Honda vs. Mercury Big Foot

jgoodin · Aug 6, 2002

I am getting ready to purchase a 50hp, 4-stroke outboard. I would be interested in any opinions as to which is the better motor with regards to performance and reliability. Any comments would be helpful. Thanks.

JB · Aug 6, 2002

Re: Honda vs. Mercury Big Foot

Hi, JGoodin. Both are good engines. The Merc has the advantage of being fuel injected (EFI) which would be the decider for me. If the Merc you are looking at is NOT EFI, then the nod would go to the Honda. Another EFI 50 4 stroke you might consider is the Johnson, made by Suzuki. I think that if you got demo rides in front of all three engines you would choose the Johnson. Good luck.

Skinnywater · Aug 6, 2002

Re: Honda vs. Mercury Big Foot

jgoodin, I don't have any knowledge about the Mercury your asking about, however these links should about cover your questions about the BF50 Honda. http://www.iboats.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=17;t=014998 http://www.iboats.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=17;t=016230 Since Salmon season the last 20 hours have been spent backtrolling (several hours at 1,000 RPM) and I run in inches of water with my BF50 jet (several miles at 55-6,000 rpm). Nothing in between, idle or full pony. Last Sunday I put another 7.6 hours on the hour (fun) meter and burned 4.1 gals. of fuel. My lowly carburated engine cold starts, hot starts,idles,runs, screams,and sips fuel identical to a fuel injected engine. Be very careful of companies that outsource. This usually starts the blame game, inadequate training, backordered and inflated replacement part prices and here today, gone tomorrow support. One thing I forgot to mention on my earlier contributions regarding the Honda. At the 20 hour break-in service I did my own valve adjustment, (I'm actually overqualified to do this)I was amazed to see those forged aluminum rocker arms were POLISHED! Honda didn't have to do that. Funny how some of the little things that are never even known that constitute and contribute to quality and unsurpassed reputation. WITH THAT all said......I'd go with the engine that has the best local dealer support, convienience and reputation. Fame me or flame me, bachelor@stormnet.com

Skinnywater · Aug 6, 2002

Re: Honda vs. Mercury Big Foot

jgoodin, I don't have any knowledge about the Mercury your asking about, however these links should about cover your questions about the BF50 Honda. http://www.iboats.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=17;t=014998 http://www.iboats.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=17;t=016230 Since Salmon season the last 20 hours have been spent backtrolling (several hours at 1,000 RPM) and I run in inches of water with my BF50 jet (several miles at 55-6,000 rpm). Nothing in between, idle or full pony. Last Sunday I put another 7.6 hours on the hour (fun) meter and burned 4.1 gals. of fuel. My lowly carburated engine cold starts, hot starts,idles,runs, screams,and sips fuel identical to a fuel injected engine. Be very careful of companies that outsource. This usually starts the blame game, inadequate training, backordered and inflated replacement part prices and here today, gone tomorrow support. One thing I forgot to mention on my earlier contributions regarding the Honda. At the 20 hour break-in service I did my own valve adjustment, (I'm actually overqualified to do this)I was amazed to see those forged aluminum rocker arms were POLISHED! Honda didn't have to do that. Funny how some of the little things that are never even known that constitute and contribute to quality and unsurpassed reputation. WITH THAT all said......I'd go with the engine that has the best local dealer support, convienience and reputation. Fame me or flame me, bachelor@stormnet.com

Skinnywater · Aug 6, 2002

Re: Honda vs. Mercury Big Foot

I really hate reading what I've just posted, hit the back button and it reposts. I really, really hate it and my appologies.

Forktail · Aug 6, 2002

Re: Honda vs. Mercury Big Foot

I can't help but ask why you haven't considered the Yamaha F50? It is a 4 cylinder, where the Suzuki and Honda are both 3 cylinder. It also has a bigger displacement of 57 cubic inches where Suzuki and Honda are 49.7 and 49.4 cubes respectively. The Yamaha even weighs 10 lbs less than the Suzuki. Both the Honda and Suzuki 50's share their blocks with little brother 40's. The rpm is increased from the 40 hp design to get the 50 hp. The Yamaha F50 does not share its block design with lower hp siblings, its block is unique to itself. It's even available in a special high-thrust model touting a very large gearcase. The F50 certainly seems to be the engine of choice here, whether it be commercial fishing, guiding, or pleasure.

hondon · Aug 6, 2002

Re: Honda vs. Mercury Big Foot

Whatever deal you make,be certain that it contains a water separating fuel filter.Customer support would be my next question.Do'es that dealer have the nessesary software to troubleshoot that Merc if you have a problem?No extraordinary tools needed with the Honda.Four stroke EFIs are nice ,but if you are down and wanting for parts ,you could, in my experiance, be down awhile.I hope that changes,as I have always loved Merc.

