On 3/6/10 12:55 PM, Tim wrote:
On Mar 6, 10:57 am, wrote:
On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:19:55 -0500,
wrote:

I had a two stroke Merc 90 and a 115 in the early 1990s, and they both
ran very well. Each of them blew stators,

My 75 Mariner/Merc blew a stator too (basically the same engine as the
90, or a Yammy mid range) I guess it was just a design flaw.

That's the way it was, too. even though they were low output, they
were a primitive construction and due to the vibration of the engine
itself, the windings would evenually short against each other by
rubbing the enamel coated insulation off themselves and call it a day.
Things are much improved by now.


That's the first explanation I've seen for the problem...thanks.

--
Which one is the girl?

http://tinyurl.com/ycpsnzz

Harry wrote:
On 3/6/10 9:49 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 05:46:33 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Mar 6, 1:00 am, wrote:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:11:15 -0500, wrote:
Larry, I'd think tha even though the engines are rated for he
same hp,
there is a torque factor to be considered between a 2 and a 4 cycle
engine, though. two cycles have a 'power band' of RPM where they run
the best, where 4's seem to have a broader range e and more
torque on
a lower rpm. .

So, I'm wondering if the prop pitches between the two are really hat
compatable.

That's the question and I told him he needs a tach to determine that.
The 80's motors were rated at the prop and the new motors at the
shaft
(or vice versa), right?

If this is late 80s they were rated at the prop. The difference will
basically just be the torque curve. If he is not a WOT all the time
guy he will really like the 4 stroke.
It is really nice if you do a lot of close maneuvering at slow speeds.
You don't have that 2 stroke "cough, stall and a puff of blue smoke"
problem just at the time when you were going to make that perfect dock
approach.

LOL! I've seen that many a time. And have noticed on older engines in
need a bit of tuning, the power was never there when you needed it the
most. But plenty of sputtering for everybody!


After you get a 4 stroke you start being a snob. You see a an engine
belching along with that tell tale smelly oil smoke trail and say "2
stroke"


Most of my two stroke outboard experience was in the 1950s and early
1960s...and I simply don't recall any particular problems with any of
the engines. Back then, I thought the oily smoky trail smelled
like...like...VICTORY!

I had a two stroke Merc 90 and a 115 in the early 1990s, and they both
ran very well. Each of them blew stators, though. I never liked the
smell of the OptiMax oil in my late 1990s Merc, though.

Since then, I've had a couple of four stroke Yamahas. Two decades ago,
I wouldn't have said this: I'd never even consider buying *any* sort
of two stroke outboard these days. They are not competitive in any
important way with four stroke engines.


Stators are $700+ and you replaced two of them? That's some very bad luck!

Larry

On 3/6/10 10:29 PM, Larry wrote:
Harry wrote:
On 3/6/10 9:49 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010 05:46:33 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Mar 6, 1:00 am, wrote:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:11:15 -0500, wrote:
Larry, I'd think tha even though the engines are rated for he
same hp,
there is a torque factor to be considered between a 2 and a 4 cycle
engine, though. two cycles have a 'power band' of RPM where they run
the best, where 4's seem to have a broader range e and more
torque on
a lower rpm. .

So, I'm wondering if the prop pitches between the two are really hat
compatable.

That's the question and I told him he needs a tach to determine that.
The 80's motors were rated at the prop and the new motors at the
shaft
(or vice versa), right?

If this is late 80s they were rated at the prop. The difference will
basically just be the torque curve. If he is not a WOT all the time
guy he will really like the 4 stroke.
It is really nice if you do a lot of close maneuvering at slow speeds.
You don't have that 2 stroke "cough, stall and a puff of blue smoke"
problem just at the time when you were going to make that perfect dock
approach.

LOL! I've seen that many a time. And have noticed on older engines in
need a bit of tuning, the power was never there when you needed it the
most. But plenty of sputtering for everybody!


After you get a 4 stroke you start being a snob. You see a an engine
belching along with that tell tale smelly oil smoke trail and say "2
stroke"


Most of my two stroke outboard experience was in the 1950s and early
1960s...and I simply don't recall any particular problems with any of
the engines. Back then, I thought the oily smoky trail smelled
like...like...VICTORY!

I had a two stroke Merc 90 and a 115 in the early 1990s, and they both
ran very well. Each of them blew stators, though. I never liked the
smell of the OptiMax oil in my late 1990s Merc, though.

Since then, I've had a couple of four stroke Yamahas. Two decades ago,
I wouldn't have said this: I'd never even consider buying *any* sort
of two stroke outboard these days. They are not competitive in any
important way with four stroke engines.


Stators are $700+ and you replaced two of them? That's some very bad luck!

Larry


I don't know what they cost...Merc replaced 'em each time under
warranty. Three, actually. The stator on the 115 blew twice. The "newly
redesigned" third stator did not blow.

In May, Yahama is coming out with a 300-hp, 4.2 liter fourstroke that
will be substantially lighter than its current 300-hp engine.

--
Which one is the girl?

http://tinyurl.com/ycpsnzz

wrote:
On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 22:29:53 -0500, wrote:


Stators are $700+

I think I paid about $150 for mine (aftermarket part) and another $50
or so for that special puller you need to get the flywheel off. No big
deal when you have that.
BTW you can make one if you can find a metric (36MM ?) threaded pipe.
Those Mercs are really Yamaha blocks. That is why all the block bolts
are metric and all the bolt on "Mercury" parts are SAE

Didn't Mercury and Yamaha get into a ****ing match and end their
partnership? I'm reasonable sure the new Mercury 4 strokes are all
Mercury in that size.

Larry