Mercury outboards
 

North Star wrote:
On Jun 6, 1:57 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:49:56 -0400, wrote:
Why are you fixated on aluminum boats?
===

I would imagine because of towing weight issues with the RAV-4.
Now, if i had a real tow vehicle I could probably get this down a bit
to the same price as the new 16 Xcalibur.
http://halifax.kijiji.ca/c-cars-vehi...AdIdZ385112304

You don't want a '99 with a Bravo One - or any I/O for the salt.

Mercury outboards
 

On Jun 7, 3:31*am, wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:21:49 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 05/06/2012 6:44 PM, JustWait wrote:

As a kid my favorite fishing boat on an inland lake was a 9.9 hp Johnson
on a 18 foot aluminum boat rated for something like 40hp.

Sure, it was slow, but that was its advantage. *5 gallons of gas lasted
forever, and you could slow and deep troll in a way a 40 hp never could.

The new 4 strokes will go idle speed all day and not use as much gas
as your old 9,9 2 stroke.

I am still averaging a tad over a gallon an hour 110 hours in on my 70
Yamaha. That is mixed running from 1200 RPM to about 4200.

Once you get over 4200 the fuel consumption increases pretty fast but
there is some of that in the average too.

I do think if I was looking at the 40 Merc I would spend the extra
money for a 60. Same motor with an ECM that lets it develop it's full
potential. If you are running slower, it will user the same amount of
gas as the 40, you just have a little extra kick if you want it..

My 70 Yamaha is also the same basic engine with Yamaha electronics and
a Yamaha lower unit. There are some performance tests that say the 70
HP is really more like 64-65.

According to Mercury Site the 40 hp has a displacement of 45.6 while
the 50 and 60 hp (including the big foot models) displace 60.8. The
bigger motors also weigh quite a bit more than the 40.
BTW. The 40 is mid range for the smaller boat while the 60 is for the
bigger Xcalibur.

Mercury outboards
 

On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 16:10:00 -0700 (PDT), North Star
wrote:

On Jun 6, 1:57*pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:49:56 -0400, Oscar wrote:
Why are you fixated on aluminum boats?

===

I would imagine because of towing weight issues with the RAV-4.

Now, if i had a real tow vehicle I could probably get this down a bit
to the same price as the new 16 Xcalibur.
http://halifax.kijiji.ca/c-cars-vehi...AdIdZ385112304


===

That's what I would want if I were boating where you are.

Mercury outboards
 

On Jun 7, 9:11*am, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 16:10:00 -0700 (PDT), North Star

wrote:
On Jun 6, 1:57*pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:49:56 -0400, Oscar wrote:
Why are you fixated on aluminum boats?

===

I would imagine because of towing weight issues with the RAV-4.

Now, if i had a real tow vehicle I could probably get this down a bit
to the same price as the new 16 Xcalibur.
http://halifax.kijiji.ca/c-cars-vehi...ft-powerboats-...

===

That's what I would want if I were boating where you are.

It has one thing fairly important to the 55 & over crowd... a head.
No big deal when it's only me & the wife... a **** bucket will do but
that could be awkward with company aboard.

Mercury outboards
 

On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 08:00:56 -0700 (PDT), North Star
wrote:

On Jun 7, 9:11*am, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 16:10:00 -0700 (PDT), North Star

wrote:
On Jun 6, 1:57*pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:49:56 -0400, Oscar wrote:
Why are you fixated on aluminum boats?

===

I would imagine because of towing weight issues with the RAV-4.

Now, if i had a real tow vehicle I could probably get this down a bit
to the same price as the new 16 Xcalibur.
http://halifax.kijiji.ca/c-cars-vehi...ft-powerboats-...

===

That's what I would want if I were boating where you are.

It has one thing fairly important to the 55 & over crowd... a head.
No big deal when it's only me & the wife... a **** bucket will do but
that could be awkward with company aboard.

===

An enclosed head is convenient but the most important thing is the
extra length and weight, both of which contribute to a better ride.
It is not a lot of fun to go slogging through a heavy chop at slow
speed. It will get you home but it does not make for a memorable day
on the water.

Mercury outboards
 

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:31:15 -0400, Earl wrote:

North Star wrote:
On Jun 6, 1:57 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:49:56 -0400, wrote:
Why are you fixated on aluminum boats?
===

I would imagine because of towing weight issues with the RAV-4.
Now, if i had a real tow vehicle I could probably get this down a bit
to the same price as the new 16 Xcalibur.
http://halifax.kijiji.ca/c-cars-vehi...AdIdZ385112304

You don't want a '99 with a Bravo One - or any I/O for the salt.

Amen.

Mercury outboards
 

On Jun 7, 8:12*am, North Star wrote:
On Jun 7, 3:31*am, wrote:









On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:21:49 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 05/06/2012 6:44 PM, JustWait wrote:

As a kid my favorite fishing boat on an inland lake was a 9.9 hp Johnson
on a 18 foot aluminum boat rated for something like 40hp.

Sure, it was slow, but that was its advantage. *5 gallons of gas lasted
forever, and you could slow and deep troll in a way a 40 hp never could.

The new 4 strokes will go idle speed all day and not use as much gas
as your old 9,9 2 stroke.

I am still averaging a tad over a gallon an hour 110 hours in on my 70
Yamaha. That is mixed running from 1200 RPM to about 4200.

Once you get over 4200 the fuel consumption increases pretty fast but
there is some of that in the average too.

I do think if I was looking at the 40 Merc I would spend the extra
money for a 60. Same motor with an ECM that lets it develop it's full
potential. If you are running slower, it will user the same amount of
gas as the 40, you just have a little extra kick if you want it..

