1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Optimizing the performance of Boston Whaler boats
tomme12
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:04 pm

1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby tomme12 » Mon Jul 16, 2018 10:21 am

Hi folks—I know everyone has an opinion, but I like to hear them; for my SPORT 15 I am replacing a Johnson 70 [mounted using the] blind holes with a new engine [that is without blind holes,] an E-TEC 60 H.O. I need to determine the correct mounting height on the transom before drilling holes. The way it looks, the engine gear case cavitation plate will be about 2-inches above the keel, if I keep the lower mounting bolt location through the transom in the [engine splash] well. I looked at all the drawings on here about re-drilling.

I am curious: need I be concerned [that it looks like the anti-ventilation plate will be 2-inches above the keel]?

Or, will [the engine mounting height for the E-TEC 60 H.O. with the anti-ventilation plate 2-inched above the bottom of the hull of a 1984 SPORT 15] be fine?

I don't think [the engine mounting height for an Evinrude E-TEC 60 H.O.] will be a concern, , but I know [the anti-ventilation plate] should only be an [?] above the keel.

My thought was to mount the engine on the bottom hole (so the engine is up high), then drill through the transom at the bottom adjustable slot, then drop the engine down to the lowest point.

Any thoughts? Thanks.

User avatar
Phil T
Posts: 827
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Was Maine, now Kentucky
Contact:

Re: 1984 15' Sport ETEC 60HO Mount opinion

Postby Phil T » Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:48 pm

I know it should only be an 1" above the keep


Actually, for an E-TEC on a whaler that is not true. Member testing has shown E-TEC's prefer to be mounted 2 or even 3 holes up depending on the prop you choose.

Drill the GREEN holes.
Attachments
EngineDrillHoleTemplate2.jpg
EngineDrillHoleTemplate2.jpg (55.43 KiB) Viewed 1912 times
Member since 2003
1992 Outrage 17, 1992 Evinrude 115

tomme12
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:04 pm

Re: 1984 15' Sport ETEC 60HO Mount opinion

Postby tomme12 » Mon Jul 16, 2018 3:22 pm

Thanks Phil! So it sounds like use the black holes, mount it up on 2/3 and drill the bottom and then adjust as needed. I have been concerned with the cavitation, but it sounds like with the ETEC, people have had luck putting the motor up higher.

jimh
Posts: 5445
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1984 15 Sport E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby jimh » Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:49 pm

tomme12 wrote:I know everyone has an opinion, but I like to hear them...


See the answer in the FAQ.

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/FAQ/#Q8

Use the method recommended in the fifth option,

Repair the old holes related to the blind hole lower mounting bolts.

Describe engine mounting height ONLY in the recommended method, counting holes-up from lowest mounting height.

Read the pinned article in PERFORMANCE to get more details on how to describe engine mounting height:


viewtopic.php?f=7&t=739

El Rollo
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: 1984 15 Sport E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby El Rollo » Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:58 pm

That's a heavy outboard for a 15.
I'm sure in calm waters it'll be fine . . . I would highly recommend keeping the rest of the interior of the boat as light as possible.
Have you considered a small set-back manual jackplate? I know it'll push the weigh even further back, but it would allow you to adjust your final engine height much better (and easier) with the added flexibility.
Essentially you could dial it in perfectly in a few hours at a beach with a minimal amount of tools.
I think you'd be surprised how high you'd be able to go with the motor.
Good luck and keep us posted please, that's an interesting combo !

tomme12
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:04 pm

Re: 1984 15 Sport E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby tomme12 » Mon Jul 16, 2018 7:32 pm

Another guy has an E-TEC 60 H.O. on his boat, and he loves it.

How has everyone been with the [anti-ventilation] plate up a little higher than the keel?

And by how far up?

That is, 1-inch [higher than the keel]?

Or, 2-inches [higher than the keel]?

