Logo
FULL SITE MENU

Mercury vs Evinrude

T

thebubba

Regular Contributor
I may be asking for it by posting this in the Mercury forum. I have a 16' Alumacraft boat that is rated for up to 40 hp. I have acquired two motors for it that I cannot decide which is better. I am looking for input from an open minded point of view. Both motors are in good running condition and have been fully serviced with carb rebuilds, water pump kits, and lower unit service. Neither have electric trim, which I would like to eventually have.

The first is a 1982 Mercury 40 hp 2 stroke. It was used for a few year and then re-possessed and stored in a warehouse unused for 15 years. It looks nice and runs nice. I have always like Mercury, but have run a few Johnnyrudes too.

The second is a 1993 Evinrude Tracker 40 hp 2 stroke formly with oil injection. I dismantled the oil injection system and mix my own fuel. It looks almost brand new. It has been used more regularly. I did have to replace the powerhead on it, because the oil injection system went out on it from the previous owner, but now it is running again with a good used powerhead.

I like that the evinrude is newer, but both run great and have about the same amount of wear on them. If one or the other had power trim, that would be the deciding factor. Please give me your feedback, and also consider what it would take to add power trim in the future, whether through a universal trim or a motor specific trim.

Thank you!
 
i would go with the 93 evinrude. overall there is less overall wear on the drive assembly, and parts for a 93 are way much easier to get than an 82......

(besides....the evinrude will weigh much less overall on the transom than the merc.....)
 
That makes sense to me. I kind of was leaning this way, but I wanted an objective view. I put it in the Mercury section to give the older motor the advantage. I also didn't know if evinrude had any problems in this year range. Obviously this one did with the oil injection system, but I am eliminating that.
 
I would lean the same way. IF the Merc was post 1986 that would tip the scales for me in favour of the Merc, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the EV.

In general my personal tastes/opinions would run as follows for mid 80's thru early 2000's 2 stroke motors -

25 horse and under - Merc makes the superior product (but love my 1987 twin cylinder 2.5 horse Ev - awesome little motor)

mid horse models - 30 upto but not including 75 horse - pretty much even (unless it's one of the 4 cylinder 40/45/50 horse Mercs - perfect motor)

75/90 - gotta be the Merc

above 90 I kinda prefer the OMC products (except the 2.0L 135 Merc which I personally consider Merc's best V6 model).

Hmmm - guess what I'm saying is it's kinda tough to go wrong with either a Merc or an OMC (and would throw Yami into that mix as well in most cases) :)
 
Graham,

Thank you for the reply. I know you guys know a lot more about motors than I do. I almost was able to get a 1990 40 hp merc 4 cylinder, but it fell through. I think I will go with the evinrude primarily because of the fact it is 11 years newer. Just wanted to be fair with the older Merc, It only cost me $300 including parts to tune it up.
 
Yes, for me (personally), I am pretty leery about anything built before about 1986 - that's kinda the "cut off" for parts (in most cases). So unless you are going for a particular look - 1960's motor to hang on the back of a mahogany lapstrake runabout, it's best to stick to something a little newer with reasonable parts availability.

All in all if you stick to the major mfg's - Merc, OMC, Yamaha it's kinda hard to go too far wrong. Honda has a nasty habit of not supporting motors that are more than a few years old (stop producing parts when they discontinue the model) and depending where you are located even finding a dealer for Suzuki, Tohatsu/Nissan etc can be an adventure all to itself.

While there are numerous "on line" parts places that you can order just about anything from, sometimes a local dealer can be the difference between having the motor layed up all summer and spending a few bucks but being back on the water in short order...
 
Love the advice. I will probably try both out, but long-term go with the evinrude. The boat is a 1991 Alumacraft V16 Lunker. I will take a picture tomorrow and post it. Just finishing up some repairs to have it ready for the lake.
 
Yes, the 82 Merc will not be putting out 40 horses. Firstly, Merc (before EPA and ISO standards evolved) drastically under rated the power of their outboards. That way they would always kick the snot out of the competition in real life horse to horse tests.

Secondly, in 82 the motors were still rated in Brake Horsepower (BHP), measured at the crank, not the prop. So if Merc say under estimated their 40 by 15% it was actually producing 46 BHP. But, once converted to SHP (shaft horsepower) which was adopted widely in 85/86, it may only be 42 or 43 horses by today's standards - maybe at best.

