User Tag List

Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 189

Thread: 300R vs 300X

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    475
    Thanks (Given)
    32
    Thanks (Received)
    21
    Likes (Given)
    117
    Likes (Received)
    168
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    kind of

    Quote Originally Posted by XstreamVking View Post
    300R vs 300X ....Only explanation for faster speeds running the 300R is mo hp. Merc is the originator of underrating their engines. Wanna sell a crap load of new engines? Make them stronger than the old ones and still display the same hp stickers as the old ones had. The new motors are great, and fast. but let's be real here. Speed is a factor of power.

    Sort of ..... Torque....... Curve... and ignition .

  2. Likes Rigaud liked this post
  3. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    On a racetrack or at the lake
    Posts
    148
    Thanks (Given)
    21
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    52
    Likes (Received)
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tripower View Post
    Would like to know what they run with a regular working man's prop that's $500-$700 or so. Rocks happen around here, and $2K, $3K, $5K props ain't gonna happen for me :-)
    post 11 results are impressive with a 36” Bravo pushing a 300R on a 20XD into the triple digits
    http://www.bbcboards.net/showthread.php?t=978123

  4. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Central FL
    Posts
    1
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I was doubtful before I owned one too. The thing is you just can’t possibly imagine the difference until you own/ set one up right. I had one on my 20’1” Bullet first, and now on my 21’10” Bullet. Everyone wants to credit the Cnc, but the facts are I broke 100 with a $600 stock bravo l. That’s a feat I never could do with my xs. On a Bullet that’s like having the best of both worlds. Holeshot and Top end. I’ve had a 1.75 on my xs as well, and I couldn’t dream of turning the props the R will. One at a time the world will learn

  5. Thanks PRE-Z06 thanked for this post
    Likes PRE-Z06, JR IN JAX liked this post
  6. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    6,007
    Thanks (Given)
    464
    Thanks (Received)
    168
    Likes (Given)
    910
    Likes (Received)
    951
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What GPS speed did you run with the stock Bravo One prop with the R?

  7. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    On a racetrack or at the lake
    Posts
    148
    Thanks (Given)
    21
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    52
    Likes (Received)
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Fastbasser1 View Post
    I was doubtful before I owned one too. The thing is you just can’t possibly imagine the difference until you own/ set one up right. I had one on my 20’1” Bullet first, and now on my 21’10” Bullet. Everyone wants to credit the Cnc, but the facts are I broke 100 with a $600 stock bravo l. That’s a feat I never could do with my xs. On a Bullet that’s like having the best of both worlds. Holeshot and Top end. I’ve had a 1.75 on my xs as well, and I couldn’t dream of turning the props the R will. One at a time the world will learn
    Appreciate you sharing results as this thread was so vague, which leaves one questioning...
    http://www.bbcboards.net/showthread.php?t=935367

  8. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    479
    Thanks (Given)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    16
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    113
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    can we at least agree the new 300 r is big , ugly and stupid looking ? They should be faster, 2 extra cyl ! from the the working man ill never want a engine that has 70 % more parts . In few years they will be throw away as the cost to rebuild will be crazy .

  9. Likes powerabout, Whaaaaat, 22R liked this post
  10. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    On a racetrack or at the lake
    Posts
    148
    Thanks (Given)
    21
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    52
    Likes (Received)
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LOSTINJ View Post
    can we at least agree the new 300 r is big , ugly and stupid looking ? They should be faster, 2 extra cyl ! from the the working man ill never want a engine that has 70 % more parts . In few years they will be throw away as the cost to rebuild will be crazy .
    It’s bigger and heavier, but it’ll last longer than the 2-stroke as it fires half as much and turns less rpm. 2 extra cylinders aren’t going to automatically make it faster, it needs more displacement to make up for the fact it fires half as often. Those cubic inches mean more lowend torque hence the ability to swing bigger props. Smaller cylinder bores and 4 valves per cylinder make for a more efficient bang, would be interesting to compare the BSFC of the two.

  11. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    7,913
    Thanks (Given)
    95
    Thanks (Received)
    602
    Likes (Given)
    4699
    Likes (Received)
    8622
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'll take a 15 inch thank you....and the tune will change quickly.
    I CAN ALWAYS MAKE ANOTHER DOLLAR, BUT I CANNOT MAKE ANOTHER DAY

  12. Likes V-bottom liked this post
  13. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    479
    Thanks (Given)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    16
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    113
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    wait till you get the bill for a rebuild in few years with 300 r vs 2 stroke .

  14. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Palm City Fla
    Posts
    7,194
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    830
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    6489
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE-Z06 View Post
    It’s bigger and heavier, but it’ll last longer than the 2-stroke as it fires half as much and turns less rpm. 2 extra cylinders aren’t going to automatically make it faster, it needs more displacement to make up for the fact it fires half as often. Those cubic inches mean more lowend torque hence the ability to swing bigger props. Smaller cylinder bores and 4 valves per cylinder make for a more efficient bang, would be interesting to compare the BSFC of the two.
    And they cost $25 -35,000.oo thousand dollars ..... EACH

    Do you have any idea how many 400+ hp 3.4 or 3.6 litre long blocks you can build for that kind of money .... ???

    No sir Mr. Smyth, they won't be as socially acceptable at the country club ..

    Smokey, loud, stinky, (Klotz) start in gear, low end starts @ 3000 etc.

    Their two strokes .. they blow fuel out the exhaust. BSFC are around .7 which is terrible, considering a Pro/Stock car sips fuel in the .42 range.
    On an A/F ratio gauge mine run 11.5-12 @ torque peak and dance around in the ten's above and below. If I was looking for fuel mileage , I would just drive my truck.

    What about inchs ..

    A 3.4 or 207 ci making 400 + hp = 2 hp /ci Nothing really special there, Bill Jenkins made 600 hp from a pushrod 292 (283 Chevrolet) in the 1960's

    Merc's new 4.6 280 ci 300 hp Really 1.07 HP / ci .. Yawwnnnn ...

    Does a max effort deal have the potential to make 750- 800 on mule .. absolutely. But as long as people have to take them back to the Toyota .. err .. Merc store to have the oil changed .. it ain't gonna happen ..

    What I learned from having a 706 ci Big Chief motor in a rear engine dragster was that I could be off a little on the tune-up. The torque converter could be a little too tight etc. and the sheer size of the motor would mask the combinations shortcomings and allow the car to still perform well. I think thats what we will see with this motor. Lots of people will be off, and never know it .. some prob won't even care. What they get as a set-up from the dealer will be more than they expected.
    It's a really nice motor and all , but as far as the king ... pppffttttt

  15. Likes PRE-Z06 liked this post
  16. #56
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    On a racetrack or at the lake
    Posts
    148
    Thanks (Given)
    21
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    52
    Likes (Received)
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaz View Post
    And they cost $25 -35,000.oo thousand dollars ..... EACH

    Do you have any idea how many 400+ hp 3.4 or 3.6 litre long blocks you can build for that kind of money .... ???

    No sir Mr. Smyth, they won't be as socially acceptable at the country club ..

    Smokey, loud, stinky, (Klotz) start in gear, low end starts @ 3000 etc.

    Their two strokes .. they blow fuel out the exhaust. BSFC are around .7 which is terrible, considering a Pro/Stock car sips fuel in the .42 range.
    On an A/F ratio gauge mine run 11.5-12 @ torque peak and dance around in the ten's above and below. If I was looking for fuel mileage , I would just drive my truck.

    What about inchs ..

    A 3.4 or 207 ci making 400 + hp = 2 hp /ci Nothing really special there, Bill Jenkins made 600 hp from a pushrod 292 (283 Chevrolet) in the 1960's

    Merc's new 4.6 280 ci 300 hp Really 1.07 HP / ci .. Yawwnnnn ...

    Does a max effort deal have the potential to make 750- 800 on mule .. absolutely. But as long as people have to take them back to the Toyota .. err .. Merc store to have the oil changed .. it ain't gonna happen ..

    What I learned from having a 706 ci Big Chief motor in a rear engine dragster was that I could be off a little on the tune-up. The torque converter could be a little too tight etc. and the sheer size of the motor would mask the combinations shortcomings and allow the car to still perform well. I think thats what we will see with this motor. Lots of people will be off, and never know it .. some prob won't even care. What they get as a set-up from the dealer will be more than they expected.
    It's a really nice motor and all , but as far as the king ... pppffttttt
    Agreed, easier to prop.

    I thought they were in the .37 range, but they also don’t last as long. Regardless I think we can agree the 300R is far from max effort. It’s really only fair to compare it to the 300XS as it had a similar rev limiter. If compression is raised and the intake/exhaust will support more airflow with bigger cams then the 4.6L will obviously make more hp than the 300X at 7000rpm. An outboard has more packaging restrictions than an engine in a car though, so don’t feel it’s a fair comparison. Though a $35k 2019 emission compliant 60k mile warranty dime a dozen Mustang GT makes 460hp@7000 and the Bullitt 480hp, which is almost 100hp/L. RPMs are going to create heat and limit longevity though. They do have a longer warranty I believe than any other engine that’s come out of the Racing department and they only run on 87 octane. When will we see some modified ones is my question. Is Simon’s tuning even changing the timing to require premium fuel?
    Last edited by PRE-Z06; 05-11-2019 at 11:33 AM.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Palm City Fla
    Posts
    7,194
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    830
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    6489
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE-Z06 View Post
    Agreed, easier to prop.

    I thought they were in the .37 range, but they also don’t last as long.
    Anything under .5 is making good use of converting fuel load to BTU's. It's been a long time since I've seen a P/S trail the blue cloud death. They usually shake the tires, or lack of downforce will push them out of the groove. Other than that, the trip is pretty uneventful for a 6.50 / 212 jaunt.

    Regardless I think we can agree the 300R is far from max effort. It’s really only fair to compare it to the 300XS as it had a similar rev limiter. If compression is raised and the intake/exhaust will support more airflow with bigger cams then the 4.6L will obviously make more hp than the 300X at 7000rpm.
    I stated in it's present tune it was "pretty much asleep" .

    Rev limiter, really, I can find you a 90 or 150 that chips out the same .. would that be a good comparison .. ???

    Does the 300R have a compressor .. ???

    Maybe we should throw one of Montey's 500 HP V-8's in the pile .. ???

    As far as pistons, cyl head development, cam shafts, conduit modifications ... as of now, it's no more than "if my aunt was my uncle" .. right ..

    An outboard has more packaging restrictions than an engine in a car though, so don’t feel it’s a fair comparison. Though a $35k 2019 emission compliant 60k mile warranty dime a dozen Mustang GT makes 460hp@7000 and the Bullitt 480hp, which is almost 100hp/L. RPMs are going to create heat and limit longevity though. They do have a longer warranty I believe than any other engine that’s come out of the Racing department and they only run on 87 octane. When will we see some modified ones is my question. Is Simon’s tuning even changing the timing to require premium fuel?
    If you notice I didn't use something like a Yamaha 5 valve head where the throttle bodies are straight up into the area where a normal gas tank would be as a baseline.
    No, I mentioned a small bore, pushrod, iron block with iron two valve heads that have deep shrouded chambers that Smokey said in 1953 that the ports were to low to ever make any power. And that 47 years ago they used it to make 2 hp / ci .

    Don't look now, but you just compared the 300R to a 4.6 Ford. If anything it closer resemble's a GXSR , Hyabusa, R1 , than a Ford or Chevy. And you really don't want to see how far the tune-up is in the back seat compared to one them ..

    You would have to ask the people who B+E the box's directly. Mercury has made it harder to crack the code. And most of what I read is .. I ordered mine X amount of months ago, sure wish I has it/ them. As opposed to, OK I'm over it, how do I step this pork-chop up a bit ...

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    On a racetrack or at the lake
    Posts
    148
    Thanks (Given)
    21
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    52
    Likes (Received)
    22
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaz View Post
    Anything under .5 is making good use of converting fuel load to BTU's. It's been a long time since I've seen a P/S trail the blue cloud death. They usually shake the tires, or lack of downforce will push them out of the groove. Other than that, the trip is pretty uneventful for a 6.50 / 212 jaunt.



    I stated in it's present tune it was "pretty much asleep" .

    Rev limiter, really, I can find you a 90 or 150 that chips out the same .. would that be a good comparison .. ???

