E-Tec, OptiMax and HPDI go head-to-head

  • robstenger
    Northern Twin Cities, MN
    Posts: 11374
    #1234781

    Thought this was an interesting article.

    For the original Click Here

    The Main Event
    E-Tec, OptiMax and HPDI go head-to-head in a 225-hp Brawl

    By John Tiger, Jr.
    Bass and Walleye Boats
    February 9, 2006

    Email this article to a friend!

    The long-awaited, highly touted 225 Shootout has finally taken place, and what a weekend it was! As loyal /BWB/ readers would expect, there was no shortage of excitement, intrigue, controversy, “kitchen bitchin”, and of course good ol’ bench racin’ as we pitted the best Mercury, Evinrude and Yamaha had against each other on near-identical Bullet 20XDC dual-console bassboats on East Tennessee’s Cherokee Lake in early April. Were the results as good as the hype? You’ll have to read on…

    LONG IN THE MAKING

    As sharp-eyed readers know, editor Steve Quinlan has been touting this test for many months in his Holeshot column, even going so far as to print our editorial calendar in the January 2005 issue. As we all know, things don’t always go as planned. In fact, we’ve scheduled, cancelled and re-scheduled this test more times than I care to count.

    Last spring, Evinrude introduced its E-Tec 225 H.O., so the BRP (Bombardier Recreational Products) crew planned to show up with this new powerplant. In late summer 2004, Merc began tossing around the idea of introducing a little brother to the 250XS to see how it would stack up against the 3-liter Yamaha and Evinrude. After a little de-tuning, Merc introduced the 225 Pro XS in late 2004. Were we ready then? No, the saga continues…

    The Yamaha VMax 225 HPDI was the first outboard to arrive at Bullet’s plant in late 2004, and in short order Bullet setup man Reid Cox had it hung and was out testing. Quickly, we were all advised that the speeds were higher than anticipated, even with the relatively low (sub-6000 rpm) limits. Since the Yammie comes equipped with a high-speed, low-water pickup nosecone gearcase with cambered skeg, there was no problem encountered.

    Merc’s proposed 225 Pro XS, on the other hand, was due to be released with only a non-noseconed Torque Master gearcase and stock “soft” motor mounts. After a few engineering conferences, Merc Racing honchos decided to revise their offering to include optional Sport Master gearcases with 1.75:1 and 1.62:1 ratios, as well as solid motor mounts for better boat control.

    Yamaha had other issues. The problem was not new, and it has been the source of controversy in every /BWB/ engine shoot-out held over the past several years. It’s the ongoing saga of Yamaha’s insistence on rating its HPDI engines at 5500 rpm, and putting the rev limiter 650 rpm higher at 6150 rpm. To date, we have not found a prop that would hold any of the big Yammies at 5500, yet provide adequate holeshot and midrange acceleration numbers. In short, we’d need a 32-inch or perhaps even larger pitched propeller to keep that Yamaha tach within the rev range.

    Was that the end? Not on your life. The Evinrude team was delayed again and again in the introduction of the new E-Tec 225 H.O., mostly due to engineering and manufacturing of its new gearcase, designed to replace the existing Lightning noseconed unit currently offered on the Ficht 225 H.O. The new unit offers below-bullet water pickups and a much more streamlined profile, for higher speed applications. Eventually, it was the E-Tec that held up our test yet again in January 2005, but finally, we received word from Evinrude in late March that the engine was on its way to Bullet. Secure in that knowledge, we made our final preparations and booked our tickets to Knoxville.

    EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED

    When Quinlan and I arrived at the Bullet plant and Cherokee Lake, there were a few more surprises in store. Our rules stipulate that each manufacturer bring only stock production engines to the test. No pre-production surprises are allowed. Each engine must be in the exact configuration as it will be offered to the general boating public, and must have official factory documentation (sell sheets, owner’s manuals, advertising materials, etc.) to back it up. Right away, questions arose about the Merc’s authenticity. The rumor mill had already cranked up with the possibility that our test 225 Pro XS was not in its original condition, with questions surrounding the Sport Master gearcase with 1.62:1 gears. Mercury’s Tony Coty and Jack Litjens, both present for the test, put that rumor to rest when they produced documentation clearly showing that the XS was indeed available with that gearcase and ratio as an option in place of the stock Torque Master and 1.75:1 ratio.

