New motor required 150 V 175

[boatboy50]

John R,

Can you please point us all to the facts of where this is documented?

I see this sort of claim all the time, and am yet to see living proof of it as fact.

Darren

[John_R]

Calling me a liar Darren? You are a Suzuki dealer I am guessing?

I have been researching these motors for an upgrade for my boat. The numbers come from various engine tests on Boatpoint and other sources.

http://features.boats.com/boat-conte...tboard-debuts/

http://www.boatpoint.com.au/engine-r...ki-df175-14756

The boatpoint test above compares the Suzuki 175 with the Opti 150 (which is claimed 150.1hp) on the same Victory hull and the Opti performance and fuel economy is comparable. Why would I upgrade to a Suzuki for no gain over the Opti I have now?

I agree with Cormorant that peak HP does not necessarily imply better performance, but it does give some indication. In this case VVT increases high rev HP for the Suzuki, so it's possible that the Merc is a better mid-range performer.

I think the capacity and its resultant torque may be a better indicator also.

I have no vested interests in Mercury or Suzuki, but am impressed with the new Merc. That's all.

[The Woo]

I for one wish outboard manufacturers would make their power/torque graphs much more easily accessible than they are. It's nice to have a sticker on the cowling stating the HP within 10% @ the prop..... but graphs, and more specifically, torque figures, really do the talking.

If we were to be limited to just HP figures in the diesel inboard market, I'm sure Yanmar would sell more of their 4.2 litre sixes, because they're small and easy to fit.... but nobody would know that the torque figure in only about 2/3 of the 5.9 Cummins. Similar horsepower though! And we'd have a whole bunch of boats that wouldn't get out of the hole and onto plane.

If I were in this market for this range outboard, I'd be taking a REAL close look at the new 4 banger from Mercury. Especially if you're looking at keeping it long term.

[Mister]

Always look at the lowest HP for any similar capacity engine. Less stressed engine models will always be the best investment.

[Dicko]

I for one wish outboard manufacturers would make their power/torque graphs much more easily accessible than they are. It's nice to have a sticker on the cowling stating the HP within 10% @ the prop..... but graphs, and more specifically, torque figures, really do the talking.

If we were to be limited to just HP figures in the diesel inboard market, I'm sure Yanmar would sell more of their 4.2 litre sixes, because they're small and easy to fit.... but nobody would know that the torque figure in only about 2/3 of the 5.9 Cummins. Similar horsepower though! And we'd have a whole bunch of boats that wouldn't get out of the hole and onto plane.

If I were in this market for this range outboard, I'd be taking a REAL close look at the new 4 banger from Mercury. Especially if you're looking at keeping it long term.

So true.

Go buy an engine for any other application and you can compare the facts via torque figures etc, but outboards are damn near non existant.

Tohatsu have them available, but that's a little hollow when no one else supplies them to compare against.

The only other one shown around the place is a marketing poster from etec showing a torque graph better than a yammy, but no figures or data on the graph so it's nothing but sales hype.

[cormorant]

Always look at the lowest HP for any similar capacity engine. Less stressed engine models will always be the best investment.

In the days where all the motors used the same materials , approx bores size and technology that theory worked as the lazy motor lasted longer. These days there is so many variables in materials and design I don't think the arguement is as valid in regards to performance as VVT or electronics can get same performance more effeciently out of smaller CC. . Harder to compare apples with apples these days. It however stands that a simple older style motor of proven design should be Ok but what happens is some bloke in the office decides that to compete with the newer motors they need to trim some weight so lighten up some metal here and there so old relaible becomes more stressed. Problem is the manufacturers are constantly changing designs and the metals things are made out of and with new casting technology can do so much more quickly and cheaply than previously so different generaions of the same motor can gradually lose the very quality you bought the original version for. A lazy torquey motor. You just have to look at the ever relaible casting and bottom end of the johnsons that remain pretty much unchanged but the heads, pistons, fuel injection and exhausts have all changed. Same CC but very different motors from previous models, same hp but different tractability and a lot was just done to meet emmissions / fuel ecconomy.

