New Yamaha F70 Four-Cycle - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  New Yamaha F70 Four-Cycle

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   New Yamaha F70 Four-Cycle

jimh posted 12-02-2009 12:36 AM ET (US)
Details about the new Yamaha F70 four-cycle engine are given in
http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/Yamaha/F70HotSheet.pdf
fishgutz posted 12-02-2009 08:56 AM ET (US)
Thanks Jim. Looks like the perfect repower for a Dauntless 14. Lightest weight and closest to the maximum horsepower for the boat. Now I just need to wait for some performance numbers.
GAwhale posted 12-02-2009 11:38 AM ET (US)
According to Yamaha's website the 90 four stroke weighs 369 pounds.
This new Yamaha F70 four-cycle engine weighs 260 pounds.
I wonder if they will come up with a lighter 90 to repower all the classic Montauks.
tedious posted 12-02-2009 12:29 PM ET (US)
Among other things, interesting to see that the 2-stroke 90 is going to be retired at the end of this year.
Peter posted 12-02-2009 06:29 PM ET (US)
This thread shows that we are fast approaching the Winter solstice.
Tedious -- The 2-stroke 90 is going to be retired because the more stringent 2010 EPA emissions regulations forced it to be retired.
Regarding the new F70 -- I find it interesting that they compare it to 75 HP 2-stroke motors such as the E-TEC or the Optimax. I'm willing to bet that either of those 2-stroke motors with 1.3L and 1.5L of displacement, respectively, would absolutely outperform the 1L F70 in load carrying capability. They never show a comparison of performance.
Does anyone know anything about the anodic exhaust coating to prevent corrosion? The term "anodic" suggests sacrificial to me, that is, that the coating will sacrifice itself over time. How long is ther expected life of the coating? Is it thick enough to give a 20 year - 2000 hour service life? I don't see that this coating emphasized in some of the other Yamaha in-line 4-stroke hot sheets. The reason I bring this up is that some folks have had to pay for very expensive repairs for their Yamaha F225 to fix a corroded exhaust water plate which appears to be in the region where this "anodic exhaust coating" is.
The old Yamaha 70 2-stroke has a redline of 6000 RPM, making 70 HP at 5500 RPM. The new F70 4-stroke has a redline of 6300 RPM, making 70 HP at 5800 RPM. So that difference means that folks contemplating replacing their Yamaha 70 2-stroke with this new F70, they will probably have to reduce the propeller pitch by 1 to 2 inches for the same boat application.
17 bodega posted 12-04-2009 11:27 PM ET (US)
Impressive. It looks expensive!
cooper1958nc posted 12-05-2009 09:07 AM ET (US)
A few corrections to the remarks above.
There may not be any change in propeller pitch. It depends on the lower unit gear ratio.
Anodic refers to the electrolytic method of coating, not its intent to be sacrificial in galvanic environments.
No reason to conclude that "load carrying" would be better or worse than another engine without published dyno curves or real world experience. It looks like this engine applies developments from longstanding and expensive automotive powerplant research. As the money for automotive engine development is orders of magnitude above that for marine, this is a good thing to see. Tunining valve size, location, quantity, and timing can achieve high volumetrics, requiring less displacement for any given torque output. And higher RPM allows for lower gearing and ultimately higher power.
fishgutz posted 12-05-2009 09:45 AM ET (US)
The new Yamaha F70 and the older 2 stroke 70 share the same lower unit gear ratio. I would think performance of the new F70 would be at least similar if not better than the old 2 stroke 70.
number9 posted 12-05-2009 11:35 AM ET (US)
"The new Yamaha F70 and the older 2 stroke 70 share the same lower unit gear ratio."
Marketing's way of saying, shares the same as the 4-stroke T60.
Peter posted 12-05-2009 12:34 PM ET (US)
I think it will perform about the same as the 850 cc 2-stroke 70 if, but only if, the 996 cc F-70 uses a propeller with 2 inches less pitch than the 2-stroke 70.
fishgutz posted 12-05-2009 01:13 PM ET (US)
Peter, in theory you are correct and I think in reality you will be correct also. We will have to see how the 2 perform on the water. They are so very technologically different.
cooper1958nc posted 12-05-2009 01:20 PM ET (US)
Yes I agree that with the power developed at higher rpm there is by definition less full throttle torque at that rpn, necessitating lower pitch if the gear ratios are the same.
What I am arguing against are conclusions based on displacement, especially com$paring 2 and 4 stroke engines. Displacement is only one factor in how much air is pumped. The other is volumetric efficiency, which differs between engines and differs at varying rpm manifold pressure.

Peter posted 12-05-2009 01:28 PM ET (US)
Here is a link to an article that has comparative power curves between a 920 cc 70 HP 2-stroke and a 1200 cc 70 HP-4-stroke ==> members.iinet.net.au/~pauldawson/Iame24-4strokes.pdf . This graphic suggests that the 70 HP 4-stroke needs about 30 percent more displacement to produce a power curve similar to the 3-cylinder 70 HP 2-stroke curve.
