Re: Merc vs. Johnson question
Being that both motors were approx. 99-100 cubes, when properly set up, they produced similar results on similar hulls. The 115 Merc will run about the same as a Johnson 115, all else being equal. One may, in the end, be faster than the other, but the differences are often perception only, rather than empirically based. For every "My Merc/Johnson is faster than his Johnson/Merc" you'll find set-ups that really aren't that close. Throw a power prop on a Merc and it'll pull just fine. Throw a speed prop on a Johnson and it'll flat out boogie on the right hull. Much of the perception about Mercurys being faster has been cultivated over nearly 75 years of marketing, racing and repeated old wives tales. Yes, Mercury won more races - they also raced more races and rigged many of the circuits to ONLY run Mercurys. When they were running with other brands on equal footing, their dominance was less pronounced. Who won often during a given season was usually a result of who had the bigger tech advances that year. During the 1970s there was a lot of back and forth as both sides invested heavily into racing. Economics of the 1980s meant OMC (Evinrude and Johnson) scaled back, and eventually eliminated their racing efforts.
Getting back to the initial question, if your current motor runs well and you're happy with it, keep it. You've spent some money on it and it runs well. If and when it gives up the ghost, go with something that maybe isn't quite so "tired looking". A 6-year jump in age from a known quantity to an unknown, isn't a huge improvement, regardless of the name on the cowling.
op2:
