---

Well my 88 Johnson SPL on my 1993 Montauk 17 finally died. Time to re-power.

From the reviews performed on the new ETEC 90 High Output (HO), this engine appears to be very sound, capable and durable. The only drawbacks I see is the increase in price (about $1k more than the standard inline ETEC 90) and the increase in weight 390 lbs vs 320 lbs.

Basically this engine is a "de-tuned" ETEC 115, with more power/torque at the lower speeds. In the future, I will be using the Montauk more and more for pulling grandkids and parents on tubes and ski's. Also, most of the time I use the boat, the weight capacity allowances are usually at the upper limit. With the increase in torque at the lower speeds, I am thinking this engine would be a good fit.

Here's a review that was performed on this engine that you may be interested in:

http://www.boattest.com/engine-review...-H-O-_2014

I would very much appreciate any thoughts that you may have on this engine possibility. Thanks in advance.

---

Have you considered a regular E-TEC 115? Is it comparable in price?

Given everything I would stick with the standard 90 E-TEC. I doubt your 20+ outboard was producing more than 80 hp.

A DFI 90 E-ETEC has incredible hole shot and with the right prop will be a blast to tow. Lots of owners saying "hold on tight"

The only difference in top end is ~5 mph.

---

Phil,

I have not considered the 115 for insurance reasons. My Montauk is rated at a max 100 hp. Although, the 90 ETEC HO is a detuned 115, the reviews say that it is really 99 hp. Apparently, the engine manufactures are allowed a +- variance of 10% on the hp rating.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think the old outboard was not producing more than 80 hp?

What type and size of evinrude prop, would you recommend to best suit my typical loading and use conditions?

Thanks for your input!

---

I had a total of 386 lbs. on the back of my Alert 17 befor I repowered and I now have 318 lbs with my new motors and it's as if I have a different boat, ALL FOR THE GOOD. In my opinion 390 is too much motor weight on a 17 ft. Hull. 320 lbs. is fine. AL

---

I have re-powered my 1966 custom with a 2014 ETEC 90 2 stroke and the engine is a perfect fit for me. I replaced a 1986 Johnson 90 VRO in May. The weight difference is not much, about 20 to 25 lbs. My use is 90 % fishing the Galveston Bay and have been very pleased. I looked at all brands and the weight was a big factor to me. I am not sure about other areas of the country, but the price variance of all brands in the Houston area was about $200.00. The 6 year warranty was a big factor also.

---

I have read that older engines with a lot of hours loose compression over time. It is not uncommon for a "tired" motor with a factory cylinder compression rating of 115 to be at 95 or 100 after 15 years.

As for props, there has been extensive discussion on the web regarding the classic Montauk and a E-TEC 90.

One of the most discussed and tested props by whaler owners that has good performance is the 13.25x19 Stiletto ADVANTAGE 1. WOT speed is ~ 44 mph @ 5200 with a light load.

A 15" version resulted in 43 mph at 5700 rpm's.

A site search will show the other good props.

An ETEC 90 on a classic Montauk should be mounted at it's highest setting.

---

Phil, thanks for the compression information. Sure makes sense to me. Also, thanks for the prop recommendation. I'll search some other posts before I'll make a decision. Thanks again.

---

I had to repower this summer on my V20 and went with an ETEC 175. No regrets and they had a great deal on with free rigging and 5 year warranty. I also did lots of research and glad I went with the Evinrude ETEC.

---

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.

---

Phil,

With regard to your prop recommendation I've read some of the posts on Etec's and props. Most of the pitch recommendations were 17".

I read the following evinrude information on pitch:

"A low pitch allows engine RPM to build up quickly, which gives faster acceleration and more pulling power. This works well for heavy loads, but results in slower top speeds. Higher pitched propellers are similar to high gears. They create more forward travel with each revolution. A high pitch puts more load on the engine, which reduces low speed pulling power and acceleration, but usually
provides more top speed."

I was wondering if your 19" pitch recommendation was predicated upon my particular loading condition; and upon the combination of Etec's renowned hole shot acceleration and the 19" pitch (providing a boast to top end speeds). Am I wrong?

Thanks.

---

The recommendation I am reciting was the 19" pitch was found to be ideal for the highest performance with a light load.

The 17" is good for varied loads.

Given your intended use, it will take some testing. I would start with a 17" and then move down to a 15 in that same model and size.

If you change brands, the prop size may be completely different since blade designs are unique.

The challenge is finding a shop that will loan out props for testing.

---

Would you consider a Mercury? These new Merc 4 strokes sound great >>> http://www.whalercentral.com/forum/vi...d_id=19460

You'd get larger displacement & less weight than the Etec HO, and for much less money. I'm dying to see one tested against an Etec.

---

MG56,

I really have not considered the Mercs. My Local Marine and Maintenance Shop is pirmarily a Yahama and Evinrude dealer. They have the mechanics with the proper knowledge and training. As this site is so high on ETECs, I'm really sold on this brand. I know they are more expensive, but the reliability, maintenance and durability are big considerations that have swayed me.

Phil,

Thanks for your further insight.

---

Ron -

I say this to everyone, shop a repower very hard.

There are no set retail prices for motors, rigging and installation. Prices are all over the map from dealers in the same area.

Get a detailed quote with part # and prices for parts (broken down) and a separate price for install.

Check the manufacturer's site for special deals on extended warranty or rigging/gauges discounts.

You may get a better price in mid winter when they are slow. I would avoid the rush times (fall - to get winterized; Spring -- to get in the water.

In the end it is about price and service for you, not them.

---

Ron,
I have done this 3 times! A 1975, 1977 & 1985 Montauk, all repowered with nice looking, white E Tec 90 HP outboards. Every one of these boats is a pleasure to operate. They are indeed used for fishing, tubing, skiing, sightseeing, sunset wine and cheese booze cruising, you name it. The motors are efficient on gas, quiet, they don't smoke out your passengers, they rig well on all the consoles, winterization is a breeze. I can't say enough good things about the combination of hull and motor other than to say I voted with my feet and my wallet. Three times! I could not be happier, nor more willing to recommend the combination. If you happen to be near The Finger Lakes region of New York State, I invite you to come out on one of the boats as my guest and see for yourself. I suspect your decision will be made rather quickly after that!
Best of luck to you.
Grady

---

Phil and Grady95,

I'm getting three quotes now. I've decided on ETEC for sure. Right now they have the typical Warranty/Financing/Rigging promotion till Nov 30th. They can delay the registration till next Spring when the Boat is in the water.

Thanks again for all of you inputs/invites.

---

Glad to hear that Ron,
You won't regret your decision. The motors are fairly priced and I was not able to "get a deal" so to speak on any of them, even though I do an awful lot of business with one of the dealers I bought from. They help maintain my whole fleet but to be fair, these are very popular motors and they just don't have to mark them down. That's just business I guess.
Wait until you have to winterize your motor for the first time. You're going to jump for joy! Three minutes, you're done, no fogging oil, no marina charge, drop dead simple. It only gets better from there.
Enjoy your boat. Great choice.
Grady

---

Ron,

Congratulations.
I see new photos in your personal page with the new E-Tec 90 HO installed on the back.

Let us know how she performs and the trim of the hull when in the water.

---

Thanks for the congratulations and best wishes on the new engine.

Last weekend, the boat was water tested on two days. The weight of the boat was as follows, ......as best I can determine:

4 People 1 Person
motor 390 390
boat (dry) 900 900
gas 134.2 134.2
people 880 220
back seat 60 60
cooler 30 30
anchor 25 25
misc 50 50
battery 50 50

sum 2519.2 1859.2

On both days, the engine was mounted two holes up. The prop was a stainless steel Viper 13 7/8 x 17.

On the first day, the dealer solo tested the boat. As the boat does not have a speedometer, we could not document the speed. The boat immediately shot out of the water and planed within no more that 2-3 seconds. At WOT the boat was turning 5900 RRM's.

On the second day, 4 adults were in the boat, including myself. This approximates my typical loading conditions for 80% of the time I use the boat. After launching at the marina, with no one on board, I noticed that the level of the boat in the water was almost exactly the same as the old Johnson which weighed 301 pounds (89 pounds lighter). The painted water line on this new engine setup was spot on. Again, the boat immediately shot out of the water, I'd say within 3-4 seconds we were on plane. At WOT the boat was approaching 5500 RPM's. Although I did have a speedometer app for my iPhone, we could not get GPS reception, so again the speed was not exactly known. However, it seemed to me, based upon the performance of my old Johnson 88 SPL, that WOT speed was significantly higher, .....I'm guessing in the 41 - 44 MPH range. Again, this is a best "guess". The Dealer had more experience than me and he concurred. I'll have to wail till next Spring to determine the speed exactly. I further noticed that the wake at all speeds seemed to much "calmer" than the old Johnson, the dealer speculated that it was because he felt the boat was planing at the higher level in the water, due the combination of the engine and prop. Turning response of the boat seemed much more "immediate and responsive" than the old Johnson. Additionally, the noise level of the engine was almost non-existent at low RPM's. At WOT, the noise was obviously louder, but I could comfortably carry on a conversation. At all RPM's, there was no smoke from the engine.

All in all, I am very pleased with the engine performance. Next spring I'll test the speed and report back.

---

Ron -

The engine needs to be rehung at least one, if not 2 more holes UP.

ETEC's like to be hung at the highest setting. DON"T let your dealer tell you otherwise. Search the threads. The proof is there.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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!

---

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?

---

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.

---

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, thanks for the explanation and references!

---

Thanks for the feedback! Steve

---

Joe, I appreciate all the info and sites that you referenced.

---

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

---

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.

---

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

---

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?

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

I have a 1975 Montauk, classic hull. Right now I prefer a manual jack plate to drilling holes in the transom.

---

How’s the 90HO holding up?

How many holes up did you finally settle down with on the mounting?

---

Sorry 9i have not gotten back to you sooner. The ETEC 90 has been fantastic. I love it in every way. It is going on 5 years now and not even a hint of any problem. I can't say enough good things about this engine,

---

By the way, I did raise the engine to three holes up. Although, I have not performed the speed/rpm test for this, my "feel" is that the performance has increased, not significantly but marginally. I am very happy with the results.