Mercury less expensive than a Honda??

[curtis240z]

I?m going to be purchasing a new 2008 LUND 1775 classic in the next few weeks and wanted to ask what you would recommend.

As I?m shopping around I?m finding that if I go with a new 4 stroke mercury they will give it to me for thousands of dollars cheaper than of I go with a Honda??

Is this something I should jump on or shall I spend the $$ extra and get a Honda???

Is a Honda generally more expensive?

Pretty new to boat engines and have been out of the loop for some time. All your help would be much appreciated

Thx In advance!!

 

[JB]

Re: Mercury less expensive than a Honda??

Hondas are usually higher priced than other makes.

They are very good engines, but if they are really worth more is a matter that may be debated forever without resolution.

My personal opinion varies with the exact model, which you don't mention.

 

[curtis240z]

Re: Mercury less expensive than a Honda??

That?s a great question in regards to the model.

I will call them tomorrow and find out.

Any less do you think I would be better off to pay the few extra thousand to get the Honda?

One I purchase this I?m going to be married to in for allot of year?s.

Thx for your opinion!

 

[ziemann]

Re: Mercury less expensive than a Honda??

Keep in mind that both Lund and Merc are part of the Brunswick family. So, obviously, if you own the boat company, you can control costs to be able to put your (Mercury) motor on the boat for significantly less money than buying a Honda from outside of the family. The Lunds pre-rigged with Mercury OB's are priced so much lower than anything else- it really does become tough to justify buying anything else given the cost...

You will run into the same scenario with other Brunswick brands such as Crestliner, Lowe, and several other boat makes that Brunswick owns. The market changed alot when Brunswick bought those brands from Genmar.

 

[gss036]

Re: Mercury less expensive than a Honda??

The only way you are going to come close w/Merc on price compared w/Honda is to find what Honda calls a non-current model, then the price drops substancially. They still come w/a new 5year warranty. I did that w/my purchase of a 225 hp Honda and was about the same price on a new 225 Opti-Max. The dealer would have to want to help out with this effort though.

 

[Lundman]

Re: Mercury less expensive than a Honda??

I would pay the extra money and go with the Honda if I were buying it. I just
wish they(Brunswick)would start getting Yamahas back on Lunds and some of
their other makes such as Lowe and Crestliner. In the case of the A-14 utility
boat I want to get so darn bad,I am choosing Yamaha for power over Honda.
Why? price and also the dealer I am planning to buy it from is a "loose motor"
dealer for Yamaha and said he would put whatever motor brand I wanted on that type of boat since the Lund A-14 does not come with factory pre-rigging.

It is just a simple "no non-sense" row boat so who the heck cares what brand of motor is on a row boat. I have turned to Yamaha myself based
on reviews I have read,and all are very much favorable. As for Honda,they
are still a good choice over Mercury any day of the week. Besides,Yamaha
and Honda have much better reliability ratings than Mercury if you are choosing a four stroke motor. Pay a little more for that extra peace of mind
with the Honda!

 

[vtec]

Re: Mercury less expensive than a Honda??

I had/have same attitude you got about keeping boat long term. I wanted good reliable motor and had lots of experience with Honda products which are always well thought out in my oppinion. I got lucky and found a Lund 1700 with a 135 Honda. Very smooth, quiet, fuel efficient. I have no regrets and am sure you won't either and will quickly forget what little extra it might cost 20+ years from now.

 

[DRIFTER_016]

Re: Mercury less expensive than a Honda??

I have been guiding for a northern lodge for the past 15 years and we have run 3 different 4 strokes in that time. We have had Honda, Yamaha and Mercury (all 30 HP). Of the three brands the one with the best performance/reliability was the Yamaha. Next came the Mercury and then the Honda. The problems we had with Hondas was the gear sets in the lower units, they were not as strong as the other brands and we were replacing them often. The main issues with the Mercury motors was with the lift assist cylinders (leakage). There have been no major issues with the Yamaha's.
If I were to buy a new motor (I have plans to) it would be a Yamaha.

That's my .02

 

[kennyboater]

Re: Mercury less expensive than a Honda??

i may not be as experianced as some of these guys, but i would save the money and go with the merc. i just revived an 85 merc that had been sitting outside with no care and not run in over 3 years. spent less than 100 dollars on it and now it runs like new! i find that kind of hard to argue with regarding reliability...

i have had honda dirtbikes and four wheelers with no probs, but my experiance says go with the merc

just my .02

 

[Navy Jr.]

Re: Mercury less expensive than a Honda??

We had the same dilemma when ordering our '08 Lund 1750 Fisherman. Went with the Merc 115hp 4-stroke. It's quiet, fuel efficient, has ultra-low emissions and all the power we need. At the time of purchase, Merc had a promotion that extended the factory warranty from 3 to 5 years.

On another note, and this isn't intended to start a quarrel with anyone, but the gentleman above who had unkind words about Mercury is the same who has been bashing Mercury in a number of other threads on this board, all without specific technical reasons for his disdain of the company.

When it is all said and done, this member believes a lot of what is considered a "satisfactory engine" has to do largely with how we each run and care for our motors. Those of us who follow the manufacturer's guidelines for use and maintenance are usually more satisfied than those of us who don't. This belief carries over to all of the engine manufacturers.

 

[DRIFTER_016]

Re: Mercury less expensive than a Honda??

I should also mention that our lodges motors get about 300 hours of use a season and that the Mercs are now 7 years old and still running very well. The Hondas have been taken out of service (due to LU gear issues) and the Yamahas are 3 or 4 years old and running great.

 

[getinmerry]

Re: Mercury less expensive than a Honda??

One of the main things I'd be looking at when it comes to a boat motor is availability of parts later on (and the price of those parts as they become obsolete). I have a 1954 Evinrude. All parts are still readily available and inexpensive.

In the lawn equipment world, Honda is notorius for discontinuing parts in a very short period of time (10 years or less).

Mercury has a long history of providing parts for for motors 30 years old and older. Also, there are way more Mercury dealers than Honda and Yamaha combined.

I'd rather have a motor that needs occasional repair over 30 years, than one that doesn't need repair for 10 years then finally, when it does I cannot get the parts I need and the motor becomes an anchor.

But that's just me. I plan for the long haul and suck every drop of life out of all my equipment.

Chuck