The F70's displacement is only 17 percent larger than the 2-stroke 70 but it does use a four valve per cylinder head. So we'll see whether it performs as well as the 70 2-stroke.

SIM posted 12-05-2009 03:47 PM ET (US)
I had a chance to run this engine, but nothing really else to compare it to while testing. It was on a welded aluminum bass type boat (can't recall the brand). Have to remember we are only talking 70hp, but I thought it ran well. It was quiet, and plenty of power to get this particular boat on plane with a fuel tank of fuel and two heavyweights.
The thing that impressed my the most was the physical size and its weight. It will be a good selling engine for Yamaha. It will also run the standard analog gauges and Command Link.
I did ask about it possibly being a 90hp version, and at this time, there are no "plans" for it.
SIM posted 12-07-2009 09:42 AM ET (US)
Lets get one thing straight--I have dibs on the Yamaha promoting on this site. Ok? I can't imagine what it would be like if we had two guys doing it!
zotcha posted 12-07-2009 11:19 AM ET (US)
Andy, are you able to quote the price of the F70 yet? I have a 2008 F60 in the crate, and have acquired all rigging for my 1988 Sport 15. Not sure what I could get for mine but would be interested in a quote for the new F70. Thanks. zotcha.
zotcha posted 12-08-2009 09:23 AM ET (US)
Custom Marine of Statesboro Georgia quoted $6990.00 (possibly MSRP), for the 2010 F70 and possibly available mid-March. He had not been briefed of any other information about cubic displacement, size of lower unit or gear ratio.
He felt this was promoted to compete with the E-Tec 75 which they also represent. I was then quoted $6500 for this outboard, which is crated engine only. He says sales have been strong. Only information I was able to collect. zotcha.
number9 posted 12-08-2009 09:50 AM ET (US)
FYI, Ed's Marine now has it on their website at $6.150.
number9 posted 12-08-2009 09:52 AM ET (US)
$6,150
Tohsgib posted 12-08-2009 11:28 AM ET (US)
$1150 premium over the 2 smoke 70 with 1970's technology....seems reasonable.
littleblue posted 12-08-2009 03:30 PM ET (US)
A pair of those would look really good on the back of my boat :)
tedious posted 12-08-2009 04:02 PM ET (US)
Just a note, from the link in this other thread, MSRP = $8745. http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/018832.html
Sure wish I lived somewhere south of New England - your prices seem to beat ours by a significant amount.
Tim
17 bodega posted 12-12-2009 02:44 AM ET (US)

quote:
I was then quoted $6500 for this outboard, which is crated engine only.
Tilt and trim unit included right?
Controls, cables and wire harness?
number9 posted 12-12-2009 04:04 AM ET (US)
F70 is only available with trim & tilt, it's included. Crate price is for motor without controls, cables or harness.
tedious posted 02-12-2010 12:24 PM ET (US)
Yamaha's website now includes F70 information and a bunch of pictures:
http://www.yamaha-motor.com/outboard/products/subcathome/2/home.aspx
frontier posted 02-12-2010 12:55 PM ET (US)
This motor may be the best thing to come along in years for Classic 17 Whaler owners.
We had a 60 Yamaha 4-Stroke on a Montauk - nice but underpowered for more than 2 people.
The new Yamaha 70 sounds just about perfect.
Our local Yamaha dealer has pre-sold one already for delivery in May.
Fishmore posted 02-12-2010 02:02 PM ET (US)
Interesting to look at the performance tests at the Yamaha site with the various hull combinations and the F70 motor. I was glad to see they had the performance data out there.
The top speed depending on the test varied from 32 mph (14 pitch prop) to almost 40 mph (16 pitch prop). All the hulls I looked at were in the range of 16 - 17 feet. Also it was interesting comparing tests between the F70 motor and the F60 motor. I will probably look at this more tonight if I get the time.
I currently have a 1993 Mercury 75 hp with a 19 pitch prop on my 17 and I like my performance. However, I still dream about having a brand new motor in the 70 - 75 HP range that weighs less and gets better fuel economy then my current motor and it seems like this motor may fit the bill. All the other 7X HP motors on the market in California weigh more than my current motor.
GAwhale posted 02-12-2010 03:45 PM ET (US)
Hi frontier,
I love having a 90 on my classic Montauk. It will yank any sized skier out of the water. I personally would not go lower.
tedious posted 02-12-2010 03:56 PM ET (US)
Particularly interesting comparison between the T60 and the F70A on the Sundance FX17 - boats only differed by about 50 pounds, so it looks like a valid comparison. The 70 used a 16 pitch prop vs. a 14 on the 60.
