feature on
> your website? ;-)
>
> Plastic fittings instead of stainless, no foam floatation, thin fiberglass
> hulls with lightweight stringers? How do you make it lighter than your
> other 18.5 foot fishing boats?
>
> I'd really appreciate the *url*, to learn more about the boat.
>
> P.S. Great looking lineup of 1750 lbs fishing boats on the website.
>
> Thanks for the info.
>
> --
> ©Ja'me
> -------
Perhaps you need to enroll in "Website Reading 101."
The boat is there, on the SeaPro web page, and it also is in the catalog. Since
being introduced, the boat in question has become one of SeaPro's hottest
sellers.
If you figure out how to see boat's page on the site (apparently this really is
difficult for you, even though the boat is plainly listed), you'll note it is of
a different style than most but not all of the other center console boats SeaPro
has.
And the 1350 pounds is only a nominal weight. Remember, these aren't cookie
cutter boats, so small variations in bare, finished hull weight are expected.
You seem to be the type of guy who would wad up his undershorts if a boat of
that model weighed 1337 pounds or 1375 pounds, rather than a precise 1350
pounds.
You're the last person I'd give special information on anything, especially on a
competitive dealer. You'd either pester the dealer to death or try to make some
trouble for him because he is offering a better deal than you can get.
You made four or five factual errors yesterday in your posts and claims. Will
you be trying to break your record today?
--
Harry Krause
EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
- - - - - - - - - -
"And you want to be as stupid as them?" - Lore
Richard C. Eriksson
>
> Ja'me posted earlier
>
> > >> Not a 1350 lbs boat anywhere on SeaPro's website.
>
> was the original discussion...........I'm just not clarvoyant enough to
> "see" a SeaPro *catalog* not in my presence. :-)
>
Gee, Jam'me. I found the 1350 lb SeaPro on my second click on
the website. Didn't want Harry to lose his chance at the $500,
so I kept quiet.
Dick Eriksson
Harry Krause
>
> In article <19981026091351...@ng65.aol.com>, cstm...@aol.com
> (CSTMRNSAV) wrote:
>
>
>
>
> http://www.seaproboats.com/seaproboats/html/prd012.html
>
> Time for a nap............ ;-)
>
> Looks like "Honest" Harry knows what his own lightweight boat weighs after
> all......
Is that an apology for one of your four factual "errors" the last day or two? If
so, it is pretty lame.
just couldn't imagine him not buying a heavy built center console
> fishing boat.........glad I posted......"seldom factual" earlier......that
> leaves room for "sometimes factual".......I suppose.
I doubt you could imagine anything I might do. The particular boat in question
was purchased for its triple personality potential:
1. relatively shallow draft for fishing the flats.
2. semi-vee bottom for fishing bays, the ICW, near offshore.
3. large casting surfaces, low windage, for fishing lakes and rivers.
A "heavily built" center console fishing boat would not have met my
specifications.
Again, your apology is weak.
>
> Would you believe.......2nd error this year?.....and it followed the first
> by only one day........ :-)
Four, I think...at least.
>
> PS Thanks for the model #.........personally, I prefer the 18.5 center
> console boats better.......but I tend to like more expensive, stouter
> built products in general.....
> to each their own.
If you fished inshore where I fished...you'd run aground. But worry not, we're
getting another, large, offshore fishing boat. And it won't be an 18' center
console.
>
> Now if I can just get my foot out of my mouth.............for that
> nap..............
>
> --
> 咐a'me
> -------
Try a tire iron.
--
Harry Krause
EMAIL from newsgroup? Remove -nospam from return address
- - - - - - - - - -
"Tell the kids to chew sugarless gum." - Doug Gilmour
Marcus G Bell
> Ja'me ('@98.edu) wrote:
[snipped stuff about Merc's mail order dealers with cut-rate pricing]
This may have something to do with Brunswick's corporate culture and
their subsidiary's relations with their dealers. Without corroborating
evidence, I don't think that their sales practices speak very much to
their engineering one way or the other, any more than I think that the
availability of Sony Trinitron televisions from Wal*Mart and mail
order houses makes Sony a second rate electronics firm.
> *Trailer Boats referring to Optimax vs. Ficht* "The system is a bit
> more complex than the system used by OMC. Optimax injector are more
> complicated, and the system requires a separate belt-driven air
> pump." [etc.]
