Has anyone ever dealt with mercstore on ebay???

[mragu]

they are located somewhere around wisconsin i think. someone posted an ebay ad with an older 150hp inline that was remanufactured by them. i surfed ebay and found that they also have a late 80's 115hp inline merc. i emailed him to see if it had matching serial numbers and to see if it is an 1988. has anyone ever purchased a motor form him and what where the results. those of you who know me will have an idea what it would end up on;):D
thanks, mike

[gregpro50]

I know they bought some inline parts from me but that's the extent of my dealing with them.

[mragu]

its actually mercrestore on ebay.
the serial number is a985703
i think that makes it an '86????

[gregpro50]

He's got a couple inline motors listed. A newer ADI ignition 115 and an older distributer ignition 150. Which one are you looking at? That serial number matches what the ADI 115 would be.

[mragu]

greg, the adi ignition

[mariah2]

I saw his ad and the description of restored bothered me since the cowls and controls are both off a year model other than what he describes. If he had said rebuilt to new condition or similar wording maybe it would not have seemed like an exageration. His statement that the inline 6 Mercurys put out more power per pound than anything else build is so far out of reality that it makes you wonder if he has flashbacks from some kind of abuse in the 70s. Exagerations and misnomers do not seem like a good way to try and hustle engines at what is probably over double current market value.:confused:

[mastertrax]

I hope you're gonna put one of those inlines on that Viper of yours I drooled over for ten days!

I wanted to buy it so bad but it was juuuust outta reach for me

But consider a 1500 or 1500 XS instead of an ADI 115, they're stronger engines I promise you, I have run them and can say this from experience. I almost got Mercrestore to build me a 150 powerhead on a modern 115 leg. That, to me, would be the perfect inline 6 merc. You can also put 150 pistons, reeds and carbs on an ADI block. Call him and talk to him, he's a nice guy. The rebuilds are very thorough and the refinish is better than original

[delawarerick]

I dont agree Dave S built me an adi 115 and I would find it hard to believe that a 1500 would touch it. Plus the intrigal trim makes it even sweeter. I have a 1500 with the old style trim up in the shop and Dave insisted on the new and like I said this engine screams. .02 If I was looking for an inline I would contact Dave S on the board and see if he has anything. Rick

[mastertrax]

I did stipulate that the modern leg is better mainly because of the integral trim (and also somewhat more streamlined), but agreeing or not agreeing one way or the other about the performance will not make a 115 powerhead as strong as a 1500 although high domed 150 pistons, 10/10 banjo reeds and 150 carbs will make it close and are a viable option if one desires to use the ADI ignition.

I'm not knocking the late 115 it is a good runner with as much or more low end grunt than a 1500, just not as much power on tap for top end

[Capt.Insane-o]

I saw his ad and the description of restored bothered me since the cowls and controls are both off a year model other than what he describes. If he had said rebuilt to new condition or similar wording maybe it would not have seemed like an exageration. His statement that the inline 6 Mercurys put out more power per pound than anything else build is so far out of reality that it makes you wonder if he has flashbacks from some kind of abuse in the 70s. Exagerations and misnomers do not seem like a good way to try and hustle engines at what is probably over double current market value.:confused:

:rolleyes: your about as much fun as a phone book. And if you have ever accomplished anything like trying to restore an inline to the condition that comes from them 5k probably is'nt enough. Name me an outboard today that will put out 125 honest hp at the prop and weighs 290 pounds. Go back to your bible thread and phone spammers.

Having seen his site for a few years now, and purchasing a few parts from him. There would be no issue at all at the asking price.

[mariah2]

:rolleyes: your about as much fun as a phone book. And if you have ever accomplished anything like trying to restore an inline to the condition that comes from them 5k probably is'nt enough. Name me an outboard today that will put out 125 honest hp at the prop and weighs 290 pounds. Go back to your bible thread and phone spammers.

Having seen his site for a few years now, and purchasing a few parts from him. There would be no issue at all at the asking price.

