comparing Outboard to inboard boats

[892crew]

hey everyone i am new to the forums and i do not know to much about boats so i searched around the net and i thought i could get some good answers here.

The question i have here is how are inboards and outboards when you are comparing them directly. i know an inboard is supposed to have less power so a higher horsepower inboard would equal a lower HP outboard or how does that work. does anyone have an estimate of the ratio.

if you want to get direct i have two boats i am looking at a 1997 bayliner capri with an inboard 3.0L and 135 horsepower. The other one is a 1998 bayliner capri with an outboard with 120hp. they are both in great condition and the only thing really different is that the outboard has the ski pole which i heard is great for wakeboarding and just for ropes for tubing and stuff. they are both 17 feet.

so basically what i am getting at is which one of the boats would have more power when comparing them directly. i will need it for pulling 3 man tubes and wakeboarding and stuff like that and a buddy has a 1999 capri with the 120 inboard and it is great so i am just wondering as to how the 1997 with the inboard and 135 hp will compare. please let me know. thanks a bunch!

 

[ovrrdrive]

Re: comparing Outboard to inboard boats

My old boat was a Searay BR176 (17.5' Mercruiser I/O 3.0L 135 hp) and I always thought it did ok but was a little underpowered. It would get out of the water well enough for all but getting up on a slalom ski, plane nicely and top out at about 44 WOT with just me in the boat.

My new boat is a Sea-Pro SV1900CC (19.5' Mercury 150 Optimax outboard) and it is about 500 lbs heavier than the Searay and a full 2 feet longer. Let's just say I am completely shocked at how much faster out of the hole this boat is, and how quickly it accelerates than the old one. Topped out it is still right around 44 or so, but it just seems to pin you in the seat when you open it up.

In the two you are looking at I would think the performance difference would be marginal but in my opinion I would still give the edge to the outboard if for nothing else the lower weight it will carry.

 

[tashasdaddy]

Re: comparing Outboard to inboard boats

1st question what brand is the 120? if you are going to do water sports, 4.3 v6, is my minimum recommendation, for an I/O.

 

[Silvertip]

Re: comparing Outboard to inboard boats

Of the two boats you are looking at the I/O has a significant weight disadvantage. I/O's are heavy so they are akin to having two extra people on board. I've owned many boats over the years including I/Os and outboards. I owned my last I/O for the simple reason they are harder to work on whether its you or a shop -- therefore labor costs are higher. With an outboard, if you like the boat but hate the motor you can easily swap them. If you love the motor but hate the boat you can separate the two and replace the boat. With an I/O, you are pretty much stuck with what you have. Because of the weight difference, if this is a trailered boat, you will spend more for fuel towing those extra pounds.

 

[Chip73]

Re: comparing Outboard to inboard boats

1st question what brand is the 120? if you are going to do water sports, 4.3 v6, is my minimum recommendation, for an I/O.

Say's who? I have a Bayliner 175 with the Merc 3.0 / 135 and it is awesome for watersports. I pull tubes, skier's and kneeboards no problems, jumps on plane with zero issues. My boat is almost the exact same as what he is looking at.

 

[tommays]

Re: comparing Outboard to inboard boats

Well they all work and they ALL have there own warts

I travel a lot in my boating and for example on Lake George in NY inboards OR I/O are buy far the most common

IF you travel to a different part of the country you may well find outboards to be the most common

 

[Steve Mahler]

Re: comparing Outboard to inboard boats

The comparison the poster outlines probably includes a Force 120 vs the mercruiser 3.0 . I would go with the 3.0 everyday with that choice - the Force is a fair motor at best; but will be noisy, smokey, and less reliable than the venerable 3.0

I think that I/Os are more durable in general (except for saltwater use) quieter and provide better seating choices in a runabout. The only thing I favor outboards for is salt water, fishing boats (longer season and cleaner transom) or small boats where an IO isnt practical.

If you price the difference between a 4.3 merc IO and a similar 175+ 4 stroke outboard I think the IO wins, and the weight wont be that different. Plus it just looks better

 

[oops!]

Re: comparing Outboard to inboard boats

Well they all work and they ALL have there own warts

thems real good words,

im an i/o guy.......4.3 is far better than a 3.0.....but a 17 is a light boat.

iffin i member correctly.....wasn't there issues with a force?

 

[892crew]

Re: comparing Outboard to inboard boats

hello. ya the boats i am comparing is the 3.0L mercruiser 130 hp inboard vs. the 120 hp force outboard. if there is no or just barely a difference in power that is what i like to hear because we are leaning towards the inboard but i was worried about not having enough power for wakeboarding or pulling a 3 man tube or something. but by the sounds of it it will?

 

[892crew]

Re: comparing Outboard to inboard boats

Say's who? I have a Bayliner 175 with the Merc 3.0 / 135 and it is awesome for watersports. I pull tubes, skier's and kneeboards no problems, jumps on plane with zero issues. My boat is almost the exact same as what he is looking at.

hello! ya the one i was looking at is a bayliner capri 1750 3.0L LX 130 hp inboard. is that the same boat that you have? if so would you be able to tell me some stuff about it especially regarding power and pulling wakeboarders or 3 man tubes. thank you very much!

 

[QC]

Re: comparing Outboard to inboard boats

There is no question that a 4.3 is a superior water sports powerplant than a 3.0. I had a 3.0 that I loved, but horsepower is horsepower. The 4.3 I/O combo weighs double that of all 4 stroke OBs of comparable power. TD and Silvertip are correct here except it's more like three or four people cause we are talking 400+ lbs.