Skinnywater · Aug 6, 2002

Re: Honda vs. Mercury Big Foot

I can't comment on the Suzuki. However, while the BF50 shares many parts with the BF40, there is more to it. The cylinder head is different because the intake valves are larger. The camshaft is different.The carbs have larger jets in them and the ignition control unit is different because of different mapping as well as an RPM increase. The Yamaha is 52 lbs. heavier then the Honda. *Hondon, I have a business proposition for you, if your interested contact me. It involves a jackplate, BF50 lower unit w/prop, my money and your advise. I can wait till after your season. >Both the Honda and Suzuki 50's share their >blocks with little brother 40's. The rpm is >increased from the 40 hp design to get the 50 >hp. >The Yamaha even weighs 10 lbs less than the Suzuki.

ivar · Aug 6, 2002

Re: Honda vs. Mercury Big Foot

I agree with Forktail , the Yam F50 should also be considered. My .02's are that the Yamaha (and the merc 50) will have better low/midrange torque than the Honda and Suzuki. From what I've seen , the Honda is a great engine , but it don't have the acceleration and top end the yamaha/merc have. Also the Suzi 50 is what I consider a high rpm engine , redlining at 6500 if I remember correctly, I would prefer a little lower top rpm , for both noise and reliability. Other than that , I've never heard of any serious reliability issues with any of them. Fuel consumption would be similar. For noise levels , the Suz. will be the most quiet at idle and lower rpms but not at wot , the others should be quite similar. I'm currently running a Yamaha F40 , very happy so far , even without EFI.

ivar · Aug 6, 2002

Re: Honda vs. Mercury Big Foot

BTW jgoodin, which boat are you going to put this engine on?

jgoodin · Aug 7, 2002

Re: Honda vs. Mercury Big Foot

Thanks for the advice. The motor I buy will on a pontoon boat. It will replace an Evinrude 40 that has been nothing but trouble since I bought it new 10 years ago.

ivar · Aug 7, 2002

Re: Honda vs. Mercury Big Foot

If you're going to use it on a pontoon , I would strongly consider one of the "BigFoot" variants , like the Merc or the Yam FT-50. The lower gears and larger props will give you much more pushing power at lower speeds. Try a Search on "pontoon" or "bigfoot", I'm sure you'll find more relevant information on this issue.

JB · Aug 8, 2002

Re: Honda vs. Mercury Big Foot

Hi, JGoodin. Since you are putting the engine on a 'toon, I agree with Ivar. The "Bigfoot" and the Yammy High Thrust were designed for heavy, slow applications. The difference is that the Merc is EFI. Go with the Merc. Good luck.

Forktail · Aug 8, 2002

Re: Honda vs. Mercury Big Foot

Skinnywater, I think your weight difference is incorrect.

For 20" shafts: The Yamaha F50 weighs 233 lbs. Trim/Tilt comes standard. 4 cylinders. Biggest displacement. The Honda BF50 weighs 198 lbs. Trim/Tilt is not standard. 3 cylinders. Smallest displacement. Single cam. The Suzuki DF50 weighs 243 lbs. Trim/Tilt comes standard. 3 cylinders. Dual cams. EFI. So the Yamaha is actually 35 lbs heavier, not 52 lbs. And this is due, in part, because the Yamaha comes standard with Trim/Tilt and the Honda does not. If you want Trim/Tilt on your Honda....add more weight. Even the Suzuki isn't 52 lbs heavier, but 45. And you get EFI and dual overhead cams with it. Not sure where you came up with 52? It's funny how Honda claims the lightest 50 hp on the market by taking Trim/Tilt off the motor to do it. Go figure. There are some minor differences between the Honda 40 and 50 jetting, timing, etc. But as I stated, the Honda 50 uses the same block as the smaller 40. Rpm is a direct function of hp, and by increasing the rpm from the 40 to the 50, hp has increased. Again, the Yamaha F50 has it's own unique block. Any motor you choose will probably make you happy. Good advice putting a high-thrust on the pontoon.

