fabianhjr
30.04.2021 1:25:04
Re: year of HP ratings change. prop VS. crank
See full version: Year of HP ratings change. prop VS. crank
Re: year of HP ratings change. prop VS. crank
1976-1983 200HP V6's(J/E), Only put out about 165 at the prop but were rated 200. This engine, with a few up-grades, became the 175 and a slot filled with the 185. With no up-grades, they were re-rated to 150. [links]
Re: year of HP ratings change. prop VS. crank here
Back in the day English coal mines seeped water into the coal mine shafts. They used horses the pull the coal and water out. It was determined a good horse could pull 33,000 pounds of coal or water out of the shaft. When steam engines started to take over they were rated on how many horses they could replace. Hence the term "Horse Power." Steam engines could be figured mathematically by knowing the working steam pressure, area of the piston and length of the crank arm. Gasoline engines were more complicated. They found that adding a wheel to the crankshaft with a break to absorb the power, you could measure the force on the break with a lever attached to a scale. This was called Break Horse Power, and it was how early outboard were rated. Just when we thought we had everything settled, it was discovered horse power sold motors. Suddenly it was up to the engineers to squeeze every last drop of power out of there test engines. It became common in the early ’30s the round up to the next HP if you managed to get past a HP mark. Unfortunately production motors could not be assembled with the same care and frequently fell short.
Just something to add to Garry’s comments. You don’t run/race dynomometer. Just more horsepower doesn’t always mean more speed on the water/boat. Application, setup, prop, & hydrodynamics play a big part in how fast you go. Now back in the old days Karl just cheated with more horsepower! Mercury has always done a good job with a smaller engine (cu. in.) vs gearcase design and getting everything out of their designs. Sometimes at the expense of longevity, but still fast if setup properly. [links]
when I visited (1996) a museum in England (black country of Birmingham) they had about a 2hp engine (steam) weaker than today’s lawnmowers
The "steam chamber" was about 8 feet wide and 8 feet high . it collected steam which was then cooled to produce an up/down motion . here
I hope this has helped you all who are looking for max hp ratings. If your boat is insured, make sure to check with your insurance company for any restrictions. more
Post by mtnwkr » 03 Apr 2011, 03:30
Example: 19' 6" long , 7 feet wide = (19.5 x 7 x 2) - 90 = 183 (Round up in multiples of 5. This boat's max is 185 hp).
I think you need to clarify it a little bit. more
Similarly one may ask, can a 3.0 MerCruiser pull a wakeboarder? more
How fast does a Bayliner 185 go?
Secondly, who makes the MerCruiser 3.0 engine? Mercury also manufactures engines over 75 horsepower at its facility in Fond du Lac in Wisconsin. Mercury also makes the MerCruiser line of sterndrives (inboard/outboard drives) and inboard motors.
Sure, but if you're getting a bargain, then yes, you will most likely be able to pull them up, even if it takes a little longer. Also pulling up a wakeboard is done slowly compared to a slalom skier where you gun it until they're up. Re: can a 3.0 pull a wakeboarder on an 1800? The quick answer is 'no'. more