Thnk you for the nice friendly opinions.:rolleyes: You could be correct that the listed price was not enough to be profitable but it is not marketable at that kind of price and that was the point, not what it costs to rebuild an engine. Inline 6 Mercurys have always been my favorite and I have a pair of real 1975 model 1500s now. You may know the ones I am talking about with the big blue 1500 on the top cowl and a black faceplate and the 1500 stripes instead of the 73 stripes like the one in topic here. You know the one that has the fuel pump on the bottom pan and clamp bolts that you use a wrench on instead of plastic drum Ts. Both of mine were restored close to new mechanically with .030 high dome pistons in all 12, lower units disassembled and rebuilt with bearings in both and gears in one and all of the black painted parts beadblasted and primed with green zinc and then painted with Mercury Fathom black just like Mercury did back then. I could have powder coated easier since the gearcases were bare and the mid was completely disassembled but that would not be as they were. We also did new triggers and bearings in the distributors with 2 new caps and rotors and all new gaskets on the blocks and the idle restrictors in the starboard side. One switchbox was new and both stators were replaced because of wires. This would not have been economically practical without sweat equity, a stockpile of new old parts and a willingness to spend more on the engines than they would ever be worth. I have run both engines in my test tank and will mount them as twins when the right boat comes along, something sporty and under 20 feet from the 70s.

Profitablility requires practicality of chosen engine, not love of something old. The point of my original opinions were that the engine isn't probably attractive to a collector because of mismatched components and someone looking for something to run probably is not interested in spending that kind of money on a 35 plus year old engine that nobody wants to work on and most dealers no longer stock parts for outside the waterpump. Looks like the skeg is butchered too. You cannot build them for 2000 and you cannot sell them for 4200 so that leaves the decision to completely rebuild one for resale seemingly a bad one.

Now go back and read your phonebook and see if you can find some fun in it. Maybe you missed something there too. Look in the massage parlor section. ;)

[Bruster]

Having ran both motore (1500XS and ADI 115) on the same boat I'm not sure I'll agree.



I'm not knocking the late 115 it is a good runner with as much or more low end grunt than a 1500, just not as much power on tap for top end

[mercRestor]

Hello, mercRestor is my company. All of my motors are completely remanufactured and rebuilt to new condition. The 150 hp motor shown is a 1975 model and is mechanically exact for that year including the cowls-no mismatched components. Also, the lower unit is not "butchered" and has been reshaped to original factory specs. The decals are in fact not specifically 1975 decals. However, for practicality reasons and since the 1972 thru 1975 graphics are similar I have elected to use the same decals for those model years. The controls are in fact not 1975 controls because Merc did not offer trim controls in the control handle for that year and I find that my customers really like to be able to have the trim control at their fingertips rather than reach down to the dash to control the trim. As for the powdercoating-We challenge anyone to compare the look and durability of our finish to acrylic enamels-There is no comparison especially for somepne who wants the motor to not only look good but also hold up in a marine environment year after year.

We do not "Hustle" engines. We sell outboard motors that can be practically used by anyone that are basically new at a fraction of the cost of purchasing a newer late model motor. We sell motors that people want to use all the time not just to look at or use on rare occasions. They ALL come with a warranty. "Market value" is based on what someone is willing to pay for a product and we have sold many of these motors in the $4-$5K price range. No Flashbacks, No misnomers and no Exagerations

As for the horsepower to weight ratio being the best-it is when compared to any current motors made and all older motors made with any significant sales volume. Yes there may have been some obscure motors made in the past that weighed less but they had no overall market significance.

As for serviceability, all components that are normally serviced are readily available. I provide vendor lists to customers so that all parts for these motors are just a phone call away from being available.

FYI. The block porting and boost gouge between a L6 150 and L6 115 (1984 thru 1988) are identical.

[mariah2]

The 150 hp motor shown is a 1975 model and is mechanically exact for that year including the cowls-no mismatched components. Also, the lower unit is not "butchered" and has been reshaped to original factory specs. The decals are in fact not specifically 1975 decals. However, for practicality reasons and since the 1972 thru 1975 graphics are similar I have elected to use the same decals for those model years. The controls are in fact not 1975 controls because Merc did not offer trim controls in the control handle for that year and I find that my customers really like to be able to have the trim control at their fingertips rather than reach down to the dash to control the trim. As for the powdercoating-We challenge anyone to compare the look and durability of our finish to acrylic enamels-There is no comparison especially for somepne who wants the motor to not only look good but also hold up in a marine environment year after year.

