---

Will the experts and gods of our beloved whaler please help me?!

I have a beautifully restored 1986 17 Super Sport with a 2004 90 HP Johnson that has sadly run its course (its become a bit unreliable and tends to go in and out of the shop). i am deciding between a 2016 E-TEC 90HP and the E-TEC 90 H.O.

my old 2004 90 weighs 330 lbs and is a v4 with 105 inch displacement

i ordered the new 90 E-TEC inline 3 from my dealer and noticed that it is 79in displacement. weight is 325 lbs.

The dealer says if i want to switch to the 90 H.O. which is V4 and has 105 in displacement and weight 380 - and pay the slight diff - i have about 4 days to decide - weight here is 380 lbs

from what i hear the 90 H.O. is a tuned down 115......concern i guess is the weight (an additional 50 lbs from my previous engine) and not wanting to be too overpowered - although the max HP is 100 on this boat.

I loved the 2004 90...had a great hole shot and with me alone, it was great for a good "hell ride" across the bay while also pushing nicely for my family of 4 and 2 dogs to head out to the beaches. Also was good to pull me up skiing and the kids tubing (I weigh about 200).....

please help me make this decision. For me its not really about the extra $1,000, its what is a better fit and will keep my whaler as close to what it used to be with the 2004 90 Johnson.

please advise

rob

---

If you want/need high performance with a crew and tubing all the time, get the H.O. Otherwise the E-TEC 90 will do a great job.

Which ever motor you pick, mounting the motor and selecting the right prop will take the same research and review as engine choice. Please do not accept what the dealer suggests at face value. Most likely it will be wrong.

---

Just to Clarify:

The weight of the E-Tec 90hp H.O. is 390 pounds
http://www.evinrude.com/en-us/engines...etec_90_ho

The E-Tec 90hp is 320 pounds
http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...ticle_id=5

Here is one member with the Montauk 17' that has repowered with the E-Tec 90hp H.O.
http://www.whalercentral.com/infusion...r_id=13252

There have been several others that have done this with the Montauk 170 which is a good choice for this model for those wanting more power from a 90.

---

thanks guys. really appreciate the replies and advice. Interested to hear more if there are any other considerations i should take into account when deciding between these two motors. Do we think the additional 60/70 lbs is an issue?
basically, i want the extra power but not if it will not have the boat sit right and not generally right for the boat...the 1986 Montauk hull is the same as the SS (aside from the interior) correct?

---

We have an inline 3 90 Etec on our 1989 Montauk 17. We've done plenty of water skiing, tubing, etc. with it and I've pulled some pretty big boys out with no issues. As stated, make sure you're propped correctly and make sure the engine is mounted at least two holes up. Three holes up is better but it will depend on the propeller used. Less weight on the transom is the preference.

---

thanks ursaminor......question for the generous responders so far: will i notice a massive decline in the "hole shot" going from my 2004 v4 90 (105 cu in displacement) to the eTec 90 hp (inline 3 with 79 in displacement)? .......part of the reason i am staying 2-stroke is that I NEED MY HOLE SHOT on a sunny friday after a rough week of work!
good to hear you are having no issues pulling big boys out skiing!

---

Rob, from your description (need for speed on occasion) I'd sure be thinking about the HO. The only concern is the weight, so how about simulating that by putting 60 extra pounds in the stern of your current setup and checking it out?

I can think of nothing worse than spending many thousands to repower a boat and being unhappy with the result!

By way of evil thoughts: the 115HO is the same weight...

Tim.

---

To me these HP ratings are like voodoo. Especially with Etec (I have the 200hp HO). Etec uses a same the same block motor and fools with the computer and Woolah!!!! A 175hp or 150hp becomes a 200hp (I am not familiar with the 90hp+- series for use as an example). Then the size up the block and you then have the 200hp HO that then goes up to 250hp series with the same block. My boat was rated for 240hp and I found a 250hp and contacted Etec to reprogram the computer for less hp. No can do....fixed in stone.....consumer regs and emission standards, etc.... My rant is completed.

I say if the weight works get the larger block. I would always prefer to not push or low idle a big block motor to get similar performance out of a smaller block running harder wide open. Just makes sense to me.

Garris

---

What's the price and weight difference on the 115?
Seems like you're a madman enough to not rule that out!
TP

---

Too bad you wouldn't consider a 4-stroke. The new 2.1L Mercury 4-cylinder Fourstroke 90 HP (or 115 version) would weigh significantly less (359 lbs) than the ETEC 90 HO (or 115/HO), and offers roughly 24% more displacement. You could have the best of both worlds -- plenty of power and lightweight. It also costs quite a bit less than the ETEC!

