E-TEC 90 Mounting Height

Optimizing the performance of Boston Whaler boats
Marc-B
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 12:07 pm

E-TEC 90 Mounting Height

Postby Marc-B » Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:26 pm

[I have] dropped off my 1979 Newport 17 to get the new E-TEC 90 installed. I came prepared with all the articles I could find for how to mount the engine. The dealer was very receptive to start high. It will be initially tested with a Viper 17 propeller.

It would be great if I could get pictures of an E-TEC installed on a Montauk of similar vintage, both from the splashwell and back side.

At least three weeks before water test, still ice out there. Thanks

Marc-B
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 12:07 pm

Re: E-TEC 90 Mounting Height

Postby Marc-B » Sun Apr 03, 2016 7:39 am

For the guys and gals that have found that going to the highest possible set up with the ETEC that it was too high and that they had to go down a hole or two, is it best to start all the way up and if there is a lot of cavitation to go lower or start at the third hole and wonder if you need to raise higher?

Whalers are not a common site in my area and did not find one dealer with any experience on older Whalers, this was one of the only dealers that had a very open mind to setting up as per the combined knowledge and experience of our members.

Great site, let's keep sharing.

Marc

Marc-B
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 12:07 pm

Re: E-TEC 90 Mounting Height

Postby Marc-B » Sun Apr 24, 2016 5:33 pm

Picked up my repowered Newport with an Etec 90, mounted 3 holes up [probably only mounted two-holes up--see below--jimh] with Viper 17, dealer water test had it up to 6000 RPM and over 40 mph, on a very light load, we tested it today and here are some unofficial results, WOT RPM 5500, speed low 40's, 12 gallons fuel, 400 pounds crew, single battery.

In the next week or so I will keep records of speed at various rpm's.

Still grinning from ear to ear

Marc

kwik_wurk
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 3:23 pm

Re: E-TEC 90 Mounting Height

Postby kwik_wurk » Mon Apr 25, 2016 12:04 am

So 3 holes up with a Viper 17 (which if I understand correctly is 14 3/4" prop). --- Interesting you are on 3rd hole, most posts I see are 2nd hole.

Have you tried any other props? -- I am looking at a new E-TEC myself, not sure what prop I'll end up at. I like the idea of a Rogue 4-blade, but don't have many reports...and most 4 blades actually don't do well on Montauks.

Marc-B
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 12:07 pm

Re: E-TEC 90 Mounting Height

Postby Marc-B » Mon Apr 25, 2016 7:31 am

We have not tried any other props, dealer wanted to do a test with a Viper 19, but it was cold and snowing when we picked it up on Saturday, in my opinion it would have been ok with a light load, but we hardly ever run that light.

We did not drill holes according to standards we cheated a bit to make sure the bottom holes were clearly in the splashwell, I will measure the distance from the top,of the transom to the bottom of the motor bracket later today.

After one day I am very pleased with the performance but I can only compare to my old 1979 Mercury 80 HP that was running with a 4 blade Nemesis 17 pitch that could hardly get 32 MPH with a similar load.

Marc

Marc-B
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 12:07 pm

Re: E-TEC 90 Mounting Height

Postby Marc-B » Mon Apr 25, 2016 12:31 pm

I measured the distance from the top of the transom to the bottom of the motor bracket and it is 1.75-inches.

jimh
Posts: 11673
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: E-TEC 90 Mounting Height

Postby jimh » Mon Apr 25, 2016 2:48 pm

I suppose you can continue to describe your engine mounting height in any fashion you want to, but I wish you would use the method preferred here, as described in the article at the top of this forum. See

ENGINE MOUNTING HEIGHT
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=739

jimh
Posts: 11673
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: E-TEC 90 Mounting Height

Postby jimh » Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:39 pm

If there is only 1.75-inches of space between the top of the transom and some lower part of the engine, it would be impossible that the engine could be mounted in a position of "three-holes up". A mounting height of three-holes-up means that the engine is mounted 3 x 0.75-inch of 2.25-inches higher than the lowest position. That means there must be 2.25-inches of space available to lower the engine back to the lowest mounting height.

If the gap between the transom and the mounting surface is 1.75-inches, it would be impossible to lower the engine 2.25-inches as the mounting bracket would hit the transom after only 1.75-inches.

As we see, in order to understand an extremely unusual description of the engine mounting position, we have to use the inductive powers of Sherlock Holmes to figure out what is actually being described. It is far simpler to use the standard method for describing engine mounting height by counting the number of holes up from the lowest position.

kwik_wurk
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 3:23 pm

Re: E-TEC 90 Mounting Height

Postby kwik_wurk » Tue Apr 26, 2016 12:28 am

Three holes up on an installation that appears to have an offset. The end result, you are 1.75" up, compared with the typical 2 holes up which should be ~1.5".

jimh
Posts: 11673
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: E-TEC 90 Mounting Height

Postby jimh » Tue Apr 26, 2016 12:37 am

You calculations that this engine is mounted three-holes-up make no sense. Please re-read the Sherlock Holmes deduction.

It is typical that in the lowest mounting position there will be a small gap between the top of the transom and the bottom of the engine bracket. The gap is about 0.25-inch. This fits perfectly into the presumption that the engine is mounted two-holes-up. As I explained above, this engine cannot be mounted in a position of three-holes-up because the measured gap distance (1.75-inch) is less than the 2.25-inches that the engine would have to come down to be mounted "all the way down."

Also, the location of the transom engine mounting holes has already been described as being slightly non-standard:

We did not drill holes according to standards we cheated a bit to make sure the bottom holes were clearly in the splashwell


This suggests the mounting holes may not have the standard vertical separation or location. When the lower hole is raised to clear the bottom of the engine splash well, this requires the engine must be mounted at a minimum of one-hole-up. The non-standard hole location could also account for the added 0.25-inch in the measured height.

The only mystery that remains to be solved is why the engine is being described in so many odd manners regarding its mounting height. If the engine were described as being mounted two-holes up then everyone would understand clearly and unambiguously where it is mounted. I think the best resolution of this mystery will come by seeing a picture of the engine mounting.

Marc-B
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 12:07 pm

Re: E-TEC 90 Mounting Height

Postby Marc-B » Wed Apr 27, 2016 7:50 am

Sorry for the ambiguity, I am away from the boat right now and will be able to solve this mystery a little later this week.

Marc