Cowl Said 90hp!

[Home Cookin']

Re: Cowl Said 90hp!

souds like: no need to worry about weight difference.
No need to worry about HP as long as you are careful. But if there is a failure on the transom FOR ANY REASON and someone is hurt, your insurance may be void.
If you have an accident completely unrelated to engine size, your speed, weight issues or transom failure, you (your lawyer) would argue that the rating difference was "not material" and therefore the coverage stands. The size of the claim determines how hard they fight. The info on here about how motors are rated will come into the determination of "materiality."
(by analogy, if you lie on your life insurance about being a smoker, and you get hit by a bus, they can't deny coverage; they can only recapture the premium's difference).
Some states don't title the motor; sounds like yours is one.
Here's what I'd do: disclose the actual HP on your insurance applications. Leave it up to the company to write, deny or alter the policy. They may write it anyway or give you an exclusion (study its terms carefully and look at effects on your umbrella) or just up the premium some as "assigned risk" (ask about that if you are denied).
For those who assume homeowner's covers the boats--read the policies carefully, they are all different, but they define "boat" and their definition is the only thing that matters.
PS static weight on a transom isn't the issue as to transom failure; it's force against it. Weight is a convenient way to express it. If your transom collapses from just sitting there you got bigger problems than the HP. Weight is also a flotation issue.

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Cowl Said 90hp!

The 90 HP Chrysler is 20 lbs lighter then the Merc 115, butt: the Merc generates far more then the 25 more DISCLOSED horses if ya turn her up to 6,000 RPMs as most of us who own inline6(s) do.

The pre 1982 Merc 115 is rated at the crank @ 5200 RPM and the next 800 RPMs develope a lot more power, (IMHO).

People have whinned fer years that Karl under rated his outboard engines, n' me thinks there is some merrit to their arguments.

If ya ever take out a properly set up 1150 or 115 (crank rated), tower 'o power that turns @ 6,000 with a lightly loaded vessel n' run against a 4-poke rated @ 150 HP or more; or a Johnnrude 115 or a Yammadinger 115 (prop rated), ya walk away from zero to yer top rated speed on similar weight hulls, (if the 4-poke can even be on a similar hull).

I'm speakin' from experience not from just readin' stuff on the ol' net.

Me overpriced $.02. JR

 

[Texasmark]

Re: Cowl Said 90hp!

Ok guys, since we are digging out the worms check this out:

Back in the '50's the 12 hp Merc Hurricane (2 cyl 2 blade prop) on a 14' boat would smoke anything around up through OMC's 15 hp including me. The Wizard (automotive parts brand Merc)_ would do the same thing.

Had a '72 Johnson 125 and the Red Band 125 Mercs would just make an arse out of me.

Had '71 vintage 45 and 85 HP Chryslers and both were puke engines....my opinion, and having bought and paid for both I am entitled to my opinion.

Had an '84 Merc 85 and although it was a super fine engine, and loved to be cranked in cold weather when others just sat on the ramp and pfarted (the owners that is) It didn't impress me with it's top end on the boat that I had.....but everything else about it was superb.....possibly the top end wasn't it's fault, like my hot dog local prop expert could have given me the "slip".

Then in '89 was able to afford this 115 Tower of Power on a Ranger 17' Fisherman....now that was a sweetie if there ever was one.

Years later sold it to my son-in-law/daughter and subsequently bought what I have today...an '02 3 cyl 90 hp.
-----------------------
So what does all this BS (er ah baloney) mean to support this thread? Dunno. Just seems like it needed to be said. No, it says, that either Merc always prop rated, or overrated their published hp for PR purposes if nothing else (and it worked). I am still looking for positive evidence that supports how Mercs were rated over the years, and if they changed to support a standarization metric as OMC did, when did they do it.

Mark

 

[Texasmark]

Re: Cowl Said 90hp!

One thing to keep in mind is how Horsepower is calculated. in '79 it was measured at the crankshaft. Now it is measured at the Propshaft. Your old 115 Merc is probably only about 90hp at the Propshaft anyways. It's not like you are talking about hanging a 300hp V8 on there. If it were me I wouldn't worry about it.

Johnny,

It is very important to me, and maybe a lot of other folks on here that you justify your comment about when Merc change the location of it's hp rating. I have exhausted every news source I can find and came up with nothing......like it was the secret formula that developed the Atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

So dude, cough up the justifiable facts man. Grin.

Mark

 

[Texasmark]

Re: Cowl Said 90hp!

I recently bought a 90hp '79 Merc from an garage sale for $250. It runs great. I recently winterized and did some preventative maintenance on it, comes to find out it is a 115hp. The inner shroud on the cowling has been changed at some point in time.
It is on a 18' Bayliner that is only rated for 90hp. The merc already weighs 50lbs more than the 90hp Force I had on it. I talked to the Bayliner dealer in my area and they said the transoms for the 18' and 19' were exactly the same, and the 19' were rated for 130hp. My mechanic said that I could just leave it and just be careful. But I would only be able to insure the boat and not the motor. I read many posts about overpowering, and can't really decide what to do. I was just wondering what all you guys thought.

I have been working on this for 2 days now (for you man) and I still have no verifiable evidence as to when, and if, Merc changed how it rated it's engines.

My Ins Co is State Farm and they are very sensitive to verifiable engine hp vs the BIA rating of the boat. I know the lower the hp vs that rating, the lower the ins. I don't know what they would do if you tried to insure an engine over the rating, regardless of how it was rated (power head vs prop).

So as far as I am concerned, boat at your own risk, or be a home boy till you get confirmation as to what is acceptable.

Best I can do.

Mark

 

[bbfrs1]

Re: Cowl Said 90hp!

Thanks everybody for all the great advice. Fortunately for me, what everybody is saying is exactly what I planned on doing. This motor compared to my 90 Force was like night and day. Especially when there was 3 buddies with me fishing.

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Cowl Said 90hp!

I have been working on this for 2 days now (for you man) and I still have no verifiable evidence as to when, and if, Merc changed how it rated it's engines.

My Ins Co is State Farm and they are very sensitive to verifiable engine hp vs the BIA rating of the boat. I know the lower the hp vs that rating, the lower the ins. I don't know what they would do if you tried to insure an engine over the rating, regardless of how it was rated (power head vs prop).

So as far as I am concerned, boat at your own risk, or be a home boy till you get confirmation as to what is acceptable.

Best I can do.

Mark

OK Mark,

I already said the crank rated vs prop ratings fer Mercs in post #19.
1981 was crank; 1982 was prop.

Since ya don't believe me; or maybe didn't see it with the rest of the bluster in that post, (or maybe the blue ink did ya in ), look at a Seloc manual, (I have one up at RR island 60 miles North of where I'm at right now).

I'm fairly sure, (if memory serves, [only one functional brain cell]), you can see where the 140 and 115 went to the 115 and the 90 repectively and we both know there is only 8% to 13% lost between the crank and the wheel. Soo was Merc under ratin' again???? Likely as the 115 was like a 1250 maybe a bit hotter, n' not quite as hot as the ol' 1350 was. (1350s were real screamers), yip yip yahoo!!!

Me thinks the 115 had more restricted reeds then the 1500 or the 140 did, dunno the difference between the 90 and the 115 or 1150 as I haven't had 'em appart, maybe one of the big guns will chime in here n' let us know as the 25 HP is much more then 13%!!!!

Me overpriced $.02. JR