|
1996 Guardian 19 repower
|
| outhaul |
Posted on 08/07/19 - 9:52 AM
|
Member
Posts: 18
Comments:
0
Joined: 08/11/11
|
Hi,
I have a 1996 19' guardian with twin 70hp johnsons. Time to repower and understand that the max engine weight is 470lbs and 150HP for the hull
Need advice on a repower as I am currently looking at a number of options:
replace with:
two Yamaha 70 hp 2 strokes (474 lbs)
Yamaha 150HP 2 stroke (409 lbs)
Yamaha 130Hp 4 stroke (396 lbs)
Yamaha 150HP 4 stroke (490 lbs)
Suzuki DF 140HP 4 stroke (405 lbs)
The dealer is pushing the F150 yamaha saying weight should not be an issue.
I should be grateful for any advice you can give and particularly if anyone has repowered with an F150 Yamaha.
Edited by outhaul on 08/07/19 - 9:53 AM |
| |
|
|
| Phil T |
Posted on 08/07/19 - 11:13 AM
|
Administrator
Personal Page
Personal Album
Project Albums
Posts: 7043
Comments:
6
Joined: 03/26/05
|
Outhaul -
The Guardian of this era was based on the classic Outrage 18.
The maximum hp only related to the manufacturer at the time of sale and does not preclude subsequent owners from exceeding the hp rating.
If you do a search you will find very positive reviews of the Yamaha F150. I recall there have been over a dozen.
Some members note the Suzuki DF 140 is not a strong performer output wise.
Does your intended use off-island push you to use twins or a single with a kicker?
Keep in mind rigging component, (binnacle, gauges, network backbone etc.) prices have ballooned with computerization so factor that in when comparison shopping.
Phil T attached the following image:
[61.12Kb]
Edited by Phil T on 08/07/19 - 11:22 AM
1992 Outrage 17 I
2019 E-TEC 90, Viper 17 2+
2018 Load Rite Elite 18280096VT |
| |
|
|
| biggiefl |
Posted on 08/07/19 - 11:27 AM
|
Member
Posts: 890
Comments:
4
Joined: 05/08/06
|
Weight is in the eye of the beholder. I had 400+lbs on a Montauk and it was no a problem and would do it again. I am planning on a 225 4 stroke on my 1986 classic 18' which is 580lbs.
24 Whalers so far.... |
| |
|
|
| outhaul |
Posted on 08/07/19 - 1:24 PM
|
Member
Posts: 18
Comments:
0
Joined: 08/11/11
|
Phil T wrote:
Outhaul -
The Guardian of this era was based on the classic Outrage 18.
The maximum hp only related to the manufacturer at the time of sale and does not preclude subsequent owners from exceeding the hp rating.
If you do a search you will find very positive reviews of the Yamaha F150. I recall there have been over a dozen.
Some members note the Suzuki DF 140 is not a strong performer output wise.
Does your intended use off-island push you to use twins or a single with a kicker?
Keep in mind rigging component, (binnacle, gauges, network backbone etc.) prices have ballooned with computerization so factor that in when comparison shopping.
Thanks for this. The cost difference between the options is not big enough (over the life of the engine) to be a major factor and I would rather pay a bit more now for the right engine than save some money and spend the next 10 years wishing I had spent the extra $$$. I am very keen on the F150 and just concerned about the weight and if the boat will sit too low in the stern and have draining issues. I will do some searches on the F150 reviews you mention
|
| |
|
|
| Phil T |
Posted on 08/07/19 - 3:13 PM
|
Administrator
Personal Page
Personal Album
Project Albums
Posts: 7043
Comments:
6
Joined: 03/26/05
|
To simulate the weight of the new motor, plot the difference and add it to the stern splashwell in the form of water (8.3lbs/gallon) or bags of sand etc.
If the battery is in the stern, you should consider moving it into the console in the off season.
This will help you understand the trim change before you pull the trigger.
Note that the engine should be mounted 2 holes up.
Recommended props from owners who repowered include:
14.25 x 18 Yamaha Performance Series
14.25 x 17 Yamaha Reliance
Edited by Phil T on 08/07/19 - 3:22 PM
1992 Outrage 17 I
2019 E-TEC 90, Viper 17 2+
2018 Load Rite Elite 18280096VT |
| |
|
|
| outhaul |
Posted on 08/08/19 - 1:18 PM
|
Member
Posts: 18
Comments:
0
Joined: 08/11/11
|
Phil T wrote:
To simulate the weight of the new motor, plot the difference and add it to the stern splashwell in the form of water (8.3lbs/gallon) or bags of sand etc.
If the battery is in the stern, you should consider moving it into the console in the off season.
This will help you understand the trim change before you pull the trigger.
Note that the engine should be mounted 2 holes up.
Recommended props from owners who repowered include:
14.25 x 18 Yamaha Performance Series
14.25 x 17 Yamaha Reliance
Did some research and the existing 70hp 1996 johnsons weigh 248lbs a piece or 496lbs for both so the F150 at 490lbs (dry weight) should not add much if any more weight.
Thanks again for the advice and on props and engine mount.
|
| |
|
|
| wading mark |
Posted on 08/08/19 - 4:50 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 94
Comments:
0
Joined: 11/13/06
|
I'd get a single 150 4 stroke be done with it.
|
| |
|
|
| Marko888 |
Posted on 08/09/19 - 12:44 PM
|
Member
Project Albums
Posts: 413
Comments:
10
Joined: 05/26/08
|
I owned an Outrage 18 for 5 years.
It was originally powered by a 150 Johnson V6 at just over 400#, and with that engine, I also occasionally had a Yamaha T9.9 on the transom, adding another 110#. A 60# Group 7 battery was in the splash well.
I noticed a significant degradation in handling offshore when the T9.9 was added, the stern was heavy. So when I repowered, I went with the 407# Suzuki DF140A as a best compromise. I moved the battery to the console at that time as well.
We used the boat lightly loaded in the lakes, or heavily loaded in the pacific, and found the DF140 to be just fine. Quiet, and fuel efficient. It would do 40 mph with any load.
I would only listen to actual owners regarding a DF140A on this hull. There seems to be more naysayers than owners. Prop selection is critical.
The F150 Yamaha will be a great engine for this boat. I would for sure move the battery to the console (if not already there) at that time. This will maintain a nice balance to the boat.
Note the Guardian is heavier than the Outrage, so consider the F175 or F200 if high performance is the goal.
Edited by Marko888 on 08/09/19 - 12:45 PM |
| |
|
|
| Blackduck |
Posted on 08/09/19 - 1:04 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 519
Comments:
0
Joined: 02/25/06
|
I own a DF140, 2005, no, not an A. It is anemic, no more than a 125. I do not believe from the changes made in the current version, that it is much more than a 130. There are always two sides to things like this, but this one is easy, a no brainer, to advise against the purchase of this motor. The motor runs great, if your looking for a 125 hp engine. That boat would be a pig with this Suzuki.
Edited by Blackduck on 08/10/19 - 3:12 AM
Walter Reynolds
1973 Boston Whaler 16 Nauset 90 HP Yamaha |
| |
|
|
| Marko888 |
Posted on 08/10/19 - 8:32 AM
|
Member
Project Albums
Posts: 413
Comments:
10
Joined: 05/26/08
|
My point was simply that my DF140A experience was fantastic and it annoys me that the motor gets called a 125.
There is no way a lightweight 2.0 litre 140, will be as strong as a 2.7+ litre 150. While the horsepower is close, the torque is not, and torque is what gets your boat up on plane.
Outboards really should be rated for both HP and Torque, to help all to truly understand the output differences between the choices.
|
| |
|
|
| masbama |
Posted on 08/10/19 - 11:36 AM
|
Member
Posts: 91
Comments:
0
Joined: 03/13/10
|
Marko888 wrote:
My point was simply that my DF140A experience was fantastic and it annoys me that the motor gets called a 125.
There is no way a lightweight 2.0 litre 140, will be as strong as a 2.7+ litre 150. While the horsepower is close, the torque is not, and torque is what gets your boat up on plane.
Outboards really should be rated for both HP and Torque, to help all to truly understand the output differences between the choices.
I have a 2003 190 Nantucket. It has a T Top which adds weight and drag. It is powered by a 2016 Suzuki 140a. The motor maxes out @138 hp. My boat/motor combination is considerably heavier than the Guardian or Outrage mentioned. I had to fiddle with the prop and motor height to get optimum performance but it does just fine. We knee board and tube with four plus people in the boat and it cruises @25mph at 4300rpms and maxes out @41mph.
Would a 150hp motor provide more “umph”? Of course but it will also add more weight. I think for your boat the Suzuki would work just fine.
|
| |
|
|
| Blackduck |
Posted on 08/10/19 - 5:40 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 519
Comments:
0
Joined: 02/25/06
|
Just 2 more thoughts on the Suzuki. First, it makes no sense to me that the agency that regulates outboard engine horsepower ratings allows manufacturers this stupid 10% rule. And secondly, the fact is the engine, the DF140, has a bad history of guys complaining about it's lack of power. Name me another current production outboard with this reputation.
Edited by Blackduck on 08/10/19 - 5:43 PM
Walter Reynolds
1973 Boston Whaler 16 Nauset 90 HP Yamaha |
| |
|
|
| outhaul |
Posted on 08/10/19 - 6:09 PM
|
Member
Posts: 18
Comments:
0
Joined: 08/11/11
|
Marko888 wrote:
I owned an Outrage 18 for 5 years.
It was originally powered by a 150 Johnson V6 at just over 400#, and with that engine, I also occasionally had a Yamaha T9.9 on the transom, adding another 110#. A 60# Group 7 battery was in the splash well.
I noticed a significant degradation in handling offshore when the T9.9 was added, the stern was heavy. So when I repowered, I went with the 407# Suzuki DF140A as a best compromise. I moved the battery to the console at that time as well.
We used the boat lightly loaded in the lakes, or heavily loaded in the pacific, and found the DF140 to be just fine. Quiet, and fuel efficient. It would do 40 mph with any load
I would only listen to actual owners regarding a DF140A on this hull. There seems to be more naysayers than owners. Prop selection is critical.
The F150 Yamaha will be a great engine for this boat. I would for sure move the battery to the console (if not already there) at that time. This will maintain a nice balance to the boat.
Note the Guardian is heavier than the Outrage, so consider the F175 or F200 if high performance is the goal.
I Appreciate your advice. The boat is used offshore and The batteries are in console now
The f200 is not much more weight than f150 and whilst top speed is not the goal it would be nice to have the xtra hp in reserve.
I am getting quote on 150 hp merc next week and then will make a decision
It’s been helpful to get feedback from the forum. I will post before and after photos
|
| |
|
|
| masbama |
Posted on 08/11/19 - 12:09 PM
|
Member
Posts: 91
Comments:
0
Joined: 03/13/10
|
Blackduck wrote:
Just 2 more thoughts on the Suzuki. First, it makes no sense to me that the agency that regulates outboard engine horsepower ratings allows manufacturers this stupid 10% rule. And secondly, the fact is the engine, the DF140, has a bad history of guys complaining about it's lack of power. Name me another current production outboard with this reputation.
I would guess that the ones who are complaining are folks who bought a new boat with that motor pre rigged. Dealers will put the lowest hp engine on to make the price more attractive. I saw a 21’ Proline walk around caddy with the Suzuki on the back. Not enough for that big a boat. Heck, when The Nantucket fist came out, standard power was a 115hp four stroke. Way underpowered in my opinion.
I would like to see how the Suzuki 140hp stacks up against the new Evinrude 140hp.
|
| |
|
|
| biggiefl |
Posted on 08/12/19 - 7:40 AM
|
Member
Posts: 890
Comments:
4
Joined: 05/08/06
|
As a 1986 Outrage 18 owner with a F115, the numbers on the Suzuki do not show 140hp. I had a 1976 19' Revenge with a Suzuki 115 and the others who used the 140 literally performed about the same. Great engine but the older ones were not 140 in my opinion. I had a 1974 19' Revenge with a 140 Suzuki 2 stroke and she was a real 140hp.
24 Whalers so far.... |
| |
|
|
| Marko888 |
Posted on 08/13/19 - 7:36 AM
|
Member
Project Albums
Posts: 413
Comments:
10
Joined: 05/26/08
|
Blackduck wrote:
Just 2 more thoughts on the Suzuki. First, it makes no sense to me that the agency that regulates outboard engine horsepower ratings allows manufacturers this stupid 10% rule. And secondly, the fact is the engine, the DF140, has a bad history of guys complaining about it's lack of power. Name me another current production outboard with this reputation.
The HP rating is not the problem. The problem is that outboards are only rated for horsepower, yet torque is the factor that gives a boat acceleration. If outboards were rated for both, then it would be clear why a 2.0 litre engine feels weak compared to a 2.7+ litre engine. It’s simple physics...the smaller displacement engine has much less torque.
Read some performance reports on a few engines that have different hp ratings at the same displacement. Holeshot times are almost the same, but top speed increases with hp.
And by the way, the Yamaha F200 “suffers” the same slag as the DF140. “Weak 200” because it has smaller displacement for the hp. Weaker holeshot than v6 200’s, but almost the same top speed. The F200 is a great engine, but it’s no replacement for a larger displacement V6.
Anyways, some would rather complain than listen to logic. My time here is done. Adios
Edited by Marko888 on 08/13/19 - 7:54 AM |
| |
|
|
| biggiefl |
Posted on 08/13/19 - 8:48 AM
|
Member
Posts: 890
Comments:
4
Joined: 05/08/06
|
Marko...that makes perfect sense but when I see that 3 people who repowered the same boat as mine are getting the same or barely more top speed with 25 more HP.....
Yes a 4cyl Turbo with 300hp is not the same as a V6 or V8 with 300hp.
Lastly I do not see anyone here complaining. We listen to logic and we can disagree with statistics.
24 Whalers so far.... |
| |
|
|
| MG56 |
Posted on 08/14/19 - 3:46 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 357
Comments:
0
Joined: 05/11/13
|
Top speed and power aren't always everything. The Suzuki is lower weight and lower cost than the 4 stroke 150 options. It is totally a fine option to consider.
Rather than fight about whether it is a true 140 hp how about I spend $x and I got this result.
|
| |
|
|
| biggiefl |
Posted on 08/15/19 - 8:06 AM
|
Member
Posts: 890
Comments:
4
Joined: 05/08/06
|
Precisely.....I paid $5995 for my 115 Suzuki in the crate w/6r warranty in spring of 2006. I could have paid $7200 for a 140. I could not justify the cost and glad I didn't spend it. The jump to a 150 was around $8500.
24 Whalers so far.... |
| |
|
|
| outhaul |
Posted on 10/21/19 - 9:38 AM
|
Member
Posts: 18
Comments:
0
Joined: 08/11/11
|
Just an Update on the repower
I went with the Yamaha 150hp commercial engine
Old engines are off and new engine goes on tomorrow
Will upload photo of finished boat and performance etc when run in
|
| |
|
