I love the places that let you buy the motors you want

[CUDA]

New math again your talking 300's now

three new 200 4 strokes should cost about $48,000, and you can forget about problems, Do you believe the smoke from three two strokes is irrelevant in this situation especially. a dive boat.

[mragu]

...if you know who to buy a new export motor from, here in the u.s., no worries mon...

I wish I knew

[JBS]

I would gladly buy a new two-stroke Yamaha motor today, if the price was right.

[mrpenguin]

I travel quite often and always walks the docks especially in tropical locations as I love boats and outboards.

Four Strokes have easily overtaken two strokes even in remote areas on commercial boats. The fuel savings alone is stagger when you get into the 2000+ hour range.

I have asked several of the commercial watermen and the love their four strokes.

The only discussion point to ensure availability of quality fuel.

After owning large four strokes, I am sold.

I do agree that I would like the choice though. Under 70hp, I would buy two strokes all day long especially in the 15hp-25hp range.

[moatorbotin]

Why on earth would anyone want to buy 40-year-old technology engines?

Considering......

Cost of entry
Cost of maintenance
Cost/Complexity of repairs

you can get pretty far on 40 year old tech-o-nology before you match the operating costs of the new motors.

I'm NOT saying the new 4 strokes aren't good motors and that 2 strokes are better.....but it's fair to say that the 2 strokes are simpler, easier for a shadetree mechanic to troubleshoot, and cheaper to purchase/operate/maintain for a long time before they chew through enough fuel to equal the up front costs of a 4 stroke.

[Brad Zastrow]

I love how people justify having old o/b engines and old cars. Cheap to drive, cheap to buy. The fuel consumption on old two strokes with carbs is a real factor when using them daily for commercial purposes.
So trying to tell me some third-world business is smart with his purchase of old-school motors that are really hard on fuel in a place where fuel is very expensive is not smart. It is a business person being cheap up front and paying through the nose daily at the pump.

[BarryStrawn]

They may not have the best options for service so opt for old tech they know can be kept running.

Economics may also depend on their particular operation. If they are just running short charters out to a reef they may not use a lot of fuel.

Choice is good.

[Muskoka2]

For me it was mostly about keeping our lake clean. It's possible my old 225 Promax would have run forever, at least at my rate of use. But now I'm putting a lot less junk in the lake with my direct injected engine. A side benefit is I can cruise the big lake to the south without packing jerry cans of gas.

Having said that, if a 16' Raveau found it's way to me, I would love a new or newish 90 Yamaha carb motor for it.

Yes & no-every time I've spilt gas in our lake it evaporates very quickly!

[Chaz]

Considering......

Cost of entry
Cost of maintenance
Cost/Complexity of repairs

you can get pretty far on 40 year old tech-o-nology before you match the operating costs of the new motors.

I'm NOT saying the new 4 strokes aren't good motors and that 2 strokes are better.....but it's fair to say that the 2 strokes are simpler, easier for a shadetree mechanic to troubleshoot, and cheaper to purchase/operate/maintain for a long time before they chew through enough fuel to equal the up front costs of a 4 stroke.

Thats about as simple as anyone could put it .. and it still went over the commiedores head ...

[25two.stroke]

I love how people justify having old o/b engines and old cars. Cheap to drive, cheap to buy. The fuel consumption on old two strokes with carbs is a real factor when using them daily for commercial purposes.
So trying to tell me some third-world business is smart with his purchase of old-school motors that are really hard on fuel in a place where fuel is very expensive is not smart. It is a business person being cheap up front and paying through the nose daily at the pump.

For whatever its worth I'll drop my 0.02 as business decisions+outboards+fuel economy is what is in question here and I have a little personal experience in that area.

I have had a few commercial fishing outboard boats in my life. One had a 175 2.0L mariner (1988) that got 2.54 mpg on an average trip. Never broke down on me once in the 3 years I had it and I go about 20 miles from the shore max. Repowered with a 150 4stroke which gets 5mpg average. Has not broke down on me in the 3 years I've been fishing it now. I profit about 10k a year across maybe 40 trips a year cause its a side hustle I do for fun on the weekends. That being said the motor alone cost 15k. SO it took me more than a year to just pay it off. I had another boat with a 70 carb 2stroke Johnson that got 7 mpg and I repowered with a 60 merc 4stroke efi and got 8 mpg. Needless to say on that boat I took the 4stroke off after a year and sold it to put a 70 2stroke back on it. Thousands for a new motor was not worth 1 mpg.

