Yamaha 200hp Saltwater Series 2-stroke?

[rat_catcher]

I am considering purchasing a boat with a 200 year model 200hp Yamaha Saltwater Series 2-stroke engine. It has done about 350 hours and looks in excellent condition.

Anybody got any data on this engine?

Fuel usage? It is on a Signature 702SB.

Anything to look out for?

I have attached a few pics to have a look at. Any comments?

[Brumby]

Ha, answered my own question (in the sensabrake thread). PM me your e-mail address and I'll send you some info I dug up on fuel consumption etc for a similar size boat. Reason I went into it is I'm keen to upgrade from my early '90s Evinrude and my mechanic recommended a Yamaha 200. Reckons they are one of the tougher ones around. I have heard though that you need to be a bit fussy about the oil you use as mixing brands and or leaving it in place for a long time can lead to gel forming in the oil injection nozzles, doing the engine a power of no good. BM would be the right person to ask on the forum.

Sounds like a nice outfit you're looking at.

Cheers

Carl

[snelly1971]

Mine used approx 35 l/h on a 6 meter plate boat at 4200...WOT they are about 75-80 liters an hour....

Before you buy it ...get it checked out by a mechanic...they were prone to drop bearings sometimes....Mine had done 2000 hrs before it dropped a bearing...which destroyed the motor....

Cheers Mick

[Wayne_Red]

I used to have a mid 80's 200yam. I got @ 90litres for 100km cruising on 4k on a 6m seafarer. Can't comment on the later models though.

Can't quite make out the ID plate but to the right of "yamaha motor co ltd" if it is a 2000 model it should have the letter T. If it is a 99' model it will have the letter U. Never hurts to check.
Regards Wayne

[leezor]

I had a 96 model 200 Yammy previously on my SF20, at around 4200 RPM the best I could do was just over 1km per litre at just over 40 l/ph from memory. I imagine pushing a 702SB the fuel consumption would be higher than this though.

[BM]

Most big V6's chew about 90ltrs per hour at full noise (or WOT to be trendy).

At 80% throttle (cruise throttle) the fuel economy will be remarkably different and the boat speed will not be too far from full noise.

In any oil injection system its best not to mix oils due ot the potential of gelling. Likewise old oil has a habit of gelling too. Easiest idea is to tip out the oil bottle contents and replace the oil bottle filter screen (if fitted).

Being a 7mtr boat with 200hp its going to be up there in throtle to achieve reasonable performance. I had a boat in my yard (when I had my boatyard) a Formula 233 with a 7.4ltr MerCruiser (big block Chev) 330hp and it went alright but not fantastic. Fished from it a few times. Wasn't bad on the juice. If it was only 200hp it would have been a pig. Granted though, they are different boats.

I reckon the boat you are looking at would be much better powered (and certainly not overpowered) by a pair of 150's.

Cheers

[ozscott]

I used to think that 115 on my Vagabond would be underpowered until I took her for a trial. 70kph from the Yammy. Now I have added a lot of weight and with a few boofs in her she still does 65kph and cruises at 45 - 6.4 LOA. 800KG bear hull and I have added heaps. 21 degrees rise front to back.

[Brumby]

BM I wouldn't write off the 200 too quickly, by way of comparison, I've got a 175 on my old Mustang (7.3m with straight deep V, no variable deadrise) and since I had the hull cleaned, I cruise at 24kts/4200rpm and top out over 35kts. I would think that you'll do a bit better with a 702/200 combination. I haven't looked up the specs on the Haines website, but I think that 300hp may be over the limit.

Cheers

Carl

[BM]

I would expect the Haines to be a tad heavier in construction than you 'Stang.

The speeds you are quoting for your rig, are you sure they are KNOTS? and not MILES?

Cheers

[Brumby]

I would expect the Haines to be a tad heavier in construction than you 'Stang.

The speeds you are quoting for your rig, are you sure they are KNOTS? and not MILES?

Cheers

Yeah, double checked the GPS after the boat came out of the yard - the jump was that dramatic after having the crud cleaned off the bottom, I thought someone had reset it for me.

[rat_catcher]

Can't quite make out the ID plate but to the right of "yamaha motor co ltd" if it is a 2000 model it should have the letter T. If it is a 99' model it will have the letter U.

This one has the letter 'U' so I guess it is actually a 1999 model. Does that make a significant difference?

I have attached a closer shot of the engine label.

[rat_catcher]

I reckon the boat you are looking at would be much better powered (and certainly not overpowered) by a pair of 150's.
Signature rates the max power at a single 250hp or twin x 115hp.

With 200hp being 80% of max, I wasn't seeing that as underpowered.

I have also tested a 702L with a 250hp Suzuki and the 200hp Yamaha has a better power to weight ratio than the 250hp Suzuki.

Thoughts?

[predator]

this web site will tell you what it is...

http://www.marinshopen.se/ ;)

[wessel]

If you can speak Swedish it would seem.....;)

[Wayne_Red]

[QUOTE][This one has the letter 'U' so I guess it is actually a 1999 model. Does that make a significant difference?
/QUOTE]
Hi rat catcher. Doesn't make a significant difference, just good to know what you are buying. Might be able to talk a few dollars off. Your motor looks in great nic.
A mate once bought a second hand motor off a local dealer believing it was 2 years old. Found out a few years later it was 5 years older than he was told, so I alway check.
Regards Wayne

[BM]

Rat, the Yam would be a better propostion than the Suzy I believe.

I guess the only way to know how well powered she is, is to go for a run.

