2 Stroke vs. 4 Strokes and Motor Showdowns.

I have gone around with some of you people on here about the fuel economies of 4 strokes vs. the Optimax’s and other “DFI” 2 strokes. Just becuase it is a 4 stoke does not mean it gets beter gas mileage. In the following report, the other edge that the 4 stroke had was on noise. Otherwise the 2 stroke beat it in Fuel Economy, Acceleartion, Mid Range Power, and Top Speed. Kind of an interesting Test/Article. Just thought I would post it. KOOTY DID YOU NOTICE WHO HAD THE TOP 2 ENGINES IN THE TEST ……… In case you miss it, it was MERCURY & MERCURY over that rice grinder Yamaha Blue.

Besides that they are both cheper than your TEAM BLUE MOTOR

Quote:

---

Put Up or Shut Up

It’s a two-stroke vs. four-stroke showdown among Mercury, Suzuki and Yamaha

By John Tiger, Jr.

Bass and Walleye Boats

June 30, 2006

Email this article to a friend!

Editor Steve Quinlan and I met with the very accommodating folks from Ranger Boats on Arkansas’ Bull Shoals Lake in mid-spring, and conducted a shootout between 250-horsepower offerings from all of the major players (sans Evinrude, who was invited but declined) on identical Ranger 620VS multispecies boats. We had at our disposal for the weekend four four-strokes (a Suzuki DF250, Yamaha F250, and Mercury 250 Verado) stacking the deck against a lone two-stroke DFI (Mercury 250XS). With four outboards comparing very closely in terms of weight, horsepower output, top-end rpm limits and torque, we expected the outcome to be pretty close. With the exception of the top speed and acceleration of the Mercury 250XS, it was.

THE SETUP

We chose Ranger’s 620VS as a test platform for several reasons. Since the Suzuki DF250 is not available in a 20-inch-shaft length version — and we very much wanted to compare this engine against the other 250 offerings — we had to select a hull with a minimum 25-inch-transom height. That excluded all of the bass boats, and moved us over to a walleye/multispecies design. Unfortunately, it also meant having to exclude Yamaha’s 250 HPDI, which beginning in 2006 is no longer available in a 25-inch-shaft version.

We also wanted to see how the torque and hull-lifting abilities of these big engines would fare when fitted to a heavier hull more suited for bigger waters and bigger payloads. Finally, we know and understand that the speeds we reached will certainly not be considered “sexy and exciting” by those who want to see just how fast these behemoths can push a lightweight boat. But, the Rangers provided a very stable platform, and stable means repeatable, which is of paramount importance in testing.

While I personally would have loved nothing more than to test on a bevy of flyweights designed to reach 90-mph speeds, we elected to go for stability and repeatability instead. It worked; our test was easier to conduct, the people at Ranger were a delight to work with, all of the hulls were as close to identical as possible, and we obtained very “real-world” results. Our weather at Bull Shoals was not perfect — we dodged clouds, rainstorms and by our last day, were blessed with 80-degree temperatures and bright sunshine — but we were able to complete all of the tests in roughly identical water, temperature and wind conditions. In all, it was a very fair comparison—exactly what /BWB/ readers look for.

GAME ON!

Our procedure was the same as in past /BWB/ tests. First, the factory reps are allowed time to set up and fine-tune the rigs to their liking. Ranger Boats’ test crew, however, did a lot of the work beforehand for the engine reps, and consequently a lot of the setups ended up the same after the engine men completed their testing. When we arrived, we performed dry-land inspections on all of the boats, engines, setups and props, and took careful notes on each. We then removed each engine and recorded the weights with our digital load-cell scale setup, noting that our figures of course contain oil and fuel in the engine, propeller installed, steering cylinder and hoses, and cowling. Hence, our figures reflect heavier weights than the factory brochures show, as the engine guys quote “dry weight.”

We then filled the 51-gallon fuel tank in each hull, and weighed the boats and trailers at a local scale. The empty trailers were weighed last, so that we could subtract those weights from the hull weights and arrive at a “hull only” figure (sans trailer, outboard and propeller but including fuel, rigging and accessories). In this case, the Verado-powered boat was the heaviest, so it was tested “as is.” The Yamaha boat was the lightest by 100 pounds, so we handicapped it with a 100-pound bag of lead shot. We fitted the 250XS boat with 17 pounds of shot, and the Suzuki boat with 65 pounds. We don’t handicap for outboard weights — only differences in hull weights.

After we recorded the weights, hull notes, engine notes, setup and propellers, we headed for the lake.

SPEED AND PUNCH: TWO-STROKE BRAGGING RIGHTS

No sense dancing around it, in terms of speed and acceleration, Mercury’s 250XS is clearly the champion of the 250-horsepower crowd — and by a very significant margin. We hit a best average top speed of 64.5 mph spinning a 24-inch-pitch lab-worked Bravo I four-blade wheel right at the limiter (5850 rpm). We actually bumped the limiter a few times, trimming high into the wind while trying to eke out that last mph. The next closest speed was achieved by the Verado, at 63 mph even (turning a 23-inch lab-finished Tempest Plus propeller) at 6140 rpm. The Yamaha finished third with a solid 60-mph clocking, turning a stock 23-inch-pitch Yamaha VX-Max three-blade prop at 6000 rpm. In the top speed wars, the Suzuki came up fourth out of the four, pushing the Ranger to 58.6 mph at 6100 rpm turning a stock Suzuki 16×24.5-inch three-blade prop.

We must note, however, that Suzukis traditionally like to be run high. After some preliminary prop testing, Senior Product Development Engineer David Greenwood raised the engine to the very top set of holes (3/4-inch higher than any of the other three engines) and said he was disappointed he couldn’t raise it any higher. He noted after his test runs that the engine never really felt like it had broken loose at that height.

Acceleration results put the two-stroke XS at the top of the pile, too. Merc’s raspy “race production” engine pushed the stout Ranger to 30 mph from a dead stop in 6.2 seconds, a full four-tenths of a second quicker than the second place finisher (again the Verado, at 6.6 seconds). The Suzuki came in a very close third this time, with a 6.7-second clocking, and the Yamaha pulled up fourth with a distant 7.7-second average.

Midrange punch (measured in seconds from a 30-mph cruise to 50-mph) told a slightly different story. Here’s where the XS really put the smackdown on the others; it romped from 30 to 50 in 6 seconds flat, where the next closest competitor (Verado) could only muster an 8.1-second clocking. The Yamaha’s midrange torque topped the Suzuki’s, as it finished a full second (8.3 vs. 9.3) ahead to finish third. To those doubting Thomases, we used no fewer than four (!) methods of speed measurement: two handheld Garmin GPS 12 units, a boat-mounted Lowrance GPS (which was a delight to use, by the way) and a calibrated Stalker Pro k-band handheld radar speed gun. For rpm readings, we used our own digital FloScan tach for all of the engines.

FUEL ECONOMY: SURPRISE!

No surprise to us at /BWB/ but probably a disappointment to tree-huggers everywhere, the two-stroke Mercury 250XS eked out a win in the fuel-economy challenge, too. With an average of 3.5 mpg across the entire rpm range, it bested the Suzuki by one-tenth of a gallon. The Yamaha came in a close third at 3.2 mpg, and the absolutely thirsty Verado finished a distant fourth with a 2.8 mpg average.

With today’s fuel prices, this is a critical part of the test. We ran these numbers several times to be sure, and came up with the same results each time. We also checked our results against Yamaha’s and Mercury’s factory digital fuel-flow meters.

While the 250XS took top honors for overall average fuel economy, the Suzuki 250 actually achieved the highest mpg recording at cruise speeds. With a 4.3 mpg recording at 24.7 mph and 3000 rpm, it bested Merc’s XS by a tenth of a mpg at the same rpm.

WHAT ABOUT THE NOISE?

Years ago, we used to record sound output as a regular part of these tests, and our sister publication, /Trailer Boats/, still does. Since the four-strokes in this test were so quiet, we broke out our digital decibel meter and went to work, checking decibel readings at idle, 3500-rpm cruise, and full throttle. We took readings at the transom and at the helm at both idle and 3500-rpm cruise speeds, and at the helm while running wide-open.

The Verado was the clear winner here. It is so quiet, it is literally impossible to tell if it’s running or not idling (especially if the wind is blowing or waves are slapping the hull). Though it’s a cliché by now, we actually had to check the “pee indicator” (overboard water indicator) to see if it was running at the dock and out on the lake. At idle, the Verado registered 64 dBa on our meter at the transom, and an even more silent 56 dBa at the helm. It was significantly quieter than any of the other engines, even by the “naked ear.” The power steering whine present in earlier Verados is gone, as promised by the Mercury engineers. It is just an amazingly quiet engine. When it’s hammered, the Verado gives off a very high-pitched, high-rpm whine that sounds almost like a jet engine. That’s partly due to the supercharger, and partly due to the Verado’s advanced crank-train design.

The Suzuki is almost as quiet, but it’s just not silent like the Verado. It has a very nice sound, however, and even when it’s leaned on, it doesn’t sound like it’s laboring. The Yamaha has the most “trucklike” (automotive) sound of the group. It is audible at idle, and when the throttle is dropped, sounds like a big-displacement diesel engine pulling.

As expected, the 250XS is the loudest of the group by far. It has the traditional two-stroke howl, even when only turning 5800 rpm at full bore. That’s exacerbated by the open exhaust outlets at the top of the gearcase, but even at idle when those are buried beneath the waterline, it’s loud.

SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENTS: RUNNING QUALITY

In this arena, it’s our opinion only. We can only report what we observe, and what we observed is that the Verado is the smoothest, best-running, best-operating and easiest-to-drive engine. It simply shines in all aspects. The fly-by-wire DTS throttle and shift is simply not going to be beat by traditional cable setups found on the other engines. Its integral power steering is smoother and easier to operate than the Teleflex SeaStar Pro setups on the others. It’s easier to shift, throttle, steer, start and drive. No doubt about it, this engine performs as Mercury advertises; it’s a true “outboard drive system” as opposed to a simple outboard engine.

The Suzuki comes in a close second. While it shifts, steers and throttles traditionally, it’s very smooth and predictable. The gearcase “snicks” into and out of gear, rather than clunks like the 250XS. The throttle response is smooth and linear. Overall, it was a genuine pleasure to drive the Ranger equipped with this engine.

The Yamaha and Mercury 250XS both had a lot of “traditional outboard heritage” in the way they operated. Their shifting was not nearly as smooth; in fact, while the Yamaha was fairly quiet, the Merc really banged into gear. Other than that, the Yamaha’s running quality was superior, just like anything else ever made by Yamaha; I just wish they could change the engine noise and exhaust note to a more pleasant, less-labored sound. Since it’s a Yamaha, you know it’s not going to hurt itself, but it sure could sound happier. The 250XS is just plain raspy, loud and rude; like most (if not all) Mercury Racing products, it lets you know it’s there, with authority.

It must be noted that the fit and finish on all four engines was just fantastic; though it’s expected of the Yamaha, the others met Yamaha’s standards easily. Even the 250XS was superb, and this is an engine that we had faulted for being a little rough around the edges in years past. I’m guessing that the Verado assembly guys rubbed off on the Racing crew a little.

FINAL OBSERVATIONS

Clearly, four-strokes have a long way to go yet in the top speed, acceleration and even the fuel-economy wars before they can catch a well-tuned DFI two-stroke like Mercury’s 250XS. It’s a shame we didn’t have Evinrude’s 250 E-Tec in the mix to compare — they were very conspicuous in their absence. In addition, Yamaha has since last season discontinued the 25-inch Saltwater Series version of their vaunted VMax 250 HPDI, so we sorely missed their two-stroke participation in this test. Perhaps in the future we’ll do another two-stroke/four-stroke 250 shootout — on a bass boat — among 20-inch-shaft engines.

We neither added nor deducted points for pricing, yet the results were a bit surprising. Based on 2006 model year MSRPs, the Verado was actually the least expensive of the bunch at $19,140, followed by the OptiMax XS at $19,688, the Yamaha F250 at $19,900 and the Suzuki DF250 at $20,182. We dinged the OptiMax XS for warranty, however, as it carries a two-year warranty while the other three engines all carry three-year warranties.

The clear winner in this test, for those who primarily care about speed, acceleration and fuel economy, is the Mercury 250XS. The Verado would have finished a close second if not for its last-place fuel finish, but we still rate it a solid — but distant — second place nonetheless. The Suzuki was not far behind, finishing neck-and-neck with the 250XS in terms of fuel economy, and right there with the Verado for second in holeshot. The Yamaha turned in a good performance in midrange punch and fuel economy. In reality, any one of these outboards would fit the bill for hulls like the Ranger 620VS. Top speed is only a few mph off the pace of the Merc two-stroker, and fuel economy is excellent with either engine.

If fishing, reliability, fuel economy and ease of operation were my primary concerns, I would be happy with any of these outboards. It’s when top speed, punch, and having the “big dog” are important (and I must ask, to what red-blooded American are these not priorities?) that the two-stroke Mercury 250XS becomes the standout. In my book, that makes it the winner of this test, and the engine I would choose if I were shopping for a 250.

RANGER 620VS

As an ultra-high performance boat aficionado, I’m not used to hulls like the 620VS. After a weekend spent with four of them, however, I know I wouldn’t mind owning one as a big-water, big-fish excursion hull. I get the impression that owning a Ranger is sort of like owning a BMW or a Mercedes; the level of fit and finish is just up there so high, it’s expected that the boat will perform and last for years to come. I’d suspect current Ranger owners would tell me I’m right.

These 620s ran well in calm and in chop, didn’t get us wet despite running them within 10 feet of each other (for the photo shoot), crossed broadside waves without jarring us to death and generally just performed like champs for our entire test.

What’s more, the professionalism and quality of workmanship was evident everywhere we looked. Our test hulls were nearly flawless, and everything worked on them as well. Will these boats win any speed records? Of course not, but they’ll get you there, and back, in good time and in dry clothes. I enjoyed my time spent in the Ranger 620VS. It’s a darn nice boat, and for the money, a great value.

SOURCES:

Mercury Marine

Dept. BWB

W6250 W. Pioneer Road

P.O. Box 1939

Fond du Lac, WI 54936-1939

920/929-5040

mercurymarine.com

Mercury Racing

Dept. BWB

N7480 County Road UU

Fond du Lac, Wisconsin 54935

920/921-5330

http://www.mercurymarine.com

American Suzuki

Dept. BWB

PO Box 1100

Brea, California 92822

800/247-4704

suzukimarine.com

Yamaha Motor Corporation USA

Dept. BWB

1270 Chastain Road

Kennesaw, GA 30144-9210

800-88-YAMAHA

yamaha-motor.com

---

So I take it the Pro XS is going on the back of your boat??????

If so make sure you buy a box of ear plugs to go with that!!!

Thanks for the article Cal. I have heard some of the same in my research. I just can’t beleive the difference in Gas Mielage from the Race Engine XS to the 4 stroke Verado is so wide apart. Not even close the XS beats the 4 stroke Verado and also beats the other 4 storkes. I wish they would have compared the E-TEC. I know that is a solid motor and probably would have compared or possibly beaten the XS. It just would have been nice to see the best 2 motors (IMO) go head to head.

It probably all depends on the boat. I’m looking at some with both the XS and the Verados.

I would NOT put a Verado on that boat!!! You will be sorry!!! Its a complete gas hog!!!! Its close to 2 miles per gallon!!!! that stinks if you ask me, all though 3 and some change is not a whole lot better!!!!

2-strokes will always out perform 4-strokes in this type of usage. The primary purpose of a motor is to gain high rpm torque and achieve it fast. There is no need for a low rpm operating torque, which is what primarily 4 strokes are designed for. Crusing rpms are in the range of high 4000s or low 5000s…….Something a 2 stroke “loves”. A 4 stroke generally is designed for the 3000 to low 4000s rpms cruising operation for “optimum performance”.

Now, go to dirt bikes, the 4 strokes are dominating and taking over. Reason being is that the low end rpm torque of those 4 strokes are easier manage/drive than a red-line screaming 2 stroke, therefore easier to race.

I do have one question though…….
If it is “apples to apples”, why didn’t they use the same pitch/size/blade prop with all 4 motors?

We are talking 250hp, we are talking same hull design, I assume we are talking same gear ratio in the case.

If you want apples to apples, then slap on the same prop and see how each motor performs in the case of the torque and hp range.

If you want to compare engines in a car, you don’t compare those engines by slapping in different gear ratios or tire sizes and say one engine peforms better than the other………

So,
with that said, I wonder how much money BWB got paid by Mercury to perform this test???????????

Gary, each motor company I beleive got to put on the Prop they wanted to do the test with. It was up to the motor companies if I read it right???? But I do see your point also, biut if one runs better than another with a certain set up (prop). The consumer has that option also. Also these Tec’s/Reps for the motor companies knew what the Test was. Mercury won all tests with one motor or the other and were the cheapest 2 motors..

Gary, The way that I understood the article was that B&W used the “factory reccommended” prop. I would have liked to see the E-tec in there. Though I am a Mercury Man !690reece

My understanding in reading past tests is the manufacturers actually send reps to the site for these tests.

This is a great magazine.

Sully

If you want true apples to apples testing…….

Get the hp and crankshaft torque “curve charts”, such as what the link below shows.
E-tec torque curve chart

With the torque and hp information, it will tell you where your “power lays”.

That information, along with your gear ratio will tell you which is a more powerful motor and where your power is.

They do not call it the “black box that rocks” for nothing!!

Merc-man!

This report not only gave you HP and Top Speed but other Factors that are considered or should be when buying/choosing a motor (cost,fuel consumption,ease of operation, etc.). HP and Tops speed are not the only thing to think about Gary, overall peromance is an issue unless you are a Bass Guy!

Gary you are a Muskie guy in a Bass boat aren’t you.

OPTIMAX all the way

At least for now!

I do not believe that the Verado is the cheapest. Every dealer I have gone to, has quoted me a higher price to put a Verado on instead of a Merc optimax or Yammy 4 stroke. So the prices of the notors are not “Real World”. If u dun believe, just go and pretend shop for a boat and see what prices u come up with.

It really sucks they couldn’t test an Etec and an HPDI against the XS. I’ve never been the sharpest tool in the wood shed, but comparing an XS against a four banger is like comparing apples to oranges in my humble opinion. However, this is good fodder for anyone who can afford one of these rigged new. I’ll have to buy used, so to get exactly what I want won’t be an option.

Does Merc make a straight Opti in the 250, meaning non-racing souped up?? I’m assuming NO, since it wasn’t in the test. The XS warranty is also a huge issue for me. Especially when you see the Etec pushing the envelope on warranty.

Last comment. The pricing they give on these motors is apparently not rigged. When Dave was pricing his 175Opti vs. 175 Verado last fall, there was a significant jump to get the Verado. I’m thinking close to $5k. I’ll confirm with him. The motors were close, but rigging was the “reason” the dealer said the price was so much higher. This could have changed since then also, but I doubt it.

Quote:

---

This report not only gave you HP and Top Speed but other Factors that are considered or should be when buying/choosing a motor (cost,fuel consumption,ease of operation, etc.). HP and Tops speed are not the only thing to think about Gary, overall peromance is an issue unless you are a Bass Guy!

---

Disagree Rob;
Cost and fuel performance are really not a factor when you are purchasing a $50k rig vs a $49k rig……..There was approximatley $1000 difference in pricing……Which TSCx2 is correct…….their pricing on the Verado is off.

As for ease of usage…….again, in my book, not really a true factor…….It isn’t that hard to start any of these motors and it really isn’t that big of a deal whether you have a “snick” or a “clunk” when shifting into gear. Those are cosmetic sounds that have no relavance to performance/reliability.

It is all about power, reliablility, and level of maintence required (that can get costly and be time consuming).

So again, I’ll keep stirring the pot in that this test is biased and actually really doesn’t hold much validity.

Slap the same props on each motor on the same boat and then get your test results. THAT is the only way to make a solid comparison. If one of those motors are banging the rev limiter, then step up the prop size across the board. For if one motor is hitting the rev limiter, it obviously has more power/torque than the others.

Although I like reading about the big boats and motors, how many guys out there are looking at buying or currently own a 20 foot boat with a 250 on it.

I’d say 80 – 90 percent of us would probably never own a rig that big. And if you do own a big boat like that does it matter if you get a little bit better fuel economy than the next brand of 250 hp motor?

I’d like to see them do the same test with 115’s or even 150’s on the back of an 18 foot boat.

That’s a little more realistic for most of us.

“It’s a shame we didn’t have Evinrude’s 250 E-Tec in the mix to compare — they were very conspicuous in their absence.”

Evinrude was invited, but declined, why? It would be nice to know?

I think given the fact that each factory was able to have a rep present for setup, etc. before the test started clearly states that each mfr agreed with the setups that were tested.

There is no doubt there are quieter motors than the Optimax, I think everyone knows they are loud (105 dBa at full throttle), but I think many were surprised that the Optimax beat the others on average fuel economy. The fuel consumption rates at 3000 RPM however (notes as cruise speed) indicate that the MPG for the Suzuki beats the Optimax XS with a 4.3 avg vs a 4.2 avg.

FYI on Gear Ratio’s:
Suzuki – 2.29:1
Verado – 1.85:1
Optimax XS – 1.75:1
Yamaha 2.00:1

It’s best to read the entire article and see the charts. Great information though.

I like to see the results posted – no because I own a Mercury, but because we make parts for the Optimax.

Gary, I agree with some of your points, but disagree with others. I am looking at these motors on the back of that boat. Does fuel consumption figure into my head when deciding?? You bet. Does ease of operation, probably not a breaking factor, but nice to know. I really could care less on top speed and HP. IF I go 64 or 57 MPH it really does not matter or if I’m shoving 250 HP’s or 257 HP’s?? What really matters to me is overall performance, value, and reliability.

Back to the original reason why I posted. It was to compare the 4 strokes to the DFI 2 Strokes on the Market. My point on performance was shown in the report. Cost does anyone know if the HDPI is cheaper to buy and Rig than the 4 stroke Yammy? Because I do agree with you guys, because I have shopped the Verado and found it to be $3,000 to $5,000 more in Rigging costs, not motor costs compared to Opti’s. Here is my question. On repairs, what costs more 4 stroke or 2 stroke?. I would imagine that with all the moving parts in the 4 strokes that they would have a greater chance of breaking down and also cost more to repair, but that is just my guess. Anybody care to share any info? One thing is for sure, I’m no Gear or Moto head.

Kold Front Kraig-

I have seen similar test comparing the Optimax and Honda 4 strokes and also seen comparisons on the 150 HP motors, with very similar results. The only thing I have not seen is repair costs and similar maintenance things. So if this is true what is the advantage to buying a 4 stroke????

If you got $500 a month to spend on a boat payment. Does the cost of running it matter?

@$3.00 per Gallon it sure does!

That aint nothing.. Wait till you see your oil bills.

4- banger baby, 4 banger

Yeah, because that One Gallon I bought this year @$22.00 from Cabelas is killing me.

Oh I didnt know your putting your 135 on your new boat..

My bad..

Perhaps I’m getting a Tiller

I just have not seen any data or reason to make me switch to a 4 stroke. Even if I buy 6 more gallons of Optimax oil it doesn’t make up the difference in Gas consumption, not to mention what an oil change costs from a dealer in that 4 stroke.

Your not a Jedi yet, therefore the handle of the tiller is not ready for you grasshopper.

Yea I agree. I dont think its going to matter much when you get into that class of motor..

Does Merc make a regular Optimax in a 250 or just the 250sx?

Everybody knows that 2 strokes are better when it comes to low end power (holeshot)

Personally I see no need to go with anything but a direct inject 2 stroke in a motor bigger than a 150.

As for Merc being the best overall motor, that could be debated until were all pushing daisies.

Lip Ripper, if you were looking for a tiller boat we would be talking about how slow it trolls not top end.

We tiller guys tend to obsess over how slow we can go not who’s the first across the lake.

Skin dog. This is not a personal shot. Just an opinion.

I own a 20ft boat with a 225. And yes when I get my next 20ft boat with a big motor I will be looking at fuel consumption. When you get to these big motors there is a huge difference when running long distances or fishing alot of spots.

Granted, I am running a carbed motor at the moment and no matter what I do it will be better. But a few gallons a day make a difference over a long season.

With $3 dollar gallons and running 3 days a week. If I only save 2 to 3 gallons an outing that 18-27$ a week or up to $100 a month.

Not everyone that runs big boats have tons of money. And a $100 a month can go to a payment.

Damn payments! Why can’t this s#!t be free?!

Just my .10

Skin Dog you hit it on the head as far as I’m concerened on your last post. I think DFI 2 Stroke is the way to go on any “bigger” motor (115 or larger). I do not believe they make a “normal” 250 Opti. I know they do have both in the 225’s. I agree ,everyone knows that the DFI 2′ get better “hole shot”, but to add, “Top End”, “Mid Range” and the kicker I think that shocks most is “Fuel Economy” to the list. Is there any reason to get a Big 4 stroke, besides noise??? I’m not trolling with a “big motor” so I see this as a non issue in my opinion. I’m not saying there isn’t a reason that 4 strokes are not better, but I have yet to hear that side of the debate, no matter what brand of DFI 2 stroke engine is of your liking (Opti, Etec, HDPI). I have even read the Optimax has better emmisions than some 4 bangers.

Skin Dog, I do agree with Chirs that gas consumption is a factor in my book! The difference could be antoher St. Croix Legend Toruney rod or 3 every year.

Note: I do compare the 4 bangers to the Optimaxs often, just because this is my place of interest (I’m a Mercury Guy ), but I’m sure the other 2 storke DFI’s have similar stats, perhaps better.

No arguments from me guys.

And no offense taken. I would agree with you about saving money on gas.

LIP!

Did you just agree with a bass guy?! I need to buy a lottery ticket!

Nope Chris, but you did agree with a walleye guy, because I said it first in a previous post with Derek! I should go buy a lottery ticket.