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 103.5Originally Posted by johnjvv
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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) 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.
all that matters
engine capacity
weight
bigger capacity more tourqe
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.
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.
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?
Bit unfair to quote the 6 cylinder weights for the Zuk and the one way bars you have up your way sound interesting.Go to Suzuki, and some of them ( you, quiet down the back
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.. 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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote