Purchased 2 complete 1985 150's for 400.00

rothfm

Ensign
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
913
I'm so cheap, hate spending money.. I have several older v4 crossflows, but have been looking for a buildable v6. Finally a local guy was selling 2. Both are pretty clean, 1 was a freshwater motor, other Salt. He ran one, when the TNT motor went, he found a complete 2nd motor supposedly running also.

Not able to check compression, but they turn, lowers shift fine and they come with all cables and controls too. Cowls are in remarkable shape for their age. Heads show no indication of heat.

Be a good winter project, even if I have to do block/piston work I think. I've reworked a couple v4's. One running on my boat.

I didnt wast money did I? Heck for $200 per Motor I couldnt turn it down. Just maybe one of them will end up on my boat in the spring!
 

emdsapmgr

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
11,551
The two lower units on those engines are easily worth more than what you paid for each motor-if they are in good shape....
 

rothfm

Ensign
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
913
Thanks Emd. Sorta what i thought. Could always sell a lower tp recoop costs. Like the thought of having a spare also. Picking em up Sat. My 21' walkaround kinda struggles with the 115's. Be interesting how one if these will do.
 

emdsapmgr

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
11,551
That 115 has 99 cubic inches. The 150 has 150, almost a third more. That means a third more torque, power. It will make a huge difference in power, speed potential. If you throttle back somewhat to a decent cruising rpm it won't burn that much more fuel than running the 115 the same speed at close to WOT.
 

rothfm

Ensign
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
913
Thanks again. Yes Im thinking and hoping that will be the case. The New England ocean seldom allows higher speeds. It takes alot of throttle on the 115 to maintain a modest cruise speed. So, hoping I'll be able to throttle back some on the 150 to maintain same speeds with less Rpm

Time will tell...cant wait to get a deeper look once they are here...Be cool if I have to do just external stuff vs a Case teardown.
 

1983 ercoa 21'

Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Jan 12, 2014
Messages
632
Good find I also got a deal on a 85 150 evinrude XP for 300 has good compression 100 on each and a new stator when it was parked and let set . What's your feeling on the bro system are you going to run it or bypass it?
 

1983 ercoa 21'

Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Jan 12, 2014
Messages
632
Good find I also got a deal on a 85 150 evinrude XP for 300 has good compression 100 on each and a new stator when it was parked and let set . What's your feeling on the bro system are you going to run it or bypass it?
 

rothfm

Ensign
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
913
Sorry, ERCOA...didn see post.

The VRO's have been bypassed already.

Found out one of the supposed 1985's has a 1981 powerhead on it with different year heads (5557 and the 324 type). I believe both types are the Low Compression heads. Anyone know if this PH is the Crank-Rated designation for they year?

The other is a true 1985, all original. This year is Prop rated, correct?

So far i've inspected them closely visually...I have a known low/crappy Harbor Freight Compression guage kit. Based on using this guage on my other motors, I believe most bores measure out about 75. Both have been sitting a long time too. Will get a good guage, and retest.

If the numbers are all the same, I'll setup to run them on a stand and work on Decarbing. I'd reather leave (or get back to) original parts initially.

The goal is to make 1 a good solid runner for my 21'. Just not sure if its going to be the one with the '81 PH, or go with the '85
 

rothfm

Ensign
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
913
Bought a new Compression Guage...so far I'm happy.

The all 1985 shows port: 82,84,85 Starboard: 75,75,75 tested before and after adding a bit of seafoam into cylinders.

The (1985) with the 1981 Phead: 100,105,92 & 90,90,90 tested before and after adding a bit of seafoam into cylinders. The numbers did raise some after the Seafoam.

These motors have been sitting....Was leaning on working on the all original 1985. Does anyone know if those numbers should come up once running(warm), and after decarbing. But they should be the Low Comp heads, so, all in all these numbers dont appear that bad do they? It does look like its time for gaskets on both.

if anyone has any input on the Comp readings for these beasts, appreciated. I just might have a viable 150 in the spring yet!
 

rothfm

Ensign
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
913
Thoughts on These numbers? And what to expect when tested warmed up?
 

emdsapmgr

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
11,551
I would expect new factory compression on the 81 with original heads would be in the 110 lbs range. If the heads are from a later model, the compression would be lower, maybe in the 100 range, which is about what you are seeing. I'd expect your compression to come up somewhat after a decarb treatment. You can repeat the decarb treatment till you note that the compression increases level off. I've had success using the Bombardier aerosol "Engine Tuner" treatment. The low compression heads did result in much lower compression readings by the 85 model year. Maybe in the 90-95 lbs range. It's of interest to note that both engines suffer from a fairly high compression variance between heads. It's not uncommon for there to be up to a 10% variance between cyl compression. Some of yours are above that normal limit. It's also not uncommon for compression to vary maybe 5 lbs between the two heads on the same engine, due to manufacturing techniques. That's normal. Some of the OMC engines started propshaft ratings in the 84 model year. (example the 1983 200 became a 185 in 1984 year.)
 
Last edited:

1983 ercoa 21'

Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Jan 12, 2014
Messages
632
My 85 150 XP using a snap on. Compression gauge is 100 psi on each cyl and it also has been sitting for several years. My understanding of the XP is it's really a 165hp as to the difference in year of blocks wouldn't concern me because I believe they all have the same bore and stroke the difference is in heads ,carbs,ex,timing if the power head was exchanged and used the 85 carbs and other items it should still be 150 hp at the prop. I'm not a professional by all means the input I'm giving is from research I have done by reading other post.
 

1983 ercoa 21'

Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Jan 12, 2014
Messages
632
When you say bro has been bypassed do yo mean the oil side blocked off ? Or the pump assembly removed and replaced with old system using two fuel pumps?
 

rothfm

Ensign
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
913
Thanks EMD....I'll work on getting them running on a stand(when Built to handle these big boys), lightly deck the heads, new gaskets and some decarbing and see where I"m at with Comp numbers. The gaskets look real crappy.

Ercoa, Yes looking again, they both have the dual small pumps in them...I'm used to the larger VRO type pump and blocking off the oil side. I hope these duals are a good setup and supply ample fuel and pressure.
 
Top