90 HP 3 Cylinder vrs 90 HP 4 Cylinder - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  90 HP 3 Cylinder vrs 90 HP 4 Cylinder

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   90 HP 3 Cylinder vrs 90 HP 4 Cylinder

Mark D posted 04-28-2002 03:21 PM ET (US)
I am considering one of two motor upgrades for my 17 Montauk: 90 Hp Yamaha 3 cylinder or 90 HP Johnson Ocean Runner 4 Cylinder. I know they are both 90 HP but what are the pro and cons?
Here we go
JBCornwell posted 04-28-2002 06:51 PM ET (US)
The Yamaha is lighter by about 50lb. It is only 70cubic inches.
The Johnny is about 320lb, 106 cubic inches.
In spite of the "rated" hp, I would expect the Johnson to have a lot more torque for hole shot, faster top end and a far greater thirst. I think it can be bought for less bux.
As far as reliability goes, Yamaha's excellent reputation is well earned.
In it's last couple of years, OMC made some pretty poor engines. Bombardier claims to have fixed any quality problems. So Far I haven't heard anyone dispute their word.
It's a toss-up. My choice would be the Johnson.
My first choice, however, is the JohnnyZuki DF70.
Now let me introduce you to a lot of guys who don't exactly agree.
Red sky at night...
JB
whalerfran posted 04-28-2002 09:33 PM ET (US)
I prefer the lighter engine because the boat sits better in the water with it. (I know there is a nautical term to describe this, but I could not come up with it. Trim attitude?) In any event, in view of the long history of both engines, I do not think you can go wrong with either one.
whalerron posted 04-29-2002 08:48 AM ET (US)
I just replaced a Johnson 70 with a new Johnson 90 (2 stroke). The 70 weighed 202 lbs and the 90 weighs 319 lbs. I cannot see any difference in how the boat sits in the water. Maybe it's because I have my battery in the console? The yammy and the Johnson are both good motors and both are rated 90hp. But, from a displacement perspective, the Johnson is a larger engine. It has unbelieveable torque through the entire throttle range and it actually does better on fuel than my old 1975 70 Johnson.
When looking at the yammy, ask about labor charges, parts availability and cost of parts.
At the present time, I am not sure that you can buy a "bad" outboard. All of the manufacturers seem to have their act together as far as quality is concerned.
- ron
masbama posted 04-29-2002 10:45 AM ET (US)
Mark D - Read my update on my new Johnson. It should answer questions from the Johnson side; others will have equally good things to say about the Yam. Both are good (as is a Merc)so it will be a no lose situation for you.
andygere posted 04-29-2002 01:30 PM ET (US)
My '79 Johnson 85 hp V4 is still running strong, and parts are readily available. I called to get a new starter solenoid today, and my local guy had one on the shelf for $28. Outside of a waterpump impeller and spark plugs, this the only investment I have made on the motor in the 2 years I've owned it. I'd buy another one. It is a big-time gas hog, but I would imagine the newer engines are better in that regard.
Mark D posted 04-29-2002 05:50 PM ET (US)
It doen't really matter how the boat sits in the water because I trailer it. Its what is best overall.
PMUCCIOLO posted 04-29-2002 09:18 PM ET (US)
Mark D,
It DOES really matter how the boat sits in the water, because that is the purpose for which the boat was built! Whether or not the boat is trailered, moored, dry stored, or kept on a cradle in a museum after it's used is irrelevant.
Static trim is a very important consideration for many people, myself included, as it influences the boat's drainage, planing characteristics, and load carrying ability in the stern.
For others, who need the torque and cubes to pull skiers or carry heavier loads, the static trim issue is of secondary importance.
There is a photo which depicts this difference with two Montauks tied up to a dock in the Cetacea section. The static trim difference is obvious. Whether or not it is important to the user is another issue entirely.
Paul
Mark D posted 04-29-2002 09:55 PM ET (US)
What page?
PMUCCIOLO posted 04-29-2002 11:36 PM ET (US)
Mark D,
I'm not sure what page it's on, but I'll have a look over the section for you. When I find it, I'll e-mail the photo to you.
Paul
Bigshot posted 04-30-2002 10:27 AM ET (US)
Like said above....they are all good. Pros and cons are price initially and maintenance. If you already have a yamaha, stay with it because the guages and controls will cost another grand. Ditto if you have OMC(it will retro). If you get a great deal on a Merc get that, etc. Any motor will be great....go for price.