Skinnywater · Aug 8, 2002

Re: Honda vs. Mercury Big Foot

Hello Forktail, Your absolutly correct! This past spring when I puchased my new boat my choice was between Yamaha or Honda. Since my boat was going to be underpowered, WEIGHT was the tie breaker. At that time the Yam.F50 was advertised at 252 lbs (i have a feeling you knew this). I'm ABSOLUTELY positive on this, not 234, not 216,but 252 lbs. All the specifications on the Yamaha outboard website were changed this month (they're still working on it, right click on their spec site, read properties). It's nice to see Yamaha improving their product. The 30 some odd pounds with tilt/trim, had it been back then, I'd have considered it a little more closely.....NOT!....it still wouldn't have made sense in my case. I don't need tilt/trim with a jet and I wanted to save the weight for a jackplate. I did't want ANY extra weight. I fail to see the advantage of an extra cylinder,carb,valve/valvetrain, manifold, hardware, wires and hoses for the SAME horsepower?? In the case of Suzuki, some of that, and another cam? Plus, unless it has changed recently also, the 3rd year of a deminishing electronics warranty. Still the Honda gets 50 hp with the least amount of components, with less displacement, at the least amount of weight......go figure? The unique block of the F50 obviously isn't as effiecient as the shared block of the BF40/50. Now you have to realize in all fairness I'll have to call you on one.

On topic: http://www.iboats.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=17;t=008821 you state,"IMO, I highly doubt Honda would go through the expense of manufacturing different carbs, cams, exhaust, heads/pistons (compression), etc. for similar motors of exact displacement. The easiest way to control horsepower would be by RPM. RPM is a direct relation to HP. Drop the RPM a little and you drop the HP. This is what the throttle cam does." You again dispute in this topic post as "minor differences". From my Honda Marine shop manuel. "intake valve diameter 32mm -bf40, 33mm -bf50." The following page:cam height (lobes) measure ments for bf50 only... white dot for bf50 head only...from here on it gets minor. Now please allow me to make an additional point. It's not my intention to make claim mine is better then yours.....or argue...or make UNqualified opinions. All my posts about my Honda are in response to Honda inquireries and BF40/50 specifically. I NEVER post in topics like Yamaha vrs Suzuki vrs Merc vrs Tommychoctu Check out my previous links. Everytime someone asks about Honda specifically,you'll get one or two Honda owners again defending Honda to Suzuki, Yamaha, ****ake, Hava-smokie owners. Again, I don't care about Yamaha, Suzuki and Spundinkos. My posts are in response to HONDA. A person asking a specific question about a specific Honda and a Honda owner/consumer/buyer/user/or professional answers, that answer or opinion is qualified. Look at this topic. I'm the only poster that actually owns the product the topic starter is asking about. We haven't even heard from anyone with the specific Mercury he's asking about.....again, go figure. Every topic about Honda vrs.whatever... Honda is a good engine............but have you considered.......Honda is a good engine.....but what??? HONDA IS A GOOD ENGINE....... BUT WHAT? This topic starter and all other Honda topic starters and I and all the other Honda owners want to know........BUT WHAT?? Forktail,JB......Honda is a good engine....but what? Carbs? Do a search on this site, Honda carberators. Try multi Honda carbs, try BF40/50/75 carbs, try no good Honda carbs.......but what?

I completely understand the usefulness of offering additional opinions and advise to the topic starters on your brands and experiences. They may care but I don't. The last thing I want to do is argue your choice in motors. Frankly, it's starting to sound like a bunch of Honda envey to me. Same block as the BF40...........you've made a good point....the 426 hemi shares the same block with the wedge....429/460..... Mercedes CLK55 AMG shares the same block as the SL500..........all good stuff.......been fun......honey wants her belly rubbed

.......Salmon are in the river...........TGIF......lawns mowed.........catch me later.......

orca · Aug 8, 2002

Re: Honda vs. Mercury Big Foot

G'day. Skinnywater, What have you been smoking? Please send me some.

