90hp Mercury in two sizes - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  90hp Mercury in two sizes

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   90hp Mercury in two sizes

hauptjm posted 05-04-2009 09:57 AM ET (US)
I was intrigued by the size differential in Mercury 90hp offerings. Looking at the these two motors side-by-side, truly shows the dimensions:
http://waccamaw.weebly.com/uploads/2/1/9/9/2199595/6630999.jpg?507x336
The happen chance of the larger motor being on the larger hull makes things look in perspective, but imagine if the hull/motor configurations were swapped.
Strut posted 05-05-2009 12:31 PM ET (US)
I wish Mills Canvas could see this photo. I recently purchased a cowling cover for my 2006 170, the cover that was sent to me for my 2006 4 stroke EFI doesn't come close to fittting my engine. They are working with me and I hope to have a replacement soon as I'm able to get photos to them to show how the cover does not fit. They might have measured an 2006 optimax cowling instead of my 2006 4 stroke EFI.
wezie posted 05-05-2009 01:13 PM ET (US)
Notice how much wider the hull must be to carry the weight of the 4 st 90.
Even then the bow rise of the "new" boat is more than that of a 2 st 90 on the older boat.

hauptjm posted 05-05-2009 10:35 PM ET (US)
wezie, I'm not sure the bow rise on the newer hull is truly more than the older boat. I believe the hull carries the weight of the newer motor well. I'm just amazed at the differential in dimensions.
Overall, the newer technology engines are larger in relationship to their older counterparts in similar horsepower ranges. This certainly is not unique to Mercury. When the rest of the world of technology shrinks everything they can in newer iterations - the outboard world seems to move in the opposite direction.
SC Joe posted 05-05-2009 11:00 PM ET (US)
Funny this topic is brought up now. I was telling my wife just last weekend the very same thing. The 90 FourStroke looks oddly large for the back of the 170 Montauk.
Mambo Minnow posted 05-05-2009 11:26 PM ET (US)
Exactly why many believe a DFI 2 stroke is a better fit with the classic, smaller Whalers.
jimh posted 05-06-2009 02:30 AM ET (US)
When you consider that the smaller of the two cowling shown for these 90-HP motors is about the same size as a 200-HP Mercury 2.5-liter EFI, you can appreciate the size of that Veradito motor's cowling.
bloller posted 05-06-2009 10:05 AM ET (US)
Anyone considering repowering their pre 2003 Montauks should get a good look at this photo. The new Fourstrokes and Optimax engines in this size range look ridiculously out of proportion on even the larger late model Montauks. This would be true of the Yamahas as well. The 75 and 90 Etecs are really the only modern outboards in this horspower range that look good on the transom of a classic Whaler
L H G posted 05-06-2009 01:25 PM ET (US)
I always thought my 1973 Mercury 150HP in-line 6 looked great on my classic Nauset, and it was a heck of lot taller and larger than an Evinrude E-tec 90, although it weighed 25# less. I like the look of tall, thin profile engines.
Incidentally, that 2-stroke Classic Merc 90 shown in the photo is also smaller than an E-tec 90, and weighs less too, and it is quite a bit smaller than the 200 EFI. Jim is thinking of the Mercaha 4-stroke, which did use the larger 150-200 EFI hood. The photo shows what a compact little machine it is, and at 100 HP also! One of Merc's great little engines for the history book.
hauptjm posted 05-06-2009 02:54 PM ET (US)
LHG, I agree that the "tower of power", Mercury produced, looked good on the transom of many boats. In light of this conversation, thinking back on the older motors produced in the 60's, 70's and 80's, you could spot the engine type from far enough away that you may not even be able to identify the hull. As a kid, we used to make a game out of identifying cars behind ours simply by looking at the front grills. Now, most cars seem to look so much alike that they've lost their identity.
Outboards, at least for now, may not be as aesthetically pleasing, but they are still fairly easy to identify. In days past, things were pretty simple: Tall, lean and black - Mercury, Blue and squaty - Evinrude, White and squaty - Johnson and lastly, white and Jetsonesque - Chrysler.
In consideration of the modern technologies of fuel injection, computers and such, it would seem the overall size trend would be smaller not larger. Maybe the marketing guys figured we'd think we were getting more for our money if the package was bigger!
sapple posted 05-06-2009 04:59 PM ET (US)
Is it possible that part of the reason for the size difference is that the cowling on the newer motor is larger to accomidate noise supression features?
