Harry Krause wrote:
wrote:
Fuel consumption figures for Mercruiser marine engines:
3.0 L: 6gph at 3500 cruise, 11.5 gph WOT
4.3 L (2 bbl): 8.5 gph at 3500 cruise, 16.7 gph WOT
4.3 L MPI: 9.0 gph at 3500 cruise, 19.5 gph WOT
5.0L (2 bbl): 9.0 gph at 3000 (not 3500) cruise, 20.5gph WOT
5.0 L MPI: 10.9 gph at 3500 cruise, 22 gph WOT
350 Mag MPI: 12gph at 3500 cruise, 22gph at (5000 rpm) WOT
MX 6.2L MPI: 13.2 gph at 3500 cruise, 25.1 gph at 5200 WOT
496 Magnum: 16.0 gph at 3500 cruise, 30.5 gph at WOT
496 Magnum HO: 18.5 at 3500 cruise, 33gph at 5000 WOT.
Hmm, lets see: Running a pair of 496 HO gassers at well above cruise
speed would likely burn
close to 30 gph per side or 60gph total. 60 gph X $5/gal = $300 per
hour in fuel costs. Over $2000 for an all-day high speed run.
Running the same engines at 3500 rpm cruise would burn 37 gph, for a
total of $185 per hour in fuel costs at $5 a gallon. Still not cheap by
any stretch of the imagination, but at least not as far out of the
questiong for most folks as a $2000 daily (or even weekend) fuel bill
would be.
Runnone *one* 496 HO gas engine in a boat is an acceptable definition of
stupidity. If your is heavy enough to need a pair, then you should have
gone diesel.
No argument from me, but that immortal line "I can sure buy a lot of
gasoline for the difference in price between putting gas and diesel
engine in my boat" is going to be severely strained, if not sorely
tested, in the coming months. The high $/gal figures, for both gas and
diesel, probably have some people second guessing choices to power with
big block gas engines.