http://www.marineenginedigest.com/sp...uiservazer.htm

they've been out about a year, but I've never seen one yet.

haven't heard of anyone owning one either...

I don't understand the point, they aren't that much shorter than the 130hp
3.0l that performs much better. They aren't cheap, they do have the closed
cooling system that allows a heater, just like a car. Seems like an answer
to a question nobody asked.
tad

"Tim" wrote in message
...
http://www.marineenginedigest.com/sp...uiservazer.htm

they've been out about a year, but I've never seen one yet.

haven't heard of anyone owning one either...

On Feb 29, 8:58*pm, "ottertailfamily"
wrote:
I don't understand the point, they aren't that much shorter than the 130hp
3.0l that performs much better. *They aren't cheap, they do have the closed
cooling system that allows a heater, just like a car. *Seems like an answer
to a question nobody asked.
tad

"Tim" wrote in message

...



http://www.marineenginedigest.com/sp...uiservazer.htm

they've been out about a year, but I've never seen one yet.

haven't heard of anyone owning one either...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

agreed. And it's rated at 100 hp. OK, for a 4 stroke inboard, that's
really not much. But if the HP rating is the same as an automotive
rating, that's a pretty good performance ratio. 100 HP from a 1600cc
engine. But come to think of it. Yes, the 120145 HP 3.0L is a great
bang for what it is.good torque for small package. Something does eem
a bit wierd about this 1.6, though.

On Mar 1, 8:40*am, Gene Kearns
wrote:
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:58:21 -0600, ottertailfamily penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

I don't understand the point, they aren't that much shorter than the 130hp
3.0l that performs much better....

Ooops... meant to send this, too....http://www.mercurymarine.com/_media/...comparison.pdf

--


I didn't know there was one of those, Gene.

but you say the specs are close? well if rated the same way. 100 hp
compared to 140 hp? that's an obvious 40% difference. Of course the
1.6 is almost half the displacement of the 3.0 too.

i wonder what products these are being installed?

And it's rated at 100 hp. OK, for a 4 stroke inboard, that's
really not much. But if the HP rating is the same as an automotive
rating, that's a pretty good performance ratio. 100 HP from a 1600cc
engine.

I have a pair of 1052cc 4 stroke inboards rated at 160hp each. 100hp from a
1600cc engine doesn't sound too good to me.

--Mike

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Feb 29, 8:58 pm, "ottertailfamily"
wrote:
I don't understand the point, they aren't that much shorter than the 130hp
3.0l that performs much better. They aren't cheap, they do have the closed
cooling system that allows a heater, just like a car. Seems like an answer
to a question nobody asked.
tad

"Tim" wrote in message

...



http://www.marineenginedigest.com/sp...uiservazer.htm

they've been out about a year, but I've never seen one yet.

haven't heard of anyone owning one either...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

agreed. And it's rated at 100 hp. OK, for a 4 stroke inboard, that's
really not much. But if the HP rating is the same as an automotive
rating, that's a pretty good performance ratio. 100 HP from a 1600cc
engine. But come to think of it. Yes, the 120145 HP 3.0L is a great
bang for what it is.good torque for small package. Something does eem
a bit wierd about this 1.6, though.

On Mar 1, 10:51*pm, "Mike" wrote:


I have a pair of 1052cc 4 stroke inboards rated at 160hp each. 100hp from a
1600cc engine doesn't sound too good to me.

--Mike


What do you have, Mike?

I have an '06 Yamaha AR230 HO. Here's a link to the specs:
http://tinyurl.com/2p48xx . '07 and '06 are listed on that page for
comparison.

--Mike

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Mar 1, 10:51 pm, "Mike" wrote:


I have a pair of 1052cc 4 stroke inboards rated at 160hp each. 100hp from
a
1600cc engine doesn't sound too good to me.

--Mike


What do you have, Mike?

On Mar 2, 12:59*am, "Mike" wrote:
I have an '06 Yamaha AR230 HO. Here's a link to the specs:http://tinyurl.com/2p48xx. *'07 and '06 are listed on that page for
comparison.

--Mike

"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Mar 1, 10:51 pm, "Mike" wrote:



I have a pair of 1052cc 4 stroke inboards rated at 160hp each. 100hp from
a
1600cc engine doesn't sound too good to me.

--Mike

What do you have, Mike?

Very nice!

http://images.google.com/images?sour...&sa= N&tab=wi

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Mar 2, 12:59 am, "Mike" wrote:
I have an '06 Yamaha AR230 HO. Here's a link to the
specs:http://tinyurl.com/2p48xx. '07 and '06 are listed on that page for
comparison.

--Mike

"Tim" wrote in message

...
On Mar 1, 10:51 pm, "Mike" wrote:



I have a pair of 1052cc 4 stroke inboards rated at 160hp each. 100hp
from
a
1600cc engine doesn't sound too good to me.

--Mike

What do you have, Mike?

Very nice!

http://images.google.com/images?sour...&sa= N&tab=wi

Thanks. The rear swim deck is what sold me on it. It's a fabulous family
boat.

--Mike

"ottertailfamily" wrote in
news
I don't understand the point, they aren't that much shorter than the
130hp 3.0l that performs much better. They aren't cheap, they do have
the closed cooling system that allows a heater, just like a car.
Seems like an answer to a question nobody asked.
tad

"Tim" wrote in message
.
..
http://www.marineenginedigest.com/sp...uiservazer.htm

they've been out about a year, but I've never seen one yet.

haven't heard of anyone owning one either...



Plastic intake manifold will crack sooner or later, guaranteed.