Tech specs of late inlines.

[petlun]

Don´t know if anybody is really interested in this kind of information but I think at least Mk75H indicated, some days ago in another thread, that he might be. So here are my numbers, porting and compression, taken some time ago while building a spare powerhead for my 1988 Merc 115.

Exhaust ports opens / closes: 96 deg ATDC / 98 deg BTDC

Exhaust open period: 166 deg

Main transfer ports opens / closes: 114 deg ATDC / 116 deg BTDC

Main transfer open period: 130 deg

Blow down period: 18 deg

Diameter of exhaust ports: 22 mm (7/8" nominal?)

(Sorry to say I didn´t check the Power Port values or height of main transfers.)


Geometric compression ratio: 10,15

Trapped compression ratio: 6,84

Geometric comp ratio with high deflector pistons: 10,47

Trapped comp ratio with high deflector pistons: 7,04



This will probably be a long posting, so in fear of loosing it all into cyberspace, I do it in parts.

PL

[petlun]

Some notes on my previous post:

The block in question used for my rebuild came from a 1984 115. Block p/n is 852-8310A4 and s/n is 6479527. These 8310A4 blocks were used from the first 1979 1/2 140 ADI engines and all the way up to the last 1988 115.

My timing numbers are based on opening points where the ports are just about to open but have not yet opened (same with closing numbers). Perhaps my numbers could be compared to "advertised duration" for a 4 stroke automotive camshaft, where numbers for "duration at lash point" and "duration at .050" valve lift" etc are also often specified.

Distance from the crankcase to block split line (crankshaft centerline) to top of exhaust port is 132,3 mm/5.209" and to top of main transfer 123,2 mm/4.850". Rod length center to center is 4.062" and distance from piston pin center to top of piston (flat portion, not deflector) is 1.5" and cylinder stroke is 2.562".

With these figures known the opening/closing positions in crank degrees could be calculated with a formula easily found in the litterature. But such a calculation would only present a close to the real world approximation in this case. This is because there is (as well as in many other engines) a piston pin offset position with, in this case, the piston pin a bit closer to the transfer side than the exhaust side. The piston pin offset is also the reason behind the biased 96/98 and 114/116 opening/closing values.

I am sure the piston pin offset could be taken care of by some amendment added to the formula, but as I could not find it anywhere, and it is then up to my brain capacity to figure it out myself, I did instead degree my flywheel and used a dial indicator in the number one plug hole to check real world timing of that cylinder. And pin offset impact on port timing is obviously only about one degree (earlier opening and closing of ports).

to be continued in another post...

PL

[petlun]

Some notes continued:

Diameter of exhaust ports was 22 mm in my block. It is tempting to believe they are 7/8" (22,2 mm) but my 22 mm drill bit was so tight in my ports I would say a 22,2 would have been impossible.

Compression ratio figures are based on filling the combustion chamber with oil "scrutiny style" and was done on my never opened 1988 powerhead (so some carbon deposits are involved). Volume up to and including the spark plug hole was 31,5 cc which is about 29,8 cc with plug hole excluded. Volume of a low deflector seems to be around 13 cc and my guess, based only on visual impression, is a high deflector is 14 cc or maybe a fraction more. This would indicate around 30,5 cc with high domes (no carbon!) including the plug hole. The old APBA paper said 28,0 cc for the 1350/1150 which would mean a 9% margin for carbon build up or something else. (UIM papers had a 7% margin to actual volumes in two 2 liter XR2-engines I checked several years ago.

I really tried to check combustion chamber volume on the bare block with tinted water from a burette, but capillary effects made sharp and reliable readings very hard. Volumes of different parts simply didn´t sum up to the scrutiny method with oil and I rate the oil method the more reliable in my case. So my comp figures could very well be challenged by somebody else who has done these checks. Or from somebody having Mercurys nominal specs!

PL

[Mark75H]

Thank you. We have been comparing them on another forum as well and the 1500 distributor motors appear to have the exact same measurements.

The 1500XS exhaust ports turned out to be 5.245" (.045" higher) and the transfers 4.826" (.024" lower). The XS also had a wider more accessible window from the cover into the transfer port, making the machining easier to access the cylinder if nothing else involved in the flow.

