Torque Comparisons - Mercury 2.5/3.0/3.4

[Glastron1987]

Anyone know of any comparison tests of low-speed to mid-range torque among the (older) 2.5 two-stroke V6's, modern 3.0L four-stroke I4's, and the modern 3.4L four-stroke V6's? ...or have any anecdotal experience of such. I am thinking of something good for skiing.

[Aaronhl]

For what boat u gonna put that on

[skialot2]

For skiing, the 3.4 V6 is going to have the most low end torque to yank a skier out of the hole. And will probably burn the least amount of fuel doing it.

[Glastron1987]

For what boat u gonna put that on

None for now. Just wondering the difference for when I eventually buy a new motor Not sure how much torque you can get from a 4 cylinder 4-stroke but it seems they might be pretty simple engines.

[Revenge22]

a simple 4 stroke? im not sure they make such a contraption anymore

[billybob]

Let,s see how many people agree or disagree, with me. If you want Torque, any 3.0 or 3.2 litre Mercury Optimax, will give you the most torque, Then the new Four stroke V-6 or V-8,s. Then all older 2 strokes. Any motor will make you a great Ski motor if propped correctly. Try the new 4 & 5 blade props.

[skialot2]

I would say you are close Billybob. 4 stroke V8 is first. It's a V8! Then the 3.2 Opti, the 3.0 Opti. Then the V6 fourstroke. Followed by the older 2.5, 2.4, 2.0 Two strokes.

[Revenge22]

still amazing a 3.0 2 stroke (OMC's have some serious grunt for skiing, as do the 2.7l suzuki DT V6 motors but we all know parts are gone or expensive for those) can keep up with a big 5.3L 4 stroke V8

[Glastron1987]

Wow I was aware of the 3.0 Optimaxes, but didn't know they made 3.2 Optimaxes.

[skialot2]

Yes. The 300XS was a 3.2 litre stroker motor. I believe it was the only 3.2 litre Optimax made. But I could be wrong on that.