Re: Outboard engine reliability

[Bulletin Board]

Posted by GES on 2018-10-09 09:49:13 in reply to Re: Outboard engine reliability posted by Dan Blanton on 2018-10-09 08:19:02

I had a very sad experience with Bill's #2 choice. When I first bought my 20' Seacraft, I was offered ( C & Mc) two brand new last year's model Mercury 85Hp four cyclinder outboards, at a very good price; but I blanched at the extra weight and paid more money for the recently introduced three cyclinder 70 HP Merc, which was a power upgrade from the prevous year's 65 HP three banger.
Unfortunately, the then fuel economy crisis, got Merc to replace the very reliable carburetors used on their 4 cylinder (50HP and 85HP)engines, and that new carb was a total piece of junk, and I never could get those 70s to run reliably. I had both of them quit dead on me trying to go out the mouth of Moss landing harbor, with a wave coming in.
To boot, those 65 and 70 hp engines had 9 inch props, versus 10 1/4 for the 85s. Cope to trade in for a pair of 85s. Tough luck: no more 85s. The 4 cyclinder had been down graded from 85hp to 80 HP, and would you believe it, they put the same crappy carburetor on those 80s that didn't work on the 70s. All in the interest of fuel economy. Took them ages to get the right jet sizes in that crappy new carburetor design.

And the bigger engines with the bigger props used far less gas than the smaller engines with the toy propellors.

Always put on the biggest engine your hull is rated for, and you'll be cruising at idle speed on the smell of an oily rag, instead of wide open all the time with an underpowered engine.

Did I tell you I did this trick twice. I first put a 20 HP on my 13 ft. Boston whaler, and never got it working right till I changed it for a 40HP (both mercs). Then it really worked properly. The extra weight of a bigger engine, is not a handicap.


Follow ups:

Post a Followup:


Use the space below to compose your message: