|
HELP/ADVICE -1986 17 Super Sport repower E-TEC 90 or 90 H.O.?
|
| NeilCarp |
Posted on 04/25/16 - 3:34 AM
|
Member
Posts: 29
Comments:
0
Joined: 08/14/15
|
You should probably get the 90 HO. I think that if you get the 90, you will always be looking back at the 90 HO wondering what might have been. It is the same motor as the 115 though. The only difference is the programming and cowl. If you arent tide to Evinrude, you might also checkout the Merc 90. It is the same 4 cyl block as the 115 but is lighter than the Evinrude 90HO. You seem to be hung up on stepping down to a 3 cyl from a 4.
One last thing is that you have a SS which is already lighter than a Montauk which means 2 things: it will be faster than the Montauk with all other things constant and will probably be better suited for the extra weight. I think the also the SS is lighter in the front than the Montauk with will also make it faster but might feel a little less stable at WOT. It will be a rocket!
|
| |
|
|
| consciencebay |
Posted on 04/25/16 - 4:49 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 32
Comments:
0
Joined: 06/02/11
|
Thanks Neil. I think you are right. I think I just want my V4 back and will potentially look back in regret if I go to 3cyl and find that there really is "no replacement for displacement" when putting an engine under load. On your point that "it is the same motor as the 115", this is true.......but in 2004 this was true too. Both the v4 90 and 115 were 335 lbs and had 105 in displacement between the 4 cylinders.
My final conclusion is that the block and basic config of the 90 and 115 hp engines of yesteryear (like my old 2004) live on in what evimrude now brands as the H.O. line. The new 90 etec is off the basic design of what was once the 70/75 HP 3cyl power plants (with more ancestry to my 1986 70hp than to my 2004 90) which they have optimized to crank out more consistent and efficient horsepower through better firing control process.
So where does the added weight come in (the 55 extra lb)??? The engineering major in me says probably from more advanced control systems and probably from the high pressure computer controlled fuel injection pumps (those are heavy) that have taken the place of the relatively lightweight (and sometimes mostly hardened plastic) carburetors of the old days.
Neil, thanks for your homework on the SS vs the Montauk. Out of curiosity, why would the SS be better suited to the extra weight? Assume you mean a SS with a HO ends up at the same total weight as a Montauk with a regular etec?
Again thanks to all for the replies. Check out my personal page for pics of the boat restored to its full glory. It's held up well since 2011. Can't wait to post it when it has a new engine. For the love of a classic whaler!
Edited by consciencebay on 04/25/16 - 5:10 PM |
| |
|
|
| Joe Kriz |
Posted on 04/25/16 - 5:24 PM
|
Site Owner
Personal Page
Personal Album
Photo Albums
Project Albums
Posts: 11431
Comments:
452
Joined: 03/18/05
|
For accuracy and clarification from the 1988 Boston Whaler Catalog.
Montauk 17' = 900 lbs.
Super Sport 17' = 850 lbs.
For comparison:
Striper 17' = 850 lbs.
Newport 17' = 950 lbs.
So, the Super Sport 17' and the Striper 17' weigh 50 lbs. less then the Montauk 17' model. All in their standard configuration without any extras or options added.
Now we all know the facts according to Boston Whaler published weights.
|
| |
|
|
| NeilCarp |
Posted on 04/25/16 - 5:51 PM
|
Member
Posts: 29
Comments:
0
Joined: 08/14/15
|
Joe Kriz wrote:
For accuracy and clarification from the 1988 Boston Whaler Catalog.
Montauk 17' = 900 lbs.
Super Sport 17' = 850 lbs.
For comparison:
Striper 17' = 850 lbs.
Newport 17' = 950 lbs.
So, the Super Sport 17' and the Striper 17' weigh 50 lbs. less then the Montauk 17' model. All in their standard configuration without any extras or options added.
Now we all know the facts according to Boston Whaler published weights.