As for the horsepower to weight ratio being the best-it is when compared to any current motors made and all older motors made with any significant sales volume. Yes there may have been some obscure motors made in the past that weighed less but they had no overall market significance.

As for serviceability, all components that are normally serviced are readily available. I provide vendor lists to customers so that all parts for these motors are just a phone call away from being available.

FYI. The block porting and boost gouge between a L6 150 and L6 115 (1984 thru 1988) are identical.

I suspect that you underestimate the knowledge pool here on Mercury engines, both old and new. I also think you may have missed a point or 3 in my opinions. The mismatches make the engine not desirable for a collector, which somewhat limits the number of potential buyers. The cowls are correct if you consider the front faceplate being black on the 75 engine which was a major cosmetic improvement. The 75 also sported the large blue letters showing the engine size on the top cowl. This too would be important for a collector, but like the faceplate irrelevant to someone who was just buying for serviceability. I do wonder how a gearcase is reshaped to factory specifications.:confused:

The statement that the engine horsepower to weight ratio is superior to current engines is ludicrous. An inline 1500 puts out 125 at the propshaft at best and engines weighing considerably less than double the weight of an inline with power trim put out considerably more than double the power at the propshaft.

I did not say or imply that your engines were overpriced in terms of effort and expense compared to asking price, but only that many current Mercury mechanics now refuse to work on inline 6s and that there is probably a limited commercial market for them at a price that would make total rebuild profitable.

Good luck with the sale.

[mercRestor]

The only mismatches are the decals and those can be changed if a customer wants them. If someone were to say I want that motor with the 75 graphics I coud leasily accomodate that if that's what they wanted I can always add the large blue decals on the top cowl and switch out the face plate. If someone were to say they wanted 1988 decals on a 1972 motor-not a problem-we can do it. We are a customer oreinted company.

Our experience with the 150 hp is that it loses about 9% hp from the power head to the prop which actually puts prop hp at 136.5 for a fresh broken-in engine. I beleive you are dead wrong on the power to weight ratio. Let's just say the motor weighs 300 pounds for round numbers. That puts this motor at .455 hp/pound. As a comparison the 1980 Black Max V-6 150 hp(measured at the crank) weighed 380 pounds which put the ratio at .359hp/pound. So I don't understand why you think my statement about power to weight ratio is ludicrous.

Our gearcases are reshaped to factory specifications by matching them up to new unused gear cases-there really is no rocket science to it.

[mariah2]

Our experience with the 150 hp is that it loses about 9% hp from the power head to the prop which actually puts prop hp at 136.5 for a fresh broken-in engine. I beleive you are dead wrong on the power to weight ratio. Let's just say the motor weighs 300 pounds for round numbers. That puts this motor at .455 hp/pound. As a comparison the 1980 Black Max V-6 150 hp(measured at the crank) weighed 380 pounds which put the ratio at .359hp/pound. So I don't understand why you think my statement about power to weight ratio is ludicrous.

How did you reach the conclusion of 9% and 136.5 horsepower. I have never seen valid data to support that level of output in any inline 6 Mercury except for the T motors.

Lets do a valid comparison on advertised HP to weight ratio. The engine you compared it to is probably the low point in Merc V6 production in terms of HP to weight and it too was rated at the powerhead instead of propshaft. When you go more into the 80s and get into the net horsepower ratings of those V6s all the percentages change. Most any modern day 2 stroke bassboat engine of any brand will have better horsepower to weight ratio than an old inline Mercury. Horsepower to weight ratio is not really that much of a factor in small numbers like we are talking here. If you take an inline 1500 off most any boat and replace it with almost any 2 stroke V6 you will pick up speed with only the lower unit being the limiting factor on the earlier V6s. Most any of the later 80s and 90s 2.4s and 2.5s would outhorsepower the old inline 6 by close to 100.

It sounds like I do not like inline Mercurys. That is not true. I have 2 inline 150s myself that I have way more in than they could ever bring but I did them as a hobby and because I like them rather than as a commercial attempt. I wish they would be worth 4000 each I would sell them both even though they are cosmetically correct and have had full rebuilds of every moving component as well as most of the electricals. I do not argue that they are great engines but do not think there is a legitimate commercial market for them at 4000 plus and think that the same money spent on any 2.4 or 2.5 Mercury produces an engine superior in every way.