So, speaking of fuel savings and business decisions: I spent $1700 on fuel last year for the business. That's fuel for the boat and the truck. Now, considering the truck hasn't changed since the repower, the fuel savings cannot honesty be doubled cause at least $500 of that gas is in the truck and a "constant" in the equation. For the benefit of the doubt (and glorifying 4strokes/modern technology) lets assume my fuel consumption in a year would be double that of last year if I still had the 175 carb 2stroke because the mpg (fuel economy) with the type of driving I do was half as good with old engine vs the new. This means that it would take me more than 8 1/2 years to make the new engine pay for itself via fuel savings.

Although this is a basic-ass breakdown of costs/mpg/technology for present-day business use of outboards, it does show that 4 strokes are not more cost effective for daily use if the local governing jurisdictions keep their fingers out o our business. Here in California they do have their fingers in everything and that is the reason I repowered. Not because I needed to, or that I though I was going to make more money; but because I wanted to sell my old engine before the government made it so no one would want to buy it. I offed it while it was still valuable. If the government gave us choice like the original post was talking about then our old engines (and cars arguably) would be worth more.

I also failed to equate for maintenance costs on the new engine vs the old. The 4stroke I change the oil 3 to 4 times a year. The 2 stroke I changed it once a year (gearcase). At $11 a qt for merc 25w-40 it costs me more per oil change in oil that 2stroke oil I burned in the same amount of time. Then you got an oil filter, hazardous waste disposal charge, more expensive and numerous fuel filters to keep the "new technology" going, more expensive spark plugs, a belt, $110 thermostat and all that BS. Water pump cost is about the same on both engines.

Now I don't have the slightest clue what a new 150 2stroke carb vs a 150 4stroke costs, but in a non-political market they should be substantially less. Less technological development has gone into them in the past few decades so the manufacturing costs should be WAY less. Basically no research/development. I would like to know the cost. There are so many more factors than what are being talked about here like the cost of maintaining the manufacturing equipment, quality control, warranty costs, delivery costs, tax incentives, etc. so I am not pretending to have "the answer" or a fully comprehensive response. I am just responding to the operating costs of running the 2 different engines in a commercial operation.

[Capt j]

Most of those motors come off of drug panga's. When I lived in Belize, 3 a week would either be left floating, run into the mangroves and unloaded or left on an island..... 39' Panga, triple 200 carbed Yamaha's all new and for 1 trip. My boss bought a few of the panga's from the government for $5k a piece with everything. A lot of those dive/snorkel boats in Belize also fuel the Colombian panga's, as they only have enough fuel to get to Belize....... I was on one of the 39' Panga's with 2-200's and 24 people, 40 tanks, 2 large coolers full and it got up and ran just under 45 mph WOT, was very impressive.

[John S]

@25two.stroke Are you paying to dispose of your oil? When I moved here, I was told any oil change place or recycle center has to take your oil/ filter for free. So that's what I've done, and no one's ever questioned it. Aboot every 6 months I bring my 5 gal pail to the place near me, and they've never charged me or said a word. I think my recycler also takes it, but I don't want to leave anything on the curb, in case something happens, and I have to deal with the HOA board. I'm unpopular enough with some of the folks due to my motorcycle startups in the morning with a dry clutch and braap pipes.

This is another thing I just can't wrap my head around. I keep hearing the word negligible impact aboot 2S oil being exhausted out. I've went down rabbit holes trying to find out how that is possible without having a set parameter of how many engines are in one body of water. I've personally seen high traffic waters turn pretty gross, and I'm sure there are other factors to it. But a total loss oil system has to have some contributing effect as an emission. Kinda like how you used to be able to smoke in a doctor's office.

[Jim Speros]

I made a living working on 2 strokes, I now own 4 strokes. The idea I see hasn't be shared is how long a particular engine will last. An old two stroke carb engine will likely remain in service longer then a new Hi tech 2 or 4 stroke. Not because of design but, rather production end of life periods of the component availability. One can resurrect and potentially mcgyver old school parts. Its pretty hard to create efi and electronic components on an individual basis. Parts go to NLA sooner these days.

[pcrussell50]

To everyone who said, that having the choice is the best option, well done. You read the thread title, and answered accordingly. To everyone else who ran down the rathole and did not see that the point here was having the choice in the first place, well... :shrugs:

-Peter

[pcrussell50]

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->But a total loss oil system has to have some contributing effect as an emission. Kinda like how you used to be able to smoke in a doctor's office.

It does, but according the (now retired) Manager or Water Quality at the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, these emissions do not appear to foul the water. It is believed that they are consumed by the same family of oil eating bacteria that clean up natural oil seeps and spills in the ocean, because these bacteria also exist in fresh water, especially in places where there is enough "food" for them to eat. And of course the gaseous emissions of anything motorized on the water mostly end up in the atmosphere, like with your motorcycles.

Where did you move from to SoCal? I came over from Australia to go to university at SDSU.

-Peter