Looking at the 90/115 ported motors in person and pics of the 1500 & XS, the transfer porting is very intricate. There are at least 4 cuts to each cylinder and the outer edges appear higher like Dr. Spock's eyebrows on Star Trek. I don't have a motor apart to confirm this, maybe someone else can confirm both the angle and the XS transfer height.


I doubt 90/115's can successfully be ported up to XS specs by hand, the transfer port cuts were done by milling type tools at the factory and the angle is very slight.

[petlun]

Thank you Mk75H for answering. I feared for some time the Forums threads were down recently due too my to many words posting! But maybe not so. I will re-read and consider your post for an answer (Swedish native language here), it is a bit late here and the 14 year old is calling for food.

Thanks
PL

[baldad45]

Thanks for posting this imfo ,I'm moding my 1500 with minor porting and balancing .

[dale robertson]

I have specs for old 70's 140 ( 71 or so I think) 7/8" exhaust ports open 96 ATDC, close 96 BTDC. No boost port had 2 transfers 9/16" tall. Transfers opened 117.5 degrees ATDC and closed 117.5 BTDC. Top of the exhaust were 1 5/8" down from top of block and the transfers were 2 1/16" from top pf block. Timing numbers based on light check through the ports and plenty of Budweiser special measuring fluid.

[petlun]

Lots of food later...

Mk75H:
The 1500XS exhaust ports turned out to be 5.245" (.045" higher) and the transfers 4.826" (.024" lower).

Exhaust ports in the XS was expected but the transfers being lower than std was a real surprise though.

I would have thought the XS were the same in all but the exhaust ports sitting slightly higher. Or maybe having a slightly bigger diameter but if so material between ports would be very narrow, to say the least.

A more conservative transfer porting (timing) would of course increase the blow down period even more, maybe beneficial for high rpm operation.

Mk75H, in what aspect wuold the XS have a wider more accessible window into the ports? (See pics of my std transfer ducts below.)

http://i55.tinypic.com/14kcgep.jpg

http://i56.tinypic.com/2ibm49f.jpg

(Why can I not preview my post?)

[petlun]

Mk75H:
Looking at the 90/115 ported motors in person and pics of the 1500 & XS, the transfer porting is very intricate. There are at least 4 cuts to each cylinder and the outer edges appear higher like Dr. Spock's eyebrows on Star Trek. I don't have a motor apart to confirm this, maybe someone else can confirm both the angle and the XS transfer height.


Here comes an old patent paper on a method for machining the main transfers of the Direct Charge engines.

http://i53.tinypic.com/2res9kh.jpg

http://i52.tinypic.com/2daiwex.jpg

http://i53.tinypic.com/1z55ehg.jpg

http://i54.tinypic.com/ptbeq.jpg

If you look at the pic of my transfer ports below I think you can see evidence of the ports having been done as explained in the patent paper. Namely with a flat end mill coming in at an angle but paralell with piston top. It goes in just far enough to create the "hook" that mates with the eyebrow shape of the piston deflector, then the mill is just backed out the same way (same axis) as it went in.

A result would be a port shape as they are in the ordinary Direct Charge inlines. At the left port opening in my picture I think you can clearly see traces from the mill in the aluminum and liner, with it just coming in and going back out as described above. (When pic was taken I had just started to remove these traces in the right port opening.)

http://i55.tinypic.com/2mwtdex.jpg

Do the transfers look different in a J/XS block? (I know T2´s are a completely different animal though.)

[petlun]

dale robertson:
Timing numbers based on light check through the ports and plenty of Budweiser special measuring fluid.

He he, that was funny indeed. Similar kinds of measuring fluids available here to (even Bud nowadays) but I did my checks more than two years ago so I can´t say if any fluid was involved.

But I do remember expecting readings of timing numbers should be a bit of a "dim and fuzzy" experience (like taking the volumes for compression calculations for instance!), so I was prepaired to do them perhaps ten times over and over again to get a good enough impression of correct values. But they came in surprisingly sharp at the exact same numbers each time, so I did just a few repeats. Which is to say I am a bit stubborn about the timing numbers on my 8310A4 block.

http://i52.tinypic.com/2qxb7di.jpg

PL

[Mark75H]

2 shots of my 115

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh194/mark75h/Inline%206%20porting/My115text.jpg

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh194/mark75h/Inline%206%20porting/Machininglabeled.jpg

Milkdud's XS

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh194/mark75h/Inline%206%20porting/Conradstransfers1r.jpg

[dale robertson]

He he, that was funny indeed. Similar kinds of measuring fluids available here to (even Bud nowadays) but I did my checks more than two years ago so I can´t say if any fluid was involved.
My checks were done 35yrs ago. I am just looking at old notes. I don't use the special measuring fluid any more as it makes my head hurt too bad the next day.

[dale robertson]

Thanks for posting up the patent papers Petlun. I never was quite sure how the ports were cut into the block.

[petlun]

Thank you Mk75H for some unusually good and clarifying photos.

One immediate reflection is the big (may I say huge?) difference also in transfer port timing between the lower hp inlines and the std 1500´s et al. The "Height difference between 115 and others" must correspond to a whole bunch of crank degrees difference in transfer port timing.

From the two pics of your 115, I now see what you mean with ports being machined in four (2+2) steps. It definitely looks as if there has been another (or the same) mill applied at another angle. If so I presume there must have been some specific technical reason for this additional "secondary factory porting angle." to defend the cost of the extra machining manoeuver in production.

Not necessary a disbeliever, but when I look at the upper port in your first picture I would say it looks very much like a mill has been applied in only one direction there. The low position (to the right in the pics) of the port in combination with the mill diameter chosen (size of ports), makes it eat a bit into the aluminum of the transfer opening though.

But maybe I am just fooled by the angle of view. What would it look like with a drill bit of proper size pushed into position in the "primary hole/channel"? If done I guess the result of the secondary machining would be clearly exposed.


On the pic of Milkdud´s XS I think it looks like the main transfers is at least as high (left in pic) as in an ordinary 1500/late 115, perhaps and maybe even a fraction higher. From this angle it also seems the passage before the ports to be as cast, indicating an ordinary as cast transfer passage. It seems unlikely Mercury would have spent money on expensive changes in die cast mould patterns for the limited production of J-blocks and XS engines (don´t think that was done even on the T2, only sand casted crank case fronts in low numbers there, right?). But of course I don´t know. Transfer port covers on XS engines were ordinary pieces though, according to parts lists.


Thank you for taking your time Mk75H. I know you are answering a zillion of different questions on a daily basis in postings here and elsewhere. There is no rush for an answer here on my behalf. I am just very curious.

[T2x]

side bar.....

Does anybody know the difference between a 140 block and a 150 block (non xs) ?

[petlun]

Speaking of 1972 1400´s and 73 and later 1500´s, my guess (at least for the moment) is port maps were the same, but with the Power Port added in the 1500. I suspect even the 1970 - 71 1350 had the same porting and if this would be correct, it means even the 1970 - 72 1150 blocks should be the same.

But hp difference between a 72 1400 and a 73 1500 also came from new "banjo style" reeds in the 1500.

[milkdud]

Are you talking the early 1400's or the late 1400's?

I have a 1980 1400 apart and it looks a lot like the 1975 1500 I have. It does have low dome 3 ring power port pistons tho...... It also is set up for ADI ignition. So not place to mount a Distributor.

I plan on putting high dome pistons in this 1400 along with some other touch ups to see if it will perform like my 1500 xs.
Conrad

[T2x]

I will check years with Serial #'s. I gave two powerheads to a friend, a 140 and a 150. He would like to have 2 150's and we discussed what is involved in bringing the 140 up in power.

Thanks,

[petlun]

A 1972 1400 is definitely an early 1400. The 1400 designation came back for 1978 (but for actually the same engines as the 73 - 77 1500´s) and was rebadged 140 for 1979 - 80.

In 1981 the 140 inlines (same as 73 to 80 1500/1400/140´s) were replaced by propshaft hp (almost!) 115´s.

[milkdud]

side bar.....

Does anybody know the difference between a 140 block and a 150 block (non xs) ? Petlun, Above is why I was asking. I didnt know if he knew which one he had.
Conrad

[milkdud]

I think the newer reeds came sooner than the 1973 1500. Im pretty sure my 1350 has them.
Conrad

[Mark75H]

Not necessary a disbeliever, but when I look at the upper port in your first picture I would say it looks very much like a mill has been applied in only one direction there. The low position (to the right in the pics) of the port in combination with the mill diameter chosen (size of ports), makes it eat a bit into the aluminum of the transfer opening though.

But maybe I am just fooled by the angle of view. What would it look like with a drill bit of proper size pushed into position in the "primary hole/channel"? If done I guess the result of the secondary machining would be clearly exposed.

I took that first picture to show how straight in the tool went; pretty much showing it had to be a mill bit. The second picture is the same cylinder from a different angle.

Here are some more angles of the same cylinder as above. Looking at larger views of the XS, it has the same kind of second angle cut, just less pronounced. That is why I predict this can not be done with hand tools. I agree, there must be some fairly dramatic results from this or Merc would not have done a second machining operation. Every step left out is money saved, to add in a operation means it is really required for some result.

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh194/mark75h/Inline%206%20porting/My115straightshotmorerealestater.jpg

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh194/mark75h/Inline%206%20porting/My115-1ct.jpg

I would also like to see a second and third XS apart for measurement and inspection ...
280

[Mark75H]

to add in a operation means it is really required for some result.

But exactly what that result is would be unknown to us without specific information. It could be a power increase, it could be a fuel economy increase, it could be a detonation resistance improvement, it could be something else or a combination.

[baldad45]

Are you sure there are more than one cut per port ? On a 115 block I have apart a 7/16 bit fills all the spaces ,the contours of the transfer passage makes the one cut look like two .What year is that block ? It appears to be cut a little lower than mine .

[Mark75H]

I see what you are saying. I'll check the serial number for the year of this one. What's the serial number/year of yours?

The height in the window is not as important as the measurement from the split.

[baldad45]

The serial # is 7075637 ,block casting # 852-6067 2, I think it's a 1977. The casting # on my T-ll is the same.

[petlun]

Milkdud:
I think the newer reeds came sooner than the 1973 1500. Im pretty sure my 1350 has them.
Conrad

I think the late style inline reed blocks may have appeared already in the 1968 1250. But the banjo shaped membranes with the slightly modified stops were first used in the 73 1500 I´m pretty sure.

There is a patent paper from Mercury with Ron Anderson as "Inventor" on the banjo reeds and stops, filed August 1972. In the paper the Merc 1400 is referred to when presenting the results and as the type of engine used during developement. The banjo reeds gave hp results very close to .007" thick membranes, but with a much better reliability and lifespan. (Ordinary production membranes, std and banjos, are .008".)

baldad45:
Are you sure there are more than one cut per port ? On a 115 block I have apart a 7/16 bit fills all the spaces ,the contours of the transfer passage makes the one cut look like two .What year is that block ? It appears to be cut a little lower than mine .

My curiosity too.

I will probably go to the cottage for winter closing this weekend (I understand some people are having a nice meeting in far away Florida this same weekend). I have a bare 1988 115 block in a closet there (instead of a skeleton). I will take one 11 mm drill bit (close to 7/16") and the camera etc and go hunting for some would be traces of secondary transfer ports machinings.

PL

[baldad45]

Your 1988 115 block will be like the earlier 140-150 blocks and have larger ports ,also placed higher .Will you post the patent paper on the banjo reeds ? You are right about the reed blocks being the same as the 68-69 1250SS.

[petlun]

I will post two papers on reeds after this weekend, one on the reedblocks 68 up and also the one on the banjo´s. But I need to scan them (pdf doesen´t work for some reason) which takes me a little while.

My idea to check on my block at the cottage was beacause it´s available there, while my 84 powerhead is on my boat. Do you mean your 115 has the lower more restrictive ports like Mk75H´s 115 in his pictures? If so, I should look for some fatter drillbits ?

