Welcome Guest... Login?
 
 
 « BACK Outdoor Gear Forum

gdinius

Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


Anybody have any personal experience with a Suzuki 140 hp 4 stroke motor? I have always run Yamaha but am looking at a boat with a Suzuki and wonder how it will stack up?

Bob Carlson

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


I am going on running a 2005 140 JohnSuzuki for the third season! Its a Johnson, but really a Suzuki painted white! I really like the motor! Not the fastest, but good trolling speeds and great on fuel! I run a 175 T/P Alumacraft and get about 42-43 top speed! I can troll around 1.7 - 2 mph I can go slower with a drift sock out.

--------------------
Bob "Bobber" Carlson

You can tell how big a person is, by what it takes to discourage them!
"Hooks"


Brian Peterson

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


I had a 140 Suzy on a 18ft Lund Explorer. I usually ran 42-46 GPS. Like Bobber said, it's not the fastest motor out there, but it got great gas mileage and trolled down nicely. The motor is also extremely quiet, all around a great engine, never had any problems.

--------------------
"I didn't come here to buy shoes"


RB

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


I run a 2005 Suzuki 140 and the thing is rock solid dependable and the quietest motor I've ever owned.

Castaway

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


I know guys that run Suzukis and they like them and I havnt seen or heard any problems with them.I like my Yamahas but if I had to make a second choice in a 4 stroke it would most likely be a Suzuki.

--------------------
Most of the worlds problems can be solved with common sense,the rest may require a little gun powder.


B Curtis

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


I got me a 140 Suzuki. Runs great. Dont quote me and Im not going to look it up but I believe out of the 4-strokes, it weighs the least amount. I think the Yamaha is a little quieter, but I do forget once in a while that it is running.

LundgEYE

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


My buddy has one on a 175 Tourny Pro Alumacraft..believe he gets in the low 40's mph with it. He's had zero issues with it and generally uses it for trolling (granted a bit fast). The motor seems quite a bit weaker than the Yam F150 although some boats can't take the 150 rating. Another of my buds repowered his Lund 1700 Fisherman with the 140 Johnson (Suzi) from the 115 Johnson (Suzi) and the surprising thing is his top end only changed by about 2 mph. He claims it has more torque for hole shots but top end just isn't there. I'd not hesitate on this engine if the deal is right and you can live with modest mph. With fuel prices the way they are headed, maybe modest mph is perfectly fine and we should all focus on high mpg.

Brian Peterson

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


The 150 Yammy will blow that 140 Suzy out of the water. I believe the Suzy was only generating 128hp at the prop, some say that the motor should never have been rated for 140hp. Suzuki came out with a new 150 four stroke the year after I bought mine. Regardless, I wouldn't hesitate to run that motor again.

--------------------
"I didn't come here to buy shoes"


BIRDDOG

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


I have to agree with most of what these guys say...I had a 04 140 johnsuki on a stratos 386xf. SUPER quite, good on fuel. The 140 rating is overstated, I was dissapointed with the performance. If memory serves me right, the engine only produces 128HP when dyno'd.

I'm in the minority here, it was the biggest pile of junk I've EVER owned. WOT it would shut down instantly, with out notice, just die. I'd been thrown in to the windshield as was my wife. After the very first weekend I had to bring it to the dealer for this problem, picked it for the next weekend as it was "fixed". Nope, straight back to the dealer, same problem. Over that first summer the boat spent very few days in my garage. 3 different Johnson techs came out, one of which flew in from FL or GA. My dealer couldn't figure it out, none of the techs could figure it out. We were lucky enough that our dealer gave us full price paid if we wanted to trade it in, and we did. For the F150 on a 1850, the performance difference between the two motors is night and day for being on the same "type" hull.

I understand I'm one of the very FEW that ever had/has a issue with this motor, but I did none the less. You rarely hear any negative about this motor. In the end, stratching the motor issues I had, performance is lacking if comparing to other 4 strokes in the same "class" as it's just not a strong 140.

BIRDDOG

--------------------
FOR BETTER OR WORSE, FISHING AND HUNTING COME FIRST


King185

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


I have a suzuki 140 on my 18 footer... love it. No problems, starts on the first turn every time. One thing to be aware of, though, is the lower gear ratio in the lower unit. You'll probably need a higher pitch prop than most other engines. I started with a 17" (dealer installed) but the rpms ran way too high at WOT. Moved up to a 19" - helped quite a bit but I really think I need to run a 21". Certainly, I lose some low-end trolling speed but will make up for it in better mpgs and high-end mph.

Brian Peterson

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


King,
You're right on the money! I too experimented with props, dealer had a 17 from factory. I ended up with a 21 stainless Suzuki prop.

--------------------
"I didn't come here to buy shoes"


Bob Carlson

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


21 SS on mine also!!

--------------------
Bob "Bobber" Carlson

You can tell how big a person is, by what it takes to discourage them!
"Hooks"


King185

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


Excuse the slight highjack... Brian and Bob: are you running three-blades or four? what diameter? I'm thinking of making the move to stainless steel and a higher pitch...

Bob Carlson

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


three blade......

--------------------
Bob "Bobber" Carlson

You can tell how big a person is, by what it takes to discourage them!
"Hooks"


LundgEYE

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


I agree with the performance difference in the Suzi 140 vs the Yam F150. My friend, who I mentioned above, has the same Lund 1700 Fish I do and gets low 40's..as in 42 with his Suzuki. I get 53+ bonafide GPS with my F150. I'd probably do better if I took about 150 pounds of gear out of the boat, that lead sure is heavy !!
I was at the Yamaha dealer last year when a factory rep was in and never being shy to talk with those guys, he told me Yamaha target'd the HP on the F150 to be 162, and he said they dyno out at that. I can't validate his claim but mine sure feels good on the Lund.


Brian Peterson

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


3 blade stainless also! The Yammy does get 162hp at the prop, much stronger engine. I remember trying to find my Lund with a Yammy, but in 05 it was hard to find a Yammy on a Lund.

--------------------
"I didn't come here to buy shoes"


B Curtis

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


I dont think anybody here is shocked that the Yamaha 150 performs better than a Suzuki 140?? You are comparing two different horsepower classes. I dont think gdinius is trying to decide between getting a 140 vs a 150, just if the Suzuki is a good motor compared to the Yamaha.

As for the comparison, I was told by a Suzuki rep that the 150 is a 155hp, so the Yamaha is a more powerful engine in that class.


Steve Plantz

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


No personal experience with either of these motors but I have heard nothing but good things about both of them in the end it all comes down to personal preferance. If you have been happy with your Yamaha's then I would have to ask why change something you are happy with?

--------------------
"Fear of failure must never be a reason not to try something."

www.walleyesearchers.org
www.johnstackleserv.com


RB

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


What are the current cost comparisons?

Back when I bought my '05 Suzuki 140 paid $6300, got a 6 year warranty and got a $500 dealer credit to use on my boat package. Because of Suzuki's rock-solid reputation and light weight I jumped at the deal.

BTW... I run a 3 blade 21 pitch and get 42-44 mph on a 20' Seaark Bayrunner.

I agree that a Suzuki 140 and a Yamaha 150 are 2 totally different classes. That is why Suzuki now makes a 150.


BIRDDOG

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


For those say first time buyers or maybe those that don't know the finer points of these outboards they would seem to be very close performance wise. We know the finer points so we understand they truely aren't in the same class, not even close HP wise. I never knew when I purchased the 140 johnzuki in 04 it was 128hp, had I known I would have walked away in a heartbeat and got bigger engine.

He asked how the 140 suzuki "stacks up". Didn't ask what to compare it to besides saying he'd run yamis before. What can we "compare" it to? The 135 verado, 135 honda? Seemingly your going down in hp there, not much difference than going up to a 150 hp for comparison, "5hp". So we really don't having ANYTHING in it's "class" to compare to.

I think this is great info for a potential buyer. It's not bashing or being brand loyal in any way, just the facts...the facts are great to have when making a purchase like this. I'd be interested to know where the verado and honda 135's come in for actual HP?? Anyone know?

BIRDDOG

--------------------
FOR BETTER OR WORSE, FISHING AND HUNTING COME FIRST


B Curtis

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


Im going to guess he used to have a Yamaha 225 , so it would be difficult comparing the power of a 225hp vs. 135hp or 140hp or 150hp.

BIRDDOG

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


?? Exactly my point as stated above, how the 140 "stacks up", we need to use the 150's or the 135's. 225??

BIRDDOG

--------------------
FOR BETTER OR WORSE, FISHING AND HUNTING COME FIRST


RB

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


Quote:

For those say first time buyers or maybe those that don't know the finer points of these outboards they would seem to be very close performance wise.




Excellent point. I had a couple gearhead buddies that told me the Suzuki 140 was really more like 130hp but my hull has a 140HP rating so I was comparing the Suzuki 140 to the other brands 135s when purchasing. I considered those to be in the same "class". And all the 150s to be in the next higher class.


Brian Peterson

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


Quote:

I dont think anybody here is shocked that the Yamaha 150 performs better than a Suzuki 140?? You are comparing two different horsepower classes. I dont think gdinius is trying to decide between getting a 140 vs a 150, just if the Suzuki is a good motor compared to the Yamaha.

As for the comparison, I was told by a Suzuki rep that the 150 is a 155hp, so the Yamaha is a more powerful engine in that class.




I wasn't getting into a Suzuki/Yamaha bash. I simply added my experience with that particular motor and added my 2 cents concerning the Yammy f150 from an earlier post. I too was truly shocked that the Suzy was under powered and thought it to be a bit misleading because of the hp rating on the motor. I'm sure that someone that bought a "package" or really didn't bother to research the engine wouldn't know the difference. My boat was rated for a 150, so I tried to max as close as I could. Could there really be THAT big of a difference between a 150 and a 140? In this case there obviously was, just thought I'd point it out. I'm not bashing Suzuki, I loved that motor and would run it again in a heartbeat!

--------------------
"I didn't come here to buy shoes"


Fisherman J

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


I had an '03 DF140. Pro's - it was very quiet and a reliable starter. Con's - there was a stalling problem that I and many other owners had/have. Like said above, it is a little weak for a 140. The Suzy DF150 or Yammy's 150 weren't available in '03.

Suzy's 150 and 175 are very strong engines, along with Yammy's 150. Yammy's 150 and Suzy's 140 aren't even close in power, but both company's 150 are strong.

I probably wouldn't want the DF 140 on a boat rated for 175hp again - maybe for one at 150hp max.

Edited by Fisherman J (04/28/08 04:20 PM)


Bob Carlson

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


I run a Alumacraft T/P 175 rated for 175 hp. I have a 140 Johnsuzuki on it. It gets up on plane real nice....I run a number of guide trips with two customers along with myself and enough gear to boot! It still gets up and running at 42 mph top end. I don't run that hard with my customers aboard unless we have calm water. I don't beat my boat or beat my customer's!!!

I guess I knew alot about the 140 before I purchased it! From talking with fellow fisherman on Mille Lacs. Evryone I talked with spoke very highly of the 140 even with its known low hp rating! Its still a really nice motor!!!

--------------------
Bob "Bobber" Carlson

You can tell how big a person is, by what it takes to discourage them!
"Hooks"


B Curtis

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


Quote:

Quote:

I dont think anybody here is shocked that the Yamaha 150 performs better than a Suzuki 140?? You are comparing two different horsepower classes. I dont think gdinius is trying to decide between getting a 140 vs a 150, just if the Suzuki is a good motor compared to the Yamaha.

As for the comparison, I was told by a Suzuki rep that the 150 is a 155hp, so the Yamaha is a more powerful engine in that class.




I wasn't getting into a Suzuki/Yamaha bash. I simply added my experience with that particular motor and added my 2 cents concerning the Yammy f150 from an earlier post. I too was truly shocked that the Suzy was under powered and thought it to be a bit misleading because of the hp rating on the motor. I'm sure that someone that bought a "package" or really didn't bother to research the engine wouldn't know the difference. My boat was rated for a 150, so I tried to max as close as I could. Could there really be THAT big of a difference between a 150 and a 140? In this case there obviously was, just thought I'd point it out. I'm not bashing Suzuki, I loved that motor and would run it again in a heartbeat!



I didnt think you were bashing the Suzuki. It is just funny to hear someone says (no matter what brand) that 140hp. is not as powerful as a 150hp. There have been several posts too about the 140hp actually being 128hp. Is that correct? I had a Suzuki rep tell me it was a 138hp??

Not that it has anything to do with the original question I think it is a good motor but Im guessing now that they have the 150 they will be phasing out the 140. I cant imagine there are many sales??


Brian Peterson

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


I agree, the 140 will probably disappear soon.

--------------------
"I didn't come here to buy shoes"


BIRDDOG

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


Quote:

It is just funny to hear someone says (no matter what brand) that 140hp. is not as powerful as a 150hp. There have been several posts too about the 140hp actually being 128hp. Is that correct? I had a Suzuki rep tell me it was a 138hp??





Yes it's correct, that suzuki rep was misinformed or flat out lying.

"Of course" the 140 isn't as powerful as a f150 or one would think. Simply put, the "common man" would would figure it's a 10hp difference not a 34hp difference. Why have we been comparing these 2 motors...the title of the thread...zuki vs yami.

How it's funny to see people say the f150 is more powerful than the zuki 140, that's your take. Common sense right, 150 is bigger than 140. How about the merc 135 or honda 135 vs. the zuki. Common sense says, of course the 140 is bigger, more powerful than 135's...but I don't think it's the case. I would love to see numbers for the 135's, it would be very helpful for potential buyers.

It seems some are taking this thread personally, no ones bashing "your" motor, just giving the facts, the facts the original poster was inquiring about.

BIRDDOG

--------------------
FOR BETTER OR WORSE, FISHING AND HUNTING COME FIRST


B Curtis

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


Quote:

Quote:

It is just funny to hear someone says (no matter what brand) that 140hp. is not as powerful as a 150hp. There have been several posts too about the 140hp actually being 128hp. Is that correct? I had a Suzuki rep tell me it was a 138hp??





Yes it's correct, that suzuki rep was misinformed or flat out lying.

"Of course" the 140 isn't as powerful as a f150 or one would think. Simply put, the "common man" would would figure it's a 10hp difference not a 34hp difference. Why have we been comparing these 2 motors...the title of the thread...zuki vs yami.

How it's funny to see people say the f150 is more powerful than the zuki 140, that's your take. Common sense right, 150 is bigger than 140. How about the merc 135 or honda 135 vs. the zuki. Common sense says, of course the 140 is bigger, more powerful than 135's...but I don't think it's the case. I would love to see numbers for the 135's, it would be very helpful for potential buyers.

It seems some are taking this thread personally, no ones bashing "your" motor, just giving the facts, the facts the original poster was inquiring about.

BIRDDOG



Thank you for informing me. Sorry for trying to get clarification on the horsepower. I hope you and others didnt take it personally that I was questioning your horsepower knowledge.

I didnt see anywhere where the original post wanted information comparing the Suzuki 140 to the Yamaha 150. I was basically saying that if you want to start comparing HP, you should compare the two different 150s. You are right that the 140 should be compared to the 135 class. Saying the 150 is stronger than the 140 is a no brainer. Now if you make the statement that a merc 135 blows it out of the water well now that is newsworthy.

Who do you think is taking this too personal? Not me. I would rather have the Yamaha 150 any day over the Suzuki 140 but couldnt afford the price difference at the time. I still think the Suzuki is a great motor. Now I would be getting a 175say anybody know which is better, the Suzuki 175 or Yamaha 175?


Brian Peterson

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


Quote:

My buddy has one on a 175 Tourny Pro Alumacraft..believe he gets in the low 40's mph with it. He's had zero issues with it and generally uses it for trolling (granted a bit fast). The motor seems quite a bit weaker than the Yam F150 although some boats can't take the 150 rating. Another of my buds repowered his Lund 1700 Fisherman with the 140 Johnson (Suzi) from the 115 Johnson (Suzi) and the surprising thing is his top end only changed by about 2 mph. He claims it has more torque for hole shots but top end just isn't there. I'd not hesitate on this engine if the deal is right and you can live with modest mph. With fuel prices the way they are headed, maybe modest mph is perfectly fine and we should all focus on high mpg.




I think this is where the thread took a wrong turn on my part, sorry. No harm intended.

--------------------
"I didn't come here to buy shoes"


floridagatorblue

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


This thread is a little over the top..
I think you should all read this..

I have worked as a test engineer for some marine engine Manufacturers in an independent testing lab, and have actually conducted the tests outlined below

I have included the specs that ALL motor manufacturers use in rating their motors.

In summary...

1) ALL marine outboard motors rated HP come from the prop shaft not the flywheel or crank shaft. (This is since a long time ago.. 20-30 years back they made this change).

2) There is an accepted Manufacturing variance of +/- 10% HP although most of the major MFGs use +/-5%. So for example a motor rated at 140HP will put out 126-154HP on a similar test. Additionally due to HP limitations on boats these motors ABSOLUTELY cannot exceed +10% as it could cause structural damage to the boat it is installed on.

3) NO motor Manufacturer would risk a class action lawsuit by just nipping a motor into a rating class. By doing this they would certainly have motors that due to the manufacturing variances would fall out of the range required by the rating. The range is necessary to account for part variances of individual pieces of the motor and +/-5% requires some Damn Good Manufacturing practices. In comparison automobile engines are also +/- 10% but they are typically still measured on the flywheel and do not include manufacturing variances and resistive forces in the transmission or drive train. So this is a MUCH tighter specification. Additionally another 5HP out of a motor the size you are referring to here is pretty easy to get by making some little tweaks here and there. This would be done to assure that the benchmark motor fell into the middle of the range.


