3 liter versus 4.3 liter?

[frantically relaxing]

As to '3.0's are dogs' and whether or not they can get a 19'er on plane...

This is me and our little 175 right after we got it...

Below are a couple of videos I did to show how quick it got on plane- I've always said 'almost instantly', and it is!

First vid, note I say 'in neutral', that's a lie, it was actually idling in gear... -- after it's on plane the rest is just cruising and wind noise...
Second vid is a 3-second-to-plane time at only half throttle. Yes, this is a small, light boat, but the one time I had 7x180+ pound souls on board, it only took 5 seconds to plane. I really can't imagine 2' more boat turning it into a dog. If one IS a dog, there's something wrong with it...

https://youtu.be/yWJQHJwamxk

https://youtu.be/Q5qpns0EC7g

 

[bruceb58]

I thought GM discontinued manufacture of the 3.0.

I never heard that.

 

[Scott06]

I had a 3.0 in a '91 Sea Ray 170 (17 ft) - super reliable, super easy to work on, was adequate for skiing. With a 16" 4 blade prop did well (not great) pulling me (250 lbs) up on two skiis. The 3.0 provided 20 years of fun for me and my family, spent a lot of time pulling tubes at basically WOT for an hour straight.

Bottom line loved that engine, didn't owe me a thing, but I couldn't imagine buying another 3.0 powered boat, especially if you want a 18-19 ft boat and like to ski. I would think for your price range you should be able to find a 18-20 ft Bowrider with a 4.3 or 5.0 2 bbl carbed engine.

 

[DCMacGuy]

GM has not discontinued the manufacturing of the 3.0, however you can't order one in a boat any more in the US (this is within like the past month). Dealers have what they have on their lots, and then that's it. That's what every dealer I have spoken with over the past 2 weeks has said (Stingray, Chaparral, Regal, Sea Ray).

It would be nice if Mercury Marine would issue a press release or something.

 

[nola mike]

Someone posted something to that effect (maybe on the resto board?) that they were trying to buy a brand new 3.0 setup and were unable to get it from merc, that it had been discontinued. I wonder why.

 

[wrvond]

Someone posted something to that effect (maybe on the resto board?) that they were trying to buy a brand new 3.0 setup and were unable to get it from merc, that it had been discontinued. I wonder why.

My money's on emissions.

 

[thumpar]

My money's on emissions.

That is what I am betting on also.

 

[bruceb58]

The problem is that in order to make these engines work with a catalyst, they pretty much have to have fuel injection. Fuel injection adds a lot of money to an engine that is destined for a lower price boat. Outboards makes way more sense for these smaller boats.

 

[oldjeep]

The problem is that in order to make these engines work with a catalyst, they pretty much have to have fuel injection. Fuel injection adds a lot of money to an engine that is destined for a lower price boat. Outboards makes way more sense for these smaller boats.

Yeah, but the 3.0 has been mpi for a while

 

[bruceb58]

Yeah, but the 3.0 has been mpi for a while

True. There likely were still a lot of spots for them even at a higher price until boat makers designed them out in favor of outboards. Volvo stopped offering the 3.0 years ago. Likely because they were already too expensive for small cheap boats.

 

[nola mike]

Would still think cheaper than a comparable ob?

 

[JimS123]

Rumors published in the Boat mag rags have said that GM will be discontinuing sale of most all engines to the marine industry. Mercury Marine just developed a 4.5 V6 of their own. I don't know if its been made available yet. The rumor on that is that it will replace a 5.0 liter GM block. I hope it isn't another 470 fiasco....LOL.

 

[oldjeep]

Rumors published in the Boat mag rags have said that GM will be discontinuing sale of most all engines to the marine industry. Mercury Marine just developed a 4.5 V6 of their own. I don't know if its been made available yet. The rumor on that is that it will replace a 5.0 liter GM block. I hope it isn't another 470 fiasco....LOL.

4.5 has been available for at least a year. GM is discontinuing 5.7 for sure, but the 5.3 and 6.2 gdi engines are already finding their way into boats. There is also a new 4.3 gdi for the marine market. Indmar has been using the ford raptor motors for the last couple years as well.

 

[jkust]

That's right, mine is not the ZP hull. So, is light a bad thing? After 33 seasons of usage, with a lot in Great lakes Erie and Ontario, there's not a single hull defect anywhere. I've seen heavier boats with spider cracks all over, with not nearly as much use. Back in about 1983 Powerboats magazine did a review of my particular model. They noted that the hull had thin ner sides, but admitted that the bottom (where the boat runs) was quite stout. In any event it won a boat of the year award. Makes no difference to me. After 33 years I'm quite satisfied. How many others can say they kept the same boat that long?