[Mark75H]

Yes around 1983 Merc changed to prop shaft power rating. The 88 115 resembles the 140/150 - the 88 90 is like the earlier 115

[petlun]

As you hopefully can see from the pictures of main transfers for one cylinder on my "in the closet 88 115 block", there are no traces from secondary machinings, just the straight and smooth results from one mill operation to create each port opening. Any thing else I think would be an impression coming from the shapes of the castings.

Size of mill and port is, as suggested by "baldad45", a bit more than 7/16" though. From the tools I had at hand I would say mill size is 9/16" or very close to this, which is also port height.

http://i51.tinypic.com/207uaa8.jpg

http://i54.tinypic.com/10y2nts.jpg

A note on bleed restrictors:

I have seen the importance of the small plastic bleed restrictors in place in their channels being mentioned here and elsewhere in the past, as well as it is pointed out in the Merc Service Manual. However, of the three late inlines of mine that I have been into, there has not been one single bleed restrictor in place in any of these engines. And at least one of them, a 88 115 used on my boat until two years ago, was still a very good and reliable idler.

So either all fifteen of them small restrictors have came loose and been ingested by the engines or, more likely, there has never been any bleed restrictors in my holes. If you look at the bleed hole entrance in my pics above, you will see it appears someone (read Mercury) has hit it with a punch or something. And this is how all cyl 1 to 5 holes in my engines looked. I think the punch was done to create a restriction being small enough, and also one that will not fall out.

When I rebuilt my 84 power head I put plastic restrictors in though, probably unnecessary but they are indeed affordable and according to the parts list they should be there. But to do so I had to first clear the holes out (really a bit more than so) with a proper size drill bit. No improvement though compared to the 88 115.

PL

[petlun]

Will you post the patent paper on the banjo reeds ?

Here is that paper:

http://i56.tinypic.com/2yy61au.jpg

http://i54.tinypic.com/4lkkf4.jpg

http://i55.tinypic.com/16bg6jp.jpg

http://i53.tinypic.com/2q33qjt.jpg

http://i53.tinypic.com/2egcpa9.jpg

PL

[baldad45]

Thanks!

[petlun]

Here is a paper on design and manufacture of the aluminum reed blocks.

I found it interesting as it explains why the small step after the radius below (before) the membrane (Fig. 6) is there: Only as a second to best solution, necessary to deal with variances in production! The shape of desire is the one in Fig. 2 though.

http://i52.tinypic.com/4gj91g.jpg

http://i51.tinypic.com/w9z3ar.jpg

http://i55.tinypic.com/8yar0n.jpg

PL

[garyg]

Can the reed blocks from an 84-88 90hp be used in an 84-88 115? What would be the effect of this?

Alternatively can reed blocks from an early 150 be used in an 84-88 115?

Thanks Gary

[Jeff_G]

The 90 blocks will choke the engine. If you use the 150 blocks you will be OK. Best bet is to open all the reed ports, as the 150, and use the banjo reeds.

[garyg]

Thanks Jeff. My engine is 1988 115 and appears that sometime in its life has had 90hp reed blocks fitted. From your comments I take it you recommend the 10/10 reed blocks from 150, not the 10/8, is that correct? Is it possible to modify the 90hp reed blocks to take the 150 reeds and stops, or just replace the whole lot?

[Droll]

Is it possible to modify the 90hp reed blocks to take the 150 reeds and stops, or just replace the whole lot?
You can reuse the reedblocks.. just replace the reeds and reed stops, use the "banjo" type reeds .

34-65319 reed stops, used on the 1500/1400 + the 10 petal side on the late 115 8/10 reedblocks..
34-65312A1 reeds, used as above...

Arne Kjetil

[petlun]

The 10/8 reed block units were probably developed to reduce excessive "short-circuiting" (amount of fresh air/fuel charge dumped as waste out into the exhaust ports) from cylinders 2, 4 and 6.

As a result less fuel was consumed with power (basically?) unaffected.

The 10/8 reeds were used only in the 1983 to 88 115´s.

