Actual hp?

[johnjvv]

Hi...

I am shopping around and confused after a Mercury agent told me that a 115hp Pro XS really puts out like 130hp and Suzuki 115hp. Puts out 98hp. Also the same Mercury puts out more hp than a 140hp Suzuki.

My opinion is that he is talking bs however just thought I would check in case hp in boating terms is a mere indication of power...surely not?

Cheers
John

[scottar]

Hi...

I am shopping around and confused after a Mercury agent told me that a 115hp Pro XS really puts out like 130hp and Suzuki 115hp. Puts out 98hp. Also the same Mercury puts out more hp than a 140hp Suzuki.

My opinion is that he is talking bs however just thought I would check in case hp in boating terms is a mere indication of power...surely not?

Cheers
John

Can't say but the ruling is sticker value plus or minus 10 percent. That makes a 115 at absolute best 126.5 Hp and a lowest of 103.5
It does sound like a salesman who is pretty poor at his job and has to spend more time bagging the opposition with bullshit than actually promoting the positives of his own gear.

[Noelm]

This sort of thing comes up in every forum all over the world, truth is, almost all motors are as stated on the cowl, some produce max HP at different RPM, some have a flatter torque curve, but, the HP complies to a standard as mentioned.

[johnjvv]

Cheers...it sounded untrue to me just from a safety p.o.v. if a boat manufacturer rates a boat at 115hp, then surely a 115+10 is overloading the hull according to the manufacturer.

[Noelm]

Internet myths abound, the most common ones, the 140 Suzuki is actually 128 HP, every e-tec is about to blow up, every Mercury is a lot more HP than stated, there has never been a Yamaha break down, Honda's are heavy, and rust to bits and on and on it goes, the same stuff rehashed week after week. The simple fact is, they are all good, some motors suit certain applications better than others, most important (to me) is a decent price for what I want, and how good is the dealer I am buying off, the "salesman" doesn't come into the equation for me, in my area, I have the choice of every brand, but there is a couple that I wouldn't be exactly thrilled about taking my boat back to for repairs/service.

[johnjvv]

Internet myths abound....e is a couple that I wouldn't be exactly thrilled about taking my boat back to for repairs/service.

I agree with you. There are too many of these engines on peoples' boats for any of them to be bad. I find salesguys that shitbag opposition annoying though.

[Noelm]

Yep, it's no different in the car industry or anywhere else, some salesmen/people are great, know their product, and the opposition too, but do not just bag the others in favour of their brand, they can tell you lots of information that might explain why a certain motor is preferred.

[ranmar850]

well, the Yanks have found a way of dyno'ing outboards, so they claim, and some motors are definitely weaker than others, per rated HP. But seat of the pants feeling generally comes down to torque, which, with naturally aspirated motors, generally comes down to displacement. The old saying " no replacement for displacement " has some merit, again, if you are talking NA motors.
Looking at the actual displacement of popular motors is interesting. I went through all this, of course, before I bought the new boat. There are those who say, with some justification, always go the max rating. It seemed the 150 Merc was a popular fitment on Reefrunners, those with no specific knowledge of the boat were saying it was a bit small. Actual sea performance proved just the opposite. Fit a 150 Yamaha, though, and it was a different story, just feeling a bit underpowered. The dealer advised against it, owners largely said the same. No unhappy Merc 150 owners. The Merc is a 3 litre block. The Yamaha is 2.6 l. So significantly less displacement, and 14kg more weight. If you want to go with a 200HP Yamaha, vs the 150 Merc, you have EXACTLY the same speed at all rpm's until you get past 5500, then the higher revving Yamaha gets 4 knots more top end. And you have , again about 14 kg more weight over the back. The Merc 150 is really the same, real world, as the 175 Yamaha.Go to Suzuki, and some of them ( you, quiet down the back ;D) have a significant weight disadvantage--the 200 is a whopping 257kg, for only 2.86 litres. Same block as the 175. The popular 115/140 Suzukis match it with Yamaha for weight in that class, actually larger displacement at 2 l vs the Yam 115/130 at 1.74l.

