# F200 4 cyl vs SHO 200 6 cyl



## yellowskeeter (Jul 18, 2008)

So I simply don't understand the new offerings from Yamaha and Mercury on the 200 hp 4 cyl engines other than being able to add dual engines on some cc boats and using the additional with clearance to make it work. But on a single engine installation, what is the advantage? I can't imagine they would perform the same, lets say a SHO 200 vs a F200 inline 4. 
F200 Inline 4 is 487 lbs with a 20" shaft and 163 cubic inches
SHO 200 is 505 lbs and 254 cubic inches

the F200 requires minimum 89 octane where the sho is 87. I am also seeing the SHO has a steeper price of about $1800 more, but I just can grasp that a certain given boat with a load will run equal with these engines. So what am I missing............


----------



## yellowskeeter (Jul 18, 2008)

so I keep looking and I see this, and other than better fuel economy, the inline 4 differences to the 6 is very different:

http://www.yamahaoutboards.com/sites/default/files/bulletins/XPR_H22Bay_F200LB_2013-04-03_BAY.pdf

http://www.yamahaoutboards.com/site...o_pro_xpr_h22bay_vf200la_2011-04-19_alm_2.pdf


----------



## ReelWork (May 21, 2004)

Slap "SHO" on it and people think it's a whole different type of HP and something magical is going to happen! 

Still geared/marketed to the bass crowd and little doubt it will sell like hot cakes...


----------



## capfab (May 21, 2010)

The 18 pounds difference is not even a big bag of ice. Old saying: no replacement for displacement. Get the SHO.


----------



## Bottom Finder (Dec 4, 2006)

Seems to be the trend, what some people don't realize is that you can have two motors rated for the same horsepower and they can perform and feel totally different. Many obvious factors come into play = DISPLACEMENT being the biggest factor, gear ratio, weight, etc. Just because they both have 200 on them doesn't mean you will be equally as happy with them. 

A challenge now is that compared to the old carb two strokes today's 115 class feels fairly gutless. It doesn't matter if it is two stroke DFI (Optimax or E-Tec) or Four Stroke, the 115's just don't have the get up and go of the old smokers. I know a lot of customers that used to own 115 2 strokes notice the lack of low end torque right away on demos. Heck you used to be able to push a 20-21' bay boat fairly well with any of the makes 115 two stroke. Sold several Majek 21 RFL with 115 or 130 Yamahas (Same engine, different carbs) to happy people.

We just got in a new Explorer 190 Tunnel Vee that I am trying out tomorrow. I went with the 125 Optimax and hope if feels stronger that the 115 Opti and 115 Four Stroke, I'll let you know.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

The inline 4 F200 seems like a perfect offshore motor for a twin set up on 23-28' boats.


----------



## Newbomb Turk (Sep 16, 2005)

"Many obvious factors come into play = DISPLACEMENT being the biggest factor, gear ratio, weight, etc. Just because they both have 200 on them doesn't mean you will be equally as happy with them."

^^^ This ^^^ It would seem that the 4.2l would have more torque and not work as hard as the 2.8l. Looks like the 2.8 also has a lower gear ratio to spin it faster..

​*F200LB 
**Horsepower *
200 HP​​​*Induction *
EFI​​​*Displacement *
2.8 L​​​*Weight *
487 lbs​​​*Gear Ratio *
1.86​​​
​*Yamaha VF200LA Horsepower *
200​​​*Displacement *
4.2 L​​​*Weight (Catalog Published) *
505 lbs.​​​*Gear Ratio *
1.75​​​


----------



## yellowskeeter (Jul 18, 2008)

capfab said:


> The 18 pounds difference is not even a big bag of ice. Old saying: no replacement for displacement. Get the SHO.


Ha! Still ways out on the engine purchase. Ive 100% written off the in line 4 for sure. Thinking about these 3 in no particular order:
Sho 225
Mercury 225 Pro XS
Etec 225

Like everyone says no substitute for displacement.


----------



## Newbomb Turk (Sep 16, 2005)

yellowskeeter said:


> Ha! Still ways out on the engine purchase. Ive 100% written off the in line 4 for sure. Thinking about these 3 in no particular order:
> Sho 225
> Mercury 225 Pro XS
> Etec 225
> ...


Fify :wink:


----------



## txsmith1 (Feb 13, 2012)

yellowskeeter said:


> So I simply don't understand the new offerings from Yamaha and Mercury on the 200 hp 4 cyl engines other than being able to add dual engines on some cc boats and using the additional with clearance to make it work. But on a single engine installation, what is the advantage? I can't imagine they would perform the same, lets say a SHO 200 vs a F200 inline 4.
> F200 Inline 4 is 487 lbs with a 20" shaft and 163 cubic inches
> SHO 200 is 505 lbs and 254 cubic inches
> 
> *the F200 requires minimum 89 octane where the sho is 87.* I am also seeing the SHO has a steeper price of about $1800 more, but I just can grasp that a certain given boat with a load will run equal with these engines. So what am I missing............


i thought the sho had a higher compression ratio than the f models?


----------



## OMAS (Jun 20, 2012)

One difference is the 200 SHO is only available in a 20" shaft and the F200 (I think) is a 25" shaft.


----------



## yellowskeeter (Jul 18, 2008)

OMAS said:


> One difference is the 200 SHO is only available in a 20" shaft and the F200 (I think) is a 25" shaft.


F200 is available in both lengths.


----------



## ReelWork (May 21, 2004)

Jolly Roger said:


> The inline 4 F200 seems like a perfect offshore motor for a twin set up on 23-28' boats.


Exactly.. The performance advantage (hole shot, time to plane and top end) is clearly with the SHO with the economy going to the 4 banger by a decent margin - almost 15%.

My first posting wasn't very clear but I guess what I mean for most people running bay boats the SHO would be the better choice from a performance perspective. That said, there are some people who will get an SHO because it has SHO on the cowling and not know much else about the motor when the F200 4 banger would be the better choice. Jolly Roger nailed it...

If I was rigging a bay or ski boat with a 20 inch shaft, the SHO would likely be hanging off the back. Better performance and larger displacement.

If I was rigging up an offshore Cat or something, F200 hands down.


----------



## ATX 4x4 (Jun 25, 2011)

Had the 4.2 been offered in a 25" shaft 200hp model, I honestly think I would have repowered rather than sell the boat I had simply because the max listed hp was 200. I wish I had an explanation from Yamaha as to why they do the HP numbers like they do on the sho/offshore engines. No 25" 200 or 20" 300.

I totally get they are watching out for their bottom line but I really can't make sense of their logic. Show me the numbers.


----------



## TOM WEBER (Aug 14, 2005)

Skeeter, I found a new 2011 200 sho to put on my 25 Majek last summer thru Evans. With a Bauman prop the boat will toss you out of the back end if you are not holding on coming out of the hole. Not a v hull but very impressive motor so far. Only issue is water pick up and impeller...which is fixable. Call me if you ever want a ride. Tom


----------



## yellowskeeter (Jul 18, 2008)

Thanks Tom. They are sweet. I have a sho 250 on my boat and love it. My next project is a old school ski centurion outboard that I am re doing and not sure what way it will play out other ran it will need a 200-225 on it.


----------



## TOM WEBER (Aug 14, 2005)

You gonna custom paint it? .. If I remember correctly your sailboat came out nice! Projects are a blast . Good luck and post pics.


----------



## yellowskeeter (Jul 18, 2008)

Gelcoat is in pretty good shape on the top deck so leaving that alone. Sides will have to be re gelled as it has some battle scars from the use. With all the different owners it has had, a total of 13, it has been abused a little and they all have put their crappy band aid to fix things including 3 different tank locations and fuel fill locations. Capfab is making some new saddle tanks to go where the stock ones are supposed to be and boat is at my fiberglass guy Mercedez in Pasadena getting the transom rebuilt and doing the glass work. Then the interior and last am engine. 
Deck will sand out and polish out nicely:


















And then the ugly ! 1986 ski centurion barefoot warrior. Grew up with one and one of my favorite boats of all time. Something about the lines of the boat I really like.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

where/what price are you seeing on the Inline F200?


----------



## yellowskeeter (Jul 18, 2008)

I just pulled them out of lmc's web site as they post prices.


----------



## whistlingdixie (Jul 28, 2008)

The F200 was designed to drop the price of the long shaft 200 and replace the old 200 hpdi long shaft. Yamaha needed a motor that will still perform and compete in that particular class of engines. It is a great bay boat engine but it will make a huge difference in the offshore series. The SHO engine and the F200 engine are two completely different engines aimed at two completely different markets.


----------



## Mt. Houston Marine (Jun 15, 2011)

*As usual...Whistlging Dixie is....Correct-a-mundo !!!!!*

*The SHO is just a big block Hot Rod for you muscle car guys !!!*


whistlingdixie said:


> The F200 was designed to drop the price of the long shaft 200 and replace the old 200 hpdi long shaft. Yamaha needed a motor that will still perform and compete in that particular class of engines. It is a great bay boat engine but it will make a huge difference in the offshore series. The SHO engine and the F200 engine are two completely different engines aimed at two completely different markets.


----------



## Momma's Worry (Aug 3, 2009)

one is an apple and one is an orange......no comparison...
all manufactures seem to me to have a displacement phobia for some reason...bigger is better, slower turning is better(offshore)
just now seeing 4liter(4stks)...so BRP will up theirs from 3.3 to 4.3liter...and out perform the others again?...


----------



## whistlingdixie (Jul 28, 2008)

Momma's Worry said:


> one is an apple and one is an orange......no comparison...
> all manufactures seem to me to have a displacement phobia for some reason...bigger is better, slower turning is better(offshore)
> just now seeing 4liter(4stks)...so BRP will up theirs from 3.3 to 4.3liter...and out perform the others again?...


For Offshore Yamaha has the choice of a V6 4.2 litre engine or you can go with the V8 5.3 also.They designed the 2.8L 200 for smaller offshore boats, bay boats, etc etc. I wouldn't call it the price point motor but It definitely saves you a lot of money from the V6 engines.


----------



## yellowskeeter (Jul 18, 2008)

Thanks for all the replies. The reason why I wanted to ask this question is because I was at a Yamaha dealer just getting an idea and the very experienced sales person that I have known for a while along with the manager that is also very knowledgeable where really pushing the f200 for my application as I will require a 200-225 outboard. I asked about the difference in performance vs a sho 200 and the said the in line 4 200 would run about 95% like the sho. I left scratching my head on that for sure. I see many places the f200 would be a good or better yet perfect fit, but just did not seem like it was a fit for my application. I still have a while to go and most likely will go with a 225 and all the "majors" have some nice offerings to consider.


----------



## Bottom Finder (Dec 4, 2006)

yellowskeeter said:


> Thanks for all the replies. The reason why I wanted to ask this question is because I was at a Yamaha dealer just getting an idea and the very experienced sales person that I have known for a while along with the manager that is also very knowledgeable where really pushing the f200 for my application as I will require a 200-225 outboard. I asked about the difference in performance vs a sho 200 and the said the in line 4 200 would run about 95% like the sho. I left scratching my head on that for sure. I see many places the f200 would be a good or better yet perfect fit, but just did not seem like it was a fit for my application. I still have a while to go and most likely will go with a 225 and all the "majors" have some nice offerings to consider.


For that Centurion I can't see anything but a 225 Pro XS or a SHO on the transom :cheers:


----------



## yellowskeeter (Jul 18, 2008)

Bottom Finder said:


> For that Centurion I can't see anything but a 225 Pro XS or a SHO on the transom :cheers:


YeAh I'm with you ! I'm almost fully convinced on a merc pro xs. I sort of want that two stroke merc sound. My other one had a 83' merc 200 on it and it was a screamer!


----------



## whistlingdixie (Jul 28, 2008)

yellowskeeter said:


> Thanks for all the replies. The reason why I wanted to ask this question is because I was at a Yamaha dealer just getting an idea and the very experienced sales person that I have known for a while along with the manager that is also very knowledgeable where really pushing the f200 for my application as I will require a 200-225 outboard. I asked about the difference in performance vs a sho 200 and the said the in line 4 200 would run about 95% like the sho. I left scratching my head on that for sure. I see many places the f200 would be a good or better yet perfect fit, but just did not seem like it was a fit for my application. I still have a while to go and most likely will go with a 225 and all the "majors" have some nice offerings to consider.


they are two completely different motors. if you are wanting a performance boat then the SHO is where it is. The F200 is a great motor but it is not the motor for your application.


----------



## yellowskeeter (Jul 18, 2008)

So what is the difference between the 225 pro sx and the 225 pro sx tm? What model would be better for this application?


----------



## whistlingdixie (Jul 28, 2008)

yellowskeeter said:


> So what is the difference between the 225 pro sx and the 225 pro sx tm? What model would be better for this application?


torque master lower unit? How fast will that boat go?


----------



## capfab (May 21, 2010)

whistlingdixie said:


> torque master lower unit? How fast will that boat go?


75-80...


----------



## yellowskeeter (Jul 18, 2008)

capfab said:


> 75-80...


Yup


----------



## williamcr (Aug 8, 2006)

txsmith1 said:


> i thought the sho had a higher compression ratio than the f models?


I agree
And the SHO's need the higher octane
I have talked to two different dealers and I remember reading it on Yamaha's web site somewhere that the SHO's need high octane 
Don't get me wrong
I do like the SHO's they are a great running motor.
They have a lot of response


----------



## yellowskeeter (Jul 18, 2008)

I need mercury to sponsor me! Or a dealer! Call it market research.


----------



## frankcr (Aug 8, 2013)

I will go back before most of your time to compare two stroke vs four stroke. Years ago, Yamaha came out with 350 cc racing motorcycles which tore up the 500 cc four stroke motors popular at the time. A two stroke can be a powerhouse compared to four stroke, but in modern times, the four strokes are the most common. Some feel that they are better as they are modern designs, but truthfully they lag behind two strokes for brute power.

Comparing four strokes, you have long stroke and short stroke engines with different power curves and of course displacement to consider. The manufacturer most probably builds the engines for different applications. Hope you find the one most suitable for your application.


----------



## yellowskeeter (Jul 18, 2008)

All good info. After a lot of research I am convinced the merc pro sx 225 will 
Hanging here, but will all be looking
new and on a new transom after Mercedes gets
done with the glass work.


----------



## ctcrop (Jan 5, 2012)

YS, that rig is gonna be sweet! Functional, fun, fast!


----------



## whistlingdixie (Jul 28, 2008)

frankcr said:


> I will go back before most of your time to compare two stroke vs four stroke. Years ago, Yamaha came out with 350 cc racing motorcycles which tore up the 500 cc four stroke motors popular at the time. A two stroke can be a powerhouse compared to four stroke, but in modern times, the four strokes are the most common. Some feel that they are better as they are modern designs, but truthfully they lag behind two strokes for brute power.
> 
> Comparing four strokes, you have long stroke and short stroke engines with different power curves and of course displacement to consider. The manufacturer most probably builds the engines for different applications. Hope you find the one most suitable for your application.


If all the Pro Motocross riders thought they could win in a 2 stroke again I am very confident they would switch back. Years ago four strokes were a lot slower but times have changed. This is why they call the SHO a game changer.


----------



## frankcr (Aug 8, 2013)

The valve train is the difference between the designs plus the four stroke piston fires every other trip to TDC. There are good uses for each engine design, and when you throw in other features, you can design an engine for many different services.

The valve train adds moving components which require service, so a rebuild of a four stroke is more complex and expensive than that for a two stroke with few moving parts.


----------



## Momma's Worry (Aug 3, 2009)

*motors*

whish I had a loaner pair of the new Yam 20" F200 4cyl to try out on our 26'(7500lb) Grady-White....if there was a "noticiable improvement" over our current 20" 2001 Evinrude DI 200's I would buy them...contrary to most those fitch motors perform very well(1,600 and 750 hrs so far) ...plenty of power loaded in seas... 1 to 1.7 mpg...depending on conditions.....


----------



## ReelWork (May 21, 2004)

williamcr said:


> I agree
> And the SHO's need the higher octane
> I have talked to two different dealers and I remember reading it on Yamaha's web site somewhere that the SHO's need high octane


No... Only the SHO 250 has a minimum octane rating of 89.

All others have 87 octane in the SHO lineup. The only other motor in the 4.2L lineup requiring high octane is the F300 (Offshore) and interestingly the F250 Offshore only requires 87. Little doubt the SHO 250 is programmed to run a bit more advance timing for overall higher RPM's and a bit more punch compared to the F250 where economy is the name of the game.

ALL 4.2 Liter motors, Offshore or SHO have a 10.3:1 compression ratio. The inline-4 banger F200 is also at 10.3:1 however the gear ratio is 1.87:1 no doubt to assist in swinging a little bigger prop.

ALL SHO's and Offshore series share the same gear ratio - 1.75:1.

Kenny, I have to agree with you. Merc Pro XS is a probably the best motor for that setup with the SHO a very close second (cost being the biggest negative). Gonna scream!


----------



## Won Hunglo (Apr 24, 2007)

capfab said:


> The 18 pounds difference is not even a big bag of ice. Old saying: no replacement for displacement. Get the SHO.


It is at Buc-ee's.


----------



## redfishandy (Feb 28, 2009)

They want you to run 89 in all of the four strokes


----------



## redfishandy (Feb 28, 2009)

Fuel ratings


----------



## ReelWork (May 21, 2004)

Andy, seems like there is definitely a disconnect from the Yammie website specs from what I'm guessing is from your online manual (which I trust you and your manual any day over the website)...


The plot thickens... LOL


----------



## redfishandy (Feb 28, 2009)

Its a tech bulletin


----------



## Momma's Worry (Aug 3, 2009)

so why do they have different prices,200,225,250 since only the air intake is larger and the ECM is dumping in more fuel ?


----------



## Ronnie Redwing (Mar 11, 2013)

Bigger horsepower=more profit for same R&D investment


----------



## txsmith1 (Feb 13, 2012)

ReelWork said:


> Andy, seems like there is definitely a disconnect from the Yammie website specs from what I'm guessing is from your online manual (which I trust you and your manual any day over the website)...
> 
> The plot thickens... LOL


ha ya thats pretty bad. boyles law is boyles law.


----------



## whistlingdixie (Jul 28, 2008)

ReelWork said:


> Andy, seems like there is definitely a disconnect from the Yammie website specs from what I'm guessing is from your online manual (which I trust you and your manual any day over the website)...
> 
> The plot thickens... LOL


their website must not be up to date or something because my sales side book also supports Andy's tech bulletin.


----------



## ReelWork (May 21, 2004)

whistlingdixie said:


> their website must not be up to date or something because my sales side book also supports Andy's tech bulletin.


Yep... and what sucks is in this day and age most people go to manufacturers websites for RELIABLE information and bottomline, that information should be no different than a tech bulletin, sales book or owner's manual.

Wonder how this would affect a warranty claim if it was found the consumer was using product A based on the website when the tech manual recommends product B should be used.


----------