    Does the 300R have a compressor .. ???

    Maybe we should throw one of Montey's 500 HP V-8's in the pile .. ???

    As far as pistons, cyl head development, cam shafts, conduit modifications ... as of now, it's no more than "if my aunt was my uncle" .. right ..



    If you notice I didn't use something like a Yamaha 5 valve head where the throttle bodies are straight up into the area where a normal gas tank would be as a baseline.
    No, I mentioned a small bore, pushrod, iron block with iron two valve heads that have deep shrouded chambers that Smokey said in 1953 that the ports were to low to ever make any power. And that 47 years ago they used it to make 2 hp / ci .

    Don't look now, but you just compared the 300R to a 4.6 Ford. If anything it closer resemble's a GXSR , Hyabusa, R1 , than a Ford or Chevy. And you really don't want to see how far the tune-up is in the back seat compared to one them ..

    You would have to ask the people who B+E the box's directly. Mercury has made it harder to crack the code. And most of what I read is .. I ordered mine X amount of months ago, sure wish I has it/ them. As opposed to, OK I'm over it, how do I step this pork-chop up a bit ...
    I’m comparing production emission compliant engines not max effort race builds. RPMs are going to dictate power as long as the engine can efficiently pump air through as it spins higher. Motorcycle engines don’t have the lowend to be outboards in my humble opinion and they don’t idle low enough as there’s a trade off with moving the powerband up which I’m sure you understand. The R is “asleep” yet still makes as much if not more than the hotter X. It’s fairer to compare engines that peak at a similar RPM, which I don’t think the XS stands a chance compared to the R. If the R makes as much if not more than the X, then which would you expect to last longer at WOT?

    I chose the 5.0 Coyote because it is DOHC and has fixed valve events like the R yet makes peak hp at a higher 7000rpm like the X. I’d take it for longevity reasons over the balanced and blueprinted, crossram, solid lifter, race gas 7800rpm 302 below as it doesn’t need valve lash adjustments, runs on pump gas while making more power with headers and tuning, includes a 60k mile warranty and still spins to 7500. I’m curious what standard was the 600hp 292 corrected too? What compression ratio, what rpm did it make peak power and was it 23* heads?
    http://wildaboutcarsonline.com/membe...ck_302_1-4.pdf
    https://www.hotrod.com/articles/ccrp...camaro-engine/
    Last edited by PRE-Z06; 05-12-2019 at 12:12 AM.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Daytona Fl.
    Posts
    10,562
    Thanks (Given)
    5
    Thanks (Received)
    240
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    2245
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Getting a little off-topic aren't we? I had a Honda CB 160 motorcycle when I was 16
    " IT'S NOT HOW FAST YOU ARE, IT'S HOW COOL YOU LOOK!!! "

    Check out my new website. liberatorpowerboats.com
    Boat Delivery available













    Things owned. NOTHING!!
    Ain't got no toyz, Ain't got no money! I is jus a poor Florida boy!

    Visit My Liberator Boats Website

  20. Likes skydog liked this post
  21. #60
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    158
    Thanks (Given)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    19
    Likes (Given)
    12
    Likes (Received)
    151
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This thread reminds me when I bought my 300xs many years ago. All the car motor boat guys were shrieking the standard “Do you know how many big blocks I could build for that kind of money?” Whatever... Thing is very few of them did and the ones that did had to rebuild them within a year or 2. My 300xs 10 years later still runs as good as new. And has required very minimal maintenance. (Mostly gear oil). So go buy what you want!

  22. Thanks Greg G thanked for this post
    Likes Greg G, Rigaud, JR IN JAX liked this post
Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. New Mercury 300 Pro XS V8 vs 300R V8
    By Skip 7750 in forum Four Stroke and Direct Injected Two Stroke Engines
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 10-10-2019, 12:00 PM
  2. 300r
    By Wild Bill in forum General Boating Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-29-2019, 10:38 AM
  3. Mercury 300R V8
    By mkalsabah in forum General Boating Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-06-2019, 07:28 AM
  4. STV RR/Euro + New 300R
    By Talon 25 in forum General Boating Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-16-2018, 09:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Aeromarine Research