|
ETEC 90 HO Repower
|
| rockyrhodes |
Posted on 11/21/14 - 10:03 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 8
Comments:
0
Joined: 07/22/14
|
Ron,
Good luck with the new E-Tek 90 HP HO. I just purchased one today for my Montauk 170. Went back and forth between the standard 90 and the high output 90. The dealer really pushed for the HO, not that much more money, but because of the size and weight of the 170 compared to older Montuaks he thought it would be a much better overall performance fit. After much deliberation I decided to go with the HO. Did you mount the external oil tank in the console. Did you add an additional water separator? I haven't seen any posts with the 90 HO on a 170 but I will report my test results in the spring.
|
| |
|
|
| Ron Mazcko |
Posted on 11/22/14 - 3:29 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Project Albums
Posts: 73
Comments:
13
Joined: 04/21/09
|
Finally, I'm not the only one. Congratulations, I'm sure you will be very pleased with the performance. Other than some significant improvements to the HO vs Standard 90, the primary reason that I wanted the HO pertained to my typical heavy loading conditions.
I mounted the external Oil tank opposite the battery in the back, primarily to somewhat balance the weight. As this is under my stern seat, it's out of the way. Yes, I have a fuel/water separator.
Yes, please let us know of your test results.
Ronald Mazcko |
| |
|
|
| Slarkin50 |
Posted on 11/23/14 - 5:10 AM
|
Member
Posts: 4
Comments:
0
Joined: 11/15/14
|
wing15601 wrote:
I purchased a new E-TEC 90 for my 1984 Montauk last year. I have only used full throttle a few times, just for fuel usage measurement and to check performance after having the engine raised to 3 holes up. Several times just to do it but only with glass smooth water. I don't know why anyone could want more power on this hull. Economy is so good it's almost hard to believe.
Did you use a Jack plate or mount it directly to the transom? I am ready to buy a new 90 E-Tec and have different Dealers telling me different mounting recommendations. I want to hear from those that have experienced the difference and not somebody else's theory!
|
| |
|
|
| Ron Mazcko |
Posted on 11/23/14 - 9:37 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Project Albums
Posts: 73
Comments:
13
Joined: 04/21/09
|
I mounted directly to the transom. I mounted two holes up per the dealers recommendation. However, after I test it next summer, I will raise it to three holes up per this sites recommendation. Once I test this positioning,
I'll determine which position is best.
Ronald Mazcko |
| |
|
|
| Slarkin50 |
Posted on 11/23/14 - 9:57 AM
|
Member
Posts: 4
Comments:
0
Joined: 11/15/14
|
Ron Mazcko wrote:
I mounted directly to the transom. I mounted two holes up per the dealers recommendation. However, after I test it next summer, I will raise it to three holes up per this sites recommendation. Once I test this positioning,
I'll determine which position is best.
Mine is a 1969 with the shallow transom and supposedly you cannot get the bottom bolts into the engine with the old lower mounting holes as they have gone to a new hole placement. Did this affect your boat?
|
| |
|
|
| Ron Mazcko |
Posted on 11/23/14 - 10:07 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Project Albums
Posts: 73
Comments:
13
Joined: 04/21/09
|
For my installation, I did not have to modify the transom in anyway. The original engine mounting hole locations were used. See the last photo of my personal page for reference.
Ronald Mazcko |
| |
|
|
| Joe Kriz |
Posted on 11/23/14 - 10:21 AM
|
Site Owner
Personal Page
Personal Album
Photo Albums
Project Albums
Posts: 11447
Comments:
452
Joined: 03/18/05
|
Ron's 17' hull has the deeper splashwell that started around 1986/1987
This deeper splashwell allowed for the Standard BIA mounting holes to be drilled.
The upper black and lower red holes are the standard BIA
http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...icle_id=82
People with older 16'/17' hulls would need to drill the Green holes in the drawing above. (possibly the yellow but measure twice)
If using the Green holes, your motor would be mounted 2 holes up and would be the lowest it could be mounted (using those holes) which is just fine for props and motors today.
You could also raise it one more hole if needed.
See this project album on drilling the Green holes:
http://www.whalercentral.com/userphot...lbum_id=64
There are quite a few others that have done the same thing above installing all the different brands of motors.
See crbenny's personal page and his E-Tec and the Green holes he drilled.
http://www.whalercentral.com/infusion...ser_id=291
|
| |
|
|
| Ron Mazcko |
Posted on 11/23/14 - 10:28 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Project Albums
Posts: 73
Comments:
13
Joined: 04/21/09
|
Joe, thanks for the explanation and references!
