Johnson vs Mercury - Technology Question

[Chris1956]

In the fifties and sixties Mercury and Johnson each championed different kinds of motor technologies. J/E had V engines, electric gear shifts and air and water controlled chokes. Mercury had inline engines, mechanical gear shifts and electric chokes. Right now, although a lot of these differences have disappeared (all have 60 Degree V engines with mechanical shifts and primers replaced chokes, for example) there are still some differences. Early on, I had thought the J/E and Mercury had taken pride in their different philophies (Ole and Carl were strong, stubborn men), are the companies now just stubborn? For example, Mercury gear cases shift via a rotating shift rod. Johnson gear cases shift via verticle moovement of the shift rod. I consider the Mercury design superior since, and it is also used by other manufacturers. Any thoughts!

 

[steelespike]

Re: Johnson vs Mercury - Technology Question

As far as the shift design I believe E/J and Merc. have been this way since the 50s Both are prooven technology though I believe the inline shift is easier to maintain and adjust.I believe some don't even have adjustment.
As far as powerhead technology in the 60s they were pretty much at opposite ends of the spectrum. ie:
A 1960 Merc 6 hp developed its hp a full 1,000 rpm higher than the E/J 5.5 using about 2 cu. in. less.
Mercs technology probably closer to the present and E/J closer to the past.Both excellent technology but Mercs the more modern. And both coming closer together as design advances/successes are created.
Kind of like general internal cumbustion technology.
In the beginnihg a 5 hp engine would weigh hundreds of pounds and turn something like 500 rpm.Today the still relatively primative Briggs and Stratton 5 hp lawn mower engine turns about 3,800 rpm and weighs maybe
20 lbs.

 

[DJ]

Re: Johnson vs Mercury - Technology Question

I'm not touching the J/E Merc. fight with a ten foot pole. It's an unwinnable war.

However, shifting?

I consider the Mercury design superior since, and it is also used by other manufacturers. Any thoughts

Just because the Japanese copy it, doesn't mean it is the best. There are cost factors. J/E shifting is direct and straightforward.

Not to mention that I find Merc's shifting adjustments-perplexing. Maybe that's just me-a dinosaur.

On the other hand, (internal shifting wars) almost ruined Kiekhaefer Marine (Mercury) when Charlie Strang tried to talk Carl Keikhaefer out of a reversing engine (circa-mid fifties). Carl won, thus the infamous "dock buster".

Charlie Strang ( a brilliant marine engineer) went on to run OMC and saw his designs of an I/O, taken by Jim Wynn (Volvo) and Carl Keikhaefer (MerCruiser) onto greatness.

Read the book, "Iron Fist". If you do, you'll know the nuances of what we have today. It is a fascinating read.

 

[Laddies]

Re: Johnson vs Mercury - Technology Question

Chris, I belive that both companies are run by the bean counters and you will never see the over engineered engines of the past. Todays markets are driven by cost not necessarily quality or advanced engineering (just enough to keep pace with the competition)

 

[rodbolt]

Re: Johnson vs Mercury - Technology Question

how do you figgue mercs are more advanced? there block design hasnt reall changed much since the 90's.
the biggest advantage bith have now is closed deck blocks and oringed combustion chambers.
both have some fairly high tech products on the market.
and not all mercs twist for shift just as not all jonnyrudes push and pull for shift.

 

[jimmbo]

