those who run mercury 2.4 and 2.0 motors ...

bsteckel · #1 07-08-2008, 04:33 PM

trying to decide between a motor that BigShrimpin has .. an '86 175 2.4 and another one i found near my home .. a 91 2.0 150 motor.

i was hoping some of you could chime in that have had expierence with either or both of these motors on your v20.

i have no experience with either of them.

my boat is a 20' center console that will be running a bracket.

i see that both are around the same weight...

BigShrimpin stated there is quite a power difference between the 2 however. very noticeable. and there is not much difference with fuel usage.

looking for your opinions or perf numbers if you have or had this setup.

thanks in advance. hopefully i can get some info before someone buys one of these motors!!!

Brad

bigshrimpin · #2 07-08-2008, 07:31 PM

Brad - Just to clarify . . . 2.4L do have a lot more power than the 2.0L especially on the low end.

These numbers are based on my experience running all of these on a 1976 20 Seacraft Master Angler.

2.4L 200 with wh-11 carbs @4000rpm => 9 - 9.5 mpg (Mirage Plus 17p 1.87:1)
2.4L 225 with wh-22 carbs no vent jets @ 4000rpm => 10.5gph (Mirage Plus 19P 1.87:1)
2.4L 175 with wh-40 carbs @4000rpm => 9 gph (Mirage Plus 17p 1.87:1)
2.0L 150 with wh-33 carbs @ 4000rpm => 7 - 7.5gph (2:1 ratio 17 Pitch Aluminum)

I've noticed the fuel burn increases quite a bit when the motors aren't propped to hit max recommended RPM's (5800rpm)with a full load.

I do like the 2.0L motors, but I think the 2.4L would be a better match for the v20 (and that's not b/c I'm selling this one). If you get a chance . . . TREX on screamandfly.com has figured out a way to get the 2.0L motors dialed in to produce good low end torque. Search for "Stump Puller".

While I really like the 2.5L motors . . . they are really thirsty.

THEFERMANATOR · #3 07-08-2008, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshrimpin

While I really like the 2.5L motors . . . they are really thirsty.

I don't think a truer staement could be spoken. My 2.5L 150 XRI burns almost as much fuel as my 200 EVINRUDE does. The power of a 2.5L is EXCELLENT for it's size, and that bottom end grunt is AMAZING. But at $4+ a gallon I can't afford to feed it on a boat that makes long runs. I don't have any experience with a 2.4L though, only a 2.0L and 2.5L.

Airslot · #4 07-09-2008, 05:51 AM

I'm running a 2.0 l 1988 150 on a 20' V-20 Cuddy. I have a 17p Rev 4 that turns 5600 top end. I top out around 42 mph with the prop, but cruise around 26 mph at 7 ish gph @ 4000 rpm. Under most all cruising conditions I can get 3.3 - 3.5 mpg going by flow meter. If plowing through the rough offshore it can drop to around 2.8 with tabs down. Mine has been excellent to me.

I have no experience with the 2.4 l motors, and can confirm the 2.5's are quite thirsty...

cterrebonne · #5 07-09-2008, 10:53 AM

[QUOTE=THEFERMANATOR;124513] My 2.5L 150 XRI burns almost as much fuel as my 200 EVINRUDE does. QUOTE]

wow thats alot of fuel burn

THEFERMANATOR · #6 07-09-2008, 08:08 PM

Yep, the 150 MERC burns about 12-13 GPH at 4000. My 200 EVINRUDE seemed to use the same amount of fuel after a 3 hour run as my 150 does after a 3 hour run. I'll find out soon as a LMF-200 with an EP-60 on the 200 and know for sure. I thought something was wrong with the 150 because it used so much, then I found a 2007 MERCURY boat test on an 07 150 EFI and used just as much as mine does. Hopefully that 150 will be gone tommorrow though

, guy said he'll be by at 10 to pick her up and trade me some cash. We'll see.

spareparts · #7 07-09-2008, 08:40 PM

remember, all the XRI, GT's, XP's or any other performace engines(bass boat stuff) make alot more power than the stickers indicate. they used to have a 10% rule on the ratings, but i doubt its ever inforced. That could explain the fuel burn issues. Ferm, I doubt that 150 XRI makes any less than 165 hp on a bad day,