The yanks go on about "holeshot" all the time, and I tend to think it's a bit of a wank--got a lot of stop signs on the water, have you...they run stopwatch tests to show the vast superiority of one motor over another because it will hit 40 knots at 0.2 second less, or whatever, from a standing start. If a motor will lift you onto the plane quickly and effortlessly without having to trim the motor right in and give it a heap, so what. Someone did say they thought it was actually an expression when shallow water boaters had the need to quickly get on the plane in a deeper hole so they could run trimmed out over shallow flats--I get that, but its been perverted to drag racing. As for bar crossing, you need throttle response in the mid-range to keep you on the back of that wave coming in, and ahead of the one following, not standing start to full speed performance. Torque rules.

[stevej]

all that matters
engine capacity
weight
bigger capacity more tourqe

[ranmar850]

Summed up my post nicely, --I left out that you can't compare a 140 Suzuki to a 150 Merc, unfair,2 litres vs 3 litres.. or a 135 Merc, they are still the 3 litre block.

[johnjvv]

Summed up my post nicely, --I left out that you can't compare a 140 Suzuki to a 150 Merc, unfair,2 litres vs 3 litres.. or a 135 Merc, they are still the 3 litre block.

So to put it in my terms...

115hp engines
Suzuki 187 kg and 2.05l
Mercury 163kg 2.1l

Means Mercury should be marginally better but not 98 vs 130 hp as claimed by Mercury rep?

I guess the Suzuki is heavier as it is a twincam.

[scottar]

This is indicative of a salesman only relying on Hp to compare motors and goes back to the original comment of a salesman who doesn't know the positives of his own product. Given the other numbers - weight and displacement, the Merc does come out in front. As for the weight difference - could be things like twin cam or could be that Merc have been going over to the same or a similar construction method that the big Yammy's use with their bores being plasma coated instead of using a cast iron sleeve - it's definitely used in the new V6's and V8's - just not sure on the smaller engines. Makes an engine harder to rebuild if the internet chatter is anything to go by but in reality engine rebuilding is becoming a thing of the past due to the inhibitive nature of spare parts pricing these days.

[Noelm]

Can't say that the difference of 2.05 litre, compared to 2.1 litre is going to be dramatic, but the 20+ KG of weight might make a purchase difference, is twin cam worth 20KG?

[scottar]

.Go to Suzuki, and some of them ( you, quiet down the back ;D) have a significant weight disadvantage--the 200 is a whopping 257kg, for only 2.86 litres. Same block as the 175.

As for bar crossing, you need throttle response in the mid-range to keep you on the back of that wave coming in, and ahead of the one following, not standing start to full speed performance. Torque rules.

Bit unfair to quote the 6 cylinder weights for the Zuk and the one way bars you have up your way sound interesting ;). We will have to agree to disagree on the holeshot - the bars over here we have to go out first to get in and holeshot can very much be an advantage. I do agree with the final statement - with all other factors being fairly equal, torque does indeed rule.

[Greg P]

The ProXS 115 from what I gather from reviews and specs revs higher and has different ECM mapping than the standard 115. I reckon it does look the goods over all the competitors at present. Waiting to see some numbers from a guy replacing a late model 115 Merc 4 st (over 1000 hrs trouble free) to the Pro XS 115 on the same boat. The Pro XS 115 will be quicker top end depending on prop selection but looking forward to all the numbers from it. If I was to repower my yammie I would go with it 100%. Merc are kicking some goals this year.

[swof63]

Yes the Zuk I4 200 weighs 240kg so not quite the lardass.

Being all about torque, interesting to note the zuk 115 makes 164nm @4500 rpm ( the zuk 140 makes 165 @ 4500 rpm ), the merc 115 makes 162nm @ 3500 rpm.
The merc 150 makes 244nm @ 3000 rpm ( the zuk 200 makes 249nm @ 4000 rpm ).
The old Yamaha 2.6 lt 150 makes 228nm @4000 rpm, the new yam 2.8 lt dec 150 makes 242nm @ 4000 rpm.
This makes everything clear.