Re: Johnson vs Mercury - Technology Question

I grew up during the 60s and 70s in an OMC family, everyone had Evinrude or Johnson. Heard all the stories; Mercs were fast but did not last, Screamin Merc, Mercs couldn't pull a skier, etc.
In my teens I was rather fasinated by Mercurys 'Tower of Power' inline six vs. the OMC 'Fat Four'.
I think that in the 60s Mercury was light years ahead of OMC in big engine design.
The inline mercs put the reed valves on a bearing block common to two cylinders this negated the need for an external intake manifold and made for a very small crankcase which made for slightly more efficient tranfer of air/fuel thru the crankcase to the cylinder. OMC engine had the reeds mounted on a mamifold ending up witha slight larger crankcase volume.
Merc used a water surrounded dry exhaust system with a one piece gearhousing, OMC didn't get this until 1969.
Mercurys were turning large diameter tall pitch prop in conjuction with large 2:1 or 1.87:1(approx) gear reduction, OMC was spining small dia short pitch props with very little gear reduction 23:20.
Mercury had power trim in 1966, OMC not till 1973.
Mercury used the tilting pivot point of the transom bracket to feed the steering linkage thru since the late 50s or early 60s. This allowed the steering cable to be secured to the engine and tilting the engine did not affect the steering system. OMC still used pullies and clothline cable, or Mechanical systems which had to be anchoured securely the boat and had to allow for movement for when the engine was tilted or trimmed.
In 1966 Charles Strang left Mercury and joined OMCs engineering dept, 3 years later OMCs engine designs were radically overhauled bringing many things Mercs had had for years; One piece gear housings, water shielded exhaust, Prop hub exhaust, tilt tube steeering(1973), power trim(1973)

When the V6s came out in 75 OMC just added two more cylinders on top of their V4s, Mercury on the other hand designed a totally new engine. Loop charge vs. OMC crossflow. With the V6s came two things completely new for Mercury, removable cylinder heads and reed valve/manifolding pretty much like what OMC was using for years. Mercury still called their reed valves "internal", which they were, they just weren't buried as deep inside the engine as they once were.
I eventually bought a screaming inline 6. I used/abused it for 14 years, it was a great engine

 

[DJ]

Re: Johnson vs Mercury - Technology Question

Jiimbo,

I cannot disagree with your synopsis. I think OMC's smaller engines were always far superior.

IMHO, the talent was Carl Keikhaefer and Charlie Strang. When those two were gone, they had a harder time competing. Without MerCruiser, I'm not sure Mercury would have survived.

But, in the long run, I guess we have seen who won.

 

[jimmbo]

Re: Johnson vs Mercury - Technology Question

Carl was an exceptioal engineer with a good grasp of the big picture, but didn't have the disipline to focus on tiny details. That's where Charlie shone. I think Charlie was the true talent.

I love it in Iron Fist where Carl and a couple of guys go to take some women on a little boat ride. When the little merc won't start after several tugs on the rope, Carl loosens the clamps and tosses it overboard only then noticing the gas line wasn't hooked up. Or the time he(Carl) was in such a mood the wouldn't go home until he destroyed several engine on the dynos.
Not to mention his size 11 Master Key

 

[DJ]

Re: Johnson vs Mercury - Technology Question

I think Charlie was the true talent.

Agreed. Carl K. saw it and knew it too.

I love it in Iron Fist where Carl and a couple of guys go to take some women on a little boat ride. When the little merc won't start after several tugs on the rope, Carl loosens the clamps and tosses it overboard only then noticing the gas line wasn't hooked up. Or the time he(Carl) was in such a mood the wouldn't go home until he destroyed several engine on the dynos.
Not to mention his size 11 Master Key

That was Carl. Larger than life.

 

[jimmbo]

Re: Johnson vs Mercury - Technology Question

Mercury built most of their engines using only a couple of variations for the inline. ie) in the 70s all inline engines 20hp and above were built using using only 3 different pistons. The 2 cylinder 20hp shared the same bore, stroke and pistons as the 4 cylinder 50hp. The 2 cylinder 40 hp shared the same bore, stroke and piston as the 4 cylinder 80hp, 6 cylinder 90hp and 115 and 1972 140. The 3 cylinder 65hp, 4 cylinder 85, 6 cylinder 150, 155xs and post 77 140 hp shared the same bore and stroke as the last group but the pistons were different due to the 1 inch hole in the skirt for Power Porting

 

[Chris1956]

Re: Johnson vs Mercury - Technology Question

Thanks for the opinions and history lessons. I would like to think that the major manufacturers based their design upon their engineering, but copycatting is a whole lot cheaper. Some years, I happen to notice that a yamaha OB and an Evinrude OB happen to have exactly the same bore, stroke and displacement (something like 121.61 cu in). What a coincidence!

