Inquirering mind

craze1cars

Lieutenant Commander
Joined
Dec 26, 2004
Messages
1,822
Re: Inquirering mind

Some of the new Yamaha boats have 4 cylinder 4 stroke EFI motors that are just barely over ONE liter. And each motor puts out 160 hp. They're jet drive boats and my understanding is that they turn at over 10,000 rpms in normal operation. And according to some mag reviews they are quiet, extremely quick, have good top end, and get some purty durn good fuel mileage while doing all that...not to mention weighing about 500 lbs less than competitive sterndrives.<br /><br />Mercruiser and Volvo are simply stuck in the technology of the 1970's (many are still running CARBS and MECHANICAL DISTRIBUTORS, for crying out loud! I can't believe the EPA hasn't outlawed those setups yet)....thankfully there's some other options (though not many!) that are utilizing some of the knowledge and materials that are available in this current century...<br /><br />I'm giving these Yamahas some serious consideration right now as my next runabout. Looks like a mighty fine ride for the money, in my opinion. I've been starting to fish for other opinions first, though...
 

rodbolt

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
20,066
Re: Inquirering mind

problem with just converting a car motor is most car engines are not designed to run at their max BHP for any length of time. I aint gotta clue where crazycars got his info, I have not seen a mechanical distributor in a long time and we are down to just one or two carbed motors from volvo and merc.one day hopefully carbs will be a footnote in history.<br /> props become very ineffecint above about 2500 RPM at the prop. the cost of surface piercing gets a bit much. its a speed thing. think about it. that prop shaft is spinning at 2000 RPM. the blade tip is as well. the surface speed of the tip is incredible compared to the shaft. would a pair of m3's push a 28ft boat at 4800 rpm for 3 hours? my buddy did it last weekend but with a pair of 8.2L GM motors jackshafted to DPE drives. he did complain about the fuel economy but he caught up with the fleet in the gulf stream.
 

MrBill

Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Aug 4, 2002
Messages
710
Re: Inquirering mind

Here's what gives...<br /><br /> M3 3.0 = 250HP = BMW<br />Mercruiser 3.0 = 135HP = GMC<br /><br /> Conclusion: GMC < BMW<br /> Solution: Substitute variables BMW = 3.0 = Mercruiser<br />Translation: Have BMW build engines to mate with Mercruiser drives
 

Dunaruna

Admiral
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
6,027
Re: Inquirering mind

Rebuild a GM 3.0L - $2000.00<br /><br />Rebuild a blown BMW 3.0L - priceless
 

--GQ--

Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
516
Re: Inquirering mind

I took a bath yesterday so i didn't have anything to say....<br /><br />MrBill, its a 4 cyclinders 2.3 .....not a 3.0. <br />Tips the balance even further.<br /><br /><br />DunaRuna, you're absolutely correct with one minor detail. You will probably rebuild a GM 3.0l three times before you do a BMW. I concure, "priceless". :D
 

Lou C

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Nov 10, 2002
Messages
13,168
Re: Inquirering mind

They use the old tech engines because they are cheap, available, and do the job. BMW did make sterndrives, they were around I think in the 80s, but not successful here. If they mated a similiar high tech engine to a sterndrive, it would probably cost as much as a high tech outboard, which would still weigh less, and can be tilted out of the water, and is easier to winterize, and so where is the advantage of the sterndrive?<br />The whole advantage of a sterndrive is cheaper horsepower than an OB. Once you get that high tech (BMW M3 tech) there will be no cost advantage to speak of, I for sure would prefer a high tech OB to that.
 

rodbolt

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
20,066
Re: Inquirering mind

its like a lot of the rubber band volvo engines, they went foever in a car but had relativly short,troublesome duty cylce in a marine application, not saying they were bad its just what we observed. I have seen several 4cyl mitsubishis in shamrocks and in a few of the old star power sterndrives. they had a decent lifespan it seems. as far as the rebuilding of the 3.0VS the beemer if both are well maintained and freshwater cooled the 3.0 will go as far as the beemer at its rated HP.<br /> the BMW drive, luckily was never popular and shortlived. very expensive and had a corrosion issue.<br /> and you can buy a new long block for the 3.0 for around 1800 and a complete package with oil in the base for about 3200. try that with a beemer :) .<br /> and Beemers WILL suffer the same neglect and overheats and water intrusion problems as all the rest.<br /> its just how it is.
 

