Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel consumption on Johnson 85hp outboard
My brother has just bought a Glastron GT150 with a Johnson 85hp V4 (2
stroke) outboard (circa 1975-1978) and whilst he is very pleased with the combination, the fuel consumption seems a little startling. Anyone have any idea what the approximate fuel consumption ought to be on this engine at full throttle? I guess it would be better at more moderate throttle settings, but where's the fun in that!? Are the modern equivalents of this engine much better in terms of fuel consumption? Cheers Guy |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Fuel consumption on Johnson 85hp outboard
My brother has just bought a Glastron GT150 with a Johnson 85hp V4 (2 stroke) outboard (circa 1975-1978) and whilst he is very pleased with the combination, the fuel consumption seems a little startling. Anyone have any idea what the approximate fuel consumption ought to be on this engine at full throttle? The old rule of thumb was that the fuel consumption at wide open throttle would be about 10% of the HP. In other word 8-10 gals. per hour in this case I would guess. I guess it would be better at more moderate throttle settings, but where's the fun in that!? Are the modern equivalents of this engine much better in terms of fuel consumption? Depends on your definition of "much." But yes, they are more fuel efficient. Capt. Bill |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Guy Shepherd wrote:
My brother has just bought a Glastron GT150 with a Johnson 85hp V4 (2 stroke) outboard (circa 1975-1978) and whilst he is very pleased with the combination, the fuel consumption seems a little startling. Anyone have any idea what the approximate fuel consumption ought to be on this engine at full throttle? I guess it would be better at more moderate throttle settings, but where's the fun in that!? Are the modern equivalents of this engine much better in terms of fuel consumption? Cheers Guy 8-9 Gallons per hour is about right at WOT. Figure 6 gph in mixed use cruising/skiing starting/stopping. At partial settings, that engine is quite good on fuel... it is a de-tuned (smaller carbs) and slightly smaller displacement (92.6 vs 99.6 CID... from memory...) version of the 115/135/140 hp V-4's. The 85's also seem to run better/longer at idle speeds w/o loading up the plugs. Rob |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
We used to have a GT150 w/ a Merc 115 and it would run about 42 mph wide
open (if I remember right). My guess is yours runs about 38 mph wide open if that much. Given that - at 9 gallons per hour that would equate to a little over 4 miles to the gallon. I really doubt it will get that at wide open. Probably 2 miles per gallon if your lucky. Now it should get 4 or better at about 3/4 throttle or less. New engines do get better fuel economy. A new 90 (they don't make 85's any more) will also have a lot more power as it is rated at the prop and yours is rated at the powerhead. If you really want some fun (I think that boat is rated for a 135) get a 1990's Evinrude 120 V4. That will wake it up. -- Tony my boats and cars at http://t.thomas.home.mchsi.com "Guy Shepherd" wrote in message om... My brother has just bought a Glastron GT150 with a Johnson 85hp V4 (2 stroke) outboard (circa 1975-1978) and whilst he is very pleased with the combination, the fuel consumption seems a little startling. Anyone have any idea what the approximate fuel consumption ought to be on this engine at full throttle? I guess it would be better at more moderate throttle settings, but where's the fun in that!? Are the modern equivalents of this engine much better in terms of fuel consumption? Cheers Guy |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Guy Shepherd wrote:
My brother has just bought a Glastron GT150 with a Johnson 85hp V4 (2 stroke) outboard (circa 1975-1978) and whilst he is very pleased with the combination, the fuel consumption seems a little startling. Anyone have any idea what the approximate fuel consumption ought to be on this engine at full throttle? I guess it would be better at more moderate throttle settings, but where's the fun in that!? Are the modern equivalents of this engine much better in terms of fuel consumption? Cheers Guy It will suck the fuel if run lengthy periods anything like or even near "wide open throttle" (WOT) but fuel consumption won't be bothering you for too long, because the engine will not last too long either. The idea is to use high of full power to get the boat planing or say pull a skier up etc but then throttle off a bit. Most boats "cruise" at or even under about 3/4 of max revs which is usually under 1/2 power (check it yourself just with how far you need to pull the throttle back to reduce revs to 3/4 from max). At half or less power the fuel consumption per hour is even less than 1/2 that of max throttle. K The Krause lie of the day??? The liar Krause works for Ullico the union Co that tries to take money from honest hard working unionists then direct it to "union" decided projects, so this lie is him admitting how a union organisation was actually funding a political campaign, illegal?? you ask, yeah me too but hey we know how much he hates Bush. Ullico has a history in this also as you'll see in subsequent Krause lies. I'm doing my part to ease unemployment. I'm hiring another writer for my staff. Will be putting the ad on MONSTER.COM and in the Wash Post. I need more staff because 2004 is a major election year and business booked to date indicates we'll be drowning in work. We need to hire a production coordinator, too. It has very little to do with the state of the economy, other than using it as reason to defeat Republicrap candidates. Is this just another Krause lie??? well probably like all the others:-) but imagine if it's actually true???? Knowing that he has no "business" of his own just as he has no boat of his own, but he works for Ullico which is supposed to be a not for profit looking out for genuine unionists????? We have first-class benefits, including a top-of-the-line health insurance plan, a non-contributory defined-benefit pension plan, a 401k, and a life insurance policy equal to annual salary. We contribute a share of profits to the 401k on behalf of the employee. Our employees pay $4.50 for generic prescriptions and $8.00 for non-generics, but that's going up next year to $10 and $15. New employees get two weeks vacation the first year, and that goes to three weeks the third year. In addition, we have 12 paid holidays and we shut down from noon on Christmas eve to the day after New Year's Day. We also provide 20 days of paid sick leave a year. And we have an outside company administering pre-tax flexible bennies for our employees. Our fringe benefit package follows the trade union model, except, of course, for the profit contributions to 401k's. Trade unions are not-for-profit enterprises. How do these compare to the bennies at your shop? Clearly if there is any truth to this then it's the pay & conditions Krause gets from his employer Ullico & probably socialists being socialists they pay all the employees the same!!! So here we have hard working unionists being levied by their unions, who give the money to the likes of Ullico who then pay their uneducated lying staff such as Krause as per his own claims in his own words above, this is sad in the extreme. If you are in a union better start asking questions big time it's your retirement they're ****ing against the wall, by paying themselves; Even some in the NG found this lie over the top & said so; Paid? Every year? I call "bull****". With 3 weeks vacation, 12 paid holidays, and 20 paid sick days that's 47 *paid* days off every year. Are they hourly employees? For a "small business", that's the road to bankruptcy. Boy...and you had me going there for a minute. Even after that!!! not our lying Krause he just continues with the previous line that his employer is putting big bucks into a political campaign, how so??? they're a not for profit with tax concessions to boot!!! it's illegal!!! send in the Feds!!! simple as that & remember all you unionists it's "your" money they're spending without your knowledge much less permission on "their" political campaign!!! So lying Krause continues & adds even more insight into what happens to "your" money when it goes to the unions:-); Not quite so simple, though you are trying hard to make it so. Our business is up because we're on the cusp of an election year. Our business always goes up in a major election year. You could say we're going to be doing very well in 2004 because Bush is such a total failure. The 20 paid sick days aren't part of the "paid" days off unless those days are used. None of our people abuses sick leave. In fact, no one as yet has even come close to using 20 sick days in one year. They're there in case they're needed. Oh, I forgot. We also provide everyone with LTD. The company provides an insurance plan that pays 50% of an employe's salary for Long Term Disability. Employes have the option of purchasing an additional 16.66%, bringing their total to 66.66%. The basic benefit maximum is $4,000 per month. With the buy up, the limit is increased to $10,000 per month. In this case I suggest Krause just admits it's another of his lies before any of his little socialist mates get nailed???? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
tony thomas wrote:
We used to have a GT150 w/ a Merc 115 and it would run about 42 mph wide open (if I remember right). My guess is yours runs about 38 mph wide open if that much. Given that - at 9 gallons per hour that would equate to a little over 4 miles to the gallon. I really doubt it will get that at wide open. Probably 2 miles per gallon if your lucky. Now it should get 4 or better at about 3/4 throttle or less. New engines do get better fuel economy. A new 90 (they don't make 85's any more) will also have a lot more power as it is rated at the prop and yours is rated at the powerhead. If you really want some fun (I think that boat is rated for a 135) get a 1990's Evinrude 120 V4. That will wake it up. I think the GT150 is only rated for 85 or 90 hp. Checking classicglastron.... Yup 90 hp on the GT150, 120 hp on the GT160. Rob |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I guess ours was a 160. That was back in 1976 so memory is a little off.