This photo also shows the hull size difference between the classic and post classic 17 foot Montauks.
jimh posted 05-06-2009 08:25 PM ET (US)
Isn't the motor on the right a Mercury 90-HP FOURSTROKE with the Yamaha power head?
bloller posted 05-06-2009 09:52 PM ET (US)
The motor on the right looks like a classic carburated 90 two stroke Salt Water Edition to me. Yamaha never made four strokes in that power range for Mercury.
Lil Whaler Lover posted 05-06-2009 10:07 PM ET (US)
Having been on the trip where this picture was taken, I can assurr you that the engine on the right is the traditional 3 cylinder, 90 horsepower, 2-stroke Mercury. The one on the left is the new style 90 horsepower 4-stroke Mercury. You are comparing a compact 3 cylinder engine to a sophisticated 4 cylinder engine of much larger displacement.
Neither engine is right or wrong. Both boats operated beautifully and have engines well matched to them.
They are different. It is what you see.
Teak Oil posted 05-06-2009 10:14 PM ET (US)
Boller you are incorrect, for several years Yamaha made 4 strokes for Mercury until Mercury developed their own, in-house 4 stroke engine.
These are the four stroke Mercs that first appeared on Whalers for several years, even on the classic hull before the 170 hull came out.
bloller posted 05-06-2009 10:24 PM ET (US)
I wish there was a chart that would show who manufactured what and when when dealing with the Mercury Yamaha relationship. Is it safe to say now that all 2009 outboards from 40HP and up are actually designed and manufactured by the company on their respective hood decals?
hauptjm posted 05-06-2009 10:54 PM ET (US)
I wish I still had Adobe Photoshop, and I could swap the two motors onto the opposite hulls, just to see the effect.

Lil Whaler Lover said:

quote:
Neither engine is right or wrong. Both boats operated beautifully and have engines well matched to them.
They are different. It is what you see.
I don't believe anyone in this thread is questioning anything as to right or wrong. We're just making observations that are as you said, "it is what you see."
Anyone have Photoshop and care to attempt the switch?
chuck21401 posted 05-07-2009 01:16 PM ET (US)
It is interesting to see the difference in the size of the engines...but at the same time the picture above illustrates the difference in the size of the boats. The newer 170 Montauk seems much larger.
re: Notice how much wider the hull must be to carry the weight of the 4 st 90.
Was the 170 Montauk designed around the engine?
hauptjm posted 05-07-2009 02:41 PM ET (US)
Are we positive about the two hull identifications? Are we looking at a Classic 17ft. (16'7") Whaler hull versus a contemporary 170?
If so, then that, in and of itself, is an interesting study of dimensions.
johnhenry posted 05-07-2009 02:55 PM ET (US)
According to the dealer that I purchased mine from, the 170 was designed for the larger 4 stroke. I imagine that carries over to the other Montauks and possible all newer whalers. It is a BIG engine for a 90. I was amazed at the size when I first saw it in the showroom. As an aside, the engine is lot louder than the 08 Suzuki 40 4 stroke that was on my classic 13. And its not just because of the size differential. Not as loud as a 2 stroke. Maybe the Suzuki was just super quiet.
sapple posted 05-07-2009 06:22 PM ET (US)
As suggested by hauptjm, I photoshoped the pics to see what they would look like if we swapped motors.
This is the original pic
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc264/sapple2/IMG_4972.jpg
Here is the pic after "swapping" motors
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc264/sapple2/Motorswap1.jpg
sapple posted 05-07-2009 06:26 PM ET (US)
I am pretty sure about the hull models. The newer one is mine. The classic is a 2001 17 Montauk.
sapple posted 05-07-2009 06:50 PM ET (US)
Here is the same pic with the boat on the left with the 2010 90 hp model.
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc264/sapple2/Motorswap2.jpg
jimh posted 05-07-2009 07:25 PM ET (US)
Thanks for all the images and variations. With higher resolution it is easy to see that the 90-HP on the classic MONTAUK is a two-cycle classic Mercury, not the Mercury FOURSTROKE (by Yamaha) that I initially saw in the lower resolution image.
GreatBayNH posted 05-07-2009 07:31 PM ET (US)
Here's a picture of my gigantor 2006 FourStroke YamaMerc next to Phil T's Yamaha.
http://picasaweb.google.com/CascoBayOutrage/ 2008PiscatisquaRiver#5208469600954317346
GAwhale posted 05-07-2009 07:36 PM ET (US)
Hey that’s me.
I just stumbled on this thread. The boat on the right is me and my nephew Kirk at the beginning of the 2009 Waccamaw Trip.
I have a 2001 Montauk. It is the last year BW built the traditional Montauk. My hull weighs 900 pounds. I bought this set up at the Atlanta Boat Show in 2001 for $21,500. I had priced a Montauk at “The Outboard Shop” in Charleston, SC with a four stroke and SS prop for $25,000; so I knew it was a good price. My two stroke is a miserable starting engine, however screams at top end and will pull any sized water skier up.
Sapple to the left has the newer model Montauk 170 (also a great boat). I believe he told me his hull weighs 1,400 pounds.
hauptjm posted 05-07-2009 08:30 PM ET (US)
Sapple, I'm viewing these photoshop photos on a Blackberry, are you saying the 2010 90hp Merc is even larger?
If so, wow! Great job on the images.
jimh posted 05-07-2009 08:33 PM ET (US)
Both the MONTAUK models in these photographs are at a slight list due to the position of the crew off centerline. Which boat has more list?
hauptjm posted 05-07-2009 09:26 PM ET (US)
jimh, I'd hate to broach the subject of one's personal abundance! :0
bloller posted 05-07-2009 10:26 PM ET (US)
Sapple, is that really the size of a 2010 Mercury 90 Fourstroke? I sure hope not. It would have its own gravitational field.
OIA posted 05-08-2009 01:20 AM ET (US)
It makes me yearn for the days of the old four cylinder 2 stoke. Lighter, faster out of the hole and faster top end. When needed, you could always get it started, not to mention the things you could fix with a crescent wrench and a can of WD-40.
Then again, the gas mileage was horrible, it was almost impossible to hear the guy talking next to you, and, oh my, the sh@& that came out of the exhaust . . .
sapple posted 05-08-2009 06:51 AM ET (US)
The pic with the "2010 model" motor is a fake. I was just having a little "photoshop" fun.
jimh posted 05-08-2009 10:46 PM ET (US)
Glad to hear that. I thought that engine on the right, the 90-HP two-cycle was somewhat larger than I remembered. Now I see you made it bigger in PhotoShop--very good job. It had me fooled. But that 90 on the left, that is a whopper.
Phil T posted 05-08-2009 11:16 PM ET (US)
Seth -
Keep in mind the engine on my boat is a 115hp and your engine is a 90 hp. Not that size is important!
GreatBayNH posted 05-09-2009 11:14 AM ET (US)
It's how you use it. :-)
L H G posted 05-14-2009 05:08 PM ET (US)
Before you guys get too excited about the size of that new Merc 90 4-stroke, I should also point out *CONSIDERABLE* distortion in the photo.
It appears to have been taken with a wide angle lense, which always "fishbowl" a photo with distortion, making items on the edges much larger than they are. In the photo the 2-stroke 90 is in the center, and farthest away, making it look smaller than it would be. Conversely, the new 90 is at the side of the photo, and closer to the camera, a double effect of making it look much larger than it is. So the photographic rendition of the two engines in this shot are not a correct proportion of size. If you look at the stern seats in the 170 Montauk, you will note the size distortion in those also.
Peter posted 05-14-2009 06:46 PM ET (US)
I've seen the current 90 FourStroke in person many times and there is no hiding the fact that it is simply HUGE and that is with the size slimming color black in its favor. I have heard some refer to it as the most "gianormous" outboard they've ever seen.
jimh posted 05-14-2009 08:04 PM ET (US)
That's not a fisheye lens, anyways. If anything it's a bit of a telephoto shot. The Mercury 90-HP FOURSTROKE is larger than most older 150- to 200-HP motor cowlings.
sapple posted 05-15-2009 12:40 PM ET (US)
Jimh is correct. The pic was taken by my wife with my camera. It does not have a fisheye lense. Since she was still on the dock, a fair distance from the boats, she probablly did use a bit of zoom when she took the pic.
WT posted 05-15-2009 01:33 PM ET (US)
One thing to remember is that the 200 4 cylinder Verado is the same displacement/block as the 90 FourStroke shown in the picture.
Perhaps the 90 is a bit over built?
Maybe Mercury should supercharge the current 60 hp FourStroke to make a smaller/lighter 90 hp outboard?
Warren
SC Joe posted 05-15-2009 02:27 PM ET (US)
I don't understand the rear seats in that Montauk 170. I can distinctly see the gray piping/trim line on those seats. How is this possible? That can only be seen from the front view of those seats, and they do not turn around.
L H G posted 05-15-2009 04:24 PM ET (US)
Since the experts have determined there is no distortion in the photo, I have been wondering why the seat on the Port side is 50% bigger than the one on Starboard. I also note that BW's canvas maker has manufactured a lopsided sun top.
