Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
Honda /Montauk repower
|Author||Topic: Honda /Montauk repower|
posted 08-01-2002 11:22 PM ET (US)
I'm considering a 4-stroke Honda repower on my 84 Montauk. Replacing a 1984 90 HP Mercury. Any input ?
posted 08-02-2002 07:45 AM ET (US)
AlaskaDan has this configuration and loves it. You might want to go through the old posts to find his email address (or maybe he will respond to this thread...).
posted 08-02-2002 11:52 AM ET (US)
Duvall's line is one the best of any western. Not many oppurtunities to use it in real life :)
Great movie too.
posted 08-02-2002 12:46 PM ET (US)
Awesome idea but one minor thing......WHAT SIZE Honda? I honestly would not put a 380 lb engine on mine....340 is heavy enough(70 Zuki) but it should be fine. There is a dealer down here with a NEW 1998 90hp for $6k(2 yr warranty & prop).
posted 08-02-2002 05:59 PM ET (US)
Honda has just reduced pricing to its dealers as of 8-1-02 on its 2002 model engines. Honda 90 ( 2002 ) with new controls ( premium ), ss prop, new gauges:tach, speedo, v/meter, tilt gauge and rigging,etc..$7200.00
Expensive, but should be the last motor I'll need to buy for this boat.
posted 08-02-2002 07:26 PM ET (US)
The Honda 90 is just TOO HEAVY for the Montauk. You're going to adversely affect the handling,ride and safety of your boat.
When shopping for a new engine I had the opportunity to test drive two Montauks equipped with the Honda 90. They sat pitifully low in the stern and both took on water when the throttle was cut. One belonged to a neighbor who has since traded his in on what I ended up with....a Yamaha 90 two-stroke. I think he really took a beating on the trade.
Before you spend your money, try to take a ride in one. My neighbor was glad to take me out and I found another sitting in a marina. When the owner arrived, I asked for a ride and he gladly obliged. His advice also was to buy a lighter motor.
All this anecdotal stuff is worthless until you experience it yourself. Maybe you'll like a bow-high attitude and water rushing in over the stern. I didn't care for it myself. I would love to have a four-stroke motor, but all of them were too heavy and too expensive.
posted 08-02-2002 08:32 PM ET (US)
I have a 340# 1988 Merc 100. That's the 4 cylinder block. That's about as heavy as I would like to go.
Make sure you see the midrange repower reference article and associated discussion thread.
We've had a lot of discussion about this previously, and forum members Bigshot and JBCornwall (if I remember correctly) swear by the 70HP Suzuki 4 stroke. Bigshot has his on a set back bracket. See http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000591.html .
posted 08-02-2002 10:43 PM ET (US)
syncope I have a Honda 50 hp four stroke on my montauk and love it.Performance is close to my dads montauk with the 70 hp yamaha 2 stroke.
Pros are no smoke, no 2 stroke oil to buy, reliable one turn of the key starting, and I have never used more than 7 to 10 gallons on a trip.Cons ?
Happy shopping for today you have so many good quality prducts to choose from including the 2 strokes.
posted 08-03-2002 06:45 AM ET (US)
Guess I'll enter the debate....
I have a '98 Montauk with a '99 Honda 90 + a '99 Honda 2 kicker. The rig has well over 200 hours. I Love it.
"Manana" (Photo Log, page 40-2) runs a 17P PropTech SS wheel (H115RED3R17). Sea level performance: Top end is 5500-5600rpm with 38/39mph (1 person, minimum fuel & load). I enjoy a comfortable economical cruise at 3200-3300rpm (20/21mph). On a 1200 mile trip (one person + two months worth of camping stuff...)I got 5.5mpg.
I've had the boat in everything from glassy calm to conditions where stupid-me "should" have waited until the next day (defined as - when you're concerned that IF the main engine were to fail you might not be able to safely get to the stern to employ the kicker...OR, when standing at the helm you cannot see anything but water at/above eye level 360 degrees around your position. [NOTE: Not fun. Do not do that again.]) At NO TIME have I ever taken water over the stern. At no time have I ever felt the boat had an inappropriate stern-heavy trim. Steering balances perfectly when the motor is properly trimmed. I've tried using a Doelfin-like trim plate (...an "SE" something or other...) but really can't notice any affect other than it helps prevent cavitation in tight/high power turns.