trog100

Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
751
Re: Inquirering mind

my son had a bmw powered stern drive boat.. in the US bmw cars might be very expensive exotic imports but in germany just like mercedes they are just good quality reasonably priced cars..<br /><br />the bmw four was a 2 litre 3 series engine rated at 130 HP.. the six was a 3 litre 5 series engine rated at 190 HP.. both were married to something called a Z drive and bunged in boats.. i think volvo penta took over what was left of the stern drive business when bmw packed it in about 1989... <br /><br />nothing overly special about them at all.. just well built overhead cam carburettor engines producing about 65 HP per litre.. the boat versions did have some fancy side draft carbs fitted to em in an attempt to get the power up.. in truth the four didnt have enough bottom end torque.. the one he had was fitted with points stye ignition as well.. it did use far less gas than my similar power GM engined boat..<br /><br />just like with GM engines in amerca.. UK and euro wreckers yards are full of good used examples of these bmw engines.. as for that Z dive thow forget it.. spares dont exist..<br /><br />and rodbolts comment about car engines not being able to stand WOT for long might well apply to american built cars.. not german ones thow (or japanese) they have autobahns in germany.. no speed limits and the germans do 120 mph plus on em without expecting their engines to explode..<br /><br />and why i like the super charging concept for boats as opposed to turbo charging should be pretty obvious given alittle thought.. it would require very little re-designed.. pretty simple just to stick a blower on top of the carb lower the compression ratio and the job is pretty much done..<br /><br />with turbo charging in a boat its an entirely different ball game.. and keeping em safe and the whole lot from becoming a fire hazard with the heat from turbos all in an enclosed engine compartment isnt that easy..<br /><br />one requires a total re-design... the other would be very simple and could be cheaply introduced tommorow..<br /><br />take that old 3 litre GM engine.. shrink it down to a 2 litre (smaller bores and pistons) fit a blower and u would have an engine with plenty of bottom end grunt.. more top end power.. all at low revs and more economical at that.. basically with a blown engine u have the economy of a small engine when u need it and the power of a big engine when u need that.. in short the best of both worlds and all done without the need to push the revs up to silly levels..<br /><br />and here we have the real reason for yesterdays technology still being used.. with gas prices so cheap in the past who the h-ll needed modern technology.. who the h-ll needed economy.. lets just bung in a bigger gas guzzling old engine and that will do has been the order of the day.. course all this is in the process of changing.. the days of cheap gas will soon be over.. and everyone will start thinking about economy.. <br /><br />if u cant have high revs.. want reasonable efficiency.. dont want to turn a boat into a bomb.. super-charging (short term at least)is the only way to go as i see it..<br /><br />the way it will go thow is diesel turbo charging.. cos as quitecat says turbo is more efficient..i still recon fashion comes into it as well.. the only problem is it needs a whole new technology created before it can be applied to boats enmass.. this takes lots of money and wont come in large numbers all that soon cos in the lean times about to come no one wants to invest the money to bring it about....<br /><br />trog<br /><br />ps.. and just as a little excercise.. imagine paying three times as much for gas as what u do now.. work out how much the gas an engine uses during its lifetime will cost in total at the new prices.. then think about whether or not a cheapo reliable cast iron gas guzzler.. makes more sense than a more expensive engine to buy that will use half the amount of gas as the ones we now use..
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
56
Re: Inquirering mind

"props become very ineffecint above about 2500 RPM at the prop. the cost of surface piercing gets a bit much. its a speed thing. think about it."<br /><br />Just seems 12 Mazda rotary cylinders stacked could spin faster and more efficiently than the old Rolls Royce motors used in the older hydroplanes. Their props must be spinning pretty fast and you could easily get parts unlike the Rolls motors. Think about that in the shower!
 

