New Electric Outboard Announced

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
It's interesting to see how the Mercury marketing spins the product. The motor is equivalent to a 3.5hp IC engine and the battery is 16 lbs. They compare that to a 5 gallon gas can at 32 lbs but I seriously doubt this setup will get the range of a 3.5hp with 5 gallons of gas.
I guess if you are very risk adverse to have gas onboard these might make sense. Or if they were less expensive to purchase than an IC engine I could see the attraction. I just don't see buying one anytime soon.
 
To my own surprise I've become a convert to a lot of electric equipment lately - even a battery powered Stihl chainsaw I never thought would be strong enough. I'm not there yet with electric outboards though. But then our waters are often very rough and our section of the river is 26 miles long with a (mild) current so...
 
I have known, loved and used Mercury outboards since I was a kid. I wish there was a little more information available in the articles, like price. Like Iwarden, I am a bit skeptical of the reported tech info.

The boat, on the other hand is manufactured by Brunswick. If anyone around remembers what they did to Harley Davidson and some other outdoor product manufacturers they will shy away from the boat. It might be a decent product but HEAVY.

pete
 
Based on the specs of the small model, it seems like it'll fit about the same applications as the other small electric outboards available.

I did some digging before buying a gas outboard for our dinghy and came up with the following. If you're content with non-planing speeds, electric is definitely viable. It's more expensive, but you gain the advantages of lower maintenance, not having to carry gas, etc. Range for low speed operation (~4 kts) was more than adequate.

But if you want a planing dinghy, electric possible, but from what I've found not yet practical. Our current dinghy power is a 6hp outboard with a 3 gallon gas tank. Total propulsion package weight with a full load of fuel is just shy of 85 lbs. From what I could figure, an electric outboard that would move our dinghy at the same speed the gas 6hp does, I'd be looking at about 250 lbs of outboard + battery. Range would be less than we have now with a full tank of gas, but still adequate. And we'd lose a lot of payload capacity to the extra 160+ lbs of propulsion equipment.

For dinghy use, anything beyond low speed becoming practical either requires a dinghy with a lot of surplus weight capacity (and being able to deal with lifting a heavier dinghy, etc.) or it'll require improvements in battery tech. The planing example I gave above involved a 190 lb battery pack. But for low speed use, as long as the equipment is reliable enough, I'd say it's already a good alternative to gas outboards (especially considering gas outboards tend to get fussier as they get smaller).
 
Their own specs say

7.5e generates 750 watts of power and offers performance equivalent to the Mercury 3.5hp FourStroke outboard
Click to expand...

Either, their 3.5 hp four stroke isn't 3.5 hp, or they flunked basic physics in high school. 750W is about 1hp, less if efficiencies are considered.

I love my electric outboard, but the industry would be better served to get their lies under control. Mercury, as a come-lately to the party, has to match the others lies I guess.
 
DDW said:
Their own specs say



Either, their 3.5 hp four stroke isn't 3.5 hp, or they flunked basic physics in high school. 750W is about 1hp, less if efficiencies are considered.

I love my electric outboard, but the industry would be better served to get their lies under control. Mercury, as a come-lately to the party, has to match the others lies I guess.
Click to expand...

The electric outboard makers all seem to do that. They like to quote that it has equivalent thrust to a 3.5 hp gas outboard (under some often unspecified conditions) but neglect to provide a real hp rating.
 
I have an ePropulsion as yet unused, until this spring when the mothership is delivered and the dink set up.

Piecing together the scant information on the new Mercury, it comes with a .75KW battery but a 1kw battery is available. The ePropulsion Spirit 1.0 Plus has a 1kw battery. Run time on the .75kw is described as less than the 1kw ePropulsion, as one might expect. But it appears with comparable battery size the run time is comparable.

So if it tests out to have comparable run times, choices would come down to price, weight, ergonomics and overall design, and dealer support.

Price is unavailable.

Weight: The Mercury is heavier. It appears to have a beefier shaft assembly, that may well be unnecessary in a 3.5hp motor.

Ergonomics and design: The Mercury breaks down differently, with a heavier shaft / mechanical assembly, so that if the plan is to launch a dink then attach the motor that would be harder with the Mercury. On the other hand, the Mercury transom mount detaches and one can attach the mount, and then attach the shaft to the mount. That's different and I guess I'd want to see how well that works, and whether it creates any advantage. Then, the battery sits covered by a hood and it appears electrical connections are thereby covered, which MIGHT present some advantage.