4) You can not compare equal HP 2 stroke and 4 stroke engines on an even playing field. 4 stroke engines have Valve trains. Valve trains produce inertial forces and spring forces that the engine must overcome by the engine while generating power. Additionally a 4 stroke only produces power on one stroke and must then use some of that power to get through the other 3 strokes of the cycle (exhaust, intake, compression). The 2 stroke only has 1 additional stroke to get trough before it gets another power stroke and does not require as much power to get through the additional strokes. THE HP CAN BE EXACTLY THE SAME!! And you will see higher performance from the 2 stroke engine as they tend to build torque more quickly and because of having less strokes and no valve train inertia they will develop RPMs MUCH faster than the 4 strokes and typically people say they provide more HP because of this! If you want to see an example of what I am talking about find an old 4 stroke lawn mower (without a blade clutch). Take the blade off and try and start it. Have FUN!!

5) You have classes of motors for a reason.. So people can compare apples to apples and not be drawn into what is happening here. Typically there are significant design differences in each class that boost performance more than the actual boost of HP. All other things equal a change of 20 HP at these levels will be hardly discernable on the boat in the water. It is similar to an audio amplifier 20 watts more at 100 watts will not be discernable as any louder. If you could take a motor and swap just the power head. You would need upwards of 30-50 HP crankshaft HP to notice any performance difference. Typically HP is thought to be the difference, but in fact the big changes are other changes in the classes that result in higher performance. (I will cover these later) For now lets talk about the classes which in this range of motors are typically ~30HP windows. For example a 140HP motor would be at the top of the class of the 115-145 class, a 115 would be at the top of the 85-115 class, and a 175 would be at the top of the 150-180 class. While yes the larger motors have more HP they also have other variants that can impact performance more than the actual boost in HP. The gear ratios are different; they have larger gear cases that allow them to turn larger props, many have larger displacements (no replacement for displacement theory) and MOST OF ALL there is a HUGE 140-150 difference as you transition from a 4cyl motor to a 6cyl motor. Some of you may be familiar with the Mercury Bigfoot lower unit where they are putting a larger lower unit on smaller motors so they can turn the bigger props and increase performance, and handling characteristics ect..This is a perfect example of what I am talking about..




I myself have a SUZIJohnson 140 that I put on the test dyno at our lab and it turned out 143HP according to the test outlined below. Its peak HP was 152 at the high end of MFG RPM spec. It will turn a solid 6300RPM and the rev limiter taps VERY softly at 6350 MFG spec is 6200 WOT It has the typical 4 stroke benefits, it is restartable quiet, and excellent on fuel mileage. If you keep it below 4000RPM it is downright staggering how good the fuel economy is. Last year I fished a trip in Canada with my Lund 1800 Fisherman(175HP rated) full gear 2 people 40 miles in 40 miles out and 6 days of high speed general navigation and power trolling as the wind was bad filled up at the ramp 40 gallons of gas, probably could have made it out but I dropped 5 gallons in just to make sure I did not run her dry and lean on the way out. Suffice to say that is pretty good mileage.

When I originally purchased the boat it had a 14X20 SS old blade style Johnson Prop. It had good speed 46-48MPH GPS (rig is about 2500 lbs with motors fuel and all.) but it was a DOG getting up on plane. The back would squat so bad it would darn near take water over the stern, and the bow was completely blocking all vision for a considerable length of time until it was up on plane. I have since purchased a 13 7/8 X 17 SS New blade style BRP prop. It now blasts out of the hole with no bow lift at all. The boat literally jumps up on top of the water.. It will just barely bang off the ref limiter at WOT. And I get 42-44MPH. I am going to keep this prop primarily for skiing as it should really pop people out and you dont need 48MPH for water skiing so I can stay off the throttle and the rev limiter will not come into play.

I am currently looking for a good deal on a 13 7/8 X 19 SS New blade style BRP# 777025 or a 4 blade BRP#778740 please get in touch with me if you know someone who has one I could pick up cheap. I just bought an AL 14 X 19 and I am eager to see what numbers I get from that
The point here is that a simple prop change made my boat go from a dog planer and seeming VERY underpowered to a drag boat. With little compromise in top speed. Perhaps some of you should look at some different props. If you are unable to rev this motor at 6000RPM you are not attaining maximum HP. Sweet spot on this puppy is 6100-6200 it is trying to get into that small window that is difficult because it depends on your rig, weight ect. You also cannot be afraid to change props for different activities! There are also even pitch numbers available from Suzuki. I am quite certain that these are the old blade BRP units with now obsolete part numbers (you can no longer get a 14X20) the new design is only available in odd pitch numbers but seems to perform better than the old

FYI I too had the stalling problem Replaced motor fuel filter, added Fuel water separator and smoothed out a kink in the fuel return line and have not had a problem since..



Here is the testing criteria for those that want to read it

ICOMIA 28-83
The International Council of Marine Industry Association's Standard 28-83 is often cited by manufacturers of outboard engines in the United States, but access to this document is difficult via on-line sources. Accordingly, a text version of this standard is reproduced below so that it might be available for reference by users of this website, where frequent discussion is held in our forum concerning outboard motors and their horsepower ratings.

This document is a best attempt to accurately reproduce the International Council of Marine Industry Associations' (ICOMIA) Standard 28-83, "Power measurements and declarations for marine propulsion engines and propulsion systems" in a text format. The source for this information was an on-line document which appeared on the ICOMIA website as a JPEG file, i.e., a scanned or rasterized version of the document presented as a graphic image instead of as readable text. Every effort has been made to make an accurate transcription from that rasterized image to HTML text, but there is no guarantee of suitability for any purpose of this document.

This document is presented for informational purposes only and is not to be relied upon as accurate or authorative. Users who require accurate and authorative copies of this specification should contact ICOMIA and arrange for purchase of such documents as necessary.

This information is provided to facilitate understanding of horsepower ratings by outboard engine manufacturers who make reference to the standard in their literature and employ the standard in rating their engine horsepower specifications.

(Begin transcription of the ICOMIA 28-83.)

Internation Council of Marine Industry Associations
Standard No. 28-83
Power measurements and declarations for
marine propulsion engines and propulsion systems
1 Scope and field of application
This Standard specifies the test requirements in addition to those given in ISO 3046 for determining the power--at a single point or as a power curve--of marine propulsion engines or systems for recreational and small commercial craft.

It also provides a means for documenting and controlling the declared (rated) power published by the manufacturer.

2 References
ISO 3046/1 -- Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines:
Performance--Part 1: Standard Reference Conditions and Declarations of Power, Fuel Consumption and Lubricating Oil Consumption
ISO 3046/2 -- Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines:
Performance--Part 2: Test Methods
ISO 3046/3 -- Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines:
Performance--Part 3: Test Measurements
ISO 2710 -- Reciproating Internal Combustion Engines: General Definitions
ISO 1000 -- SI Units
3 Terminology and Declarations
3.1
Declared (rated) speed is a crankshaft speed, specified as follows:

3.1.1--In the case of ungoverned engines, the declared speed shall be the mid-point of the full throttle speed range recommended by the manufacturer for propeller selection.

3.1.2--In the case of governed engines, the declared speed shall be choosen by the manufacturer.

3.2
Corrected power shall be the full throttle power of an engine or propulsion system measure in an engine dynamometer laboratory as specified in this standard and corrected to the standard reference conditions specified in ISO 3046/1 using the correction methods specified in ISO 3046/2.

3.3
Declared (rated) power of an engine model or propulsion system shall be the full throttle power at the declared (rated) speed at the final output shaft of the engine or propulsion system as offered for sale by the manufacturer, based on corrected power of one or more engines or propulsion systems

3.3.1--Power shall be declared as Propeller Shaft Power at the propeller shaft of engines sold with complete propulsion units, and at the couple to the propeller shaft of engines sold with reduction or reversing gears.

3.3.2--Power shall be declared as Crankshaft Power at the engine output shaft of engines sold without reduction or reversing gears, stern drive or sail drive units. In such cases, the power declaration shall be accompanied by a statement that usable power will be reduced by gear losses.

4 Test procedures
4.1 Engine Installation
4.1.1--The test engine or propulsion system shall be representative of the maufacturer's production units and shall be fitted with the exhaust system and all auxiliary equipment delivered with the unit except the propeller. Auxiliary equipment shall be listed and described.

4.1.2--Carburettor wedges may be removed or added to maintain carburettors in a normal running angle if the engine is run in a horizontal position.

4.1.3--If it is necessary to utilize auxiliary equipment, such as an exhaust pipling, nor furnished with the propulsion system, the exhaust back pressure at rated speed shall be within 0.75 kPa of the maximum back pressure specified by the manufacturer at which the declared power can be achieved. If the exhaust system as delivered is not complete and no back pressure is specified by the manufacturer, the unit will be operated at 100.75 kPa back pressure measured at the exit of the engine exhaust manifold or turbocharger. If the exhaust system as delivered is complete, the laboratory exhaust system shall maintain exhaust pressure at the unit outlet within 0.75 kPa of barometric pressure at the test bed.

4.1.4--If the engine air inlet is connected to a laboratory air system, the system shall supply air to the engine within 0.75 kPa of barometric pressure at the test bed.

4.1.5--For liquid cooled engines, the temperatures of the coolant at the sea water inlet shall be maintained at 29315K (2015C) except that for intercooled engines the temperature shall be maintained at 2935K (205C). The coolant supply pressure shall not exceed 50 kPa. The coolant outlet temperature shall be within the range specified by the manufacturer if a range is specified.

4.1.6--Fuel temperature at the inlet of the compression ignition fuel injection pump shall be controll to 3133K (403C).

4.2 Fuel and Lubricants
4.2.1--Fuels used shall conform to the manufacturer's specifications.

4.2.2--For spark ignition engines, record research (ISO 5164) and motor (ISO 5163) octane numbers and density (ISO 3675) or API gravity of liquid fuel.

4.2.3--For compression ignitions engines, record cetane numbers (ISO 5165), density (ISO 3675) or API gravity and heat content. Use ASTM D-975-2D or equivalent fuel if compatible with the engine.

4.2.4--Lubricating oil used shall conform with the manufacturer's recommendations. Record oil classification and viscosity (if applicable) of the lubricant.

4.3 Run-In
The engine shall be run-in according to the manufacturer's recommendations.

4.4 Test Conditions
4.4.1--Data shall be obtained under stabilised normal operating conditions with an adequate fresh air supply to the engine. Test conditions such as inlet air temperature shall be controlled as near to standard as possible (Paragraph 3.2) in order to minimize the magnitude of the correction factor. Adjustments shall be made before the test in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. No changes or adjustments shall be made during the test, except as indicated in the test procedure.

4.4.2--The generator or alternator, hydraulic systems, and similar systems intended for intermittent operation, shall be operated under no-load conditions.

4.4.3--No data shall be taken until torque, speed, and engine temperature have been maintained within 1 % for at least two minutes.

4.4.4--Engine speed should be held as nearly constant as possible during a run or reading, and shall not deviate from the nominal speed by more than 1 % or 10r/min whichever is greater.

4.4.6--Wet exhaust systems shall be operated with normal water flow.

5 Data Acquisition
5.1 Accuracy
Test measrements and their degree of accuracy shall be as specified in ISO 3046/3.

5.2
Temperature of the inlet air to the engine (ambient air) shall be measured in a manner to get a mass average temperature. The temperature shall be taken in the engine inlet air stream or with 150mm of the air inlet horn to the air cleaner (inside the engine cowl, if furnished).

5.3
Temperature of coolant medium shall be measured within 150mm of the sea water inlet. Water jacket temperatures in liquid-cooled engines shall be measured at the inter-cooler inlet if applicable,or at an outlet point of the engine specified by the manufacturer. Temperatures in air-cooled engines should be measured at point(s) specified by the manufacturer, such as spark plug(s) or cylinder heads.

5.4
Oil temperatures shall be measured at point(s) specified by the manufacturers.

5.5 Readings
Observed dynamometer load, speed, ambient air pressure, wet and dry bulb readings, and fuel consumption data (if recorded) shall be taken simultaneously, and shall be the average of at least two stabilized sustained values which do not vary more than 1%. A measuring interval of not less than 30 seconds shall be used when measuring speed and fuel consumption.

