Evinrude vs mercury

[Team Hobbie Hut]

Compared to Evinrude/Johnson? I still see several FICHTS, many more than mercs of the same era.

So the technology that caused Evinrude to go bankrupt was actually better than Mercury's at the time? Who knew?

[JJolley]

Originally Posted by Keystonekiller

Same thing I was thinking......all over engineered turds. Stop buying these new rigs the with junk hanging off of them and maybe the junk outboard manufacturers will lower the price to the appropriate number with a better warranty and c/s. Hold them reliable.

You can thank the EPA for all those over engineered junk outboard manufacturers. It cost a lot of moola for R&D to get them to pass emission standards.

This is hitting the nail on the head and so many people just don't understand it. I am in an industry that has had to deal with the same type government mandates which have affected the overall costs of the equipment enormously over the past 10 years.

To address the OPs question, I have owned multiples of Johnson/Evinrude and Mercury plus personally know people that have had good success with Yamaha, all have been reliable.

Soap Box time...

Reading threads like this with a good number of people talking about the unreliability of these outboards I have to wonder if they understand what is really being asked of them. Aside from the brand loyal prejudice of bashing other manufacturers people are quick to complain about their engines, that they are constantly in the shop, that they are spending money hand over fist on these outboards and you need to make sure you have a good mechanic close. Not all but many... many fishermen are out every weekend plus, running their boats at wide open throttle constantly from spot to spot, cranking, putting them into gear and then slamming the throttle to the max not lifting until the next stop, then straight off the throttle and they are on the front deck with the key off before the boat completely settles doing what I call BDM (break down maintenance) only. Wonder how your daily driver vehicle would hold up if it were driven the same way?

Think about it 5500 - 6000 RPMs almost the entire time they are running, that is a considerable amount of motion for all the moving parts inside your outboard. Not all people treat their equipment this way I know but most of the people that I have personal knowledge of that are having major / multiple issues do. The manufacturers have recommended guidelines for running their equipment such as idle time before and after a run, RPM ranges during the run and normal maintenance to help insure the reliability of the motor, again the people that I personally have knowledge of that follow these guidelines consistently seem to have a lot less issues.

Stepping down off the box... Swing away...

[Mike198P]

Mercury motors are a dime a dozen. Sure alot of late model mercs are on the water, but where do they all go when they age? You NEVER see an older merc on the water, ever.

I have an older merc on a '86 Cajun. 175 Merc and it runs great. Never had any work performed on it other than regular maintenance.

[jc2bg]

I've had multiple marine mechanics with decades of experience tell me that 90% of the problems they encounter with modern outboards (other than those caused by complete lack of owner maintenance) are related to ethanol degradation of fuel system components. And yes, there are different engineering challenges for engines constantly subjected to potential water intrusion. Add in the factor that fuel turnover in waterfront locations is much less reliable, and that the presence of water in those waterfront locations' fuel is much more likely, and we can hardly lay all the blame for outboard motor problems on their manufacturers.

[TritonTRXV8]

So the technology that caused Evinrude to go bankrupt was actually better than Mercury's at the time? Who knew?

This is what i was thinking too when i first read what he said about the ficht motors. I dont think there is anything good to be said about those.

[Bass Cat Boats]

Thats a solid parts of of the issue on outboard costs. Now we get on our soap box.

This is hitting the nail on the head and so many people just don't understand it. I am in an industry that has had to deal with the same type government mandates which have affected the overall costs of the equipment enormously over the past 10 years.

Also there is the extremely low volume in relationship to other industries. The general outboard market in the USA was around 165,000 motors, from those 2 HP boosters to the 400R Verado it's just a small market in comparison to a Techumseh, Honda or Briggs & Stratton 5 or 6 HP that goes on millions of mowers, tillers, generators, pumps and more across the USA and world. Ford built at last we knew about 130,000 F Series trucks in one month alone. Almost as many F Series trucks in one month as the entire USA outboard market.

The impacts of the EPA regulations changes, from the mandated air regulations, are yet to be seen for all. The European community is pushing for elimination of carbon fuels (gasoline and diesel) in autos and trucks by 2025, 2030 and last 2040. The true carbon foot print is not totally measured in these green motives, like ethanol, as they have not valued all impacts of lithium disposal, manufacture of the components, service and repairs or update required and manufacture of those parts which would not have been required.

It's like the new gas can with retaining pressure low evap nozzles, they keep emissions in though who measured the total emissions from the fuel we all dumped on the ground and air trying to use the blasted things. Safety cans that spill more fuel are not being measured on the challenges of usage that make a larger foot print than the old easy use cans.

Then we have MACT and EPA for boats which cut our mold life by half more, and reduced emissions by 7%, to 10 or 12% on those products. So... we now have 2 x 39% or 1 x 50% the old way... makes sense to who? The cost in emissions of low VOC materials that are not released in the environment are not sequential to the gain. They are exponential and not measured, perhaps intentionally. Let alone the change in material quality over the last 15 years.

Now granted there are gains in equipment that made sense on improving air emissions. So it's not all bad, though they proponents find no middle ground. They never will find balance.

Now or we get off our soap box...

BCB

[Jamie]

Thats a solid parts of of the issue on outboard costs. Now we get on our soap box.



Also there is the extremely low volume in relationship to other industries. The general outboard market in the USA was around 165,000 motors, from those 2 HP boosters to the 400R Verado it's just a small market in comparison to a Techumseh, Honda or Briggs & Stratton 5 or 6 HP that goes on millions of mowers, tillers, generators, pumps and more across the USA and world. Ford built at last we knew about 130,000 F Series trucks in one month alone. Almost as many F Series trucks in one month as the entire USA outboard market.

The impacts of the EPA regulations changes, from the mandated air regulations, are yet to be seen for all. The European community is pushing for elimination of carbon fuels (gasoline and diesel) in autos and trucks by 2025, 2030 and last 2040. The true carbon foot print is not totally measured in these green motives, like ethanol, as they have not valued all impacts of lithium disposal, manufacture of the components, service and repairs or update required and manufacture of those parts which would not have been required.

It's like the new gas can with retaining pressure low evap nozzles, they keep emissions in though who measured the total emissions from the fuel we all dumped on the ground and air trying to use the blasted things. Safety cans that spill more fuel are not being measured on the challenges of usage that make a larger foot print than the old easy use cans.

Then we have MACT and EPA for boats which cut our mold life by half more, and reduced emissions by 7%, to 10 or 12% on those products. So... we now have 2 x 39% or 1 x 50% the old way... makes sense to who? The cost in emissions of low VOC materials that are not released in the environment are not sequential to the gain. They are exponential and not measured, perhaps intentionally. Let alone the change in material quality over the last 15 years.

Now granted there are gains in equipment that made sense on improving air emissions. So it's not all bad, though they proponents find no middle ground. They never will find balance.

Now or we get off our soap box...

BCB

I agree. To me is like the DEF fluid I have to put in my truck. My fuel mileages goes to cramp while it is doing the cleaning cycle for 10 minutes plus adding a 2.5 gallon plastic jug and cardboard box to the environment. I agree some regulation makes sense but some clearly has been setup to make a small group of investors rich.

[flyingwillie]

I simply could never go back to a 2 stroke motor.