|
HELP/ADVICE -1986 17 Super Sport repower E-TEC 90 or 90 H.O.?
|
| consciencebay |
Posted on 04/23/16 - 2:10 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 32
Comments:
0
Joined: 06/02/11
|
Will the experts and gods of our beloved whaler please help me?!
I have a beautifully restored 1986 17 Super Sport with a 2004 90 HP Johnson that has sadly run its course (its become a bit unreliable and tends to go in and out of the shop). i am deciding between a 2016 E-TEC 90HP and the E-TEC 90 H.O.
my old 2004 90 weighs 330 lbs and is a v4 with 105 inch displacement
i ordered the new 90 E-TEC inline 3 from my dealer and noticed that it is 79in displacement. weight is 325 lbs.
The dealer says if i want to switch to the 90 H.O. which is V4 and has 105 in displacement and weight 380 - and pay the slight diff - i have about 4 days to decide - weight here is 380 lbs
from what i hear the 90 H.O. is a tuned down 115......concern i guess is the weight (an additional 50 lbs from my previous engine) and not wanting to be too overpowered - although the max HP is 100 on this boat.
I loved the 2004 90...had a great hole shot and with me alone, it was great for a good "hell ride" across the bay while also pushing nicely for my family of 4 and 2 dogs to head out to the beaches. Also was good to pull me up skiing and the kids tubing (I weigh about 200).....
please help me make this decision. For me its not really about the extra $1,000, its what is a better fit and will keep my whaler as close to what it used to be with the 2004 90 Johnson.
please advise
rob
Edited by Phil T on 04/23/16 - 2:24 PM |
| |
|
|
| Phil T |
Posted on 04/23/16 - 2:27 PM
|
Administrator
Personal Page
Personal Album
Project Albums
Posts: 6991
Comments:
6
Joined: 03/26/05
|
If you want/need high performance with a crew and tubing all the time, get the H.O. Otherwise the E-TEC 90 will do a great job.
Which ever motor you pick, mounting the motor and selecting the right prop will take the same research and review as engine choice. Please do not accept what the dealer suggests at face value. Most likely it will be wrong.
|
| |
|
|
| Joe Kriz |
Posted on 04/23/16 - 2:50 PM
|
Site Owner
Personal Page
Personal Album
Photo Albums
Project Albums
Posts: 11434
Comments:
452
Joined: 03/18/05
|
Just to Clarify:
The weight of the E-Tec 90hp H.O. is 390 pounds
http://www.evinrude.com/en-us/engines...etec_90_ho
The E-Tec 90hp is 320 pounds
http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...ticle_id=5
Here is one member with the Montauk 17' that has repowered with the E-Tec 90hp H.O.
http://www.whalercentral.com/infusion...r_id=13252
There have been several others that have done this with the Montauk 170 which is a good choice for this model for those wanting more power from a 90.
Edited by Joe Kriz on 04/23/16 - 2:58 PM |
| |
|
|
| consciencebay |
Posted on 04/23/16 - 4:58 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 32
Comments:
0
Joined: 06/02/11
|
thanks guys. really appreciate the replies and advice. Interested to hear more if there are any other considerations i should take into account when deciding between these two motors. Do we think the additional 60/70 lbs is an issue?
basically, i want the extra power but not if it will not have the boat sit right and not generally right for the boat...the 1986 Montauk hull is the same as the SS (aside from the interior) correct?
|
| |
|
|
| ursaminor |
Posted on 04/23/16 - 5:48 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 67
Comments:
0
Joined: 08/12/12
|
We have an inline 3 90 Etec on our 1989 Montauk 17. We've done plenty of water skiing, tubing, etc. with it and I've pulled some pretty big boys out with no issues. As stated, make sure you're propped correctly and make sure the engine is mounted at least two holes up. Three holes up is better but it will depend on the propeller used. Less weight on the transom is the preference.
1989 Montauk 17 / 2012 90 HP Evinrude E-TEC |
| |
|
|
| consciencebay |
Posted on 04/23/16 - 5:58 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 32
Comments:
0
Joined: 06/02/11
|
thanks ursaminor......question for the generous responders so far: will i notice a massive decline in the "hole shot" going from my 2004 v4 90 (105 cu in displacement) to the eTec 90 hp (inline 3 with 79 in displacement)? .......part of the reason i am staying 2-stroke is that I NEED MY HOLE SHOT on a sunny friday after a rough week of work!
good to hear you are having no issues pulling big boys out skiing!