I/Os have cleaner transoms, so they are better for climbing in and out of. OBs require waaaaaaay less maintenance. Not even close with the exception that a Force could be a real PITA and Four Strokes require oil changes. A 175 OB will spank the same boat powered with a 4.3 unless it is a 220 MPI and then it would still be close. Horsepower may be horsepower, but weight is a HUGE factor with planing hulls.

 

[180shabah]

Re: comparing Outboard to inboard boats

Didn't you say your buddy has the same boat with a 3.0???

This will perform the same.

 

[Chip73]

Re: comparing Outboard to inboard boats

hello! ya the one i was looking at is a bayliner capri 1750 3.0L LX 130 hp inboard. is that the same boat that you have? if so would you be able to tell me some stuff about it especially regarding power and pulling wakeboarders or 3 man tubes. thank you very much!

They are not the same boat, I have a discovery 175 but I would wager that they weigh close to the same with the same motor and very similar dimensions. I can easily pull a two person tube with me driving and another adult spotting. I have also pulled Kneeboards and made an attempt at ski's (I sucked not the boat). The boat will jump up nicely and pulls strong. You can not argue horsepower vs horsepower but the 17' is light and the 3.0 works very well with it. Also, with this boat SX Smart Tabs have made a world of difference from what I have read. For $150, it is an outstanding upgrade and will increase the usability of this boat for watersports. If you load the boat to the gills you will feel the weight though. Oh and the gas consumption of the 3.0 is very good. I do not own a 4.3 and never have so I cant compare but I do not worry about filling my boat. I put $20 in yesterday, went 12 miles to the beach, pulled tubes all day and drove back, all on $20.

 

[ovrrdrive]

Re: comparing Outboard to inboard boats

There is no question that a 4.3 is a superior water sports powerplant than a 3.0. I had a 3.0 that I loved, but horsepower is horsepower. The 4.3 I/O combo weighs double that of all 4 stroke OBs of comparable power. TD and Silvertip are correct here except it's more like three or four people cause we are talking 400+ lbs.

I/Os have cleaner transoms, so they are better for climbing in and out of. OBs require waaaaaaay less maintenance. Not even close with the exception that a Force could be a real PITA and Four Strokes require oil changes. A 175 OB will spank the same boat powered with a 4.3 unless it is a 220 MPI and then it would still be close. Horsepower may be horsepower, but weight is a HUGE factor with planing hulls.

I don't know what you guys eat over there in California, but in my neck of the woods 400lbs is barely 2 people.

 

[892crew]

Re: comparing Outboard to inboard boats

any other people have any thoughts, info, personal knowledge about this whole situation. if someone has a 125 inboard or something around that could you please let me know what it is like. thanks!

 

[45Auto]

Re: comparing Outboard to inboard boats

Make sure you evaluate the info posted here for what it's worth.

I put $20 in yesterday, went 12 miles to the beach, pulled tubes all day and drove back, all on $20.

Must have started out with WAY more than $20 worth in it. $20 at $3.50 per gallon is 5.7 gallons. A 17.5' Bayliner with a 3.0 gets about 6 MPG. So it used 2 gallons going the 12 miles to the beach, and 2 more gallons coming back the 12 miles from the beach. Means it "tubed all day" on 1.7 gallons of gas. It uses .6 gallon/hour just idling!!!

 

[fixb52s]

Re: comparing Outboard to inboard boats

My thoughts are if you will be pulling wakeboards, the I/O would be a better choice. Yea, it has more weight in the rear, but with wakeboarding, you want that to help build larger wakes. An I/O is much easier for the folks to get in and out of by design.

As for the 3.0, sure it will not have the power of a larger engine, but with the right prop, it should do fine, as long as you don't load the boat up too much. I have a 17 ft with the 3.0 140HP Mercruiser, and this should do the job (I will have real results within a few weeks after I finish the rebuild). I will be pulling the tubes, skiers, and some wakeboards.

Of course, for any SERIOUS wakeboarding, you cannot beat a good old fashion V8 inboard powered ski/wakeboard boat.​

 

[Dakota47]

Re: comparing Outboard to inboard boats

i like my 4.3

 

[Chip73]

Re: comparing Outboard to inboard boats

Make sure you evaluate the info posted here for what it's worth.



Must have started out with WAY more than $20 worth in it. $20 at $3.50 per gallon is 5.7 gallons. A 17.5' Bayliner with a 3.0 gets about 6 MPG. So it used 2 gallons going the 12 miles to the beach, and 2 more gallons coming back the 12 miles from the beach. Means it "tubed all day" on 1.7 gallons of gas. It uses .6 gallon/hour just idling!!!

You can throw all the numbers around but bottom line using 6 gallons of gas I did just what I said. Take the Magazines with a grain of salt and maybe listen to the people who actually use the boats for more than a the few hours a review takes.

 

[45Auto]

Re: comparing Outboard to inboard boats

Good boat Chip73 - might want to make sure you keep it, you'll never find another one that can come close to what you claim!

I have a 16' Mark Twain with a 120 Hp 3.0 - it gets between 4 and 5 mpg (averaged over a days use) in the real world just like everyone (except yours!) elses 3.0. Never tried tubing or wakeboarding behind it (use the other boat for that) but I would imagine that it would not help the gas mileage.