Salt water vs. fresh water

Kim Forrester · Post by **Kim Forrester** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:38 pm

I've noticed some manufactures selling engines prepared for salt water running. Does that mean if I want to dock in La Paz for three months in the winter and Lake Dillion in the summer that I should buy the salt water prepared engine for the long term?

pokerrick1 · Post by **pokerrick1** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:52 pm

Are you seriously thinking of docking in La Paz? So am I!

Rick

James V · Post by **James V** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:17 pm

YES, please look for Salt water engin. However, most will be for salt water.

Non-Salt water engins will decay very quickly in salt water.

Most 50 hp's are salt water and all Merc's are.

Night Sailor · Post by **Night Sailor** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:52 pm

For any engine though, be sure you buy an engine built for salt water. To avoid salt or silt buildup and help impeller life, when leaving the engine unused on the boat for longer than a day or two, raise motor just above water level, run fresh through it via clamp feeds over the bottom intake holes for a minute or two, then leave it up out of the water as high as it will go.

ssichler · Post by **ssichler** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:59 pm

According to my dealer the only difference between salt and fresh for the Evinrude was the anodes -zinc in salt vs. aluminum (i think he said ) in fresh.

Bobby T.-26X #4767 · Post by **Bobby T.-26X #4767** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:40 pm

ssichler wrote:According to my dealer the only difference between salt and fresh for the Evinrude was the anodes -zinc in salt vs. aluminum (i think he said ) in fresh.

manufacturer's have different claims for the "salt water edition".
in addition to the anodes, some claim a "higher" grade of lower unit paint, while others claim an "extended life" impellor.

ssichler · Post by **ssichler** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:31 pm

If a manufacturer did offer a saltwater edition I would go with that since I could picture them invalidating the warranty on a freshwater engine used in salt water.

Bobby T.-26X #4767 · Post by **Bobby T.-26X #4767** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 7:01 pm

now i've never heard of that happening.
if you look at all <100hp motors in the MDR, i'm guessing that 90% are non-saltwater engines.
do you have any facts or experiences to support that sentiment?

Chip Hindes · Post by **Chip Hindes** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:22 am

The idea that a manufacturer would be able to invalidate a warranty for salwater use without a specific exclusionary clause to that effect is ridiculous.

ssichler · Post by **ssichler** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:32 am

You an attorney?
It's hardly ridiculous when you hear about how other product manufacturers use the abuse clause in their warranty's to deny claims. I'm glad to hear you guys don't think it's probable.

Chip Hindes wrote:The idea that a manufacturer would be able to invalidate a warranty for salwater use without a specific exclusionary clause to that effect is ridiculous.

Scott · Post by **Scott** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:32 am

Yup to the point of comedy.

I had the Mini into BMW 3 times for the same Recall and the only problem was a Tech's inability to properly crimp a butt connector on the Manufacturer fix. When I told the Serv Mgr that I had traced it and was going to crimp it myself and would mount the new loom myself he said that I would invalidate my warrenty and all claims on subsequent recalls if I did the work myself.

They couldnt get it right, Im sure I could!!

Catigale · Post by **Catigale** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:30 pm

My 50 Mercury BF EFI is a fresh water engine, Merc has a separate salt water line. However, my user manual talks about use in salt water, so I dont think they would have much of a case trying to claim that was abuse in itself.

Bobby T.-26X #4767 · Post by **Bobby T.-26X #4767** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:33 pm

Scott wrote: properly crimp a butt connector

this is the Mac site, right?

Chip Hindes · Post by **Chip Hindes** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:13 pm

You an attorney? It's hardly ridiculous when you hear about how other product manufacturers use the abuse clause in their warranty's to deny claims.

Nope. Are you? Please cite the examples you've heard of.

I've never heard of one marine manufacturer who has attempted such.

And I've heard of only one manufacturer which specifically limits its motors to fresh water use; Briggs and Stratton.

ssichler · Post by **ssichler** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 8:29 am

Read my original post. I said "imagine" not that I knew of any specific examples. I would be concerned that if I bought an engine labeled for fresh water use and the manufacturer sold a salt water version any issues they could pin on my use in salt water could be a reason for the manufacturer to invalidate the warranty. Likely? I have no idea. In the current cost cutting corporate environment you hear lots of stories of manufacturers looking for reasons to invalidate warranties.

Chip Hindes wrote:
You an attorney? It's hardly ridiculous when you hear about how other product manufacturers use the abuse clause in their warranty's to deny claims.
Nope. Are you? Please cite the examples you've heard of.

I've never heard of one marine manufacturer who has attempted such.

And I've heard of only one manufacturer which specifically limits its motors to fresh water use; Briggs and Stratton.

MacGregorSailors.com

MacGregorSailors.com

Salt water vs. fresh water

Salt water vs. fresh water

La Paz

Mercs are all salt protected,