If anyone has a descent Yamaha single engine control (side mount built in) I will try to modify it to be less sensitive on the throttle. I think the Yam control will work with any engine. The old style Merc and OMC controls like mine are not worth fooling with. The new Merc and BRP are too expensive for this experiment. I thought I could find a Yam control. The only one I found is the one with the key and choke built into it and I am not interested in that style. jim
Jim, The control you are after can be found here http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dl ... category0= It is almost identical to the BRP control but you may have to make a plug for the trim harness or splice it yourself. It will do both push and pull. I do not mind the push to accelerate throttle. Perfect pass is in some ways tidier with it (when PP is controlling speed, the inside cable moves, not the sheath as it normally does). Pull could be better but I haven't played with it that much. My 225HO cowling is very light compared to my old Yamaha ones. I don't think the extra weight is in the cowling and if it is I'd consider it reasonable. It is a very quiet engine and I wouldn't want to sacrifice that for the little extra weight in the cowl. I suspect most of the extra weight is in little things like the vapour seperating tank, bigger alternator etc. A freind of mine adapted a Honda 150 to a f1 boat. It now weighs 170 or 180kg (under 400 pounds) and goes well. He removed all sorts of stuff from fuel pumps to VST tanks etc. Most of the weight came from the mid section, some from the cowl and innards. I'm not sure that I would recommend a 250HO for normal waterskiing. I think there comes a point where you have too much horsepower to make it easily drivable. With current hand throttles and that much torque I think the 250HO would be a bit much for most family use. Possibly very good for show skiers though. I'm not much keen on modifying the engine end of things to get more throttle movement. If you did, I would have though you would need to move the connection point further away from the pivot point, rather than closer to it. On my motor, the throttle cam is very agressive through the mid range. I'd love to be able to get a different cam which is more linear. All that said, it is pretty good already. I've got almost 20 hours on it now, still running perfectly. Fuel economy is excellent, about 12 litres per hour of skiing. I'll have to take a better look next time. I like it when you guys get your new motors, it means some great stories and some interesting pictures. But then it also means the end of my season so I don't like it that much...
Thanks for the e-bay link. I guess I used the wrong search terms. If you ever try the pull for power, you will see that there is way less friction because the cable does not try to wrap itself up inside the sheath. Merc uses pull for power, and it works very well. It is illegal to modify a post 96 outboard in this country except for racing although it is done all the time by the high performance crowd. My modification to the binnacle would produce less throttle movement requiring more handle movement making the throttle less sensitive. I just took a file to my throttle cam to remove the aggressive midrange profile. That works for a carb motor, I don't know how the e-tec ecu would react to that. I plan to switch back to the stock one just to see what happens. The weight of the OMC small block carb motors jumped way up with the new cowl (upper and lower). It was about a 25 pound increase as I recall. The direct injection motors are even heavier. Thanks for the info, jim I
ghind, For 2008, the 225 HO may have a 1.71:1 gear ratio if it has a certain suffix: - .58 (1.71:1) gear ratio for 225 H.O.* /250 H.O. * 225 H.O. models with “G” suffix. Yours would be a DHLSCG if indeed it does have the 1.71:1 ratio I guess.
Hi Mustski, Mine is just the E225DHLSC it does not have the G suffix That gearbox ratio would be interesting for some skiers. For barefooters, it would allow you to run the 19" high five without being too badly underpropped - it might even be perfect. The 21" high five is a nice prop but apparently the only one that produces the famous high five barefoot wake is the 19. That prop isn't something I'd generally recommend for the E225 though as it couldn't have the traction to use all the torque of this motor. If that was your one and only prop, you might as well run an E175 unless you need the top end of the 225HO. Still might be a brilliant option for a person that needs heaps of top end to pull big footers to 50mph yet still wants the high five wake. Thanks Greg