On the other hand the 93 Ev would produce 40 horse (SHP) +/- 6% (the ISO tolerance allowed by the EPA), but that horsepower would be measured under "standardized" conditions - at sea level, 30% relative humidity, 77 degree air temperature and barometric pressure of 29.61".

If the air temp is up 20 degrees from the standard and the humidity is north of 80% the motor will lose 15% of it's horsepower. So a hot humid summer day turns that 40 horse into a 35. And if the motor only produced 38 horses in the first place (within the tolerance), it would actually run closer to a 30 horse :(

So all my babbling kinda boils down to - you probably wouldn't notice any significant performance difference on a specific boat with either motor.
 
Very informative information about the transition from BHP to SHP. I think 40 hp will be plenty for this boat + or - a little. Without the motor on I can pick up one entire end of the boat by myself. I also will be putting the boat at a disadvantage because the altitude at my favorite lake is just under 9000 feet. It will run a lot weaker at that level, other times I will take it to lakes closer to 5000 feet. It probably will not see a lower elevation than 5000 feet. I was wondering if the dual carb evinrude will perform better or worse than the single carb Merc under these conditions. The nice thing about single carb is you just have to tune one and you don't run a cylinder lean, but the dual carbs seem like they would be more responsive and efficient if tuned correctly.
 
I think you could replace the jets on either carb (although not sure about parts for the 82) and recover a good deal of what you would lose due to altitude (although it will definitely suck a little more gas than at sea level).

I can't find my specs for the older Merc but am thinking the 40 of that vintage had 1.83:1 gears.

On the other hand the 40 Ev ran 2.4:1 gears (of that I'm positive) which are much better suited to running at altitude. Although, to be fair, in either case a prop change will probably be in order and while you could select a prop that would work with the "higher" geared Merc, you would probably have a little more latitude/selection with the lower geared Ev.
 
That brings up a good point, what jet would I select for running 4000-9000 feet altitude on the Evinrude. I am more convinced that is the one I will use.
 
Just get ahold of any BRP/OMC dealer with the model number. They can give you the correct jets. In general I do find OMC products are better supported at dealer level as far as factory information/specs/suggestions is concerned compared with Merc.

Now that could just be particular to those I have dealt with, but over the years that's been alot of different dealers.

I find that Merc publishes info like that in the service manual and expects you to buy the manual for the info, while OMC/BRP does not but will readily provide it if you call...
 
Ok, that gives me some good places to start to fine tune my boat for my use. I will probably tune it for around 3000-4000 feet because I won't run it at a lower altitude than that. Then I will play with props to see what works best for different elevations and rpms.
 
Yes, it definitely is "more air/less gas" (since it's thin air up there) and yes to the 3/4 throttle as well.

The "sweet spot" is easy to find with the help of an assistant on a remote controlled motor.

You will always get your most economical running when the motor has reached maximum spark advance but you still have some throttle left. On any given motor that may be in the 60 to 80% of full throttle range.

To figure out where it is on your motor you simply remove the cowl (hood) and have someone else operate the throttle (with the motor "off"). With a bit of watching you will see the throttle cable move but you will also see the trigger linkage start moving (to advance the trigger on it's plate under the flywheel).

After some observation (and advancing/returning the throttle) you can note the position where the trigger linkage stops moving. At that point it's at it's maximum timing advance. As soon as it stops moving, stop advancing the throttle and note where the shifter handle is in relation the base. That's your "sweet spot". It's at that point where you will get your best gas mileage/speed (for anything off idle). This is what is referred to as the boats "cruise speed" (a term which is often used with larger cabin cruisers etc).

Advancing the throttle past that point will give you more speed, but it will "guzzle" gas in the process. At "cruise" you generally get maybe 75% of max speed (or a hair better), but tend to only burn about 60% of max gas (as compared to running full bore). So worth it unless you are trying to outrun weather (or get back before the wife really blows a gasket because you are over-due :))
 
At $3.69 a gallon who isn't interested in saving fuel. I had no idea when I started this thread that I would get such awesome information. Thank You!
 
I wish it was $3.69 a gallon...

As of this afternoon, on my side of the border, regular was going for $4.80 a gallon ($1.27 a liter).

I am constantly motivated to get absolute performance out of my gas powered toys :)
 
Back
Top