I believe that would depend on where they manufacture and produce the parts and the gouge they choose to lay down on the consumer to pad the profit margin. Has it been determined where the majority of parts in this blower motor are manufactured, country of origin not country of assembly? One OEM always tries to undercut the competition.Quote:
Originally Posted by altamate
Probably never will. How easy was the 300 drag to use day-by-day? How long will it be reliable at wot? If the number doesn’t have three zeroes then it’s not even comparable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whaaaaat
That speaks to pricing,Quote:
Originally Posted by FMP
Is it possible that since a 3.2 makes a little over 300hp a 4.6 could do 450hp? What would it weigh?
So if Merc had just come out with a 450 hp 4.6 2 stroke would we be happy or complaining about the price and weight?
There is diminishing returns with cylinder displacement so i don’t think it would be proportional. I do think it’s pretty safe to say that they could build 4.3 liter v8 2-stroke at 400 hp and probably 575-600 lb. it would need the “gearcase a foot wide” as well if you want reliability. But I think what most neigh-sayers are missing is that price, weight, and power aren’t the only things that matter. Not even close. There was a time when I didn’t get that either.Quote:
Originally Posted by altamate
The people that can afford the 450 don't give a damn. This is a baller motor for baller boats and they're going sell quite a few of them. I was hoping for a hopped up 3.4 in the line with a sporty but that would step on dicks amongst the engine line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whaaaaat
With three decades more design and tech? A two stroke platform at this size and weight could be making double the power of this lipstick pig with minimal moving parts. This is the point. Going 4joke is a copout. It's simply easier to borrow automotive tech and slap it on a midsection. Cheap way out for merc and the average boat buyer isn't smart enough to even open the cowl.Quote:
Originally Posted by engineermike
I like how everyone totes the reliability of engines most people are still waiting to take delivery of.
Yes, 3 decades and you get 50% more power, multiples more reliability, and vastly easier to operate and maintain. What did you expect?Quote:
Originally Posted by Whaaaaat
i think you might be confusing this engine with 7marine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whaaaaat
You are deluding yourself if you think an old high-strung 2-stroke is even in the same league of reliability as a modern 4-stroke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whaaaaat
Your an engineer of what? Cereal boxes?
How is something with exponentially more parts easier to maintain?
How is an engine that at it's most basic only capable of a power stroke every other revolution superior to one capable of twice that? A power stroke every revolution. As its basic design feature the two stroke is twice as powerful.
Diminishing returns, hmmmmm
It's high end marketing, it's priced accordingly to the application. The smaller of the boats trying to use this niche product are priced out until 'Rude pulls the rug out.
The cutaway pic does look good.
It is blatantly obvious that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and this will be my last response to your repeated lip service. Your quote "cheap way out for Merc." is as far off from an accurate or informed statement could possibly be. "Maybe you should take a drive North and see the facility, foundry, and everything that they have built for this product line and the accessories that support it".Quote:
Originally Posted by Whaaaaat
"lipstick pig"-I was afforded the experience to see the team of people behind this project first hand and can tell you that they have developed a product that has huge market demand and people are willing to pay the price for it. They did their job and did it very well.
As for your reliability quote-this project has been in the works for almost a decade and there have been thousands of hours logged "again very ill informed statement".
"As its basic design feature a two stroke is twice as powerful"-If this statement had any accuracy what so ever, there would be no four strokes in racing "again an absolute fools talk"
Your comments directed to Mike who has made a single 400R end up being very fast and consistently improves its performance #s "again very low I.Q. stereotype statements and responses".
How much faster have you made your boat run in the last 2 years (you have had decades to figure it out and you are at the end of the road?)-what happened to "THE RACE NEVER STOPS"--that is what Mercury is living up to.
This last statement from me is an offer for you to consider and put your money where your mouth is. There will soon be an Allison SS rigged with a 4 cyl. 4 stroke motor that will make you run and hide with your tail between your legs. Its not mine but I will be willing to front him the cost to come down for a river run and embarrass you repeatedly in front of all that are in attendance. You let me know just what confidence level you are willing to spend to prove that a four stroke on pump fuel and less displacement will not run around you and then I will determine if you have any substance to your talk. I am not holding my breath for a response and hope that you give it some thought before coming up with an uninformed knee jerk response like all of your others.
Joe
Let's start another thread on this Allison with a 4 , 4. What details?
Will you be able to start it in gear?Quote:
Originally Posted by FMP
Its not mine but I know the guys involved and it will come out in time. It will be a great way to display a four stroke lightweight version. All of this stuff is just getting started and its a very opportune time to be involved in our hobby.
