User Tag List

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 40
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Roanoke, Va
    Posts
    118
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Mercury 2.4 HP question with Verticle Reeds

    I have a 1980 2.4 S#5806542 that is supposed to be a 200hp (crankshaft rated). Stickers and original clamshell say 200 hp. It has verticle reeds, WH-18 carbs, and steel sleeves (all 6). I blew a piston this past summer, and am looking to rebuild with the front half of a blown 1981 225 HP (including the front half, horizontal reeds w 7 pedals, and WH-20 carbs.

    I had a mechanic hone my original block which is OK. His Mercury info only shows that year verticle reed motor as being a 175 HP (crankshaft). Also, the lower unit which I think is original has 2.00 to 1 gears (not 1.87). Also, he thinks that it may have been a steel bore originally - not chrome.

    Anyway, I'm wandering if anyone might know the rated HP or history of those early engines. I guess the big question is how much HP will I gain going to the horizontal reeds and WH-20 carbs (25 HP gain or 50HP gain).

    With cut heads, possible jet changes, and advanced timing, could I expect 225 HP at the PROPSHAFT with the new front end???

    Thanks in advance!! This forum has given me the courage to take the thing apart. Now I hope to put it back!

    Rick

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    9,503
    Thanks (Given)
    23
    Thanks (Received)
    270
    Likes (Given)
    191
    Likes (Received)
    1975
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    old mercs

    The bad news is you have a 2.0 175-150 motor. Good strong motor but not 200 225. Unless ya send it to T rex speed and surf motors. That motor is very old and not worth hopping up. Time to find a better deal. But it does have some goodies worth saving. You will save $$$ finding a newer motor. If you want PM me your phone # and I will help ya. Dave S.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Springfield,La.
    Posts
    6,579
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    5
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    17
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Dave iz rite...All ya numbers ain't match'in up....date, HP, and CI's juss ain't align'in reel good....

    The addition ov a 14 peddle front on a Non fingerported mota will prolly hurt ya alround, but will sholly kill any bottom/mif ya have, and if it iz a 2liter, to add a 14 peddle front to a stock mota iz like runn'in it wit 2 plugwires off...Now, If'in ya gunna wind ya lil mota over 8K, tha 14 peddle front will shine, BUT, U kan play a game ov chess while ya wait'in on it to git to 8K...WH-20's on a 2.4 will help top end(in most cases) but will drop ya fuel economy all round...

    If ya mota iz good enuff to put back together, then put it back together, and suck up all tha knowlege ya kan, that way when ya git ya a lil bigga HP mota, U will know juss wher to go with it!!!...JMO

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    georgia
    Posts
    821
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The six steel sleeves doesn't sound correct but, the vert. reeds and wh-18 carbs were on the 1980/81 200's. The engine doesn't have the finger ports but is a pretty respectable engine in stock form. Probably not the best engine to hop up but you will see a decent gain with the horizontal front as long as you stay with a 5 petal reed system. I would keep the 18's also instead of the 20's. Measure the bore diameter, if it's 3.125ish(150-175) if it's 3.375ish definitely 200 block. But, I've never seen a 2.4 200 without the chrome.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Roanoke, Va
    Posts
    118
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for the input guys. It is definately a 2.4 - not a 2.0. Since funds are a bit tight, I'm hoping that the horizontal reed front end would help, along with the carbs. Low end torque is very important. I can probably get the front half of the blown engine very cheap. Should I go with the new front half and horizontal, put in 5 petal horizontal reeds, and keep the WH-18's??

    My Mercury books says chrome bore 1980 as well. Didn't know if Mercury made a change that never made the book.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    5,543
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    35
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    96
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If'n it's a steel sleeve 2.4, it might be an XR4 block. They are 150 at the screw, 175 at the head.

    just my 02
    John
    To fish or not to fish? What a STUPID question.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    TX......somewhere?
    Posts
    6,455
    Thanks (Given)
    4
    Thanks (Received)
    360
    Likes (Given)
    154
    Likes (Received)
    1048
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    '80 model is first generation block. If its a 2.4 it woulda been chrome. If its steel someone has already been in there. Tha front half determines tha 5 or seven petal reeds. Tha 2.4 steel didn't come in ta production until way later. Maybe '88 or '89 best I can remember..............Take Rex's advice........T

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Dalhart,Tx
    Posts
    708
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Need to check the numbers on the clamp against the welch plug. Sounds like somebody made a head change. JMO

    Shooter1

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Onset, MA
    Posts
    347
    Thanks (Given)
    2
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Does the head boat pattern look like Pic#1 or Pic#2?




  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Onset, MA
    Posts
    347
    Thanks (Given)
    2
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Anyone know how much gain you get from rod slot mods on those old 2.4L blocks?

    Sounds like someone may have sleeved the entire block if it's a pre-82 2.4L.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Onset, MA
    Posts
    347
    Thanks (Given)
    2
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    With these cuts work on the old 2.4L non fingerported motor?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    16,973
    Thanks (Given)
    2
    Thanks (Received)
    38
    Likes (Given)
    46
    Likes (Received)
    174
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rvaha View Post
    It is definately a 2.4 - not a 2.0. Since funds are a bit tight, I'm hoping that the horizontal reed front end would help, along with the carbs. Low end torque is very important. I can probably get the front half of the blown engine very cheap. Should I go with the new front half and horizontal, put in 5 petal horizontal reeds, and keep the WH-18's??

