User Tag List

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 84
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    6,454
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    89
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    538
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Why did the T4 fail?????

    I was not there........come on Merc bashers.......And people that know......Thanks.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    19,038
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    580
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    6316
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Define..."fail"...Big Dave...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Ga
    Posts
    1,599
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    16
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    146
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Mercury felt it had excessive horsepower and hi performance boaters weren’t ready for it . Engineering voted for a delayed release date in 2019 . Code name 450 . Hf...

  4. Likes powerabout liked this post
  5. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    6,454
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    89
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    538
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well just from the Ev rude posts......I see......V8s were better.......

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    19,038
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    580
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    6316
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave S View Post
    Well just from the Ev rude posts......I see......V8s were better.......
    step away from tha Kool-Aid dave...step away...lol

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    19,038
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    580
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    6316
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by half fast View Post
    Mercury felt it had excessive horsepower and hi performance boaters weren’t ready for it . Engineering voted for a delayed release date in 2019 . Code name 450 . Hf...
    ...lol, yep, that's exactly what happened...lol.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Cardington Ohio
    Posts
    17,099
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    U guys r smokin crack!
    I'd rather be competitive w/junk I built in my garage than win w/stuff I bought.


    I refuse to allow common sense to interfere w/my boat buying decisions.


    Checkmate 16' 140 Johnson
    Hydrostream 17' Vector FrankenRude I
    Laser 480 (?) 21' w/GT 200
    Glastron Carlson Conquest w/XP 2.6
    Glastron Carlson CVX 20 w/XP 2.6
    24' Sonic w/twin 250 Johnsons
    24' Sonic w/twin 250 HO Johnsons
    19' STV River Rocket w/FrankenRude II
    Allison XR 2002 w/Frankenrude II
    Hydrostream 18' V-King w/Frankenrude II

  9. Likes action17 liked this post
  10. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    13,771
    Thanks (Given)
    96
    Thanks (Received)
    272
    Likes (Given)
    4721
    Likes (Received)
    2551
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Dunno the 3.4 was a fine motor when kept inside it's operating parameters. Unlike the little motors it just didn't have the extended rpm abilities.

  11. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Cardington Ohio
    Posts
    17,099
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I think that was the case.

    Had an amazingly short recreational model run as well.
    Raceman used to have an orig, never raced, T-4 race powrhead still bolted to the pallet.

    Theres 2 fish motors for sale on here now.

    I met a guy that had one on a house boat I think (???) and loved it.

    I still remember and may have the Trailer Boat test they did of it against the V-8 on two identical Eliminators I believe.
    John Tiger remembers it well and Stoker told me there was behind scenes drama on props.

    As I recall it was to do w/having to be OEM available props.
    And we know who had/has the best props.

    Still way cool story and very rare to see head to head mfg against mfg.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capt.Insane-o View Post
    Dunno the 3.4 was a fine motor when kept inside it's operating parameters. Unlike the little motors it just didn't have the extended rpm abilities.
    I'd rather be competitive w/junk I built in my garage than win w/stuff I bought.


    I refuse to allow common sense to interfere w/my boat buying decisions.


    Checkmate 16' 140 Johnson
    Hydrostream 17' Vector FrankenRude I
    Laser 480 (?) 21' w/GT 200
    Glastron Carlson Conquest w/XP 2.6
    Glastron Carlson CVX 20 w/XP 2.6
    24' Sonic w/twin 250 Johnsons
    24' Sonic w/twin 250 HO Johnsons
    19' STV River Rocket w/FrankenRude II
    Allison XR 2002 w/Frankenrude II
    Hydrostream 18' V-King w/Frankenrude II

  12. #10
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Fond du Lac WI
    Posts
    596
    Thanks (Given)
    15
    Thanks (Received)
    64
    Likes (Given)
    37
    Likes (Received)
    221
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The T-4/ 3.4 competed in the consumer market with sterndrives - so it was Mercury against MerCruiser basically. The 3.4 was lacking a few things, and I am talking the consumer engines.
    1, Drop on cowl system
    2. Intregal power Trim
    3. EFI
    4. Ortional gear ratios
    5. Propeller line
    And probably a few others that slip my mind. I was on the 3.4 task force to work on this stuff but by then the 3.0 was in development and all resources when to that family. So ended the 3.4.

