Don White wrote:
On 2/4/2010 12:09 PM, Harry wrote:
Harry wrote:
On 2/4/10 11:18 AM, Jim wrote:
stp wrote:
On Feb 4, 7:20 am, Jim wrote:
I've got a Paxton on my '72 Cuda and it's a kick in the pants.
A friend did the work for me, but he's clueless about boats.
OB is a '92 Mariner 125.
Thoughts?

Search over at http://www.ScreamAndFly.com

Thanks stp. Nothing there about aftermarket superchargers.
Probably just not done, or rare because of practicality.

Found this about the Verado at
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/006413.html
*****************
Weight can be saved by supercharging. Let's compare the weigh of some
200-HP outboard motors:

1.7-liter supercharged 200-HP = 510-lbs (Mercury Verado 200)
3.6-liter non-supercharged 200-HP = 580-lbs (Suzuki DF200)
3.4-liter non-supercharged 200-HP = 588-lbs (Honda BF200)

The supercharged motor is 70 to 78-lbs lighter. However, if we move
down
just slightly in horsepower to the 150-HP range, the supercharged motor
loses any advantage, and instead shows an 32- to 36-lb disadvantage:


D;oh...the 200 hp verado is a four cylinder engine displacing 105
cubic inches. The 'Zuke is a V6 displacing 220 cubes. I presume the
Honda has similar specs.

Guess which engines will last longer on a heavy boat?

70 pounds is insignificant on a 500-600+ pound outboard.


Insignificant? 14% is not insignificant. The guy wasn't talking about
heavy boats or longevity dip****.

Harry, I always get a woody when you argue with yourself.

Well then. You are half way to a good organism. You know what to do
next. Enjoy, Don.

On 2/4/10 1:26 PM, Tim wrote:
On Feb 4, 10:18 am, wrote:
stp wrote:
On Feb 4, 7:20 am, wrote:
I've got a Paxton on my '72 Cuda and it's a kick in the pants.
A friend did the work for me, but he's clueless about boats.
OB is a '92 Mariner 125.
Thoughts?

Search over athttp://www.ScreamAndFly.com

Thanks stp. Nothing there about aftermarket superchargers.
Probably just not done, or rare because of practicality.

Found this about the Verado athttp://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/006413.html
*****************
Weight can be saved by supercharging. Let's compare the weigh of some
200-HP outboard motors:

1.7-liter supercharged 200-HP = 510-lbs (Mercury Verado 200)
3.6-liter non-supercharged 200-HP = 580-lbs (Suzuki DF200)
3.4-liter non-supercharged 200-HP = 588-lbs (Honda BF200)

The supercharged motor is 70 to 78-lbs lighter. However, if we move down
just slightly in horsepower to the 150-HP range, the supercharged motor
loses any advantage, and instead shows an 32- to 36-lb disadvantage:

1.7-liter supercharged 150-HP = 510-lbs (Mercury Verado 150)
2.9-liter non-supercharged 150-HP = 474-lbs (Suzuki DF150)
2.3-liter non-supercharged 150-HP = 478-lbs (Honda BF150)
*****************

Pretty nice weight savings if I went up to a 200hp.
Looks like the Mercury is the only game in town for supercharged.
Think I'll just stick with the 125 for now, and get my speed gooses from
the Cuda.

I'm sure it can be done, but it would take some extreme modification
and it would be easier and more practical to upgrade engines.


You do realize you're dealing with a lying spoofer with this particular
Jim. Of course, the "real flajim" is also a lying spoofer.

The idea of attaching a supercharger to a nearly 20 year old trash
outboard two cycle outboard is funny for at least a half dozen reasons.
You've been "gotcha'd"

On Feb 4, 12:34*pm, Harry wrote:
On 2/4/10 1:26 PM, Tim wrote:





On Feb 4, 10:18 am, *wrote:
stp wrote:
On Feb 4, 7:20 am, *wrote:
I've got a Paxton on my '72 Cuda and it's a kick in the pants.
A friend did the work for me, but he's clueless about boats.
OB is a '92 Mariner 125.
Thoughts?

Search over athttp://www.ScreamAndFly.com

Thanks stp. *Nothing there about aftermarket superchargers.
Probably just not done, or rare because of practicality.

Found this about the Verado athttp://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/006413.html
*****************
Weight can be saved by supercharging. Let's compare the weigh of some
200-HP outboard motors:

1.7-liter supercharged 200-HP = 510-lbs (Mercury Verado 200)
3.6-liter non-supercharged 200-HP = 580-lbs (Suzuki DF200)
3.4-liter non-supercharged 200-HP = 588-lbs (Honda BF200)

The supercharged motor is 70 to 78-lbs lighter. However, if we move down
just slightly in horsepower to the 150-HP range, the supercharged motor
loses any advantage, and instead shows an 32- to 36-lb disadvantage:

1.7-liter supercharged 150-HP = 510-lbs (Mercury Verado 150)
2.9-liter non-supercharged 150-HP = 474-lbs (Suzuki DF150)
2.3-liter non-supercharged 150-HP = 478-lbs (Honda BF150)
*****************

Pretty nice weight savings if I went up to a 200hp.
Looks like the Mercury is the only game in town for supercharged.
Think I'll just stick with the 125 for now, and get my speed gooses from
the Cuda.

I'm sure it can be done, but it would take some extreme modification
and it would *be easier and more practical to upgrade engines.

You do realize you're dealing with a lying spoofer with this particular
Jim. Of course, the "real flajim" is also a lying spoofer.

The idea of attaching a supercharger to a nearly 20 year old trash
outboard two cycle outboard is funny for at least a half dozen reasons.
You've been "gotcha'd"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't look at it that way. The question regardless of who posted it
was talking about supercharging an outboard engine. And i replied.
Actually, in the motorcycle relm, there have been companies who hav
supercharged racing 2 and 4 stroke engines since back in the 20's. Not
saying it's practical though, because if it was, then everybody would
be offering it.

On 2/4/10 1:55 PM, Tim wrote:
On Feb 4, 12:34 pm, wrote:
On 2/4/10 1:26 PM, Tim wrote:





On Feb 4, 10:18 am, wrote:
stp wrote:
On Feb 4, 7:20 am, wrote:
I've got a Paxton on my '72 Cuda and it's a kick in the pants.
A friend did the work for me, but he's clueless about boats.
OB is a '92 Mariner 125.
Thoughts?

Search over athttp://www.ScreamAndFly.com

Thanks stp. Nothing there about aftermarket superchargers.
Probably just not done, or rare because of practicality.

Found this about the Verado athttp://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/006413.html
*****************
Weight can be saved by supercharging. Let's compare the weigh of some
200-HP outboard motors:

1.7-liter supercharged 200-HP = 510-lbs (Mercury Verado 200)
3.6-liter non-supercharged 200-HP = 580-lbs (Suzuki DF200)
3.4-liter non-supercharged 200-HP = 588-lbs (Honda BF200)

The supercharged motor is 70 to 78-lbs lighter. However, if we move down
just slightly in horsepower to the 150-HP range, the supercharged motor
loses any advantage, and instead shows an 32- to 36-lb disadvantage:

1.7-liter supercharged 150-HP = 510-lbs (Mercury Verado 150)
2.9-liter non-supercharged 150-HP = 474-lbs (Suzuki DF150)
2.3-liter non-supercharged 150-HP = 478-lbs (Honda BF150)
*****************

Pretty nice weight savings if I went up to a 200hp.
Looks like the Mercury is the only game in town for supercharged.
Think I'll just stick with the 125 for now, and get my speed gooses from
the Cuda.

I'm sure it can be done, but it would take some extreme modification
and it would be easier and more practical to upgrade engines.

You do realize you're dealing with a lying spoofer with this particular
Jim. Of course, the "real flajim" is also a lying spoofer.

The idea of attaching a supercharger to a nearly 20 year old trash
outboard two cycle outboard is funny for at least a half dozen reasons.
You've been "gotcha'd"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't look at it that way. The question regardless of who posted it
was talking about supercharging an outboard engine. And i replied.
Actually, in the motorcycle relm, there have been companies who hav
supercharged racing 2 and 4 stroke engines since back in the 20's. Not
saying it's practical though, because if it was, then everybody would
be offering it.



Flajim's non-existent Mariner outboard would be a strange candidate for
a supercharger...even if the engine were for real.

As for whether "everybody would be offering it," well, probably not,
even if it were practical.

Tim wrote:


I don't look at it that way. The question regardless of who posted it
was talking about supercharging an outboard engine. And i replied.
Actually, in the motorcycle relm, there have been companies who hav
supercharged racing 2 and 4 stroke engines since back in the 20's. Not
saying it's practical though, because if it was, then everybody would
be offering it.


I agree. Looked around a bit to find out. To get max speed out of a
small boat it would be a fun project.
But between me and you, that's just boat talk.
Didn't mean to ruffle feathers.

On Feb 4, 1:34*pm, Jim wrote:
Tim wrote:

I don't look at it that way. The question regardless of who posted it
was talking about supercharging an outboard engine. And i replied.
Actually, in the motorcycle relm, there have been companies who hav
supercharged racing 2 and 4 stroke engines since back in the 20's. Not
saying it's practical though, because if it was, then everybody would
be offering it.

I agree. *Looked around a bit to find out. *To get max speed out of a
small boat it would be a fun project.
But between me and you, that's just boat talk.
Didn't mean to ruffle feathers.