T60 cruised at 3500 RPM, 17.8 MPH, 9.37 MPG
F70 equivalent 4000 RPM, 23.4 MPH, 9.36 MPG
T60 top speed 6050 RPM, 35.5 MPH, 6.12 MPG
F70 top speed 6300 RPM, 39.5 MPH, 6.27 MPG
So at least from this sample, we see the same mileage at cruise, but you pick up 19.4% in cruise speed. Top speed is increased by 11% with WOT mileage slightly improved. The hole shot on the F70 is slightly worse, 3.88 seconds to plane and 6.59 seconds to 20MPH vs. 3.68 / 6.43 for the T60 - the taller prop is probably the major factor.

It would be very interesting to see a comparison with the F60 with the smaller gearcase, but they don't seem to have done that.
T60 data: http://www.yamaha-motor.com/assets/products/otb/bulletins/ bulletin_4stroke_highthrust_bss_sa9022.tmp.pdf
F70 data: http://www.yamaha-motor.com/assets/products/otb/bulletins/ bulletin_4stroke_midthrustjetport_bss_sa9f1a.tmp.pdf
Tim
tedious posted 02-12-2010 05:19 PM ET (US)
To add to the comparison, I see the same Sundance was tested with the F50. Weight again was comparable.
Cruise speed 4500 RPM, 23.7 MPH, 8.78 MPG
Top speed 5800 RPM, 32.0 MPH, 6.67 MPG
4.68 seconds to plane, 8.16 seconds to 20 MPH
Cruise speed is especially interesting - a bit faster than the F70, but slighly worse mileage. The max HP on this boat is listed as 70; it's neat that maxing out the HP gives not only the best top speed, but the best mileage at cruise.
F50 data: http://www.yamaha-motor.com/assets/products/otb/bulletins/ bulletin_4stroke_midthrustjetport_al_sa9021.tmp.pdf
I am very much looking forward to seeing what numbers people are going to get with the F70 on a 15 - I think it's going to be a great motor for it.
Tim
frontier posted 02-12-2010 05:40 PM ET (US)
GAwhale - do you have a 2 or 4-Stroke on your Montauk?
Yamaha?
We have a 2007 90 Yamaha 2-stroke on our 1987 classic hull 17' SS LTD. Love it.
Most 4 strokes offer better fuel economy and they are quieter but are heavier, so I'm very curious to see how the new lightweight F70 is on power.
tedious posted 02-12-2010 05:58 PM ET (US)
The same Sundance was also tested with the 2-stroke 70; again, weights were comparable.
Cruise speed 3500 RPM, 23.8 MPH, 6.26 MPG
Top Speed 5500 RPM, 39.1 MPH, 4.95 MPG
4.59 seconds to plane, 7.00 seconds to 20 MPH
Interesting that the hole shot is MUCH worse on the 2-stroke than on the F70 - 4.59 vs. 3.88 seconds to plane. It seems the conventional wisdom that 2-strokes always have better holeshots is not the case here.
Also interesting that the cruise mileage is dramatically different, the top speed mileage a bit less so.
Tim
number9 posted 02-12-2010 06:22 PM ET (US)
It would be interesting to see the test done using the same 16" prop on the T60. I run a black SS 14" pitch prop on my 18 Outrage with the older smaller cc T50.
Using Crouch's after determining the hull factor using the 70hp you get a 3.5mph difference. It should be a good choice for many but at a premium over a T60 that few have ever consider.
Bill
tedious posted 02-12-2010 07:12 PM ET (US)
One additional parameter that people who fish may care about is fuel use at trolling speed. At 1000 RPM, the figures are:
F70: 0.3
70TLR: 0.8
T60: 0.4
F50: 0.3
number9 posted 02-12-2010 07:29 PM ET (US)
As expected the 70TLR is no longer listed as a choice on the Yamaha site. Only three 2-stokes left, all HPDIs.
GAwhale posted 02-12-2010 07:42 PM ET (US)
Hi frontier,
I have a 2001 Mercury 90 two stroke.
I just did a quick search and it looks like my motor weighs 303 pounds.
A new Optimax 90 weighs in at 375 pounds.
According to Yamaha's website their 90 four stroke weighs 369 pounds.
This new Yamaha F70 four-cycle engine weighs 260 pounds.
Fishmore posted 02-12-2010 09:13 PM ET (US)
I looked at those trolling and cruising numbers and thought hmmm I could save $20-$30 per trip in fuel on those numbers. I would also increase my range by about 50 miles.
where2 posted 02-12-2010 10:38 PM ET (US)
I looked under the cowling of the F70 at the Miami International Boat Show today. It looked just as user friendly to service as it's brothers the F50 and F60. When I asked the Yamaha reps about expected dealer availability, I was told May-June 2010. Unfortunately, my local dealer rep was woking some other booth, so I didn't get a chance to discuss the pre-sale street price for a crated motor in South Florida against those shown above. Yamaha was NOT offering any boat show incentives on the F70, or any engines smaller than the F75. I was somewhat disappointed in that matter, since I consider the first year owners of any new product to be the real world guinea pigs for the factory. I realize that The F50/F60 brothers to the F70 are well proven at this point, but I'd still like to see something like the free +3 year extended warranty that Yamaha used to toss out at the shows.
I have my doubts that the economy can hold the US dollar where it's at for another year against foreign exchange rates. So, I expect there would be additional cost if I do not upgrade this year. I've been toying with the thought of repowering my classic 15 Sport for several years, waiting for some engine manufacturer to find the balance in Hp vs. weight that Yamaha seems to have combined with this engine.
In reviewing the statistics on the performance specification sheets on Yamaha's website, did anyone else notice that the combined weihght on the F70LA "Weight as tested" was the lowest of the three F50/T60/F70 sheets?
I liked the numbers I saw on Yamaha's specification sheets. I expect my classic 15 Sport might produce slightly better numbers and be able to swing a slightly higher pitch propeller. I expect that 16" they used would be my choice for pulling a skier, since I presently run a 17" on my OMC 70Hp 2-stroke for skiing, and a 19" for pleasure trips.
tedious posted 02-21-2010 09:22 AM ET (US)
I made a table showing the data quoted above from Yamaha's performance testing; bear with me as I try to get the formatting right:
Boat: Sundance FX17_______________F70LA_____70TLR____T60______F50_____50TLR
Test Date_______________________12/09/09__7/29/09__7/29/09__7/28/09__7/28/09
Boat Weight as tested (pounds)____1576_____1609_____1629_____1605_____1565
Motor Weight (pounds)______________260______228______248______237______189
Air Temperature (degrees F)_________74_______90_______90_______90_______90
Water Temperature (degrees F)_______61_______85_______85_______85_______85
MPG at troll (1000 RPM)___________12.0______5.4______9.0_____11.0______7.8
GPH at troll (1000 RPM)____________0.3______0.8______0.4______0.3______0.5
Cruise (best mileage) RPM_________4000_____3500_____3500_____4500_____4500
Cruise Speed (MPH)________________23.4_____23.8_____17.8_____23.7_____27.6
Cruise MPG________________________9.36_____6.26_____9.37_____8.78_____8.90
WOT RPM___________________________6300_____5500_____6050_____5800_____5600
WOT Speed (MPH)___________________39.5_____39.1_____35.5_____32.0_____36.2
WOT MPG___________________________6.27_____4.95_____6.12_____6.67_____6.24
Time to plane (seconds)___________3.88_____4.59_____3.68_____4.68_____4.20
Time to 20 MPH (seconds)__________6.27_____7.00_____6.43_____8.16_____6.80
tedious posted 02-21-2010 09:24 AM ET (US)
Well, I guess that formatting will have to do. Too bad they couldn't test all the motors on the same day, as the 2-strokes probably would have performed better in the colder weather, while the fuel-injected 4-strokes probably would not have been affected by the heat.
Keeper posted 02-21-2010 08:14 PM ET (US)
I've dropped my plans for a 70 TLR.
The F70 is now in my sights!
I live in California and this is the obvious choice.
Thanks to everyone who is contrbuting information in this thread!
This motor sounds awesome for the Classic 15 Boston Whaler
billsa posted 09-06-2010 07:58 PM ET (US)
Does anyone have first hand experience with this motor on a classic whaler 17 and 15 hull, or post classic 150 hull? Thinking about re-powering my 150 and would like hear some real experience with the new 2010 Yamaha F70.
Thanks.
[Look for reports about PERFORMANCE in the PERFORMANCE section--jimh.]
tedious posted 09-06-2010 08:28 PM ET (US)
I'm installing one now - ask again in about a month. If you search on "F70" or look back over the last couple of months in the Performance section you'll see some reports.
Tim
Bozol posted 09-09-2010 01:44 PM ET (US)
I put a Yamaha 90hp 4 stroke on my classic montauk three summers ago and so far love it. Cruises at ~32mph at ~4600rpm. Wouldn't mind a bit more weight in the bow though - when dead slow and planing the boat is fine, however, when in the pre-plane she can ride pretty high.
Where I live you can't get reasonable boat insurance and I've rarely heard anybody complain about too much power! That's why I went with the 90. I believe it's the lightest 90 4stroke on the market.
Tohsgib posted 09-09-2010 01:57 PM ET (US)
Nope; Suzuki 90 is 341lbs.
Bozol posted 09-09-2010 03:22 PM ET (US)
Could it have been at the time I bought it it was? Seem to remember looking at the Suzuki and it being the same weight as the 115hp.
Peter posted 09-09-2010 07:49 PM ET (US)
Prior to the new 341-lbs second-generation Suzuki DF90 that has only been aroundfor about the last two years, the first generation weighed over 400-lbs. It was the heaviest 90 four-cycle on the market.
The lesser weight of the second generation DF90 comes at the price of lesser displacement.
jimh posted 09-09-2010 08:04 PM ET (US)
If anyone has performance data about a Boston Whaler boat powered by a new Yamaha F70 four-cycle, please do not post it to this thread, but instead please start a new thread in the PERFORMANCE section. This thread was begun to announce the new engine. Information about the performance of Boston Whaler boats needs to go into the PERFORMANCE discussion. Thanks.

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: New Yamaha F70 Four-Cycle
jimh	posted 12-02-2009 12:36 AM ET (US) Details about the new Yamaha F70 four-cycle engine are given in http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/Yamaha/F70HotSheet.pdf
fishgutz	posted 12-02-2009 08:56 AM ET (US) Thanks Jim. Looks like the perfect repower for a Dauntless 14. Lightest weight and closest to the maximum horsepower for the boat. Now I just need to wait for some performance numbers.
GAwhale	posted 12-02-2009 11:38 AM ET (US) According to Yamaha's website the 90 four stroke weighs 369 pounds. This new Yamaha F70 four-cycle engine weighs 260 pounds. I wonder if they will come up with a lighter 90 to repower all the classic Montauks.
tedious	posted 12-02-2009 12:29 PM ET (US) Among other things, interesting to see that the 2-stroke 90 is going to be retired at the end of this year.
Peter	posted 12-02-2009 06:29 PM ET (US) This thread shows that we are fast approaching the Winter solstice. Tedious -- The 2-stroke 90 is going to be retired because the more stringent 2010 EPA emissions regulations forced it to be retired. Regarding the new F70 -- I find it interesting that they compare it to 75 HP 2-stroke motors such as the E-TEC or the Optimax. I'm willing to bet that either of those 2-stroke motors with 1.3L and 1.5L of displacement, respectively, would absolutely outperform the 1L F70 in load carrying capability. They never show a comparison of performance. Does anyone know anything about the anodic exhaust coating to prevent corrosion? The term "anodic" suggests sacrificial to me, that is, that the coating will sacrifice itself over time. How long is ther expected life of the coating? Is it thick enough to give a 20 year - 2000 hour service life? I don't see that this coating emphasized in some of the other Yamaha in-line 4-stroke hot sheets. The reason I bring this up is that some folks have had to pay for very expensive repairs for their Yamaha F225 to fix a corroded exhaust water plate which appears to be in the region where this "anodic exhaust coating" is. The old Yamaha 70 2-stroke has a redline of 6000 RPM, making 70 HP at 5500 RPM. The new F70 4-stroke has a redline of 6300 RPM, making 70 HP at 5800 RPM. So that difference means that folks contemplating replacing their Yamaha 70 2-stroke with this new F70, they will probably have to reduce the propeller pitch by 1 to 2 inches for the same boat application.
17 bodega	posted 12-04-2009 11:27 PM ET (US) Impressive. It looks expensive!
cooper1958nc	posted 12-05-2009 09:07 AM ET (US) A few corrections to the remarks above. There may not be any change in propeller pitch. It depends on the lower unit gear ratio. Anodic refers to the electrolytic method of coating, not its intent to be sacrificial in galvanic environments. No reason to conclude that "load carrying" would be better or worse than another engine without published dyno curves or real world experience. It looks like this engine applies developments from longstanding and expensive automotive powerplant research. As the money for automotive engine development is orders of magnitude above that for marine, this is a good thing to see. Tunining valve size, location, quantity, and timing can achieve high volumetrics, requiring less displacement for any given torque output. And higher RPM allows for lower gearing and ultimately higher power.
fishgutz	posted 12-05-2009 09:45 AM ET (US) The new Yamaha F70 and the older 2 stroke 70 share the same lower unit gear ratio. I would think performance of the new F70 would be at least similar if not better than the old 2 stroke 70.
number9	posted 12-05-2009 11:35 AM ET (US) "The new Yamaha F70 and the older 2 stroke 70 share the same lower unit gear ratio." Marketing's way of saying, shares the same as the 4-stroke T60.
Peter	posted 12-05-2009 12:34 PM ET (US) I think it will perform about the same as the 850 cc 2-stroke 70 if, but only if, the 996 cc F-70 uses a propeller with 2 inches less pitch than the 2-stroke 70.
fishgutz	posted 12-05-2009 01:13 PM ET (US) Peter, in theory you are correct and I think in reality you will be correct also. We will have to see how the 2 perform on the water. They are so very technologically different.
cooper1958nc	posted 12-05-2009 01:20 PM ET (US) Yes I agree that with the power developed at higher rpm there is by definition less full throttle torque at that rpn, necessitating lower pitch if the gear ratios are the same. What I am arguing against are conclusions based on displacement, especially com$paring 2 and 4 stroke engines. Displacement is only one factor in how much air is pumped. The other is volumetric efficiency, which differs between engines and differs at varying rpm manifold pressure.
Peter	posted 12-05-2009 01:28 PM ET (US) Here is a link to an article that has comparative power curves between a 920 cc 70 HP 2-stroke and a 1200 cc 70 HP-4-stroke ==> members.iinet.net.au/~pauldawson/Iame24-4strokes.pdf . This graphic suggests that the 70 HP 4-stroke needs about 30 percent more displacement to produce a power curve similar to the 3-cylinder 70 HP 2-stroke curve. The F70's displacement is only 17 percent larger than the 2-stroke 70 but it does use a four valve per cylinder head. So we'll see whether it performs as well as the 70 2-stroke.
SIM	posted 12-05-2009 03:47 PM ET (US) I had a chance to run this engine, but nothing really else to compare it to while testing. It was on a welded aluminum bass type boat (can't recall the brand). Have to remember we are only talking 70hp, but I thought it ran well. It was quiet, and plenty of power to get this particular boat on plane with a fuel tank of fuel and two heavyweights. The thing that impressed my the most was the physical size and its weight. It will be a good selling engine for Yamaha. It will also run the standard analog gauges and Command Link. I did ask about it possibly being a 90hp version, and at this time, there are no "plans" for it.
SIM	posted 12-07-2009 09:42 AM ET (US) Lets get one thing straight--I have dibs on the Yamaha promoting on this site. Ok? I can't imagine what it would be like if we had two guys doing it!
zotcha	posted 12-07-2009 11:19 AM ET (US) Andy, are you able to quote the price of the F70 yet? I have a 2008 F60 in the crate, and have acquired all rigging for my 1988 Sport 15. Not sure what I could get for mine but would be interested in a quote for the new F70. Thanks. zotcha.
zotcha	posted 12-08-2009 09:23 AM ET (US) Custom Marine of Statesboro Georgia quoted $6990.00 (possibly MSRP), for the 2010 F70 and possibly available mid-March. He had not been briefed of any other information about cubic displacement, size of lower unit or gear ratio. He felt this was promoted to compete with the E-Tec 75 which they also represent. I was then quoted $6500 for this outboard, which is crated engine only. He says sales have been strong. Only information I was able to collect. zotcha.
number9	posted 12-08-2009 09:50 AM ET (US) FYI, Ed's Marine now has it on their website at $6.150.
number9	posted 12-08-2009 09:52 AM ET (US) $6,150
Tohsgib	posted 12-08-2009 11:28 AM ET (US) $1150 premium over the 2 smoke 70 with 1970's technology....seems reasonable.
littleblue	posted 12-08-2009 03:30 PM ET (US) A pair of those would look really good on the back of my boat :)
tedious	posted 12-08-2009 04:02 PM ET (US) Just a note, from the link in this other thread, MSRP = $8745. http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/018832.html Sure wish I lived somewhere south of New England - your prices seem to beat ours by a significant amount. Tim
17 bodega	posted 12-12-2009 02:44 AM ET (US) quote: I was then quoted $6500 for this outboard, which is crated engine only. Tilt and trim unit included right? Controls, cables and wire harness?
number9	posted 12-12-2009 04:04 AM ET (US) F70 is only available with trim & tilt, it's included. Crate price is for motor without controls, cables or harness.
tedious	posted 02-12-2010 12:24 PM ET (US) Yamaha's website now includes F70 information and a bunch of pictures: http://www.yamaha-motor.com/outboard/products/subcathome/2/home.aspx
frontier	posted 02-12-2010 12:55 PM ET (US) This motor may be the best thing to come along in years for Classic 17 Whaler owners. We had a 60 Yamaha 4-Stroke on a Montauk - nice but underpowered for more than 2 people. The new Yamaha 70 sounds just about perfect. Our local Yamaha dealer has pre-sold one already for delivery in May.
Fishmore	posted 02-12-2010 02:02 PM ET (US) Interesting to look at the performance tests at the Yamaha site with the various hull combinations and the F70 motor. I was glad to see they had the performance data out there. The top speed depending on the test varied from 32 mph (14 pitch prop) to almost 40 mph (16 pitch prop). All the hulls I looked at were in the range of 16 - 17 feet. Also it was interesting comparing tests between the F70 motor and the F60 motor. I will probably look at this more tonight if I get the time. I currently have a 1993 Mercury 75 hp with a 19 pitch prop on my 17 and I like my performance. However, I still dream about having a brand new motor in the 70 - 75 HP range that weighs less and gets better fuel economy then my current motor and it seems like this motor may fit the bill. All the other 7X HP motors on the market in California weigh more than my current motor.
GAwhale	posted 02-12-2010 03:45 PM ET (US) Hi frontier, I love having a 90 on my classic Montauk. It will yank any sized skier out of the water. I personally would not go lower.
tedious	posted 02-12-2010 03:56 PM ET (US) Particularly interesting comparison between the T60 and the F70A on the Sundance FX17 - boats only differed by about 50 pounds, so it looks like a valid comparison. The 70 used a 16 pitch prop vs. a 14 on the 60. T60 cruised at 3500 RPM, 17.8 MPH, 9.37 MPG F70 equivalent 4000 RPM, 23.4 MPH, 9.36 MPG T60 top speed 6050 RPM, 35.5 MPH, 6.12 MPG F70 top speed 6300 RPM, 39.5 MPH, 6.27 MPG So at least from this sample, we see the same mileage at cruise, but you pick up 19.4% in cruise speed. Top speed is increased by 11% with WOT mileage slightly improved. The hole shot on the F70 is slightly worse, 3.88 seconds to plane and 6.59 seconds to 20MPH vs. 3.68 / 6.43 for the T60 - the taller prop is probably the major factor. It would be very interesting to see a comparison with the F60 with the smaller gearcase, but they don't seem to have done that. T60 data: http://www.yamaha-motor.com/assets/products/otb/bulletins/ bulletin_4stroke_highthrust_bss_sa9022.tmp.pdf F70 data: http://www.yamaha-motor.com/assets/products/otb/bulletins/ bulletin_4stroke_midthrustjetport_bss_sa9f1a.tmp.pdf Tim
tedious	posted 02-12-2010 05:19 PM ET (US) To add to the comparison, I see the same Sundance was tested with the F50. Weight again was comparable. Cruise speed 4500 RPM, 23.7 MPH, 8.78 MPG Top speed 5800 RPM, 32.0 MPH, 6.67 MPG 4.68 seconds to plane, 8.16 seconds to 20 MPH Cruise speed is especially interesting - a bit faster than the F70, but slighly worse mileage. The max HP on this boat is listed as 70; it's neat that maxing out the HP gives not only the best top speed, but the best mileage at cruise. F50 data: http://www.yamaha-motor.com/assets/products/otb/bulletins/ bulletin_4stroke_midthrustjetport_al_sa9021.tmp.pdf I am very much looking forward to seeing what numbers people are going to get with the F70 on a 15 - I think it's going to be a great motor for it. Tim
frontier	posted 02-12-2010 05:40 PM ET (US) GAwhale - do you have a 2 or 4-Stroke on your Montauk? Yamaha? We have a 2007 90 Yamaha 2-stroke on our 1987 classic hull 17' SS LTD. Love it. Most 4 strokes offer better fuel economy and they are quieter but are heavier, so I'm very curious to see how the new lightweight F70 is on power.
tedious	posted 02-12-2010 05:58 PM ET (US) The same Sundance was also tested with the 2-stroke 70; again, weights were comparable. Cruise speed 3500 RPM, 23.8 MPH, 6.26 MPG Top Speed 5500 RPM, 39.1 MPH, 4.95 MPG 4.59 seconds to plane, 7.00 seconds to 20 MPH Interesting that the hole shot is MUCH worse on the 2-stroke than on the F70 - 4.59 vs. 3.88 seconds to plane. It seems the conventional wisdom that 2-strokes always have better holeshots is not the case here. Also interesting that the cruise mileage is dramatically different, the top speed mileage a bit less so. Tim
number9	posted 02-12-2010 06:22 PM ET (US) It would be interesting to see the test done using the same 16" prop on the T60. I run a black SS 14" pitch prop on my 18 Outrage with the older smaller cc T50. Using Crouch's after determining the hull factor using the 70hp you get a 3.5mph difference. It should be a good choice for many but at a premium over a T60 that few have ever consider. Bill
tedious	posted 02-12-2010 07:12 PM ET (US) One additional parameter that people who fish may care about is fuel use at trolling speed. At 1000 RPM, the figures are: F70: 0.3 70TLR: 0.8 T60: 0.4 F50: 0.3
number9	posted 02-12-2010 07:29 PM ET (US) As expected the 70TLR is no longer listed as a choice on the Yamaha site. Only three 2-stokes left, all HPDIs.
GAwhale	posted 02-12-2010 07:42 PM ET (US) Hi frontier, I have a 2001 Mercury 90 two stroke. I just did a quick search and it looks like my motor weighs 303 pounds. A new Optimax 90 weighs in at 375 pounds. According to Yamaha's website their 90 four stroke weighs 369 pounds. This new Yamaha F70 four-cycle engine weighs 260 pounds.
Fishmore	posted 02-12-2010 09:13 PM ET (US) I looked at those trolling and cruising numbers and thought hmmm I could save $20-$30 per trip in fuel on those numbers. I would also increase my range by about 50 miles.
where2	posted 02-12-2010 10:38 PM ET (US) I looked under the cowling of the F70 at the Miami International Boat Show today. It looked just as user friendly to service as it's brothers the F50 and F60. When I asked the Yamaha reps about expected dealer availability, I was told May-June 2010. Unfortunately, my local dealer rep was woking some other booth, so I didn't get a chance to discuss the pre-sale street price for a crated motor in South Florida against those shown above. Yamaha was NOT offering any boat show incentives on the F70, or any engines smaller than the F75. I was somewhat disappointed in that matter, since I consider the first year owners of any new product to be the real world guinea pigs for the factory. I realize that The F50/F60 brothers to the F70 are well proven at this point, but I'd still like to see something like the free +3 year extended warranty that Yamaha used to toss out at the shows. I have my doubts that the economy can hold the US dollar where it's at for another year against foreign exchange rates. So, I expect there would be additional cost if I do not upgrade this year. I've been toying with the thought of repowering my classic 15 Sport for several years, waiting for some engine manufacturer to find the balance in Hp vs. weight that Yamaha seems to have combined with this engine. In reviewing the statistics on the performance specification sheets on Yamaha's website, did anyone else notice that the combined weihght on the F70LA "Weight as tested" was the lowest of the three F50/T60/F70 sheets? I liked the numbers I saw on Yamaha's specification sheets. I expect my classic 15 Sport might produce slightly better numbers and be able to swing a slightly higher pitch propeller. I expect that 16" they used would be my choice for pulling a skier, since I presently run a 17" on my OMC 70Hp 2-stroke for skiing, and a 19" for pleasure trips.
tedious	posted 02-21-2010 09:22 AM ET (US) I made a table showing the data quoted above from Yamaha's performance testing; bear with me as I try to get the formatting right: Boat: Sundance FX17_______________F70LA_____70TLR____T60______F50_____50TLR Test Date_______________________12/09/09__7/29/09__7/29/09__7/28/09__7/28/09 Boat Weight as tested (pounds)____1576_____1609_____1629_____1605_____1565 Motor Weight (pounds)______________260______228______248______237______189 Air Temperature (degrees F)_________74_______90_______90_______90_______90 Water Temperature (degrees F)_______61_______85_______85_______85_______85 MPG at troll (1000 RPM)___________12.0______5.4______9.0_____11.0______7.8 GPH at troll (1000 RPM)____________0.3______0.8______0.4______0.3______0.5 Cruise (best mileage) RPM_________4000_____3500_____3500_____4500_____4500 Cruise Speed (MPH)________________23.4_____23.8_____17.8_____23.7_____27.6 Cruise MPG________________________9.36_____6.26_____9.37_____8.78_____8.90 WOT RPM___________________________6300_____5500_____6050_____5800_____5600 WOT Speed (MPH)___________________39.5_____39.1_____35.5_____32.0_____36.2 WOT MPG___________________________6.27_____4.95_____6.12_____6.67_____6.24 Time to plane (seconds)___________3.88_____4.59_____3.68_____4.68_____4.20 Time to 20 MPH (seconds)__________6.27_____7.00_____6.43_____8.16_____6.80
tedious	posted 02-21-2010 09:24 AM ET (US) Well, I guess that formatting will have to do. Too bad they couldn't test all the motors on the same day, as the 2-strokes probably would have performed better in the colder weather, while the fuel-injected 4-strokes probably would not have been affected by the heat.
Keeper	posted 02-21-2010 08:14 PM ET (US) I've dropped my plans for a 70 TLR. The F70 is now in my sights! I live in California and this is the obvious choice. Thanks to everyone who is contrbuting information in this thread! This motor sounds awesome for the Classic 15 Boston Whaler
billsa	posted 09-06-2010 07:58 PM ET (US) Does anyone have first hand experience with this motor on a classic whaler 17 and 15 hull, or post classic 150 hull? Thinking about re-powering my 150 and would like hear some real experience with the new 2010 Yamaha F70. Thanks. [Look for reports about PERFORMANCE in the PERFORMANCE section--jimh.]
tedious	posted 09-06-2010 08:28 PM ET (US) I'm installing one now - ask again in about a month. If you search on "F70" or look back over the last couple of months in the Performance section you'll see some reports. Tim
Bozol	posted 09-09-2010 01:44 PM ET (US) I put a Yamaha 90hp 4 stroke on my classic montauk three summers ago and so far love it. Cruises at ~32mph at ~4600rpm. Wouldn't mind a bit more weight in the bow though - when dead slow and planing the boat is fine, however, when in the pre-plane she can ride pretty high. Where I live you can't get reasonable boat insurance and I've rarely heard anybody complain about too much power! That's why I went with the 90. I believe it's the lightest 90 4stroke on the market.
Tohsgib	posted 09-09-2010 01:57 PM ET (US) Nope; Suzuki 90 is 341lbs.
Bozol	posted 09-09-2010 03:22 PM ET (US) Could it have been at the time I bought it it was? Seem to remember looking at the Suzuki and it being the same weight as the 115hp.
Peter	posted 09-09-2010 07:49 PM ET (US) Prior to the new 341-lbs second-generation Suzuki DF90 that has only been aroundfor about the last two years, the first generation weighed over 400-lbs. It was the heaviest 90 four-cycle on the market. The lesser weight of the second generation DF90 comes at the price of lesser displacement.
jimh	posted 09-09-2010 08:04 PM ET (US) If anyone has performance data about a Boston Whaler boat powered by a new Yamaha F70 four-cycle, please do not post it to this thread, but instead please start a new thread in the PERFORMANCE section. This thread was begun to announce the new engine. Information about the performance of Boston Whaler boats needs to go into the PERFORMANCE discussion. Thanks.