Back to the main site

Yamaha outboard 300 vs 350

E

E4products

Active Member
Messages
43
Reaction score
4
Location
Frisco, Tx
I'm hopefully going to be able to place an order for a new 2575 this winter, but I'm still undecided on which size outboard to choose. I have demoed a boat with a 250 on it and decided I needed more power.

I've done plenty of research concerning the performance of these two engines on a 2575rcw, but would like to hear from owners of each as to why you selected the motor you did (300 or 350 outboards only) and are you pleased with your decision?

Thanks for your input.
 
Member CCanDo could probably give some insight since he has the 2575 slightly "enhanced" with the Yamaha 350 after starting out with a 250.

2575 Yamaha 350
 
E4products said:
I'm hopefully going to be able to place an order for a new 2575 this winter, but I'm still undecided on which size outboard to choose. I have demoed a boat with a 250 on it and decided I needed more power.

I've done plenty of research concerning the performance of these two engines on a 2575rcw, but would like to hear from owners of each as to why you selected the motor you did (300 or 350 outboards only) and are you pleased with your decision?

Thanks for your input.
Click to expand...
I selected the 350 because bigger is always better.... did not have a chance to compare to 300. Great performance and would do it again for sure.
 
I spoke to the folks at the Marina about this very subject.

Theory was that the 300 might be slightly faster due to the weight advantage.

The truth was that EVERY boat they have ever tested where they could make a direct comparison between identical models with the two different engines has shown the 350 is ALWAYS several MPH faster.
 
ericscher said:
I spoke to the folks at the Marina about this very subject.

Theory was that the 300 might be slightly faster due to the weight advantage.

The truth was that EVERY boat they have ever tested where they could make a direct comparison between identical models with the two different engines has shown the 350 is ALWAYS several MPH faster.
Click to expand...
This is good information. I'm leaning toward the 350. The dealer is going to let me drive a Q25 with a 350 next week, so this will give me an idea.
 
The V8 350 has more torque than the V6 300. The 350 is heavier, but IMHO, that is a good thing. The heavier engine will move the Center Of Gravity aft. Moving the CG aft will create improved bow rise. Bow rise will reduce plowing (AKA sneezing or stuffing ) at higher speeds and/or rollers and reduce wetted surface.

Subject to Bennington approval, you may want to consider a 6" Hydraulic Jack Plate. The Jack Plate serves to move the CG farther back, improve ground clearance (water and trailer) and running performance.

The 17" prop may work, but a 16" should also be tried.

IMHO, the floor plan creating most aft CG weight will work best. The objective is to not create greater total weight, but distribute the weight aft.
 
You may want to consider that the heavier weight in the back may give you more bow up when sitting than you want. I partially bought the 25' GLi instead of the 22' because I saw a 22' with a large Verado and it looked a bit funny sitting still with nose way up. It was nose up enough that stuff would roll off of the table inside.
 
LT1GMC said:
You may want to consider that the heavier weight in the back may give you more bow up when sitting than you want. I partially bought the 25' GLi instead of the 22' because I saw a 22' with a large Verado and it looked a bit funny sitting still with nose way up. It was nose up enough that stuff would roll off of the table inside.
Click to expand...
Perhaps visualizing my combined suggestions does have the hull setting at an uncomfortable, bow high angle, though that is not the case. My objective , with any boat, is to create a minimum wetted running surface, good handling, speed and safety. The listed set up serves all of those points. However, safety includes concern for stuffing the bow into a roller. While 50 MPH is slow by some comparison, it can be unsafe to fly over a roller and land bow first. Not only are the passengers exposed to risk, but the hull is subjected to stress damage.

The aft CG, compared to a CG location focused only on creating a level deck, will carve to the inside and pivot about the stern. (in other words, handle good) The forward CG will typically pivot about a location that ultimately discourages crisp handling. (in other words , mushy)
 
Per Yamaha's website: for a 25" lower unit, the 300 hp weighs 562lbs, versus the 350 coming in at 804 lbs, an increase of almost 250 lbs for a 50 hp increase.

Or you could go Mercury Verado 350hp at 667 lbs and save 137 lbs. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LT1GMC said:
Per Yamaha's website: for a 25" lower unit, the 300 hp weighs 562lbs, versus the 350 coming in at 804 lbs, an increase of almost 250 lbs for a 50 hp increase.

