Conference vicki::boats

    If you're thinkng about buying a force, it must be your first boat.

    I agree with previous reply...i would investigate other options on the
    motor acquired with this boat....Force would not be my choice

    Actually this is my fourth boat. Previous boats were 12',14',16' all
    equiped with Mercury outboards and I was always pleased with there
    performance. However the last one was close to 8 years ago and technology 
    has changed and so have some of the names on the market. I beleive the 
    other configuration that was marketed with this boat was equiped with a 
    Yamaha 75. Hull construction and reputation was my first consideration.
    I've read some of the notes on the Force engine and understand the some
    of the pro's and con's. Seems like alot of folks are divided. If you
    have any personal knowledge of their reputation and performance I'd
    like to here it. 
     I'm really in the market for a center console (not a whaler) 18ft.
    boat with a motor in the 75 to 100 hp range.
    
    Regards,
    Dave
                                                

    
    	I can't say much for the power, but I do know the boats.  I bought
    a 25' renken this spring and I've got myself walking a thin line of 
    "I'm realy pleased" and "time to trade."   The boat's being used in 
    the ocean so it does take a beating.  For the most part, it's held up
    well, but...  door hinges with 1/8" length screws, table post holder:
    cracked and unuseable and no frills.  But, the hull is sound and the
    OMC outdrive is the greatest.
    
    	
    	happy hunting
    
    	RW
    
    

    
    re: .3,
    
    
    >Actually this is my fourth boat. Previous boats were 12',14',16' all
    >equiped with Mercury outboards and I was always pleased with there
    >performance. However the last one was close to 8 years ago and
    >technology has changed and so have some of the names on the market. 
     
    Actually, that's true.  In the case of the "Force" the name has changed
    but the technology has not.  Look real close at the bonnet for a
    Chrysler "star".    Force outboards are 1960s technology Chryslers.
    Notice they paint them blue to match Bayliners.
    
    My personal choice would be to stick with Merc even if it cost an
    extra few thousand $$$ in contrat to a Force.  I've always had good
    luck with Evinrude/Johnson as well.  
    
    As for new technology, these Suzukis seem to be the rage in the
    Northwest.  I think it's because they give you something like a 3 or 4
    year unlimited warranty on the whole motor whereas you have to buy an
    extended waranty to match that with Mercury.  As a personal choice I
    try to buy American whenever possible and I find the Mercs and
    Evinrudes have a proven track record for me.  No need to switch.
    
    Renkens are also very popular in these parts, but I have no personal
    experience from wich I would pass an opinion.  I've seen them at the
    boat shows and picked up their brochure (which means I must have had
    some interest)
    
    Good luck with your choice!
    
    /brett
      

    Dave,
    	Let me join in as well. As most noters in this file know when it
    comes to outboards I'm a buy American type of guy, or at least I don't 
    avoid American. There is however one major exception to my position...
    Force. As a previous reply indicated, they are old technology. This 
    isn't subjective feelings this is hard fact. There was an article in a 
    boating mag this past year comparing Force with Merc, Yamaha and Suzuki 
    (OMC declined). I think the motors where 115 hp; I might be wrong there 
    but it was somewhere in the 90 to 120 range. The force was clearly 
    outclassed by all the others in every category except list price.
    	My own experience with a small (5 hp) Chrysler was enough to keep
    me away from Chryslers by any name as well.
    	Since Merc and Chrysler/Force are now part of Brunswich Corp there
    has been an upgrading of the Force motors by using some Merc parts,
    particularly in the lower unit. My own estimation however is that its
    not enough to bring them into the 20th century yet. In time the
    Force/Merc may be the same as Merc/Mariner...just different paint, but
    thats a long way off.
    	My advice would be to stay clear of the Force. The Yamaha option is
    cerainly viable, as is Merc or most other major brands.
    Good Luck,
    Paul
                      

I didn't think that the simple use of less-than-now technology was a reason to
avoid a product alone. If the products is a lot less reliable as a result, than
there is a real reason to avoid it, but just because the technology used isn't
the latest than it seems that there may be other reasons to purchase it.

.6 mentioned price. My impression of Force is that it admits to being a simpler
motor, that it doesn't try to keep up with every new advance in order to offer a
newly made motor to at a price that is more affordable for some people. For some
people, the products offered by Force are good enough for their needs and pocket
book. The features and benefits of a truely new motor might be nice, but not 
everyone needs and/or can afford it.

It is nice to be in a position to say that the difference is "worth it", but
remember that that is "worth it to me, and maybe it might be to you."  The fact
is we can't all go the distance, or see the need to, that is why we all don't
drive Mercedes-Benz cars. 

    Re .7> 
    	I agree that simple and inexpensive isn't necessarily bad but I feel
    that in this case it is. I didn't get into the details of the analysis 
    in my last reply but Force lost out in such areas as performance, 
    operating economy, horsepower to weight ratio as well as no features like 
    oil injection. I don't know if they have upgraded since the article or
    not but at the time, which I believe was less than a year ago they
    were clearly inferior to the major brands.
    	The reliability is also inferior. The reason they incorporated the
    Merc parts in the lower unit, according to another article was improved
    reliabilty (figures were quoted but I don't recall the magnitude). 
    	The excessive weight of the block detracts from the major advantage 
    of outboards, hp to weight ratio. This weight difference also leads me
    to suspect that the alloys used are not as corrosion resistant. 
    	In my experience with the 5 hp Chrysler the impression I got was the
    design criteria was "cheap first and function second". I had cronic
    problems with the pull start mechanism. It was designed more like a
    lawn mower than an outboard.
    	I usually don't jump on a line like this but in the case of Force
    I feel perfectly justified.
    
    Paul   

    re:.7,
    
    There's another saying that goes, "you get what you pay for".
    
    Or, "There's no free lunch".
    
    I've witnessed a few Force dilemnas that would turn me away.  Like I
    personally saw a guy pick up his new boat with a brand new Force on it
    while I was at my boat dealer.  He drove off with his family hanging
    out the windows.  Thirty minutes later (to make a long story short) he
    was back and the engine had ceased!!!!!!!  He said he wanted a new one
    and the boat dealer told him that he couldn't give him one because
    Force has written into their contract that they reserve the right to
    rebuild the engine!!!!!!  Ha Ha.  Gee, I'd sure like to get that baby
    back.
    
    The mechanic at the dealer (who I find to be the best service
    department I've yet to find) shook his head and said that he hates
    Force.  His opinion is that they sell inferior stuff and they are a
    bear to deal with when things go wrong.  
    
    For my money, I'll buy something that isn't going to cost me more money
    to fix down the road.  Buy quality and you won't be sorry.  I can't
    believe the difference between a Force and a Merc will hurt anyone that
    badly.  If their budget is that tight, then they may want to reconsider
    buying a boat in the first place becase even a new boat that runs
    properly is going to bleed you here and there.
    
    /brett
    
    p.s. The deal I am referencing has dropped Force Outboards when they
    were able to break the contract.

    You guys really get my goat! I asked for advice on Bayliner/Force in
    1986 when I was buying this boat and all I got was "Don't do it -
    you'll be sorry...) Well, I've been running my 1985 Force 85 HP for 5
    years now - the only problem encountered was my starter. As previously
    noted, they don't have the latest doo-dads, but that makes them less
    risky. I can't speak for the wieght as compared to Merc, etc., but my
    boat performs fine (40-42 mph @WOT).
    
    Give me a break!

    Renken builds a fine boat for the money.  
    
    I have had my 25' Renken since 1986.  It's been used primarily as an
    off-shore boat, and the hull and 270 hp OMC drive have held up
    remarkably well.  I have weathered up to 12-foot seas and the weekly
    hazards at the mouth of the Merrimack for six years with only normal
    maintenance and care.  I have the marina go through the OMC every two
    years (tune up, water impeller change, lube, adjustments, etc.) and
    have never had a complaint about the hull.  The mechanic complains
    about the maintenance design of the OMC, but I have had only good
    experiences so far.
    
    As far as overpower vs underpower -- it's a matter of use.  An I/O is
    heavy in the stern and a larger drive simply adds to that weight. 
    Where the cutoff on weight/power efficiency lies is a matter of how the
    skipper intends to use the boat.  A lot of use water skiing or up on
    plane might warrant a larger power package, but the lower speeds used
    for cruising and fishing don't call for it, and might even prove
    detrimental in the long run.  This is especially true in high following
    seas, when a heavier stern becomes a liability that could cause
    broaching or taking on green water.  
    
    By design, the stern doesn't usually respond as well as the bow to
    rapidly rising seas anyway and more weight worsens the response. 
    Sliding down the face of a large wave with a lot of stern weight also
    makes the vessel prone to broaching, which could roll the boat over in
    a heartbeat.
      
    The 350 OMC has been great for my use in cruising.  Anything larger
    wouldn't add value for me.
    
    		-mike-