https://www.powerboatracingworld.com...-stroke-motor/
Printable View
.
very cool, thanks for sharing!
.
Merc destroying another class..
I hear xcat wants to go back to 200xs as the 400ROS is a very expensive bad joke.
It's about time they switch. The new platform is awesome. How is merc destroying a class by giving them an option? The other manufacturers got nothing....Just saying, let's be honest before making dumb comments. Lol
The only issue I see is the new engine requires a new boat, according to the article atleast, Big dollar upgrades, but hey you got to pay to play, thats why I dont haha.
So the f1 mid ? Is that pretty much a 15in or 12in offshore mid ?
So they gonna stick v8 on 2.5 offshore mid ? That's gonna b quite sweet I think , or is a f1 mid completely different??
367 lb
12” midQuote:
Originally Posted by Merc 2.5
yea 367 lb v8 thats lighter than 2 stroke etec 150's! I need to get me one put it on a tuff boat.
367# now that's more like it , if they can do that they can do a 20 and keep it under 400 for lighter boats , (river boats)
Merc stops production on a good engine and how does that force the class to make major changes for what reason?
F1 still running with non current production engine, yet lobbying and money interference here forces F2 change.
F2 was sst120 then 20k for 200xs so to continue racing in what was a amateur class you now you need to buy a new boat and a new engine.
Yes thats really helping get race boats on the water...
Didn’t the 400ros boats finish the 2016 season 1-2-3 even though the 2.5 boats were given a 600 lb weight advantage? I’m no xcat expert so forgive me if I’m wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerabout
and your point, more powerful engines ( for 3 times the cost on new boats to carry the weight) go faster so makes a better class?Quote:
Originally Posted by engineermike
Lots of classes exist without current engines.
True for nascar, running antiquated engines that have nothing in common with modern offerings....and losing popularity every year.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerabout
lets keep it on boat racing, which classes grow because they have current engines or die because they they dont have current engines?Quote:
Originally Posted by engineermike
Gee I said this was going to happen during the unveiling of the 8s and I was told I was delusional:D
:cheers:
true but good news or bad news for the racers and class?Quote:
Originally Posted by CUDA
Long live the 2.5
There was nothing wrong with the 2.0 f1 engine carby and EFIQuote:
Originally Posted by Capt.Insane-o
I dont know anyone that can understand Merc thinking re race products that classes rely on?
OMC race stuff was just for the factory less the SST engines of the 80's then they sold the rights so you can still get stuff.
I cant think of OMC killing a class because they thought you need the latest production engine in your race class?
HEADLINE NEWS
NASCAR viewers and sponsor dollar in massive increase because they switched from
carbies to efi.
stick to paddle shift
4 speed to 7 speed gearboxes
independent rear end
DOHC engines
etc etc...
F1 went relevant and they killed it, did anyone learn anything?
Lets face it, this class is special, money is NO object, but in lower classes it is.
If Mercury wants to implement this motor in lower circle racing I don't see it happening, Like it was stated the boat design will have to change to carry the mother load on the transom with a HIGH center of gravity, making turns like no other boats are capable at serious speed is going to be a learning experience.
I remember going to Pittsburgh to watch the V8s race next to three rivers stadium, yes the boats were bigger and they could turn on a dime, but this will be more weight higher up.
Lets face the facts Mercury has to showcase the new tech, I don't see it filtering down at least with these motors, maybe they have a plan for the lower classes?
f1 maybe but F2 was for the man in the street hence stock engine, can use old f1 boat etcQuote:
Originally Posted by CUDA
HEADLINE NEWS: NASCAR did finally step into the 80’s with port injection....7 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerabout
As for the rest of the stuff on your list, I might would actually start watching again if they had all that.
