---

I know there has been several threads on this and I have read everything I could find. I'm am a couple weeks away from re-powering and still undecided on which motor I want, so I thought I would put up a post and see if you fine folks could help push me one way or another.

About my boat: It's a 1979 Boston Whaler Montauk 17. All original with twin 12 gallon fuel tanks below the RPS. I will be putting two batteries below the console and adding a 26 to 30 gallon bait tank (217 to 250 pounds) to the stern. I plan to install the permanent fiberglass bait tank just in front of the transom and slightly forward of the rear rigging tunnel. Not sure if this location is a good idea or not, but seems to be my only option with a transom mount pump and overflow going just over the engine splash well?

About the use of my boat: My boat is located in Southern California and will be kept in a saltwater slip. I plan to use it about 3 times a month throughout the entire year. It will be used primarily for fishing. Most of the time I will fish with one other person, but sometimes I may have two other people. I'm 225lbs and most of my friends are in the 200lb range. Most of the fishing will be in-shore near the coast and about 4 to 5 miles away. I will occasionally take the boat offshore (15 to 30 miles) to look for bigger game fish and to local islands. A lot of the fishing I do will be slow trolling (between 1 & 2.5 mph). In addition to fishing, I plan to use the boat for hoop netting for lobster and for free diving / diving. I will also use the boat to take friends and family on harbor cruises in a no wake zone.

Below are the motors I'm considering. I'm not to worried about price and just want to get the best fit for my Whaler / situation. If weight was not an issue I would get the Yamaha 90, but because weight is an issue (especially with the bait tank)the Yamaha 70 is my front runner. It seems there are places to get all these motors serviced in my area, but there are more options with Yamaha. My concern with Yamaha is that they are going to come out with a VMAX SHO (lighter outboard soon) in the 90hp class.

Yamaha 70 - 257lbs (underpowered?)
Yamaha 90 - 369lbs (overweight)
Honda 90 - 359lbs (not familiar with)
E-Tec 90 - 320lbs (load up when slow trolling & crusing the harbor, smoke?)
Suzuki 90 - 341lbs (not familiar with)

Please help me make the right decision! I will share the results after I make a choice.

---

Sounds like you really use that boat for many things.

I am wondering why you think the Etec loads up at low speed or smokes. I was under the impression that the Etec technology was cleaner that 4 stroke.

I guess you left off Mercury 90hp optimax cause it is heavier? The merc. four strokes are even heavier.

IMO with gear, fuel, baot well and bodies onboard you are better off with the 90HP.
I am leaning towards the Etec myself for my repower, they have a great promotion going right now as well.

---

We owned a Montauk in the 80's, first powered with an inline 6 Merc 115, followed by the same configuration engine in the 90hp range.

I have also spent a lot of time in 17's with 60hp 2stk Yamaha's...almost always with 3 men aboard. These were bare hull, tiller steered fishing boats with minimal added weight.

The Montauk ourperformed these bare hull's by a huge margin, and the bare hulls felt pretty slow. I'd estimate they'd run about 32 mph WOT, whereas the montauk with the 90 would do more like 40 or so. I alway felt the lesser powered boats planed lower in the water, making the ride a bit worse. If it were me, I'd consider trying to locate a 2-stk Yamaha 90, as it was pretty light....but this would go against clean thinking...no carb rating. Other than that, I'd look hard at the ETEC 90.

I recently read an interesting article comparing many modern engines...sorry, I don't recall where the articcle was, but I noticed that the ETEC's would troll down much slower than all the 4-stks. I don't know about smoke but suspect it would be minimal since they have a carb 3 rating.

---

You are thinking of older 2 strokes.

No problems like this as the E-Tec is CARB3 rated just like the 4 strokes. Just as quite, fuel efficient, smokeless, etc...

---

Egerrity & Joe...I am basing my opinion based on what a really good friend told me. He is my friend I fish with all the time and more boat experience then anyone I know. He said he fished with a guy who had an E-TEC a number of times and that is what he noticed. After hearing what you guys are saying, I'll have to look into this more as it appears he may be wrong. Would be nice to get some real life experience w/ motors before buying. I left out Mercury because of weight and because I have had some bad experiences in the past.

Marko888....I just recently purchased my boat and it has a 79 Johnson 70 and 79 Johnson 15 kicker. I'm not sure if they are running because they have been sitting the last 10 years. Before that, they were not used for 6 years and appear to have very little hours overall. I was hesitant to put money (impeller, fuel filter, air filter) into these motors and have them not work, or have problems down the line. I potentially already have a buyer for the 70 and was concerned that the noise and smoke wouldn't make for relaxing harbor cruises for my guests.

---

Morgan,

I just saw that you are in California...
I don't know where you boat in CA but I certainly would not buy a used older technology motor here in this state.
Several of our lakes don't allow older technology motors on their water and Lake Tahoe is one of them.
I would like to take my boat there but can't due to my old motor.
Only CARB3 rated motors are allowed on some of these lakes.

My two choices would be:

Yamaha 70 4 stroke if you can live with 70hp
E-Tec 90 if you need more power

I had a 70hp on my 1978 Montauk for 15 years and it was fine 95% of the time. You can't go all out in a Montauk when there is chop and more times than not, there is chop...

---

Joe...I'll be boating in Southern California, mostly in the Ocean in the Huntington Beach & Long Beach area. You make a good point about the Lakes. A lot of the lakes down here don't allow the older 2 strokes as well. I like the idea of taking my boat to lakes and have thought about it, but not sure if I ever will as I will be keeping the boat in slip behind my house. After hearing what people have to say, I think those are my two front runners now. My concern is if the 70 will have enough torque to carry my load around and if the 90 will be too much weight with the 26 to 30 gallon bait tank (217 to 250 pounds) in the stern. I may have to consider moving down to a 22 gallon bait tank with either motor, but I'd really hate to have to do that.

---

With the weight load and passengers, I would go with the lightest 90 hp.

I would be cautious on havIng the stern heavily loaded given the large swell and wave conditions in the winter season. I recently read of a whaler owner who swamped and turtled his boat while hauling pots.

---

Tohatsu 90 Two Stroke 337 pounds. http://www.tohatsu.com/outboards/90tl...0tldi.html

---

We have the "Current Engine Choices and Weights" located in our article section.....

http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...ticle_id=5

The E-Tec is the lightest 90 hp currently available....
All motors on the list are CARB3 rated.

---

My 2010 Etec 115 does not load up or smoke at all, ever. I've got plenty of hours at idle speed slow trolling for King mackerel.

After having an Etec for a couple of seasons now, I wouldn't hesitate to buy another if I were looking to re-power any of my other boats. Extremely quiest, fuel efficient, and so far 100% reliable. Not to mention service only every three years or 300 hours.

---

I would down size the bait tank.
Look at my page. That one should be good for 1 scoop at most.
My DF70 will only troll down to about 2.1 kNTS. W/O a brake.
I have not run the boat with the tank so I don't have any performance data for you. If you need the larger tank, you will need to move everything forward as much as possible. With my setup, I would dump the rps and go with a leaning post. Move the tank under the seat and hope for the best! You will need the lightest motor that you can find. A two stroke DI. That nice quite Suk on my boat is too heavy for your needs.
PS I don't know about running to Cat. on that little 17' boat.
The shoe, the flats, maybe the clam beds or Dolly are OK. There can be some big water between LB and the island.
FYI a 13' whaler is a big 13ft boat, but a 17' whaler is a small 17' boat! you might want to reconsider. What you got there is a great lake and bay boat. You don't need a 30 gal bait tank for that. I'm thinking she is good to fish two people, but then I believe a 20ft Skip Jack i good to fish two or thee at most.

KP

---

Captain M.
I put the E tec 90 on my SL16, and loved it. My wife would take it out on Lake Michigan trolling for the day and never had a problem with load up or smoking. I purchased the salt water version (we only salt roads here not lakes) because the white housing looks better on the Whaler.
I lost my SL16 to a 100 year old Oak tree this summer, the engine survived not the boat. I purchased a Nantaucket 190 with a 150 Mercery however the new boat has more hours on the engine but requires a 25" shaft. My E tec only has 92 hours but the 20" shaft.
Talk to your T tec dealer, they might know someone that has the engine you are interested in and get you a ride.
Good fishing,
Tom O.