Either way you go, good luck to you with the repower. It will be great having a nice new engine hanging back there and there really aren't any bad options!

---

I owned a SuperSport for many years with a 90 HP on it. Get the E-TEC 90 HO by all means as it outperforms the 3 cyl 90 and your old 90. It is also super quiet and smoother running with quicker starting than your old motor.

---

The 115 HO is, in fact, the same weight and displacement as the 90 HO (105cu in) but I would have to rule that out as it would undoubtedly void out my insurance - max hp 100 (I'm a madman who happens to be a professional risk manager!). Between you folks who have been kind enough to participate in this ever important repowering caucus for my beloved 1986-SS and one of my best friends and fellow classic whaler lover who I called in full panic, I am now leaning to the 90 E-tec HO.

The inline 3 with The 79in displacement (as my friend put it) sounds like the old 70HP (3cyl) block with high pressure injection and sophisticated computer optimization to do the HP voodoo as the gentleman above refers to. My 2004 has a 105 inch block, V4 config, and the 90HO has that same 105 block. As someone else said in these forums, "there's no replacement for displacement".

Since I run a heavy load with family, tubing and friends usually on board, it sounds like the right choice. Basically the question is this (as my friend put it): if I loved the V4 105 inch 2004 90hp block would I rather go to a de-tuned 115 or a tweaked 70 which has to be stretched hard to get those 90 horses out o' the barn. With 3-4 people and dogs I may be pushing the 90 e-tec harder on a regular basis. On weight (which was my primary reservation), my friend who has a 1985 classic Montauk with a 2009 Honda 4 stroke put it to me this way: He said "if weight is you concern it's not like you are going where no man has gone before....all the 4 strokes people got into from 2006-2010 weigh in at 370-404 lbs... Take the extra umpf"......

Now the final questions is what will the dealer barge me to cancel the 90 e-tec and get the 90 e-tec HO and how long will it take to get here (the 90etec took 3 weeks)......if anyone hunks I have gone wrong or is making a bad decision please speak now or forever hold your peace! And again thanks for all the help from the classic whaler community!!!!
Rob

---

To Clarify for accuracy, the difference between 390 pounds and 320 pounds is 70 extra pounds difference.

---

Very Valid and accurate point Joe, however in this example, I would be going from the 2004 v4 90 which weighs 335 to a 90HO which is 390..... So that is 55lbs.....but you are correct in the comparison to the 90etec. My friend has the 17 montauk with a Honda 2008 4 stroke that he says is 400 lbs . I also lose the 3 gal VRO oil tank and will probably be able to shift to a 9gal portable tank as opposed to the 15 gal I have currently in the stern (because my 2004 ate gas)-save 20-40 lb right there when filled up
Again my concern would be getting that 90 etc and feel slower out of the hole and slower at top end than what I used to have......especially with 2-3 people in he boat ....would be a personal bummer for me....."what did I do to my baby!!!??".....

---

Unfortunately you can't go back with your old motor unless you rebuild it or buy used.

So you are looking at 3 weight differences then.
Your old, and a choice of 2 new others at this time. Or 4 with the comparison with your friends Honda now.

The E-Tec 115hp and the 115hp H.O. weigh the same as the E-Tec 90hp H.O at 390 pounds.
That's 55 more pounds then your old motor and 70 pounds more then the regular 90hp E-Tec that you are also considering. (or were)
The E-Tec 90hp would weigh 15 pounds less then you have now.

Here's a list of current motors and weights.
http://www.whalercentral.com/articles...ticle_id=5

Would like to hear from Ron and update his experience.
http://www.whalercentral.com/forum/vi...d_id=20262
http://www.whalercentral.com/infusion...r_id=13252

---

Joe - thanks so much for these links. Ron seems to be happy with his choice but as your other link shows: I AM picking the heaviest option which still bothers me a bit. Everything else (even four strokes) are max 370.
I know I'm being over analytical now but the 79in disp and 3 cyl bothers me. I see it shares the same block as the 75. I had a 1984 70hp evinrude on a 1982 15 sport back in the 80s. 3 cylinder. I just worry I am going backwards and will feel I took a step down when I hit the throttle. I don't really want to go "less" on power and top speed capability. What is your opinion Joe? If it were you ? (Putting you on spot) but I do appreciate your vast knowledge and how you have all the facts

---

Just to comment on one of your key requirements, hole shot.