OK, this has some meat to it. But lets back up. Take away Orbital
(OptiMax) and Ficht from the picture, and historically you have 2
competing outboard lines, J&E (OMC) and Merc/Mariner, neither one of
which competes on basis of price in any "official" way. Force: now
*that's* an outboard that competes on price. J&E and M&M however are
roughly equivalent on average, with certain models of one being
slightly better than the nearest equivalent of the other, and
vice-versa. Similar arguments could be made for several of the
Japanese motors in comparison to J&E and M&M.
Now, enter DFI technologies. The Ficht system is in some ways simpler,
which is probably why OMC bought Ficht. Merc can't have it, so they
have licensed Orbital DFI. The two systems each have their stronger
and weaker points. Ficht impact injectors are somewhat complicated and
are probably prone to wear out faster than the simpler Orbital
injectors. Orbital has the high pressure air injection system which
adds greatly to its complexity. There are some sound engineering
reasons why this could be better, though, which bear mentioning.
In a crankcase-scavenged 2-stroke engine, the crankcase pressure
forces a volume of air equivalent to the piston displacement into the
cylinder during the intake phase. But at sub-maximal throttle opening,
this volume of fresh air decreases, hence residual exhaust in the
cylinder is not completely purged. This is why a carb'ed 2-stroke must
run so rich at low speed, because igniting the mixture of
gas/air/exhaust becomes problematic at the low air/exhaust ratios
present when the throttle is mostly closed.
Enter Orbital's DFI. By injecting fresh air along with the gas in the
vicinity of the spark plug just before ignition, the mix can be well
atomized and easy to ignite because it is not so diluted by the
residual exhuast. It can run at a 14.7:1 air:gas ratio in the puff
that is injected, which taken over the entire cylinder volume is
overall much much leaner than the massive does of 8:1 mix that would
come from a carb at low speed.
Ficht does this almost as well. It sprays straight gas past the spark
plug, but must rely wholly on the air coming through the crankcase,
which is diluted by exhaust at low speeds especilly. Because the air
from the crankcase has no gas in it, the throttle can be opened a bit
without admitting more fuel, so the exhaust's dilution can be kept in
check at low speed. Thus the air:gas ratio near the spark plug can be
much leaner than 8:1 and still ignite, and the same argument about the
mix being very lean when taken over the volume of the cylinder holds
as with Orbital. However, Ficht's lack of air injection does mean
that the combustion process can't be as tightly controlled as with
Orbital's system, especially at lower speeds.
So in theory, Orbital's complexity of the air system is a worthy
addition and should make it the winner at least in the actual running
of the engine. But in practice, theory sometimes overestimates how
things will work in practice. So we'll see.
Marcus G Bell
Ja'me ('@98.edu) wrote:
> Simply said, 4-strokes are replacing 2-strokes as the high thrust
> motors in every HP size where they are available.........for
> whatever reason.......tech.....marketing....consumer preference...
> .... etc
Absolutely. I expect that carbureted 2-stroke "high thrust" motors
will be eliminated entirely except in the under 10 HP regime.
But moreover, until the recent year or so, high thrust motors simply
were not available at all, except for a very small and specialized
handful. This could mean that 2-stroke motors were able to be used in
many of those applications without special gearing.
Add to this the need for the manufacturers to have enough low
emmission models to keep their fleet average emmissions down for the
EPA. So we have Mercury 4-stroke models coming as both regular and
high thrust in HP ranges where high thrust models were previously not
available.
Rather than adding multiple copies of the same 4-stroke motor, OMC
seems to have simply eliminated a few 2-stroke models for 1999, in
order to keep their CAFE in the proper range with the 4-stroke and
Ficht motors they have.
I wonder what will happen as more conventional 2-stroke motors are
eliminated from the lineups in favor of DFI and 4-stroke motors. We
might see that the high-thrust 4-stroke models weren't such big
sellers after all and that they'll be dropped. I dunno.
Marcus G Bell
> > > mfrs........Honda, Evinrude and Yamaha....than Merc.
To me, "Merc vs. OMC" is very similar to "Honda vs. Toyota". Both make
excellent product, though certain aspects of certain models of one may
be stronger than those of the other. Through the years, even these
differences have been lessened.
A native-born Japanese friend of mine once described some differences
between Honda and Toyota in Japan. To be an exectuive above a certain
level in Honda, you must have spent 6 months on the sales floor. More
important, you must have designed and constructed a new engine. As for
Toyota, if you haven't been to their showroom to order your new Toyota
product within the last 3 years, they will visit you in your home.