Buckda posted 05-15-2009 04:33 PM ET (US)
I understand your skepticism.
It is like seeing your pretty cousin after she comes home from the Freshman year in college. The girl who used to be tossed in the air by her cheerleading squad in high school has been eating at school. A lot. It's difficult to get used to the new reality.
>>>But, there is no fish-eye lense in use. The owner of the camera says so.
Has JimH photoshopped the image, or is it true that our once dainty cousin has really gained that much girth?
....and people make fun of cafeteria food.
Come on Larry - anyone who's been out and about looking at these motors knows that they are HUGE. For whatever reason. Mercury nailed the quiet operation, performance and other aspects, but they fell on the football in the endzone with the size/weight of their new offerings.
Oink Oink! Lunchtime at the cafeteria!
Don't worry - she's still the sweet cousin you know and love, there's just more of her now than ever before.
hauptjm posted 05-15-2009 05:57 PM ET (US)
I'm not seeing it...the stern seats on the 170 look identical in size and proportion. Frankly, I'm not seeing any distortion. Nonetheless, I think we all agree, the newer motor is considerable larger.
No harm, no foul...it's just that "freshman 10" she's sportin'. :-)
SC Joe posted 05-15-2009 06:14 PM ET (US)
It's a huge engine; no question there. But it's also a lot bigger, and better riding, 17' Montauk.
That said..something is going on with that picture. I'm not saying it affects the apparent size of the engine; I just know the perspective my rear jump seats that I see in that pic can not be seen from be ehind my boat.
L H G posted 05-15-2009 06:49 PM ET (US)
The second photo JimH has posted has the 4-stroke 90 photoshopped.
Plotman posted 05-15-2009 07:14 PM ET (US)
Look at the picture in the first post in this thread. Then look at the version of the same photo posted by sapple halfway down. Compare what the 90 4-strokj is covering up on the boat in the background in the second photo to the first version. The second photo has been messed with.
WT posted 05-15-2009 11:03 PM ET (US)
Here are a couple of more pictures of the Mercury 90 FourStroke on a 170 Montauk.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v665/warrent/Montauk%20Kicker/ DSC_4399.jpg
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v665/warrent/Montauk%20Kicker/ ?action=view¤t=DSC_4403.jpg
It is a big honking motor but it's a lot better than the carbureated 90 Mercury/Yamaha that it replaced. More power, better fuel economy and faster top end.
Warren
SC Joe posted 05-16-2009 12:13 PM ET (US)
Warren-
What is that thing on your lower unit?
jimh posted 05-16-2009 12:57 PM ET (US)
I have not posted any images nor have I altered any of them. I did put them in-line, as they were crucial to the topic. It was reasonably clearly implied in the prior discussion that the second appearance of the image was subjected to some manipulation in order to increase the size of the Mercury 90-HP FOURSTROKE as a joke or exaggeration.
I am glad to hear from first hand sources present at the event that the photograph was not taken with a fisheye lens and was indeed taken with a telephoto lens. For moment there I thought I had lost my mind. There are many cues in the image that it is not a fisheye but rather a telephoto. One cue, for example, is the appearance of the water line of the boats as nicely horizontal and straight. A second cue is the boat in the background. In images taken with fisheye lenses there is often extreme distortion of the size of elements at different distances from the image plane.
I am afraid I do not see any artifacts of the lens in the size of the seats or the symmetry of the canvas top. Nor am I familiar enough with the piping to explain how the images can see things the eye cannot.
But that Mercury 90-HP is one big engine, about twice the size of LHG's 200-HP EFI Mercury motors from the 1980's.
jimh posted 05-16-2009 01:41 PM ET (US)
Speaking of LHG's 200-HP Mercury EFI motors from the 1980's, here they are in a view similar to the above. You can compare their size with a 150-HP V6 Yamaha and a 225-HP V6 Evinrude.

SC Joe posted 05-16-2009 10:14 PM ET (US)
I'll take a pic of my 170 Montauk from the rear tomorrow and post the issue I am seeing with the seats.
I noticed also that unless the owner has turned the RPS upper seat around, that gray piping is also typically seen only from the front.