Ronald Mazcko |
| |
|
|
| Slarkin50 |
Posted on 11/23/14 - 2:28 PM
|
Member
Posts: 4
Comments:
0
Joined: 11/15/14
|
Ron Mazcko wrote:
For my installation, I did not have to modify the transom in anyway. The original engine mounting hole locations were used. See the last photo of my personal page for reference.
Thanks for the feedback! Steve
|
| |
|
|
| Slarkin50 |
Posted on 11/23/14 - 2:29 PM
|
Member
Posts: 4
Comments:
0
Joined: 11/15/14
|
Joe Kriz wrote:
Ron's 17' hull has the deeper splashwell that started around 1986/1987
This deeper splashwell allowed for the Standard BIA mounting holes to be drilled.
The upper black and lower red holes are the standard BIA
http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...icle_id=82
People with older 16'/17' hulls would need to drill the Green holes in the drawing above. (possibly the yellow but measure twice)
If using the Green holes, your motor would be mounted 2 holes up and would be the lowest it could be mounted (using those holes) which is just fine for props and motors today.
You could also raise it one more hole if needed.
See this project album on drilling the Green holes:
http://www.whalercentral.com/userphot...lbum_id=64
There are quite a few others that have done the same thing above installing all the different brands of motors.
See crbenny's personal page and his E-Tec and the Green holes he drilled.
http://www.whalercentral.com/infusion...ser_id=291
Joe, I appreciate all the info and sites that you referenced.
|
| |
|
|
| Finnegan |
Posted on 11/23/14 - 3:29 PM
|
Member
Posts: 1926
Comments:
16
Joined: 05/02/08
|
Chris Benny's classic Nauset is an absolute knock-out. One of the finest I have ever seen. And even this diehard Merc guy likes the E-tec 90 done up as a Bearcat 4-stroke. Very cool! I am amazed how good it looks with those colors and graphics, and how much it actually looks like an old Bearcat. Great work, Chris! Will I be seeing the boat in my area this winter?
Regarding drilling holes in an older shallow transom, I have discovered that the centerline of the top holes from the top of the transom can be raised to about 1-3/8 to 1-1/2" instead of the standard 1-7/8". I have done this on two my older Whalers, also using a transom stiffener bar on the inside, and it works well, even with high HP and allows for drilling the bottom holes using the 7-1/4" vertical spacing.
Neither boat shows eny indication of transom stress inspite of the high HP engines, even with jackplate setbacks.
This gives increased flexibility on mounting heights and does not force the engine up the full 1-1/2" for those not desiring to do this.
You can see such an installation here on the 1979 Montauk with 115 Merc:
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/lgolt...6809375088
|
| |
|
|
| Weatherly |
Posted on 11/23/14 - 5:01 PM
|
Member
Posts: 752
Comments:
4
Joined: 12/31/06
|
Another recommendation I have for the 16 hull before E-Tec repower is to fill in the center splashwell through hull drain tube and relocate it to the side or sides of the splashwell. The reason for this is that you do not want seawater draining directly onto your trim/tilt assembly, potentially causing premature failure or corrosion.
Edited by Weatherly on 11/23/14 - 5:04 PM |
| |
|
|
| crbenny |
Posted on 11/23/14 - 5:46 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 94
Comments:
0
Joined: 09/20/05
|
Mounting height for the 16'7" hull and E-tec 90 combination has been discussed many times. I started at 2 holes up and ran with both the Viper 17" and the Stiletto 17". Then I went all the way up and tried both props again. The raised height and corresponding reduced drag has improved time to plane, reduced steering torque and effort, and has most likely improved speed and economy. I say 'most likely' because I broke 45 MPH last January but didn't raise the engine until this past summer. I saw the same top speed when raised all the way however it was 93 degrees instead of 75 degrees. I simply haven't been out alone to see if I can break 46 MPH during the cooler months, but it's likely.
It's my understanding that not all 20" midsections share the same vertical dimension between prop shaft and mount point. It's possible that the E-tec 20" leg is simply an inch or so longer than other manufacturers but I don't know. What I do know is that this engine runs best all the way up and, regardless of which propeller I use, they do not blow out in the turns.
As long as you drill the green hole pattern, you're as low as you'll ever need to be provided you run a modern prop design. Larry's recommendation to raise the top holes would effectively move the sweet spot down one set of holes which may provide more usable adjustability.
Larry, the wife and I launched in Deerfield Beach last week and cruised down to Houston's on Atlantic for lunch. We went past your place and saw the 25' on it's trailer backed up to the seawall. Let's make sure we get together this season.