I still don't think your going to get over 2 miles to the gallon running wide open and it may even be closer to 1. -- Tony my boats and cars at http://t.thomas.home.mchsi.com "trainfan1" wrote in message ... tony thomas wrote: We used to have a GT150 w/ a Merc 115 and it would run about 42 mph wide open (if I remember right). My guess is yours runs about 38 mph wide open if that much. Given that - at 9 gallons per hour that would equate to a little over 4 miles to the gallon. I really doubt it will get that at wide open. Probably 2 miles per gallon if your lucky. Now it should get 4 or better at about 3/4 throttle or less. New engines do get better fuel economy. A new 90 (they don't make 85's any more) will also have a lot more power as it is rated at the prop and yours is rated at the powerhead. If you really want some fun (I think that boat is rated for a 135) get a 1990's Evinrude 120 V4. That will wake it up. I think the GT150 is only rated for 85 or 90 hp. Checking classicglastron.... Yup 90 hp on the GT150, 120 hp on the GT160. Rob |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Put a 1985 - '88 Merc 115 on it anyway and the whole lake will know who you
are. -W (they made a 90 with the same exact weight) "trainfan1" wrote in message ... tony thomas wrote: We used to have a GT150 w/ a Merc 115 and it would run about 42 mph wide open (if I remember right). My guess is yours runs about 38 mph wide open if that much. Given that - at 9 gallons per hour that would equate to a little over 4 miles to the gallon. I really doubt it will get that at wide open. Probably 2 miles per gallon if your lucky. Now it should get 4 or better at about 3/4 throttle or less. New engines do get better fuel economy. A new 90 (they don't make 85's any more) will also have a lot more power as it is rated at the prop and yours is rated at the powerhead. If you really want some fun (I think that boat is rated for a 135) get a 1990's Evinrude 120 V4. That will wake it up. I think the GT150 is only rated for 85 or 90 hp. Checking classicglastron.... Yup 90 hp on the GT150, 120 hp on the GT160. Rob |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I used to have a '60ies Merc 1250 ... When I fired this thing up it was
like pouring gas in the water The old 2 strokes devour gas.... to fix that get a modern 4 stroke. Also stay below 3600 rpm Matt |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Matt,
You gotta keep the old 2 strokes under 4000 to save gas too. But ya they do drink it. The 1250 was an interesting critter. It ws the 1st of the 99ci design that would have a 20 year run on the market. But conversely, it was the last of the old plain vanilla crossflow piston dome. It's sucassors with the updated intake got a bit better mileage because the burn efficiancy went up. But they still drank (drink) gas for breakfast, particularly when you hammer them. I swear at WOT I can see the gas needle go down. Really wanna waste gas, underpower your boat. I had an 800 on a family runabout for 2 weeks while I was building my 115. We had to keep it near WOT all the time to get anything done. Now THAT sucker drank some gas, much more than it's big cousin did on the same boat. -W wrote in message oups.com... I used to have a '60ies Merc 1250 ... When I fired this thing up it was like pouring gas in the water The old 2 strokes devour gas.... to fix that get a modern 4 stroke. Also stay below 3600 rpm Matt |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Let there be heat! | General | |||
Fuel consumption -- Is it simply too much for a normal folf with a normal income? | General | |||
johnson o/b fuel consumption | General | |||
Diesel Fuel Decontamination Units Give Stored Fuel Longer Life. | General | |||
fuel delivery problem on outboard? help | General |