My 70 Yamaha is also the same basic engine with Yamaha electronics and
a Yamaha lower unit. There are some performance tests that say the 70
HP is really more like 64-65.

According to Mercury Site the 40 hp has a displacement of 45.6 while
the 50 and 60 hp (including the big foot models) displace 60.8. *The
bigger motors also weigh quite a bit more than the 40.
BTW. The 40 is mid range for the smaller boat while the 60 is for the
bigger Xcalibur.



Talked to a rep at the factory.
He said in his opinion you'd need a regular 60hp 4stroke to equal the
low end power of the basic 50hp 2 stroke.
He was referring to the power needed to get the boat up on plane,
rather than keeping it up.
Most people buy the 60 big foot for the 16 Xcalibur.
We also talked about the 15 AllSport compared to the 16 Xcalibur. He
pretty well said what I already knew.... The Xcalibur is the Cadillac
of their models.














He said you could probably get away with the 50 if only two people
were on the boat. With 4 people, the 60 is better.

Mercury outboards
 

"John H." wrote in message
...

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:31:15 -0400, Earl wrote:

North Star wrote:
On Jun 6, 1:57 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:49:56 -0400, wrote:
Why are you fixated on aluminum boats?
===

I would imagine because of towing weight issues with the RAV-4.
Now, if i had a real tow vehicle I could probably get this down a bit
to the same price as the new 16 Xcalibur.
http://halifax.kijiji.ca/c-cars-vehi...AdIdZ385112304

You don't want a '99 with a Bravo One - or any I/O for the salt.

Amen.


-----------------------------------
An I/O in salt on a trailer boat is not going to be that bad. A 99 Bravo
maybe never, forget which ones were really bad.

Mercury outboards
 

On Jun 7, 6:43*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 04:12:51 -0700 (PDT), North Star









wrote:
On Jun 7, 3:31*am, wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:21:49 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 05/06/2012 6:44 PM, JustWait wrote:

As a kid my favorite fishing boat on an inland lake was a 9.9 hp Johnson
on a 18 foot aluminum boat rated for something like 40hp.

Sure, it was slow, but that was its advantage. *5 gallons of gas lasted
forever, and you could slow and deep troll in a way a 40 hp never could.

The new 4 strokes will go idle speed all day and not use as much gas
as your old 9,9 2 stroke.

I am still averaging a tad over a gallon an hour 110 hours in on my 70
Yamaha. That is mixed running from 1200 RPM to about 4200.

Once you get over 4200 the fuel consumption increases pretty fast but
there is some of that in the average too.

I do think if I was looking at the 40 Merc I would spend the extra
money for a 60. Same motor with an ECM that lets it develop it's full
potential. If you are running slower, it will user the same amount of
gas as the 40, you just have a little extra kick if you want it..

My 70 Yamaha is also the same basic engine with Yamaha electronics and
a Yamaha lower unit. There are some performance tests that say the 70
HP is really more like 64-65.

According to Mercury Site the 40 hp has a displacement of 45.6 while
the 50 and 60 hp (including the big foot models) displace 60.8. *The
bigger motors also weigh quite a bit more than the 40.
BTW. The 40 is mid range for the smaller boat while the 60 is for the
bigger Xcalibur.

Are you comparing the 40 2 stroke to the 50/60 4 stroke?

No.
The smaller boat would be outfitted with a 40hp 4 stroke
The larger boat with a 60 hp 4 stroke Big Foot
Someone else here said the 40/50/60 motors are the same size.
I checked out the Mercury Site and the 40 hp 4 stroke is smaller... In
displacement and weight.

Mercury outboards
 

On Jun 7, 7:12*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 04:12:51 -0700 (PDT), North Star









wrote:
On Jun 7, 3:31*am, wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:21:49 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 05/06/2012 6:44 PM, JustWait wrote:

As a kid my favorite fishing boat on an inland lake was a 9.9 hp Johnson
on a 18 foot aluminum boat rated for something like 40hp.

Sure, it was slow, but that was its advantage. *5 gallons of gas lasted
forever, and you could slow and deep troll in a way a 40 hp never could.

The new 4 strokes will go idle speed all day and not use as much gas
as your old 9,9 2 stroke.

I am still averaging a tad over a gallon an hour 110 hours in on my 70
Yamaha. That is mixed running from 1200 RPM to about 4200.

Once you get over 4200 the fuel consumption increases pretty fast but
there is some of that in the average too.

I do think if I was looking at the 40 Merc I would spend the extra
money for a 60. Same motor with an ECM that lets it develop it's full
potential. If you are running slower, it will user the same amount of
gas as the 40, you just have a little extra kick if you want it..

My 70 Yamaha is also the same basic engine with Yamaha electronics and
a Yamaha lower unit. There are some performance tests that say the 70
HP is really more like 64-65.

According to Mercury Site the 40 hp has a displacement of 45.6 while
the 50 and 60 hp (including the big foot models) displace 60.8. *The
bigger motors also weigh quite a bit more than the 40.
BTW. The 40 is mid range for the smaller boat while the 60 is for the
bigger Xcalibur.

I see where I got confused the 40 Big Foot is the same 60 ci motor as
the 50/60.
The regular 40 is smaller.
I agree if you can live with 40HP the 40 EFI is the way to go.
I would still stay away from carbs. If nothing else, there will be
lakes that you can't run without the CARB-3 rating.

http://www.mercurymarine.com/engines...kes/40-60/?mod...

OK I didn't even check the 40 big foot. The little boat doesn't list
that as an upgrade.