Dealer support: Torquedo has locked up a lot of the marine gear dealers so there is a good number of options for both purchase and parts. I have found there are very few ePropulsion dealers around, and I found it difficult to get delivery of carry bags for storage (took about 5 months), and that creates questions on repair parts availability in a pinch, like a new prop. One can only guess what the Mercury situation will become.

Bottom line, from what I can see the Mercury brings a different configuration to the table that might appeal to someone, but with comparable batteries it won't likely deliver more function, and that's no surprise.

I only glanced at the boat being announced at the same time. But its a 13 ft hard boat configured for fishing, with standing areas. A bit long to use as a dingy (for me). Its comparable in weight as a similar size Whaley made from the same material. I've seen no spec on carry weight capacity. Not a bad looking little boat, but for dingy purposes there are other hard dink choices out there.

Interesting new option on the motor. But no compelling advantage that is a game changer that I can see.

My two cents.
 
Pete Meisinger said:
I have known, loved and used Mercury outboards since I was a kid. I wish there was a little more information available in the articles, like price. Like Iwarden, I am a bit skeptical of the reported tech info.

The boat, on the other hand is manufactured by Brunswick. If anyone around remembers what they did to Harley Davidson and some other outdoor product manufacturers they will shy away from the boat. It might be a decent product but HEAVY.

pete
Click to expand...


The motor is manufactured by Brunswick too, if you consider Brunswick to be a problem.
 
rslifkin said:
The electric outboard makers all seem to do that. They like to quote that it has equivalent thrust to a 3.5 hp gas outboard (under some often unspecified conditions) but neglect to provide a real hp rating.
Click to expand...

Actually they do give a real power rating. In units of watts. 750W = 1.0054 Hp. There is just no getting around the physics. The "equivalent" term is meaningless claptrap and BS. Worse even than the shop vacuum vendors claiming "develops 5HP" when you know such a thing is impossible from a 110V outlet. At least they can point to instantaneous startup torque for a few milliseconds as rationalization. Air compressor vendors used to do this too until the FTC forbade them as misleading. The outboard makers claims aren't just misleading, they are patently false.

I love the ePropulsion on my dinghy. But is it what it is and it isn't what it isn't.
 
DDW said:
Their own specs say



Either, their 3.5 hp four stroke isn't 3.5 hp, or they flunked basic physics in high school. 750W is about 1hp, less if efficiencies are considered.

I love my electric outboard, but the industry would be better served to get their lies under control. Mercury, as a come-lately to the party, has to match the others lies I guess.
Click to expand...


I always scratch my head over these statements too. 1hp isn't 3.5hp. And 3.5hp isn't 1hp. But I guess 1 special-electric-hp is 3.5hp? WTF? I would LOVE to know how they justify this. My guess would be that it's some comparison of torque at a particular RPM, and is completely irrelevant to moving a boat.... Sigh. This is why I have such a hard time taking any of this seriously.
 
Pete Meisinger said:
I have known, loved and used Mercury outboards since I was a kid. I wish there was a little more information available in the articles, like price. Like Iwarden, I am a bit skeptical of the reported tech info.

The boat, on the other hand is manufactured by Brunswick. If anyone around remembers what they did to Harley Davidson and some other outdoor product manufacturers they will shy away from the boat. It might be a decent product but HEAVY.

pete
Click to expand...

I sure do remember the AMF years for Harley Davidson! I once drove a Harley Davidson branded three wheel golf cart; and I remember the HD branded enduro motorcycles. The 1970's were crazy times in American industry - diversification was all the rage so many companies adopted strange bedfellows, not just Brunswick.

But Brunswick has focused on marine for quite a few years and has decent portfolio of respected brands including Atwood, Quicksilver, Boston Whaler, Mastervolt, Searay, Maxum/Bayliner; and are past owners of Hattaras. For the last year, they've also owned Navico (Simrad/Lowrance/B&G).

I don't know why whenever a electric replacement for a combustion engine comes up that folks are so quick to poo-poo it. I have an e-bike that I carry on my camper van and charge off my solar cells. I guess I could compare to a motorcycle and complain about the range, but the two vehicles have differing utility sweet-spots. same with eOB and ICE OB.