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: 90 HP 3 Cylinder vrs 90 HP 4 Cylinder
Mark D	posted 04-28-2002 03:21 PM ET (US) I am considering one of two motor upgrades for my 17 Montauk: 90 Hp Yamaha 3 cylinder or 90 HP Johnson Ocean Runner 4 Cylinder. I know they are both 90 HP but what are the pro and cons? Here we go
JBCornwell	posted 04-28-2002 06:51 PM ET (US) The Yamaha is lighter by about 50lb. It is only 70cubic inches. The Johnny is about 320lb, 106 cubic inches. In spite of the "rated" hp, I would expect the Johnson to have a lot more torque for hole shot, faster top end and a far greater thirst. I think it can be bought for less bux. As far as reliability goes, Yamaha's excellent reputation is well earned. In it's last couple of years, OMC made some pretty poor engines. Bombardier claims to have fixed any quality problems. So Far I haven't heard anyone dispute their word. It's a toss-up. My choice would be the Johnson. My first choice, however, is the JohnnyZuki DF70. Now let me introduce you to a lot of guys who don't exactly agree. Red sky at night... JB
whalerfran	posted 04-28-2002 09:33 PM ET (US) I prefer the lighter engine because the boat sits better in the water with it. (I know there is a nautical term to describe this, but I could not come up with it. Trim attitude?) In any event, in view of the long history of both engines, I do not think you can go wrong with either one.
whalerron	posted 04-29-2002 08:48 AM ET (US) I just replaced a Johnson 70 with a new Johnson 90 (2 stroke). The 70 weighed 202 lbs and the 90 weighs 319 lbs. I cannot see any difference in how the boat sits in the water. Maybe it's because I have my battery in the console? The yammy and the Johnson are both good motors and both are rated 90hp. But, from a displacement perspective, the Johnson is a larger engine. It has unbelieveable torque through the entire throttle range and it actually does better on fuel than my old 1975 70 Johnson. When looking at the yammy, ask about labor charges, parts availability and cost of parts. At the present time, I am not sure that you can buy a "bad" outboard. All of the manufacturers seem to have their act together as far as quality is concerned. - ron
masbama	posted 04-29-2002 10:45 AM ET (US) Mark D - Read my update on my new Johnson. It should answer questions from the Johnson side; others will have equally good things to say about the Yam. Both are good (as is a Merc)so it will be a no lose situation for you.
andygere	posted 04-29-2002 01:30 PM ET (US) My '79 Johnson 85 hp V4 is still running strong, and parts are readily available. I called to get a new starter solenoid today, and my local guy had one on the shelf for $28. Outside of a waterpump impeller and spark plugs, this the only investment I have made on the motor in the 2 years I've owned it. I'd buy another one. It is a big-time gas hog, but I would imagine the newer engines are better in that regard.
Mark D	posted 04-29-2002 05:50 PM ET (US) It doen't really matter how the boat sits in the water because I trailer it. Its what is best overall.
PMUCCIOLO	posted 04-29-2002 09:18 PM ET (US) Mark D, It DOES really matter how the boat sits in the water, because that is the purpose for which the boat was built! Whether or not the boat is trailered, moored, dry stored, or kept on a cradle in a museum after it's used is irrelevant. Static trim is a very important consideration for many people, myself included, as it influences the boat's drainage, planing characteristics, and load carrying ability in the stern. For others, who need the torque and cubes to pull skiers or carry heavier loads, the static trim issue is of secondary importance. There is a photo which depicts this difference with two Montauks tied up to a dock in the Cetacea section. The static trim difference is obvious. Whether or not it is important to the user is another issue entirely. Paul
Mark D	posted 04-29-2002 09:55 PM ET (US) What page?
PMUCCIOLO	posted 04-29-2002 11:36 PM ET (US) Mark D, I'm not sure what page it's on, but I'll have a look over the section for you. When I find it, I'll e-mail the photo to you. Paul
Bigshot	posted 04-30-2002 10:27 AM ET (US) Like said above....they are all good. Pros and cons are price initially and maintenance. If you already have a yamaha, stay with it because the guages and controls will cost another grand. Ditto if you have OMC(it will retro). If you get a great deal on a Merc get that, etc. Any motor will be great....go for price.