Newhook · Aug 9, 2002

Re: Honda vs. Mercury Big Foot

I've a 25 hp Mariner/Merc. Big foot 4 stroke and I love it. It pushes a 16 foot alum. utility and I get 25 mph. but I am underpropped with an 11 inch prop. Check out Mercury's "boathouse site". It gives performance ratings with different boats and Merc. engines. With the right prop the engine gives almost identical performance as the 2-stroke counterpart pushing the same boat. This is despite the gearing in the foot being lower. As an example, the 16 foot Klamath Explorer will go 28.9 mph with the 12 inch prop at 6000 rmp. The Klamath 15 foot Advantage goes 30.4 mph at 5920 rpm with the 13 inch pitch prop. The speed is almost identical in the 2 stroke so do not be unduly concerned with the "Big-foot" effect on performance. It is a big beefy motor that sips gas like a butterfly. No mixing, no stink and my wife can talk to me even while opened out. My only possible complaint is that it is heavy. No regrets though.

Forktail · Aug 9, 2002

Re: Honda vs. Mercury Big Foot

Geez Skinnywater, I'm not sure what gave you the idea that I don't like Honda's? I think they are a great outboard. As a guide and commercial fisherman, I've owned many and have been pleased over-all. It wasn't my intention to hurt your feelings by bringing up the Yamaha F50. I thought this forum was about learning. I only offered critical information that may be helpful to someone's purchasing decision. I didn't realize this thread excluded Yamaha discussion. And it wasn't my intention to hurt your feelings by correcting the weight misinformation you posted. I only wanted to provide accurate information (which has been published for over a year). No facts I offered were in error. Yours were. "The last thing I want to do is argue your choice in motors. Frankly, it's starting to sound like a bunch of Honda envey to me. Hypocricy is alive.

ivar · Aug 10, 2002

Re: Honda vs. Mercury Big Foot

Skinnywater, Sorry if we stepped on your toes with bringing up other brands into the discussion. Like you say , the Honda is a great engine. period! No but's. But (okay, one but) no single engine is the best for all possible applications. In weight sensitive appliations like yours its hard to dispute you choice. It will be very interesting to see in 10-20 years , which of these 4-strokes hold up best. I suspect the the Honda may as well be the one who live longest... >The unique block of the F50 obviously isn't as effiecient as the shared block of the BF40/50. Yamaha/merc have a different, more modular approach , where the F25 is 1/2 of a F60 (with balance pistons added) , and the F30/F40 is 3/4 of the F60 block.

BillP · Aug 11, 2002

Re: Honda vs. Mercury Big Foot

Ok, here's input from a Mariner 50elpt 4 stroke owner. Bought it new in Nov 95 on a 20' Monark pontoon boat. Has approx 350 hrs and no serious problems. It has the standard gearcase and pushes the boat (1740 dry weight) with one person aboard at 19 mph (per gps) amd 14 mph with 6 people and all the gear. Bought the Mariner just to try 4 strokes and would not do a 4 stroke again...based on 43 yrs of running 2 strokes. Mariner chosen because of dealer network, OMC was going down and Suzuki had a terrible history of major corrosion problems in salt water. There weren't a lot of choices back in 95 either. For the same money ($5600) I could have had a 75 2 stroke. I currently own 4 other 2 strokes from 70hp down to 3hp. Fuel RANGE is the only reason I would buy another 4 stroke. Long life is not an issue as 99% of all outboards are lost through poor maintenance...corrosion down here in Florida is the culprit. Mine hangs over the water on a saltwater river and external corrosion resistance has been A1, however, without oil in the fuel to coat interal parts I am still waiting for the valve train and lifters to get pitted. Time will tell but I doubt it has the protection of any engine that uses oil in the fuel. Just for the record, OMC went back to 50:1 oil ratio after several years of 100:1 lube ONLY because corrosion problems started showing up from the lack oil staying on the parts during storage. Told to me by the warranty mgr of OMC International (commercial division) for South America, Bahamas and Bermuda. The Mercury/Mariner factory rep told me these blocks are made at the same factory that Yamahas are. Yes, 4 strokes are nice but don't forget you have oil changes, valve adjustments and timing belt maintenace to deal with. later, bill

Honda vs. Mercury Big Foot

Recruit

Honorary Moderator Emeritus

Commander

Commander

Commander

Ensign

Lieutenant Commander

Commander

Petty Officer 1st Class

Petty Officer 1st Class

Recruit

Petty Officer 1st Class

Honorary Moderator Emeritus

Ensign

Commander

Chief Petty Officer

Seaman

Ensign

Petty Officer 1st Class

Captain