SC Joe posted 05-17-2009 04:31 PM ET (US)
It's not really from the right perspective, but here you can at least see the view of the rear seats that I was talking about. Also, the RPS DOES have gray piping on it in the rear
http://home.comcast.net/~joefiat/whaler/whalerrear.jpg
And here the setas are from the front, showing eth gray piping: http://home.comcast.net/~joefiat/whaler/rearseats.jpg

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Author	Topic: 90hp Mercury in two sizes
hauptjm	posted 05-04-2009 09:57 AM ET (US) I was intrigued by the size differential in Mercury 90hp offerings. Looking at the these two motors side-by-side, truly shows the dimensions: http://waccamaw.weebly.com/uploads/2/1/9/9/2199595/6630999.jpg?507x336 The happen chance of the larger motor being on the larger hull makes things look in perspective, but imagine if the hull/motor configurations were swapped.
Strut	posted 05-05-2009 12:31 PM ET (US) I wish Mills Canvas could see this photo. I recently purchased a cowling cover for my 2006 170, the cover that was sent to me for my 2006 4 stroke EFI doesn't come close to fittting my engine. They are working with me and I hope to have a replacement soon as I'm able to get photos to them to show how the cover does not fit. They might have measured an 2006 optimax cowling instead of my 2006 4 stroke EFI.
wezie	posted 05-05-2009 01:13 PM ET (US) Notice how much wider the hull must be to carry the weight of the 4 st 90. Even then the bow rise of the "new" boat is more than that of a 2 st 90 on the older boat.
hauptjm	posted 05-05-2009 10:35 PM ET (US) wezie, I'm not sure the bow rise on the newer hull is truly more than the older boat. I believe the hull carries the weight of the newer motor well. I'm just amazed at the differential in dimensions. Overall, the newer technology engines are larger in relationship to their older counterparts in similar horsepower ranges. This certainly is not unique to Mercury. When the rest of the world of technology shrinks everything they can in newer iterations - the outboard world seems to move in the opposite direction.
SC Joe	posted 05-05-2009 11:00 PM ET (US) Funny this topic is brought up now. I was telling my wife just last weekend the very same thing. The 90 FourStroke looks oddly large for the back of the 170 Montauk.
Mambo Minnow	posted 05-05-2009 11:26 PM ET (US) Exactly why many believe a DFI 2 stroke is a better fit with the classic, smaller Whalers.
jimh	posted 05-06-2009 02:30 AM ET (US) When you consider that the smaller of the two cowling shown for these 90-HP motors is about the same size as a 200-HP Mercury 2.5-liter EFI, you can appreciate the size of that Veradito motor's cowling.
bloller	posted 05-06-2009 10:05 AM ET (US) Anyone considering repowering their pre 2003 Montauks should get a good look at this photo. The new Fourstrokes and Optimax engines in this size range look ridiculously out of proportion on even the larger late model Montauks. This would be true of the Yamahas as well. The 75 and 90 Etecs are really the only modern outboards in this horspower range that look good on the transom of a classic Whaler
L H G	posted 05-06-2009 01:25 PM ET (US) I always thought my 1973 Mercury 150HP in-line 6 looked great on my classic Nauset, and it was a heck of lot taller and larger than an Evinrude E-tec 90, although it weighed 25# less. I like the look of tall, thin profile engines. Incidentally, that 2-stroke Classic Merc 90 shown in the photo is also smaller than an E-tec 90, and weighs less too, and it is quite a bit smaller than the 200 EFI. Jim is thinking of the Mercaha 4-stroke, which did use the larger 150-200 EFI hood. The photo shows what a compact little machine it is, and at 100 HP also! One of Merc's great little engines for the history book.
hauptjm	posted 05-06-2009 02:54 PM ET (US) LHG, I agree that the "tower of power", Mercury produced, looked good on the transom of many boats. In light of this conversation, thinking back on the older motors produced in the 60's, 70's and 80's, you could spot the engine type from far enough away that you may not even be able to identify the hull. As a kid, we used to make a game out of identifying cars behind ours simply by looking at the front grills. Now, most cars seem to look so much alike that they've lost their identity. Outboards, at least for now, may not be as aesthetically pleasing, but they are still fairly easy to identify. In days past, things were pretty simple: Tall, lean and black - Mercury, Blue and squaty - Evinrude, White and squaty - Johnson and lastly, white and Jetsonesque - Chrysler. In consideration of the modern technologies of fuel injection, computers and such, it would seem the overall size trend would be smaller not larger. Maybe the marketing guys figured we'd think we were getting more for our money if the package was bigger!
sapple	posted 05-06-2009 04:59 PM ET (US) Is it possible that part of the reason for the size difference is that the cowling on the newer motor is larger to accomidate noise supression features? This photo also shows the hull size difference between the classic and post classic 17 foot Montauks.
jimh	posted 05-06-2009 08:25 PM ET (US) Isn't the motor on the right a Mercury 90-HP FOURSTROKE with the Yamaha power head?
bloller	posted 05-06-2009 09:52 PM ET (US) The motor on the right looks like a classic carburated 90 two stroke Salt Water Edition to me. Yamaha never made four strokes in that power range for Mercury.
Lil Whaler Lover	posted 05-06-2009 10:07 PM ET (US) Having been on the trip where this picture was taken, I can assurr you that the engine on the right is the traditional 3 cylinder, 90 horsepower, 2-stroke Mercury. The one on the left is the new style 90 horsepower 4-stroke Mercury. You are comparing a compact 3 cylinder engine to a sophisticated 4 cylinder engine of much larger displacement. Neither engine is right or wrong. Both boats operated beautifully and have engines well matched to them. They are different. It is what you see.
Teak Oil	posted 05-06-2009 10:14 PM ET (US) Boller you are incorrect, for several years Yamaha made 4 strokes for Mercury until Mercury developed their own, in-house 4 stroke engine. These are the four stroke Mercs that first appeared on Whalers for several years, even on the classic hull before the 170 hull came out.
bloller	posted 05-06-2009 10:24 PM ET (US) I wish there was a chart that would show who manufactured what and when when dealing with the Mercury Yamaha relationship. Is it safe to say now that all 2009 outboards from 40HP and up are actually designed and manufactured by the company on their respective hood decals?
hauptjm	posted 05-06-2009 10:54 PM ET (US) I wish I still had Adobe Photoshop, and I could swap the two motors onto the opposite hulls, just to see the effect. Lil Whaler Lover said: quote: Neither engine is right or wrong. Both boats operated beautifully and have engines well matched to them. They are different. It is what you see. I don't believe anyone in this thread is questioning anything as to right or wrong. We're just making observations that are as you said, "it is what you see." Anyone have Photoshop and care to attempt the switch?
chuck21401	posted 05-07-2009 01:16 PM ET (US) It is interesting to see the difference in the size of the engines...but at the same time the picture above illustrates the difference in the size of the boats. The newer 170 Montauk seems much larger. re: Notice how much wider the hull must be to carry the weight of the 4 st 90. Was the 170 Montauk designed around the engine?
hauptjm	posted 05-07-2009 02:41 PM ET (US) Are we positive about the two hull identifications? Are we looking at a Classic 17ft. (16'7") Whaler hull versus a contemporary 170? If so, then that, in and of itself, is an interesting study of dimensions.
johnhenry	posted 05-07-2009 02:55 PM ET (US) According to the dealer that I purchased mine from, the 170 was designed for the larger 4 stroke. I imagine that carries over to the other Montauks and possible all newer whalers. It is a BIG engine for a 90. I was amazed at the size when I first saw it in the showroom. As an aside, the engine is lot louder than the 08 Suzuki 40 4 stroke that was on my classic 13. And its not just because of the size differential. Not as loud as a 2 stroke. Maybe the Suzuki was just super quiet.
sapple	posted 05-07-2009 06:22 PM ET (US) As suggested by hauptjm, I photoshoped the pics to see what they would look like if we swapped motors. This is the original pic http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc264/sapple2/IMG_4972.jpg Here is the pic after "swapping" motors http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc264/sapple2/Motorswap1.jpg
sapple	posted 05-07-2009 06:26 PM ET (US) I am pretty sure about the hull models. The newer one is mine. The classic is a 2001 17 Montauk.
sapple	posted 05-07-2009 06:50 PM ET (US) Here is the same pic with the boat on the left with the 2010 90 hp model. http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc264/sapple2/Motorswap2.jpg
jimh	posted 05-07-2009 07:25 PM ET (US) Thanks for all the images and variations. With higher resolution it is easy to see that the 90-HP on the classic MONTAUK is a two-cycle classic Mercury, not the Mercury FOURSTROKE (by Yamaha) that I initially saw in the lower resolution image.
GreatBayNH	posted 05-07-2009 07:31 PM ET (US) Here's a picture of my gigantor 2006 FourStroke YamaMerc next to Phil T's Yamaha. http://picasaweb.google.com/CascoBayOutrage/ 2008PiscatisquaRiver#5208469600954317346
GAwhale	posted 05-07-2009 07:36 PM ET (US) Hey that’s me. I just stumbled on this thread. The boat on the right is me and my nephew Kirk at the beginning of the 2009 Waccamaw Trip. I have a 2001 Montauk. It is the last year BW built the traditional Montauk. My hull weighs 900 pounds. I bought this set up at the Atlanta Boat Show in 2001 for $21,500. I had priced a Montauk at “The Outboard Shop” in Charleston, SC with a four stroke and SS prop for $25,000; so I knew it was a good price. My two stroke is a miserable starting engine, however screams at top end and will pull any sized water skier up. Sapple to the left has the newer model Montauk 170 (also a great boat). I believe he told me his hull weighs 1,400 pounds.
hauptjm	posted 05-07-2009 08:30 PM ET (US) Sapple, I'm viewing these photoshop photos on a Blackberry, are you saying the 2010 90hp Merc is even larger? If so, wow! Great job on the images.
jimh	posted 05-07-2009 08:33 PM ET (US) Both the MONTAUK models in these photographs are at a slight list due to the position of the crew off centerline. Which boat has more list?
hauptjm	posted 05-07-2009 09:26 PM ET (US) jimh, I'd hate to broach the subject of one's personal abundance! :0
bloller	posted 05-07-2009 10:26 PM ET (US) Sapple, is that really the size of a 2010 Mercury 90 Fourstroke? I sure hope not. It would have its own gravitational field.
OIA	posted 05-08-2009 01:20 AM ET (US) It makes me yearn for the days of the old four cylinder 2 stoke. Lighter, faster out of the hole and faster top end. When needed, you could always get it started, not to mention the things you could fix with a crescent wrench and a can of WD-40. Then again, the gas mileage was horrible, it was almost impossible to hear the guy talking next to you, and, oh my, the sh@& that came out of the exhaust . . .
sapple	posted 05-08-2009 06:51 AM ET (US) The pic with the "2010 model" motor is a fake. I was just having a little "photoshop" fun.
jimh	posted 05-08-2009 10:46 PM ET (US) Glad to hear that. I thought that engine on the right, the 90-HP two-cycle was somewhat larger than I remembered. Now I see you made it bigger in PhotoShop--very good job. It had me fooled. But that 90 on the left, that is a whopper.
Phil T	posted 05-08-2009 11:16 PM ET (US) Seth - Keep in mind the engine on my boat is a 115hp and your engine is a 90 hp. Not that size is important!
GreatBayNH	posted 05-09-2009 11:14 AM ET (US) It's how you use it. :-)
L H G	posted 05-14-2009 05:08 PM ET (US) Before you guys get too excited about the size of that new Merc 90 4-stroke, I should also point out CONSIDERABLE distortion in the photo. It appears to have been taken with a wide angle lense, which always "fishbowl" a photo with distortion, making items on the edges much larger than they are. In the photo the 2-stroke 90 is in the center, and farthest away, making it look smaller than it would be. Conversely, the new 90 is at the side of the photo, and closer to the camera, a double effect of making it look much larger than it is. So the photographic rendition of the two engines in this shot are not a correct proportion of size. If you look at the stern seats in the 170 Montauk, you will note the size distortion in those also.
Peter	posted 05-14-2009 06:46 PM ET (US) I've seen the current 90 FourStroke in person many times and there is no hiding the fact that it is simply HUGE and that is with the size slimming color black in its favor. I have heard some refer to it as the most "gianormous" outboard they've ever seen.
jimh	posted 05-14-2009 08:04 PM ET (US) That's not a fisheye lens, anyways. If anything it's a bit of a telephoto shot. The Mercury 90-HP FOURSTROKE is larger than most older 150- to 200-HP motor cowlings.
sapple	posted 05-15-2009 12:40 PM ET (US) Jimh is correct. The pic was taken by my wife with my camera. It does not have a fisheye lense. Since she was still on the dock, a fair distance from the boats, she probablly did use a bit of zoom when she took the pic.
WT	posted 05-15-2009 01:33 PM ET (US) One thing to remember is that the 200 4 cylinder Verado is the same displacement/block as the 90 FourStroke shown in the picture. Perhaps the 90 is a bit over built? Maybe Mercury should supercharge the current 60 hp FourStroke to make a smaller/lighter 90 hp outboard? Warren
SC Joe	posted 05-15-2009 02:27 PM ET (US) I don't understand the rear seats in that Montauk 170. I can distinctly see the gray piping/trim line on those seats. How is this possible? That can only be seen from the front view of those seats, and they do not turn around.
L H G	posted 05-15-2009 04:24 PM ET (US) Since the experts have determined there is no distortion in the photo, I have been wondering why the seat on the Port side is 50% bigger than the one on Starboard. I also note that BW's canvas maker has manufactured a lopsided sun top.
Buckda	posted 05-15-2009 04:33 PM ET (US) I understand your skepticism. It is like seeing your pretty cousin after she comes home from the Freshman year in college. The girl who used to be tossed in the air by her cheerleading squad in high school has been eating at school. A lot. It's difficult to get used to the new reality. >>>But, there is no fish-eye lense in use. The owner of the camera says so. Has JimH photoshopped the image, or is it true that our once dainty cousin has really gained that much girth? ....and people make fun of cafeteria food. Come on Larry - anyone who's been out and about looking at these motors knows that they are HUGE. For whatever reason. Mercury nailed the quiet operation, performance and other aspects, but they fell on the football in the endzone with the size/weight of their new offerings. Oink Oink! Lunchtime at the cafeteria! Don't worry - she's still the sweet cousin you know and love, there's just more of her now than ever before.
hauptjm	posted 05-15-2009 05:57 PM ET (US) I'm not seeing it...the stern seats on the 170 look identical in size and proportion. Frankly, I'm not seeing any distortion. Nonetheless, I think we all agree, the newer motor is considerable larger. No harm, no foul...it's just that "freshman 10" she's sportin'. :-)
SC Joe	posted 05-15-2009 06:14 PM ET (US) It's a huge engine; no question there. But it's also a lot bigger, and better riding, 17' Montauk. That said..something is going on with that picture. I'm not saying it affects the apparent size of the engine; I just know the perspective my rear jump seats that I see in that pic can not be seen from be ehind my boat.
L H G	posted 05-15-2009 06:49 PM ET (US) The second photo JimH has posted has the 4-stroke 90 photoshopped.
Plotman	posted 05-15-2009 07:14 PM ET (US) Look at the picture in the first post in this thread. Then look at the version of the same photo posted by sapple halfway down. Compare what the 90 4-strokj is covering up on the boat in the background in the second photo to the first version. The second photo has been messed with.
WT	posted 05-15-2009 11:03 PM ET (US) Here are a couple of more pictures of the Mercury 90 FourStroke on a 170 Montauk. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v665/warrent/Montauk%20Kicker/ DSC_4399.jpg http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v665/warrent/Montauk%20Kicker/ ?action=view¤t=DSC_4403.jpg It is a big honking motor but it's a lot better than the carbureated 90 Mercury/Yamaha that it replaced. More power, better fuel economy and faster top end. Warren
SC Joe	posted 05-16-2009 12:13 PM ET (US) Warren- What is that thing on your lower unit?
jimh	posted 05-16-2009 12:57 PM ET (US) I have not posted any images nor have I altered any of them. I did put them in-line, as they were crucial to the topic. It was reasonably clearly implied in the prior discussion that the second appearance of the image was subjected to some manipulation in order to increase the size of the Mercury 90-HP FOURSTROKE as a joke or exaggeration. I am glad to hear from first hand sources present at the event that the photograph was not taken with a fisheye lens and was indeed taken with a telephoto lens. For moment there I thought I had lost my mind. There are many cues in the image that it is not a fisheye but rather a telephoto. One cue, for example, is the appearance of the water line of the boats as nicely horizontal and straight. A second cue is the boat in the background. In images taken with fisheye lenses there is often extreme distortion of the size of elements at different distances from the image plane. I am afraid I do not see any artifacts of the lens in the size of the seats or the symmetry of the canvas top. Nor am I familiar enough with the piping to explain how the images can see things the eye cannot. But that Mercury 90-HP is one big engine, about twice the size of LHG's 200-HP EFI Mercury motors from the 1980's.
jimh	posted 05-16-2009 01:41 PM ET (US) Speaking of LHG's 200-HP Mercury EFI motors from the 1980's, here they are in a view similar to the above. You can compare their size with a 150-HP V6 Yamaha and a 225-HP V6 Evinrude.
SC Joe	posted 05-16-2009 10:14 PM ET (US) I'll take a pic of my 170 Montauk from the rear tomorrow and post the issue I am seeing with the seats. I noticed also that unless the owner has turned the RPS upper seat around, that gray piping is also typically seen only from the front.
SC Joe	posted 05-17-2009 04:31 PM ET (US) It's not really from the right perspective, but here you can at least see the view of the rear seats that I was talking about. Also, the RPS DOES have gray piping on it in the rear http://home.comcast.net/~joefiat/whaler/whalerrear.jpg And here the setas are from the front, showing eth gray piping: http://home.comcast.net/~joefiat/whaler/rearseats.jpg