On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 06:35:20 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

I don’t know if this is allowed but here’s some history on Mercury/Mariner

Mariner outboard history
Competition in the outboard market was tough in the early 1970s, and Mercury Marine found itself at a slight disadvantage.

Rival engine builder Outboard Marine Corporation (OMC) sold two outboard brands, Johnson and Evinrude. While Mercury enjoyed equal market share in the category, it was thought that a second outboard line could boost Mercury Marine’s distribution, both in the U.S. and internationally.

The new Mercury engine brand was named “Mariner” to invoke a reliable, durable outboard that would appeal to a different customer than the fast, high-performance image of the Mercury brand.

Introduced in Australia in 1974 and two years later in the U.S. and Europe, Mariner instantly doubled the distribution potential for Mercury Marine. The new outboard brand established a foothold in Europe, thanks in part to a decision by OMC to sell direct to dealers, eliminating the loyal, long-term distributors. The new Mariner
Outboard in Australia had proved itself quickly, setting a new endurance speed record in 1975 during a 546-mile run from Sydney to Brisbane. An 18-hour running time slashed more than nine hours off the previous record. In 1976, Mariner Outboards were introduced in Europe and the United States; in conjunction with the American
debut, three Mariner-powered boats ran up the Mississippi River from New Orleans to Chicago for a total of 4,500 boat miles.

Mariner was originally built under a joint venture with Yamaha, the Federal Trade Commission made the unfortunate decision to block the joint venture with Yamaha nine years after the successful launch of the Mariner brand, and the details of the original agreement came back to haunt Brunswick. The FTC felt that Mercury Marine was
monopolizing the market, and the separation of the Mercury and Mariner brands would bring down prices. In the original agreement, Yamaha was prohibited to sell the Mariner brand under its own name.

When the FTC ordered Brunswick to sell its shares back to Yamaha, the door was opened and a new competitor rapidly emerged on the market. In fact, the dealers had been conditioned to think of Yamaha as a prestige product so after the FTC decision, Mariner prices increased as it continued to be sold in direct competition with
Mercury. By the early ’80s, Mariner and Mercury were becoming more similar than different. When electronic fuel injection was introduced in 1986, the transition was complete; the two outboards were mechanically the same.

In the mid 1990s, the future viability of a second outboard brand was debated. While the distribution issue lessened as more boats and motors were sold as a package by U.S. boat builders, Mariner enjoyed a far larger market share internationally than at home. Still, the perception remained that OMC would enjoy a “two-to-one
advantage” with its dual outboard brands.

However, the economies of scale did not bode well for a two-brand strategy. With less risk of losing U.S. sales through a larger number of committed boat builders, the savings in manufacturing and marketing costs for a single outboard brand would be significant.

In 1999, the decision was reached to end Mariner sales in the U.S. but to continue distribution internationally in markets where it remains popular.

In the U.S., loyal Mariner owners were downhearted. Even though Mercury and Mariner had been the same product — except for paint and decals — for more than a decade, the faithful never accepted the reality, expressing a wish for the return of Mariner in the U.S.


So now we know...

My 1989-90 Mariner 3 cyl 2 stroke 75 was identical to the Merc 70 and
the Yamaha 70 except Yamaha used their lower unit. Merc and Mariner
L/Us were the same and basically the same L/U that lives on as the
"Big Foot" on 40s to 60s along with being standard the 70-90.
I put around 4000 hours on that engine and still got $900 for it.