Lightning
Active Member
The blocks may be larger, but they sip fuel compared to the older models and use less oil.
300xs on a Grand Sport Darris said NO!
- Thread starter micker54
- Start date
Darth VMAX
Well-Known Member
390 lbs for the SS!!!??? That eliminates ALL current V6's. Looks like a 4 cyl 115 is the biggest you can go on a new SS. At LEAST he could have suggested 420 lbs so you can hang a 2.6L 150HO-200 hp ETEC which are the lightest of the current DFI V6's or even a carb 150 VMAX (415 lbs). And again a picture on the website shows Darrris himself driving a SS2000 with a Ficht 150 or 175....which was over 400 lbs???
Now granted a 115 powered SS is still a cool little sleeper of a sport boat but for the cost to shell out for a new one, most are gonna want at LEAST a 150 V6 on one.
Granted I'm not much of an engineer, but couldn't the pad/lip be "tweaked" to accomidate the current 2-stroke small-block V6's?
Now granted a 115 powered SS is still a cool little sleeper of a sport boat but for the cost to shell out for a new one, most are gonna want at LEAST a 150 V6 on one.
Granted I'm not much of an engineer, but couldn't the pad/lip be "tweaked" to accomidate the current 2-stroke small-block V6's?
Last edited:
That's true; my mistake, but why can't they build this technology into a smallle & lighter platform?
Lightning
Active Member
A
allyfreek
Guest
The 200SX is just another 2.5 litre Mercury motor from the past like all the others.
SLOmofo
Well-Known Member
Smog emissions, warranty , # of units able to be sold.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BEAN COUNTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lou, you and I live in the state that created this exact problem. Here, in Ca., we haven't legaly been able to purchase engines that didn't meet stringent emmission demands. CARB (Cal Air Resourses Board) is the reason. Unelected and untouchabel. As goes Calif., so goes the nation. I think it's been over 10 years since a Ca. dealer could sell a NEW carb engine(only EFI) and where did those STAR decails come from and when. Legally you cannot modify an engine built after 1996 in Ca., I think nation wide also.
So to be able to produce an engine that will conform emission wise and performance wise and live warranty wise, it's got to be.
Bigger cid. = weight
Not turn the high rpms which = higher emission levals
Not turn the high rpms which = higher waranty costs.
The more units sold the lower production cost per unit.
Not picking on you Lou as I'm sure you know this also. You've been vocal on another parallel front at a lake near you.
The answer is coming, possably another engine manufacturing company other then Mother Merc.
Begining 2008 NEW boats sold in CA., with inboard engines below 500? hp are required to have catalytic converters.
Lightning
Active Member
It was an Optimax motor. Low emmissions and great fuel economy. Nothing like the motors from the past.
Darth VMAX
Well-Known Member
He is meaning I believe that ALL the 2.5L HP motors are history.....
Chad Phillips
Active Member
The white and purple SS has a 115 OMC in the pic.
Too bad they QUIT making the 200XS, I would have bought one. It was a great motor once they got a couple of glitches out of it.
Wish they would reintroduce something like that.
Wish they would reintroduce something like that.
whipper
Well-Known Member
Lighning hears a pic of my balls.:big grinThey help with backwash and raise your transom at rest about two inches or so. They realy work great!! When Im standing on the swim platform my feet dont get wet and with a full tank of fuel its very notacable the extra bouancy. Also when you take off water doesnt go up the setback cavity as much. Simple method as what some guys do with foam floatation as in the pics on the owners site in the links. James
Lightning
Active Member
What are they, volley balls?
Darth VMAX
Well-Known Member
Are you sure Chad? I think they tested the 2.6L Ficht on the SS at one time and I figured that was a pic from that article. Those little 60 degree V4's had a very low profile and that looks a little "tall" to be a 115.
Lou sometimes its a case of wanting what you can't have... While the 200xs was being produced not many bought them. Now that there out of production its like dang!!! Thad would be better than a 175 Proxs !!! LOL I think they would have sold more 2.5xs's if they would have held together better and didn't have that dang 3.0L mid section on them!!!????
Lou sometimes its a case of wanting what you can't have... While the 200xs was being produced not many bought them. Now that there out of production its like dang!!! Thad would be better than a 175 Proxs !!! LOL I think they would have sold more 2.5xs's if they would have held together better and didn't have that dang 3.0L mid section on them!!!????
Last edited:
Chad Phillips
Active Member
I'm pretty positive, but I could be wrong. I remember them saying it was a good run with the 115.
Darth VMAX
Well-Known Member
LOL...they will run good with a 90 on it!!!!!
Lightning
Active Member
I have the 2.5XS on my rig. I've only had it since the beginning of the summer and don't know of anyone else that has one. Is there a problem with them not holding together?
Darth VMAX
Well-Known Member
There have been posts by those that has run them and reported "issues". I recall reading one by a well respected individual that posted about the B@WB incidient, as they were doing the review of the 2.5xs on the Norris Craft and as soon as they were done with the performance eval's the motor grenaded on them. The only one on here on the Allison Board that I have read any firsthand reports was Scott (Yellowallison). You might PM him to get his experience.
badbait
Well-Known Member
We, have a couple of guys here in Calif. that come to our Rally's that have them. I have not heard of any failures. One is on a SS2000 and one is on a XB2003. I personally have limited experience with that motor maybe 3 or 4 hours of total running time but I really like that motor. I think Mercury's timing was a little off when they brought it out. People just weren't ready to go back to a 200 from a 225 or larger. If they came out with it again it may be a different story.
Darth VMAX
Well-Known Member
Badbait,
Are you referring to the 200xs or 2.5xs? I have never heard ANYTHING negative about the 200xs (except it was "only" a 200 and not bigger). Everything I have seen about them suggests the 200xs is ALL over the 10% fudge factor.
Are you referring to the 200xs or 2.5xs? I have never heard ANYTHING negative about the 200xs (except it was "only" a 200 and not bigger). Everything I have seen about them suggests the 200xs is ALL over the 10% fudge factor.
whipper
Well-Known Member
Maybe buy a boat manufacture stating about the non use of 3.Lt on his hulls Darris is just trying to send a message to Merc about broadening there 2.5 range again. Also with how sticky insurance companies are these days and maybe some paten info that was made with the 2.5 in mind at the time he has to CYA for better premiums because the dynamics are differant for the GS with the 3.0 than what is in the paten and there for the insurers are Questioning the safety of selling them with a unproven power plant on these hulls? Just a thought.:big grin Sorry i cant offer any technical advice I am still mystified as to the reasons even after all this discussion. We need to hear from Darris what the reason is. Next time some one talks to him pick his brain for the whole answer. I mean for him to add to the site stating not to use these motors on the GS there has to be a real good reason for it?