    The second problem proved to be more vexing, and changed our testing for the weekend as well as the outcome of the test itself. Evinrude did indeed show up with its new low-water pickup nosecone gearcase, but Evinrude reps Karl Sandstrom, Larry Foy and Glyn Austin confirmed that it was not actually in production yet. They promised that it would be available on early 2006-model E-Tec 225 H.O. engines by the time this issue hit the streets, but as of our test date, those engines were being shipped with Lightning lower units.

    In addition, as the BRP team tested the setup on the bright blue metalflake Bullet, the new gearcase began to exhibit a few problems. The extreme engine height required to extract the best top speeds from the combo began to take its toll, and the unit began to have problems heating up. The results almost halted the test; the Hydromotive prop it was turning began to experience hub failures (the plastic hub insert kept melting), and the lower unit’s bearing carrier began to lose its seals. In addition, the bearing carrier itself began to rotate inside the lower unit housing. In the end, Foy had to reseal the carrier and re-install it at a local dealer.

    Meanwhile, Quinlan and I conferred and concluded that we must run the test numbers with the Lightning gearcase. It was clear to us that while the new gearcase is a sleek, hydrodynamic and very promising design (worth 2.5 mph on this combo over the Lightning case), more engineering and testing time was needed to ensure its reliability on ultra high-speed hulls like our Bullet tester.

    Regardless, the boats and engines were weighed, then each hull, pad, strake and setback jack inspected to ensure that all three rigs were as close as possible. The Evinrude’s hull was the lightest at 1556 pounds, Merc was in the middle at 1600, and Yamaha’s boat was the heaviest at 1616 pounds. We handicapped the Evinrude’s Bullet with 60 pounds of lead shot, and handicapped the Merc boat by having it carry a spare stainless propeller in a storage compartment behind the driver. Cox was designated driver while we recorded fuel consumption, acceleration and top-speed numbers on each boat back-to-back-to-back to ensure that conditions would be as close to equal as possible.

    YAMAHA: JUST ADD RPM

    The Yamaha posted its best numbers using a Hydromotive four-blade Quad IV OT with 14-1/2-inch diameter and 30-inch pitch. With this wheel, top speed at 5500 rpm (remember, that’s Yamaha’s rated maximum) was 84.9 mph. Of course, the engine turned more than that, and if we allowed the results, the Yamaha would have pushed hard for top speed honors. When we allowed him to spin it to maximum rpm, Cox turned in an 87.8 mph top end at 5900 rpm, just 2.2 mph shy of the Merc’s 90-mph mark.

    As it was, overall performance from this package was very respectable, with 0-30 mph times good enough for second behind the Evinrude, and 40-60 mph sprints below six seconds. Fuel economy was strong, as the HPDI direct injection bested at 3500 rpm and 45 mph, for a 5.8 gallon-per-hour recording and a resulting range of 156.8 miles from the 30-gallon tank mounted in the Bullet (leaving ten percent — three gallons — in reserve).

    Handling-wise, the big Yammie could stand a set of harder engine mounts, as it was noticeably canted to the right during hard acceleration and at top speed. In addition, the softness could easily be felt at the steering wheel even though the Teleflex SeaStar Pro hydraulic steering (with high-performance #6345 cylinder) kept the engine in check and the boat flying straight. It should be noted that this feeling was only measured in comparison to the Merc and Evinrude rigs; chances are high that if you drove this one without driving the others immediately thereafter, you’d never notice the difference.

    The Yamaha exhibited excellent running characteristics, save for a slight vibration at 1500 to 2000 rpm. Other than that idiosyncrasy, running quality was typical Yamaha: excellent. The fit, finish and overall performance of these HPDI outboards inspire a lot of confidence in the driver, as they simply ooze quality and refinement from every pore. As mentioned, the engine’s “softness” tended to make the bow of the Bullet hover and hunt a bit at top speeds, but that was pretty easily mastered with a little seat time. Acceleration was quietly authoritative, without the “look at me” showmanship that the Merc and Evinrude exhibited thanks to their exhaust notes.

    As in all our previous testing, the Yamaha simply went about its business, without fanfare. It is an excellent example of how refined large V-6 outboards have become. There’s no question that the Yamaha engineers have done their homework on the VMax high-speed gearcase, as it provides plenty of lift, direction, and of course, water pressure at speeds approaching 90 mph.

    MERCURY: TOP-END AND ECONOMY CHAMP

    While the controversies raged, we had a shootout to pull off. We took to the water with the Mercury powered Bullet first, and while Quinlan recorded the results, Cox drove like a madman to obtain the best possible numbers. I drove each hull and recorded my driving impressions, noting how each engine felt, drove, accelerated, and handled at all speeds. Conditions during our testing ranged from 73 to 79 degrees Fahrenheit, with humidity right at 69 percent. Winds ranged from flat dead calm to approximately 5 mph. Water conditions were flat glass to a slight ripple, with occasional boat wakes thrown in.

    Merc won the top speed contest by a wide margin, posting a clean 90.0 mph on our Stalker radar and Garmin GPS units at a within-spec 5930 rpm as recorded on our OMC Digital ShopTach inductive-pickup handheld tachometer. After a week of testing, Coty and Litjens had settled on a 14-1/2 x 28-inch Hydromotive four-blade Quad IV OT for this application. It worked: Not only did the Merc best the others by a minimum of 5.1 mph at the top end, it also won honors for best fuel economy by recording an incredible 6.2 gallons per hour at a best-cruise speed of 34.3 mph @ 2500 rpm. Averaging the entire fuel economy results, Merc won overall in this category too, with an average 4.6 miles per gallon.

    In this test, the fastest was also the stingiest — that’s great news for those on a fuel budget who want to rule the river. In acceleration testing, the combination of its steep 1.62:1 gearing and tall 28-inch-pitch propeller served to hurt the big Merc’s punch quotient slightly, as it posted 0-30 mph times of 8.1 seconds and 40-60 times of 5.6 seconds — good for third and second places, respectively.

    Handling-wise, the brutish Mercury was the best of the three, no contest. Its solid mounts and proven Sport Master lower unit combined to give a very authoritative, grounded feel at all speeds, especially when accelerating and at top-end speed. At idle speeds, the Mercury was the loudest of the three engines, as it exhibited the typical OptiMax sound, sort of a hollow note accompanied by a slightly muted “clicking”. Some have likened it to a sewing machine-like sound, as it lumbered along at 1000 rpm. As we climbed out of the hole and onto plane, the centersection’s open exhaust allowed the engine to breathe, and breathe it did. It was plenty loud in the Bullet’s cockpit, prohibiting conversation at any level except yelling. Midrange torque and top speed pull were there in abundance, with no lack of lift and drive at any speed. Overall, the 225 Pro XS is all Merc, with plenty of Merc Racing snarl and growl to befit its heritage.

    EVINRUDE: ACCELERATION CHAMP

    I was impressed with the performance, and more accurately, the ultimate potential of the E-Tec 225 H.O. In this writer’s opinion, the Rude takes the honors for best styling and raciest sound effects. The E-Tec stylists hit it out of the park; this Evinrude is the best looking model to come along in many years — certainly much better than the rounded styling of the previous Ficht models. The sharp, well-defined edges, corners and surfaces of the E-Tec cowling and lower shroud look decidedly mean when combined with the race-tech look of the new gearcase. In fact, when mated to the older Lightning lower unit, the E-Tec looks like it’s missing something. The new unit really helps the Evinrude look like a race motor.

    And the sound — oh, that sound! At idle, it was easily the quietest of the three engines tested. But, as soon as the E-Tec popped the Bullet on plane and the unmuffled exhaust escaped from the gearcase, I was immediately transported back to 1989, watching Alan Stoker’s big, bad and blue Evinrude V-6 howl around the track at St. Louis — right past all the Mercs to capture first place at the MOD-VP World Championships.