Or you could go Mercury Verado 350hp at 667 lbs and save 137 lbs. :)
Click to expand...
I bleed black (Mercury), however, for this application, I support the extra Yamaha weight, the heavier engine creates more bow lift due to CG. Also, the larger 350 is thought to have more torque and a heavier gear case. The Yamaha downside is prop options.
 
CcanDo

What did tb ever say to you about your transom modifications and jack plates use? I assume all warranty is null and void? I know they told me no go on a jack plates on my 2275 rcw.

Just curious

Todd
 
CcanDo said:
The Yamaha downside is prop options.
Click to expand...
Why is there a prop selection problem when you can put on a Merc prop? I have a Merc prop on my Honda.
 
I had a Merc prop on my Yamaha virtually the entire time I've had my boat.

As long as the splines match up and you have a proper thrust washer, you can run pretty much ANY prop you want.
 
I just returned from driving a 2575 Q with a 350 Yamaha. Wow! What a powerhouse. There was significantly more performance compared to the 250 SHO I drove about a month ago. The hole shot and acceleration were phenomenal.

One of these big boys will be hanging off the back of my 2575R once I place the order.
 
mtudb24 said:
CcanDo

What did tb ever say to you about your transom modifications and jack plates use? I assume all warranty is null and void? I know they told me no go on a jack plates on my 2275 rcw.

Just curious

Todd
Click to expand...
TB is aware of my installing the Jack Plate, they did not approve. I'm sure warranty would be debatable. However, their reluctant caution was an appreciated "Heads Up". The dialog prompted our considering the mechanical structure and designing a solution. The Yamaha 350 mounted to the original transom was found to cause a negative hook in the center tube.

The overhung load caused by the Jack Plate/engine weight increased the lever arm adding risk of failure. The solution not only eliminated the original hook, but prevented ANY hook when the Jack Plate/engine combination was installed. The solution was a gusset system we designed and fitted into the transom. Fringe benefits were improved handling, speed and ground clearance on/off the trailer and lake.

The boat now has 50 +/- hrs. and zero negative effects or issues, since that work was done. I must add, I support TB's position on not approving use of a generically installed Jack Plate.

The matter of props has to do with the larger 350 prop shaft diameter. Mercury is not known to have a complimenting hub for the Yamaha 350 shaft.
 
LT1GMC said:
You may want to consider that the heavier weight in the back may give you more bow up when sitting than you want. I partially bought the 25' GLi instead of the 22' because I saw a 22' with a large Verado and it looked a bit funny sitting still with nose way up. It was nose up enough that stuff would roll off of the table inside.
Click to expand...
I write this feeling accountable to those I may have encouraged to consider a Yamaha 350 or similar size power. Basically, one would consider larger power for performance, including speed. Therefore, in search of a perfect world, "0" deck angle may not be most prudent when designing specifications for larger power. Like many product applications, deck angle is open to individual preference interpretation. What one person embraces may not be acceptable to the next person.

At the end of the day, safety is an over riding factor. Therefore, as increased power increases speed, specs. also change. Point being, greater speeds dictate concern for not stuffing the bow....Please, set your CG accordingly.
 
CcanDo

Thanks for the reply. We ran hyd jack plates on our offshore center consoles with great effectiveness. I always contacted and worked with the manufactures before installing them. In all instances but one, the jack plates were approved by the manufacturer. The one that did not, we accepted that and reinforced the transom and took any liabilities on ourself. We still have that boat today and it's been running since 2003 with no issues.

Jack plates have wonderful benefits as long as they are set up properly. Obviously you have the knowledge and have done your homework and your boat set up reflects that

Todd
 
CcanDo said:
I write this feeling accountable to those I may have encouraged to consider a Yamaha 350 or similar size power. Basically, one would consider larger power for performance, including speed. Therefore, in search of a perfect world, "0" deck angle may not be most prudent when designing specifications for larger power. Like many product applications, deck angle is open to individual preference interpretation. What one person embraces may not be acceptable to the next person.

At the end of the day, safety is an over riding factor. Therefore, as increased power increases speed, specs. also change. Point being, greater speeds dictate concern for not stuffing the bow....Please, set your CG accordingly.
Click to expand...
I was not implying I wanted or promoted a pontoon to be flat when running. I was only pointing out with the heavier engines on the shorter boats, especially the ESP ones, could be more bow up than one would like, especially when at rest. I think it may be desired to have the dealer set the trim "0" point so the boat could not be in a position to "plow" especially for less experianced pilots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top