Or more [than 2-inches higher than the keel]?

tomme12
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:04 pm

Re: 1984 15' Sport ETEC 60HO Mount opinion

Postby tomme12 » Mon Jul 16, 2018 7:34 pm

Phil T wrote:
I know it should only be an 1" above the keep


Actually, for an E-TEC on a whaler that is not true. Member testing has shown E-TEC's prefer to be mounted 2 or even 3 holes up depending on the prop you choose.

Drill the GREEN holes.


So I did measure the holes (black holes at the top) and they are actually 2 1/2" lower. Which puts me lower in the transom to drill the lower holes. Not going to have to much adjustment if I get it just right.

jimh
Posts: 5445
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1984 15 Sport E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby jimh » Mon Jul 16, 2018 8:25 pm

tomme12 wrote:I know everyone has an opinion, but I like to hear them...


If the current holes in the transom have been located incorrectly, repair the transom and drill new holes in the proper position.

jimh
Posts: 5445
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1984 15 Sport E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby jimh » Mon Jul 16, 2018 8:28 pm

tomme12 wrote:I know everyone has an opinion, but I like to hear them...


No one determines the proper engine mounting height by measuring from the keel to the anti-ventilation plate—which is the plate you keep referring to as the “cavitation plate.” No one cares about that distance. It is not important. It is not used in determining proper engine mounting height.

tomme12
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:04 pm

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby tomme12 » Mon Jul 16, 2018 8:32 pm

Its only listed in the brp manuals, but what do i know.

jimh
Posts: 5445
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby jimh » Tue Jul 17, 2018 7:39 am

tomme12 wrote:I know everyone has an opinion, but I like to hear them...


You solicited other people’s opinions, so why try to dismiss other people when they give you their opinion? If you don’t want to hear advice from others, then don’t solicit their advice.

If you think you already have the most authoritative advice, let’s close the discussion.

tomme12
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:04 pm

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby tomme12 » Tue Jul 17, 2018 7:48 am

I came here to ask for advice on others who have mounted ETEC motors on a 15' sport. Thus far I have received only links to general mounting information and some commentary and or correction to my statements. Ideally I was looking for others with ETECs on their 15's and there experiences with mounting height in relation to the anti-ventilation plate in regards to the keel.

BRP Manual states:
"Mounting Height
Boat performance depends on outboard mounting
height.
Generally, the anti-ventilation plate of the gearcase
should align with the bottom of the hull. Conventional
V-hulls often perform well with the antiventilation
plate approximately 1 in. (25 cm) above
the bottom of the hull."

I was hoping to hear from someone their height, but this may not be correct venue apparently.

User avatar
Phil T
Posts: 827
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Was Maine, now Kentucky
Contact:

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby Phil T » Tue Jul 17, 2018 11:55 am

Please don’t get too frustrated with Jim. He is the owner and the sole Admin of the website (a ton of work) and an engineer by training. This can make him occasionally come off as prickly. I know him personally and he is a nice guy.

While I don’t own a 15 Sport, I have rigged one with the owner. I have rigged 2 other Boston Whalers. I have run 2 different whaler models off the coast of Maine for 10 years.I have been a very active member of this Whaler forum since 2003, another Whaler forum since 2005 and a Facebook group for Whaler owners since 2016.

I have read and monitored repower and rigging threads for over 25 15 Sport's. At least 1/2 were repowered with E-TEC's.

Here are a few specific threads: (Note both owners are told by veteran members the engine is mounted too low)

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/007751.html

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/005762.html

The BPR manual is made for lawyers and use generalities. Dealers want to mount an engine without fuss across all brands and models. Using a standard height saves them time and effort which translates into $.

The running advice by veteran whaler owners is E-TEC's like to be mounted high. 2 or even 3 holes up (using the standard BIA pattern, shown above) with a high quality stainless steel propeller.

In the end, it is your boat. Do as you chose.
Member since 2003
1992 Outrage 17, 1992 Evinrude 115

tomme12
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:04 pm

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby tomme12 » Tue Jul 17, 2018 12:58 pm

Thanks Phil. Much appreciated. The internet is a feisty place sometimes. :) No worries at all.

jimh
Posts: 5445
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby jimh » Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:26 pm

tomme12 wrote:I know everyone has an opinion, but I like to hear them...


