Ocean Pro 6.3 with Optimax 150 or Suzuki 140?

[Skipper1]

Hi,

I am thinking of upgrading my boat to an Ocean Pro 6.3 and having searched the internet I have found various options available. I see that there are some Ocean Pro's available with the Mariner Optimax 150, and was wondering in this day an age why people would still be fitting new 2 stroke engines as opposed to 4 Strokes. I know that Humber boats normally are fitted with Suzuki's as that is what I have myself. I am much more likely to go with another Suzuki maybe a 140 or 150 on an Ocean Pro 6.3, as the current Suzuki is a brilliant engine IMO. Anyone know why people would use the 2 stroke option?

Cheers!

[Downhilldai]

Why not?
Optis are noisy at idle, but if you can put up with that, then they do the job very well.

[Turbodiesel]

How about the new Mercury F150 Four stroke its cheaper than the Suzuki!.

[HUMBER P4VWL]

More responsive, far quicker for the power and weight, plus the sound is awesome. Far better for skiing and more fun to play. Cheaper (????) and unless you do many hours per year, the litres per mile isn't much different with new efficient 2 strokes.

6.3 ribquest with 140 suz used £60 to do 80 mile round Anglesey. Our ocean pro 6.3 opti 175 was £75. Unless you're cruising long distances a lot, the 4 strike isn't worth the cost, weight, throttle response or lack of power.

[Skipper1]

Paul,

That is the kind of information I was after! I will be doing no more than about 30-40 hours on the engine per year. Normal trip lengths for a day out are around 30-35 miles, and an occasional trip to the Isle of Man maybe once per year will round about 120 miles. You mention weight above, is there much difference between a 140 Suz and say a 150 opti. The only experience I have with 2 strokes is a Mariner 225 which I thought was very noisy when idling. Can you let me know how your 175 is regarding noise, litres per mile average and oil consumption?

[Kernow Buoy]

Suzuki df 140 38 kts
Optimax 135 42 kts
Same Rib!

[HUMBER P4VWL]

Originally Posted by Kernow

Suzuki df 140 38 kts
Optimax 135 42 kts
Same Rib!

Opti 135/150/175 2.5L V6 195kg
(Opti 75/90/115/125 1.5L 3cyl 170kg)
Suz 100/115/140 186 kg

On a 6.3 ours is about 1.2L per mile at cruising. Tony T on here gets about 0.9L per mile.

He loves his, he cruises a lot though! We do 2 cruises (50-80m) a year, then fish, wakeboard and play about. The torque and throttle response of the 2 stroke is far superior for that type of activity. It's horses for courses.

Doing 50hrs per year, oil us in neglible. Noise wise, at idle it is fine when we troll fish, but the suz is v quiet, though no more than the 125 opti, perhaps a fairer comparison. Though on a 6.3 this may not have the torque needed as it is a 1.5L.

At speed, after a lurrrvly V growl as you power through the mid range, it settles to a hum which you hardly notice due to wind. Just like V6 cars, great noise when you accelerate, but quiet at a constant speed.

[Downhilldai]

I'd have a 125 Opti before a DF140.

[HUMBER P4VWL]

Originally Posted by Downhilldai

I'd have a 125 Opti before a DF140.

I'd agree, but on a 6.3m hull, will a 1.5L have enough torque..

DF 140 138 HP at 6000 RPM, max torque of 122 ft-lbs at 4500 RPM.
Can't find the figure for the opti??

[Skipper1]

Paul,

Cheers for the feedback, I know where there is a boat with a 150 opti on the back and I will try and get a look at it, you've broadened my mind!

[HUMBER P4VWL]

Whilst the 175 is ideal as it is the same weight as the 150, you will struggle to find one. I've only come across one other on here! The reason is the retail price of the 175, it is vastly more than the 150, which itself is only a little more than the 135.

Reason i believe is the 135 and 150 are exactly the same, just a different ecu. The 175 has other parts as well as the ecu to make it more powerful. As a result, most punters take the 150, which on the 6.3 OP hull is plenty for most, hence they're the most common.

If you jump to the 200, the engine weight jumps too, as it is a 3.0 block. I think excessive on the 6.3 hull, but over 6.5m perhaps the better option. More money, more fuel, more costs though.

Check which beam OP you are looking at, they do vary! Ours is the 2.34m

[sib]

I've now done around 15 hrs with the new Merc/Mariner F 150 Fourstroke. 205 kg. Bags and bags of torque, easy to service, less expensive to buy. Hard to get hold of as the yanks keep them all for themselves. I had a 150 Opti before that and this new engine is something else...YouTube it for more info.

[HUMBER P4VWL]

Originally Posted by sib

I've now done around 15 hrs with the new Merc/Mariner F 150 Fourstroke. 205 kg. Bags and bags of torque, easy to service, less expensive to buy. Hard to get hold of as the yanks keep them all for themselves. I had a 150 Opti before that and this new engine is something else...YouTube it for more info.

Interesting, not seen one yet.

What's the throttle response like compared to the 150 opti? To me that is the one downside of 4strokes, of those that i have seen. Is it really cheaper for 150 4s? If so, what's the downside then, other than weight?

[sib]

My 150 Opti was pushing a 6.5m Tornado and we usually ran 100 kg of fuel in her. The new Merc 150 F Fourstroke is pushing a 6 m XS often with 180 kg of fuel. I would say response quicker on the new set up, lighter boat slightly but it's the initial torque that is very different. Running it in I saw 46 mph as I needed to give it the beans for this process sometimes. Possibly not as whisper quiet as the Yams but not bothered by that as it's still pretty quiet and more importantly a few thousand less expensive. It seems extremely solid too. I would have no hesitation on putting this engine on a 6.5 - 7m rib.

[tony t]

Originally Posted by HUMBER P4VWL

=

6.3 ribquest with 140 suz used £60 to do 80 mile round Anglesey. , .

Says who

[tony t]

Originally Posted by HUMBER P4VWL

Just like V6 cars, great noise when you accelerate, but quiet at a constant speed.

Does yours move then

its always attached to a chain when i see it