Buying Used Yam 200 HPDI

[ktisdall]

I have a 1984 200ccp and the 1986  Johnson 175 has some 'issues' and needs to be replaced so I can rely on getting home when I go out.   I figure it has done its time.

So I found a 2004 Yamaha Z200TXRC for just under $5k.  Seller is a marina in CT.  They say the hours are low, but don't show up on the engine log printout.  Also said compression is 'good' - i.e., within 10lbs between cylinders.  The pictures look like it's a clean engine.  Aside from getting a more accurate set of compression numbers, what should I be looking for?

Also, this weighs about 75-100 lbs more than my current engine (but the boat is rated for a 200). Any problem with that?  If I stand in the back corners now, water runs in the scuppers so I keep them plugged when I'm onboard.

It doesn't come with a harness or control or shift/throttle cables.  Any guess as to what that might add to the cost?
** EDIT - He found a harness and control that will come with it but I'll have to get a new key switch - about $150.

I can install it myself so that's not going to cost anything.

Should I get better mileage out of this engine vs the old carbed Johnson?  I expect so but it's a question.

--Kevin

[wingtime]

I'd say you'll get a 40% or better fuel savings.  The biggest savings is from the direct injection technology.  The rest is from the 200 not have to work very hard to push your boat around.  That 86 model HP was probably rated at crank and not the prop.   For the water coming thru the scuppers get yourself a set of TH marine flowmax ball scuppers.

[ktisdall]

Can't use those scupper check balls because the scuppers exit the side of the boat.


You mention the HP rating and that brings up another question:  The 175 I have gets me over 40mph WOT with and easy cruise at 25mph.  I don't need more speed.

Would a post-year-2000 150hp work just as well and possibly be lighter/cheaper?

When did outboards begin to be rated at the prop vs the powerhead?   Is there a calc to be able to compare apples/apples?

--Kevin

[Capt. Bob]

When did outboards begin to be rated at the prop vs the powerhead?   Is there a calc to be able to compare apples/apples?

I believe the marine industry adopted a standard rating system in 1983 that would include either the HP rating at the shaft (prop) or the flywheel (head). Engine builders were still rating both ways for the next few years. If you find a BHP rating, that should imply "head" where a SHP would be "prop". The Jonnyrude 185 that came on my 84 CCP shared a lot of things with the 83 200 and was probably the same engine just rated at the prop rather than the head so about 10% +/- difference. :|

Apples to apples? That's a little tougher than one would think because engine manufacturers were given a little wiggle room from the Feds in reporting power output of their respective models. With competition between major builders being high, gaining a "marketing edge" was very desirable (and still is). Being to "underrate" an engine output legally was a trick used by all. Think, our 90hp model( say Merc) performs as well (or better) than your 115hp (think OMC).

Spend some time (if you can't sleep) and compare a company's specific engine model parts list (say their 200 to a 225) and you'll see they may share almost every part. Look closely at the block assemblies and induction parts. Couple the fact that a builder could "de-tune" a engine by changing a part or two on the assembly line with reported output variances and you can understand why they would try and gain a marketing edge with little investment change.

So don't get too hung up on HP ratings but rather look for a weight to hp ratio attached to costs/service/and reliability.

Good luck.

[ktisdall]

Great info - thanks

--Kevin

[wingtime]

Like Bob said weight is your big concern.  Those hulls are only going to go so fast. So a 200 is not going to push it much faster than the 175.  But it is nice to have the power there when you need it.  I forgot about the CCP having the side scupper drains.  I had a 1981 200XF (same hull as your 200CCP) with a merc 200 on it.  WOT was just over 40 mph and I could cruise 25-30 all day long.  I think a 150 would be working hard to push that Deep V around.  Besides most of the 150HP two strokes are the same blocks and weigh the same as the 200HP.   I think a 200HP Optimax would be your lightest, most fuel efficient option in that price range.

[Capt Matt]

Personally I would stay away from a HPDI,
A 9yr old motor for 5k does not seem like a deal
150/175 opti is a 2.5 block
200/225 opti is a 3.0 block
Almost 100 pounds difference
In my opinion keep looking, your boating season is over there should be some better deals coming along
Capt Matt

[ktisdall]

I think it's an iffy deal mainly because it needs a $150 key switch and panel, and all the neccessary gauges and a prop on top of the engine cost.  Probably another $500-700 by the time I get it all installed.  That's mainly holding me back because I'd like to be within $5k for the whole repower.

An optimax is a Mercury?   I always thought those were on the heavy side?

I'd be inclined to wait for a BRP 175-200.  But from what I read, the FICHT engines are not desireable. Maybe I can find a 175 ETEC but they seem scarce, and I probably still need to upgrade all my gauges.

Everyone has personal favorites.  Is there any consensus on a 'best of' 2-stroke 175-200hp engine from the years 2000-2005?

--Kevin

[ktisdall]

How about a 2000, 200hp Evinrude FICHT for $2500 ??  Says it has 275 hours, new ECU and Fuel Pump.  Seems like a lot of major issues for 275 hrs.   What do others think?

--Kevin

[Capt Matt]

Mercury makes the opti max, I would stay away from the pre 2000 model year
They are not as light as a carb motor but have way better fuel economy, they burn even less fuel than a 4 stroke motor
431# 2.5 150/175hp
506# 3.0 200/225hp
We all have our motor preferences but I know you will have a hard time finding anyone that would recommend you buy a FICHT
that was the motor that put OMC out of business


Capt Matt

[fitz73222]

My $.02,

The issue for me is ANY engine that has electronic engine controls for fuel delivery and timing and out of warranty is an expensive proposition to maintain and repair. ECU's, injectors, sensors, ultra filter systems, and associated modules must be diagnosed by very competent technicians with expensive test equipment. The "do it yourself" model does not apply here. If you have $5000 to spend on an engine, buy a carbureted engine that is far less complex and much easier to maintain and repair. Any carbureted engine regardless of brand use the same basic systems for ignition, cooling and fueling. Each are unique to a degree but they all use the same principles. Lower units, trim systems and mid sections haven't changed much in 25 years so they aren't an issue. I would be shopping for freshwater, inland engines with low hours; there are thousands of them out there. Understanding where each of the major brands achilles heels were is a good tool for negotiations. Examples would be: Any Merc prior to 1997 had ignition issues, any OMC prior to 2002 had VRO oiling issues, Yamaha's were known for internal corrosion issues. I would avoid an engine that has been switched over to pre-mix oiling unless you absolutely know the history and the main reason is that an oiling failure occured that drove the owner to switch over. How long did the engine run with an oiling issue? What damage was done during the process? Did it scuff a piston or cook a bearing? The engine may run fine but you have no way of knowing without at least pulling off the cylinder heads for inspection. If you are mechanically inclined, you can steal an engine thats been sitting for several years that has gummed up carbs and the owner doesn't want to spend the money or is clueless. If the engine has good compression and spark; for $300 it will run again. I have a garage full of engines I've bought this way.