As solicited in the initial post, here is my opinion on the mounting height for ANY outboard engine. I won’t be describing it in the dimension of the distance from the bottom of the boat to the A-V plate; please see my earlier opinion about that dimension.

The benchmark indicator for engine mounting height is the position of the anti-ventilation plate relative to the water flowing past it when the engine trim is properly set and the boat is on plane at a fast cruising speed or higher.

If the chosen propeller allows, the top of the A-V plate should be just out of the water or just at the waterline.

A lower height might be used if the boat is going to be operating in rough seas or if the propeller does not maintain good grip at higher mounting height.

Dealers tend to mount outboard engines in the lowest possible position, unless the dealer is well versed in optimizing performance or if the owner insists on a higher mounting.

No one knows what dimension from keel to A-V plate will produce this outcome—the transom height on the particular boat and the shaft length on a particular could easily vary by a total of 0.75-inch, the spacing of one hole.

All the advice you have received is good advice, but you seem to insist on setting out the basis as being the keel-to-A-V plate distance. No one knows or tracks that for every boat and every engine and every propeller and every sea state.

The problem specific to you boat is explained in the FAQ: if you don’t recognize that information as being useful, you must not understand what you read.

If you think BRP and your dealer are the ultimate authority, then let the dealer putter around while you pay the bill.

Here you get free advice, but you seem rather aggressively trying to dismiss it in favor of something you read. If that’s your bible, then have it your way.

jimh
Posts: 5445
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby jimh » Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:15 am

tomme12 wrote:I know everyone has an opinion, but I like to hear them...


Another fundamental mistake introduced in the discussion by the OP is the notion that the transom holes to be drilled in a Boston Whaler SPORT 15 must be located so that a particular engine mounting height will be obtained, and that one must pre-calculate the mounting height in order to know where to drill holes in the transom. This is not true.

The mounting holes drilled in the transom are located in a standard position, particularly the upper pair of holes. On older Boston Whaler boats with a shallow engine splash well the standard location for the pair of lower holes can be a problem, as holes in the standard position will emerge on the inboard side of the transom below the bottom of the splash well.

The FAQ carefully and concisely explains this problem in detail, specifically for Boston Whaler boats. I pointed the OP to this information, but he dismissed it as having little value for him and described it as “general” information. My inference is the OP did not read the FAQ, or if the OP did read the FAQ he failed to understand the specificity of the information and its precise applicability to his questions about engine mounting.

Once the transom holes are drilled and in the standard position, the engine mounting height can then be adjusted over a range of several inches—which is much preferred to drilling mounting holes in non-standard locations which will prevent any further adjustment of engine mounting height. This is exactly the problem with the OP and his boat: the blind mounting holes were used, and they eliminated further height adjustments.

As explained clearly in the FAQ in regard to selecting the fifth option—the best option, the one recommended by Boston Whaler, and the one recommended in the FAQ—raising the pair of lower holes by 0.75 or 1.5 inches WILL cause a constraint on engine mounting height; the engine will have a minimum mounting height of one-hole-up or two-holes-up, accordingly. But this minimum mounting height of one-hole-up won’t be a problem; that height is generally the starting point for modern engines and modern propellers. Being limited to a minimum of two-holes-up might be a problem in some instances with some propellers, and I recommend locating the lower pair of holes—if possible—only raised 0.75-inch higher than standard.

ASIDE: I find the OP’s behavior very odd and very aggressive when, on his first posts and first discussion on the forum, he asserts that the forum appears to him to NOT be able to provide information about proper installation of a modern engine on a Boston Whaler boat. That is quite an amazing accusation against the forum, the website, the thousands of participants, and the several hundred thousand articles on the topic of Boston Whaler boats that are published here.