PL

[Capt.Insane-o]

1972 1400

http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh15/Transpiria/HPIM1356.jpg

1976 850xs

http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh15/Transpiria/HPIM1348.jpg

1977 1500
http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh15/Transpiria/HPIM1346.jpg

[Jeff_G]

The 140 and 150 were the same block.
The 10/8 block was developed for fuel economy being that gravity pulled more fuel down than up. More even flow of quantity.
Power was already decreased with the low dome pistons of 1978, so yes additional fuel was not needed. If one were to go back with high domes opening the reed blocks back up would be advisable.

[Mark75H]

The late 140 was the same as the 150. The 1972 140 had the Direct Charge pistons and improved exhaust, but didn't have power ported pistons and the matching cylinder machining

[petlun]

Mk75H: "The 1972 140 had the Direct Charge pistons and improved exhaust, but didn't have power ported pistons and the matching cylinder machining"

...and the 72 1400 also had ordinary reeds rather than banjos.


The std 1973 to 77 1500´s (non XS/J-blocks and also excluding some may be square ports early 1500´s), the 78 1400 and the 1979 and 1980 140´s are, in all aspects affecting power that were otherwise changed by Mercury in the DC inlines (porting, reeds and exhaust tuning), the same engines.

Low deflector pistons were used from late 1977 or 78. Compression was reduced from like 6.70 to around 6.52, a difference I very much doubt could be detected in speed or fuel efficiency by any normal human being out in a boat. But IF there would be a detectable difference between high and low domes, I am convinced it comes from the higher deflector being better in doing what it´s there for: Block off short-circuiting of fresh gases out into the exhaust.
The height of the high deflector was obviously the height considered necessary to do a good enough job when the Direct Charge system was designed.

The 1981 and 82 115´s are very much the same engines as the 73 to 80 1500/1400/140´s, but the 115´s had ordinary (non banjo) reed units wich means they are a little shy on power compared to the earlier 1500/1400/140´s.
Power rating of the 81 115 engine (being internally exactly the same engine as the 82 115) are 81 kW at THE CRANK according to ISO-3046 and at the same time also 115 hp, also at the crank, but according to BIA-310_77.
In the 1982 brochure Mercury however says the 115 now is 82 kW at THE PROPSHAFT (!??) according to ICOMIA 28.
Remember though the 1981 and 82 115´s are, as said, internally the same engines. But 81 and 82 are the transition years from crank to propshaft ratings for Mercury.

For 1983 Mercury used the new "10 banjo membranes upwards and 8 std membranes downwards reed units" in the 115 engine. Power rating was however unchanged at 82 kW (110 bhp) at the prop but the brochure says "The improved torque and acceleration makes the 115 the perfect engine for water skiing." (Brochure is a Swedish translation though, so this means it´s English to Swedish and then back again by me.)

For 1984 a new two channel and much longer than before exhaust tuner was used. Power rating was now finally up to 86 kW at the prop, which is 115 bhp.
No more power affecting changes were made to the late 6 cyl. 115´s, so these figures are valid 1984 to 88.

PL

[Capt.Insane-o]

This 72 has banjo reeds.

[petlun]

If you check post #32 you can see they were not yet developed for the 1972 model year production.

Developement of the banjos were, according to the paper, done on one or several 72 1400´s as test engines/"mules".

But of course a later upgrade to banjos on a 72 1400 should have been possible.

By the way; have you checked heights and positions of ports in your pics?

PL

[Capt.Insane-o]

Bill of sale was in the owners packet, motor was purchased March 11th 1972. Block has been stuffed so the port heights in that one will hopefully have to wait another 38 years.

[garyg]

You can reuse the reedblocks.. just replace the reeds and reed stops, use the "banjo" type reeds .

34-65319 reed stops, used on the 1500/1400 + the 10 petal side on the late 115 8/10 reedblocks..
34-65312A1 reeds, used as above...

Arne Kjetil

Are the reed stops for the banjo and non-banjo type actually different? Real question I suppose is, can I re use the non-banjo reed stops with the banjo reeds? Does the reed stop opening need to be adjusted? Is there a measurement for this?

Gary

[petlun]

Slightly different stops are part of the "banjo concept".

http://i52.tinypic.com/axgmsy.jpg

Reed stop settings are the same on booth styles (except for 1970 to 72 1150´s) although older manual says 5/32" (3,969 mm) and later manuals says .162" (4,115 mm).

