I have a 2019 200hp mercury 8 cylinder 4 stroke pro xs
On a 19 foot ranger
I am getting a 2 miles to a gallon
Is this normal for this engine
My optimax would get 4 to 5 miles per gallon in the same day of fishing
Printable View
I have a 2019 200hp mercury 8 cylinder 4 stroke pro xs
On a 19 foot ranger
I am getting a 2 miles to a gallon
Is this normal for this engine
My optimax would get 4 to 5 miles per gallon in the same day of fishing
Need to provide engine serial number at minimum, some of the other data mentioned in this announcement may also help the pros in responding to your question - Please Read BEFORE Posting
here is what i have noticed on mine...and i did a direct repower, so its pretty easy to see the difference...
the new 4 stroke if trimmed out and just cruising, say +/- 4500-4800, i would say is just as good as the 2 stroke optimax...
however the WOT, i feel the 4stroke does consume a tad more...
however i would NEVER look back....
love my 4stroke pro xs...
Yeah that serial number is required, even for the most general type questions. Just helping Don out.
If you would, please take a moment to review the Announcements, and provide the Required info with your post. Thanks! :beers:Quote:
Originally Posted by 2326kevin
Mid range and cruising should be comparable... WOT operation will likely require more fuel (it is a larger displacement engine, and a fourstroke).
You're not the first one I've heard about not getting very impressive fuel economy numbers, know a guy with almost the same motor that isn't getting near as good as his optimax did.
10-15 % worse for me on my personal boat and I dont typically run it hard...
I'm getting noticeably better. 225 optimax to 200 pro xs 4 strk .
2mpg is garbage and something is wrong.. I cant get 2 mpg. even towing a tube with 5 on board I'm still 3-4mpg. I have 20 ft nitro fish ski. can cruise at 6 + mpg and 4.25mpg @ 50 mph 3.2mpg WFO. wide open full neg trim I'll see 2.8 mpg but opti would be same .
engine isnt capable of burning over 20 gallons per hour . so unless you topping out low 50s your math is off.
I went from a 17 boat to the exact same 19 boat with the new motor. It’s worse, quite a bit at WOT. But I still would not switch back. Not a chance
Easy to say when there is no chance/choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishing122
Admittedly- it's really hard to beat or compare the fuel economy of the Optimax models. Given that power was produced on every rotation of the flywheel, and fuel was directly injected into the cylinder at precisely the best time for efficiency, they were (and remain) a marvelous engine.
That being said... eliminating the constant feed of oil, continuing emissions improvements, adding significant control feature improvements, while building a light, powerful and DURABLE 4-stroke Platform did have a couple trade-offs (very few, but higher RPM fuel economy is one of them).
I don't think DURABLE has been proven yet.
Fished 3 tournaments averaging 17 gallons per tourney
running hard 8 hour tournament . Filled up right after each tourney .
250 four stroke
I would burn 22 to 25 gallons on 250 2 stroke in the same tourney.
The four stroke blows the 2 stroke away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Danbleume
:rolleyes: :embarassed: :thumb up2:
10-15% Worse for me, but no looking back! I'm pleased with my V8!
As seen here, a decrease in mileage at WOT is expected but you seem to be doing worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2326kevin
To be a real comparison, you'd have to have very accurate fuel usage data and you'd have to ensure both motors, especially the new one, had an optimal setup. If you're new motor is not set up well and not propped right, you could be bogging down from to high pitch, or not reaching full top speed due to a prop that is too small. Keep in mind, speed will affect MPH. If you're burning constant X gallons per hour, your MPH is less when you travel slower.
Tough for me to say one way or the other, but I just don't notice the diff. if were getting 4mpg with an optimax, 10% is only .4 mpg. Unless your really putting in some miles most would not notice that. Seem to remember the optimax still got sub 3 at WOT.
Assuming you're talking about an opti. If so, something was really wrong with it! I haven't seen 1 application where I replaced an opti with a 4s and seen better economyQuote:
Originally Posted by Gavol64
I didnt sleep at a holiday in last night, but shoudnt a four stroke use 1/2 the fuel of a 2 stroke giving that a 2 stroke takes fuel every stroke, as to where a 4 stroke takes the fuel every other stroke?? That being said for the RPM the 4 strokes seem to be turning higher RPM so it should be a wash. I would assume that the four stroke also direct the correct amount of fuel at the given time to make the most horse power. Just asking here as I like the sound of the merc four stroke. I have ran four strokes since 1984.Quote:
Originally Posted by EuropeanAM
More cubes and 2 more cylinders to feed i could see where they could burn a little more especially at wot. All ive ever owned are v8s in my vehicles and i dont own them for their fuel mileage lol