craze1cars

Lieutenant Commander
Joined
Dec 26, 2004
Messages
1,822
Re: Inquirering mind

Originally posted by rodbolt:<br /> I aint gotta clue where crazycars got his info, I have not seen a mechanical distributor in a long time and we are down to just one or two carbed motors from volvo and merc.one day hopefully carbs will be a footnote in history.
Pulled it outta my you-know-what. And I was flat wrong about the mech dist.....oops.<br /><br />My intent was to simply make a point about how incredibly slow Merc and Volvo seem to move in comparison with the rest of the engine producing world. The fact that they have been running even a SINGLE carb motor beyond somewhere approx 1988 is to me inexcusable. The fact that they're still gonna produce even a couple of them in 2006 and beyond is downright irresponsible. And the 3.0 and 4.3 blocks have been being used for HOW long? I just sort of find it very strange that these are the "big two" of I/O's and nobody else has really stepped up to the plate to get these mfrs off their haunches and actually competing with each other on a REAL level by pushing the technological envelope.<br /><br />Cars did it, ouboards did it, motorcycles did it (dirt and road bikes), PWC's did it, snowmobiles did it. And by "did it" I mean made huge leaps forward in terms of power per pound of weight and made them into reliable packages that benefit the consumer, all while making noticable fuel efficiency gains and emmission reductions at the same time. Yet what have these two I/O mfrs done lately? They recently took the giant leap forward into the mid-1980's and started offering true multiport FI systems and computer controled ignitions on only SOME of their motors. And only 20 years late.<br /><br />Ok...I'm done listening to myself talk for now. Happy day everyone!
 

rodbolt

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
20,066
Re: Inquirering mind

crazy<br /><br /> its mostly due to Volvo and Merc pretty much purchase from an outside source and run what they get sold. however do a bit of googling on the stillwater OK mercruiser plant to see all the low tech stuff there.<br /> when you start dealing with hydros ya just got a tad priceier than most folk can go fishing with, some of their props will go over 10K for a single prop. look at some of the unlimited gas turbine rigs that have just a bit more RPM than a mazda rotary. <br /> the mazda had a lot of apex seal issues, to put it kindly, could you imagine a max duty cycle in a moist environment?<br /> I always thought it would be a good idea though. however it would be to capital intensive for the limited market. thats why we have converted truck stuff in the under 45ft market.<br /> some folks still like carbs, some engine boxs just wont support a repower with EFI. if ya dont believe it try stuffing a pair of 5.7 MPI volvos in a 27ft albermarle, took me 12 hours to custom fabricate just the exhaust, wont even get into the flame arrestor or electronics or throttle attachments.<br /> but anytime you discuss the 3.0 with a merc or volvo rep they,like me, cant wait for that motor to dissapear as a carbed version.<br /> the marine power TBI 3.0 is a sweetheart. dead smooth,no bog, instant starts and decent economy and no freakin mercarb/rochester :) .<br /> carbs are gonners of that there is no doubt. they cost to much to manufacture and the market for them is shrinking rapidly.<br /> lets face it, a plant capeable of 500,000 units a year operating at say 25,000 units a year will get an axe by the bean counters rapidly.<br /> it all comes down to the money.<br /> merc was one of the last that tried to design a marine specific sterndrive engine, was a rather dismal failure at best.<br /> mastercraft got stuck in the mid ninties when ford withdrew from the marine market. however they had enough units in stock to continue installing them for 2 years after they were no longer availible from ford, it takes quite a while to marinize a new production engine, the light trucks were not normally EFI until about 87, the first of the marine EFI units followed a few years later. the only thing that keeps the 3.0L about is its cheap, it allows an entry level boater access to a reasonable 17-19ft package of boat motor trailer for under 10K. but thats why we have so many 3.0L issues. most entry level boaters have no clue how to operate and maintain the package and most are so over financed they cannot afford to do the maint as per the maint schedule and just opt to wait till it breaks.<br /> <br /><br /> trog<br /> my cousin ran a 56 chevy on the autobahn with a modified 307 chevy V8 and a turbo 400 in front of a set of 2.02 gears, 120 MPH was maybe 2500 RPM. take most of those autobahn cruisers and add a 20,000 pound trailer with the brakes dragging and see how long they can run at the engines RATED HP. marine engines are required to do it for hours while shaking all about. the load on an auto is not great, mostly road friction and aerodynamics, the load on a marine plant never goes away and gets worse as hull speed increases. <br /> and super charging most engine and running them at their max HP for extended periods will nessesitte a bottom end design change on most production engines. the cranks, blocks and piston/rod assy on most wont put up with much boost pressure. thats why most diesel truck motors and the big MTU and Izotta and caterpillars are so massive. they have to be to prevent block/head core shifts.<br /> if ya dont belive in core shift try pulling 600HP out of a 5.7 with solid motor mounts and see how many times it will spit out the block core plugs untill ya thread the cores.<br /> dont even ask what happens when the rear tires run over the glychol mix just after the plug pops.<br /> glad Dave ws driving that day and not me.<br /> even with a pan girdle and studs on a 010 4 bolt block it suffered from that problem. after the second one we threaded the cores. but soon it will be a moot point, the big cast iron engines are dissapearing. just as point and carbs went so will massive 8.1,8.2's and 6.0L motors. I gotta see a pair of beemer 6's pushing a 28ft carolina classic with a full tower and all the amenities. its all a pair of 8.1 GM's with DPE volvos can do to keep them in the 40 MPH range. i call them floating campers but they pay the bills.<br /> from what we hear carolina classic eliminated the gas engines due to weight and water ingestion problems. and merc bought out albermarle so we will see how that works out.
 

