https://www.screamandfly.com/attachm...7&d=1706021453
The biggest issue I see is that with increased cam lift, the rocker arm could run out of movement at the cup and bottom out against the stud's wall .
80 lbs on the seat ... give or take .... LMAO
Skreemin .. don't ya'll ship them heads over to Shrelanka or some other island to be put together for like .80c a head ... ???
Last I saw they were assembled and tested by skilled American craftspeople in a big factory next to I-41 in Fond du Lac (French for “Foot of the Lake)WIQuote:
Originally Posted by Chaz
Low lift small diameter 4-valves don’t need all of the seat pressure. You’d $#!+ a brick if you saw how low a QC4 engine has and they turn 6500-7000. Obviously if you want to go past that it’s not too hard to improve.
Again, I encourage you to implement your improvements and help the aftermarket get what no manufacturer is currently building. It’s really not that difficult. But why isn’t the manufacturer doing it??
Maybe a revisit to the big building is in order. Ask one of the skilled American craftmen .. err ,,, craftspeople :rolleyes: where the 3.4L heads are assembled .. They get shipped half way around the world .. because by the time their wages, 401 k, insurance, sick leave, etc. are calculated .. it's just cheaper to do it in a place somewhere between a banana republic .. and slave labor.Quote:
Originally Posted by HydroSkreamin
Quattro valvole .. In 1973 I saw Keith Duckworth's (Cosworth) pent roof design in the ahead of it's time TX500 twin cyl Yamaha. I didn't own anything four valve until I bought a 1982 GS1100 Suzuki. And I can't count how many J2Z heads I've welded back together .. So I'm somewhat familiar with the design .. :)
Speaking of being familiar ... the red headed stepchild 3.4L is a 2 valve, V-6. :eek:
Plenty of pictures thru out this thread. Fugiphoto was even kind enough to expand them to bigger than life. :cheers:
In the spec's picture, it claims a 2.0" intake. Would be tough for even me to stuff two of them in a two or four valve head .. ;)
States .. a two valve head, looks like .... eight valves total. Lets see, V-6, three intakes, three exhausts, ... no tellin where they put the extra two valves ... :D
I've only seen, ridden in, driven, one Boston Whaler with a new 150 on it. It was slow, quiet, and I didn't like the fly by wire shift / throttle. So I don't see myself spending money on tooling up / making connections to have parts made for those motors.
I would however like to send the mothership a PCM that when opened only has a simple message : F*** ***, this motor was paid in full. You don't own me or it any longer ... :p
That would be the miljon dollar quistion! But where are all the DIY guys?Quote:
Originally Posted by HydroSkreamin
Come on now, everything more difficult than a waterpump change ends up in the coulda shoulda corner
Chaz, the 3.4L V6 is a 4-valve. The 3.0L L4 150 (pictures you are referring to) is a 2-valve, and it is definitely assembled in FDL, WI by men and women, hence craftspeople. My phone knew what it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaz
Don't believe everything you hear...
Fair enough , thank you for the simple explanation ... :cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by HydroSkreamin
Ohh Ronnie ... bout those pictures .. :D
Time to show pit-cherz of the V-6 .. including spec's of the short block .. :thumbsup:
The crickets .. (lack of follow up) is reason enough.. to show why I won't invest a nickel on one of these "little porkers" .. ;)
It sucks that Mercury has "followed the money" and only developed high performance engines for the big multi-engine markets. With the technology we have today, I see no reason why they couldn't build successors to the venerable 2.5/3.0/3.2 models of 280-330HP two-stroke engines that only weighed 375-500#s. I can't imagine that they couldn't build something along the lines of a 2.5L inline 4 w/ a single turbo that wouldn't make at least 350HP on 91 octane and weigh no more than one of the old V6 two-strokes. If GM can do it (2024 2.5L LKO turbo engine, 328hp/326lb-ft) I can't believe Merc can't do it also.
GM 2.5L LK0 I-4 Turbo Engine Info, Uses, Specs, Wiki (gmauthority.com)
This is the circle we will always run around. Is it why can't they, or why won't they? IMO, they won't, because the sales #s aren't there. When some of these motors start to hit the used market, I have a feeling some small boat enthusiasts with machining/ fab skills will start to make some very impressive motors. But the market is more niche than it's ever been, so I believe that's as far as it will go.
Anyone have the production #s of the Pro max 225,260,280, and 300XS? Vs consumer model counterparts, I'm guessing the # is microscopic. But it's just a guess.
A lot of unique and interesting ideas in this thread but it is really very simple........
Mercury already has the parts it needs to produce a 225R. You add the sporty, change to solid mounts, up the RPM on the ECU and offer full warranty. You would need to design a super lightweight cowl which would lower the weight by about 30lbs.
To be a company with $3.5B in topline, with a dedicated "race" department, and not fill in your portfolio with a V6 R option is plain stupid. You already have the engineering done and the parts on the shelf so quantity sold is somewhat irrelevant from a brand leadership perspective. The industry and public optics of a full portfolio should be what drives a 225R option.
Is there a race class this motor could support? That's the only way I could see it being produced. If only built for consumer use, would you foresee it being a big seller?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg G
Mercury has the 200 APX not because it is a big seller, but because it fills our the portfolio and strengthens the brand on the world stage. They also have a 60 "R".
Point being is from my perspective how many 2225 "R" models they might sell is insignificant. The engineering is done and they already have all the parts to build them, right?
Short sighted marketing.