Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
Merc or Yammy 4 stroke
|Author||Topic: Merc or Yammy 4 stroke|
posted 02-01-2002 09:06 PM ET (US)
Decided on a four stroke for my 17 ft Montauk. Now here is the question for you whalerites........Do I go with the 90 Merc or the 100 Yammy. Anyone had experience with either on a Montauk? It there a difference between them or are they the same engine ? Also like the Honda 90 four stroke but it much more money and its heavier. Also what kind of speed should I expect WOT? and what speed at cruise?
Thanks for all your input
posted 02-01-2002 11:28 PM ET (US)
The Merc90/Yammy100 is too heavy and it is carbureted.
The Johnson/Suzuki DF70 is a better choice for less bux. It is EFI and surprizingly powerful.
Just an opinion, but based on my own experience and reports of many other Montauk owners. I bought my Suzi on the recommendation of a Montauk owner who had bought the Merc 90 4 stroke and regretted it after a group cruise with several Suzi/Evinrude 70 powered Montauks.
The Suzi is smoother, quieter, starts easier, uses less fuel and is almost as fast.
Red sky at night. . .
posted 02-02-2002 02:19 AM ET (US)
I own a 2000 90 Merc 4 stroke on a 1998 17. If I were to do it again, I would go for the 70 Suzuki/Evinrude. I have 6 friends with these motors on Montauks and all love them. The three who went from 90's to these 70's do miss the speed (noticible), but outstanding fuel economy and smooth, smoke free trolling make them a winner. The other three had OMC 70 2 strokes and gained fuel economy and a little power. If I burn 6.5 gallons running 30 miles and trolling 5 hours, they will burn 5. Great economy either way, but I still burn 30% more. WOT is about 38.5 knots (44mph) and I run circles around them, but when the wind comes up (when doesn't it!), we are all doing the same speed. All these guys are hitting 33-34.5knots max(3-16's w/bottom paint, 2-17's on trailers, 1-17 w/bottom paint). EFI is the way to go. Starts instantly everytime and idles smooth. Mine starts fine but idles a little rough and frequently dies when the warm-up cycle fast idle stops. Two friends w/ Merc 90 4S's just turn up the idle and run a smaller prop to keep trolling speed down. Been to the shop for idle and acceleration problems. The carbs just run cold. If you can hold out, I believe Merc will go EFI for 2003 on the 75/90. Or go 115 for the same weight. I know it is over the max, but a friend is now rigging one on a Montauk with a 90 cover.
Decide what is important to you. Speed or ultimate smoothness.
Oh, back to your original question about Merc or Yamaha. Black or gray. Merc is cheaper. Yamaha has quieter lower unit. Power same (96hp). Both are offering longer warranties. Did I say Black or Gray?
posted 02-03-2002 09:10 AM ET (US)
Thanks JB but im not sure i understand your weight statement. The DF70 weights 342lbs and has 1298CC VS the merc. 1596 CC and only 20 LBS heavier. If the Merc is too heavy for the Montauk wouldn't the DF70 also be too heavy?
I do agree the EFI is an advantage
posted 02-03-2002 10:02 AM ET (US)
What do you think of the 115HP Mercury . It has EFI and weighs the same as the Merc 90 HP. This could be a serious consideration. Has anyone done this? Would love to hear from you. Also would love to hear the WTO speeds.
posted 02-03-2002 11:25 AM ET (US)
Anyone looked at the Merc 4stroke 60 efi? It is approx. 125 lbs. lighter than the Suzi DF70 according to weights given on the respective websites. I'm looking at repowering a 67' Sakonnet and it looks like a pretty good option to me. Any thoughts?
posted 02-03-2002 12:51 PM ET (US)
Yes, Tabasco, the DF70 is heavy for the Montauk. I would not consider going any heavier.
If I were in the market this year I would also consider the Merc EFI 60.
I would not consider a 4 stroke 115, mainly for legal reasons, but also because I think a 400+lb engine would make a Montauk behave like a bassrocket: nearly unmanageable except at idle or flat out.
Red sky at night. . .
posted 02-03-2002 01:11 PM ET (US)
I just installed a new 115 Merc EFI 4 stroker on my 21 Revenge and am breaking it in today! It is plenty strong and tops out at approx 40mph... not as quick or fast as the 135 Opti I ran on it for 2 1/2 yrs. and I hope to get as good fuel mileage as the Opti! I traded because of the 5 yr warranty offer (cost difference was less than getting a 3YR EXTENSION on the Opti... which was coming due soon).. so easy decision. Like Jb, I would not put a Merc/Yam 75/80/90/100/115hp 4 stroker on a Montuak.. A friend of mine just put a new 60hp Merc EFI 4 stroker on a 1993 Montuak and he as one word to describe it... he says "Awsome"... now , soon I may get to drive it but in any case will relay any performance figures to you all.. I know of several with 50hp two and 4 strokers and they run mid 30's and one with a 50Merc 2 stroker (small gear case & 13" SS, doel-fin and up 2 holes) runs out at 37mph).. My pick, if I was repowering a Montauk would be the Merc 60EFI 4 stroker.. but go for what you want!!!! Happy Whalin'... Clark.. Border-line Advice Div. of Spruce Creek Navy
posted 02-04-2002 01:49 PM ET (US)
I have a 2002 Merc 60 HP EFI 4-stroke on my 2000 Dauntless 14. It is smooth, quiet, and starts instantly. But i aonly have 2 hours on the motor. I bet it would work ok an a Montauk. You could definately improve the hole shot witha jack plate and a foil.
posted 02-05-2002 07:30 AM ET (US)
Please do keep us posted on the 60EFI 4 stroked Montauk. This is particularly intriguing to me. The Suzuki/Evinrude, now Johnson 70 has lots of admirers, but is roughly 100lbs heavier than the Mercury. I'm wondering what the 100lb/10hp difference makes vis-a-vis the Mercury.