In the Keys we do a lot of cruising and snorkeling. Boat is perfect with two people aboard. I don't particularly like four aboard, because there's too much stuff (fins, masks, snorkels, cooler, towels - too cluttered), not the overall load. While a 200# snorkeler climbs in via the dive step, (and I'm standing near the transom to get equipment) the small splash-well will be awash, but I've certainly never taken water onto the main deck during that process.
Knowing what I know now - how would I modify the outfit if I was (again) in the market? (1) I "might" look carefully at the 4-stroke Suzuki 90, PURELY because it has EFI. (2) I'd probably buy the Mills Canvas dodger rather than have a custom dodger built (very functional but looks kind of weird). (3)I might buy a 16P four-bladed prop. and [(4) I would learn how to do Expensive Honda tune-ups MYSELF!]
On a 100 point scale I am 99-points HAPPY with Manana! ...that's pretty Happy! (Sandy gets a little edgy because she only comes-in at about 96/97....)
And the discussion continues....
posted 08-03-2002 02:32 PM ET (US)
I have an '86 Montauk with a '98 Honda 90. Most of my boating is spent inshore pulling kids, with some nearshore fishing and cruising on Vineyard Sound off the Cape, which is very choppy. I have never backed down in rough seas, but I don't recommend anyone do that in a Montauk with the low transom, anyway.
Prior to this engine I had a 100 hp Johnson 4 cylinder 2 stroke.
The Honda definitely feels heavier and is slower to plane. I have never felt that handling or safety was impaired. I love its quietness, and fuel economy, and wouldn't have a 2 stroke again. It always starts (even after winter storage) on the first try.
Now, would I repower with the same motor? I actually would have preferred the 100 hp Yamaha 4 stroke, which has 10 more hp and weighs about 75# less (at least in the '98 model years). At the time I bought the motor, I was able to get a leftover prior years model for about $7900, as compared to the (then) first model year Yamaha which I recall was about $11,500. I think the Yamaha is probably better suited for the Montauk based on weight, but if the price differential is still the same, the Honda does fine.
I would like to know if anybody has put trim tabs on the Montauk with the Honda engine?
posted 08-03-2002 09:27 PM ET (US)
Casey, I was out in the ocean just today, maybe three foot seas, with a friend searching for reefs for lobster season which starts in a day or two, anyway i have 93 100 hp johnson and when idleing about was taking a lot of water over the stern,couldn't imagine not having a bilge pump, I would be concerned with a heavier engine, but perhaps I am just an inexperinced boat handler(true) or there is something wrong with my "new" 86 Montauk?
posted 08-05-2002 02:02 PM ET (US)
Said it before and why not one more time.....
My 70 on a plate sits OK. It will take water over the stern when reversing mainly due to the jack plate which throws the water right into the splashwell, a con on all plates.
Reason for me being so happy. The Honda 90's are running the same speed as my 70. The 2s 90's run 2-4mph faster.....who cares! Save $2500 over a Honda and get a nice Zuki 70. Place down here has a 2000 for $4500. Most places have them for about $5500-6k.
posted 08-05-2002 06:19 PM ET (US)
My experience is the same as Bigshot's. The Suzi/'Rude/Johnny EFI 70 is an engine that will capture your heart on the first ride.
They outperform the 70hp label by a wide margin and are a marriage made in heaven with a Montauk.
DO NOT buy something else unless you ride in front of a DF70 on a Montauk first.
That's just, um, my never humble opinion but it is firm.
Red sky at night. . .
posted 08-05-2002 07:03 PM ET (US)
I'm confused about the weight of the Suzuki 70. You say it weighs 340# and both the Johnson and Suzuki websites list it at 359#. What did I miss?
posted 08-05-2002 10:12 PM ET (US)
I'm not sure, Cyclops. I must have missed it, too.
When I bought my DF70 in 5/01, Suzi listed it at 336lb.
I read somewhere that Johnson claims that the 356lb is a misprint of 336lb, but would they both commit the same misprint? Or did Johnson simply copy a Suzi misprint?
The difference between 336lb and 340lb could easily be explained by the difference between a 20" and a 25" shaft. But 20lb?
What do you think, Bigshot?
Red sky at night. . .
posted 08-06-2002 11:34 AM ET (US)
They only make it in 20" so scratch that idea. My Rude catalog has it at 342 where my zuki says 336 or 338. I think OMC weighed the prop(alum) to get the extra 4lbs. The 359 is a misprint(imho) unless they changed something major or used mercury for oil. The zuki catalog still uses the old weight so it should not have changed.
If we go to a 4 stroke for economy and know we are gonna lose speed, why do people insist on spending the most money they can on one? I mean if a 90 does 40 and a 70 does 38, why would you spend $2500 more for 2mph...and burn more gas? Do you really drive wot? If you do then reconsider a 4stroke. If we raced and you barely passed my 70 would'nt you be a tad mad you spent $2500 more for your engine?
The 140 zuki is the same engine as the 90 & 155 at like 416lbs. The 140 weighs less because they bored out the cyls and shaved a few lbs....weird huh? That 90 zuki is one heavy biotch and I would never buy one. Same goes for Honda 115's....geez!
posted 08-06-2002 06:36 PM ET (US)
The weight they specify might also include the weight of the controls which are a non-issue sinch they do not sit on the transom. I must say that I see a guy with a 70 Evinrude on a Montauk every so often at the ramp and the engine does impress me. Idles nice, has power, and looks good. I am sorry, but I have seem a few Montauks with the big Mercury 90 hp 4 strokes and only one thing comes to mind, it reminds me of Tweety Bird. All head, except it is not yellow, but black. Talk about braniac.
posted 08-06-2002 10:01 PM ET (US)
In addition to the weight of the engine package, you might also consider the power to weight ratio. Some brief example calculations (all 4-stroke except as noted):
Johnson 115hp 320 lbs 2.8 lbs/hp V-4, carb and 2-stroke
Honda 130hp 500 lbs 3.8 lbs/hp I-4, inj.
Suzuki 70hp 335 lbs 4.8 lbs/hp I-4, inj.
Honda 225hp 600 lbs. 2.8 lbs/hp V-6, inj.
The Honda 225 is the current benchmark 4-stroke motor. Soon other injected 4-stroke motors will drop their weight as the 225 have, and also have comparable lbs/hp. The power to weight of the 225 is very competitive with our old favorite 2-stroke smokers. It may be worth "weighting" for the next gen mid-range motors.
The advice of BS is reasonable, given the availability of "new old stock" Suzies. But it won't compare to the "kick" from the lighter, more powerful, and traditional 2-strokes. It (the Suzie) will probably last a lot longer, and reduce your rate of hearing loss over time.
posted 08-06-2002 10:27 PM ET (US)
Interesting comparison, Sub'Boy.
For mid-range 4 strokes, the Suzi DF140, at 410lb makes 2.93lb/hp.
Red sky at night. . .
posted 08-07-2002 12:45 AM ET (US)
That is a great ratio. What is the price for such performance? Nice numbers.
posted 08-07-2002 09:42 AM ET (US)
Low $7's for a DF 140. My bud just paid $6700 for a 115.
posted 08-11-2002 10:43 AM ET (US)
What do you guys think about the Yamaha 100 hp 4 stroke.
I have a 90 yammie now and it would be so easy to switch engines. I can use the same holes and the same controls. Just bolt it on and hook up the controls.
Do any of you have experience with this motor?
posted 08-11-2002 10:30 PM ET (US)
I was in Killarney, Ontario last week and saw a 17 Newport in fairly rough shape: missing rails, no windshield, patched gel coat, etc. It also had a new 100 Yamaha 4 stroke. But what caught my eye was that both transom well drain tubes were underwater, while the boat was at rest. In freshwater, marine growth isn't the issue it is where I boat in the salt, so perhaps the motorwell won't become a slime pond. Still with all of the holes in a Whaler transom anyway, would you really want to have two more, especially below the waterline? It can't be good for the foam core.
