Re: Economical motor
This past year I purchased a brand new boat. I went from a 30 year old 50 hp evinrude on a 15' boat to a 90 hp Mercury 2 stroke on 17' boat. I can now waterski, plane with 6 people in the boat with no problems.<br /><br />Fuels consumption is probably about 2/3 of my 50 hp. I thought about going 4 stroke--better idle, less fuel etc. etc. etc.<br /><br />The reason I didn't was as follows:<br /><br />1. Extra cost of 4 stroke initially buys a lot of gas.<br /><br />4 stroke = $2500 more in cost. Gas is 1.75/gallon. That's 1400 gallons of fuel. 2 stroke runs on about one third more of fuel. Than means I would have to run about 4000 gallons of fuel to recoup the difference in cost. That's a lot of fuel! <br /><br />2. 2 Strokes have a lot less working parts and are easier to repair than 4 strokes. When the time comes for repair, I'm going to save money. <br /> <br />3. Longevity of 2 strokes. My 50 hp 2 stroke ran like a dream after 30 years of basic maintenance. Only repair was a LU reseal and regular water pumps. Yes it was electric shift! It always was run at WOT. I don't know if the 4 strokes will have this kind of longevity. I compare it to cars. I could keep my Dad's '68 Nova running forever. Part's are a dime a dozen. Now take my Subaru. 40 years from now I'm I really going to find the AWD thingamajig for sale on ebay?<br /><br />For your boat, I would go with the 90 for shear simplicity. Very simple motor, 3 cylinder very straigh forward. If you are not within 80% of max hp for your boat, I would go with the 115 or better Merc engine. The 115 is more complex than the 90 hp (runs on 2 cylinders etc.)<br /><br />I would go Merc instead of OMC/Evinrude/Johnson just because of company instability. I thought my old Evinrude was great but what about the future? I still run a 1954 7.5 hp Fleetwin on my fishing boat though. It will never die.....<br /><br />Just my opinion....<br /><br />Joe
