4.3 vs 3.0 opinions please

[Quid]

I'm really on the fence here and was hoping for some opinions to push one way or the other.
I'm coming out of an '89 Four Winns Horizon 180 w/ OMC 4.3 and probably going into a 99 Four Winns 17.5 w/ a Volvo 3.0.
Now, I know there is a good difference in the HP rating of the two, but supposedly there is also a good difference in the weight and hull design as well as the engine powers being rated differently (prop vs crank), which Im not sure I buy.. Question is, how much of a real difference in out of the hole and acceleration is there between the two? Will I really be dissapointed in the newer 3.0 after the other? As far as fuel mileage is there really a noticable difference between the two?

 

[tashasdaddy]

Re: 4.3 vs 3.0 opinions please

3.0 is a slug. find one with a 4.3, especially if you do any water sports. 4.3 minimum imho.

 

[Bondo]

Re: 4.3 vs 3.0 opinions please

Will I really be dissapointed in the newer 3.0 after the other

Ayuh,.....Plain,+ Simply,... Yes......

 

[nlain]

Re: 4.3 vs 3.0 opinions please

What is the parts availability for the OMC drive? I do agree with Tashasdaddy, 4.3 all the way.

 

[tashasdaddy]

Re: 4.3 vs 3.0 opinions please

nlain, his old boat is the OMC, not the new one.

 

[Boatin Bob]

Re: 4.3 vs 3.0 opinions please

I think it really depends on how you use the boat but I agree with everyone else, you'll be disappointed in the lack of performance comparing the 2. Can't you take it for a test ride?

 

[Quid]

Re: 4.3 vs 3.0 opinions please

So all this about the newer (non-wooden) hulls being lighter and the motors being rated at the prop instead of shaft just isnt true? I have had several salesman telling me the same thing as far as the "old" 170 being about the same as the newer 135. Now I know apples for apples as far as 2 new identical boats, one with 4.3 and one with 3.0 would be night and day.
Right now would be sorta tough to get a test drive on a wakeboard..

 

[2kwik4u]

Re: 4.3 vs 3.0 opinions please

So all this about the newer (non-wooden) hulls being lighter and the motors being rated at the prop instead of shaft just isnt true? I have had several salesman telling me the same thing as far as the "old" 170 being about the same as the newer 135. Now I know apples for apples as far as 2 new identical boats, one with 4.3 and one with 3.0 would be night and day.
Right now would be sorta tough to get a test drive on a wakeboard..

Cracks me up how many people hate the 3.0L. Even more so when you compare the number of people who hate them to the number of people that own them........I really enjoy mine. I actually prefer to ski/wakeskate behind mine instead of my buddies 22' cuddy with the 5.7L. His takes a month of Sundays to get me out of the water, Mine pops me right up. Maybe he's prop'd wrong, maybe I have the most powerful 3.0L ever.....Who knows.....The moral of the story is this; You should test drive both before making a decision if you are really on the fence. If you're just looking for ammo to convince the wife (or yourself), go ahead and get a 4.3......Your ego, and attached sense of manliness, will thank you later.

In your particular situation, I'd run from the OMC before I ran from the 3.0L......Chances are the newer boat is nicer all around, and will be easier to get serviced/repaired in the future as OMC parts are sketchy to find from what I've heard. I bought a '98 Rinker with the 3.0L instead of the '90 Bayliner with the 4.3 we looked (it was ~$2k cheaper too!)

 

[yam350yfm]

Re: 4.3 vs 3.0 opinions please

If I only knew as much about 2 strokes as I do about I/O's.....

I have had 18 foot boats with 3.0 merccruiser and 4.3 mercruiser. Both were great and no surprise, the 4.3 out performed the 3.0. Propped for top end the difference as the 3.0 on an 18' Mariah hit 40mph and the same boat with 4.3 hit 48mph top speed. This is under similar conditions for weather, load, same lake and similar hull. The 3.0 is a 1990 and the 4.3 is a 1991, both Mariah 18' models, both ran 19 pitch props.

Propped to ski (15 pitch prop) there are differences. The 4.3 can pull 2 skiers out of the water, the 3.0 can only pull one. The 4.3 can pull a skier out of the water on one ski, with the 3.0 the skier needs to drop a ski. Both work well pulling up to a 3 person tube.