Mile-High Mariner

Petty Officer 2nd Class
Joined
Aug 20, 2005
Messages
136
Re: Inquirering mind

I'm kindof with Craze on this one - except that I know that the reasons for Mercruiser and Volvo's reticence are market-driven. However, VolvoPenta really should have been the waverunner on this one, as they already had good reliability and servicability records, enginewise. Something happened after they absorbed OMC; the marriage of great Volvo engineering and pretty good OMC stuff seems to have produced a mediocre synergy that only followed the American marine market instead of churning new wake and leading the way.
 

Don S

Honorary Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Messages
62,321
Re: Inquirering mind

Man rodbolt! You are going to end up with a lot of ugly marks on your forhead if you keep hitting it against that wall all the time.<br />Ya gotta worry about people that don't have anything else to do but stand in a shower and come up with wierd questions to put on a forum, that has no real answer.<br />My question would be what engineer that has done all the design and engineering work on this whole thing would be reading any of this anyway.
 

rodbolt

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
20,066
Re: Inquirering mind

DonS<br /> I know. but its so much fun and the exercise keeps my neck and futility strong :) <br /> ya outta see the post in other repairs about yamaha dropping the year designation code from the model number.
 

Richard Petersen

Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
778
Re: Inquirering mind

Rodbolt you hit the nail on the head with $ 10,000 entry boats versus big bucks boats. The money, money available, is probably what makes good boat names. Sea Rays have more than Bayliners and Cobalts grew up on boats with money. Same guts, just more money to maintain them better.
 

rodbolt

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
20,066
Re: Inquirering mind

well after doing this for about 25 years or so I have come to the conclusion that boats are just not designed to get wet. :)
 

trog100

Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
751
Re: Inquirering mind

yes.. if u want to keep your boat nice and pretty.. keep it well away from water.. he he..<br /><br />trog
 

--GQ--

Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
516
Re: Inquirering mind

Inconclusion, if you want more power than a 135 hp (factory limited) engine get a 6 cyclinders........<br /><br />And ooooh Don S. the shower thing was meant to be a joke. Ofcourse you knew this. As you were.
 
Top