El Rollo
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby El Rollo » Wed Jul 18, 2018 11:16 am

I still stand behind my recommendation of a jackplate. That motor is 320 Lbs. dry.
Unless someone has the exact same 15, rigged with the same motor, with an identical load, there is now way to pre-determine the exact correct height for that engine / set-up. A jackplate will offer you that freedom. Plus, if you ever wanna play around with different props, you can maximize the performance by adjusting the plate to suite each prop.
Quit fooling around with this bolt pattern non-sense and get a jackplate on that thing already ! --I laugh aloud--.
Good Luck
Last edited by El Rollo on Wed Jul 18, 2018 4:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

El Rollo
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby El Rollo » Wed Jul 18, 2018 12:00 pm

Here's a little more info that may help paint a picture for you. I have a Yamaha F70 on my 15. It has a bow mounted trolling motor and the additional weight of 2 small batteries to power it, (24 volts). Even though I did my best to keep the boat as light as possible, it is heaver than your average classic 15. I have a Bobs Machine shop 5" manual jackplate. I don't know the exact measurement, but I believe right now, if I took a straight edge even and parallel with the bottom of the boat and measured to the bottom of the A-V plate, I am around 3 1/2 inches.

That was the correct height for the 3-bladed prop that I had on the boat originally. I have since changed to a 4-bladed prop and dropped down 2 inches in pitch. I know now that I can raise the motor further to maximize the performance of the new 4-blade prop, but I haven't taken the time. (I don't mean to take this in a different direction so bare with me).

My point is that I wasn't satisfied with my original prop once I raised the jackplate and maximized it's performance. But I was able to make 3-4 adjustments within a couple hours taking the boat out for a run, measuring speeds and rpm's until I felt I was in the correct spot. I also turned the boat side to side sharply while on-plane to check cavitation. You wouldn't be able to do this w/o a jackplate. You'd be limited to removing the motor and raising or lowering it into the holes provided on the outboard.

You would be surprised how much a 1/4 of an inch makes once you get close to your sweet spot. I say all this because with 320 lbs of motor on that transom, your stern is going to sit much lower than that hull was originally set-up for with the 'period correct' 70 hp motors that weighed approx. 100 pounds less. In fact, if you do mount that motor DIRECTLY to the transom, you may not even be able to raise it high enough to get the best overall performance out of that motor. I suspect you could be dragging too much of the lower unit. And in my opinion, that's a complete waste, since I would imagine a new Evinrude 60 HO is not a cheap engine.

Also, put a Baystar hydraulic steering unit on that set-up . . . you'll thank me later. Yes, the hydraulic cylinder will clear the jackplate when you tilt the motor up . . . you just may not be able to raise it ALL of the way up if you plan on storing the boat in the water and want the whole lower unit out of the water.

Hope this helps.
Last edited by El Rollo on Wed Jul 18, 2018 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jimh
Posts: 5445
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby jimh » Wed Jul 18, 2018 4:46 pm

The suggestion of hydraulic steering is good advice. I recently had a chance to drive a classic 15-foot hull with an E-TEC 60 H.O. engine. The boat had mechanical cable steering. I was surprised by how much steering torque and force there was. Hydraulic steering would be a big help.

jimh
Posts: 5445
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby jimh » Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:04 am

tomme12 wrote:My thought was to mount the engine on the bottom hole (so the engine is up high), then drill through the transom at the bottom adjustable slot, then drop the engine down to the lowest point.

Any thoughts?


My thoughts:

In the proposed method the engine mounting bracket is being used as a template for drilling the lower pair of holes. This is certainly one method to locate the holes, but it’s a bit awkward. See the FAQ (previously linked) for the dimensions, which will allow you to layout the holes, or borrow or rent an actual template from an engine dealer-installer.