---

Phil T....I agree with you on the stern weight, after speaking to more people this is becoming even more of a concern of mine. I wanted to keep the boat as original as possible, as it is almost completely original and in excellent condition. But I may have to alter it to fit my needs. I'm considering removing the RPS and adding a thru hull pump with a bait tank/leaning post there. Not sure if I would want to move the console forward or put a custom fuel tank in front of the console. It kind of hurts me to have to think about altering such a beautiful boat this way. But I guess this is why I bought it.

Joe...Thanks again for your help, that list was very helpful.

JohnnyCW...Can you smell any fuel when you are running w/ that E-tec. I spoke to a guy with one and he told me he could smell fuel when he was running.

Karlow...Thanks for the advice...I agree with you on needing a light motor. I would only run to Catalina on a smooth day and would come back before the winds kicked up. I'm saying this before I have been out in a Whaler though, so let me see how it handles.

Tomo....sorry to hear about your boat. I found a dealer with a 2010 e-tec 90, do you know if there are any differences between the 2010 & 2012 model?

---

I own a 2011 ETEC and couldn't be happier. I do a lot of trolling at very slow speeds, no smoke, no fuel odor, runs great. Not to mention low fuel consumption, excellent performance. ETEC 90 would be my choice.

---

Morgan,
I can't complain, I had it well insured. The insurance paid for the new boat and gave me salvage rights on what was left. My dealer checked the engine and other than a scratch it was fine. I have run my engine trolling for 4 hours looking for salmon and used less than 5 gallons of gas. If I had a vote, you should get the E tec. I do not know if there is a difference between the two years on your engines. I am sure there web site will give you that.

---

I don't know about the thru hole PU.
That boat has a tiny sump. I barely have enough space to run the rigging and fit a small bilge pump. That is why the bait pump is mounted to the transom. I could be a very neat install to fit the pump in the bilge and run the plumbing thru the tunnel. It is just not going to fit. There is also that foam core construction to deal with.

---

No gasoline smell I've ever noticed.

Our Police Department has switched all their outboards out for E-tecs. They've replaced a few Yamaha 4-strokes and a bunch of Mercs. Their newest Guardian was delivered with twin E-tecs as well. Lower maintenance costs including less frequent service was what I was told.

---

Definitely seems like the people on this board love the E-tec for their Whalers. Good to know and good feedback, as this has cleared up a lot of what I thought was the downfall of these motors. All the input I have received is very helpful.

Karlow....In speaking to the guy over the phone, I got the picture that he actuall drilled a hold through the deck all the way down thru the hull. He said he usus a glass in paint can to seal the foam and I belive he installs the pump in there. I will be taking my boat to him this weekend, so he can show me exactly what he is talking about.

This is very scary to me though, as I don't want to compromise the structure of my hull in anyway. The guy told me he has done this with several whalers.

---

I personally wouldn't do it nor would I recommend it to anyone....

There are only a few Whaler hulls that have the thru hole area designed for it to be installed.... those are larger Whalers only with that and are built in at the factory...

---

What ever you buy make sure it passes the smog rules, carb 3 whatever its called. Living here in Reno i have the same issue and and can not fish Tahoe with my old motor. A bit frustrating. I dont have the money to repower just to go there, but something to keep in mind.

---

Your friend is way off base on the ETEC. It is quiet, smooth, fast, burns almost no oil, great gas consumption and lightning fast. Unless there is a major change in technology that's the only motor I'll ever have.

---

I've decided to go with the Yamaha F70 and I'm bringing the boat to the shop today. Do you guys have any recommendations on which prop I should get?

---

If you do a search, using "Yamaha F70 prop" you will have your answer.

Take Tom Clark's recommendation.

http://www.whalercentral.com/forum/vi...rowstart=0

Make sure the motor is mounted at least 2 holes up. The top bolts should be in the third hole, counting down from the top.

---

Phil...Thank you very much for the detailed information. I have been up all night trying to make the final decisions before dropping the boat off. This is very useful information and I want to know in and know if they plan to do something incorrect.