Jim, we still have our 84 bayliner we bought at the boat show...as it turns out it was the 1984 Powerboat Magazing boat of the year. Still looks like we just got it last winter on the interior....literally looks like it not a craigs list looks like it. It is cheap and thin with the lowest qualit materials but has been well kept which means we just werent lazy about keeping it covered and out of the sun. I think just the swim platform on my current boat weighs more than the entire bayliner hull.
Nothing wrong with an old boat in the fleet.

 

[jkust]

4.5 has been available for at least a year. GM is discontinuing 5.7 for sure, but the 5.3 and 6.2 gdi engines are already finding their way into boats. There is also a new 4.3 gdi for the marine market. Indmar has been using the ford raptor motors for the last couple years as well.

There's lots of the new 4.5's and 6.2's out there already. Haven't seen the 5.3. Saw a nice comparison between the 5.seven and the new tech 6.2 in a larger Sea Ray. 6.2 much faster up to speed and 5.seven faster on top end aside from all the other ways the 6.2 is superior.

 

[Mule Laker]

Back before everyone had huge power available, we all skiied behind the trusty 85 hp bayliner. It was always loaded and pulled up slalom without too much fuss. A bit of technique but 85 hp is practically a kicker by today's standards. A 130hp 3 liter with its accompanying torque would have been a dream. Can't really tell I'm pulling anybody up with my current boat no matter what it is which is a far cry from the 80's.

Obviously your 85 was an outboard. The outboard has a big power to weight advantage. We sold our 1991 Larson 170 with a Merc 115 ob and replaced it with a Glastron 185 w/3.0. The old Larson with the smaller 115 was quicker and faster.

Anyway, our 3.0 is just adequate even with 19" prop. My 9 year old son, wife, and father all slalom ski behind it. All start on two ski's.

 

[oldjeep]

Obviously your 85 was an outboard. The outboard has a big power to weight advantage. We sold our 1991 Larson 170 with a Merc 115 ob and replaced it with a Glastron 185 w/3.0. The old Larson with the smaller 115 was quicker and faster.

Anyway, our 3.0 is just adequate even with 19" prop. My 9 year old son, wife, and father all slalom ski behind it. All start on two ski's.

Consider a 4 blade prop, it'll give you a little more kick on the pull out. We used an Alpha 4 on ours

 

[Mule Laker]

Consider a 4 blade prop, it'll give you a little more kick on the pull out. We used an Alpha 4 on ours

Yep, we've got a Solas 4 blade, 19 pitch on there now. Works as good as I could expect but I would love to try that Alpha 18 pitch. I didn't know that prop existed. Thanks. http://boatpropellers.iboats.com/Mercury_Marine-Alpha_4-Propellers/48-834852A45/?cart_id=168084480


We really do like our boat with the 3.0. It's easy to work on, a bit lighter, etc. But ya, I am already thinking about that next boat. It's just so hard to find an 18.5' with the 4.3 around here. Lots of 19.5's with the 4.3 or 5.0 but we have a 3000 pound max lift now. I guess one thing leads to another.

 

[jkust]

Obviously your 85 was an outboard. The outboard has a big power to weight advantage. We sold our 1991 Larson 170 with a Merc 115 ob and replaced it with a Glastron 185 w/3.0. The old Larson with the smaller 115 was quicker and faster.

Anyway, our 3.0 is just adequate even with 19" prop. My 9 year old son, wife, and father all slalom ski behind it. All start on two ski's.

Oh for sure...Bayliner that the 85hp was on was literally 1050lbs dry. We could outrun the 130hp boats for most of the lake...again way back in the day before everyone could afford any boat they might want due to the prolific use and availability of credit that didn't exist back then. I am a proponent of the biggest engine possible on any given boat and wouldn't take a 3.0 equipped boat if you gave it to me with the caveat that I couldn't immediately sell it these days. Maybe I'd keep it so my kids had something to use but that's about it. If there was a larger engine available, I am going to wait and find it. On that boat lift comment, I hear you. My lift is a 5000lb capacity and my current boat is maxing that out as it is the 24 foot canopy. Next boat requires a 6500lb capacity and 28 foot canopy which is the price of a very nice bowrider by itself. The 5000lb lift was 15k with the next step up coming at a steep price.