Peter
 
twistedtree said:
I always scratch my head over these statements too. 1hp isn't 3.5hp. And 3.5hp isn't 1hp. But I guess 1 special-electric-hp is 3.5hp? WTF? I would LOVE to know how they justify this. My guess would be that it's some comparison of torque at a particular RPM, and is completely irrelevant to moving a boat.... Sigh. This is why I have such a hard time taking any of this seriously.
Click to expand...

The burgeoning OB industry is doing themselves no favors. They don't have typical shaft-lengths either so it's hard to tell what size to order.

I agree with you TT that if there's a logical explanation, it lies in the different torque profile which allows a different prop (or something similar). They probably need to come up with some sort of equivelency statement, sort of how LED lightbulbs do. As it is now, the eOB makers have to sell twice - first on the concept; then their product. That's tough when you obfuscate the underlying data. As the old saying goes "You gotta sell religion before you can sell bibles!"

Peter
 
Torque profile doesn't explain anything. The gas outboard can get whatever torque is needed by changing the reduction ratio, something surely they have optimized in 100 years of production. The prop diameters and pitches are not widely dissimilar between gas and electric outboards.

The problem they have is, a true 3.5 hp output requires 2.6 Kw input. That's an expensive battery, if it is going to last longer than 10 minutes.

The fact is, on a 500 lb all up dinghy (150 lb dinghy, 50 lb outboard, two 150 lbs adults), a 3.5 hp anything isn't going to make it plane, and you are at displacement speeds. At 10' waterline that is 4 knots, maybe you can get to 4.3 with the 3.5 wide open and 4.1 knots at half throttle. But you can do 3.9 knots at 1 hp on the electric. So in that sense, it is functionally equivalent. That doesn't represent anything magic about electricity, just the very non-linear characteristics of a displacement hull pushed to near hull speed.

Actual numbers from my (heavy) Bullfrog dinghy: with 5hp gas it would do 4.6 knots. With eProp 1000W outboard, about 4.1 knots. The eProp has a 1000WH battery so it'll do that for an hour. Back down to 500W, the speed drops to about 3.8 knots, and duration up to 2 hours. Functionally, it replaced the 5 hp, ignoring a couple of tenths of a knot.
 
In another thread we were discussing the magnitude of the losses between a battery and the prop with an electric drive. The intervening elements are the motor control electronics and the electric motor itself.



One thing I noticed in the spec sheet for this new Merc outboard is that the specified max input power is 1kw, and max prop power is .75kw. I think that gives us a useful data point of the looses through those stages of such a system....if anyone cares.....
 
Greetings,
Mr. tt. I think the point was made in the "other" thread that electric vehicles of all stripes are quite adequate for short local trips but have yet to reach their stride for long distances. Horses for courses.


iu
 
RT Firefly said:
Greetings,
Mr. tt. I think the point was made in the "other" thread that electric vehicles of all stripes are quite adequate for short local trips but have yet to reach their stride for long distances. Horses for courses.


iu
Click to expand...


Yes, I completely agree, and think the tender application is a really good one in most situation.
 
I build electric bikes so I can give some feedback. A 1kw input yields about 750 watts output so losses are 25% before transmission. E bikes generally deliver about 64 to 69% efficiency at the rubber. E bike makers advertise 1kw input bikes as 1kw bikes that are legal and that is true. The regulations are on motor output.
I have a 1.6kw input bike that is geared to deliver a whopping 120 ft/bs or torque from zero speed. With 5" wide tires at 8psi I have to get over the handlebars if I do not want to loop out. Top speed? 28mph in 18.9 seconds. Total power output sucks and is not likely to be better than 1hp continuous.
Total battery capacity for this bicycle is 56ah@52 volts, 2.8kwH. Range varies from 42 to 300 miles depending on riding conditions.
As a motor bike it checks none of the boxes I would be looking for. As a bicycle, I love it.
As for an electric outboard. First off, I think I have at one point or another dunked every outboard I ever owned. I want nothing to do with LiO batteries and fresh water let along salt water. No thanks no matter how waterproof they say it is. I am a bit nervous to take my big fat electric bicycle on a long boat trip.
 