There are a dozen or more threads of Montauk/17' repowers with E-TEC 90's mounted 3 holes up with stainless steel props and on every one the comment is nearly the same:

"

---

I had the choice between an ETEC 90 and an ETEC 115 because the dealer had the 115 in stock and had to order the 90. I was worried about over powering the rating of a 1978 Montauk but was thinking about the 90 HO. I went ahead with the regular 90 and must say it has PLENTY of power. The first prop I tried was a SOLAS 15 which was way too under pitched. It would, however, leave the water, literally. It would jump on plane in under 2 seconds but I would have to back off the throttle as it would easily overrev. I went up to a 19 stilletto which put the boat at 44-45 before I installed a bow mount trolling motor and battery in the console. After the trolling motor/battery, it will go 41-42 with 1 person and 40 with 3 people ice and gear. The boat still planes in less than 3 seconds boat doesn't come completely out of the water which was causing the prop to catch air. I only have the motor mounted 2 holes up and it still hits 5500 rpm with 3 people so I could probably still add some pitch but decided not to for watersports purposes. I did not like the boat at 44-45, to floaty feeling. These hulls are not built for running over 45 in my opinion. 40 is fine for me and I cruise at 30 mph running 4000 rpms sipping fuel like my old 9.9 on a 12 foot bateau, no kidding. The 90 HO and 115 require an external oil tank and would likely burn at least a little more fuel. All of this made me happy that I went with the regular 90. I dont think I would have ever used the extra power of the 115 which they offered to me for only $400 more than the regular 90.

---

I am with you with keeping hp within the rated spec of the boat. The reason I passed on the 250hp Etec. What still memorizes me, is the same block I now own at 200hp HO, is the block I passed on. One of the telling factors is if you plan on installing a kicker motor. I believe the consensus is the Etec 90hp would work.....the 90hp HO would also work. If you at any point want a kicker motor.....go with the 90hp. I believe the manufacturer came up with the motor hp tweeking for those wanting the high performance and still keep their boat in spec. Either choice is correct. Do not beat yourself up. I have buddies who like hot rodding various motors......me if I wanted more power than a Chevy 350.....screw the internal customizing.....go with a 454.
Garris

---

Thanks again for the interest, thoughts and responses to my dilemma.
I am NOT going to be ever installing a kicker or side motor for fishing. I don't troll.
The 115 would never be a consideration. Out of spec, unnecessary , and probably dangerous/insurance voider-outter!
I guess my problem distills down to this: I will miss my 2004 90 V4 Johnson dearly. I love my classic 1986 SS 17 and feel the motor and boat are a great match. And a repowering is committing to an engine I will likely have for 12 years+.
I don't want to feel that performance suffers (hole shot, cruising with load of 2-3 people, pulling 175-200lb guys skiing,etc) when getting a new motor. What's worse than spending 8k and feeling you ended up with slightly less in terms of baseline everyday performance? That would be a huge disappointment
So the question remains. How will the 90 etec 3cyl compare to my 2004 90 V4?
Less? Same? I doubt it could feel like more, but open to experienced opinions .
I'm pretty sure the 90HO will be a slight uptick in all above wants and needs as I'm sure what some write in this forum about engines losing compression over time - so I probably have and "85hp" and sounds like a 90HO is basically a 99 when its new
So for those who have parted with a 10-15 y/o V4 90 two stroke (105 in disp) and gone to a 90etec 3cyl, what's the gut feeling here?
I love how everyone keeps weighing in. It's a huge help and I thank you all
Regardless of my decision I promise to post pics and report back on performance.
Rob

---

You should probably get the 90 HO. I think that if you get the 90, you will always be looking back at the 90 HO wondering what might have been. It is the same motor as the 115 though. The only difference is the programming and cowl. If you arent tide to Evinrude, you might also checkout the Merc 90. It is the same 4 cyl block as the 115 but is lighter than the Evinrude 90HO. You seem to be hung up on stepping down to a 3 cyl from a 4.

One last thing is that you have a SS which is already lighter than a Montauk which means 2 things: it will be faster than the Montauk with all other things constant and will probably be better suited for the extra weight. I think the also the SS is lighter in the front than the Montauk with will also make it faster but might feel a little less stable at WOT. It will be a rocket!

---

Thanks Neil. I think you are right. I think I just want my V4 back and will potentially look back in regret if I go to 3cyl and find that there really is "no replacement for displacement" when putting an engine under load. On your point that "it is the same motor as the 115", this is true.......but in 2004 this was true too. Both the v4 90 and 115 were 335 lbs and had 105 in displacement between the 4 cylinders.

My final conclusion is that the block and basic config of the 90 and 115 hp engines of yesteryear (like my old 2004) live on in what evimrude now brands as the H.O. line. The new 90 etec is off the basic design of what was once the 70/75 HP 3cyl power plants (with more ancestry to my 1986 70hp than to my 2004 90) which they have optimized to crank out more consistent and efficient horsepower through better firing control process.

So where does the added weight come in (the 55 extra lb)??? The engineering major in me says probably from more advanced control systems and probably from the high pressure computer controlled fuel injection pumps (those are heavy) that have taken the place of the relatively lightweight (and sometimes mostly hardened plastic) carburetors of the old days.

Neil, thanks for your homework on the SS vs the Montauk. Out of curiosity, why would the SS be better suited to the extra weight? Assume you mean a SS with a HO ends up at the same total weight as a Montauk with a regular etec?

Again thanks to all for the replies. Check out my personal page for pics of the boat restored to its full glory. It's held up well since 2011. Can't wait to post it when it has a new engine. For the love of a classic whaler!

---

For accuracy and clarification from the 1988 Boston Whaler Catalog.
Montauk 17' = 900 lbs.
Super Sport 17' = 850 lbs.

For comparison:
Striper 17' = 850 lbs.
Newport 17' = 950 lbs.

So, the Super Sport 17' and the Striper 17' weigh 50 lbs. less then the Montauk 17' model. All in their standard configuration without any extras or options added.

Now we all know the facts according to Boston Whaler published weights.

---

Thank you. You sir are a steely eye Whaler man. If I remember correctly the seating position is more toward the rear on the SS. When I added 50 lbs of trolling motor to the bow and 70 lbs of battery in then center console, I lost 2 mph with no other changes. It is weight but also where the weight is in the boat. On a positive note, the extra weight up front also improved the ride and handling which I think was worth it. The boat corners like it is on rails.

---

I was thinking purely from a payload stand point. The 2 hulls are the same. One has 50 extra pounds of stuff in it. The SS with a 390 lb motor weighs 1240. A Montauk with a 320 lb motor weighs 1220 and 1290 with a 390 lb motor. If you prop it right, it will be a hand full. I would be willing to bet if the bottom is clean and the hull is dry, it will break 50 mph with a stainless steel prop.

---

The v4-90+ has always been claimed as a gas hog compared to the inline 3.
Are there any current stats about that?
We've got an older Yamaha 90 and love the power vs fuel consumption.
TP

---

Decision made.....just ordered the 90HO. Dealer was nice enough to let me make the change and keep the 3cyl etec in stock. I will keep you all posted on what happens here. And will send photos.

Perich - no idea on gas consumption but has to be better than my 90 2004 4 cyl....will keep track and send data as well.

Also will send you all and Joe Kriz hard data on GPS acceleration info and top speed data on my 17 SS....... help the whaler community the way it helped me here! Thanks again to everyone who chimed in and offered facts, advice and opinion.

---

Awesome!

Modern, fuel-injected motors seem to be efficient across the full RPM range, far more so than older carbed motors. That means for the newer motors, your mileage will be a function of how fast you are going, not the size of the motor. Obviously, the 90HO will go faster than the 90, so the HO will use more fuel at WOT. Hopefully that's not surprising, as it takes more energy to go faster.

Tim

---

The HO just arrived at the dealer and I went to check it out. Beautiful engine. Looks a lot heftier and a lot more like my old 2004 90 V4. Especially under the cover. Took bonnet off and you can see where the extra weight comes in....... Each high pressure injection pump must weigh 4lb each (I held one)... Also the computer module looks dense and must weight 7-10lb.....In addition the oil tank adds when filled. All makes sense. Glad I went with the HO.
Saw a 3cyl eTec being installed on another boat and it really does look to be a considerably smaller engine. I'm sure it puts out 90hp and is engineered well. But the dealer and I both agree that under a load it all changes. Different "strokes" for different folks! One thing is for certain, Bombardier/Evinrude is BACK and they have done a wonderful job bringing two stroke technology into the modern world. Im an Evinrude loyalist. Can't wait to have it installed in a few weeks! Will send pics and performance report.

---

As promised, here she is! Just picked her up Yesterday. Happy Memorial Day everyone and thanks again for all the help. Will post more pics and report back with performance once I launch!

---

Just before leaving the shop

---

You want to have the motor mounted as high as she will go and a good stainless steel prop.

You want to prop the boat to hit the top of WOT rpm range with a light load. I would estimate you would be at ~ 50-52 rpm.

Given that you pull tubes, you should consider a second prop for just that with a little less pitch. It is not about time to plane rather RPM's with a load.

---

Looks like you still have the original Morse controls.
Did you get new engine gauges?

Motor looks great.
Hopefully you will put up new photos on your personal page.

---

Joe,
I got a new rpm gauge but haven't installed it. Had the dealer leave the original orange dials (but took home the new gauge - its basically the same gauge but while and blue).
The morse controls were installed when i did the restoration about 6 years ago. I keep them and the dealer did all new wiring and dashboard key switch for me. Trim/tilt on the rocker i installed in the dash during the original restoration. Im old school love the Morse!

OK now for the best part - launched today.....it FLIES...but its so stable....this engine is unbelievable. Its super quiet but has a hugely powerful hole-shot. At 5200 RPM you push the throttle to 5800 and you feel the jump to WOT and unlike my old 2004 v4, the WIND IS LOUDER THAN THE ENGINE!.....at WOT you barely hear it....

so happy with the choice

---

Phil, I am mounted up one hole...planes and rides great......same as my old one.....dealer said the flat plate on the lower unit should be just about at same height as bottom point on the Hull.

---

CB, that's old school mounting advice, and most dealers will mount that way unless you tell them otherwise. Bring it up another couple of holes and it will perform even better - better hole shot, less bow rise, easier steering, better mileage and top speed. Don't handicap that new motor by dragging it deep in the water!

Tim

---

I'm up one hole and it seems great......probably not worth bringing all the way back to dealer to go up one more hole, no?

---

When you're planing,
Have someone go back and take a picture of the cav plate area,
then post it up here and we'll evaluate your tuning!
It should be skimming the top.
TP
Oh yeah nice rig!

---

When i am fully up on plane and running at 3ish mph or AS i am planing?

---

Only you can decide whether it's worth it, but you have a beautiful boat with a brand new motor - don't you want it to perform as well as it possibly can? It's either going to be right or wrong for the life of the boat.

I think the advice was to come up two holes, not one, but I can't speak to that. If you post a question on mounting height for a Montauk someone with the same setup will help, I'm sure.

You can raise the motor yourself quite easily if you're reasonably handy.

Do you have a good stainless prop on there? If not that's another thing to make sure you get right, and then enjoy for the life of the boat.

Tim

---

yes i have a 17in stainless from my old engine....was perfect so wanted to keep it. i am entitled to a new stainless from Evinrude as part of the package, so the dealer said to see how she performs and then we will pick a stainless to order and i can get if for free.
how do you raise a motor yourself? I'm very handy, but 390 lbs?

---

Block of wood under the skeg and trailer tongue jack.

---

A buddy or two to help balance the motor with JRP's excellent advice. Let the jack do the work.
Garris

---

Remember to reseal the holes with a polysulfide marine caulk.

---

Planing speed



The bottom bolts don't come off they slide when loose,
only remove the tops come out.
A clamp helps too.
TP

---

CB, the key to the process is to remove the upper bolts and just loosen the lower ones, so the motor can slide in the slots.

If you have a floor jack, you can put it under the skeg to lift the motor.

If not, you can use the trailer jack to lift it - lower the jack all the way down, then put a block under the skeg to support the motor. Remove/loosen the bolts, then crank the jack up to lower the transom while the motor stays in place.

You'll need to re-caulk the bolt holes, but that's no big deal.

Tim

---

I would not use the skeg as the push point to raise the 390 lb E-Tec 90 HO. I would instead use the lifting eyelet mounted on the back top section of the powerhead. That is the preferred lifting method.

When mounting an E-Tec 90 3 cylinder inline or the E-Tec 90 4 cylinder onto a BW17 smirked hull, the anti-ventilation plate should be between 2-3 inches above the centerline bottom of the hull, or just above the exterior brass drain tube.

That means the E-Tec 90HO should be mounted to the transom in the 4th mounting position or "three holes up."

The anti-ventilation plate on the E-Tec motors are set back on the lower units, so, the higher you get them, the cleaner the water is for them to operate more efficiently.

Also, be sure to purchase the static trim pin (no longer a standard feature, but optional) and install it at position number 2. This will be important over the lifespan of the motor, to preserve the integrity and function of the trim/tilt assembly.

You might find the Morse control to be inadequate for operating the E-Tec 90 trim/tilt. The BRP binnacle is superb for combined throttle and trim function with the trim switch right there on the shifter for your thumb to operate.

Do you really want to let go with one hand (from steering or shift/throttle) in order to trim the motor at a separate switch?