Sent from my iPad using Ausfish forums

[ranmar850]

Bit unfair to quote the 6 cylinder weights for the Zuk and the one way bars you have up your way sound interesting ;). We will have to agree to disagree on the holeshot - the bars over here we have to go out first to get in and holeshot can very much be an advantage. I do agree with the final statement - with all other factors being fairly equal, torque does indeed rule.

But going out, unless you want to be playing wave jumping hero, you are not after speed? You need to be able to move to the next one, touch of throttle to lift the bow as you hit it, throttle back? Then when it is looking clear of breakers, go as hard as you want? I guess they are all different to some extent--if you can see a lull, go for it, some don't really seem to lend themselves to that approach? ie, Noosa, slow and steady seems to be the approach/?

[scottar]

But going out, unless you want to be playing wave jumping hero, you are not after speed? You need to be able to move to the next one, touch of throttle to lift the bow as you hit it, throttle back? Then when it is looking clear of breakers, go as hard as you want? I guess they are all different to some extent--if you can see a lull, go for it, some don't really seem to lend themselves to that approach? ie, Noosa, slow and steady seems to be the approach/?

No wave jumping hero here - quite the opposite but on more than one occasion I've made it over breaking waves by the skin of my teeth and on plenty of occasions not. I know which of the two conclusions I prefer. Both Jumpinpin and South Passage bars can be quite lengthy transits with multiple banks at times depending on conditions. The crossing process usually involves attempting to avoid breaking waves altogether or at times depending on the bank configuration, skirting around them as they appear. Either way you can be going from semi displacement as you crest a swell (to avoid the wave jumping hero activities) to plenty of revs to either get to and over the next one before it breaks or skirt around it if the option is viable. A reduction of a couple of seconds in holeshot can make all the difference in the world as once your in, there is no turning around some days. It was quite interesting when I first moved to Perth looking at the power plants fitted to a lot of the 6 plus metre rigs and thinking they were "small" by comparison to what I was used too in Brisbane courtesy of a minimum requirement for bar work.

[Crocodile]

Hello johnjvv,

There is a USA website
https://www.epa.gov/compliance-and-fuel-economy-data/annual-certification-data-vehicles-engines-and-equipment

Have a look at their test spreadsheet and you will see substantial differences in rated V actual HP.
One of the columns is in Kw to convert Kw to Hp X 1.34.

I have read somewhere that the 10% rule applies.
Individual machines can differ as well. Have you ever worked somewhere with a fleet of identical cars and one goes much better than the others?
Makers also have high performance models. ETEC in the states has HO models and the 90 HO is suspiciously like a re-badged 115.
ie. a stock 90 is three cylinders a HO 90 has four cylinders.

I think that it is high time outboard manufacturers published Hp, Torque and fuel flow charts as most diesel engines have.
I anybody knows where to find such charts please share.

If you study the published bulletins from the various makers there is very little difference between them.
A good rule of thumb is that a carb 2 stroke produces 10Hp for every gallon per hour.
Injection 2 stroke and 4 stroke about 12Hp.

[ranmar850]

Some would say this is the worst "bar" on the West Coast, this is where I live

On a very calm day

https://photos.smugmug.com/Landscapes/i-6nLfmpF/0/a071ecd6/XL/LR%20Edit%20Kalbarri%20rivermouth%20pano-1-4-XL.jpg


With some swell it changes, a lot

https://photos.smugmug.com/Purely-fishing/i-CD5L6zd/0/c12e194d/XL/20171228_170551-XL.jpg



You are really only going through white water, but it is known as "the washing machine" for good reason. People come to grief every year. I personally reckon that Horrocks Beach, just down the coast from us, ( The second-best beach in Australia ;D) is the worst--you are running straight into the swell across a reef bar, and I punched a window out in a 38 footer there once.
But we don;t have those river bars. I grew up over there, have been through a few--Narooma, Swansea--you can have 'em.

[scottar]

Looks like a good access on that northern side with a quick squirt to get across the face of the rocks. Does it ever close out?

[ranmar850]

Yes the channel is on the right, you can't see the reef in the shot with the swell in it. it's pretty straightforward, really, in average swell conditions, blokes hammer out there in 12 foot dinghies. It often doesn't look to bad to the inexperienced eye in a swell, but, then you see a boat going through and realise just how big that messed up slop is, going all directions, backwash off the reef, waves breaking unpredictably across the whole . It does close right out on a big one, but you shouldn't be out there in a trailer boat long before it gets to that stage. Worst I've seen it personally , you were waiting a full 3/4 mile NW from the little rock you can see sticking out. The whole bay was closing out, huge. I sat out there on the flybridge of the relatively fast 50 footer I had at the time ( 24/19 knots), had three false starts and had to retreat before I could make it in. Luckily don't get them that big every year. But it was even bigger when Cyclone Alby caught everyone out at sea, awesome video floating around of that day.

[Noelm]

Speed is not everything when crossing a bar, it's nice to have, but can certainly land a novice in trouble, anyone who has done a lot of surfing will be able to recognise how a wave breaks, taking it easy can often be the best option, but, having a bit of speed on hand can be of benefit, lots of 9knot trawlers cross bars everyday, and certainly do not have the luxury of speed or hole shot!

[scottar]

No it may not be necessary but it's a tool you can't use if you don't have it. Then you have to substitute bulk,drive characteristics and design. I dare say if most trailerboats only did nine knots they would look markedly different or there would be nowhere near as many crossing bars. I've driven the Gold Coast Seaway on a big swell in a displacement vessel. Prick of an idea if you ask me.

[johnjvv]

Hello johnjvv,

There is a USA website
https://www.epa.gov/compliance-and-fuel-economy-data/annual-certification-data-vehicles-engines-and-equipment



Thats great thanks Croc!

[inveratta]

Another engaging thread to read......At an older age ..I offer the following....when you talk to a sales rep and he/she start bagging the opposition..tune out..thats not the person you want to talk to....I usually politely say something like..thats interesting and tell me ..whats the worst thing about your motor or whatever? Normally followed by an awkward pause.

Some of the comments about how you intend to use the boat matters............. reflect a lot of sea hours..

For myself...when I repowered I walked in thinking ABC and purchased CBA on advice..couldnt be happier.

lol but then again its a merc150!!!

[ranmar850]

They are all good, nowadays, really...just pick your particular poison and choice of cowling colour.

[ranmar850]

Makers also have high performance models. ETEC in the states has HO models and the 90 HO is suspiciously like a re-badged 115.
ie. a stock 90 is three cylinders a HO 90 has four cylinders. You only need to look at the the actual engine capacity of each HP output and you will see that they often share the same bore/stroke over a number of models. The HO Evinrudes suffer, IMO, in that the lower HP models using the bigger block suffer a real weight penalty, both G1 and G2's. The torque from the larger displacement block will be an advantage, but the ones I've considered were just too damn heavy for their HP, torque or not. 244 kg for the shortest shaft, and expensive to boot. same displacement as the 300HP.

[ericcs]

i know it's irrelevant now, but back in the old days, HP was measured either at the flywheel, or at the prop, depending on brands. I found it just as confusing back then!

[scottar]

Biggest issue weight wise with the G2 is the inbuilt power steering. Compared to similar Mercury products with the power steering added I don't think the difference is as extreme. Torque - the big block has it in spades. The G2 200HO compared to my G1 is a grunt machine - same top end but totally different through the rev range and massively better ( like almost double ) fuel economy on the same hull but yes - they are heavy in comparison to the new V6 stuff from Mercury (keen for a look at these) but not the V6 products from elsewhere. I have mates that have recently repowered Victory's - one with the small block 200 without the steering (special order as they don't usually carry it apparently and only weighs 225Kg) and one with the 200HO - similar top ends, the small block is the better of the two on fuel and performs better than the G1 250 it replaced in all aspects apart from top end including holeshot from the owners perspective. I am looking forward to water time with both to see the difference first hand. The new Merc V6 is hard to pass up though - they have really raised the bar with their latest generation in the weight stakes.