Because you can tell from the grandstand....Quote:
Originally Posted by engineermike
Its a false argument since we don’t a control group, but I think you know this already. I could ask the opposite question to prove my point but there is no answer to that either and it would be pointless.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerabout
It is telling, though, that during 2016 both engines were allowed to race xcat but the 400ros had something like a 600 lb weight penalty. Most teams switched anyway and the ones that didn’t were trounced. And let’s be honest, why would mercury even be involved at all if not to a) showcase engine tech they can sell and b) learn from the sport so they can improve the product. Neither can happen running 20-50 year old engine designs.
Take motogp, for instance....it was basically irrelevant to the masses when it was a 2-stroke. As each successive class’s rules were updated to allow competitive 4-strokes, the teams switched within a year even though they were allowed to keep running 2-strokes..
Are you actually arguing that the technology inside is irrelevant because it looks mostly the same from the stands?Quote:
Originally Posted by powerabout
Exactly, its entertainment, what does the spectator get from adding complexity and cost under the covers?Quote:
Originally Posted by engineermike
Ive never met a single motorsports spectator that didn’t know and care about the rules and technology employed. We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerabout
Yet naming the top 10 in points and who they drive for in the NTT Indy car series which uses that technology ... I'll bet, escapes your memory ... :pQuote:
Originally Posted by engineermike
Fact is, all the bull**** rules, stages, playoff's, ticket prices, $20.00 hotdogs and today's youth more interested in the latest cell phone, than motorsports is the cause of dwindling competitors .. and well, it can't help to have the "all knowing - done nothing" rail bird ... err ... forum birds that trash talk guys who can fire up a 900 hp flat tappet, pushrod, 358 ci bent 8 , set it at 8500 RPM ... and go to lunch ... ;)
For the record : Nope .. can't run a 2 stroke in Moto GP !
The 750's were getting way to fast, so they limited the class to 500 cc .
Then they made it safer and slowed everyone down by going to 4 strokes. :)
By then, that's all that was in the showrooms .. kinda like what Merc is doing now. They control racing, so they are going to "make" the racers swap over or quit .. :(
F1H2O is owned by China and spends most of their time in the sandbox .. chump change to them .. I wouldn't look for an Abu-Dubi replica at your local dealership anytime soon ... Go-head "axe em" How much ... LMAO :rolleyes:
I think the reason people like 4 stroke outboards is they can leave them stock, have someone change the oil for them at the dealership .. this gives them way more time to get on the internet and talk about stuff they have no ................. :D
I can agree many are interested as i am but are you saying the more technically complex the more interest?Quote:
Originally Posted by engineermike
I think you will find the better the racing the more interest.
Adding sexy technology just for the sake of it has killed many classes in both cars and boats.
F1 cars for example got carried away with modern gizmos just because they thought they should and viewers dropped, that leads to sponsorship dropping and the double wammy is the cars or boats cost more to race.
IMHO there is no correlation between technically advanced and viewership/sponsorship/class participation.
Ok for fat wallet race teams but.....All u guys sayin yea bring it on go merc v8 4stroke make it for us too 15in or shorter f1, well in stock form you may be alright but it's still going to cost as much as a vehicle. Sorry I think I make decent money and cant see my check book balancing after payin as much as my truck for an outboard that may scatter the next day, prob have little or no warranty and not even be rebuildable.. Any of you that have rebuilt a modern 4 valve 4 stroke know what im talking about.. Believe me when they blow at 8 grand nothings left, I don't think anyone realizes what the cost is going to be to keep one going in RACE FORM compared to a sleeve/piston or two in a two stroke. Careful what u wish for...when it does hit the water they will drop the little support for the current stuff we run.. I said it a year ago when they dropped the 3 blade cleavers the next gen motors are not for our boats..
Before I got over the fear of running aluminum rods. I took my manifold, valve covers and rocker arms off a couple big block Chevys ... and rolled the rest outside the door for the buzzards to pick thru .. ;)
Imagine these are steel rods, no sleeves, no yield, no stop signs, just pure Mercosil to slice thru like warm butter ... :o
https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP._...=0&w=235&h=193
Let's put two on an LCB and break some records...
