Compare 200hp X-Flow vs. 175hp Looper

[nphilbro]

I've decided not to rebuild my 1978 200hp V6 Evinrude (200849) this year since I'm not going to have enough time with work and family stuff after it threw a ring on the #1 cylinder (plugged carb). Besides, parts were going to run about $750+boring costs.

Last week I was able to purchase a good condition 1995 175hp OceanRunner (J175EXEO). I'll need extend the transom mounting height to fit. I'm aware of +/-10% rating changes in the mid-1980's which is why I expect the 175 to be close to the 200hp, powerwise.

My question:
How do these two motors actually compare in performance?
Specs:
1978 Evinrude 200 HP 200849_______________1995 Johnson 175 HP J175EXEO
385 lbs. _________________________________375 lbs
Displacement: 149.4_______________________Displacement: 158.0
Bore: 3.5" _______________________________Bore: 3.6"
Stroke: 2.59"_____________________________Stroke: 2.58"

Will the fact that it's loop charged or 60* change the "sweet spot"? The displacement on the newer 175 is about 5.5% more.

Will the prop need to spin faster/slower/same at a given speed to achieve best economy.
What is the actual ideal WOT RPM for this motor? I've seen conflicting information - from 5k to 6k.

The old 200hp cross-flow V6 was an excellent performer. It gave plenty of punch - especially in the 2000-3500rpm band - where I do most of my cruising while getting around 3.5-4.5mpg pushing my 2000lb loaded Glasply at 20-25mph. With just my son and I aboard I could spin a 4x21" Renegade prop just over 5k rpms when optimized with 6" CMC Jackplate.

FWIW: I've got a few different props that will fit (3bl 19" AL, 3bl 19" SS, 4bl 21" SS) or sell/trade to get the right fit.
It will be another couple of week before I can get it mounted the Puget Sound winter doesn't have me in a hurry.

 

[boobie]

Re: Compare 200hp X-Flow vs. 175hp Looper

That 175hp was a good motor and you should be happy with it. When you get it all set up, you'll just have to play with the props to get it in the proper operating range.

 

[nphilbro]

Re: Compare 200hp X-Flow vs. 175hp Looper

Thanks, Boobie. In your experience, does the higher displacement in the 175 loop translate to more hp than the 200 cross? Maybe it's apples/oranges.

 

[boobie]

Re: Compare 200hp X-Flow vs. 175hp Looper

It's a matter of where the motor got it's horse power rating. The 200 was power head rated and the 175 at the prop shaft.

 

[nphilbro]

Re: Compare 200hp X-Flow vs. 175hp Looper

It's a matter of where the motor got it's horse power rating. The 200 was power head rated and the 175 at the prop shaft.

...after reading my post and further researching other forums, I should probably clarify my two biggest questions. Since it's a powerhead rated 200 vs Prop 175 with similar displacement, I assume they would both output roughly the same HP at the prop at max RPMs if each had factory spec compression/leak-down.

1. Will being that it's a 60* loop charged give a noticeable change in performance characteristics (ie. the 200hp X-flow purred and sipped gas at 2500-3000rpm cruising, while the looper runs better at xxx range, etc.)?

2. What is the legitimate top RPM range for the 175? I've seen 5k max to 6k max depending on the source.

By the way, Boobie, I'll be heading your way in 4 weeks for work. It will be nice getting away from winter here! (even if only for a week)

 

[emdsapmgr]

Re: Compare 200hp X-Flow vs. 175hp Looper

An interesting question. Your looper model is the basic 175 at 158 cubes. (the 175GL model is the "Faststrike"- which makes more hp.) That basic 175 looper probably makes around 192-194 crank hp-compared to the 200 of the crossflow. Rated to operate between 4500-5500 rpm's. The 200 crossflow (at 148 cubes) is a high port engine whose normal operating range is slightly higher: 4750-5750. If raced on identical hulls they would be pretty close. I'd bet the looper would take the holeshot, but the crossflow would eventually pass it on top end. Both lower units are the same gear ratio (14:26), so props should swap with no problem.

 

[nphilbro]

Re: Compare 200hp X-Flow vs. 175hp Looper

Thanks, EMD.
You pretty much summed up what I was after. I'm going to extrapolate, then, that where I use it 99% of the time.
As long as I can spin that 14 x21 to 4600 with normal load on a verified tack that I should get decent power in the 3500k range - which is nice when a bit of punch will help play off occasional 4-6 ft breakers.

I've only ever run WOT briefly when loaded extra heavy to determine whether to change props. If consistent top end was all that important I wouldn't be running a 4 blade 21 stainless to begin with.

I'm looking forward to a few days off over Christmas to get new the motor hooked up. I have few things to do before the first sea trial: attach the new hydraulic steering, run the VRO and Alarm wiring, replace the impeller (PO started it dry in the driveway after the successful test run), and do a full decarb.

It will be fun giving this motor a run with time to make adjustments in time for Spring opener.

 

[Faztbullet]

Re: Compare 200hp X-Flow vs. 175hp Looper

That looper will run circles around your old crossflow and have better MPG also. Keep the looper below 6000rpm and a bottle of carbon guard every 100gallons and it will last a long time.

 

[ondarvr]

Re: Compare 200hp X-Flow vs. 175hp Looper

I have a 200 cross flow of that vintage, you will find the 175 is a much better performer. The old 200 cross flow HP ratings were on the optimistic side, a 150 looper would probably out run a 200 CF.

 

[nphilbro]

Re: Compare 200hp X-Flow vs. 175hp Looper

That's really good to hear. After messing around with a 140hp V4 X-Flow for a few months I sure liked what that 200 did and was wanting to at least match up with that.

My 11-year-old son and I participate in "Take Combat Veterans Fishing." Even though some of these guys have been blown up (several times for some) and been in tanks, planes, fired huge munition batteries- there's nothing quite like seeing that "perma-grin" on a jaded jarhead as they are unexpectedly pinned to the back of their seats with a nudge of the throttle on a too big to go that fast fishing boat. One young guy was even- I swear, giggling! On great days we get haul in some salmon over the sides, on other days we just cruise around the bays and inlets. Having my 10 year-old son aboard (excellent first mate) also gives them permission to slow down and be big kids if they want and go beach combing on the islands or whale watching when the fishing is slow.

The carbon issue is a neverending one in 2-strokes. More so, I think, when every trip out presents different conditions and loads. I know why my last motor failed and I have no one to blame but myself for that.

 

[emdsapmgr]

Re: Compare 200hp X-Flow vs. 175hp Looper

You are correct: The V6 outboards torque is significantly different than a V4. For instance an older crossflow 140 V4 won't even compete with a 150 V6. Cubes are everything.

 

[nphilbro]

No Title

UPDATE: Thought I'd revisit this post to share some results. I'm getting nearly identical top end between the two motors. The difference in rating seems to be more than offset by the better weight and efficiency of the looper. The looper is way quieter, cleaner and see a full .75 to 1.25 mpg better economy. I don't have that same fun neck snapping lower mid range torque-out but it was incredibly strong riding out a surprise 7-9ft Westport ocean bar in July. Had good power without hesitation up each face and dropped off without stutter at the crest. It was constant throttle control for 45 minutes - so much that I got a blister on my pinky knuckle from rubbing on the gelcoat. I'm very happy with the performance. It's got a few minor issues I need to address with the ignition but far less than you'd expect for a motor of this age.

 

[nphilbro]

No Title

 

[emdsapmgr]

Thanks for resurrecting an old thread with an update. Glad the new engines working out.