Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  About the Suzukis...(JB and Bigshot)

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   About the Suzukis...(JB and Bigshot)
KeysNole posted 06-08-2002 11:19 PM ET (US)   Profile for KeysNole   Send Email to KeysNole  
I have the opportunity to pick up a 2000 70 hp 4 stroke for $4500; 2001 60hp 4 stroke for $4300, or 1999 100hp 2 stroke for $4700. All motors are brand new, left overs, with warranty. The prices are most likely negotiable as well.

JB, you have the 70 on your 17 Montauk, correct? What is the top speed on that boat? I will be looking to repower a 17' Mako, which (although I am not sure of the specs) is most likely a more streamlined boat than the Montauk. You guys have me on the Suzuki bandwagon, and I am seriously considering giving these motors a try.

The motor range on the 17' Mako is usually in the 90-135 range, and I am concerned of the 70 being underpowered, yet JB said his kept up with a 90 Merc 2 stroke. Any thoughts or input would be appreciated.

JBCornwell posted 06-09-2002 09:46 AM ET (US)     Profile for JBCornwell  Send Email to JBCornwell     
Hi, Keysnole.

As you have noticed, I don't like to talk about my Suzi.

My top speed is 38.5, plenty for me.

If I had the Mako, I would research how much weight the transom would handle in good trim, then take a close look at the Suzi, Yammy and Merc 115 EFI 4 strokes. All within earshot of 400lb. The EFI Honda would almost surely be too heavy at over 500lb.

The DF70 sounds like a real bargain. Not as good as Bigshot got, but a lot better than the $7500 I paid. It is worth noting that I got a full warranty and Bigshot got none.

I think your Mako is both heavier and deeper than the Montauk. Therefore I would expect it to be not as fast on plane at WOT.

Good luck and. . .

Red sky at night. . .
JB :)

Bigshot posted 06-10-2002 09:48 AM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
70 on a Mako......I would'nt. That 100 2 stroke would be great though. good engine and quiet too. I looked at one for my Montauk but speed was not my concern(I have a Baja). I think the 70 would be underpowered unless you always drove with a light load. My bud has one with a 88spl and it does maybe 35.
Highwater posted 06-10-2002 07:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for Highwater    
Can a 15' handle the weight of a 70 hp Suzuki?

Before making the purchase, I thought that I would run a test and add weight to the back of my boat and see how it sits in the water. The problem is, I don't know how much the current engine weighs, so I don't know how much weight to add to do the experiment.

The current engine is a 1987 70 hp Nissan with power tilt and trim and a stainless prop.

Taylor posted 06-10-2002 08:36 PM ET (US)     Profile for Taylor  Send Email to Taylor     
1987 Nissan 70L w/PT weighs 205 lbs per Are they accurate on weight?
Highwater, that engine sounds like it should have a few more years left, no? Anyway, seems like a big jump to the 4 stroke weight.

Highwater posted 06-10-2002 10:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for Highwater    
The Nissan runs like a dream. If I wait until the Nissan starts running rough, I may be waiting a long time.

Have you heard how quiet the new 4-strokes are? Wouldn't it be wonderful to barely hear the engine at idle speed? Wouldn't it be great to be able to have a conversation with someone while going 30 mph? The Nissan is fast, but speed is not my number one goal.

Highwater posted 06-10-2002 10:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for Highwater    
PS: Thanks for getting the weight statistic! The Suzuki DF 70 would be nearly twice as heavy as the 2-stroke Nissan. Plus, I intend to mount the 4-stroke on a jackplate. The lightweight Mercury EFI 60 is looking better and better....
Wild Turkey posted 06-10-2002 11:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for Wild Turkey  Send Email to Wild Turkey     

I think it has been discussed here on the forum.... 4-strokes at higher RPMs are not
much quieter than 2-strokes.


lhg posted 06-11-2002 12:45 AM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
I was in a Japanese restaurant tonight, and just learned that suzuki is Striped Bass, served raw as Sashimi. A striped bass outboard, now that's interesting.
Highwater posted 06-11-2002 02:45 AM ET (US)     Profile for Highwater    
The decibel (dB) scale is logarithmic; values increase geometrically. The softest sound that the human ear can detect is 1 dB. Sound at the pain threshold, around 120 dB, is 1 trillion times louder than 1 dB.