I am changing out my transom drain tubes from brass to plastic this fall. I am curious to see what the foam is like on my 85 Montauk even though the tubes are just above the waterline with the 90 Yamaha two-stoke.
posted 08-12-2002 01:03 PM ET (US)
From what I have read.....very little performance difference on the 100 than the 80. It is the same engine just de-tuned but I wonder how much. Engine companies are allowed to "range" 10% so a 80 could actually be an 88 and a 100 could actualy be a 90....cabeesh? The 100 Yamaha is a great engine and I considered buying one for the same reasons but compared to the 70 zuki, I could not justify the price, even after changing out all of the controls,etc. I am glad I did because after 12 years my controls were pretty beat up from a salt water environment and lack of maintenence from the previous owner.
posted 08-13-2002 07:02 PM ET (US)
Maybe I should check out the Suzuki 70.
One thing -I really like my top speed now with the Yamaha 90. I clocked it at 44mph with the gps with just myself in the boat. That felt good.
I want to get away from the two stroke smoke and cumbersome startup. My 4yr old son has Asthma and he is with me alot on the boat. That smoke can't be good for him.
What top speed do you think I will get with a new Suzuki 70 on my boat?
posted 08-14-2002 10:54 AM ET (US)
You have the fastest Yamaha 90 on the planet and maybe you should keep it:)
my 90 did about 41.5 on the gps won a 89 with a full pate27. My Zuki does 39.5 with the same load.
posted 08-19-2002 02:01 PM ET (US)
I think I've got a special motor. I like it more and more the more I use it. I will put up with a little smoke for the performance.
posted 08-20-2002 11:42 PM ET (US)
Whalerdude, in one post you say you want a four stroke becuase your son has asthma,then in your next post you say your keeping the two stroke so you can go an extra few miles per hour faster! Where are your priorities dude? Cough..Cough...
posted 08-21-2002 10:16 AM ET (US)
Bigshot, about the engine companies being able to "range" 10% on horsepower, do you mean all Suzuki DF70s might actually be 77 hp, or do you mean that for a particular model--such as the DF70--horsepower might vary by 10%. In other words, are you saying that someone might get lucky and buy a DF70 that is really putting out 77 hp while someone else with the exact same model engine only gets 63 hp? Or are you saying that (hypothetically) all DF 70s are really 77 hp while all Merc 60 EFIs are (hypothetically) 55 hp?
posted 08-21-2002 03:02 PM ET (US)
You are right!
I appreciate your questioning of my values here.
It probobly is not that bad for him really. It just smokes a little at very slow speed and you notice it if you are down wind from the engine.
I just have a bug to buy something and I was trying to talk myself into buying a new motor.
Those new motors are so smooth and quiet. It is really tempting.
The montauk really feels right with this motor. I really think the heavier motor will disrupt the balance that the boat now has.
posted 08-21-2002 03:26 PM ET (US)
I completely understand. I'm thinking of upgrading to a four stroke, from a 100 hp 2 stroke. When I'm going slow in the intercoastal the smoke can really get to me sometimes. I think i'll go with a lower hp four stroke so I dont have to worry about the weight. I'll lose some top speed, but the way i see it I'm going slow 80 percent of the time anyway.
posted 08-21-2002 11:22 PM ET (US)
Nobody likes to go zoom on the water more than Bigshot. If 39.5 mph with a Suzuki DF70 satisfies his need for speed, I'll bet it will be okay for you, too. And the benefits of a 4-stroke are quietness (almost inaudible at idle speed), a reduction in air pollution and increased fuel economy. Need I say more?
posted 08-22-2002 12:10 PM ET (US)
Great, now all we have to do, is pay for it!
posted 08-27-2002 01:49 PM ET (US)
David....thanks for the compliments. 39-42 is unnoticable in my opinion and I mainly am concerned with cruise. I like to be able to cruise at or under 4k and be happy. The 70 does just that. At 3800 I run 26mph with 2 people and a full Pate27. At 4k I run 29. this is about the same speed/RPM that my 90 Yamaha ran. I get twice the MPg, dead silent and the weight is not really an issue. I think since Gvisko, Jb, myself etc are all getting 38-39mph that these engines are more in the 77hp range. It just seems too powerful compared to a 70 2 stroke, meaning it should be slower than one. I think the 1.3 litre engine is the reason being it makes some nice torque. i love the 90 Yamaha on a Montauk but like I have said in the past, compared to a 90 Merc or OMC, seems more like an 80hp than a 90.
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.