Thank you. You sir are a steely eye Whaler man. If I remember correctly the seating position is more toward the rear on the SS. When I added 50 lbs of trolling motor to the bow and 70 lbs of battery in then center console, I lost 2 mph with no other changes. It is weight but also where the weight is in the boat. On a positive note, the extra weight up front also improved the ride and handling which I think was worth it. The boat corners like it is on rails.
|
| |
|
|
| NeilCarp |
Posted on 04/25/16 - 6:07 PM
|
Member
Posts: 29
Comments:
0
Joined: 08/14/15
|
consciencebay wrote:
Neil, thanks for your homework on the SS vs the Montauk. Out of curiosity, why would the SS be better suited to the extra weight? Assume you mean a SS with a HO ends up at the same total weight as a Montauk with a regular etec?
I was thinking purely from a payload stand point. The 2 hulls are the same. One has 50 extra pounds of stuff in it. The SS with a 390 lb motor weighs 1240. A Montauk with a 320 lb motor weighs 1220 and 1290 with a 390 lb motor. If you prop it right, it will be a hand full. I would be willing to bet if the bottom is clean and the hull is dry, it will break 50 mph with a stainless steel prop.
|
| |
|
|
| Perichbrothers |
Posted on 04/25/16 - 7:53 PM
|
Member
Posts: 141
Comments:
0
Joined: 09/10/15
|
The v4-90+ has always been claimed as a gas hog compared to the inline 3.
Are there any current stats about that?
We've got an older Yamaha 90 and love the power vs fuel consumption.
TP
|
| |
|
|
| consciencebay |
Posted on 04/28/16 - 9:25 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 32
Comments:
0
Joined: 06/02/11
|
Decision made.....just ordered the 90HO. Dealer was nice enough to let me make the change and keep the 3cyl etec in stock. I will keep you all posted on what happens here. And will send photos.
Perich - no idea on gas consumption but has to be better than my 90 2004 4 cyl....will keep track and send data as well.
Also will send you all and Joe Kriz hard data on GPS acceleration info and top speed data on my 17 SS....... help the whaler community the way it helped me here! Thanks again to everyone who chimed in and offered facts, advice and opinion.
Edited by consciencebay on 04/28/16 - 9:27 AM |
| |
|
|
| tedious |
Posted on 04/28/16 - 11:00 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 1072
Comments:
2
Joined: 09/07/08
|
Awesome!
Modern, fuel-injected motors seem to be efficient across the full RPM range, far more so than older carbed motors. That means for the newer motors, your mileage will be a function of how fast you are going, not the size of the motor. Obviously, the 90HO will go faster than the 90, so the HO will use more fuel at WOT. Hopefully that's not surprising, as it takes more energy to go faster.
Tim
|
| |
|
|
| consciencebay |
Posted on 05/08/16 - 5:24 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 32
Comments:
0
Joined: 06/02/11
|
The HO just arrived at the dealer and I went to check it out. Beautiful engine. Looks a lot heftier and a lot more like my old 2004 90 V4. Especially under the cover. Took bonnet off and you can see where the extra weight comes in....... Each high pressure injection pump must weigh 4lb each (I held one)... Also the computer module looks dense and must weight 7-10lb.....In addition the oil tank adds when filled. All makes sense. Glad I went with the HO.
Saw a 3cyl eTec being installed on another boat and it really does look to be a considerably smaller engine. I'm sure it puts out 90hp and is engineered well. But the dealer and I both agree that under a load it all changes. Different "strokes" for different folks! One thing is for certain, Bombardier/Evinrude is BACK and they have done a wonderful job bringing two stroke technology into the modern world. Im an Evinrude loyalist. Can't wait to have it installed in a few weeks! Will send pics and performance report.
Edited by consciencebay on 05/08/16 - 5:26 AM |
| |
|
|
| consciencebay |
Posted on 05/28/16 - 4:40 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 32
Comments:
0
Joined: 06/02/11
|
As promised, here she is! Just picked her up Yesterday. Happy Memorial Day everyone and thanks again for all the help. Will post more pics and report back with performance once I launch!
consciencebay attached the following image:
[118.38Kb]
Edited by consciencebay on 05/28/16 - 4:52 AM |
| |
|
|
| consciencebay |
Posted on 05/28/16 - 4:58 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 32
Comments:
0
Joined: 06/02/11
|
Just before leaving the shop
consciencebay attached the following image:
[99.26Kb]
|
| |
|
|
| Phil T |
Posted on 05/28/16 - 7:02 AM
|
Administrator
Personal Page
Personal Album
Project Albums
Posts: 6986
Comments:
6
Joined: 03/26/05
|
You want to have the motor mounted as high as she will go and a good stainless steel prop.