If the engine is mounted as high as possible as proposed, and the lower holes or slots are used to drill the lower hole pair as proposed, the result will be the vertical spacing will be the standard spacing, and that results in the lower holes exiting on the onboard side on the transom under the splash well. Again, see the FAQ for advice on how to solve the problem.

jimh
Posts: 5445
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby jimh » Thu Jul 19, 2018 4:39 pm

A pinned topic in this forum further discusses engine mounting height, see:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=739

All recommendations in that article are applicable to answer the questions raised here and should be read carefully.

tomme12
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:04 pm

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby tomme12 » Fri Aug 03, 2018 10:51 am

Installed the E-TEC 60 H.O., and it is working great with a 15-pitch propeller: hits about 42-MPH. And no worries about the weight. The SUPER SPORT 15 ran fine. There is a little bow rise when you start, but no porpoising at all.
60ho1.JPG
60ho1.JPG (132.75 KiB) Viewed 1587 times

El Rollo
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby El Rollo » Sat Aug 11, 2018 12:47 pm

Motor looks great ! Glad it worked out so well !

jimh
Posts: 5445
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby jimh » Sat Aug 11, 2018 4:38 pm

Based on the image (above) the engine looks like it has been mounted two-holes-up. The mounting holes appear to have been placed as recommended in the FAQ, that is, the lower set of holes has been placed with reduced spacing so the inboard ends of the fasteners come out of the transom above the bottom of the splash well.

There appears to be some rather minor amount of water in the splash well, indicating the splash well drains are partially submerged. I assume the image was taken with no one in the boat. I would expect that when there is a helmsman in the boat the hull will settle a bit further into the water, and the splash well drains may become even lower, letting more water into the splash well. The position of the splash well drains relative to the static water line at the transom is a good indication of how appropriate the engine weight is for the boat.

The top speed reported of 42-MPH sounds good. My c.1976 SPORT 15 with an old Mercury 500 two-stroke-power-cycle engine without power tilt and trim (and thus rather light) would top-out about 34-MPH. Clearly the E-TEC 60 H.O. is producing more than just 10-HP greater than my old "50" was.

Assessing the performance with the Crouch method, if my c.1976 with a 50-HP could hit 34-MPH, then to hit 42-MPH would suggest the power needed would be 76-HP. The general feeling about the E-TEC 60 H.O. engine is that it is really an E-TEC 75 with a decal that says "60" so it can be used on boats with maximum power ratings of only 60-HP.

A good friend has installed an E-TEC 60 H.O. on his MISCHIEF 15, and it, too, seems very "peppy" even with four adults aboard.

I also like the three-cylinder E-TEC 60 H.O. in preference to the two-cylinder version rated 60-HP. The two cylinder engines don't seem to run as smoothly as the three-cylinder ones. A three-cylinder in-line two-stroke engine seems like a classic configuration.

El Rollo
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby El Rollo » Sun Aug 12, 2018 7:23 am

I have to play the devil's advocate here. From my understanding, this 60 E-TEC H.O. is merely a de-tuned 75-HP--or an even more, a de-tuned 90-HP.

With the exact same weight, how would those motors work?

I think you'd be looking conservatively at 20 more horsepower for the 90, which is a lot on a little 15. Sounds like a party.

jimh
Posts: 5445
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby jimh » Sun Aug 12, 2018 7:38 am

Re the E-TEC 75 and the E-TEC 90, and their actual horsepower: The 90 version is probably a little light, making maybe 83 to 85-HP. The 75 version probably makes at least 75-HP, and perhaps a couple more. The 60 H.O. probably makes at least 70-HP.

Someone was tracking the test data submitted by Evinrude to the EPA for emission certification of the E-TEC 90, and over the years the claimed horsepower output has varied. The earliest engines were close to 90-HP but never exceeded it. The more recent engines seemed to be making a bit less power. Perhaps there was some re-tuning for emission compliance or other factors.

I believe that the engine weight is the same for all three versions.

El Rollo
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby El Rollo » Sun Aug 12, 2018 8:33 am

Good info Jim !

User avatar
Phil T
Posts: 827
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Was Maine, now Kentucky
Contact:

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby Phil T » Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:30 am

Tomme -

Because we care about your significant investment in your boat, the following is offered as constructive advice.

Double check the grey fuel line. There have been many many problems with the inner lining degrading and debris entering the engine. I would select Trident or other named brand that is rated alcohol resistant and not grey in color.

Why is there a splice in the fuel line? If a professional did that, that is a sign of half assed work you are paying $80+/hr for. I would take it back and have them run one complete section from inside the engine to the fuel tank. It only takes 15 minutes to do properly. IF a DIY, lesson learned.

To protect the harness and wiring and give the rigging a clean look, consider either wire loom, slit bilge hose (white or black) or zippered fabric rigging cover. There are several diameters available.
Member since 2003
1992 Outrage 17, 1992 Evinrude 115

jimh
Posts: 5445
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby jimh » Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:28 am

PHIL--good advice on that gray fuel hose. They are a disaster waiting to happen.

Also, weight distribution in a small boat like a SPORT 15 has significant effect on the hull trim. I would move the fuel tank and battery forward to reduce the weight in the stern and raise the static water line at the transom.

tomme12
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:04 pm

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby tomme12 » Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:54 am

Unless you have been out in a 15 SS with a 320lb outboard, I wouldnt change a thing. Im 195lbs, full tank of gas and battery and it ran fine. No porpoising, slight bow rise, but it was absolutely fine. Sure, you could put a 25lb lead bag in the bow locker if you want, move the stuff around the boat, it all helps, but not necessary. The grey line, Im not worried about. The boat is covered boat lift canopy, used 2 months a year with non-ethanol. If it was a florida boat or out in the elements using 10%, then Id switch it. We had just hooked it up, I did not have all the rigging done, I bought the wrong size braided sleeve for the rigging.

The point being, every single Whaler post I have read, everyone was up in arms with the additional weight of going from a 70hp Johnson at around 284lbs to a 60HO with 320lbs. And really, it was not a big deal. Id say if you want to put a 75 ETEC or 60HO on a 15 SS, go for it. The 60HO and 75 ETEC have the exact same 79.1 cu in/ 1295 cc/ 1.3 L. Whether its tuned differently or not, I highly doubt it. Its a marketing ploy BRP has used for years to help sell engines. Have a lake that doesnt allow engines or 75hp? get a 60HO. Or engines over 200HP? Get a 200HO . Same with boat capacity engine ratings.

Too far in the weeds to enjoy a day on BW. :)

jimh
Posts: 5445
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby jimh » Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:47 pm

tomme12 wrote:Unless you [that is, the people offering opinions] have been out in a 15 SS with a 320lb outboard, I wouldnt change a thing [that is, won’t accept advice]


I have been out in a 15-footer with an E-TEC 60 H.O.

Does that mean I meet your new criterion to offer an opinion?

I thought you solicited other people’s opinions in your initial comment in this thread. Now, again, when you get opinions you seem to react by dismissing them if they offer any sort of advice that conflicts with your opinion.

El Rollo
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:35 pm

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby El Rollo » Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:59 am

Hey Jim,
What was your opinion on the 15 foot Boston Whaler with the Evinrude E-Tec 60 HO set up?
My 15 is powered by a Yamaha F70. I have a 5" manual jackplate and hydraulic steering as well. My boat has added weight from batteries / bench seat etc.
Judging by the water in the splashwell in the picture above, I think the static trim on my boat is very similar. (due to the added weight in my boat)

Originally when I repowered, I wanted to mount the 75 E-Tec on my boat, but the local Evinrude dealer would not install that particular motor, as it was over-powered per the coast guard rating of the boat. I really prefer the tork, and power curve of the E-Tec over the four-stroke platform.

Overall, I am very happy with the Yamaha F70, but I do miss that 2-stroke 'Punch". The other thing I was surprised at was the cost of ownership / service on the four-stroke. A service every 100 hours comes very quickly . . . having that extended to every 300 hours on the E-Tec is a really nice feature.

