1988 2.4 laser 220

[concord 1]

can anyone tell me anything about these engine's?I have the opertunity to get one to put on my concord untill my 200 carb is done being rebuilt(i really want to get it back on the water) are they a good engine?I dont know much about the early efi,or do i runaway from this one?is it really 220 hp at the propshaft or is it an over statement?????I beleive the engine has been sitting for awhile.any help would be great!

[ScarabEpic22]

Ive got an 87 hanging off my 21ft Scarab 1, its a good motor but for my boat (designed for an I/O) it's too light and not torquey enough. The 220 is a 200 block with fuel injector, the supposed extra 20hp comes from this. I havent run a carb'd 200 before, but I imagine they run pretty similar. The EFI setup is a PITA if its not setup right, have to know what needs to be set otherwise they run like crap (ask me how its run the last 13 years [parents wouldnt believe it could be better, then it shot a main bearing through #2]). If its condition is unknown, get the injectors cleaned by Brucato, check the compression/leakdown (before you buy if possible), and make sure the timing and TPS are set properly.

Try it out with the same prop as your 200, if its in good shape I bet you run about the same, maybe 200 RPMs higher. Just had mine built, 12" setback, 40A charge system, solid mounts, etc and it FLIES compared to before (bone stock). When you rebuild your 200, do a little port work (just mostly match em) and maybe shave the heads a little. Mine is at ~140-145 on all 6 now and I (think) I can get away with 91/92 octane at sea level with that. Pushing it I know, but mostly the boat's run at 2500ft on 91/92.

[89Concord]

My brother had a 1987 220 EFI Mariner (same engine) on his Checkmate. Good engine, ran trouble-free for years although he really did not beat on it and the Checkmate Starflight is a light hull so it didn't work hard when cruising. Horsepower is rated not at the propshaft but at the flywheel. My last outboard was a 1990 2.4 Mariner 200 carb. My current engine is a 2000 Optimax 200 3.0. Its power rating is at the propshaft where the old 2.4 was not, and there is a huge difference. Yes, the additional displacement is a factor as is the added responsiveness of DFI, but this engine feels at least 25 HP stronger than my old one did.

[ScarabEpic22]

The Scarab hull weighs about 1950 according to Wellcraft, but that has to be unrigged without fuel, gear, and engine. Its a heavy boat, my mechanic says its still completely dry inside and the transom is SOLID. Makes me happy knowing in a few years when its time for a little more speed I can drop a 350 Verado or a 300x Opti on the back!

The horsepower ratings have definitely changed, just like the car ratings with newer standards. Who runs an engine without a lower unit or without accessories?! Doesnt surprise me it feels stronger, having the Opti being direct injected makes a big difference plus the extra cubes means more torque.

[mastertrax]

All engines were prop shaft rated after '82

A 2.4 will make more torque, a lot more, if you deck the block and pistons .050 (50/1000). It changes the port heights and durations giving a lot more grunt to the engine.

[ScarabEpic22]

Hmm learn more every day. To deck the block means Id have to have the engine stripped right? Currently Im happy its running so maybe in a few years Ill do that, wish tearing it apart wasnt the only way ha!

[luv2gofast]

I had a Mariner 220 on a Baker RST. It ran flawlessly for over 15 years! It still runs flawlessly! Never fouls plugs, always starts easily and doesn't piss fuel all over when you tilt it up like a carb motor. I also beleve that all motors have been prop shaft rated since the early 80's. The big difference was from the 70's inline 150's and 115's which were power head rated.