You want to prop the boat to hit the top of WOT rpm range with a light load. I would estimate you would be at ~ 50-52 rpm.
Given that you pull tubes, you should consider a second prop for just that with a little less pitch. It is not about time to plane rather RPM's with a load.
|
| |
|
|
| Joe Kriz |
Posted on 05/28/16 - 1:11 PM
|
Site Owner
Personal Page
Personal Album
Photo Albums
Project Albums
Posts: 11431
Comments:
452
Joined: 03/18/05
|
Looks like you still have the original Morse controls.
Did you get new engine gauges?
Motor looks great.
Hopefully you will put up new photos on your personal page.
|
| |
|
|
| consciencebay |
Posted on 05/28/16 - 6:28 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 32
Comments:
0
Joined: 06/02/11
|
Joe,
I got a new rpm gauge but haven't installed it. Had the dealer leave the original orange dials (but took home the new gauge - its basically the same gauge but while and blue).
The morse controls were installed when i did the restoration about 6 years ago. I keep them and the dealer did all new wiring and dashboard key switch for me. Trim/tilt on the rocker i installed in the dash during the original restoration. Im old school love the Morse!
OK now for the best part - launched today.....it FLIES...but its so stable....this engine is unbelievable. Its super quiet but has a hugely powerful hole-shot. At 5200 RPM you push the throttle to 5800 and you feel the jump to WOT and unlike my old 2004 v4, the WIND IS LOUDER THAN THE ENGINE!.....at WOT you barely hear it....
so happy with the choice
|
| |
|
|
| consciencebay |
Posted on 05/28/16 - 6:29 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 32
Comments:
0
Joined: 06/02/11
|
Phil, I am mounted up one hole...planes and rides great......same as my old one.....dealer said the flat plate on the lower unit should be just about at same height as bottom point on the Hull.
Edited by consciencebay on 05/28/16 - 6:29 PM |
| |
|
|
| tedious |
Posted on 05/28/16 - 7:05 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 1072
Comments:
2
Joined: 09/07/08
|
CB, that's old school mounting advice, and most dealers will mount that way unless you tell them otherwise. Bring it up another couple of holes and it will perform even better - better hole shot, less bow rise, easier steering, better mileage and top speed. Don't handicap that new motor by dragging it deep in the water!
Tim
|
| |
|
|
| consciencebay |
Posted on 05/29/16 - 5:33 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 32
Comments:
0
Joined: 06/02/11
|
I'm up one hole and it seems great......probably not worth bringing all the way back to dealer to go up one more hole, no?
|
| |
|
|
| Perichbrothers |
Posted on 05/29/16 - 7:13 AM
|
Member
Posts: 141
Comments:
0
Joined: 09/10/15
|
When you're planing,
Have someone go back and take a picture of the cav plate area,
then post it up here and we'll evaluate your tuning!
It should be skimming the top.
TP
Oh yeah nice rig!
|
| |
|
|
| consciencebay |
Posted on 05/30/16 - 5:32 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 32
Comments:
0
Joined: 06/02/11
|
When i am fully up on plane and running at 3ish mph or AS i am planing?
|
| |
|
|
| tedious |
Posted on 05/30/16 - 6:14 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 1072
Comments:
2
Joined: 09/07/08
|
consciencebay wrote:
I'm up one hole and it seems great......probably not worth bringing all the way back to dealer to go up one more hole, no?
Only you can decide whether it's worth it, but you have a beautiful boat with a brand new motor - don't you want it to perform as well as it possibly can? It's either going to be right or wrong for the life of the boat.
I think the advice was to come up two holes, not one, but I can't speak to that. If you post a question on mounting height for a Montauk someone with the same setup will help, I'm sure.
You can raise the motor yourself quite easily if you're reasonably handy.
Do you have a good stainless prop on there? If not that's another thing to make sure you get right, and then enjoy for the life of the boat.
Tim
|
| |
|