5.6 Recordings
Power test data to be recorded for test documentation:

To be recorded simultaneously (within one minute):
Engine speed
Torque of Beam Load
Intake Air Temp. and Pressure
Fuel Temperature (Diesel Only)
Air Temp. at the Barometer
Barometric Pressure
Wet and Dry Bulb Temperature
Also record:
Laboratory Exhaust System Pressure
Oil Temperature (see 5.4)
Coolant Temp. at Sea Water Inlet and Engine Outlet (see 5.3 and 4.1.5)
Coolant Supply Pressure (see 4.1.5)
Fuel Quantity per Cycle (Diesel only)
Exhaust Back Pressure (see 4.1.3)
All Auxiliary Equipment
The following optional data should be recorded where applicable or for safety operation:
Oil Pressure
Intake manifold Temp. and Pressure
Exhaust Temperature
Ignition or Injection Timing
Fuel Supply Pressure
Fuel Consumption
6 Presentaton
6.1
A single value statement of power shall be accompanied by a statement of the corresponding speed. Alternatively power and speed may be represented as a power curve. Declarations shall indicate that the power is Crankshaft Power or Propeller Shaft Power, whichever is applicable.

6.2
It is recommended to choose the full throttle engine speed range mentioned in 3.1.1 in such a way that the highest power within this range does not exceed the declared power by more than 6%. If the highest power exceeds the declared power by more than 6%, both powers shall be stated for that model.

7 Manufacturing tolerance
The corrected power at rated speed of any individual marine propulsion engine or propulsion system must not deviate more than 10% or 0.45kW, whichever is greater, from its declared power, except that for governed engines or systems of more than 100kW [134-HP] the tolerance shall be 5%.

(End transcription of the ICOMIA 28-83.)

Commentary
For outboard motor enthusiasts, this standard clarifies several frequent questions. First, the "rated power" is to be the corrected power after careful measurements at the "rated speed" which is to be the mid-point of the full throttle range recommended (3.1.1). Thus, if a manufacturer declares the full throttle range to be 5000-5500 RPM, then the rated power should be derived from measurements made at 5250 RPM.

The "rated power" is to be measured at the propeller shaft. (3.3.1)

The "rated power" is recommended to be presented so that there is no more than a 6% difference between the rated power and the peak power which occurs in the full throttle speed range. (6.2). For example, an engine rated at 225-HP should not have more than 238.5-HP at any speed in the full throttle speed range. In general, the measured horsepower will be greater with engine speed. This means that if the full throttle speed range is chosen to be a wide range, for example 5,000 to 6,000 RPM, it is possible that the engine's peak horsepower will occur near 6,000 RPM, but the rated horsepower must be that obtained at 5,500 RPM. The difference between these two horsepower ratings is recommended to not be greater than 6%. It appears that manufacturers have some room to fiddle with the engine horsepower rating by adjusting the RPM range which they declare to be the the full throttle speed range of the engine. Rating of the engine horsepower in this way accounts for some of the claims seen in which engines of a particular brand and rating can test at significantly higher horsepower in actual field tests.


The tolerance for variations in manufacturing permits engines to deviate not more than 10% from the "rated power" (7.0). Thus an engine sold as a 150-HP engine could produce as much as 165-HP or as little as 135-HP due to variations in manufacturing tolerances. Note that the more restrictive tolerance mentioned ( 5%) applies only to "governed engines" (i.e., engines running under a governor) whose rated power is greater than 134-HP (100 kW). It is my understanding that outboards are ungoverened engines in the context of this standard, and thus all individual production units are permitted a 10% tolerance in actual propeller shaft horsepower compared to "rated power."

--------------------
HERE FISHY FISHY FISHY.....


floridagatorblue

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


0 Problems after the stall was fixed this motor is bulletproof. change the oil and use a fuel stabil at the end of the year and it will start like your new car come spring on the first touch of the starter...

--------------------
HERE FISHY FISHY FISHY.....


Fisherman J

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


Quote:

0 Problems after the stall was fixed this motor is bulletproof.



How was the stall fixed?


floridagatorblue

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


Replaced motor fuel filter added fuel water seperator. removed kink from fuel return line and stopped running ethanol gas as it absorbs moisture..

--------------------
HERE FISHY FISHY FISHY.....


2catch1

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


Now that was an informative post!!! I love my 90 johnzuki which is basically a detuned 140. Has been perfect so far!!! Had a 50 on my old boat and that was a great motor too!

p4walleye

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


Awesome motor.

Fisherman J

Re: Suzuki vs Yamaha outboard


I had a 140 Suzuki on an 1800 Lund Fisherman. It was an underpowered motor - and I also had the stalling issue too. I was happy to get rid of it.

That being said, I would have zero issues with a 150 or 175 Suzuki. It would be a great, win-win decision deciding between the 150 Yammy and Suzy.

No question I would pay more for the 150 Yammy over the 140 Suzy though. No question.


Copyright In-DepthOutdoors.com, Inc. 2001 - 2014, All Rights Reserved.