These will be going on the Super Stock outboards within the next couple of years as well. I have been told by more then one boat owner that they are now going to have more speed capability then they desire. As mentioned when this 4 stroke V8 first came out, we can now buy stock motors that will propel you faster then you want to push for most people. This is without adding compression, without utilizing variable valve timing, without adding more air induction, and we are still seeing propeller technology evolve for the 5.44 case.
This is the same thing that we watched happen with every other motorsport in the recent past and now its our turn to be able to buy "off the shelf" badass power. I still don't know how anyone can complain-If you like the old, then stick with the old, but its no different then a 2005 Z06 Vs a 2019 Z06, a 1985 GS1150E Vs a 1999 Busa, 2002 Thunder cat 1000 to a 2017 4 stroke turbo 1000, GP1300 pwc to an SHO, etc. etc. etc. the new technology wins every time in motorsports and we are just seeing the tip of whats to come.
Joe
These are also "baby compression", low rpm, small bore motors, without N20 in comparison to what you were dealing with. I think a couple thousand hours of testing abuse proves that if you keep water in them, fuel supplied to them, and common sense propeller load that they will not be a major worry. I view these much like the LS platform (turn the key and go for a long time). Look at the add-on improvements that have come out since the first LS1 was released-again, I don't understand how anyone couldn't be excited to watch this progression take place even if you choose not to invest in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaz
Joe
Off the shelf badass power is nice for the consumer but doesnt do anything for race classes.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPEROG
Many race classes that had badass power have been trying to limit it for years.
Lets see if xcat even makes it to the end of this season with its nice consumer engine shoved into a class that didnt need it.
Joe, you make all valid points. Keep in mind that guys like Dave and I see the world from the other side of things. Case in point .. I was speaking with a guy just yesterday about drilling and tapping holes in later blocks, that were in the early stuff ( 3.0L )
He laughed and said, I usually don't get to tap holes that don't already have a bolt broken off in them ... which is my perspective as well. Call me biased ... :D
Yes I killed some really nice motors with nitrous. But that was the game I was in and I wasn't alone .. ;)
It got easier when I went to a 700+ cubic inch, low compression, 6800 RPM, ... sound familiar .. :) Expensive to build, expensive to rebuild when the time came.
You just said that the new motors make power that will produce speeds that most guys really don't want to go. And I agree with that .. so where does that leave the aftermarket ???
As I remember it, the guys who could afford a new Hyabusa and a Fred Hahn turbo kit, was the guy who wobbled away from a stop duck paddling his feet to 30 mph, arms stretched out while looking up at clouds ... We all whispered under our breath .. Lord help him, he needs to be on a 400, econo-cruzer .. :eek:
Excitement ...
The big release, but none available .. OK some here - some there .. It's gonna be months .. Next week .. a bunch more .. two weeks after that .. flooded .. :rolleyes:
It's kind of like that new restaurant in town, everybody want's to go , everybody want's to be seen there. Line waiting around the corner to get in ... I just wait 6 months till the "newness" wears off and just walk right in and sit where I want. If it's really any good it won't fold in a year.
I am glad to see Mercury continuing to recognize the High-Performance boating world . As you say, if it wasn't for them, there would be nothing. I respect that.
On the other hand .. I always cheer for the underdog with antiquated junk, and for the time being ... I'll just leave it at that ... :smiletest:
I'm not saying that adding complexity for the sake of complexity is good. I AM saying that adding technology for the sake of performance, reliability, efficiency, and ,most of all RELEVANCE, is good.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerabout
Funny thing.....Xcat and MotoGP were almost identical in pattern. The first year that 4-strokes were allowed to race against 2-strokes in both series, most teams switched to 4-strokes and soundly dominated the 2-strokes. Two things of note are that....1) most teams took the weight penalty and switched at the first opportunity, and 2) those that switched beat mature combinations even though they were early in their development cycle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaz
Are you referring to the 260/280?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaz