Hi finnz,

Well first, let me know which model specifically you are talking about. From your previous posts I didn't think you owned one, but that you were talking about getting a 50. Have you owned one?

>>I think it is cooler looking

That's pretty subjective, but you're certainly entitled to feel that way. I happen to think they both look great, but looks, except for quality, doesn't really enter into my engine buying decision.

>> and it is lighter

You are correct. Are you talking about the 44 or 50? The 44 is about 4oz lighter than the Taurus 2.6. The "new" 50 is about 1.5 oz lighter. The "old" 50 was 1.5 oz heavier. I believe Taurus put the extra couple of ounces to good use. It's in their bottom end design. Have you seen one?

>>and it has the best power to weight I have seen.

That is definitely open for debate. The numbers my new Taurus turns are significantly better than the data I've seen posted on the 44(including the numbers from the two I have owned) and mglavin's broken in one(s) are about on par with the best BME 50 numbers I've seen posted. The Taurus 3.2 turns about 400-500RPM more than the 2.6 on equivilent props.

>>It is the smoothest running engine I have seen to date as well.

Again, which one are you talking about, and is it one you owned or saw run. I have owned two BME44s(they are excellent motors) and they are not what I would consider smooth, not even close to the Taurus. I have heard the 50 is smoother, but I have not seen one run in person so I can't compare it to the Taurus.

Bill