Edited by consciencebay on 04/23/16 - 5:59 PM |
| |
|
|
| tedious |
Posted on 04/24/16 - 1:49 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 1072
Comments:
2
Joined: 09/07/08
|
Rob, from your description (need for speed on occasion) I'd sure be thinking about the HO. The only concern is the weight, so how about simulating that by putting 60 extra pounds in the stern of your current setup and checking it out?
I can think of nothing worse than spending many thousands to repower a boat and being unhappy with the result!
By way of evil thoughts: the 115HO is the same weight...
Tim.
Edited by tedious on 04/24/16 - 5:16 AM |
| |
|
|
| gchuba |
Posted on 04/24/16 - 6:42 AM
|
Member
Posts: 1675
Comments:
0
Joined: 03/31/13
|
To me these HP ratings are like voodoo. Especially with Etec (I have the 200hp HO). Etec uses a same the same block motor and fools with the computer and Woolah!!!! A 175hp or 150hp becomes a 200hp (I am not familiar with the 90hp+- series for use as an example). Then the size up the block and you then have the 200hp HO that then goes up to 250hp series with the same block. My boat was rated for 240hp and I found a 250hp and contacted Etec to reprogram the computer for less hp. No can do....fixed in stone.....consumer regs and emission standards, etc.... My rant is completed.
I say if the weight works get the larger block. I would always prefer to not push or low idle a big block motor to get similar performance out of a smaller block running harder wide open. Just makes sense to me.
Garris
|
| |
|
|
| Perichbrothers |
Posted on 04/24/16 - 6:52 AM
|
Member
Posts: 141
Comments:
0
Joined: 09/10/15
|
What's the price and weight difference on the 115?
Seems like you're a madman enough to not rule that out!
TP
|
| |
|
|
| JRP |
Posted on 04/24/16 - 7:30 AM
|
Member
Posts: 755
Comments:
2
Joined: 08/29/14
|
consciencebay wrote: .......part of the reason i am staying 2-stroke is that I NEED MY HOLE SHOT on a sunny friday after a rough week of work!
Too bad you wouldn't consider a 4-stroke. The new 2.1L Mercury 4-cylinder Fourstroke 90 HP (or 115 version) would weigh significantly less (359 lbs) than the ETEC 90 HO (or 115/HO), and offers roughly 24% more displacement. You could have the best of both worlds -- plenty of power and lightweight. It also costs quite a bit less than the ETEC!
Either way you go, good luck to you with the repower. It will be great having a nice new engine hanging back there and there really aren't any bad options!
|
| |
|
|
| seahorse |
Posted on 04/24/16 - 10:53 AM
|
Member
Posts: 103
Comments:
0
Joined: 05/21/06
|
I owned a SuperSport for many years with a 90 HP on it. Get the E-TEC 90 HO by all means as it outperforms the 3 cyl 90 and your old 90. It is also super quiet and smoother running with quicker starting than your old motor.
Edited by seahorse on 04/24/16 - 10:57 AM |
| |
|
|
| consciencebay |
Posted on 04/24/16 - 11:55 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 32
Comments:
0
Joined: 06/02/11
|
The 115 HO is, in fact, the same weight and displacement as the 90 HO (105cu in) but I would have to rule that out as it would undoubtedly void out my insurance - max hp 100 (I'm a madman who happens to be a professional risk manager!). Between you folks who have been kind enough to participate in this ever important repowering caucus for my beloved 1986-SS and one of my best friends and fellow classic whaler lover who I called in full panic, I am now leaning to the 90 E-tec HO.
The inline 3 with The 79in displacement (as my friend put it) sounds like the old 70HP (3cyl) block with high pressure injection and sophisticated computer optimization to do the HP voodoo as the gentleman above refers to. My 2004 has a 105 inch block, V4 config, and the 90HO has that same 105 block. As someone else said in these forums, "there's no replacement for displacement".
Since I run a heavy load with family, tubing and friends usually on board, it sounds like the right choice. Basically the question is this (as my friend put it): if I loved the V4 105 inch 2004 90hp block would I rather go to a de-tuned 115 or a tweaked 70 which has to be stretched hard to get those 90 horses out o' the barn. With 3-4 people and dogs I may be pushing the 90 e-tec harder on a regular basis. On weight (which was my primary reservation), my friend who has a 1985 classic Montauk with a 2009 Honda 4 stroke put it to me this way: He said "if weight is you concern it's not like you are going where no man has gone before....all the 4 strokes people got into from 2006-2010 weigh in at 370-404 lbs... Take the extra umpf"......
Now the final questions is what will the dealer barge me to cancel the 90 e-tec and get the 90 e-tec HO and how long will it take to get here (the 90etec took 3 weeks)......if anyone hunks I have gone wrong or is making a bad decision please speak now or forever hold your peace! And again thanks for all the help from the classic whaler community!!!!
Rob
Edited by Joe Kriz on 04/24/16 - 12:48 PM |
| |
|
|
| Joe Kriz |
Posted on 04/24/16 - 12:50 PM
|
Site Owner
Personal Page
Personal Album
Photo Albums
Project Albums
Posts: 11434
Comments:
452
Joined: 03/18/05
|
tedious wrote:
The only concern is the weight, so how about simulating that by putting 60 extra pounds in the stern of your current setup and checking it out?
To Clarify for accuracy, the difference between 390 pounds and 320 pounds is 70 extra pounds difference.
|
| |
|
|
| consciencebay |
Posted on 04/24/16 - 1:42 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 32
Comments:
0
Joined: 06/02/11
|
Very Valid and accurate point Joe, however in this example, I would be going from the 2004 v4 90 which weighs 335 to a 90HO which is 390..... So that is 55lbs.....but you are correct in the comparison to the 90etec. My friend has the 17 montauk with a Honda 2008 4 stroke that he says is 400 lbs . I also lose the 3 gal VRO oil tank and will probably be able to shift to a 9gal portable tank as opposed to the 15 gal I have currently in the stern (because my 2004 ate gas)-save 20-40 lb right there when filled up
Again my concern would be getting that 90 etc and feel slower out of the hole and slower at top end than what I used to have......especially with 2-3 people in he boat ....would be a personal bummer for me....."what did I do to my baby!!!??".....
Edited by consciencebay on 04/24/16 - 1:44 PM |
| |
|
|
| Joe Kriz |
Posted on 04/24/16 - 2:02 PM
|
Site Owner
Personal Page
Personal Album
Photo Albums
Project Albums
Posts: 11434
Comments:
452
Joined: 03/18/05
|
Unfortunately you can't go back with your old motor unless you rebuild it or buy used.
So you are looking at 3 weight differences then.
Your old, and a choice of 2 new others at this time. Or 4 with the comparison with your friends Honda now.
The E-Tec 115hp and the 115hp H.O. weigh the same as the E-Tec 90hp H.O at 390 pounds.
That's 55 more pounds then your old motor and 70 pounds more then the regular 90hp E-Tec that you are also considering. (or were)
The E-Tec 90hp would weigh 15 pounds less then you have now.
Here's a list of current motors and weights.
http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...ticle_id=5
Would like to hear from Ron and update his experience.
http://www.whalercentral.com/forum/vi...d_id=20262
http://www.whalercentral.com/infusion...r_id=13252
|
| |
|
|
| consciencebay |
Posted on 04/24/16 - 3:29 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 32
Comments:
0
Joined: 06/02/11
|
Joe - thanks so much for these links. Ron seems to be happy with his choice but as your other link shows: I AM picking the heaviest option which still bothers me a bit. Everything else (even four strokes) are max 370.
I know I'm being over analytical now but the 79in disp and 3 cyl bothers me. I see it shares the same block as the 75. I had a 1984 70hp evinrude on a 1982 15 sport back in the 80s. 3 cylinder. I just worry I am going backwards and will feel I took a step down when I hit the throttle. I don't really want to go "less" on power and top speed capability. What is your opinion Joe? If it were you ? (Putting you on spot) but I do appreciate your vast knowledge and how you have all the facts
Edited by consciencebay on 04/24/16 - 3:40 PM |
| |
|
|
| Phil T |
Posted on 04/24/16 - 4:33 PM
|
Administrator
Personal Page
Personal Album
Project Albums
Posts: 6991
Comments:
6
Joined: 03/26/05
|
Just to comment on one of your key requirements, hole shot.
There are a dozen or more threads of Montauk/17' repowers with E-TEC 90's mounted 3 holes up with stainless steel props and on every one the comment is nearly the same:
"Be careful when you go hard on the throttle handle. I (or passenger) nearly fell backward/off seat..
Give passengers notice before dropping the hammer.
Edited by Phil T on 04/24/16 - 4:34 PM |
| |
|
|
| NeilCarp |
Posted on 04/24/16 - 5:52 PM
|
Member
Posts: 29
Comments:
0
Joined: 08/14/15
|
I had the choice between an ETEC 90 and an ETEC 115 because the dealer had the 115 in stock and had to order the 90. I was worried about over powering the rating of a 1978 Montauk but was thinking about the 90 HO. I went ahead with the regular 90 and must say it has PLENTY of power. The first prop I tried was a SOLAS 15 which was way too under pitched. It would, however, leave the water, literally. It would jump on plane in under 2 seconds but I would have to back off the throttle as it would easily overrev. I went up to a 19 stilletto which put the boat at 44-45 before I installed a bow mount trolling motor and battery in the console. After the trolling motor/battery, it will go 41-42 with 1 person and 40 with 3 people ice and gear. The boat still planes in less than 3 seconds boat doesn't come completely out of the water which was causing the prop to catch air. I only have the motor mounted 2 holes up and it still hits 5500 rpm with 3 people so I could probably still add some pitch but decided not to for watersports purposes. I did not like the boat at 44-45, to floaty feeling. These hulls are not built for running over 45 in my opinion. 40 is fine for me and I cruise at 30 mph running 4000 rpms sipping fuel like my old 9.9 on a 12 foot bateau, no kidding. The 90 HO and 115 require an external oil tank and would likely burn at least a little more fuel. All of this made me happy that I went with the regular 90. I dont think I would have ever used the extra power of the 115 which they offered to me for only $400 more than the regular 90.
Edited by Joe Kriz on 04/25/16 - 11:42 AM |
| |
|
|
| gchuba |
Posted on 04/24/16 - 7:33 PM
|
Member
Posts: 1675
Comments:
0
Joined: 03/31/13
|
I am with you with keeping hp within the rated spec of the boat. The reason I passed on the 250hp Etec. What still memorizes me, is the same block I now own at 200hp HO, is the block I passed on. One of the telling factors is if you plan on installing a kicker motor. I believe the consensus is the Etec 90hp would work.....the 90hp HO would also work. If you at any point want a kicker motor.....go with the 90hp. I believe the manufacturer came up with the motor hp tweeking for those wanting the high performance and still keep their boat in spec. Either choice is correct. Do not beat yourself up. I have buddies who like hot rodding various motors......me if I wanted more power than a Chevy 350.....screw the internal customizing.....go with a 454.
Garris
|
| |
|
|
| consciencebay |
Posted on 04/24/16 - 11:53 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 32
Comments:
0
Joined: 06/02/11
|
Thanks again for the interest, thoughts and responses to my dilemma.
I am NOT going to be ever installing a kicker or side motor for fishing. I don't troll.
The 115 would never be a consideration. Out of spec, unnecessary , and probably dangerous/insurance voider-outter!
I guess my problem distills down to this: I will miss my 2004 90 V4 Johnson dearly. I love my classic 1986 SS 17 and feel the motor and boat are a great match. And a repowering is committing to an engine I will likely have for 12 years+.
I don't want to feel that performance suffers (hole shot, cruising with load of 2-3 people, pulling 175-200lb guys skiing,etc) when getting a new motor. What's worse than spending 8k and feeling you ended up with slightly less in terms of baseline everyday performance? That would be a huge disappointment
So the question remains. How will the 90 etec 3cyl compare to my 2004 90 V4?
Less? Same? I doubt it could feel like more, but open to experienced opinions .
I'm pretty sure the 90HO will be a slight uptick in all above wants and needs as I'm sure what some write in this forum about engines losing compression over time - so I probably have and "85hp" and sounds like a 90HO is basically a 99 when its new
So for those who have parted with a 10-15 y/o V4 90 two stroke (105 in disp) and gone to a 90etec 3cyl, what's the gut feeling here?
I love how everyone keeps weighing in. It's a huge help and I thank you all
Regardless of my decision I promise to post pics and report back on performance.
Rob
Edited by consciencebay on 04/25/16 - 12:28 AM |
| |
|