The great thing with diesels is they are purpose designed as a pretty much constant load engine and rated for a number of hours at that load. They give the curves so peopel can use the right motor for the load required. Simple mechanical controls for that performance band and use worked. Run them outside that criteria and their lifespan changes significantly. Comes down to correct set up and choice in the end for the purpose and to meet pollution rules it is all electronic these days.

Everything is a compromise and with electronic engine management systems it is amazing what some motors can achieve.

[boatboy50]

Hey Mate,

I'm not here to have a slinging match. Life is too short for name calling. I simply asked to be pointed to facts. A forum is here to share information, which is what we both are doing.

See this link to Mercury's own website which states a 150hp Max on that engine.

http://www.mercurymarine.com/engines...s/150/?model=0

I couln't find that engine on the boatpoint site to compare apples to apples, using the same data source.

My reading of your initial link to me doesn't say the engine produces that hp at the prop, but i'm not a mechanic either so it's all jargon to me.

Interestingly, your boatpoint links also show the Suzuki 140 to put out 138hp.

http://www.boatpoint.com.au/engine-r...uki-df140-8328

A pet hate of mine is to see on this forum and others it claimed as only putting out 128hp which I believe to be false.

Anyway, engines aren't my thing, and i'm no mechanic, so I won't defend them as vigourously as you appear to want to, so i'll move onto something else.

Darren

Calling me a liar Darren? You are a Suzuki dealer I am guessing?

I have been researching these motors for an upgrade for my boat. The numbers come from various engine tests on Boatpoint and other sources.

http://features.boats.com/boat-conte...tboard-debuts/

http://www.boatpoint.com.au/engine-r...ki-df175-14756

The boatpoint test above compares the Suzuki 175 with the Opti 150 (which is claimed 150.1hp) on the same Victory hull and the Opti performance and fuel economy is comparable. Why would I upgrade to a Suzuki for no gain over the Opti I have now?

I agree with Cormorant that peak HP does not necessarily imply better performance, but it does give some indication. In this case VVT increases high rev HP for the Suzuki, so it's possible that the Merc is a better mid-range performer.

I think the capacity and its resultant torque may be a better indicator also.

I have no vested interests in Mercury or Suzuki, but am impressed with the new Merc. That's all.

[John_R]

Darren,

You could have said that in a way that didn't make out you thought I was deliberately spreading bunkum. We can only go on the info that is available, and that isn't much. Andrew Norton is pretty reliable so if he states 138hp for the 140, then it's probably correct.

Several other sources have noted 164.9hp for the Merc 150, so I reckon that's probably right too. Merc's formal specs just list the nominal HP.

Way things are going, I will not find out - no calls for the Opti in several weeks. Might just give up and keep it.

[Swanie1975]

im another one for max hp on the hull especially if you compare the weight of the suzi 150 v 175

interesting that the japanese motors seem to be packed full of high tech while the new merc has taken the more back to basics approach - be great to see how the motors stand the test of time. with auto engines it amazes me how the germans seem to be able to squeeze out huge hp/kw per litre compared to the others. do the likes of BMW or Mercedes have any marine products?

John R, i found the articles interesting to read and i noted that the performance of the merc 150 was with a 16p prop - funnily enough the holeshot was great as was the midrange. it should be with that low a pitch i wonder what it would rev out to ?

cheers ryan

[John_R]

The Suzuki 150 and 175 are basically the same motor with the significant difference being VVT on the 175. Weights are within 5kg. Nice motors, but expensive and not offering me any advantage, other than less noise. They were released in 2005/2006, and have remained pretty much unchanged since then, so kinda old and boring too.

Here is a comparison of 150 Four strokes and DFI you guys may find of interest:

http://www.boatpoint.com.au/engine-r...s-comparo-8370

Unfortunately this is too old to include the new Merc 150 fourstroke.

I currently run a 15" Mirage Plus on the Opti 150 which gets it to 5300 (WOT Rev range 5000-5600). Holeshot and general performance/economy are very good. Prop selection depends on the hull etc, but a prop that allows the motor to get to the mid/upper part of the WOT rev range is essential, so that the motor is not overloaded.