85hp Merc?

Chris1956

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
28,469
Merc 650's were three-cylinder, two carb motors. The 50HP, 80HP and 85HP motors of that era were 4-cylinder, 2 carb models, if anyone cares.
 

cesandroid

Petty Officer 2nd Class
Joined
Aug 19, 2018
Messages
100
Alot of good feedback on these motors..Thanks guys! So the motor is sold. Just like that.. hopefully the new owner got a good deal or maybe they have parts for it.
 

Nordin

Commander
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,678
Late 60es (68-69) and early 70es (70-71) 650 were 4 cylinders.
The 3 cylinder 650 was from 72-76.
 
Last edited:

racerone

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
39,039
The 3 cylinder was still produced after 76 as a 70 hp ( powerhead rated ) and later as a 50 or 60 prop rated.
 

redneck joe

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
13,142
The 3 cylinder was still produced after 76 as a 70 hp ( powerhead rated ) and later as a 50 or 60 prop rated.
Not to derail thread but this is close enough I think. On the ratings, I have an 82, 50 hp 4 cyl but also snagged an 87, 70 hp 3 cyl. So would there be any real increase in performance if I got the 70 running and swapped it?
 

Chris1956

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
28,469
The 70HP is a 40% increase in power, on paper. Those 50HP/4cyl were real good motors, such that Merc made it longer that one would expect, as they were really popular, and ran well. If the motor is 70HP/4 cylinders it may be real good as well. I have NOT heard (no direct experience) good things about the 3 cylinder, 2 carb 650 carb inline motors. from the mid 70's. Just what I have heard.
 

jimmbo

Supreme Mariner
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
14,026
Not to derail thread but this is close enough I think. On the ratings, I have an 82, 50 hp 4 cyl but also snagged an 87, 70 hp 3 cyl. So would there be any real increase in performance if I got the 70 running and swapped it?
About 5-6 mph higher top speed
 

jimmbo

Supreme Mariner
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
14,026
Rule of Thumb for years has been 1 mph for every 5hp Increase. I also factored that your 50hp was Crank Rated, and the 70hp was likely Prop Rated. so I added a bit to the estimate. If both engines were rated the same way, the increase would be about 4 mph.

The 70 is a Larger Displacement, so it should have more Torque, and the Hole Shot will be a bit better. But a lot will still depend on how it is propped
 

redneck joe

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
13,142
Math works. At max rated hp that would put it an low to mid 40mph at wot.

Thanks, I can now calculate the cost of the beatings I would recieve in spending money on a bigger engine....
 

airshot

Vice Admiral
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
5,979
Grew up during late 50-60's era outboard motors, not sure I would go back that far for another motor, but I have been very impressed with my 1992 Merc 40 classic. Care and maintenance is everything and I found a good one. One of the smoothest running motors I have ever owned and can't believe how little fuel it really uses. I don't often run wot due to waves conditions on the big lake, so my typical speed is in that 3500- 4500 rpm range. Fuel economy has been impressive to me. Lots of improvements made in 80's and 90's from those early 60's models as far as quiet and performance.
 

Texasmark

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
14,847
Not to derail thread but this is close enough I think. On the ratings, I have an 82, 50 hp 4 cyl but also snagged an 87, 70 hp 3 cyl. So would there be any real increase in performance if I got the 70 running and swapped it?
The 3 cylinder is probably Loop Charged allowing for increased fuel economy. I will say this about my experiences with Cross Flow fueling methods vs Loop Charging methods......the CFs I owned were bullet proof and easy to start after sitting up between outings. My loopers not so.....a lot more picky....course they are made to run on less fuel so they are built that way.......and since fuel is what goes BANG in the combustion chamber, the. more fuel, the easier the bang.
I bought a new Johnson 125 CF back in 1972. Had it for about 8 years with the kids growing up. Went to the lake every week, sometimes twice. Water skiing was its main usage. Changed absolutely nothing on that engine.....nothing, impeller, surface gap spark plugs.....nothing....just put regular gas and OB oil in the tank and away we went....oh and gas was 35 cents a gallon.....I remember that.

On not knowing about worrying about impeller problems if you didn't religiously change it frequently, I used to slalom behind that boat and the engine had dual, round, exhaust relief ports in the top of the mid section and both would be full flowing water at around 30-35 MPH where I liked to ski.....didn't go faster because falls hurt too bad.......
 
Last edited:

racerone

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
39,039
The 3 cylinder 650 and 700 ( 72 to 1980's ) were crossflow ( direct charge ) as Mercury called it.----No reason for a crossflow or loop charge to be hard to start!
 
Top