At various times both GM and Ford offered super and turbo chargers on
various models. Of course they didn't last long. They could have been
developed well but I think that both manufactures wanted to get in on
some mysterious performance hype that really didn't work out.


But I will say that my brother has a factory supercharged 3800 in his
Buick Lesabre, and it's got over 200,000 mi on it. still runs well and
strong.But who knows the bottom end of the engine might explode
someday. It's a fun ride when you nail it though..fantastic torque!

On Feb 4, 3:45*pm, Tim wrote:
On Feb 4, 1:34*pm, Jim wrote:

Tim wrote:

I don't look at it that way. The question regardless of who posted it
was talking about supercharging an outboard engine. And i replied.
Actually, in the motorcycle relm, there have been companies who hav
supercharged racing 2 and 4 stroke engines since back in the 20's. Not
saying it's practical though, because if it was, then everybody would
be offering it.

I agree. *Looked around a bit to find out. *To get max speed out of a
small boat it would be a fun project.
But between me and you, that's just boat talk.
Didn't mean to ruffle feathers.

At various times both *GM and Ford offered super and turbo chargers on
various models. Of course they didn't last long. They could have been
developed well but I think that both manufactures wanted to get in on
some mysterious performance hype that really didn't work out.

But I will say that my brother has a factory supercharged 3800 in his
Buick Lesabre, and it's got over 200,000 mi on it. still runs well and
strong.But who knows the bottom end of the engine might explode
someday. It's a fun ride when you nail it though..fantastic torque!

Actually Ford has been pretty active in both super and turbochargers.
The Ford GT, Shelby Mustangs, and later year F150 Lightnings are all
supercharged V8's, as was the V6 in the Thunderbird SC's in the 80's.
The '84-86 SVO Mustangs were turbocharged and intercooled, so were the
Merkur XR4Ti's (remember those?). Ford's new ecoboost engine in the
Taurus SHO is a twin-turbo V6.

Audi has been very active as well with turbos, and they offer turbo 2
liter motors in their new A4's. An '05 A6 we used to have had a twin
turbo V6. Europe has been using turbos, especially turbo-diesels, for
years.

While gas was cheap, cubic inches have ruled as the cheap, easy way to
get horsepower in the US. With turbo or superchargers, you can have
horsepower when you want it, but enjoy the economy that a smaller
engine offers when you're just putting around and cruising. I think
we'll be seeing this a lot more.

On Feb 4, 3:42*pm, Jack wrote:
On Feb 4, 3:45*pm, Tim wrote:





On Feb 4, 1:34*pm, Jim wrote:

Tim wrote:

I don't look at it that way. The question regardless of who posted it
was talking about supercharging an outboard engine. And i replied.
Actually, in the motorcycle relm, there have been companies who hav
supercharged racing 2 and 4 stroke engines since back in the 20's. Not
saying it's practical though, because if it was, then everybody would
be offering it.

I agree. *Looked around a bit to find out. *To get max speed out of a
small boat it would be a fun project.
But between me and you, that's just boat talk.
Didn't mean to ruffle feathers.

At various times both *GM and Ford offered super and turbo chargers on
various models. Of course they didn't last long. They could have been
developed well but I think that both manufactures wanted to get in on
some mysterious performance hype that really didn't work out.

But I will say that my brother has a factory supercharged 3800 in his
Buick Lesabre, and it's got over 200,000 mi on it. still runs well and
strong.But who knows the bottom end of the engine might explode
someday. It's a fun ride when you nail it though..fantastic torque!

Actually Ford has been pretty active in both super and turbochargers.
The Ford GT, Shelby Mustangs, and later year F150 Lightnings are all
supercharged V8's, as was the V6 in the Thunderbird SC's in the 80's.
The '84-86 SVO Mustangs were turbocharged and intercooled, so were the
Merkur XR4Ti's (remember those?). *Ford's new ecoboost engine in the
Taurus SHO is a twin-turbo V6.

Audi has been very active as well with turbos, and they offer turbo 2
liter motors in their new A4's. *An '05 A6 we used to have had a twin
turbo V6. *Europe has been using turbos, especially turbo-diesels, for
years.

While gas was cheap, cubic inches have ruled as the cheap, easy way to
get horsepower in the US. *With turbo or superchargers, you can have
horsepower when you want it, but enjoy the economy that a smaller
engine offers when you're just putting around and cruising. *I think
we'll be seeing this a lot more.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Probably will see more of it, now that they're working to develop with
some perfection instead of mere sales gimmicks. But that's what I was
saying, though offered at various times, the US industries didn't
really prosper under the turbo and supercharger offerings. Kinda like
they came and they went. A friend of mine had a turbo Capri (2.3L) and
once you got past the "lag" It would move! But it was dropped. The
Pontiac Turbo TransAm was joke. Pontiac came up with a neat idea and
put the turbo in probably the weekest engine that they had, the 3.1,
Then the Buick skyhawk V-6 wasn't any better. Good idea but sorry
engine. Heck, when I was in highschool a friend of mine had a Corvair
"Turbo Monza" That was the valve burningest car I knew of.

