|
1989 18' repower
|
| Surfgod82 |
Posted on 10/16/13 - 4:19 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 51
Comments:
0
Joined: 04/10/13
|
So I'm planning on a repower this winter. I was hopeing to get a little help on profromance numbers. I'm going from twin 70 hp Johnson's (originals) to either 150 Suzuki or 150 etec. I can get a great deal on the Suzuki because of a friend in the marine industry and he's local. I would like to hear what cruising speed and gph others who did the repower are getting. Any information would be great. Thanks.
|
| |
|
|
| Jbeaux2000 |
Posted on 10/16/13 - 4:40 PM
|
Member
Posts: 21
Comments:
0
Joined: 05/15/08
|
I recently repowered with a 150 etec. My setup is installed at least one hole two low, so it is not fine tuned for fuel efficiency yet. My AV plate runs under water when on plane at around 3500 rpm therefore my etec needs to be raised. However, with a 17 viper prop this is what I am getting. I expect even better fuel Economy cruising on plane once I get it raised up AND also put on the Rebel prop I have recently acquired.
http://i1363.photobucket.com/albums/r...mage-3.jpg
Edited by Jbeaux2000 on 10/16/13 - 4:51 PM
1989 18' outrage / 2013 E-tec 150-AAB model |
| |
|
|
| wading mark |
Posted on 10/17/13 - 5:26 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 94
Comments:
0
Joined: 11/13/06
|
Both are good engines but getting away from the 2 stroke oil is real nice. I just went from an Optimax to a Suzuki and I'll never go back to a 2 stroke.
|
| |
|
|
| Surfgod82 |
Posted on 10/17/13 - 6:49 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 51
Comments:
0
Joined: 04/10/13
|
Thank you for the info, I am leaning towards the four stoke. I guess I need to compare prices next.
|
| |
|
|
| whalerman |
Posted on 10/17/13 - 12:30 PM
|
Member
Posts: 540
Comments:
5
Joined: 06/26/07
|
Try a demo with the E-TEC. Won't hurt to try one. Just might be really surprised at what you'll find out. WM only had an experience with the opti-pop and that's NO comparison. Might as well compare a 1966 outboard to it.
THOM : 1999 Outrage 18, 2012 E-TEC 150, 2012 EZ Loader trailer |
| |
|
|
| wading mark |
Posted on 10/17/13 - 1:20 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 94
Comments:
0
Joined: 11/13/06
|
whalerman wrote:
Try a demo with the E-TEC. Won't hurt to try one. Just might be really surprised at what you'll find out. WM only had an experience with the opti-pop and that's NO comparison. Might as well compare a 1966 outboard to it.
My dad owns a 200 Etec on his 21 Whaler and he is quite unhappy with it. My dad and I have 4 Whalers with 3 of them running Suzuki now. My 21 has a 175 Suzuki and my 25 has a 250 Suzuki and they've been very good. FWIW, my 300 Opti had 1200 hrs trouble-free when I repowered and the 150 Opti on my little boat had 1375 hrs at repower.
Edited by wading mark on 10/17/13 - 1:22 PM |
| |
|
|
| Sjoconnor |
Posted on 10/17/13 - 1:46 PM
|
Member
Posts: 85
Comments:
0
Joined: 05/15/11
|
Have you considered the Mercury 150 four stroke? I just re powered this summer on my 20' outrage. What an engine! My main concern with the four strokes was the weight. I believe the mercury is still 30lbs lighter than the Suzuki.
Good luck with your decision.
Stephen
1989 20' Outrage, 2013 Mercury 150hp Four Stroke |
| |
|
|
| rwethereyet |
Posted on 10/17/13 - 2:44 PM
|
Member
Posts: 51
Comments:
0
Joined: 12/12/10
|
I re-powered with a suzuki 140. No complaints. Great motor for the money...! Weight and performance are not an issue. Ask your suzuki friend to compare specs and price (150hp vs 140hp)...Good luck
Edited by rwethereyet on 10/17/13 - 2:46 PM
rwethereyet
1992 Outrage 19' I, 2012 Suzuki DF 140 |
| |
|
|
| spuds |
Posted on 10/17/13 - 3:15 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 166
Comments:
5
Joined: 08/01/07
|
Sjoconnor wrote:
Have you considered the Mercury 150 four stroke? I just re powered this summer on my 20' outrage. What an engine! My main concern with the four strokes was the weight. I believe the mercury is still 30lbs lighter than the Suzuki.
Good luck with your decision.
Stephen
Not according to their websites. Online specs say the Suzuki is the one that is 30# lighter.
1985 Outrage 18 |
| |
|
|
| kamie |
Posted on 10/17/13 - 3:53 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Project Albums
Posts: 2975
Comments:
3
Joined: 11/04/05
|
I love my 175 HP E-Tec, gets the boat on plane fast and runs great. at WOT, i am about 46+ MPH, if that is important to you. I note that your in NY and winterizing the E-Tec with a push of a button combined with no maintenance for 3 years or 300hours whichever is longer, it an awesome engine.
|
| |
|
|
| Sjoconnor |
Posted on 10/17/13 - 4:07 PM
|
Member
Posts: 85
Comments:
0
Joined: 05/15/11
|
spuds wrote:
Sjoconnor wrote:
Have you considered the Mercury 150 four stroke? I just re powered this summer on my 20' outrage. What an engine! My main concern with the four strokes was the weight. I believe the mercury is still 30lbs lighter than the Suzuki.
Good luck with your decision.
Stephen
Not according to their websites. Online specs say the Suzuki is the one that is 30# lighter.
Actually, according their websites, the Suzuki is either 475# or 485# depending on shaft length. The Mercury is 455# without specifying which shaft( I assume 20") so add 10 lbs for 25" shaft, it's still lighter.
You may be comparing the Mercury 150 Verado.
Stephen
1989 20' Outrage, 2013 Mercury 150hp Four Stroke |
| |
|
|
| Joe Kriz |
Posted on 10/17/13 - 4:12 PM
|
Site Owner
Personal Page
Personal Album
Photo Albums
Project Albums
Posts: 11447
Comments:
452
Joined: 03/18/05
|
Suzuiki = 485 pounds for 25 inch X shaft
Mercury = 455 + 15 = 470 pounds for 25 inch X shaft
http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...ticle_id=6
Mercury is the only motor manufacturer on the list that does not show the weight of their 25 inch X shaft motors. They want us to guess so you have to add about 15 pounds to the 20 inch shaft version.
Edited by Joe Kriz on 10/17/13 - 4:17 PM |
| |
|
|
| Surfgod82 |
Posted on 10/17/13 - 5:30 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 51
Comments:
0
Joined: 04/10/13
|
Not really interested in the mercury, and I'm tired of buying 2cycle oil. The only reason I'm against the etec is the oil mixture. I know everyone says it doesn't use that much oil. But the fact that I need to carry the oil tank when I'm trying to save as much room as possible. My friend has an etec and to be honest he was promised a lot before he bought it and wasn't completely satisfied with the profromance. The motor runs great but he was told his mpg would have been better then it is , he tried a bunch of props and still not completely satisfied. I have always been an evinrude/ Johnson guy but I think four stroke is the way to go. Winterizing the boat is not a big deal even thouogh pushing a button is nice.
|
| |
|
|
| Slickityd16t |
Posted on 10/18/13 - 7:51 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 100
Comments:
0
Joined: 03/29/11
|
Surfgod82 wrote:
Not really interested in the mercury, and I'm tired of buying 2cycle oil. The only reason I'm against the etec is the oil mixture. I know everyone says it doesn't use that much oil. But the fact that I need to carry the oil tank when I'm trying to save as much room as possible. My friend has an etec and to be honest he was promised a lot before he bought it and wasn't completely satisfied with the profromance. The motor runs great but he was told his mpg would have been better then it is , he tried a bunch of props and still not completely satisfied. I have always been an evinrude/ Johnson guy but I think four stroke is the way to go. Winterizing the boat is not a big deal even thouogh pushing a button is nice.
Mercury does not just make 2 the OPTIMAX 2 stroke line they have four strokes Mercury 150 fourstroke and Mercury Verado. Ask Duf what he thinks about them he has two on his 25 outrage
Edited by Slickityd16t on 10/18/13 - 7:53 AM
1986 13 Sport - 40 hp Smoker |
| |
|
|
| Finnegan |
Posted on 10/18/13 - 1:27 PM
|
Member
Posts: 1926
Comments:
16
Joined: 05/02/08
|
At about $10.3K shipped to your door, no sales tax, the new Mercury 150 EFI 4-stroke, naturally aspirated, is a bargain. And from everything I have seen and heard, including Mercury's prop chart for the engine, it is one very strong engine, probably more like 180 HP. It has more cubes than either the Suzuki or Honda 175's.
http://www.jacosmarine.com/mercuryeng.../index.cfm
Evinrude is so afraid of it that they have been running their ficticious Tug-of War YouTube videos against it, just like they have done against Yamaha with no success. It is very telling that they picked this new Merc. Lately, I've been seeing the engines all over the place in Wisconsin boating areas.
|
| |
|
|
| kamie |
Posted on 10/18/13 - 2:40 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Project Albums
Posts: 2975
Comments:
3
Joined: 11/04/05
|
Surfgod82 wrote:
Not really interested in the mercury, and I'm tired of buying 2cycle oil. The only reason I'm against the etec is the oil mixture. I know everyone says it doesn't use that much oil. But the fact that I need to carry the oil tank when I'm trying to save as much room as possible. My friend has an etec and to be honest he was promised a lot before he bought it and wasn't completely satisfied with the profromance. The motor runs great but he was told his mpg would have been better then it is , he tried a bunch of props and still not completely satisfied. I have always been an evinrude/ Johnson guy but I think four stroke is the way to go. Winterizing the boat is not a big deal even thouogh pushing a button is nice.
Since you don't want a Merc and don't like the Evinrude, sounds like you already made up your mind. Enjoy the new engine.
|
| |
|
|
| Dukiball |
Posted on 10/18/13 - 6:19 PM
|
Member
Posts: 19
Comments:
0
Joined: 05/28/13
|
All the Work boats around the gulfcoast use Hondas & I hear they are very good on fuel if I ever repower it's going to be Honda it's worth a look
|
| |
|