Harpoon Harry, curled up in a winter ball
posted 02-05-2002 08:03 AM ET (US)
Harry, will do! I'm old and forgetful so if you don't hear from me in a month hit me with an e-mail... Clark
PS> "firstname.lastname@example.org" 386-767-9730
posted 02-05-2002 10:52 AM ET (US)
Ok how much do these darn 60's weigh. We are now up to 125lbs lighter than a 70 Rude. I understand the 60 was gonna be around 260lbs so we are talking 75lbs and 10hp. Now let us put another thing in perspective. A 90hp Ficht weighs 100lbs more than a 90 Yamaha, guess who is faster? Yup and NO Hp gain. So just because the 60 is lighter don't mean squat. I would like to run a 17 with a 60 Suzi against my 70 suzi just to see if there is ANY difference.
posted 02-05-2002 11:06 AM ET (US)
Hey guys, thanks for an ear full of advice. I have settled on the merc 90 four stoke with controls & tach installed on the boat for $7000. Hope I don't offend anyone with my choice, however its still me who is laying out the cash. I will follow up at a later date with speeds and GPH ( when the boating season begins in NYC & Connecticut). That may not be til June UGH! Hate these long new england winters. Although I must admitt I do love snow skiing in Vermont while waiting for boating season.
posted 02-05-2002 01:42 PM ET (US)
Tabasco, offended? No way! We just want you to be happy and thank God for our freedom of choice! Happy Whalin'.. Clark.. Spruce Creek Navy
posted 02-05-2002 03:38 PM ET (US)
Oh by the way....if you wait till July you can get a 2003:)
posted 02-06-2002 07:22 AM ET (US)
Mfgr's data on weight...
J/E 70, 359lbs
Suzuki 70, 335lbs
Mercury 60, 248lbs
Does the Johnson decal weigh 24 lbs more than the Suzuki decal?
Harpoon Harry, not quite 60, 176lbs
posted 02-06-2002 10:34 AM ET (US)
i saw that also harry. My Zuki catalog says 335 or 338, My eveinrude catalog says 342, and the new johnson says 359. Better put that 70 on a diet.
posted 02-07-2002 09:42 AM ET (US)
I have a related question. Do the bolt patterns for the Suzuki 70 and the Merc 60 4 stroke match up with the bolt pattern for a 1987 70 hp Johnson?
posted 02-07-2002 10:10 AM ET (US)
The Suzi should. It matched my 90 yamaha.
posted 02-07-2002 03:41 PM ET (US)
The Suzuki web site says 359 lbs for the 70. I wonder if the lower posted weight is without fluids and prop?
posted 02-08-2002 12:04 PM ET (US)
Compare those numbers with the older 200HP Johnsons that weighed 375 lbs. When will the boat manufactures understand that the HP weight ratio is where it was 30 years ago? Is anyone changing designs (going retro) to take into account the weight of these new motors? For the last 20 years all the boats have been getting wider and heavier.
posted 02-08-2002 05:10 PM ET (US)
My 1989 Mercury V-6 200's weighed 378# each. That's less than the current Mercury 4 cylinder 75Hp four stroke, at 386#!!! Back then, the pair of 200's cost about $12,600, which is also what a pair of the 4 stroke 75's would cost today!
Which is interesting with respect to an 18 Outrage, which is rated for twin 75 HP engines. In 1986, when I bought it, it would have seemed absurd to put twin 200's on it, weight wise. Now look where we are with the 75's. Are we sure these new four stokes are providing increased economy? When does weight become an offsetting factor?
posted 02-09-2002 08:29 AM ET (US)
I was just reading a 1971 Evinrude catalog: 125hp V4 weighs 252lbs. The 60 3cyl(looper) 207lbs, 25hp 81lbs.
Man I would love to restore an old 125 and drop it on a 15' sport. 2lbs more than a newer 70 that I ran.
Maybe they found oout that weight is not that big of an issue. Look at the 17' SeaRay has a 130hp I/O which has to weigh about 600lbs.
posted 02-19-2002 01:29 PM ET (US)
I put a 2000 Yammaha 0n my 83 Montalk last April. It is super quiet. Top speed as per GPS is 42 mph. I cruise at22-24. Fuel consumption is approx. 5 gal. for a two way run of 13 miles at 23 mph and 6 hours trolling. A 36 mile ( one way) run for Tuna over 8 hours used 26 gal. I would by another one. Hope that helps.
posted 02-21-2002 09:53 AM ET (US)
Buffalo, what size Yamaha did you put on?
Anyone have an inkling as to when Yamaha will match Mercury on the fuel-injection front with its 60 hp 4-stroke? I'm a-thinkin' for 2003, but that might be too optimistic...
posted 02-21-2002 10:10 AM ET (US)
I put a 100 hp yammy on . The fuel injected 115 was too heavy.
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.