Re: Outboard vs I/O
I'm an offshore fisherman, and I always worry about that big hole below the waterline in the transom surrounded only by a rubber bellows. Looks like it could be a pretty quick trip to the bottom.<br /><br />I like 2-stroke outboards for their simplicity. Way less moving parts than 4-strokes to wear and fail. Gotta be cheaper to rebuild, too. I'll wait a little longer for them to prove their case. Of course, I feel the same way about fuel injected 2-strokes. They also have a ways to go, before I can accept them as a reliable option.<br /><br />With an I/O, you will be replacing expensive parts at intervals, but will most likely never change the entire propulsion unit. When an outboard starts giving up on you, four bolts and some minor rigging will give you a whole new lease on life. <br /><br />As you mentioned, most I/O's use automotive engines. That can be a curse, as well as a blessing, particularly if you will be using it in saltwater. The only one I know of that was designed strictly for marine use was the Mercruiser 470/485, but even that one uses a 460 ci Lincoln head, and I think the pistons as well. The marine environment is far more hostile than the highways. An outboard, from the drawing board to the transom, is designed for the job. Also, there is one less direction change in the driveline when you're going straight...more if you're turning. As a result, you have no universal joints or gimbal bearings to worry about in the outboard.<br /><br />I've been both ways over the years, and as you can see have become very biased toward outboards. But both have their advantages, I guess, so it depends entirely on your preference and how you plan to use the rig.<br /><br />Anybody else?