Fuel wise if you ski or tube both can use a tank of gas in a day. If you are just cruising the lake the 3.0 uses about 10% less fuel.

The 3.0 has a 2:1 lower unit gear ratio and the 4:3 has a 1:81 ratio. I believe that Volvo SX drives have similar ratios.

 

[2kwik4u]

Re: 4.3 vs 3.0 opinions please

If I only knew as much about 2 strokes as I do about I/O's.....

I have had 18 foot boats with 3.0 merccruiser and 4.3 mercruiser. Both were great and no surprise, the 4.3 out performed the 3.0. Propped for top end the difference as the 3.0 on an 18' Mariah hit 40mph and the same boat with 4.3 hit 48mph top speed. This is under similar conditions for weather, load, same lake and similar hull. The 3.0 is a 1990 and the 4.3 is a 1991, both Mariah 18' models, both ran 19 pitch props.

Propped to ski (15 pitch prop) there are differences. The 4.3 can pull 2 skiers out of the water, the 3.0 can only pull one. The 4.3 can pull a skier out of the water on one ski, with the 3.0 the skier needs to drop a ski. Both work well pulling up to a 3 person tube.

Fuel wise if you ski or tube both can use a tank of gas in a day. If you are just cruising the lake the 3.0 uses about 10% less fuel.

The 3.0 has a 2:1 lower unit gear ratio and the 4:3 has a 1:81 ratio. I believe that Volvo SX drives have similar ratios.

Thats some good side-by-side data straight from the horses mouth!

 

[nlain]

Re: 4.3 vs 3.0 opinions please

nlain, his old boat is the OMC, not the new one.

OK apparently I can't read. I missed that.

 

[tommays]

Re: 4.3 vs 3.0 opinions please

Well

As a 3.0 owner on a 19' boat on Long Island it is to rough 80% of the days to go much over 12 to 15 MPH at some point in the day and on the days it is nice the boat will run at 28 MPH for 90 miles

While the boat will go 40 MPH speed is not why i go out , i just want to be out there enjoying




Every 17' V-powered boat i have seen is just a compleat PITA to service because so much stuff is cramed back there

 

[D445547]

Re: 4.3 vs 3.0 opinions please

My friend has the 3.0 and says he likes it. I have a 4.3 with noticably more power.

 

[QC]

Re: 4.3 vs 3.0 opinions please

So all this about the newer (non-wooden) hulls being lighter and the motors being rated at the prop instead of shaft just isnt true?

Weight makes a huge difference in ALL boats Quid. However, your '89 is a glass boat and so is the '99, so I don't understand the "wooden" discussion here.

Also, the NMMA that kinda governs this stuff started the propshaft ratings in 1990, so that indeed comes into play here. Figure about 20 bhp between the two, so a 170 Crank-rated is approximately 150 at the propshaft. This is always significant . . . However!!!! It all doesn't mean anything depending on what you plan to do. A 135 3.0 in a 16 foot boat for putting around may be perfect, and could be a lot of fun. While a 22 footer with a 4.3 might be a piece of junk. This is why I suggest, with all due respect, that 2kwik4u's comments are a little suspect.

This is not about engines, it is not about horsepower, it is not about boats . . . It is however, about all 3 combined, separating them is useless. So, with all other things being equal, boat model, weight etc., the higher bhp (and usually displacement, but not always) package will outperform the other. Period!! This is not about loving 4 bangers or hating V6s, or any of that malarkey. It is about comparing horsepower available to horsepower required. Bigger and heavier needs more to perform similarly, and more bhp is always more fun and more flexible. Non-discussion, this is a math deal.

Also, forget about fuel. Figure maybe a difference of $5 a day, when you put all of the other factors and costs involved into the discussion, this is another non-issue. I'd gladly spend $20 more a day for fuel if I could get more power for it. My trips probably cost us $300/day, when all else is figured in . . .

BTW, welcome to iboats

 

[2kwik4u]

Re: 4.3 vs 3.0 opinions please

A 135 3.0 in a 16 foot boat for putting around may be perfect, and could be a lot of fun. While a 22 footer with a 4.3 might be a piece of junk. This is why I suggest, with all due respect, that 2kwik4u's comments are a little suspect.

Just to clarify the situation I described above (no offense taken BTW).