Every increase of 3 dB represents an increase in loudness of 100%.
Correspondingly, every decrease of 3 dB represents a decrease in loudness of 50%.

Here is an exerpt from the site, : "At full throttle, the Suzukis registered a sound level at the helm of 91 dB, compared to the Ficht's 100 dB (a pair of Ficht 150s, remember, was 10 dB quieter than a pair of carbureted Yamahas in our earlier test). This, despite the fact that full throttle on the Suzukis represented 5700 rpm as compared to 5000 rpm on the Ficht."

So, at WOT, if a 2-stroke had a dB rating of 100 and the 4-stroke had a dB rating of 97, this means that the 2-stroke would be twice as loud. If the 4-stroke had a WOT dB rating of 94, the 2-stroke would be four times as load. But, what the test found was that the two Suzukis running at WOT produced a noise level of 91, compared to the 100 dB of the 2-stroke. So in this test--at WOT--the one 2-stroke was 16 times as loud as the 4-stroke!

And the difference is even greater at idle speed.

masbama posted 06-11-2002 10:41 AM ET (US)     Profile for masbama  Send Email to masbama     
I have a few questions: Why are the weights different for the Suzi 70 4 stroke and the 2002 Johnson 70 4 stroke? We all know that the Johnsons are made by Suzi. Some have mentioned that it could be the added weight of the prop but why would they do it for that engine and not all the others (such as 2 strokes)? How many quarts of oil do these engines hold? Could this be the added weight?
It also seems that with the cubic inch size of these engines that they could be made to produce 75 or 80 hp. Forum members state that their top end speed (on Montauks) rate higher than conventional two strokes.
jimh posted 06-11-2002 10:48 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Having been involved with professional sound engineering for 25 years, I am somewhat acquainted with the decibel.

The decibel is one-tenth of a Bel, named for Mr. Alexander Graham Bell, telephone patent holder (he beat Elijah Gray to the patent office by three hours otherwise we'd be talking about the Gray System instead of the Bell System).

The bel was too big a unit so it got sliced into tenths, hence the decibel.

The decibel is logarithmic because your hearing is logarithmic. So when you state that an "increase of 3 dB represents an increase in loudness of 100%" this is not true.

An increase of 3 dB in sound pressure level corresponds to a doubling of the acoustic power. The acoustic power has increased 100%, but the perceived loudness has not doubled. You ear perceives a 100% increase in acoustic power as a mild increase in loudness.

For a person to perceive that one sound is "twice as loud" as another often requires the two sounds be 10 dB different in level.

The dB unit was chosen because it represents the smallest increment in volume that the ear can perceive. An oft cited example of this: When you tell your kid to turn down the music, he lowers the volume exactly one decibel.

When you write "if a 2-stroke had a dB rating of 100 and the 4-stroke had a dB rating of 97, this means that the 2-stroke would be twice as loud" this is not exactly the case.

It means the louder sound was producing twice as much acoustic power, but human hearing perception reduces this difference to 3 dB, i.e, three minimal steps of loudness greater.

What helps the 4-stroke engines appear to be more quiet (perhaps than they really are) is the fact that the fundamental frequency they produce is one-half the fundamental frequency of the 2-stroke engine. The human ear does not perceive lower frequency sounds to be as loud as those above 400-Hz. The lower the frequency of the sound, the less it is perceived by a human listener.

The advantage of the 4-strokes comes from the fact that their power stroke occurs only half as often as the two stroke, and thus for two engines at the same RPM, the fundamental sound of the 4-stroke is half the frequency of the 2-stroke.

At 4,000 RPM a 2-stroke produces a fundamental sound of 4000/60 = 66 Hz while a 4-stroke produces a fundamental sound of 2000/60 = 33 Hz.

jimh posted 06-11-2002 10:56 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Another comment:

When measurements of acoustic sound pressure levels are taken, they are subject to "weighting". What this means is that a pre-emphasis is applied to the sound pressure measurements so that the meter--which is equally responsive to all sounds--adopts a response curve which is more like that of the human ear. In other words, extremely low frequency sounds are de-emphasized before measurement so that the resulting measurement is more correlated with a human ear's perception of the sound.

If the cited sound pressure level measurements have been made with this weighting in place, they will tend to favor the 4-stroke engines because (as mentioned above) their sound fundamental frequency is lower.

Bigshot posted 06-11-2002 11:16 AM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
Whatever Jim and Highwater said!

Being an owner they are not as loud at WOT as a 2 stroke. I had a 90 Yamaha that I considered to be very quiet compared to others. This 4 stroke is l/2 the noise at WOT which I rarely ever drive at. At cruise the wind usually drowns out the engine, so you hear nothing but wind noise until you turn your head....very weird at first. I sneak up on people at idle and people at boat ramps are puzzled that it is running when I pull away. Have I mentioned gas consumption....or lack of. I have put 74 hours on this beast since January and have burned under 100 gallons of BS. As far as power goes, the 90 Yamaha did 41.5 on the GPS, I do 39.5. I think it is underrated at 70 hp because most 70hp 2 strokes won't do 39.5.

I don't care what people put on their boats, different strokes for different folks(damn I'm good) but as a member here I like to say how smitten I am with this engine. I have owned(as most know)over 30 boats and NOTHING compares to this engine. Actually NOTHING compares to a Montauk and this engine but then again I have not driven a 90 or 100hp 4 stroke either. Everyone here who has done the same as me, JB, and Givisko have been just as amazed and thrilled as us. You want to buy a 90 2 stroke....go for it but consider what we say, because it is true. That is my story and I am sticking to it.

Highwater posted 06-11-2002 01:15 PM ET (US)     Profile for Highwater    
Many thanks to Jim for straightening me out about decibels.

Bigshot likes fast cars and fast boats and fast motorcyles. It is a powerful testimonial to hear Bigshot (of all people) say that he prefers--strongly prefers--his heavy 4-stroke over a faster, lighter 2-stroke. That really says a lot for the Suzuki DF70, and maybe a lot for all 4-strokes. So, even though I have overstated the differnence in loudness between the 2-strokes and the 4-strokes, this discussion has made me more convinced than ever before that I want to re-power with a 4-stroke.

Bigshot posted 06-11-2002 02:38 PM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
You forgot fast women:)
kysard posted 06-12-2002 07:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for kysard  Send Email to kysard     
How does the Suzuki 70 compare to its closest competitor: the merc 75 hp yammy 4 stroke?

My thought is the EFI would give it an advantage even though it lacks cubes

gvisko posted 06-13-2002 06:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for gvisko  Send Email to gvisko     
with my suzuki 70 efi you turn the key
once and it starts i never yet pumped the ball i dont know why its there it is
just like starting a car. i also have to look
at water stream to see if she is still runing
it is that quiet


lhg posted 06-13-2002 11:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
A better comparison might be the Suzuki 70 with the Merc 60, since both are EFI's.
Swellmonster posted 06-18-2002 09:49 AM ET (US)     Profile for Swellmonster  Send Email to Swellmonster     
I drove janices 25 everglade w/225 4 stroke yammy. It was so quiet, that when I was trimming up the motor, you normaly kind of hear it when it is trimmed right. I couldnt hear it. I had to look over my shoulder to see if it was going up and had to verify it with the tack.
When my 225 efi dies in about 10,500 hours, I will repower w/a 4 stroke!
You know what? When we all get 4 strokes, the great two stroke "oil dilema" will end!
Now we will have to think of what type of 4 stroke motor oil to use.......hhmmmhhhh
artmo posted 06-26-2002 01:09 PM ET (US)     Profile for artmo  Send Email to artmo     
take it from a suzy 70/montauk owner of 3 years-i can't imagine a better combination. i run georgian bay and the large muskoka lakes and this combo hasn't missed a beat!!
Bigshot posted 06-26-2002 03:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
Some day you will ALL see the light:)
John W posted 06-26-2002 04:14 PM ET (US)     Profile for John W  Send Email to John W     
KeysNole, if you're still reading this & haven't made your decision, I would definitely stay away from the 70 for a Mako 17. I own one, they're great boats but are very heavy over a short waterline & they need alot more power than a Montauk. I have a Yamaha 115 and my top speed is 42mph, 75% throttle cruise speed is much lower. I think 115, or even 130hp, is ideal power for the boat.

They are listed at 1250lbs dry, but someone at Mako told me that's way off & they are actually closer to 1400lbs dry. Add motor, 35 gals fuel, gear, etc....a 70 would be way underpowered.

Post New Topic  Post Reply
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.