We have an E-Tec 115 on or 1986 18 Outrage, so i feel that I can speak freely about both motors. I have 'personal' feeling both Pro and Con on both engines.

flymo
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 2:58 pm

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby flymo » Thu Aug 23, 2018 6:21 am

El Rollo, I think I've mentioned this all before (and not to hijack this thread) but you're missing that midrange punch because you have too much blade area. I missed it too while I was running bigger props, but my current PowerTech SCD-3 totally rips - I just went from a 16-pitch to a 17 and it's scary fast and has great acceleration. I have not found the top speed yet but I was at 5900 RPM and 42 MPH when I backed off because things were getting bouncy. With your heavier boat I'd recommend the 16-pitch.

jimh
Posts: 5445
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby jimh » Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:16 pm

El Rollo wrote:What was your opinion on the 15 foot Boston Whaler with the Evinrude E-Tec 60 HO set up?


The 15-footer I was aboard and at the helm for a while was a MISCHIEF model, so it was heavier than a SPORT or SUPER SPORT. The E-TEC 60 H.O. gave the boat plenty of power. We had four adults aboard. The boat was carrying its maximum rated capacity or perhaps a few pounds over.

There was proper concern about too much weight on the transom. The splash well drains were below the static water line. The owner has subsequently taken several measures to reduce weight in the stern. The battery was moved to be forward of the helm seats. The sump pump was changed so its exhaust when straight overboard, above the transom, rather than the original configuration in which the sump pump exhaust went into the splash well.

jimh
Posts: 5445
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby jimh » Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:24 pm

A comment about the suitability of gray hose has been moved to another thread which discusses fuel hose ratings. See

Gray Fuel Hose
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3782#p21347

Yellowjacket
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:33 am

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby Yellowjacket » Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:42 pm

The old Merc 500's 50-HP was a flywheel rating, that is, it was the power rating for the powerhead, without the lower unit. Outboard engine power ratings changed in the mid-1980's to be measured based on propeller shaft horsepower. When the rating system changed, the same Merc 500 engine was rated at 45-HP based on the new rating system. So if you run Crouch's formula on 45-HP and 34-MPH and then use the same constant you get about 70-HP to push the same hull up to 42-MPH. Later (in the 2000's) the same motor was de-rated to 40-HP, and if you run Crouch's numbers on 40-HP, you get the E-TEC at about 62-HP, which is even closer to the rating with a little margin. All engines today are conservatively rated so that every engine you buy makes its rated power, whereas in the old days that was a typical rating and there was no production margin in the ratings.

Remember that Crouch's formula is only a rule of thumb, and there are lots of things that make a difference in speed, such as center-of-gravity location, that aren't considered in Crouch's formula that can make 2- or 3-MPH speed differences. As speed increases hulls start to "break out" and for that reason you have to be careful extrapolating to too high a speed. It also ignores things like propeller efficiency, and propellers have improved in the last 30 or so years, so you might expect that the E-TEC is probably a bit better than its rating, but it isn't producing 75-HP, and likely not quite making 70 if the propeller is better than the one you had on the Merc 500. It's still probably conservatively rated and is doing better than the 60-HP, but no where near 75.

jimh
Posts: 5445
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby jimh » Sat Aug 25, 2018 9:30 pm

YELLOWJACKET--good analysis. Thanks for contributing your insight to the discussion.

I agree that when hull speeds get really fast, the hull-constant has to change (to a higher value) to properly reflect the speed/weight/horsepower relationship. I suspect that Mr. Crouch was thinking about older moderate V-bottom planing hulls, where most of the hull remained in the water when on plane, and the boat speed was never so high that most of the hull was out of the water. The hull constant didn't change much as speed increased.

Another influence: my 1976 SPORT 15 hull weight was probably lighter than later hulls due to production changes. Certainly my weight was quite a bit lighter when I recorded the performance data in c.1998. My speed was measured by a very early Magellan GPS receiver, so allow for perhaps at least 1-MPH possible error compared to a modern GNSS receiver with space-based augmentation like WAAS.

But no matter how you gauge it, the E-TEC 60 H.O. will push a 15-foot Boston Whaler skiff at quite an exciting pace.

tomme12
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:04 pm

Re: 1984 Sport 15; E-TEC 60 H.O. Mount Height

Postby tomme12 » Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:02 pm

The Evinrude E-TEC 60 H.O. is worth it—[my] easy review.