Repower article 250 Yamaha to 300 ETEC
- Thread starter ericl
- Start date
well . not to trounse on the g 2 s but the yammies were long in the tooth and 100 horse less between the two..oil must be included in this cost comparison and with
only a 2 mile an hour difference between
thats not bad actually. ..the real bonus
should come in way of hole shot.
if that is a factor. ..
only a 2 mile an hour difference between
thats not bad actually. ..the real bonus
should come in way of hole shot.
if that is a factor. ..
BCI
Well-Known Member
I looked at that article in depth and the numbers for the Yamaha only makes sense if you cut it in half.
Lots of experience with the 3.3L 225s and 250s. I have had F225s with 2000 hours on a Pursuit 2870 and also on a Grady 282 with 1600 hours, and F250s on a Grady 306 with 500 hours. The fuel burn on the test boat with the F250's is off by a factor of 2. Those engines do not burn that much fuel.
It appears they made a huge mistake and doubled the fuel burn in their boat test article for the Yamahas. Even with tired engines, there is no way 4000rpm is burning 38.5 GPH. They probably read the GPH readout from the Yamaha gauge, which reads both engines, and doubled it. More likely it's burning 19.75 GPH at 4000rpm for both motors, and they assumed it was for one motor.
On my 306 Grady which is beamier and heavier with twin 2006 F250s I was 1.2-1.4 mpg depending on cruise speed between 24mph to 32mph and the range of 3500-4600 rpm. (Cant remember exact numbers for rpm and speed but 1.2-1.4 MPG consistently).
Here is a link showing the fuel burn across the RPM range for a pair of F250s. I don't care how tired the motors are, they were still hitting target WOT rpm so they couldn't be that tired. I also suspect the stock injectors would not flow 2x the fuel rate from the new motor test report.
http://www.yamaha-motor.com/assets/...4stroke_hpv6_-_grw-282sailfish-t-f250txrd.pdf
I run mostly Merc's now, have had ETECs and Yamahas. Not a fan of any one brand but pointing out that numbers are very suspect in this test.
Lots of experience with the 3.3L 225s and 250s. I have had F225s with 2000 hours on a Pursuit 2870 and also on a Grady 282 with 1600 hours, and F250s on a Grady 306 with 500 hours. The fuel burn on the test boat with the F250's is off by a factor of 2. Those engines do not burn that much fuel.
It appears they made a huge mistake and doubled the fuel burn in their boat test article for the Yamahas. Even with tired engines, there is no way 4000rpm is burning 38.5 GPH. They probably read the GPH readout from the Yamaha gauge, which reads both engines, and doubled it. More likely it's burning 19.75 GPH at 4000rpm for both motors, and they assumed it was for one motor.
On my 306 Grady which is beamier and heavier with twin 2006 F250s I was 1.2-1.4 mpg depending on cruise speed between 24mph to 32mph and the range of 3500-4600 rpm. (Cant remember exact numbers for rpm and speed but 1.2-1.4 MPG consistently).
Here is a link showing the fuel burn across the RPM range for a pair of F250s. I don't care how tired the motors are, they were still hitting target WOT rpm so they couldn't be that tired. I also suspect the stock injectors would not flow 2x the fuel rate from the new motor test report.
http://www.yamaha-motor.com/assets/...4stroke_hpv6_-_grw-282sailfish-t-f250txrd.pdf
I run mostly Merc's now, have had ETECs and Yamahas. Not a fan of any one brand but pointing out that numbers are very suspect in this test.