The 70's-80's technology is obviously old hat now, and yes, I think
you'll see blowers of one form or another, coming back quite
extensivly. In Europe, they're finding that on E-85 fuel (corn
squeezin's) the turbo is making a tremendous difference in HP and
economy. No reason why it shouldn't work in the gasoline marine
industry as well.

On Feb 4, 5:05*pm, Tim wrote:
On Feb 4, 3:42*pm, Jack wrote:





On Feb 4, 3:45*pm, Tim wrote:

On Feb 4, 1:34*pm, Jim wrote:

Tim wrote:

I don't look at it that way. The question regardless of who posted it
was talking about supercharging an outboard engine. And i replied..
Actually, in the motorcycle relm, there have been companies who hav
supercharged racing 2 and 4 stroke engines since back in the 20's.. Not
saying it's practical though, because if it was, then everybody would
be offering it.

I agree. *Looked around a bit to find out. *To get max speed out of a
small boat it would be a fun project.
But between me and you, that's just boat talk.
Didn't mean to ruffle feathers.

At various times both *GM and Ford offered super and turbo chargers on
various models. Of course they didn't last long. They could have been
developed well but I think that both manufactures wanted to get in on
some mysterious performance hype that really didn't work out.

But I will say that my brother has a factory supercharged 3800 in his
Buick Lesabre, and it's got over 200,000 mi on it. still runs well and
strong.But who knows the bottom end of the engine might explode
someday. It's a fun ride when you nail it though..fantastic torque!

Actually Ford has been pretty active in both super and turbochargers.
The Ford GT, Shelby Mustangs, and later year F150 Lightnings are all
supercharged V8's, as was the V6 in the Thunderbird SC's in the 80's.
The '84-86 SVO Mustangs were turbocharged and intercooled, so were the
Merkur XR4Ti's (remember those?). *Ford's new ecoboost engine in the
Taurus SHO is a twin-turbo V6.

Audi has been very active as well with turbos, and they offer turbo 2
liter motors in their new A4's. *An '05 A6 we used to have had a twin
turbo V6. *Europe has been using turbos, especially turbo-diesels, for
years.

While gas was cheap, cubic inches have ruled as the cheap, easy way to
get horsepower in the US. *With turbo or superchargers, you can have
horsepower when you want it, but enjoy the economy that a smaller
engine offers when you're just putting around and cruising. *I think
we'll be seeing this a lot more.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Probably will see more of it, now that they're working to develop with
some perfection instead of mere sales gimmicks. *But that's what I was
saying, though offered at various times, the US industries didn't
really prosper under the turbo and supercharger offerings. Kinda like
they came and they went. A friend of mine had a turbo Capri (2.3L) and
once you got past the "lag" It would move! *But it was *dropped. *The
Pontiac Turbo TransAm was joke. *Pontiac came up with a neat idea and
put the turbo in probably the weekest engine that they had, the 3.1,
Then the Buick skyhawk V-6 wasn't any better. Good idea but sorry
engine. Heck, when I was in highschool a friend of mine had a Corvair
"Turbo Monza" That was the valve burningest car I knew of.

*The 70's-80's technology is obviously old hat now, and yes, I think
you'll see blowers of one form or another, coming back quite
extensivly. In Europe, they're finding that on E-85 fuel (corn
squeezin's) the turbo is making a tremendous difference in HP and
economy. No reason why it shouldn't work in the gasoline marine
industry as well.

Not to belabor the point, but it wasn't a "sales gimmick", it was real
power. It's just that in the past, no one wanted them when gas was
still less than a buck a gallon, and a big V8 would give you the HP
and torque you wanted. Now that big V8 is too hungry to feed, and the
technology will be more palatable to the American consumer.

BTW... I owned a 1985 Mustang SVO with the turbo 4. It would
absolutely kill the V8 version in every aspect except at the drag
strip. The brakes and handling were among the best available at that
time any price. Consumers just wouldn't pay more money for fewer
cylinders, and poor sales killed it. Too bad, it was an amazing car.

Harry wrote:
On 2/4/10 7:20 AM, Jim wrote:
I've got a Paxton on my '72 Cuda and it's a kick in the pants.
A friend did the work for me, but he's clueless about boats.
OB is a '92 Mariner 125.
Thoughts?


My suggestion is that you consult with Dimwit Loogy & Snotty Scotty at
"the other place," and then post the responses you get here. Between
those two rocket scientists, you're sure to get a solution that will
be a real crowd pleaser on the 4th of July. :)


Personal attacks aside, that was actually funny!