I guess I am reinterested in the differences between Merc and J/E, because I have recently purchased a '98 150HP Johnson. I still have my '77 Merc 1500, but the last J/E motor I had was the '58 fat fifty. The fat fifty was a low tech, over engineered prototype IMHO, when compared the to "high tech Merc 1500. However the '98 Johnson seems to be a great change in technology from the 90 degree cross-flow V-4s.d

 

[Chinewalker]

Re: Johnson vs Mercury - Technology Question

Several years ago I had the opportunity to sit down and chat with Charlie Strang regarding the engineering and personal dealings that went on back in the day, as covered in Iron Fist. Fascinating guy, and he reaffirmed that every word in Iron Fist is TRUE!

I even had the opportunity to see the engineering mind at work first hand one evening as he and Anne were leaving our place after a barbecue. As he left our driveway in his rented Cadillac, he drove over an old stump that my Dad had been meaning to grind up for years. The stump pulled the fuel line in the undercarriage enough to start leaking. Charlie used some bits and pieces from my Dad's shop and repaired the leaky line. Easily one of the highlights of my life - getting grease and grime under my fingernails with Charlie Strang...

- Scott

 

[seahorse5]

Re: Johnson vs Mercury - Technology Question

I even had the opportunity to see the engineering mind at work first hand one evening as he and Anne were leaving our place after a barbecue. - Scott

Charlie was married to a Barb years back who used to work at OMC Engineering. Has he remarried an Anne since then?

 

[Chinewalker]

Re: Johnson vs Mercury - Technology Question

Maybe it was Barbara - it was 15 years ago...
- Scott

 

[jimmbo]

Re: Johnson vs Mercury - Technology Question

Chris
Which 1998 150 do you have? I had 98 Ficht 150. Had all the upgrades done including a complete 2000 powerhead. I traded it in with 48 hrs and it already had a scuffed bore.
Engines I have owned cronolodgicly
1982 140 Evinude
1978 90 Mercury
1984 115 Mercury
1965 90hp Johnson
1998+ 150 Johnson Ficht
2002/2004 5.7 Volvo Penta

 

[Chris1956]

Re: Johnson vs Mercury - Technology Question

Jimmbo, I have the '98 six carb version. From what I have heard, a great motor.

Chronologically Ihave had:

1974 Eska 5HP
1976 Sears Ted Williams 7.5HP(Eska as well)
1961 35 HP Evinrude big twin w/1963 40HP carb and hood for disguise - never did run right
1959 Fat-Fifty short shaft
1958 Fat-Fifty long shaft
1977 Merc 1500
1972 Merc 850
'88 Mercruiser 4.3LX Alpha I
1998 Johnson 6 carm 150HP

As you can see, the last J/E motor I had prior ot the '98 Johnson 150, was the Fat-Fifty. Talk about technology shock!

 

[jimmbo]

Re: Johnson vs Mercury - Technology Question

The carbed 60 degree 150hp is an outstanding engine.

1961 35hp is not possible, the 35 was from 57 thru 59. In 1960 it was replaced with the 40hp.
http://www.old-omc.de/e_1961/seite_22_23.jpg

In 1972 Merc had an 80hp 4 cylinder, next engine up was the 115hp. In 1973 they upped the 4 cylinder to 85hp

The old Fat 50 evolved into a 60hp and evenually a 65hp in its final year, 1968.

 

[DJ]

Re: Johnson vs Mercury - Technology Question

I happen to notice that a yamaha OB and an Evinrude OB happen to have exactly the same bore, stroke and displacement (something like 121.61 cu in). What a coincidence!

That is true. Yamaha lost several court cases in the 1980's for patent infringement on OMC patents.

 

[Chris1956]

Re: Johnson vs Mercury - Technology Question

Jimmbo, That 850 was actually a '73 distributor model. I had a "fat-finger" mistake on the year.

When I bought the Evinrude, I was led to believe the Big-twin was a '63 40HP. When I had it in for repair, the mechanic told me it was a '61 35HP powerhead, with a '63 40HP hood and lower unit, and a 40HP carb. The carb had a hot water choke. The powerhead had compression relief, if that helps narrow down the year.

 

[jimmbo]

Re: Johnson vs Mercury - Technology Question

well the 35 was made in 57, 58, and 59. the next time a 35 was offered was in 1976 and it was a different block