PL

[petlun]

This 72 has banjo reeds


Bill of sale was in the owners packet, motor was purchased March 11th 1972.

I did a (re-) check on the 72 1400 in the parts manual some time ago. And it seems there were differencies in reeds between long shaft engines and short shaft engines.

The LS 1400 used the same reed parts as the 1350, which were definitely not "banjos". The SS however had some kind of membranes of its own (61313A1). Stops in the SS are however the same as the LS 1400 and 1350 (56008).

The banjo membranes and stops used in the 73 and up 1500´s are, as Droll/Arne says above, however 65312A1 and 65319.

"Raceman" has told us there were no short shaft 72 1400´s offered to begin with, only short shaft 1150´s offered as some kind of substitute. So "Capt.Insane", I guess your 1400 purchased new early March 72 should be a long shaft engine? And if so, the parts list says it should have had std 1350 style reed units installed by Mercury.

But as said, the parts list indicates the short shaft 72 1400 had some kind of reed membranes of its own. Could these 61313A1´s have been ordinary/std shaped but .007" thick membranes, instead of the ordinary .008" thickness? Like a 1400 XS/J-block!

PL

[petlun]

To let some fresh sea air (brackish water though) into this thread of tech specs and dates etc., here is a picture "from the road".

http://i52.tinypic.com/20qhslx.jpg

Pic is taken July 2010 by a friend when we did a "jump" from the Stockholm archipelago over to the Åland achipelago of Finland. It´s about one hour in the open sea, but as you can see we were lucky to have a rather pleasant ride.

PL

[raymar]

garyg,
I first used the banjo reeds in the late 1970s in a Twister 1 I had torn
down for overhaul. This engine had a few of the thin Twister reeds cracked
and blown out and I decided to try the 1500 reeds in this engine with the
original 1350 type stops. This engine is still in my family and has not been
apart since. It is being run on a 15R Allison and the reeds have shown no
problems. This engine has been run many, many hours since overhaul.
I have used the banjo reeds in several other engines since then with
the original stops without any problems.

[raymar]

garyg,
I first used the banjo reeds in the late 1970s in a Twister 1 I had torn
down for overhaul. This engine had a few of the thin Twister reeds cracked
and blown out and I decided to try the 1500 reeds in this engine with the
original 1350 type stops. This engine is still in my family and has not been
apart since. It is being run on a 15R Allison and the reeds have shown no
problems. This engine has been run many, many hours since overhaul.
I have used the banjo reeds in several other engines since then with
the original stops without any problems.

[Capt.Insane-o]

I did a (re-) check on the 72 1400 in the parts manual some time ago. And it seems there were differencies in reeds between long shaft engines and short shaft engines.

The LS 1400 used the same reed parts as the 1350, which were definitely not "banjos". The SS however had some kind of membranes of its own (61313A1). Stops in the SS are however the same as the LS 1400 and 1350 (56008).

The banjo membranes and stops used in the 73 and up 1500´s are, as Droll/Arne says above, however 65312A1 and 65319.

"Raceman" has told us there were no short shaft 72 1400´s offered to begin with, only short shaft 1150´s offered as some kind of substitute. So "Capt.Insane", I guess your 1400 purchased new early March 72 should be a long shaft engine? And if so, the parts list says it should have had std 1350 style reed units installed by Mercury.

But as said, the parts list indicates the short shaft 72 1400 had some kind of reed membranes of its own. Could these 61313A1´s have been ordinary/std shaped but .007" thick membranes, instead of the ordinary .008" thickness? Like a 1400 XS/J-block!

PL

Long shaft non power trim, this motor sat with #5 burned out of it under a car port for at least 25 years so I know it's never been apart. I know the dealer where it came from and they were a high volume shop. Being that is was purchased in March it is probably a late 72 production, and like many many Mercs I work on you never know whats inside them at times.

[Dave S]

HeeHee Banjo reeds need a stop with out a Break line/ridge......Smoooth as not to break the narrow section. Stock reeds have a step to define the bending of the thicker reed. Mix and break at ya own perill..