Last edited:
On the power thing, I figured based on the testing they did with a very similar boat that the ePropulsion Navy 6.0 (with their recommended battery) would push our dinghy about the same as the 6hp gas outboard it currently has (at a higher price and weight). They claim the 6.0 is equivalent to a 9.9hp, but it's really about 8hp (which makes sense for running the same speed as the 6hp with the extra weight of the electric setup).
 
Art said:
Inch by inch, step by step... and the "new" eventually exists!!!! ... Everywhere in the world :thumb:
Click to expand...

That truism is surely not intended to only, currently refer to electric motors and battery storage... at this point of "civilization" development.

Close your eyes and realistically-dream for a moment [i.e. you get to keep and use your boats, cars, trucks, planes, motorcycles etc.]:

Full-Cycle, Carbon Neutral gasoline, diesel and jet fuels. Each fungible and drop-in ready to mix with E fuels as well as with refined crude oil fuels.

Scientists, mathematicians, physicists, chemists... figure out the correct global proportion of each fuel that can be daily burned to keep atmospheric CO2 content at correct level and oceanic pH levels below acidic.

I'm not trying to get down on electric motors and energy storage batteries... their current advancements are great! However... for many, many needs and reasons not all of the billions upon billions of liquid hydrocarbon fueled engines will be replaced by electric motors and batteries. Just ain't a gonna happen!

Full-Cycle, Carbon Neutral liquid hydrocarbon fuels will appear on the market!
 
Last edited:
"I'm not trying to get down on electric motors and energy storage batteries... their current advancements are great! However... for many, many needs and reasons not all of the billions upon billions of liquid hydrocarbon fueled engines will be replaced by electric motors and batteries. Just ain't a gonna happen!"

Personally, I'm not a greenie. Not into the global warming thing.

And as un-woke as anyone you might know.

I bought an ePropulsion because it fit my needs better than gas.

The same reason I have shifted to battery powered hand and garden tools. The higher prices are worth it to me in functionality.

The electric solutions will be adopted when and as they make sense for people.
 
FWT said:
"I'm not trying to get down on electric motors and energy storage batteries... their current advancements are great! However... for many, many needs and reasons not all of the billions upon billions of liquid hydrocarbon fueled engines will be replaced by electric motors and batteries. Just ain't a gonna happen!"

Personally, I'm not a greenie. Not into the global warming thing.

And as un-woke as anyone you might know.

I bought an ePropulsion because it fit my needs better than gas.

The same reason I have shifted to battery powered hand and garden tools. The higher prices are worth it to me in functionality.

The electric solutions will be adopted when and as they make sense for people.
Click to expand...

There's also the upside that the end user doesn't have to care about the initial fuel source, as it can be swapped out with no impact to you.
 
"There's also the upside that the end user doesn't have to care about the initial fuel source, as it can be swapped out with no impact to you."

True if recharged at the dock.

On the hook, its end fuel is using diesel (generator). Hardly green. It might look green and win an approving nod from greens as I pull into a dingy dock. But that would be all show.
 
We are actually going into a grand solar minimum and the world will need very bit of energy it can generate. It is a cyclical thing and the earth will cool by 2 to 3 degrees. Last Happened a few hundred years ago and was a major generator of famine, with much less sunshine, more cloud cover, and the need for more CO2.
 
Helmsman said:
We are actually going into a grand solar minimum and the world will need very bit of energy it can generate. It is a cyclical thing and the earth will cool by 2 to 3 degrees. Last Happened a few hundred years ago and was a major generator of famine, with much less sunshine, more cloud cover, and the need for more CO2.
Click to expand...

Bonified Scientific References, for your statement - Please.

"A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming"

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...g/14/global-warming-solar-minimum-barely-dent
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
2011 Beneteau Swift Trawler 34 for sale
Replies
1
Views
902
Mainship Pilot
Mainship Pilot
JDCAVE
Water Separating fuel filter: Racor 120R-Rac-01
Replies
6
Views
1K
RickyD
RickyD
V
Hello Y'all
Replies
1
Views
304
RT Firefly
RT Firefly
W
Yanmar 4LV pump problem
Replies
16
Views
841
Mac2
Mac2
L
  • Locked
1983 DeFever 41 for sale Long Beach Island New Jersey asking $67,500
Replies
12
Views
3K
lbitrawl
L

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom