1. Use the full 4 digit year for everything you are asking your question about. Example: 1962, 1988, 2000, 2011
2. Include the correct name of your Whaler model. Example: Montauk 17, Montauk 170, Outrage 26, Outrage 260
3. Include the length when necessary. Example: 16, 17, 18, 20, 22
4. Do not post your email address anywhere on this site as it is already in your user profile.

Replacing 90hp merc 2 stroke on Montauk
auburnbuilder	#1  Posted on 12/13/09 - 10:43 AM
Member Posts: 34 Comments: 0 Joined: 06/13/07	I have a 1999 Montauk with a 1999 90hp mercury 2 stroke with very low hours on it (Vermont boat, fresh water only, always trailered). The motor runs flawlessly and looks new. I do however want a four stroke. Are the mounting bolt holes on that motor and new motors going to be in the same location? Or do I have to stay with the same brand for this to be the case? I would like to go with a e-tec, yamaha, suzuki or honda (90hp or 100hp if possible. What should I expect to get for my old motor? About how much do you think it will cost me for the new one? Thanks for any help.
HarleyFXDL	#2  Posted on 12/13/09 - 11:13 AM
Member Personal Page Project Albums Posts: 917 Comments: 30 Joined: 07/24/07	Why would you change a good running engine just to get a 4-stroke? It would take a loooong time to recoup the money spent on a repower. The cheapest route to take for a repower would be to go with a Mercury. You should be able to reuse most of the rigging. As far as how much your engine is worth? Look on ebay and see what the completed listings sold for. You could put an ad on craigslist for best offers and see the offers that come in. IMHO I would stay with the motor you have now if it is running good. If your mind is made up, a Merc would be the least expensive route. Kevin 1988 11' Super Sport, 1987 Johnson 15hp. If you think education is expensive, try ignorance "Vegetarian - old Indian word for bad fisherman."
CES	#3  Posted on 12/13/09 - 12:20 PM
Member Personal Page Photo Albums Project Albums Posts: 2681 Comments: 7 Joined: 04/27/07	X2 what Kevin said. Unless you're planning on taking your boat to lakes where 2 strokes are prohibited, why waste your money? Cliff 1966 13' Sport with a 1993 40hp Yamaha 2 Smoker
number9	#4  Posted on 12/13/09 - 3:52 PM
Member Posts: 210 Comments: 1 Joined: 03/13/08	The mounting holes will line up, $2,000 for motor, $8,000 for new motor. Plus or minus $1,000 depending many variables. Just a quick estimate to give you something to ponder. Bill...On the Ogeechee 1984 Outrage 18...Yamaha T50...that's right, 50hp
kamie	#5  Posted on 12/13/09 - 4:48 PM
Member Personal Page Project Albums Posts: 2975 Comments: 3 Joined: 11/04/05	auburnbuilder, just to clarify if the list is in order of preference, then your first option is a 2 stroke?
jharrell	#6  Posted on 12/13/09 - 4:56 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 77 Comments: 0 Joined: 08/26/09	I know for me a new modern engine would double my range while being much quieter along with better performance. It's not about wasting money, recreational boats are by nature a waste of money, but if you have the disposable income then why not upgrade your motor while you can still get a decent trade/sale on your current motor? I like my old mercury, but sure would be nice to use half the gas and not hear the engine as much along with easier starting and idling. Right now I would really look at the new Suzuki DF90, 341 pounds and looks like it would get 8-9mpg at cruise on a Montauk! The Suzuki DF100 is the old 410 pound DF90 up tuned, which is the only production 100hp outboard currently. Anyone know how either of these motors really perform on a Classic Montauk? The DF90 should be around $8k with rigging I think. Edited by jharrell on 12/13/09 - 5:01 PM
Joe Kriz	#7  Posted on 12/13/09 - 5:18 PM
Site Owner Personal Page Personal Album Photo Albums Project Albums Posts: 11447 Comments: 452 Joined: 03/18/05	The lightest 90 hp new engine available today that has the clean CARB3 rating is the E-Tec. Here is a list of new engines available today for the 16'/17' models: http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...ticle_id=5 Look at the CARB rating of all engines, 2 or 4 stroke as some 4 strokes are not even CARB3 rated in certain sizes. jharrell said: I know for me a new 4-stroke would double my range while being much quieter along with better performance. jharrel, I assume you are comparing this to your old Mercury? A 2 stroke E-Tec will also double your range while being much quieter along with better performance than your old Mercury and any of the older 2 strokes. Most new 4 strokes and the new E-Tec motors are Clean, Quiet, Fuel Efficient motors. Some people like 4 strokes even though they have many more moving parts, timing belts, more scheduled maintenance, oil changes, generally heavier, etc. than the E-Tecs. Just a matter of choice and personal preference.
WhalerDan	#8  Posted on 12/13/09 - 5:36 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 245 Comments: 1 Joined: 11/13/05	Joe, you kinda need to add the new Yamaha 70 4 stroke 269 pound motor to the line-up.
jharrell	#9  Posted on 12/13/09 - 5:50 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 77 Comments: 0 Joined: 08/26/09	Joe Kriz wrote: A 2 stroke E-Tec will also double your range while being much quieter along with better performance than your old Mercury and any of the older 2 strokes. Most new 4 strokes and the new E-Tec motors are Clean, Quiet, Fuel Efficient motors. Yes I edited my post to denote "modern" instead of specifically 4-stroke, as an E-tec would improve things quite a bit over my aging motor. But while an E-tec is impressive in weight, it gas mileage and top speed performance seems lacking compared to the new Suzuki DF90. Compare the same boat with each engine here (note this is a larger heavier boat than a Classic Montauk): http://www.evinrude.com/NR/rdonlyres/.../PE670.pdf http://www.suzukimarine.com/boat_buil...s_18/df90/ The Suzuki does 8.5mpg at cruise vs the E-tecs 6mpg while the Suzuki hits over 41mph and the E-tec 37mph. 20 more pounds for 2.5 more mpg and better top speed? Edited by jharrell on 12/13/09 - 5:58 PM
number9	#10  Posted on 12/13/09 - 6:56 PM
Member Posts: 210 Comments: 1 Joined: 03/13/08	Find the difference in the props used for those tests on the Pro-Line boats interesting. Test conditions listed would indicate the Etec boat was at least 100 lbs. heavier and quicker to plane. Just observations. Bill...On the Ogeechee 1984 Outrage 18...Yamaha T50...that's right, 50hp
jharrell	#11  Posted on 12/13/09 - 7:12 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 77 Comments: 0 Joined: 08/26/09	The E-tec has a 2.00:1 gear case, the Suzuki a unusually low 2.59:1, hence the large prop difference, they seem to be proped correctly for their ratio and rpm range. It is difficult to make a judgment on acceleration, since the E-tec is rated in time-to-plane and the Suzuki in 0-30mph. The boat probably planes at around 15mph, so 2.6 second to plane vs 6.8 seconds 0-30 is within the realm of equal acceleration. The Suzuki's larger displacement and lower gear ratio allowing larger diameter props could make up for the E-tec's 2-stroke torque curve. 1 extra guy on the E-tec, 10 gallons more gas on the Suzuki for an estimated 100 pound diff. I doubt that 2.5 mpg or 4mph comes from the loss of 100pounds if that even is the weight difference, we don't know how big the guys where either way. Edited by jharrell on 12/13/09 - 7:17 PM
Guts	#12  Posted on 12/13/09 - 7:37 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 612 Comments: 8 Joined: 11/21/08	auburnbuilder I sold my perfectly good 70hp Johnson two smoker for $1,200.00... I left it on the boat so I could take the buyer out to see how it ran. I also gave him all! the stuff that went to it /shifter/ cables/ gages /extra prop everything he would need to get up and running. Edited by Guts on 12/13/09 - 7:38 PM
auburnbuilder	#13  Posted on 12/13/09 - 8:13 PM
Member Posts: 34 Comments: 0 Joined: 06/13/07	Thanks for all the information everyone. I know I said I wanted a new four stroke, the e-tec does look very good however. Just wonder about he long term with it. If they are in fact very reliable and durable that may be the way to go. I also really like the Suzuki and Yamaha they seem to be well proven outboards. I just want what most people want out of there motor, extreme reliability and fuel economy with no smoke or problems. Not much to ask is it.... Anyone with experience with these outboards feel free to let me know the good as well bad aspects of each (90hp size) Thanks again everyone
Joe Kriz	#14  Posted on 12/13/09 - 8:32 PM
Site Owner Personal Page Personal Album Photo Albums Project Albums Posts: 11447 Comments: 452 Joined: 03/18/05	WhalerDan, I cannot add something that isn't on their website and I don't see a 70 hp 4 stroke listed on their website. http://www.yamaha-motor.com/outboard/.../home.aspx They do list a new 25 hp model though. jharrell, I learned a long time ago not to pay attention to those types of tests. I haven't seen one test that was really fair in comparing any particular brand of engine or for any boat for that matter. It seems like all tests can be manipulated on what they want the outcome to be. I would like to see a test like this. 1. Outrage 18' with an E-Tec 150 on it 2. Outrage 18' with a Yamaha 150 4 stroke on it 3. Outrage 18' with a Suzuki 150 4 stroke on it 4. Outrage 18' with a Honda 150 4 stroke on it etc.... That would be a real test as long as the boats are all setup basically the same... ---------- My assumption of new engines....... (I only look at CARB3 rated motors as there is no sense in my mind to purchase anything less) All motors should be CARB3 rated which makes them clean and efficient and quiet(er). Some may get a little better fuel mileage than others. Some have less moving parts than others. Some need more regular scheduled maintenance than others. Some weigh more than others... They are all good engines. The above are just some of my assumptions. For my money, the lighter weight the better. The less moving parts the better. The fewer times I have to take it in for maintenance the better.... (I am rural) Just some of the things I look at for my needs.
jharrell	#15  Posted on 12/13/09 - 10:07 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 77 Comments: 0 Joined: 08/26/09	It is difficult to understand why you would dismiss boat test such as those outright. Both are from the respective engine manufacturer, therefore they both reflect "manipulation" in order for each to show their engine in the best light. While it would be nice to have a set of independent test on all model of Boston Whalers with all current motors, a set of two test each with the same boat and different motors is very telling even if it not your model of boat. Across all test from Evinrude and Suzuki on their 90hp offerings mpg and top speed remain consistent, tracking boat weight pretty closely, the E-tec hovering around 6mpg cruise, the Suzuki hovering around 9mpg. Has anyone seen better than 6mpg at cruise with an E-tec 90 here? You can see similar tests here from Prolite, but using the older Suzuki DF90 which gets mileage similar to the E-tec: http://www.proliteboats.com/Boats/Fla...ats18.html From my understanding Suzuki was able to get this kind of mileage by incorporating lean burn up through 4500 rpm, this is similar to what the E-tec does below 2000 rpm. Perhaps BRP will work on upping the lean burn rpm range on the E-tec in future models, but from what I know it is more difficult for a 2-stroke to lean out than a 4-stroke because of no sump oil or down time during exhaust stroke to dissipate the excess heat from the leaning out. The newer Honda 90 EFI also does a similar lean burn with somewhat less impressive results. IMO 50% better is not just a "little better fuel mileage". While 4-strokes have more moving parts, they have a long proven history of being very reliable even in marine applications, there seems to be no data that denotes more moving parts decreases reliability when compared to an E-tec other than intuitive or anecdotal conclusions. The Suzuki seems to simply require an oil change every 100 hours vs filling the E-tec oil tank every what 50-100hours? The Suzuki unlike most other 4-stroke has a self tensioning timing chain instead of a belt, this requires zero maintenance. If you must take your motor in to do the oil change then yes this would be more regular maintenance than an E-tec. If you change it yourself it basically the added inconvenience of draining and disposing of the old oil, both engines need filling with 4-5 quarts of oil, one burns it up the other doesn't. The E-tec 90 is no doubt lighter as it should be as a 3 cylinder 79cu in. engine compared to a 4 cylinder 91 cu in. engine. This is very important on a boat like the classic Montauk to be sure, but the Suzuki is the lightest 4-stroke 90 on the market today, and we are only talking 20 pounds difference. Edited by jharrell on 12/13/09 - 10:09 PM
Joe Kriz	#16  Posted on 12/13/09 - 11:57 PM
Site Owner Personal Page Personal Album Photo Albums Project Albums Posts: 11447 Comments: 452 Joined: 03/18/05	It seems as though we are getting way off topic. jharrell, You can believe in all the tests you want. That is your right. I however do not believe in those types of tests. You even mention that one boat had another person on board and the other boat had a extra 10 gallons of fuel. Not an exact test and most of them never will be. Most tests are, and can be, manipulated. My opinion, and just like you, my right to either believe in tests or not believe in them. 2 strokes have also proven themselves for many, many, years in the marine environment. Let's get back to topic. auburnbuilder, The lighter engine the better. That's not to say 20 or 40 pounds is going to make much difference but look at some of the different models of Classic Whalers and how they sit in the water. Some sterns are almost underwater (I am exaggerating) because the engine(s) weighs so much. Like I mentioned above, all engines these days seem to be good. It is a matter of preference on which you choose taking into consideration, weight, local dealer, and what you want out of an engine as pertaining to hole shot, top end speed, etc.... Also, if you ever plan on putting a kicker on your boat, an even lighter and smaller main engine may also be an option. I had a 70 hp Evinrude and an 8hp Evinrude kicker on my prior Montauk. The 70 hp weighed in at 248 pounds and the kicker weighed in at 58 pounds for a grand total of 306 pounds. Just something else to think about if you are a slow trolling fisherman and/or like the idea of a backup motor. http://users.sisqtel.net/jkriz/Montau...ntauk.html
Guts	#17  Posted on 12/14/09 - 12:20 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 612 Comments: 8 Joined: 11/21/08	Joe you make some good points. The 70hp Johnson two smoker I had was much lighter than the Suzuki DF70 I have now. I don't mind it though, the Montauk rides much better now with the weight in the stern.You can see the water line in the personal page, sitting at the dock in dead flat water. In relation to the PVC drain tubes. in the stern. Edited by Guts on 12/14/09 - 12:23 AM
budana	#18  Posted on 12/14/09 - 8:21 PM
Member Posts: 43 Comments: 2 Joined: 09/28/09	wow i really learned alot just reading your response.currently i running 79 evinrude 85hp.i hoping to some time in the not to distant future get a zuki 4stk for my montauk.thnaks for all the info,i was told that the U.S.A. wont allow any more 2 stk to be built or sold here. in next few yrs. 1979 montauk - 1979 85hp johnson
tom blinstrub	#19  Posted on 12/16/09 - 6:00 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 369 Comments: 0 Joined: 12/14/09	i own a 50 tldi and a 90 tldi tohatsu 2 stroke,basicly the same technology as the etec.my 16 nauset has a 50 on it with a 8 horse kicker.will hit 27 knots and has nornally got an easy 7 nautical mpg at 16 to18 knots by myself and 200+ lbs of gear and fuel.weighs about 210 lbs,the 90 weighs 312 and is on a 21 outrage.had both for four years ,run super and are much cheaper and are priced with shift,tach and prop.you can relieve the weight problem by putting the battery and some fuel under the console,it will sit more level,good luck.