1984 MONTAUK: Choosing an Auxiliary Motor - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  1984 MONTAUK: Choosing an Auxiliary Motor

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   1984 MONTAUK: Choosing an Auxiliary Motor

cinegamma posted 04-01-2010 10:42 AM ET (US)
Here are my thoughts and would like to get someone else's two cents on potential kicker motors for my 1984 Montauk with 90-HP Johnson [that uses] pre-mix [fuel]. [The choices are limited to:]
--an older Johnson 4.5-HP that is a lighter two-cylinder, two-cycle motor, that can use same fuel tank as main
--a new Tohatsu 5-HP one-cylinder four-cycle motor with three-year warranty, which is not that much heavier than Johnson, but will need separate fuel tank
I can get the Johnson for a fraction of the price of the new Tohatsu. What do you think? Did I leave anything out?
Jon

Chris J posted 04-01-2010 10:58 AM ET (US)
I'd add: Johnson: Simpler, cheaper parts, easier to service, proven long-term reliability. May be banned in some freshwater lakes and reservoirs, due to pollution issues.
Tohatsu: Quieter, more efficient, less pollution. Legal anywhere a gas-powered outboard is. More complex, slightly more maintenance required, more difficult for the average do-it-yourselfer to work on.
I own several 2-strokes, including Johnson and Nissan. Don't own a 4-stroke, but I like them, especially for larger displacement engines that are already complex. But for small engines, I'm inclined to think that the 2-strokes are better for the average guy's use.
Peter posted 04-01-2010 11:29 AM ET (US)
I'm not sure that the 1-cylinder Tohatsu 5 would be quieter than the Johnson 4.5. The 4.5 is built on a proven 5.2 cubic inch 2-cylinder, 2-stroke design made since the 1950s. Those motors are probably some of the smoothest, quietest outboards ever made.
I've run the Tohatsu 5 and it will not be remotely as smooth as the Johnson which has a combustion event every 180 degree turn of the flywheel versus 1 event every 720 degree turn.

Johnson 4.5 has my vote.
andygere posted 04-01-2010 02:14 PM ET (US)
Use the Johnson. A Montauk is too small a boat to have a bunch of extra fuel tanks lying around. I had a Johnson 2-stroke kicker and Johnson 85 hp 2-stroke main on my former Montauk, with both motors running off a Racor fuel filter fed from the 2 x 12 gallon tanks under the RPS. Simple arrangement, premix gas for all of them, less overall weight in the back of a small boat. Use synthetic oil if the smoke is a problem.
elaelap posted 04-01-2010 02:40 PM ET (US)
I've got a one-cylinder 6 hp four stroke Suzuki for the kicker on my Montauk, and the thing is surprisingly noisy at any but the slowest speeds--actually louder than my main motor, a Suzuki DF70, when the 70 is at trolling speed. Great little motor in other respects, however, and plenty of power for a 16/17. It has an internal fuel tank, and I keep a little 3-gallon tank next to it in the splash well. I like the idea of separate tanks, whether premix if we're talking two stroke or straight gas for a four cycle, for both my main motor and my kicker, just in case there's a fuel contamination problem in the main tank. I mean, that's half the reason I have a kicker in the first place: as emergency back-up to the main motor (the other reason is for slow speed trolling, which keeps down wear and tear and hours on the main motor).
Tony
handn posted 04-01-2010 05:17 PM ET (US)
My two cents is that the older two strokes work better for occasional use than do the new four strokes.
The carbs in the old engines have much more tolerance for gunk, debris and sludge.
I have a Tohatsu 4 stroke 9.9 and if I let it sit for a few months without running it out, it will clog up. Nothing against Tohatsu. All newer 4-strokes are that way.
I would carry a clean extra tank of premix for my kicker. If your main fuel is bad, you will be dead in the water without seperate fuel. Seperate fuel eliminates plumbing problems.
cinegamma posted 04-02-2010 08:56 AM ET (US)
Thank you all for your input. It seems the general agreement is the Johnson. I was leaning that way, but the brand new motor w/warranty had me on the fence. I think I'll go with the Johnson and with the money saved pick up a new GPS.
Jon
andygere posted 04-02-2010 11:15 AM ET (US)
The beauty of the 2x12 gallon steel Tempo tanks on my old Montauk was that the primary fuel storage system had redundancy built into it, and it all fit under the RPS as Dick Fisher intended. When one of the tanks ran low, I'd switch to the other, then remove the empty one and fill it with fresh pre-mix for the next trip. In my opinion this is a much better system than the single 24-28 gallon tank and some spare 3-gallon gas can rattling around in the bilge water. I carried a spare fuel hose assembly so I could completely bypass the Racor and go directly from either tank to either outboard in the event that there was a problem with the fuel delivery/filter system, or the fuel in one of the tanks.
jimh posted 04-02-2010 10:24 PM ET (US)
The need for two fuel tanks is a distinct problem that makes the four-cycle auxiliary a disadvantage.
Is the Tohatsu motor a carburetor motor?
cohasett73 posted 04-03-2010 07:34 AM ET (US)
My vote is for the Johnson also. For appearance sake you might consider color match the engine to your boat.
(Menard's almond appliance enamel) if your hull is colored desert tan.
Tom from Rubicon,WI
Tom W Clark posted 04-03-2010 09:29 AM ET (US)
No-Brainer: Get the johnson.
cinegamma posted 04-04-2010 09:25 PM ET (US)
Thanks to all for the replies. Jim, yes the Tohatsu is carbureted.
number9 posted 04-05-2010 02:25 AM ET (US)
Depends upon reason for the kicker, trolling or backup get home motor. If the latter a new one may be a better choice. The convenience of using the same fuel source will not be of much benefit if your main motor quits due to bad gas.

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: 1984 MONTAUK: Choosing an Auxiliary Motor
cinegamma	posted 04-01-2010 10:42 AM ET (US) Here are my thoughts and would like to get someone else's two cents on potential kicker motors for my 1984 Montauk with 90-HP Johnson [that uses] pre-mix [fuel]. [The choices are limited to:] --an older Johnson 4.5-HP that is a lighter two-cylinder, two-cycle motor, that can use same fuel tank as main --a new Tohatsu 5-HP one-cylinder four-cycle motor with three-year warranty, which is not that much heavier than Johnson, but will need separate fuel tank I can get the Johnson for a fraction of the price of the new Tohatsu. What do you think? Did I leave anything out? Jon
Chris J	posted 04-01-2010 10:58 AM ET (US) I'd add: Johnson: Simpler, cheaper parts, easier to service, proven long-term reliability. May be banned in some freshwater lakes and reservoirs, due to pollution issues. Tohatsu: Quieter, more efficient, less pollution. Legal anywhere a gas-powered outboard is. More complex, slightly more maintenance required, more difficult for the average do-it-yourselfer to work on. I own several 2-strokes, including Johnson and Nissan. Don't own a 4-stroke, but I like them, especially for larger displacement engines that are already complex. But for small engines, I'm inclined to think that the 2-strokes are better for the average guy's use.
Peter	posted 04-01-2010 11:29 AM ET (US) I'm not sure that the 1-cylinder Tohatsu 5 would be quieter than the Johnson 4.5. The 4.5 is built on a proven 5.2 cubic inch 2-cylinder, 2-stroke design made since the 1950s. Those motors are probably some of the smoothest, quietest outboards ever made. I've run the Tohatsu 5 and it will not be remotely as smooth as the Johnson which has a combustion event every 180 degree turn of the flywheel versus 1 event every 720 degree turn. Johnson 4.5 has my vote.
andygere	posted 04-01-2010 02:14 PM ET (US) Use the Johnson. A Montauk is too small a boat to have a bunch of extra fuel tanks lying around. I had a Johnson 2-stroke kicker and Johnson 85 hp 2-stroke main on my former Montauk, with both motors running off a Racor fuel filter fed from the 2 x 12 gallon tanks under the RPS. Simple arrangement, premix gas for all of them, less overall weight in the back of a small boat. Use synthetic oil if the smoke is a problem.
elaelap	posted 04-01-2010 02:40 PM ET (US) I've got a one-cylinder 6 hp four stroke Suzuki for the kicker on my Montauk, and the thing is surprisingly noisy at any but the slowest speeds--actually louder than my main motor, a Suzuki DF70, when the 70 is at trolling speed. Great little motor in other respects, however, and plenty of power for a 16/17. It has an internal fuel tank, and I keep a little 3-gallon tank next to it in the splash well. I like the idea of separate tanks, whether premix if we're talking two stroke or straight gas for a four cycle, for both my main motor and my kicker, just in case there's a fuel contamination problem in the main tank. I mean, that's half the reason I have a kicker in the first place: as emergency back-up to the main motor (the other reason is for slow speed trolling, which keeps down wear and tear and hours on the main motor). Tony
handn	posted 04-01-2010 05:17 PM ET (US) My two cents is that the older two strokes work better for occasional use than do the new four strokes. The carbs in the old engines have much more tolerance for gunk, debris and sludge. I have a Tohatsu 4 stroke 9.9 and if I let it sit for a few months without running it out, it will clog up. Nothing against Tohatsu. All newer 4-strokes are that way. I would carry a clean extra tank of premix for my kicker. If your main fuel is bad, you will be dead in the water without seperate fuel. Seperate fuel eliminates plumbing problems.
cinegamma	posted 04-02-2010 08:56 AM ET (US) Thank you all for your input. It seems the general agreement is the Johnson. I was leaning that way, but the brand new motor w/warranty had me on the fence. I think I'll go with the Johnson and with the money saved pick up a new GPS. Jon
andygere	posted 04-02-2010 11:15 AM ET (US) The beauty of the 2x12 gallon steel Tempo tanks on my old Montauk was that the primary fuel storage system had redundancy built into it, and it all fit under the RPS as Dick Fisher intended. When one of the tanks ran low, I'd switch to the other, then remove the empty one and fill it with fresh pre-mix for the next trip. In my opinion this is a much better system than the single 24-28 gallon tank and some spare 3-gallon gas can rattling around in the bilge water. I carried a spare fuel hose assembly so I could completely bypass the Racor and go directly from either tank to either outboard in the event that there was a problem with the fuel delivery/filter system, or the fuel in one of the tanks.
jimh	posted 04-02-2010 10:24 PM ET (US) The need for two fuel tanks is a distinct problem that makes the four-cycle auxiliary a disadvantage. Is the Tohatsu motor a carburetor motor?
cohasett73	posted 04-03-2010 07:34 AM ET (US) My vote is for the Johnson also. For appearance sake you might consider color match the engine to your boat. (Menard's almond appliance enamel) if your hull is colored desert tan. Tom from Rubicon,WI
Tom W Clark	posted 04-03-2010 09:29 AM ET (US) No-Brainer: Get the johnson.
cinegamma	posted 04-04-2010 09:25 PM ET (US) Thanks to all for the replies. Jim, yes the Tohatsu is carbureted.
number9	posted 04-05-2010 02:25 AM ET (US) Depends upon reason for the kicker, trolling or backup get home motor. If the latter a new one may be a better choice. The convenience of using the same fuel source will not be of much benefit if your main motor quits due to bad gas.