Results 1 to 5 of 5
Thread: pros N cons 110s vs merc
-
06-16-2008, 08:04 AM #1
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Posts
- 97
pros N cons 110s vs merc
looking at the 98-2002 speedters with bothe the twin 110s or the merc single 240. I have heard that the merc is hard on fuel.
As far as performance/fuel and reliability, which is a better way to go?
-
06-17-2008, 08:25 AM #2
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Location
- Romeo, Michigan
- Posts
- 14
I have had both an 02 and 04 with the merc...and have raced a 98 speedster and pulled on him...and really arent restricted by anything as far as power...as for fuel consumption....its all about what you compare it to...i didnt think that it was efficient untill i got my 2 p-x's.
-
06-18-2008, 03:16 PM #3
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Posts
- 97
Heard that the mercs were more expensive to fix. I will be using the boat a lot for pulling tubes/ski/wake/kneeboards and several at a time. Does the merc come out of the hole with a full load just as good. There are a lot more of them around for sale than the twin motors which is why I am considering one.
-
06-18-2008, 11:34 PM #4
i have the 20 ft Challenger 2000 with the Merc 240 M2 Jet. Hole shot is great even on this large boat and fully loaded with 8 people and 40 gallons of gas. I was very impressed. We use it to pull tubes and skis, no problems other than the jet wash. I had to add a little more rope when pulling tubers. The Merc Jet does not have nozzle trim so there is no way to reduce the jet wash. The SeaDoo Jet pumps do and jet wash can be minimized.
Personally, I would stay away from those older rotary valve 2 stroke Rotax jet ski engines. Two is double trouble and twice the maintenance. I have two SeaDoo PWCs with the larger 130 hp 951 engine. Reliable but a lot of maintenance. I understand that the Mercury outboard engines are very reliable and easy on maintenance.
The 2 strokes are going to burn the fuel no doubt but I have not done a comparison to my friends 4 stroke conventional prop boat to say either way.
this thread has a pretty good write up from WAPWC on the Merc. http://www.pwctoday.com/showthread.php?t=168360Last edited by seadoodude; 06-18-2008 at 11:40 PM.
-
06-23-2008, 12:34 PM #5
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Posts
- 71
Pros and cons
The Mercs burn more fuel, but are quieter. The Rotax pull just as hard,
straighter, burning less fuel. The Merc will be quieter,and more tolerant of
crappy maint but will cost hard when it breaks. The Rotax is cheaper to fix
but louder. Unless owned by a fanatic, the Rotax will need to be rebuilt, bank
on that. But once up to snuff and taken care off, really reliable. At this point, there are more Merc boats out there. Any thing you get, go through the fuel systems completely. Save you huge money down the line. Good Luck!
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
'12 Kawasaki 300X vs '13 Sea Doo RXT 260 - pros and cons - suggestions welcome
By boostedgta in forum Kawasaki PWC Performance (4-stroke)Replies: 36Last Post: 05-25-2014, 10:00 PM -
New RXT 260 vs New Kawasaki 300X - pros and cons, suggestions welcome
By boostedgta in forum 4-Tec PerformanceReplies: 37Last Post: 05-24-2014, 08:12 PM -
Pros and cons of the 90 hp Spark vs 110 hp '97 SPX (X4 hull).
By Midwestrider in forum Sea Doo SparkReplies: 27Last Post: 01-31-2014, 06:00 PM -
Stock vs Mods - Pros and Cons
By brittrich in forum Sea Doo Open DiscussionReplies: 2Last Post: 04-23-2012, 10:40 AM -
rxp vs rxpx pros and cons.
By jamiej in forum 4-Tec PerformanceReplies: 6Last Post: 11-08-2007, 02:07 PM
Rule of thumb is 1 ft/lb for each pound of boost.
2004 Sea Doo RXP Supercharger -...