[milkdud]

I did a (re-) check on the 72 1400 in the parts manual some time ago. And it seems there were differencies in reeds between long shaft engines and short shaft engines.

Im pretty sure the 72 1400 was only produced as a long shaft.

[Droll]

Im pretty sure the 72 1400 was only produced as a long shaft.

Quote from Midas...

#61313A1 REED SET, MATCHED - MAIN BEARING (SHORT SHAFT)
#56007A1 REED SET, MATCHED - MAIN BEARING (LONG SHAFT)

Short mid + short lowerunit are listed too ( Merc1400 serial #3293234 > 3502805 )


Arne Kjetil

[ducatist]

Thank you all who have contributed to this great topic.:cheers:
Has someone here got any info on the Australian produced (inline 6) Mercury outboards?
I just purchased an engine just to have a play look see, restoration, etc.
The serial number on the enginewas way out of all the lists available from USA/Canada.
Serial # is 80527** and states it was made in Australia, (Victoria, Dandanong facrtory).
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc302/jamathi05/DSC_7302.jpg
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc302/jamathi05/DSC_7303.jpg

[Capt.Insane-o]

Nice!

[baldad45]

If you go to mercruiserparts.com and look under 1400,140 your serial # range is listed as Australian built along with the USA and Canadian serial #s that match it .

[ducatist]

Thank You for that most helpfull link!

[milkdud]

Droll,

Let me know when you find a 1972 1400 short shaft. I still dont think they were around. One reason is: This model had the new dual port exhaust housing in the mid. I dont think they had the NEW short shaft mids tooled up.

They were using the OLD mids to supply short shaft motors in the 1150 motors. Then in 1973 you saw the 1500 produced as a short shaft.

I have a friend that thinks he has a 1972 short shaft 1400. He is going to check the serial numbers, and I bet he finds its not what he thinks it is. If the serial numbers match then Ill let you know and post it here.

:) Conrad

[milkdud]

My friend out west confirmed he has a 1972 1400 SHORT SHAFT. Powerhead numbers match the mid numbers. So either they made some and he has a fairly rare motor.

Or some were converted to short shafts at the dealerships and serial tags were changed for a smooth conversion for customers that needed the short on their boat.

Conrad

[milkdud]

My friend out west confirmed he has a 1972 1400 SHORT SHAFT. Powerhead numbers match the mid numbers. So either they made some and he has a fairly rare motor.

Or some were converted to short shafts at the dealerships and serial tags were changed for a smooth conversion for customers that needed the short on their boat.

Conrad

[petlun]

I clearly remember "Raceman", who posted often here until some time ago (where have all the soldiers gone by the way?), has explained (more than once as far as I remember) there were no 1400 short shafts for 1972 to begin with. Reason was the tooling for the SS midsection with the new exhaust configuration was yet not ready for production.

That, he said, was the reason the 1150 was offered also as a SS in 72 (the 1150 still used the old exhaust configuration so tools and parts were there from before) as a kind of substitute for a higher hp SS Merc.

But then sometime well into the season, someone like "Raceman"´s friend´s father, who was an employe with Mercury or had close connections with them or so, showed up someplace with a from factory new Short Shaft 1400. (Sorry to say I don´t have the skills to do a successful search on the thread in question.)

My 1972 brochure says "Long shaft only" for the 1400, but the parts list shows as described in posts before this one also SS parts for the 72 1400.

PL

[wogi]

as for this 1400 short shaft debate, My father in early 1972 bought a New 1400 short shaft from a high perf dealer in WI, and get this it had a louvered cowl with the blue band 1400 decal

[MN4V]

as for this 1400 short shaft debate, My father in early 1972 bought a New 1400 short shaft from a high perf dealer in WI, and get this it had a louvered cowl with the blue band 1400 decal

Do you remember if the block was painted silver or black? I have a friend that says his dad bought a 1972 1400 short shaft too. And his block was black. But, I have a 1400 with a silver block.
Mark N

[wogi]

black block

[Mark75H]

I thought the 1350 was the last silver ... maybe the 1400 was transitional