    Unfortunately, this test provided inconclusive results where the E-Tec is concerned. With field testing, that happens sometimes, and like always, we simply made the best of what we had. With the Lightning lower unit and a stock 14-1/2×30-inch three-blade Raker prop, the 225 H.O. was a third-place engine in top speed (84.2 mph at 5670 rpm) and fuel economy (best cruise of 5 mpg at 30.1 mph, turning 2500 rpm).

    Acceleration, however, proved to be its strong point, as it took first place honors in both the 0-30 contest (7.4 seconds) and the 40-60 midrange sprint (5.1 seconds, a full half-second better than the second-place Mercury). With this gearcase installed (due to the lack of low-water pickups), the Evinrude techs had to lower the Rapid Jack setback plate a full inch, which of course caused the loss in top speed.

    BALANCING THE RESULTS

    Mercury Racing has another champ on its hands, just as it did in 1995 when the venerable Pro Max 225 was introduced. I have no way of knowing if this new 225 Pro XS will be as popular as the old Pro Max, but the results of this test sure won’t hurt sales. Yamaha and Evinrude have some catch-up ball to play, but it’s not like the score is 10-zip in Mercury’s favor. No, with a little tweaking the men in black would have been sweating, and not due to the hot sun and still air at Cherokee Lake. In fact, all Yamaha has to do is (news flash) raise their rev range to 6000 and install a set of stiffer lower motor mounts, and they’re there. Evinrude is almost as close; a little more development work on the new gearcase, some stiff motor mounts, and perhaps a 1.75:1 gear set (or raise the rev range to 6000+) and it’s a whole new ball game.

    That’s in the performance arena. Fuel economy, when Evinrude uses its new gearcase, is close enough for most anglers, with only .4 mpg separating the best from the worst at the most efficient speed, and just one-tenth overall. That may be enough to sway the most finicky of fishermen, but I’m betting most will stick with “their brand” unless the difference is much greater.

    What about emissions? Yamaha loses a few technical points for “only” obtaining a two-star rating from the California Air Resources Board (CARB); Merc and Evinrude both are three-star rated. In addition, Merc and Evinrude both offer three-year warranties, where Yamaha offers two. It’s in these two areas that Yamaha needs to up their ante. Like it or not, environmental “cleanliness” is becoming more and more of an issue. Warranty is too; with the DFI technology still new and relatively unquantified, warranty concerns most anglers — especially when plunking down twenty large.

    What about weight? As most readers well know, weight is a big concern, especially when lightweight hulls like Bullets are employed. Mercury wins this portion of the contest too; not only were they the lightest at 520 pounds, they were closest to their claimed weight of 505 pounds. Yamaha was next; they claim their VMax 225 HPDI weighs 539 pounds, and we weighed it at 584 — a difference of 45 pounds. Evinrude claims their engine weighs 509 pounds, and it tipped our scales at 564 — a difference of 55 pounds.

    Remember, we weigh with everything: cowl, propeller, steering cylinder, rigging hoses/wires/cables, and any oil and fuel presently in the engine’s systems. When you include the extras, Mercury is right on the money with its claimed 505 pounds. If anything, they’re a bit heavy. Adding the extras, our figures should be approximately 25 to perhaps 30 pounds over the factory specs.

    Finally, there’s price. Everyone knows that no one pays list. However, it’s usually where the bargaining starts, unlike when dealing for a car or truck. In this arena, Merc’s $16,664 list price is a bargain, even when it only includes the Torque Master lower unit and 1.75:1 ratio. To get an engine equipped like our test unit (with 1.62:1 ratio Sport Master gearcase), you’ll have to shell out another $1286, for a total of $17,950. The Evinrude lists at $20,421, but keep in mind that BRP puts out an intentionally high list price to give their dealers more wiggle room when bargaining. Yamaha lists the suggested retail for its VMax 225 HPDI as $16,720, which is the best price of the three, considering how it’s equipped. My guess is that any of these engines would be available from most dealers for somewhere between $16,000~$17,500.

    AND THE WINNER IS…

    Where the prop meets the water, Mercury won this contest hands-down. You’ve got to hand it to the men in black; this engine didn’t exist a year ago, and when they first conceived it, they had no intentions of running it at 90 mph on a lightweight rig like our Bullet. It goes to show you how quickly a company can react and adapt when they want to. Kudos to Mercury; they deserve this win.

    Yamaha and Evinrude both produced excellent outboards that showcase how good DFI technology has become, yet they have a little work to do before they can pull alongside and pass the Mercury team. I’d love to revisit this same shootout a year from now to see if either company can knock Team Black from its perch. Anyone care for a rematch?

    gjk1970
    Annandale Mn.
    Posts: 1260
    #528787

    Very interesting thanks for sharing Ripper..

    iceman62
    Baldwin, WI
    Posts: 152
    #528791

    Good info ripper. Thanx, Iceman

    birddog
    Mn.
    Posts: 1957
    #528793

    Well, that sets the hype and BS aside. Great read.

    BIRDDOG

    Sartell Eye Guy
    Sartell, MN
    Posts: 624
    #528795

    Lets all not forget that Lip loves having “black boxes” hanging on the back of his boat.

    I guess I have to agree. There is a 200 hp EFI and a 15 hp BF hanging on the back of my boat. I’ve had no trouble with my Mercs.

    Lip, I’m only assuming the 620 has couple black ones hanging. See ya on the pond, Adam

    ggoody
    Mpls MN
    Posts: 2603
    #528796

    Quote:


    Well, that sets the hype and BS aside. Great read.

    BIRDDOG


    HUH! ?

    Logan
    Big Lake, MN
    Posts: 389
    #528816

    Lippers new nickname is Johnny Cash for the “Man in Black.”

    jlbassfishing
    Posts: 50
    #528825

    This is very informative and interesting information, but this is for about 5–10% of the fishing world. I am not planning on owning a 225 horse motor for awhile, nor do I plan on racing a boat ever!!! I would love to see a test of 90-115 horse motors which most of our 17-19 foot fishing boats have out there, and also which pertains to the vast majority of fisherman around the country. Don’t get me wrong all I fish for is bass, and if money were no issue I would love to have a bass boat with at least a 200 hp motor, but you can still get to the same spots, fish just as much and catch all the same fish with half the boat and motor and price, but that is not reality for most of us. I would just like to read the same testing on boats and motors that more people care about, and also in the four stroke category.
    Still a great read, thanks for the info.

    KirtH
    Lakeville
    Posts: 4063
    #528831

    I am with ya ripper

    James Holst
    Keymaster
    SE Minnesota
    Posts: 18926
    #528849

    Quote:


    This is very informative and interesting information, but this is for about 5–10% of the fishing world.


    I agree. Actually, after reading the piece my impression was that this type of test is less than useful.

    Give me 3 motors pulled off the shelves and put on the kind of boats we use… deep v walleye rigs. Run them at idle. Fuel consumption at 4,000 RPM where I drive 99% of the time. The concept of a test featuring factory-tweaked motors with rigid motor mounts and 30″ – 32″ props is so far from what any of us would ever make use of in the real world.

    eronningen
    Rochester, MN
    Posts: 1885
    #528864

    It was a good article. I am kind of disappointed they didn’t run the motors on a more popular hull. Ranger, Champion, stratos, triton, etc. Those boats I listed are all pretty well similar in performance and weight…..ya, I know a couple are a few mph faster blah, blah. But to put them on a bullet, it leaves such a huge gap in the useable info. In fact, I take nothing more from that test than that the merc was the best on the Bullet.
    I can almost guarentee if you put those same engines on a hull as I listed above they would all be within a couple mph instead of 5 or more.
    I had a new pro xs last year on my Champ. Great engine. I also have my buddy JHall, that has a HPDI on his(same Champ) and another friend with an e-tec on his(same Champ). I rode in all and drove two. Not one stands out and none is more than 1.5 mph faster than another with the right hands at the wheel. With all that said, the test seems like a waste of a huge amount of time and resources leaving readers with a very wrong impression of what they may be getting.

    ted-merdan
    Posts: 1036
    #528954

    I find it most interesting that the YAMAHA offering that was tested here was designed 4-5 years ago and isn’t an enhanced engine – Etec is a high output version and the Opti is the XS version. What would the numbers been if a standard ETEC and OPTI were run?

    For the most part I really do like how B&WB conducts their tests. It would be very interesting to see them load up similiar glass walleye hulls and compare engines and then do the same thing with tin. I mean fill all the compartments with tackle, safety equip, 20+ rods, full fuel, both live wells, full cooler, etc. and then see how they perfom. Let’s face it, I don’t head out fishing with only a spare prop in a compartment for a day… What I am learing is that most boats perfom remarkably different with full loads and that’s how most fishermen are using their rigs.

    As a consumer it’s great to see these engine companies investing in multiple technologies and delivering new advances that keep raising the bar for each other. If we can keep the costs in line we win as consumers with multiple choices out there.

    It would be fun if my walleye boat could break 65MPH…

    ted merdan

    ted-merdan
    Posts: 1036
    #528958

    Steve – here’s my take and I am always cautious on an infomercial that’s paid for by one company.

    When the boat flips over, why isn’t the prop on the YAMAHA still spinning? Before it flips, if the motor is truly running at wide open throttle, why don’t you see any cavitation or tubulence behind the prop???

    Seemed a little fishy to me…

    luke_haugland
    Iowa City, Iowa
    Posts: 3037
    #528969

    I’ll race an etec boat, or a mercury boat….

    Unless it it Jack Dunn’s…with that 300 opti…

    KirtH
    Lakeville
    Posts: 4063
    #528999

    I will try and find the link, they tested the 150 class on a deep v, more realistic to our boats.

    After much research, that is why I chose Merc

    Todd_NE
    Posts: 701
    #529028

    Fuel consumption at 4,000 RPM where I drive 99% of the time.

    Not only did the Merc best the others by a minimum of 5.1 mph at the top end, it also won honors for best fuel economy by recording an incredible 6.2 gallons per hour at a best-cruise speed of 34.3 mph @ 2500 rpm. Averaging the entire fuel economy results, Merc won overall in this category too, with an average 4.6 miles per gallon.

    chris-tuckner
    Hastings/Isle MN
    Posts: 12318
    #529187

    I looked at the Bullet website. These guys are poster chldren for Mercury. See Bullet here. It may not mean a darned thing, but how much tweaking would you think Merc would get over any other motor brand?
    What does JD Power have to say?

    lenny_jamison
    Bay City , WI
    Posts: 4001
    #529198

    Quote:


    I looked at the Bullet website. These guys are poster chldren for Mercury. See Bullet here. It may not mean a darned thing, but how much tweaking would you think Merc would get over any other motor brand?
    What does JD Power have to say?


    Yup, that is the way it looked to me.

    chris-tuckner
    Hastings/Isle MN
    Posts: 12318
    #529215

    You know when it comes to flat out speed, I would have to give the not to Mercury too! No other boat company has spent more R&D money into how to make a motor go faster. You see it is all the race motors out there today. But how long to they last? How often to those motors have to be torn down and rebuilt? How reliable are they for the long run? Rob, I have had Suzuki, Evinrude, Mercury and Yamaha over the years. I get a lot of flak for giving my reviews of motors. Guys have said here “Last year you were saying “E-TEC’s were the best out there” etc..But the truth is, I have an objective opinion on all motors because of experience with them. How many different motors have you owned? I am not trying to be a dink, I am just curious. (You started this post! )

    timdomaille
    Rochester Mn
    Posts: 1908
    #529316

    I agree with eric. Run all the engines on a “normal” bass boat rather than a high performance style and see what happens. I bet they would all be closer than further with the stats.

    robstenger
    Northern Twin Cities, MN
    Posts: 11374
    #529395

    Quote:


    Give me 3 motors pulled off the shelves and put on the kind of boats we use…deep v walleye rigs.


    This a quote to the article……”Our rules stipulate that each manufacturer bring only stock production engines to the test. No pre-production surprises are allowed. Each engine must be in the exact configuration as it will be offered to the general boating public, and must have official factory documentation (sell sheets, owner’s manuals, advertising materials, etc.) to back it up. ”

    Secondly James, this is more than just a Walleye site. I have heard by rumor only, that there is a Bass Forum also. Not sure where it is, but I have been told that those guys don’t run the “good” deep V boats like we do.

    Quote:


    Run them at idle. Fuel consumption at 4,000 RPM where I drive 99% of the time.


    Another quote from the article that indeed they were tested at Cruising Speed I know it was not @4,000 RPM but they did test other speeds and did overall consumption tests.

    Quote:


    How reliable are they for the long run?


    Tuck, I’m guessing you are asking how reliable the Mercury’s are. Well at the time of the test here is what was said about Warranties.

    Quote:


    Merc and Evinrude both are three-star rated. In addition, Merc and Evinrude both offer three-year warranties, where Yamaha offers two.


    I know that the Optimax 225 XS now has a 5 year Warranty on them. I know that I have put oodles of hours on my 2002 Optimax with out one single issue. I can’t say how reliable the 225xs is Tuck, I just got mine and have put minimal hours on it. I have gone off past experience with my Mercuries and have had nothing but positive things with them. Also “others” must be thinking they are decent motors, beacuse in in February 2006, J.D. Power and Associates recognized OptiMax as “Highest in Customer Satisfaction with Two-Stroke Outboard Engines.”

    Quote:


    Rob, I have had Suzuki, Evinrude, Mercury and Yamaha over the years. I get a lot of flak for giving my reviews of motors. Guys have said here “Last year you were saying “E-TEC’s were the best out there” etc..But the truth is, I have an objective opinion on all motors because of experience with them. How many different motors have you owned? I am not trying to be a dink, I am just curious. (You started this post! )


    True Tuck, I have only dealt with basically one engine manufacturer and have not had any reason to change. Unlike you I have only had the opporutnity to Run “2 big/main motors” since 2002. I look at reports and articles like this posted above and off my past experiences and see no need to change. I do have to ask you though when was the last time you actually put a Mercury through a work out with an “open mind” and a ton of hours behind it? I’m guessing it was a few years back????? The thing is with technology going the way it is, things are constantly changing, it would be a full time job to stay on top of it, with as much as we “fisherman” rely on it (technology). So are you truly comparing “apples to apples” in the fact you are talking about a Mercury you ran 4-5 years ago comparing them to a 2005 E-Tec or 2006 Yammy?????

    Quote:


    I am not trying to be a dink, I am just curious. (You started this post! )


    I did post this. Didn’t know it was a crime or bad thing to post a article on Boat Engines on a fishing website. I’m not the one taking offense to it. In my original posting alls I said was

    Quote:


    Thought this was an interesting article.


    I didn’t give an opinion or nothing. I just thought it was interesting. If people want to read what ever they want into it, that is fine. I just ran across the article and thought it was interesting. I know this is a FORD/CHEVY debate but, thought it was intersting thing to post for our readers. Heck, we could probalby talk about this till were Blue in the face, but we could probably do the same thing if we wanted to compare large enginer DFI’s to 4 strokes. I would be for the DFI’s along with other Opti, Yammy HPDI and Etec guys and then we would have Ted Merdan, possibly you, etc. talk about 4 strokes are the way to go?? It would never end.

    I just posted this for IDA to see and take what ever they wanted out of it.

    James Holst
    Keymaster
    SE Minnesota
    Posts: 18926
    #529405

    Quote:


    Give me 3 motors pulled off the shelves and put on the kind of boats we use…deep v walleye rigs.


    Quote:


    This a quote to the article……”Our rules stipulate that each manufacturer bring only stock production engines to the test. No pre-production surprises are allowed. Each engine must be in the exact configuration as it will be offered to the general boating public, and must have official factory documentation (sell sheets, owner’s manuals, advertising materials, etc.) to back it up.