Certainly Toyota builds great cars and was already doing so when Honda
was up and coming in that business, but I can't help but consider
Honda to be driven more by engineering than by salesmanship.
OMC was already an omnipresent marine conglomerate when Mercury was a
fledgling as the Second World War was underway. Mercury used its war
effort experience to its advantage in its outboard production that
followed. Many Mercury outboarding firsts predated the war: reed
valves, rubber vane water pump, others. After the war came ball and
roller bearings to support all moving parts, thru-hub exhaust, inline
4 and 6 cylinder engines, electronic ignition, and a spate of
innovations that other outboard manufacturers could only imitate. From
1954 till 1976, Mercury made the biggest production outboard, breaking
the 100 hp barrier in 1962. During that time, Mercury quite
consistently achieved higher power per displacement and HP/weight
readings over its competitors.
It has been interesting that some of this discussion has centered
around the use of tuned exhaust pipes. The use of a pipe on an
outboard was another Mercury first. That piece of machinery was put to
use on Mercury racing outboards at a time when stock outboard racing
was big and Champion outboards were giving Merc a run for its
money. Despite the Champion's lower dynamometer readings on the bench,
its exhaust housing allowed better breathing when the powerhead was
attached to it than did Merc's. So Mercury engineers set about
correcting the restriction in their exhaust tube, and figured that
while they were at it, they could add some positive tuning. Which they
did, and blew the competition away with the power boost. The tuned
exhaust pipes were quite substantial and had to be wrapped around the
driveshaft, giving the finished product the appearance of a powerhead
sitting on a toilet bowl. One look at it would tell you that no such
contrivance is in use in any consumer outboard to the extent it was in
that situation.
The outboard market grew in leaps and bounds in the post-war era, and
the manufacturers had to innovate and grow or get out of the way. By
the close of the 1960s, only 3 major US outboard firms had survived:
OMC (with 2 brands, Johnson and Evinrude), Mercury, and Chrysler.
Mercury and OMC continued neck and neck, each learnig from the other's
strengths. Chrysler languished and was taken over by US Marine as the
Force brand, only to wind up in the hands of Mercury a few years
later. As Merc's budget line, Force has been receiving an infusion of
Merc technology to its retro powerhead designs.
But make no mistake, Merc is every bit the premium brand that OMC or
any other outboard manufacturer is.
> (Marcus G Bell) wrote:
> > That's gotta be a troll.
Ja'me ('@98.edu) wrote:
> Your comment above, or mine? No, actually it wasn't meant to be,
> here's my explanation why from the earlier post (that you didn't
> include):
I should have put a smiley :-) on my comment. I didn't include the
clarification because I quoted the original comment from several
messages prior to the one in which you posted the clarification, then
moved on to address some other stuff about the "bigfoot" motors. I
tried to read that later post in entirety, but it was mixed in with
discussion about Harry's boat and his big discount for his OptiMax and
your ongoing feud about several issues and so on. It made my eyes
hurt, and now you're making me see it again :-)
Hypothetically, if I had said I pay more attention to "premium" brands
than to HONDA, you'd probably try to second-guess my statement. You
might think I'd been burned by a Honda product and was "sour grapes"
about Honda in general, or you might think that I was following some
blind brand loyalty, neither one of which involves a true knowledge of
Honda's product in question. So you might think I just didn't know
what the hell I was talking about. Or... you might think I knew Honda
really was a first rate operation, but pretended otherwise just to
needle both someone who is proud of his recent Honda purchase and
someone else who owns over a dozen Honda products.
As for your thinking that Merc is second-rate, it never occurred to me
that you--with your apparent knowledge of engine technology--would
sincerely believe that to be the case. So, let's just move beyond
this, since it seems you were not aware of Merc's position in the big
picture.
Perhaps you were using "premium" to mean "modern technology 2-stroke
and 4-stroke" as in Evinrude and Honda. But your lumping of Yamaha in
with the others makes me think that it's more of a perceived quality
issue. Yamaha has fewer models than Merc which meet the "premium"
designation given.
> P.S. I've enjoyed the good natured, and informative exchanges,
> we've had on this subject up to now. I hope your calling me a
> "troll" doesn't fortell a change in that discussion......I'll wait
> and see.
Just don't go "dissing" a quality outboard, and we'll be all right :-)