My boat is an 18'6" 1998 Rinker 182 with the 3.0L/Alpha Gen2 setup. Buddies boat is a 22'6" Celebrity Cuddy (Not sure on the model number or year, although I think it's a 1996yr 225mdl). Originally powered by a 4.3L/Alpha Gen1 setup, now powered by a 5.7L/Alpha Gen2 setup.

When lined up and racing with similar loads, my boat jumps to plane, and puts 2-3 lengths on him to ~35mph, at which point he comes around me like I'm sitting still. We've verified his to run 58mph on GPS, Mine runs 42mph on the same GPS unit. Measurements taken on the same day, and same body of water. As both boats are setup, I enjoy skiing/tubing/skating behind my boat much more than his. Purely due to the time to plane.

The moral of my story is still the same though, please get a test drive first, and decide which you like better. To blindly say the 3.0L is a waste and you won't be happy is a completely ignorant statement made by those who have never used one. There are alot of us happy with it, and there are alot of us that have had one and weren't. Get GOOD RELIABLE info before making your choice!

.......and more bhp is always more fun and more flexible. Non-discussion, this is a math deal.

That is subjective, not math related. I think I have a damn fine amount of fun on my so-called-underpowered boat, and I'm not sure that the fun level would be elevated even a single "click" if I was able to go 6-10mph faster, or come out of the hole any faster. I'm also unsure that the boat could be any more flexible with more bhp. More floor space (thus dictating more bhp), or possible a different seating arrangement, or maybe a longer swim platform (adding weight and thus more bhp) might be. But BHP alone does not equal fun.

 

[QC]

Re: 4.3 vs 3.0 opinions please

That is subjective, not math related.

I never said your boat was underpowered. I had a 140 in a 17 footer and loved it. Also, got two skiers up, but the point was it IS a math thing. Your buddy's 22 footer is a bigger boat, so to compare the two powerplants in dissimilar boats just muddies the water, same thing with different pitch, make and style of propellers. Again, not being critical. There are many things about boats that are subjective; horsepower is not one of them . . . it is a math thing

All things being equal (they never are) most people will like the V6 a lot better, simply because it makes more power.

 

[2kwik4u]

Re: 4.3 vs 3.0 opinions please

I never said your boat was underpowered. I had a 140 in a 17 footer and loved it. Also, got two skiers up, but the point was it IS a math thing. Your buddy's 22 footer is a bigger boat, so to compare the two powerplants in dissimilar boats just muddies the water, same thing with different pitch, make and style of propellers. Again, not being critical. There are many things about boats that are subjective; horsepower is not one of them . . . it is a math thing

Horsepower and it's associated performance is math, Fun and Flexibility (as stated) is not math.

I think we are on the same page, but not the same sentence!

All things being equal (they never are) most people will like the V6 a lot better, simply because it makes more power.

I tend to agree, and had a comparable boat for comparable price with the V6 been available when I purchased mine I probably would've taken the one with the 6 as well. However I'm certainly not disappointed in the performance of my little 4-banger as the general consensus here would have one believe.

 

[QC]

Re: 4.3 vs 3.0 opinions please

Totally agree that fun is subjective

 

[fishmen111]

Re: 4.3 vs 3.0 opinions please

Wow...the heated 4-banger debate. Had a 135 in a 17.5 '99 Wellcraft BR...loved it, but got one heck of a deal on it. When new the 4.3 upgrade from the 3.0 dollar-wise is outrageous. The 3.0 can easily be propped down at the expese of top-end of course. Used, I would try for a 4.3 if i could. It will be your boat, test it. If it performs to your liking...buy it (after a complete checkout, of course).

 

[oops!]

Re: 4.3 vs 3.0 opinions please

qc....i think # 14's a great post.......


any hoo......19.5 sea ray....older boat....3.0l...(4 banger)....19p..alpha 1...

beginner skiers over 185lbs could not come outta the water on 2 skis....

out came the 4 banger...in went the 4.3...carbed....good pkg for the size and weight of the craft...42 ish mph...skiers outta the water....fuel difference per day.....negligable.....

my opinion is to forget the sales pitch about new hull designs and hp measured at the porp not the shaft and if you hold your tounge in the right spot when adjusting the trim youll go faster with a 4 banger.....get the 4.3 and be done with it....

if you do ...you wont be trading up in 2 years or repowering.

cheers
oops