  13. Thanks Instigator thanked for this post
    Likes Instigator, shadowcat liked this post
  14. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    6,454
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    89
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    538
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thank you Bernie......I am shocked that the T3 was not more.....Racy....light up them rods....cut the Fat off crank....get central mass closer to the center of mass spiiniiing and more cc bolts....JMO...

  15. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    6,454
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    89
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    538
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sorry Bernie.I was a young kid..... back then....Just askin ?.....And T4 not 3,,,,,,,Now... 66 years.. go Flash......

  16. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    6,454
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    89
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    538
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ok...said ......why.....know......will build....cranks bust.....

  17. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    19,038
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    580
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    6316
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ...T-4 versus 3.4/300/275/250 Consumer Motor...Two different animals in conversation. T-4 & 3.4 Offshores were EFI & Mercury Hi-Performance Division only. 3.4/300/275/250 were available through all Mercury Outboard Dealerships that qualified to sell all the larger horsepower Mercury Outboards, of which all were not, and were only qualified to sell smaller outboards. With that said, most(but not all) Mercury Outboard Dealers could order any size consumer Mercury product. Very few Mercury Outboard Dealers were ALSO Mercury Hi-Performance Outboard Dealers as well. On rare occasions, exceptions were made, to purchase non dealer contract product, but it was not commonplace. Many qualifications came into play to determine if a dealer could buy from Mercury, and sell different model outboards. Make & type & size of boat lines sold, how many multiple outboards were rigged on said boats, total annual sales volume, dealers financial standings, whether or not another dealer in the area sold similar product, etc. Most inland Mercury Outboard Dealers had little interest in the 3.4, in any version. It was sold, for the most part, to coastal dealerships. Some higher volume ones also, depending on region. The coastal dealerships annual outboard gross sales were in larger horsepower outboards, rather than smaller outboards. Oddly enough, most O.E.M.'s(boat manufacturers/builders) were able to buy most anything, if a Mercury account was already in place, and in any quantity, within reason.
    Last edited by FUJIMO; 08-18-2019 at 02:45 PM.

  18. Likes joyrider liked this post
  19. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    19,038
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    580
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    6316
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The 3.4 Consumer V-6 was a carbureted motor that was rated at a recommended maximum 5,600 r.p.m., lower that the 200 Mercury of the day. Turning the 3.4 at a higher r.p.m. did little to improve performance & the large outboard dealers, used to the 200's higher performance, were inclined to spin the 3.4 higher , many times with dire consequence. The 3.4 performed best, taking advantage of its torque, on larger boats in either a single or twin installation and kept well below 6,000 r.p.m., not on smaller performance boats. Overall, a good motor if installed & used the way it was intended. It was available into the early 90's from Mercury/Mariner.
    Last edited by FUJIMO; 08-18-2019 at 04:02 PM.

  20. Thanks JPEROG thanked for this post
    Likes Capt.Insane-o, joyrider liked this post
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Fail!!!!!!!!!!
    By Steve 1 in forum Politics, Related News, Religion and Hot Topics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-04-2010, 08:42 AM
  2. Fail
    By head_dunce in forum The Scream And Fly Lounge
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-13-2010, 10:22 PM
  3. Fail
    By Scream And Fly in forum The Scream And Fly Lounge
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-15-2009, 09:49 AM
  4. Why Did The FBI fail and...
    By Instigator in forum General Boating Discussion
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 08-12-2009, 07:49 PM
  5. Fail!!!!!!!!!!
    By Steve 1 in forum Politics, Related News, Religion and Hot Topics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-25-2009, 12:57 AM

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