    Baloney. These companies are doing what Chevy, Mopar and Ford did back in the 60’s and 70’s. The rules back then stated that all cars had to run “factory” parts. Each of the companies would put their racing techs to work to build the fastest cars they could produce and then to circumvent the rules they make these high-end parts available through limited outlets. Just because these guys can produce a sales sheet showing a part available… doesn’t make it “an of the shelf motor.”

    Quote:


    The rumor mill had already cranked up with the possibility that our test 225 Pro XS was not in its original condition, with questions surrounding the Sport Master gearcase with 1.62:1 gears. Mercury’s Tony Coty and Jack Litjens, both present for the test, put that rumor to rest when they produced documentation clearly showing that the XS was indeed available with that gearcase and ratio as an option in place of the stock Torque Master and 1.75:1 ratio.


    They tweaked the motor to get the best results for this specific test. Do I blame them for doing it? Heck no. Why show up if you’re not going to do everything possible to win. Kudos to them. Just don’t try and pass this off as a real world test that the majority of the readers can relate to.

    To clarify… I am not trying to come off in favor of or against any one motor company. Just the relevence of the test.

    Here’s how I would like to see a test done. Most all motor companies have tech sheets on many of the popular brands of boats produced. They listed recommended props, expected top speed, motor mount height, etc.

    Find a hull that all 3 companies cover with their tech sheets. Leave the factory racing team completely out of this. Grab 3 new motors. Break them in. Hang them on the same hull. Test using the recommended prop / mounting height for each motor. Now compare data.

    That would be my ideal test. But then that’s just me.

    robstenger
    Northern Twin Cities, MN
    Posts: 11374
    #529418

    Quote:


    Find a hull that all 3 companies cover with their tech sheets. Leave the factory racing team completely out of this. Grab 3 new motors. Break them in. Hang them on the same hull. Test using the recommended prop / mounting height for each motor. Now compare data.


    I think they did do something close to this with the 250 4 strokes and Optimax with the Ranger 620 hull. Is it exactly what you are looking for??? No, but alot closer. I think the props were around 23- 24″, which is not too far off from consumer choices

    They also did it, with the 150 HP’s, but I’m not a memeber able to view.

    150 shoot out CLICK HERE

    derek_johnston
    On the water- Minnesota
    Posts: 5022
    #529433

    I’d like to see the next test done on reliability. I think the world knows who is already and has been on top.

    eronningen
    Rochester, MN
    Posts: 1885
    #529456

    I said what I said before and believe it to be very true…….As far as reliability, come on, thats an impossible case to prove anymore. With all the different kinds of people and how they drive their boats and all of the different conditions we all subject them to, its just really hard to get a grip on reliability. I guess all they can do is go by their warranty service records. But thats skewed as I mentioned above. Tough case to prove.
    I think they’re all pretty darned reliable. Each manufactuer puts out some lemon designs once and awhile and they get through it and then the next one does it too.

    gary_wellman
    South Metro
    Posts: 6057
    #529462

    Agreed!
    I don’t think any manufacture is putting out any motors that are “bad”. I don’t think that any motor has a better rap sheet for a better service record.

    Like I stated in another post…..a person can drop the coin for a motor that requires no maintenence for 3 years. However the Return Of Investment of purchasings an “entry level” motor may indeed be cost effective!

    robstenger
    Northern Twin Cities, MN
    Posts: 11374
    #529464

    Quote:


    Run them at idle. Fuel consumption at 4,000 RPM where I drive 99% of the time.


    Ok, after I thought about this a little more. I agree with you 100% that is were my wolrd is also, but this test was on a bass boat. I’m guessing a good percentage of those guys do not live @ 4000 rpms and 66 % throttle like you and I. So there WOT and “cruising speed” is probably a good measure for that test.

    James Holst
    Keymaster
    SE Minnesota
    Posts: 18926
    #529487

    I can understand why the bass guys like to talk about high horse power motors… their boats actually go… FAST. Even the fastest walleye boat is nothing to get excited about.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 61 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.