For the sake of argument let us see a picture of the engine referenced here from the right side with the cowl off and a clear from the side shot of the skeg.

[mercRestor]

The hp to weight ratio on a 1500 merc inline is better than it is on a 2008 optimax 175. That motor only puts out .406hp/pound whereas the 1500 puts out about .455hp/pound And when you compare the 1500 to a 2008 similar hp 135 (.313hp/pound) the 1500 inline is even better. Not unitl you get up into the 3 liter motors do the hp/weight ratios match up to the 1500 inline.

Incidentally, a standard calculation for any reduction in hp from a powerhead through a 90 degree gear case is roughly 9% of the powerheads measured hp.

I am not sure what your motivation is to make folks feel bad about purchasing one of these great motors but I have sold many of them to very satisfied customers for what both I and our customers feel is a very fair price.

[mercRestor]

Additionally, you CANNOT buy a completely remanufactured 2.4 or 2.5 for the same money. I know you would be looking at at least $6-$7k

[milkdud]

the new 1.5L 125 opti would be the best comparison to a 1975 1.6Lish 1500

SO for argument sake

1500 125hp 300lbs = .416 hp/lb
OPTI 125hp 375lbs = .333 hp/lb

both are the highest hp for their class/cubes it is hard to beat an inline for hp/weight ratio.

now the 2.4l opti will not match it and it takes a 3.oL to beat it. But that is a different HP class and things change a lot when you do that.


Conrad

[mragu]

I think this thread has gotten away from my original question. I was/am looking for opinions on the value of the motor which can vary from person to person. I am not necessarily looking for power to weight etc. I had a 150XS that I sold because it was not year correct for my applicationand I want an ADI motor. I am not looking to break any speed records. I am looking for a true 1987 or 1988 Inline 6 Mercury 115HP in mint condition. I am willing to pay a fair price for one from a buyer who someone has has a positive experience from,which was the reason for this post

[mariah2]

the new 1.5L 125 opti would be the best comparison to a 1975 1.6Lish 1500

SO for argument sake

1500 125hp 300lbs = .416 hp/lb
OPTI 125hp 375lbs = .333 hp/lb

both are the highest hp for their class/cubes it is hard to beat an inline for hp/weight ratio.

now the 2.4l opti will not match it and it takes a 3.oL to beat it. But that is a different HP class and things change a lot when you do that.


Conrad

Conrad, why would that be a better comparison? Approximately 91% of the displacement at roughtly the same HP and weight added for things that are not for performance. If the comparison is old motors with the 150 being the pinacle of Mercury performance prior to 1976 we should bring in the 2.4s and 2.5's of later years that will smoke the inlines with disproportionately low weight increases.

I do not see the obsession with horsepower to weight. If you put any late model 2 stroke V6 on the same boat an inline 6 came from there will be a speed increase.

That is what a restored 1975 1500 is suppsed to look like in your avatar Conrad. Very nice.:thumbsup:

[milkdud]

mragu, You look like youve been around long enough to know whats up. I could only give you approximations on value, but you would have to do the legwork on research and watch what things are selling for in your area. I would not sell my rebuilt 1500 1975 for less than 2k. A mint 115 with tilt trim and a warrenty. Start looking in the 4-5500$ range.


Mariah2,


Conrad, why would that be a better comparison? Approximately 91% of the displacement at roughtly the same HP and weight added for things that are not for performance.
EXACTLY!! something with less cubes in theory should weight less!

Please read what I say. I am comparing roughly apples to apples. Not apples to oranges. The 1500 is the TOP of the HP line up for the 99 cube inlines.

The 125 is the TOP of the HP line of the 93 cube opti max's. Yes they made more powerful engines in 2011, who cares? Im not talking about them.

Find a motor producing around 125-135Crank HP under 300lbs. When you do please respond back. (im sure there are, heck I dont know) If you cannot find one dont respond with some other HP class of motor please. I know the stats too of other larger and smaller classes of motors.

Yes HP to weight ratio is not the win all statistic. I am just saying the 99 cube 1500 is hard to beat in its class thats all.

My 75 1500J shortie is still original paint. I rebuilt the internals and left the paint alone. Id say the paint is a 7.5/10. I too like things to be original or as close to original as possible.

Thanks
conrad