    My Mercury books says chrome bore 1980 as well. Didn't know if Mercury made a change that never made the book.
    Did you actually measure the bore? Everything you described about it is 2.0 unless somebody changed the powerhead.

    I think you need to figure out EXACTLY what you have before anybody can give you advice on the best path. Rex has done more parts swappin' on the older ones than anybody I know. If you can look past him bein' uglier'n Rosie O'Donnell and understand them Loooziani' bonics he can put you on the money if he knows what he's dealin' with. Post a pic with head off or either post the bore size.

    It'd be nice if you'd fill in your member profile too. Some of the guys around here don't like talkin' to ghosts.
    Membership upgrade options: http://www.screamandfly.com/payments.php

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Roanoke, Va
    Posts
    118
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    All - the bore is 3.375 (I measured with micrometer) Definately at 2.4. Also, the engine was rebuilt be the previous owner a few years ago. Serial numbers on the block and title all match, so I don't think anything (mid, lower) has ever been swapped. It has 6 Wiseco standard bore pistons. (Now 5 - burnt one - thus taking it apart). It does have the bad head bolt pattern. I had Jay cut the heads, got a max of 145 PSI on #4, which is the one that burnt. Others were lower. I did not rejet, which I think was the problem.

    The mechanic I used to hone the block said that the previous hone job was lousy, thus maybe the problem with not having consistent compression. All Cylinders are within 2-3 thousanths. I'm hoping the hone job will get consistent comression.

    It sounds like it is really a 200HP - just that the mechanic has never seen a verticle reed 200.

    As I mentioned, he has a blown 1981 225 that has horizontal reeds, WH-20 carbs, and we are guessing 7 petal reeds. I was hoping to get this very cheap to put on my block. Would this not perform better than what I currently have?????

    Thanks!!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Onset, MA
    Posts
    347
    Thanks (Given)
    2
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've run both motors on the same fishing boat. Both motors are almost 30 years, and the v225 had wh-22's instead of the wh-20's, so take this information with a grain of salt.

    The 1979 vertical reed 200 powerhead (130 - 135psi in all 6) wh-11 is a whole lot more fuel efficent than the 1981 V225 wh-22's 125psi in all 6. ($4 gas is the reason I still have the v200 on the boat)

    The 1981 V225 could turn a 19pitch Mirage Plus to 6 grand . . . the vertical reed barely turn the 19 to 5500 . . . 17 pitch Mirage Plus spins 5800/6000. At cruising speed . . . the v225 was about 2.8 - 3mpg pushing my boat at 4000 and the V200 vertical reed is 3.5+ mpg at 4000rpm.

    Both powerheads used the same mid and lower . . . set at the same height. Both motors will rip the boat onto a plane instantaneously. Seemed like the v200 has better seat of the pants mid range . . . but the V225 with a little 17P highfive at 6800rpm was a lot of fun.


    Last edited by bigshrimpin; 01-16-2009 at 11:54 AM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Lake Keowee, South Carolina
    Posts
    1,041
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Your mechanic must be young, (I wish I was) or not in the business since the V6 Mercurys first came out. If all of your numbers match, someone has sleeved your block. It would have been nice if they had thought to put finger ported sleeves in it. I bet the Wiseco's have the finger port holes in them. You could finger port the cylinders with a die grinder, but it would take a lot of grinding. None of the consumer V6's had finger ports until 1983, and those were 5 petal in both horozintal, and vertical configurations.

    The early 200's had a 2.0:1 lower unit, and the 225's had a 1.87:1 lower unit. that will effect the difference in fuel economy between the two at the same RPM. The V200 models with the SR#6201969 and below were vertical reed and the 2.0:1 gear ratio. Unless you are pushing a barge, the 7 petal horozintal reed set up will improve your preformance. I gained about a 6 mph difference between the vertical reed setup, and the horizontal setup on a 1982 Hydrostream. I couldn't tell any difference on the bottom because of prop slip, and having to feather the throttle on both setups. What ever was lost was made back up for on the other end.

    You will need everything from the 225 forward of where the block seperates including the carb air box and cowling. Your linkages and cowling are different than the horizontal setup.

    I never had any problems with head gaskets on the early blocks. Some of the toughest motors I have owned were the early style casting. I had a 1982, 200 that was the same as the 1981, 225, seven petal horizontal setup just prop shaft rated with different decals. It was the only year a 200, 7petal 2.4 was sold. That engine lasted eigh hard years, and four different owners. The reason it finally blew was because the last owner gave the boat to his 17 year old son, and installed a 17 pitch prop thinking it would slow the boat down, and make it safer. It still lasted almost the whole summer then, but finally windowed the block.
    For arguments sake, I am going to attach a couple of pages from an early Mercury factory manual.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails scan0002 (Small).jpg   scan0007 (Small).jpg  
    Last edited by QUICKSILVER; 01-16-2009 at 02:11 PM.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Frank Mole Transport