Joe
I can start my 4 cylinder 4 stroke in gear - and it's a 2017 :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SS Minnow
So it's a Merc, 4 cyl? SS2000 type and it does 75
I hear those are a pain in the ass to get the premix right.Quote:
Originally Posted by home made tunnel
Because oil changes are pretty easy and that's about all you have to do. Just because it has more parts doesn't mean they all need maintaining. Quite the opposite in this case, actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whaaaaat
Example: I used to run 2-stroke PWC's. Far from zero maintenance. At one point, it was averaging a break-down every three trips to the river. Later, it was every trip. Fast forward to today...I've owned three 4-stroke PWC's. They just start every time with the touch of a button and go years with no breakdowns. My current ski is 8 years old and I still use it several times/month. I've changed the oil a few times and the plugs twice. That's it! And it's one of those super-complicated DOHC supercharged 4-strokes.
Let me break this down for ya'. Next time the heads are off of your 2.5, take a look in that cylinder. Turn the crank until you see the exhaust port start to open. How far down is the piston? About half-way, right? So you've let the pressure out early and sacrificed half of the power stroke! Do the same with a 4-stroke and you see that you get to use nearly all of the power stroke before letting the pressure out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whaaaaat
Now, consider that there's no practical way to pressurize the 2-stroke cylinder significantly above atmospheric pressure using supercharging for the very same reason...all that extra air escapes out the exhaust port before after the transfers close. 4-stroke, however, can trap pressurized air from a supercharger in the cylinder because there's no way out.
So, a 2-stroke might have twice the power strokes, but a 4-stroke has twice as long of a power stroke and can benefit from twice the air density from supercharging, capisce?
If we're talking about power/cid, compare the 400R to the S3000. They are roughly the same displacement, but the 400R is a 7000 rpm, 89 octane, low-maintenance, easy starting, smooth idling, emissions compliant, fuel efficient, very easy-to-live-with motor. The S3000 is close to the same displacement, but a high-strung 9000++ rpm, high-maintenance, rough idling, race-gas guzzling race engine that could never be sold today...and makes nearly 100 hp less!
That said, I really believe this 450R is just the start. It's only making 98 hp/liter while the 400R is making 154! That motor has WAY more in it. Do some quick math on that and your jaw will drop.
Tell me this...how come every time an interesting thread on 4-strokes is posted, all the 2-stroke guys feel the need to come in and crap all over it? I see all kinds of threads on stuff I don't like and I'm not interested in....I just don't feel the need to go in and mess it up for them.
If mercury dumped piles of money into a new facility to make horse drawn buggies, you'd be the first blowhard on here talking about how big the horses ball's were. Still the cheap way out. Take existing car tech and roll it into an outbound package. That's imitation not innovation.
The team that though that up ought to be ashamed of there lipstick pig.
Two stroke does twice the amount of work in the same amount of time. This is physics, might be a bit over your head but check it out some time. It was simply a bad match for the needs of automobiles due to cooling and oiling issues [could have been solved with dfi].
Really my IQ? I find that comical as I know that number. I know it because people thought it high enough to be worth knowing. I doubt you can say the same. I just hope it's still with me when I'm your age.
I believe I already invited you out to the bay. Any 4joke you can float on an SS. Against my 200 fishing motor.
And I don't think anyone who has read more than 4 of your post doubts your willingness to throw money around. So pay the guys way who is trying to make a 4 joke fun. I'd love to meet him.
You still haven't answered my question from another thread. How much does mercury pay you to spew this propaganda? Or are you just that much of a doe eyed groupie fan boy?
Some people are just butt hurt because they can't afford a new merc. And take it out on the ones that can by berating the product.
we have had supercharged IL 6 for a few years so now we have a supercharged v8.
I think 300x to 300xs was a bigger jump forward with its significant fuel savings IMHO
How can you say they took the cheap way out and also say the new engines have too many parts and are too expensive? How much does the largest die-casting machine in North America cost? Is it cheap? Are power valves the expensive way out?Quote:
Originally Posted by Whaaaaat
Taking a 1986 dirt bike power valve and putting it in an outboard is innovation then, by your logic? And how many cars have die-cast engine blocks and heads?Quote:
Originally Posted by Whaaaaat
Why do your posts read like they're written by a 5th grader then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Whaaaaat
I am Butt Hurt because i can not afford one. I am proud of myself for not blaming Mercury 4 strokes as the reason. I clearly see that Burger King is the cause. $11 per hour is not considered a Whopper of a paycheck.Quote:
Originally Posted by XstreamVking
If a supercharged 2 stroke diesel can work, why not a supercharged 2 stroke spark ignition?
Do you think the 4 stroke SS2000 will outrun my 200XS SS2000? If yes, then I did not need to buy the 200XS last year.
I remain a two stroke fan but the Merc V8s are very impressive.
Funny you should say that fifth grade is when I learned car motors don't belong in boats.
