Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround Whaler Drive

Optimizing the performance of Boston Whaler boats
beached
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:27 am

Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround Whaler Drive

Postby beached » Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:26 pm

Hi All. I have a 1992 23' Walkaround with factory engine setback bracket [called a Whaler Drive--jimh]. The engines are still the original Johnson 150s. The engines are in good shape. I was planning on running them for a few more years, but a sudden rash of problems has me considering re-powering in the next six months. Too short a season in the northeast to not maximize every day on the water.

I agree with past postings about avoiding adding unnecessary weight to the stern. There are Evinrude and Yamaha dealers nearby that I trust (and have used both with other Whalers), so currently looking at Yamaha and E-TEC. Would love to buy two, new, factory-fresh SaltwaterSeries Yamaha 200-HP engine, but that isn't likely.

Would appreciate any input on recent re-powers to similar size and weight Boston Whalers that anyone has done, especially since the last time this was discussed. Seem to be limited options for re-powering the 23 at the moment.

The weight of the Yamaha [four-stroke-power-cycle engines] may be within a reasonable upper limit for re-powering and would let me run twin 175-HP or 200-HP engines.

I have concerns about the loss in torque (relative to my Johnson 150s) getting me up on plane easily, or allowing me to run at lower speeds while staying on plane. I'm south of Boston in relatively unprotected water, so enough time is spent in sloppy chop and waves that keeping on plane at lower speeds is part of the consideration.

The E-TEC engines have the advantage of torque but I think weight limits me to the E-TEC15 0legacy engines or the Gen2 three-cylinder 150. Having a hard time getting my head around the concept of twin three-cylinder 1.9L engines pushing a 23 Walkaround.

Does anyone have any experience comparing the 150-HP Gen2 vs the legacy E-TEC 150?

At present I am okay with the performance of my twin Johnson 150s and, while I would love a little more top end, I don't want to lose too much mid range handling in that tradeoff.

Has anyone tried a single-engine on a bracketed 23?

Previous posts sound like only notched stern single re-powers? I am not currently thinking about this, but would like to hear from anyone if it has been tried.

Am I missing anything? Thanks.

flymo
Posts: 189
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 2:58 pm

Re: Repowering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby flymo » Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:21 pm

I don't have any direct experience with that hull with a bracket, but it sure seems like a big single would meet your goals, including improved top end. A single 300 will be way lighter than twins, and also less expensive, especially since you'll probsbly be looking to replace the controls.

The 3.4 liter eTec G2 300 and the 4.2 liter Yamaha 300 should both have plenty of torque for you. Consider a 4-blade prop or a 3-blade with lots of blade area to help with holding plane at lower speeds.

Just food for thought, but in your situation I would be thinking seriously about a big single rather than twins. I'm right there with you about small-displacement motors being pushed to the max - seems like a step backwards in reliability and durability, not to mention low end grunt.

animaldoc
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Repowering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby animaldoc » Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:28 am

[Likely meant to refer to forum participant HOOSIER who has a 23 Walkaround notched-transom boat] with twin Yamaha [F150] engines.

Twin engines are really needed for docking with strong currents or wind.

jimh
Posts: 7211
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: Repowering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby jimh » Fri Jul 19, 2019 8:07 am

The legacy E-TEC V6 150-HP would be ideal for the re-power of your 23 Walkaround with Whaler Drive, but I don’t know the production status of that model right now.

With the G2 E-TEC V6 150-HP their weight has increased. Twins would be quite heavy.

The new G2 E-TEC L3 150-HP might be better weight, but would one engine be able to get the 23 Walkaround up on plane? One the other hand, two 150-HP L3 1.9-liter engines make a 300-HP V6 3.8-liter engine, so with both engines running the performance ought to be decent. The electronic shift and throttle controls (ICON II EST) would be a joy to operate. And the fuel economy would be a huge improvement. I believe there is a counter-rotating option for that model.

Johnjr
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2020 11:33 am

Re: Repowering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby Johnjr » Sun Jan 12, 2020 11:41 am

I’ve read all the pros and cons and am leaning towards a single 300 hp Suzuki for my 23’ Walkaround with Whaler Drive. Currently have the original twin 150 OMC 2-strokes so I’ll lose almost 200-lbs of weight off the Whaler Drive.

Has anyone gone to a single 300-HP or 350-HP? Did you go with a 25” or 30” shaft?

Acseatsri
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:46 am

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby Acseatsri » Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:21 pm

When I bought my 1993 23 WALKAROUND with notched transom, I replaced the [twin] 150-HP engines with a a single Honda BF250. The maximum boat speed lost about 6-MPH, but boat fuel mileage pretty much doubled. Running a Powertech OFS4 17-pitch four-blade propeller, the boat hits 39-MPH at full throttle and now has close to 3-MPG from about 12 to 28-MPH. Transom weight went down to about 630-lbs from 780-lbs. The oil tanks and batteries [were moved] out of the stern. Batteries are now in the hold between the seats.

The biggest negative to going from twins to single is having to run with heavy trim tab to correct the list from going from counter-rotating props to a single, especially when light on fuel and the trim tabs are barely in the water when on fast plane. Not sure about handling differences; the the notched transom boat backed poorly with both twins and single.