I recently serviced a 2003 Haines Sig 530C with a 115Yam 4 stroke on it. They are a weighty hull and a max hp of 130. Seemed a little on the low side to me.

Fair enough Brumby on those readings if youv'e checked em. There would be next to nothing in it in difference between the 175 and the 200.

Cheers

[wadeo]

Hi I run 2 of these outboards on my 7.7 sharkcat. I have found them to be great motors all round. awesome pick up out of the hole and plenty of grunt when i need it. My fuel acconomy at approx 25kn at 3600rpm is approx 32l an hour each and "wot" at approx 45kn is 80l per hour each but generally don't need to use anywhere near 'wot'. On a day out to barwon banks with just over 100km traveled i'd use about 85l each with 5 to 6 people on board. This year outboard also has the ability to charge 2 batteries at once with there aux charging curcuit. I purchased these outboards at a government auction in mint condition for 3600 bucks each with gauges and duel binnicle control. 130psi compression on each cyl of each motor . and in 100hrs of use have only had problems with one fuel pump on one motor (apparently common) . I use castrol 2 stroke oil as my mechanic requests and have no worries. good luck boat looks great.

[wadeo]

Hi I run 2 of these outboards on my 7.7 sharkcat. I have found them to be great motors all round. awesome pick up out of the hole and plenty of grunt when i need it. My fuel acconomy at approx 25kn at 3600rpm is approx 32l an hour each and "wot" at approx 45kn is 80l per hour each but generally don't need to use anywhere near 'wot'. On a day out to barwon banks with just over 100km traveled i'd use about 85l each with 5 to 6 people on board. This year outboard also has the ability to charge 2 batteries at once with there aux charging curcuit. I purchased these outboards at a government auction in mint condition for 3600 bucks each with gauges and duel binnicle control. 130psi compression on each cyl of each motor . and in 100hrs of use have only had problems with one fuel pump on one motor (apparently common) . I use castrol 2 stroke oil as my mechanic requests and have no worries. good luck boat looks great.

[rat_catcher]

Hi rat catcher. Doesn't make a significant difference, just good to know what you are buying. Might be able to talk a few dollars off. Your motor looks in great nic.
Thanks. Still haven't made a final decision. Have been hampered by bad weather in Melbourne this week so cannot sea trial the 702SB.

[rat_catcher]

Rat, the Yam would be a better propostion than the Suzy I believe.

Can you explain this please?


I guess the only way to know how well powered she is, is to go for a run.

A sea trial of the 702SB was planned for this week in Melbourne but due to bad weather has been postponed. I have already sea trialled the 702L last week.

I am in a dilemma now of having to decide which way to go.

702SB with 200hp Yamaha 2-stroke
702L with 250hp Suzuki 4-stroke

There are pros and cons of each and it aint easy to decide!

[leezor]

Rat Catcher,

There is no comparison between the two, chalk and cheese mate! I have recently replaced a 1996 200hp Yammy with a 2007 225hp Suzuki 4 stroke. I was getting around 1km p/l on average with the Yammy and get close to 1.8km p/l out of the Zuke. At WOT I have picked up speed and getting it on the plane is as good if not better than the Yamaha 2 stroke.
Feel free to PM me if you want any more details on fuel consumption etc.

Cheers,

lee

[BM]

Rat,

In a recent conversation with another mechanic mate we were discussing the figures of the Suzuki 4 strokes. Prop size, final drive ratio, rpm. It appears there are some of the opinion that the crankshaft/propshaft offset drive may be a stepped drive and a your 250 Suzuki may indeed only be around 200hp and by the use of a stepped drive they can in effect produce higher power at the prop. Possibly at the expense of greater load on the engine.

However, I must point out this is not proven. Yet

[rat_catcher]

It appears there are some of the opinion that the crankshaft/propshaft offset drive may be a stepped drive and a your 250 Suzuki may indeed only be around 200hp and by the use of a stepped drive they can in effect produce higher power at the prop. Possibly at the expense of greater load on the engine.
Understood. Thanks.

[ALOGT]

I would expect a difference of between 8 to 15 hp with a stepped drive.
When my car has been on a dyno the difference between 4th 201.3hp and 3rd 210.1hp is marginal, I would think an outboard would have a simmilar variation whith different gearing.




Rat,

In a recent conversation with another mechanic mate we were discussing the figures of the Suzuki 4 strokes. Prop size, final drive ratio, rpm. It appears there are some of the opinion that the crankshaft/propshaft offset drive may be a stepped drive and a your 250 Suzuki may indeed only be around 200hp and by the use of a stepped drive they can in effect produce higher power at the prop. Possibly at the expense of greater load on the engine.

However, I must point out this is not proven. Yet

[PADDLES]

BM I don't understand this, hp is hp, you can't create more hp with a different gearing. You can however let an engine rev faster and therefore give greater output and also shift the torque curve a bit. Do you believe that the stepped drive has less losses (mechanical)? I'm asking this out of interest because these suzuki motors seem to have everyone raving about them and I'm very interested in them. (the 140hp model and not the 250hp one)

ALOGT don't be fooled by dynos, there's lots of tricks that can be done with them. In my rallying days my co-driver was a wizz with vehicle dynos and showed me just how inaccurate they can be and how they can be so easily tricked to give a set of curves that the customer will only be too happy to pay a squillion bucks for a performance mod that they didn't really get (they got the mod they wanted but not the performance increase). The trick with dyno's is to exactly replicate each run, ambient temp, barometric pressure, airflow etc. I mean your car will rev harder/easier in 3rd than 4th but you could quite easily do 2 runs in the same gear and get that sort of error.