On 6/5/2012 8:16 PM, North Star wrote:
On Jun 5, 9:07 pm, X ` Mandump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 6/5/12 7:49 PM, North Star wrote:

To power a thousand pound aluminum boat the boat's manufacturer and
the local dealer recommend spending another $4600 to upgrade to a 60
hp big foot 4 stroke over the 50 hp 2 stroke that is listed as the
basic pkg engine. I can understand this if you plan on waterskiing or
tubing but this seems a bit much for cruising. Dealer says the bigger
motor won't have to work so hard, is better in the hole shots and will
make the boat easier to resell in the future.
I'm thinking spending $2700 by upgrading to a 50 hp 4 stroke should be
good enough.
Too bad those Mercury guys aren't still here in this newsgroup.

Why is your dealer suggesting a "big foot" outboard?

He's just spouting the company line.
If you look at the Legend site and check out the 16 Xcalibur, you'll
see that the boat manufacturer recommends the 60 bigfoot.... which I
always thought was for pontoon or displacement type boats.
The local guy also mentioned that the lower end would be heavier
duty... comparable to the lower ends on 75s.

There's a lot more to it than that really... and as much as I would love
to say nothing I will simply say this: Nobody ever hated their boat for
being overpowered, at the same there is nothing more aggravating or
frustrating than a underpowered boat.

On 05/06/2012 6:44 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 6/5/2012 8:16 PM, North Star wrote:
On Jun 5, 9:07 pm, X ` Mandump-on-conservati...@anywhere-you-
can.com wrote:
On 6/5/12 7:49 PM, North Star wrote:

To power a thousand pound aluminum boat the boat's manufacturer and
the local dealer recommend spending another $4600 to upgrade to a 60
hp big foot 4 stroke over the 50 hp 2 stroke that is listed as the
basic pkg engine. I can understand this if you plan on waterskiing or
tubing but this seems a bit much for cruising. Dealer says the bigger
motor won't have to work so hard, is better in the hole shots and will
make the boat easier to resell in the future.
I'm thinking spending $2700 by upgrading to a 50 hp 4 stroke should be
good enough.
Too bad those Mercury guys aren't still here in this newsgroup.

Why is your dealer suggesting a "big foot" outboard?

He's just spouting the company line.
If you look at the Legend site and check out the 16 Xcalibur, you'll
see that the boat manufacturer recommends the 60 bigfoot.... which I
always thought was for pontoon or displacement type boats.
The local guy also mentioned that the lower end would be heavier
duty... comparable to the lower ends on 75s.

There's a lot more to it than that really... and as much as I would love
to say nothing I will simply say this: Nobody ever hated their boat for
being overpowered, at the same there is nothing more aggravating or
frustrating than a underpowered boat.

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.

I used to get a kick out of idiots trolling with 90hp and didn't catch
much as I was reeling in a big walleye.

But admit, it was rare we went more than 5 miles from the cottage, it
was a 38 mile long lake. But great for +-5 miles either way.

About the only assured thing I would do without knowing what the boat is
going to be used for it that it would be 4 stroke for sure. Never did
like putzing with oil in the gas for 2 stroke.

--
Liberal-socialism is a great idea so long as the credit is good and
other people pay for it. When the credit runs out and those that pay
for it leave, they can all share having nothing but debt and discontentment.

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.

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.

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.

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.

North Star wrote:
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.
It's not an upgrade unless you need it. On a boat like that I don't see
the benefit of the bigfoot.