I'm quite happy with the 250 Honda. My favorite cruise speed is around 23-MPG. I push the button for the autopilot and sit back and relax. If I were to do it again, I would seriously look at the Suzuki 350 with the duo-prop setup. I have no clue as to the reliability of this engine or gear case, but if I got the right deal, I would consider being a guinea pig.

You will need a 30" shaft length to go to a single engine.

jimh
Posts: 7211
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby jimh » Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:58 am

Acseatsri wrote:My [E-TEC 225-HP engine] blew at 1,100 hours, the highest known hours I've seen on an original powerhead...


I have seen E-TEC engines in commercial service with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers run well over 1,700-hours without any failures back in 2010. I am sure there are many E-TEC engines with higher run times than you suggest.

jimh
Posts: 7211
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: Repowering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby jimh » Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:04 am

Running twin 150-HP was done on many legacy rigs of boats rated for 300-HP, but those installation pre-date the appearance of modern, reliable, and efficient 300-HP outboard engines. See a 14-year-old thread on that topic:

Twin 150-HP: A Thing of the Past
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/004301.html

jimh
Posts: 7211
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby jimh » Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:23 am

I re-powered by REVENGE 22 Walk-Through Whaler Drive boat in 2009 with an E-TEC 225. The REVENGE 22 Whaler Drive is somewhat akin to the 23 WALKAROUND Whaler Drive, although the hull form of the 22 is probably easier to get onto plane due to a flatter V-hull. The 22 hull is 13-inches shorter and has 13-inches less beam, so it's not as big or as heavy as the 23 Walkaround.

Previously the boat REVENGE 22 W-T WD had a 1992 Evinrude 225 two-stroke-power-cycle classic carburetor engine. The direct-fuel-injection E-TEC engine has been a joy to operate, and it has made a substantial improvement in fuel economy compared to its carburetor predecessor. Before a cruise would average 1.8-MPG, and now a cruise will average 3.0-MPH--more than a 50-percent improvement. In 2020 we will be starting our twelfth season with the E-TEC.

The 22-foot hull with Whaler Drive is rated for a maximum of 300-HP (or in some years for 400-HP), but I never seriously considered twin engines when I re-powered. I will admit that with only one propulsion engine, we do have some reservations about making long, offshore passages by ourselves. But for our typical near-coastal cruising, the single engine E-TEC re-power has been terrific.

For a seasonal boater, a significant advantage to the E-TEC--which you probably already know--is the simplicity of the self-winterization procedure. There is also the freedom from oil changes. Changing oil on four-stroke-power-cycle engines can be a mess, and if the oil change must be done with the boat in the water, there could be complications if oil is spilled into the water.

During the winter season and at many boat shows, Evinrude is offering extended warranty coverage on their E-TEC engines as a sales promotion. Warranty coverage for seven to ten years should give you some sense of protection against major engine repair costs.

No matter what re-power engine or engines you choose, be sure to have your 28-year-old c.1992 boat's fuel system and electrical system carefully checked and updated. Problems with poor fuel supply caused by bad fuel tank pick-ups, bad hoses, clogged filters, and air leaks can cause damage to a new engine. Poor electrical installation with insufficient batteries or batteries that cannot hold a charge, bad connections, primary power wiring too small, and so on, will also cause damage to new engine electrical systems. In may poorly-installed re-power situations, an old boat can kill a new engine.

Acseatsri
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:46 am

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby Acseatsri » Mon Jan 13, 2020 6:30 pm

jimh wrote:
Acseatsri wrote:My [E-TEC 225-HP engine] blew at 1,100 hours, the highest known hours I've seen on an original powerhead...


I have seen E-TEC engines in commercial service with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers run well over 1,700-hours without any failures back in 2010. I am sure there are many E-TEC engines with higher run times than you suggest.


Maybe you have seen some go over 1000 hours, but none in my neck of the woods have made it that far. If you're a weekend warrior that does the average 50 hours per year, you're probably more likely to replace it in 15-20 years with newer technology before it grenades. If you're someone who does over 100 hours a year like most of the offshore guys I know, stay away. It's not unusual to log 24-36 hours on just one offshore run.

Yamaha and Honda are known for going 4-5k hours before significant problems arise. I haven't heard much about Suzuki, but It runs in a bath of oil, so they should exhibit somewhat of the same reliability.

Evinrude is not giving away 10 year warranties out of the goodness of their hearts. There's a reason why they extended it.

biggiefl
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: south Tampa Bay area
Contact:

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby biggiefl » Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:40 am

Actually there is a 300 E-tec for sale locally (2008) with 1600 hours on it for $6500.

Most of the tow boats down here run Suzuki engines. One guy used to attend my rendezvous in a Boston Whaler FRONTIER. Towboat operators have to trade in their engines every so often as a commercial boat, but he has seen many [engines} with over 5,000-hours on them.
On my 24th Whaler. Currently in the stable: 86 18' Outrage, 81 13' Sport(original owner), 87 11' Sport, 69 Squall. :roll:

jimh
Posts: 7211
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby jimh » Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:44 pm

Acseatsri wrote:Evinrude is not giving away 10 year warranties out of the goodness of their hearts. There's a reason why they extended it.


Yes. Clearly the reason Evinrude can offer a 10-year-warranty is because they expect their costs for repair under the warranty to be low, due to the excellent reliability of their product. And clearly they anticipate that a longer warranty will improve sales.

If a shorter warranty indicated a more reliable product and offering shorter warranties would improve sales, then the engine with NO WARRANTY would clearly be the most reliable and would outsell all others. If I were looking at two new cars, and one comes with a 30,000-mile warranty and the second has a 100,000-mile warranty, I don't understand why I would think the car with the shorter warranty would be the more reliable and I should avoid the car with the longer warranty as being suspect in quality and durability.

There is NO actual data about frequency of repair or service life for outboard engines available to the public. There is a lot of dock talk available, but much of it comes with some strong brand bias attached.

For decades outboard engines were sold with a one-year warranty. Then SUZUKI came along and offered a six-year warranty sales promotion. Fans of other outboard engine brands immediate cried foul, claimed that Suzuki "was trying to buy market share" with their lower price and longer warranty, as if there were something unfair about doing that.

Re HONDA outboard engines:
The lower power version of the Honda engine, the BF225, has been used on many Coast Guard S.A.F.E boats, and those engines have accumulated very high running hours--but they are run daily and maintained professionally. Those BF225 engines are often cited as evidence of the reliability of a Honda outboard. If your recreational boating plans include being underway eight hours per day, everyday, year-round, maybe 6,000-hour running time is important. But with oil changes at 50 or 100-hours, an engine with 6,000-hours has had perhaps 60 to 120 oil changes. There is a lot of labor, a lot of cost, and a lot of used oil to be properly disposed in all those oil changes.

Re E-TEC outboard engines:
An E-TEC engine is supplied continuously with new, fresh, unused oil, which eventually is consumed by the engine combustion process, burned in a super-clean combustion chamber, and disposed of into the air with fewer exhaust gas emissions than four-stroke-power-cycle engines, eliminating the labor cost, filter cost, and environmentally-sound disposal cost of the oil changes necessary with four-stroke-power-cycle engines.

quickenberger
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby quickenberger » Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:39 pm

This thread has intrigued me since I will be re-powering a FRONTIER with twin Evinrude legacy E-TEC 150-HP engines in a few months. The dealers have said the lower power outboards have better reliability than the 250 to 300-HP outboards.

There seems to be lots of brand loyalty talking. To see quantifiable data on outboard engine reliability. would be nice. Unfortunately there are probably too many variables as to why some outboards break down less Often than others.

I would say all outboard manufacturers have produced lemons in the past. Today, I think the reliability has trended upward on all of the manufacturers out there. I've owned Johnson and Mercury, both were old carburetor models, but both did quite well for me. I did have to replace the power packs on the Mercury and a coil on a Johnson, but both did their job just fine.

If you treat the engine well and feed it good, clean fuel, change lubricants properly, and don't abuse it, then I think an engine will last a long time from all brands.

jimh
Posts: 7211
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby jimh » Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:07 am

Generally a good method to detect excessive brand loyalty is to examine statements made about brands for irrational content.

Acseatsri
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:46 am

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby Acseatsri » Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:36 pm

I'm not brand loyal to any specific manufacturer. I would probably put Suzuki at the top of my list due to cost, followed by Honda due to personal experience, followed by Yamaha. The reason Yamaha didn't get a higher billing was due to past corrosion problems and how they DIDN'T square it with the victims, but other than that, I've seen many with more than 3000 hours still going strong with minimal repairs. I believe they still have a class action lawsuit pending.

Based on my own personal experience and many others, I do have a highly negative bias toward Etec engines. My 2006 225 blew at 1100 FLAWLESS hours without any signs or warning and had always been serviced by a qualified Evinrude dealer. The most recent victim at my marina was a 2016 135 HO Etec with 690 hours. Took him 2 months to get it back last spring, luckily under warranty.

Re the cheaper operating costs- if you run the XD100 oil they recommend at the recommended setting, they oil at a fairly consistent 80:1 ratio (at least that's what my 2006 225 consumed). If you base that on a conservative $35/gallon cost of oil, it adds about 44 cents per gallon to operating cost. If we apply that to a conservative 5 gallons per hour fuel usage for the average weekend warrior that does 50 hours per year, that adds $110 to the bill. Run 100 hours ( the recommended oil change frequency for most 4 strokes) and that number jumps to $220. I can buy 2 gallons of 10w-30 FCW oil and a filter for $60. If I change oil mid season, I don't change the filter, so no real chance of oil in the water. Honda recommends oil change at 100 hours, filter at 200. I'm not sure how much it costs to have someone change the oil- this is a no-brained procedure that even the least mechanically inclined person can probably handle.

biggiefl
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: south Tampa Bay area
Contact:

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby biggiefl » Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:03 pm

I did not want to say anything as this is probably not the appropriate thread for a discussion but I agree with you on Yamaha and them not backing their product. It is not like it was all their engines, just the big V6. Gee they gave you the parts at a discount...whoopee. I am looking for a 200-225 and am scared to buy one due to the corrosion problems. Main reason is I am rigged for Yamaha so it would be an hour long install if that.

PS...with my Suzukis it stated that if you run synthetic it stretches the oil change to 200hrs. That should be plenty even for the most avid boater as you should change the gear oil, lube shafts and steering, check thru hulls, etc

PSS....Jim...if you change the oil with a pump through the dipstick, no excuse to spilling. I would not do this all the time but like said above, you probably do not need to change the filter so what if you only change 95% of the oil.
On my 24th Whaler. Currently in the stable: 86 18' Outrage, 81 13' Sport(original owner), 87 11' Sport, 69 Squall. :roll:

quickenberger
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby quickenberger » Wed Jan 15, 2020 3:43 pm

My father was on a charter out of Seward AK a few years ago and one of the Yamaha 300's threw a rod. Last year on a charter out of Valdez AK another Yamaha 300 threw a rod. At 80+ miles out limping home on 1 engine doing 9 knots isn't fun.

I am curious to learn actual costs/hr of the Etec vs 4 strokes. I have heard the marketing pitch about less operating costs of the Etec vs dealers doing oil changes, but if they're not done by a dealer then what's the real world operating cost/hour of engine operation?

Acseatsri
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:46 am

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby Acseatsri » Wed Jan 15, 2020 6:20 pm

quickenberger wrote:My father was on a charter out of Seward AK a few years ago and one of the Yamaha 300's threw a rod. Last year on a charter out of Valdez AK another Yamaha 300 threw a rod. At 80+ miles out limping home on 1 engine doing 9 knots isn't fun.

I am curious to learn actual costs/hr of the Etec vs 4 strokes. I have heard the marketing pitch about less operating costs of the Etec vs dealers doing oil changes, but if they're not done by a dealer then what's the real world operating cost/hour of engine operation?

I know the Yamaha hpdi 300's are well known for grenading, my neighbor at my marina had one blow and now has a 250 4 stroke, but I've heard of no grenading among their 4 strokes. Pretty sure Mercury had similar problems with their early Optimax 6 cylinder engines.

Other than oil changes or 2 stroke oil, I would think that the only other difference in operating costs would be efficiency and unexpected repairs. Like I said, my Etec was flawless right up until a wrist pin lost lube and the rod went through the block damaging the starter and the cowling. I would never buy another knowing the dubious history of grenading before they even reach 1000 hours, let alone the 3000 hour mark that most 4 strokes easily attain.

Acseatsri
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:46 am

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby Acseatsri » Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:07 pm

quickenberger wrote:This thread has intrigued me since I will be re-powering a FRONTIER with twin Evinrude legacy E-TEC 150-HP engines in a few months. The dealers have said the lower power outboards have better reliability than the 250 to 300-HP outboards.

There seems to be lots of brand loyalty talking. To see quantifiable data on outboard engine reliability. would be nice. Unfortunately there are probably too many variables as to why some outboards break down less Often than others.
.


I would seriously consider the Suzuki DF140 at a smidge over 400 lbs if you really need twins. There are quite a few at my marina and no real problems. One of them just recently replaced a 16 year old engine with over 2000 hours with the same engine. Still ran well, just had an opportunity to modernize at an attractive price.

That the dealers have said that the lower horsepower outboards have better reliability is not exactly a ringing endorsement but rather a warning not to buy the larger engines.

jimh
Posts: 7211
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby jimh » Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:21 pm

Apparently, from testimony that has been given, I now understand:

--All E-TEC engine will catastrophically fail (that is, they will explode) after 600-hours

--All four-stroke-power-cycles will run without any problems to at least 3,000-hours.

I am going to have to immediately contact my good friends with E-TEC engine to let them know about the impending doom that awaits them.

Acseatsri
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:46 am

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby Acseatsri » Thu Jan 16, 2020 6:55 pm

Yes, I looked at the Suzuki's today at the Mohegan Sun. The 140 is about $11 to 12,000, the 350 is roughly $26 to 28,000. They've been building the 140 since c.1997, he says the 350 has been around for five years and has a lot of them in the field. I've yet to see one anywhere on any boat in my area. The 350 is particularly interesting with the duo-prop setup.

List price on a Yamaha 425 is $45,000, didn't really get that much information on it other than it's monstrous, especially thee of them on the transom. The going price is $80 to $100/HP on most all engines.

Dealer said the highest hour E-TEC engine he 's seen had 3,100 hours, but he also knows all my friends who have had the exploders. I have no bones to pick, I just think people should be aware that a lot of these engines, especially pre-2008, are time bombs, and the E-TEC GEN-2 engines are FUGLY in my opinion. Most people will never see them explode because they only do 40 to 50 hours per year.

Acseatsri
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:46 am

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby Acseatsri » Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:06 pm

Jim,
How many of those boats have over 1000 hours on them? Do you even have 500 on your engine?

Jefecinco
Posts: 1015
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 6:35 pm
Location: Gulf Shores, AL

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby Jefecinco » Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:21 am

I'm interested to know why the lubrication supply to the wrist pin on your ETEC failed. If the cause is determined there must be a remedy available. In my experience single point lubrication loss is most often caused by a supply blockage. Supply blockage is most often caused by foreign material in the lubricant.

Were all the other ETEC engines blown or exploded in your area caused by wrist pin failures?

Could something as simple as periodic lube oil supply tank cleaning prevent sploding ETEC engines?
Butch

biggiefl
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: south Tampa Bay area
Contact:

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby biggiefl » Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:43 am

I would not be buying an engine from that place [i.e., Mohegan Sun, as mentioned above]. I can get a new 140-HP in the $8,000-range The 150-HP engines go for around $10,000, and a 200-HP for under $12,000.
On my 24th Whaler. Currently in the stable: 86 18' Outrage, 81 13' Sport(original owner), 87 11' Sport, 69 Squall. :roll:

jimh
Posts: 7211
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby jimh » Fri Jan 17, 2020 1:06 pm

Acseatsri wrote:How many of [your friends boats with E-TEC engines] have over 1000 hours on the [E-TEC engine]?


I do not have that information. That information is not essential because I just learned that all E-TEC engines will fail after 600-hours by exploding. As a friend, I will be in contact with all E-TEC owners that I know to make them aware of the pending doom they are facing with their E-TEC engines. I will also recommend to them that they begin to wear Kevlar bullet proof vests in order to prevent any injury to them when their E-TEC engine explodes, as I have learned it will inevitably do.

Acseatsri wrote:Do you even have 500 on your engine?

Yes. My E-TEC engine has been is regular recreational use since 2009. This coming boating season will be my 12th season of running the E-TEC.

But the number of hours or the number of years I have owned of service on my E-TEC engine is meaningless, because I have learned in this thread that ALL E-TEC engines will fail after 600-hours. I know that the evidence for ALL E-TEC engines to fail is based on a very small sample size, but apparently there is no reasonable basis to argue that the pronouncement could be wrong. The person insisting that ALL E-TEC ENGINES FAIL AFTER 600-HOURS says this is a fact and is supported by many occurrences. That my E-TEC engine with over 600-hours has not failed yet, really does not contradict the pronouncement. It may take my engine another 12-years and many hundred hours of added running time to fail by explosion, but I am completely confident that at some time in the future, that is, sometime after MORE THAN 600-HOURS of running time has occurred--which has already happened--there is a possibility that the engine may fail and explode.

But, I have to wonder? How is that different than any other engine? At some time in the future for every outboard engines, isn't there a failure waiting to occur?

jimh
Posts: 7211
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby jimh » Fri Jan 17, 2020 1:12 pm

Jefecinco wrote:I'm interested to know why the lubrication supply to the wrist pin on your E-TEC failed.


Maybe the lubricating oil was not very good lubricating oil.

jimh
Posts: 7211
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby jimh » Fri Jan 17, 2020 1:52 pm

Acseatsri wrote:...I just think people should be aware that a lot of [E-TEC] engines, especially pre-2008, are time bombs...


Thanks for this further characterization of the E-TEC engine as a bomb counting down to explosion. I will be looking into getting a set of flak jackets for myself, crew, and all passengers for my boat powered by an E-TEC.

Acseatsri
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:46 am

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby Acseatsri » Fri Jan 17, 2020 4:52 pm

jimh wrote:
Jefecinco wrote:I'm interested to know why the lubrication supply to the wrist pin on your E-TEC failed.


Maybe the lubricating oil was not very good lubricating oil.


[The lubricating oil used was] XD100.

Acseatsri
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:46 am

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby Acseatsri » Fri Jan 17, 2020 5:06 pm

biggiefl wrote:I would not be buying an engine from that place [i.e., Mohegan Sun, as mentioned above]. I can get a new 140-HP in the $8,000-range The 150-HP engines go for around $10,000, and a 200-HP for under $12,000.


Mohegan Sun is a casino that has a boat show going on this weekend. Since I wasn't in the market for anything, I was asking about all in, out the door prices, not negotiating a sale price. But the general gist of it was that Suzuki seems to cost appreciably less per horsepower than any other major brand- Tohatsu and Honda had minimal presence at the show, mainly just low horsepower motors.

Acseatsri
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:46 am

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby Acseatsri » Fri Jan 17, 2020 5:17 pm

Jefecinco wrote:I'm interested to know why the lubrication supply to the wrist pin on your ETEC failed. If the cause is determined there must be a remedy available. In my experience single point lubrication loss is most often caused by a supply blockage. Supply blockage is most often caused by foreign material in the lubricant.

Were all the other ETEC engines blown or exploded in your area caused by wrist pin failures?

Could something as simple as periodic lube oil supply tank cleaning prevent sploding ETEC engines?


Not sure of the original points of failure on the engines other than mine. The boat was insured by Geico and they required an autopsy on it to determine whether negligence played a role in the failure. They picked up the whole $7500 tab after the autopsy. At the time, the choices were a brand new powerhead with a 2 year warranty for $9000 or a rebuilt "upgraded" powerhead (with the additional lube lines) with a 3 year warranty for $7000. NOT a typo, go figure.

jimh
Posts: 7211
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby jimh » Fri Jan 17, 2020 6:54 pm

Acseatsri wrote:..Suzuki seems to cost appreciably less per horsepower than any other major brand- Tohatsu and Honda had minimal presence at the show, mainly just low horsepower motors.


Those observations concur with my general impressions:

--SUZUKI generally is a lower-cost engine compared to Yamaha and others; but there is no crime in that. They're good engines. SUZUKI was the first brand to drop all two-stroke-power-cycle engines, first to go to all electronic fuel injection engines, first to offer a five-year or six-year warranty, and also first with ability to have gear case rotation direction configured in the field electronically. SUZUKI is only hampered in market share by its lack of dealers, lack of mandatory tie-sale arrangements with boat builders, and lack of 50-years of history. When I have been in the Carolinas, just about every engine with a black cowling that I saw there was a SUZUKI, so they are building some strong regional markets. They're still scarce in the northern Great Lakes.

--TOHATSU makes nice smaller outboard engines, and sells many of them to Mercury to be sold as Mercury engines; there is no application for a TOHATSU engine on a 23 WALKAROUND, so I am not sure how they got into the discussion

--HONDA dominates only one market: replacement BF225 engines for USCG DEFENDER-class Response Boat-Small made by S.A.F.E. Boats, and apparently the Honda BF225 is also being ordered by the USCG on the newer Response Boat-Small, the DEFIANT 29 made by METALSHARK. This is understandable as the USCG probably has extensive inventory of parts, a cadre of personnel familiar with them, and an 18-year history with them. Many of the dealers HONDA lists are not in the primary business of selling and servicing outboard engines. Those dealers work on lawn mowers or generators. They wouldn't know what to do with a BF250. Other than on a USCG boat, I cannot recall seeing a HONDA BF225 outboard on a boat out on the Great Lakes, and, of course, not on any Boston Whaler.

HONDA outboard engines at the 225-HP and 250-HP class have been the topic of several prior discussions:

On the Watchtower: HONDA BF250
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/020853.html

and

New Coast Guard Small Boat
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/021930.html

Here is a requirement for engine performance from the USCG:

070-5.3
The propulsion system shall have an average mean time between failures (MTBF) of 1,000 hours before requiring major repair/overhaul and 4,000 hours before requiring replacement based on the projected maximum of 1,000 hours of annual use. Major repair/overhaul is defined as "depot level" repairs-overhauls that cannot be performed at the organizational (Station or Sector) level and are typically performed at an OEM authorized repair-overhaul facility. Lower units-gear cases shall have a MTBF of at least 900 hours. The Coast Guard will use Asset Logistics Management Information System (ALMIS) to track this reliability data to ensure contract compliance.


I don't recall any of the contractors supplying boats to the USCG with HONDA BF225 engines being cited for failure to comply with the contract terms regarding engine durability, so in this instance it seems like a reasonable inference can be made that the BF225 HONDA engine can run 1,000-hours in one year before a major repair is required and also run 4,000-hours in four-years before replacement is required in the type of service used by the Coast Guard, (i.e., twin 225-HP engines powering a 25-foot boat with an unknown amount of time on-plane.) That is based on lack of news about contract non-compliance, which might be a presumption.

But all that good press for the BF225, I wouldn't recommend it as a single-engine re-power for a 23 WALKAROUND with a Whaler Drive.

Acseatsri
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:46 am

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby Acseatsri » Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:42 pm

jimh wrote:SUZUKI was the first brand to drop all two-stroke-power-cycle engines.

Honda has never made a 2 stroke.

I agree that Suzuki engine are a great engine at an attractive price, and I especially like the lower gearcase ratios and larger propeller apertures that they employ to allow larger props to be run.

Again, generally speaking, a larger diameter with a smaller pitch will almost always be more efficient (faster) than a smaller prop with a higher pitch, if the same max engine rpm and horsepower output is achieved.

I have no brand loyalty to Honda or any other manufacturer. I like my 2013 250 Honda, but it outweighs most other 250 horsepower engines by nearly 100 lbs. Since 2013, I don't think they've had any changes or innovations to the original design. As far as I know, I don't think there are any higher horsepower engines in the pipeline either. It's by far the quietest engine I've ever run and has operated flawlessly for near 700 hours now- no repairs whatsoever. It was also about $4000 cheaper than a 250 Yamaha when I bought it.

Edit- I forgot- Honda replaced 2 oxygen sensors under warranty, a 5 minute repair with boat still in the water.
Last edited by Acseatsri on Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jimh
Posts: 7211
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby jimh » Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:45 pm

quickenberger wrote:The dealers have said the lower power outboards have better reliability than the 250 to 300-HP outboards.


Interesting. Maybe that is why the USCG keeps ordering the BF225 instead of the BF250.

jimh
Posts: 7211
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround Whaler Drive

Postby jimh » Fri Jan 17, 2020 8:08 pm

[Note: I have deleted two posts and warned the poster. This thread is will please remain on topic. --jimh]

jimh
Posts: 7211
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby jimh » Fri Jan 17, 2020 8:13 pm

Acseatsri wrote:"Honda has never made a 2 stroke.


I think the equivalent logic is: the Russians have orbited more pure-bred dogs than any other nation.

jimh
Posts: 7211
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby jimh » Fri Jan 17, 2020 8:40 pm

Acseatsri wrote:[The HONDA BF250 is] by far the quietest engine I've ever run and has operated flawlessly for near 700 hours now...


My legacy E-TEC 225-HP is by far the quietest outboard I have ever run and has operated flawlessly for near 700 hours.

Also, at no time during my 11-years of owning and running my E-TEC have I ever wished I had bought another engine on the basis of another engine was anecdotally reported to be quieter than my E-TEC by another person who provided no measured data.

I don't know if the OP has made any mention of engine noise level as an important criterion for making a purchase decision. If the OP wants to buy a new engine on the basis of anecdotal remarks about individual owner's feeling about noise levels that are based on no actual measurement, then I am sure he will find the comments above interesting.

But I am not sure what possible inference can be drawn from either of those statements, as the use of the superlative "quietest" is only made in comparison to a limited set of other engines.

In a boat test that reported engine sound levels for six engines (2 two-stroke-power-cycle engines and 4 four-stroke-power-cycle engines), there was a remarkable variation in ranking in terms of loudest to quietest depending on the engine speed range. These test results were discussed earlier at

Quietest 150-HP Outboard
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/004482.html

As the actual measured sound level revealed in the test, the QUIETEST engine at cruising speed was a tie between the Evinrude E-TEC 150 and HONDA BF150, although the E-TEC was going several MPH faster.

jimh
Posts: 7211
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround

Postby jimh » Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:32 am

Acseatsri wrote:...XD100...


I use XD100, but I kept the oil rate at the normal “any TCW3 oil” setting. My 2010 model year E-TEC has a different oil distribution system than earlier model-year engines.

Johnjr
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2020 11:33 am

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround Whaler Drive

Postby Johnjr » Sun Jan 19, 2020 4:21 pm

Well, thanks for all the advice. I certainly didn’t mean to open the proverbial can-of-worms with my first post.

I am going with a used late-model Suzuki 300-HP 30-inch-shaft with the balance of a six-year warranty. There are lots of dealers for support in or near Charleston, SC. I’ll let ya’ll know how it works out.

I will be selling the old engines.

Acseatsri
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:46 am

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround Whaler Drive

Postby Acseatsri » Sun Jan 19, 2020 4:54 pm

[Because the SUZUKI DF300 has an] additional 50-HP, a lower 2.08:1 gear ratio, [and a recommend full-throttle speed range of 5,700 to] 6,300 [RPM at full throttle], a 19- or 20-pitch propeller might work.

I think [buying a SUZUKI DF300 engine is] a great choice.

If you could buy two new Suzuki DF140 engine for $8,000 each, that would also be a home run.


[ASIDE on another engine on a different boat:] With a HONDA BF250 and its 2:1 gear ratio, I run a Powertech OFS4 17-pitch propeller. The engine accelerates to 5,700 to 5,800-RPM at full throttle. [For the HONDA BF250 the recommended full-throttle engine speed range is 5,300 to] 6,300 [RPM].

[The HONDA BF250 engines produced an] average of almost 3-MPG between 16 to 29-MPH, and [the fuel economy is] never below 2-MPG at any other [boat] speed--other than when transitioning to plane.

jimh
Posts: 7211
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround Whaler Drive

Postby jimh » Tue Jan 21, 2020 9:38 am

Johnjr wrote:Well, thanks for all the advice. I certainly didn’t mean to open the proverbial can-of-worms with my first post.


You didn't open any can of worms. The thread was dragged way off-topic by some irrational comments. Ax-grinding is not particularly useful information and I have deleted all of it from this thread.

Johnjr wrote:I am going with a used late-model Suzuki DF300 30-inch-shaft with the balance of a six-year warranty. There are lots of dealers for support in or near Charleston, SC.


As I mentioned earlier, support for SUZUKI outboard engines seems to be very region-specific. I have been boating in the Carolina's three times, and I was astounded by the number of SUZUKI engines I saw there. Apparently the Carolina's are a hotbed of SUZUKI outboard engine dealers, as your remark notes.

Johnjr wrote:II will be selling the old engines


You are welcome to post a notice of for-sale in MARKETPLACE.

jimh
Posts: 7211
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround Whaler Drive

Postby jimh » Tue Jan 21, 2020 9:41 am

Acseatsri wrote:[ASIDE on another engine on a different boat]...


I would not be guided too much by reports about performance with a different engine on a different boat. Boats with a Whaler Drive are substantially different boats than the same hull with a notched transom.

biggiefl
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:31 pm
Location: south Tampa Bay area
Contact:

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround Whaler Drive

Postby biggiefl » Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:45 am

My friend has a 23' Seacraft with a 300 Suzuki. He tried the 16 x 20-pitch prop and loved the performance, but with more than two people about that propeller was was not ideal. He now has ab 18.5-pitch propeller and is quite happy. I will assume that these would be a great start.
On my 24th Whaler. Currently in the stable: 86 18' Outrage, 81 13' Sport(original owner), 87 11' Sport, 69 Squall. :roll:

jimh
Posts: 7211
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround Whaler Drive

Postby jimh » Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:50 pm

That you are able to buy a used engine that is still covered by a warranty from the manufacturer is a very nice enhancement. Engines sold with long warranty coverage periods and with warranty terms that allow the transfer of the warranty to any subsequent owners of the engine are very good enhancements, and particularly so if the original buyer wants to sell the engine. Buyers of used engines generally always will look favorably on buying an engine still under warranty, as your decision demonstrates--another asset of originally buying an engine with a long warranty coverage period.

beached
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:27 am

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround Whaler Drive

Postby beached » Thu Jan 30, 2020 10:29 am

I love the unforeseen direction that threads can go! As OP, I thought I'd update what was going on with the re-power decision.

The 1992 23 Walkaround Whaler Drive boat is a great mix of trade-offs that works really well for my family. I looked at newer used boats at roughly the cost of what I would have in the 23 if I re-powered. I would end up with a newer boat, but every option included engines that were modern, but still more than 10-years old, and run and maintained in saltwater by an unknown owner. Summer is too short in the northeast, so reliability and new on a known and reliable hull won out.

Regarding engine brands looked at: I have owned just about every brand of engine at some point, and have a favorite brand, but I think the desire to blindly stick with brand X or brand Y is a short sighted thought process. Some of those engines have been great, some not so much, and rarely based simply on the decal on the cover. I looked at everything that had dealers and support within a reasonable distance, as well as which specific engines had better or worse track records.

I am putting twin Yamaha 150-HP engines on the stern of the 23. I strongly considered the E-TEC 150-HP but the fact that the appropriate E-TEC 150 was now the bottom of the Evinrude line gave me pause. Not over thinking resale value since re-powering a 1992 Whaler is definitely not an investment plan, but do worry a bit when newer generation outboards are already available. If Evinrude had a new generation 150-HP with appropriate weight and displacement, it might have been a harder decision.

The decision was simple once fall pricing got me digital [shift and throttle] Yamaha engines for the same roughly the same price as mechanical [shift and throttle] E-TEC engines--no digital option on the older E-TEC 150's which is unfortunate. And pricing for me was the whole package from de-rigging, selling old engines, rigging new engines, and updating steering a bit.

Twins work for me for where and how I boat. Thought about a bigger single, but the trade-offs were not worth it, given that I was already spending money that got past the value of the boat, that is, function had a value that was acceptable. The weight advantage of a single four-stroke is the one aspect that is still a bit unknown. There just aren't enough comparable re-powers for this hull to make that a simple decision. Fingers will stay loosely crossed until we're back in the water months from now.

Am glassing in every seam and hole in the buoyancy box of the Whaler Drive to make sure that water stays out, and I have removed a few items from the stern. I am also putting my bilge thru-hull fittings higher up, where Whaler should have put them originally. I'm assuming that I should be fine based on where my waterline was and some reasonable calculations. The fuel tank is my fallback option. Have tested the original tank and there is no reason to replace it--yet. I have the 180-gallon fuel tank which was great with the old two-stroke engines. I should have added range with the newer engines on the stern, so may not need all 180-gallons. If I need to shift more weight forward, the plan is to replace the 180-gallon fuel tank with a new smaller tank that is mounted forward (essentially chopping off the stern portion of the existing tank)

Thought I'd update on my thinking in case it helps anyone down the road. I have re-powered a few Whalers in the past, but pre-four-stroke-era Whalers in this size range are not a simple decision. There is a fair amount of uncertainty involved which has been a bit frustrating. Luckily, Whaler owners don't mind posting thoughts and opinions on this site, so thank you to everyone that had older posts that helped the decision making.

I'll update later once I know this all turns out.

jimh
Posts: 7211
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround Whaler Drive

Postby jimh » Thu Jan 30, 2020 1:21 pm

I presume you are getting twin Yamaha F150XB 2.8-liter in-line four-cylinder four-stroke-power-cycle engines with electronic shift and throttle that weight 489-lbs. If that is correct, perhaps you can edit your post to make that explicitly clear. Thanks for the update.

Is one engine a counter-rotating engine?

beached
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:27 am

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround Whaler Drive

Postby beached » Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:01 am

Thanks Jim.

The electronic shift F150s are the XCAs and use the same updated 2.8l powerhead on the 175 and 200hp 4cyl outboards. The mechanical shift F150s are the XBs and continue to use the existing 2.7l powerhead. The 2.8l adds variable cam timing and moves to a 10.3:1 compression ratio (the 2.7l has a 9.0:1 compression ratio). On paper, this should increase torque at lower RPMs. However, I doubt any of this results in a noticeable difference in performance between the two F150 options, at least not on a Whaler like mine.

The twin 150s are counter rotating. I might have considered the F175s, but Yamaha doesn't currently offer a counter rotating version of that engine. Not sure if there is an economic reason for that or if that is the marketing folks trying to make sure that the F150 doesn't have an in house competitor that hurts their ability to make sales claims about their F150 market share?

Reelescape1
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:24 pm

Re: Re-powering 1992 23 Walkaround Whaler Drive

Postby Reelescape1 » Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:48 am

Sounds like a nice re-power for that hull.

For your information, I re-powered with a Yamaha engine with digital controls. As I'm sure you're aware, they're expensive and under warranty only for a limited time.