Chris
|
| |
|
|
| Weatherly |
Posted on 11/24/14 - 3:32 PM
|
Member
Posts: 752
Comments:
4
Joined: 12/31/06
|
Ron: I am eager to read more data - next spring/summer of course - regarding your E-Tc 90 HO performance on your Boston Whaler 17 Montauk. Congratulations to you for choosing such a powerful outboard motor. I am sure you will be happier with the 90 HO when compared to the gas guzzler carbureted 88 SPL, given your specific boat use and load tendancies. If I interpret your images correctly, you are currently mounted in the third mounting position (of 4), also known on this site as "two holes up. " Your plan is to re-mount to the 4th mounting position, or "three holes up" next season, to determine performance variances. (There is no 5th mounting position on the E-tec 90 HO). I am only left to wonder how the 88 SPL passed; the usual cause is some overlooked human factor like burning contaminated fuel, sticky t-stats or an impeller that disintergrated. Who knows, you are well beyond the previous century's outboard motor technology. Have you done your winterization of the E-Tec 90HO? So simple a process, isn't it?
Edited by Weatherly on 11/24/14 - 3:39 PM |
| |
|
|
| Weatherly |
Posted on 11/24/14 - 3:52 PM
|
Member
Posts: 752
Comments:
4
Joined: 12/31/06
|
Slarkin50: I too am preparing to repower my 1971 blue hull Boston Whaler 16 Nauset with an Evinrude E-Tec outboard. When I rig the motor, I will mount it three holes up on the transom. I will drill new "green" holes. I have already filled in the bottom "blind holes" in the transom and I filled the center through hull drain tube; I relocated the drain tube to the right side, located outside of where the outboard motor bracket will be mounted. I do not advocate changing the location of the upper mounting holes, as Finnegan suggested, specifically because you will end up having two holes drilled in your transom so close together - in the shape of a figure 8 -that you will have a structural repair to complete on your transom. I also do not advocate the installation of a bracket on the 16 transom.
I use plugs cut from Pacific Northwest Fir (1 1/8 hole saw), polyester resin filled, then gelcoat interior blue spectrum gel and exterior white gelcoat of the transom. I installed a new brass tube flared with boatlife calk (sic) sealant.
|
| |
|
|
| Tim Erwin |
Posted on 11/24/14 - 6:19 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 44
Comments:
1
Joined: 05/04/08
|
Hello weatherly, I'm in the repower vortex. All of this info about motors is mind numbing. You mentioned that you wouldn't put a mechanical jack plate on a 16. Would you tell me more. I have a 16 and I do have one. Thanks
Tim Erwin -1975 Montauk II, Yamaha 70 2cycle |
| |
|
|
| Ron Mazcko |
Posted on 11/25/14 - 4:25 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Project Albums
Posts: 73
Comments:
13
Joined: 04/21/09
|
Weatherly, I will certainly report back next summer on the performance of the ETEC 90 HO performance, i.e., after I run in both positions (existing - two holes up... and early summer - 3 holes up).
The old 88 SPL required $2K of work; including several lower unit adjustments/parts, new starter, and gasket replacements. I just did not want to put that kind of money into an older smokey gas guzzler. It gave me many years of enjoyment, so I can't complain. Winterization on the 90 ETEC HO was simple and a pleasure.
Again, thanks for the congratulations.
Ronald Mazcko |
| |
|
|
| Weatherly |
Posted on 11/26/14 - 6:45 PM
|
Member
Posts: 752
Comments:
4
Joined: 12/31/06
|
Tim: A bracket installed on a 16 hull is superfluous if the modern outboard is mounted at proper height, e.g., the E-Tec 90 inline outboard installed at three holes up on a 16 hull and equipped with a stainless three blade propeller.
|
| |
|
|
| Finnegan |
Posted on 11/28/14 - 7:10 PM
|
Member
Posts: 1926
Comments:
16
Joined: 05/02/08
|
I can see why many people would not want to bother with jackplates, and avoid the additional $350 expense. But as an alternate opinion, I use 6" or greater setback jackplates mainly because they allow for much cleaner rigging of the boat, keeping all the cabling out of the way and out of the splashwells. My experience is that they also improve ride, used in conjection with a good lifting propeller. And they allow for fine tuning of engine running height, which may or may not matter to a person.
As to whether they make a boat go faster, I have no data.
Here what I consider to be clean rigging on a Montauk - everthing dressed to the battery side:
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/lgolt...0817652866
In both cases, the use of jackplates gives me additional useable space in otherwise fairly small boats.
Edited by Joe Kriz on 07/29/16 - 6:37 PM |
| |
|
|
| Tim Erwin |
Posted on 01/14/15 - 8:46 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 44
Comments:
1
Joined: 05/04/08
|
I have a 1975 Montauk, classic hull. Right now I prefer a manual jack plate to drilling holes in the transom.
Tim Erwin -1975 Montauk II, Yamaha 70 2cycle |
| |
|
