1997 60 hp mercury or 1994 50 hp yamaha

[jamesfontenot]

I'm looking to buy a 1997 60 hp Mercury that has been rebuilt and has 12 run hours on it. I'm also looking at 1994 50 hp Yamaha which hasn't been rebuilt. Can anyone give me an opinion as to which is the better motor of the 2

 

[gm280]

That is really only a question that you can answer. Both being rebuilt is the real question. Who built them and why? I personally would go for the Mercury, but that is because I've had a couple that never ever gave me any problems. But with rebuilt, you really don't know... You also have to factory in the cost and the fact that one is newer then the other. JMHO!

 

[pckeen]

Ditto on the above. I'm partial to Yamaha's, but if that Merc rebuild was done by a professional, that may be the better choice. I'd want to know who did the rebuild, and what was done. I'd want to know how extensively the two motors were used, and I'd want to know about the condition of the rest of the motor - any signs of leaking in the lower unit, etc. etc. If you can get the two motors to a mechanic, have them checked out.

 

[Silvertip]

The question you need to ask on the Merc is "why" it was rebuilt. Just rebuilding a 2-stroke is no guarantee that the engine won't fail again if the root cause of the original failure (other than just wearing out) was not corrected. A failed two stroke can generally be traced to lack of lubrication (failed injection system), overheating, lean carburetion (carburetor issues), and a host of other things. Time and time again engines are rebuilt only to fail shortly after because the carb issue was not fixed. But if you are satisfied everything was done correctly, the Merc would be my choice simply because of the extra 10 HP and the larger displacement engine.