Investing in new casting technology is something they needed, choosing to use it to build car motors is a cheap way out. The r and d has been done already by car manufacturers. Saves money on engineering.
I too had jet ski's when they went 4 joke is when I quit. They were big heavy and no fun. Not light nimble and playful. And not any more reliable at first. Superchargers would self destruct every 100 hours and send shrapnel they the motor.
I quit trying to have water toys for years and stuck to fishing boats. When it was time for a water toy again I opted for a fast nimble boat instead of a jet couch, holds more beer and bikinis,. Now the speed boats are going down the same path as the ski's. Big heavy boring fast, and complicated. In ten years a young newcomer won't be able to buy a used boat and maintain it himself. There gone overprice and over complicate the next generation right out of the sport. It's sad really.
The point I keep getting at is if the same amount of effort had been thrown at 2 stroke tech this whole time, instead of trying to make 4 joke work where it don't belong. We would have seen these power levels from the entire marine industry years ago.
”Supercharged” 2-stroke diesels need the air pump because they are not crankcase scavenged. They won’t run without the blower and they do not build >1 atm in the cylinder.Quote:
Originally Posted by David
[QUOTE]I think a 2 stroke Detroit Diesel is nothing like a 2 stroke outboard. Detroit has overhead valves and also a oil pan full of oil. Detroit cylinders are same as a 4 stroke motor. No ports cut in cyl. Uses a camshaft and rocker arm/push rod valve train. Intake and exhaust ports are in cyl head.Quote:
Originally Posted by David
Screaming jimmys
Only exhaust valves. Intake ports in the cylinders just like outboard. Needs a supercharger to function. A "natural" Detroit is supercharged. They add turbos on top of that
I saw SAE papers about 2 strokes with valves in the 80s. I think you'd need some way of not pushing all the charge out the exhaust ports.
Back then there were a few companies trying to make 2 strokes work for car engines. As I recall, the problem was emissions after 50,000 miles, but that was 30 years ago so I could be dead wrong. I'm sure Orbital was trying to sell their fuel injection system for cars, but 2 or 4 stroke? Optimax is the Orbital system.
Of course once you load up a 2 stroke to 4 stroke complexity the appeal is at least 1/2 way lost.
Just bring that 4 stroke SS2000 up to Ontario and we'll have at it. And we will both be passed by the local offshore guys with the new 450's.
[QUOTE=davemvegas;3142708]except there are ports in the cylinders, that how the air gets in..Quote:
I think a 2 stroke Detroit Diesel is nothing like a 2 stroke outboard. Detroit has overhead valves and also a oil pan full of oil. Detroit cylinders are same as a 4 stroke motor. No ports cut in cyl. Uses a camshaft and rocker arm/push rod valve train. Intake and exhaust ports are in cyl head.
skipping that, there are turbo e tec sleds, yes some air gets wasted but due to the dfi no fuel is.
I wonder how their BSFC is, would it scale up to 3.0ltr engines??
IMHO the punters that dont have e-tec type injection have given up as thats seems the only clever route to a modern 2 stroke.
E-tec put the 2 stroke at the forefront of emissions especially when cruising
How many EPA stars is the 450? (EDIT 3 star)
Used to work on a pair of 16v 143's generators. What a sound they make!
Except the pressure wave released as the ex port opens is not waisted as you think, it's used in proper timing to pressurize the next closing ex port's cylinder on the compression stroke. It's highly significant and raises cylinder pressure. Supercharging is how it has been described by OMC and Merc in technical papers of design.
If you care to watch the degree counter you will notice the exiting blowdown pulse and the leading cylinders blowdown pulses arriving to pressurize the ex port and cylinder prior to the port closing.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_con...&v=fSko92cWLcE
No , thank you Power
This thread took a left turn at Albequerkee. (Quoted from Bugs Bunny)
BRP has to be thinking of countering with something for if not the 450 maybe the 400, maybe the Miami 2020 Show will show something.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPEROG
Too bad you need a half dozen expansion chambers to make this really work right...Quote:
Originally Posted by FMP
At least the economy is still buying boats and merc and brp are engineering new products.
Between them they own what percentage of the market you would think they own it with the who ha on product release.
Has yam or suzuki ever had a launch party?
Actually no, the short ex port to ex port distances of travel are more efficient than the long distance run to the end of a can and return to the originating ex port. What's important is the optimal range of arrival in degrees prior to port closing. At slow speeds the arrival is considerably early. As crank rotation speed increases that arrival becomes " later" in respect to port closing. At top rpm it's the optimum range.
The rave permits that arrival to be delayed at low rpm to be near or at optimum range.
That video is without anything except the ex chest and passage from port to port of the original Etec.
For $64,000 that wonderful new motor should be carbon fiber...
So how much does a 450HP inboard cost?