Montauk with Suzuki 90 4-stroke - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Montauk with Suzuki 90 4-stroke

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Montauk with Suzuki 90 4-stroke

whaling away posted 10-24-2003 05:43 PM ET (US)
I've heard lots of good things about the Suzuki 70 on a Montauk, how about the 90. I understand it is almost 50lbs. more, but like the idea of having more ponies to pull skiers and have a higher top end. I'm running dual batteries under the console and have a Johnson 90 2-stroke on the back now. I have had an extra trolling motor in the back, along with a 20 gallon live bait tank next to the motor well and the stern seems to ride high enough out of the water. Anyone have this combination?
JBCornwell posted 10-24-2003 05:47 PM ET (US)
More than that, Away.
Try 415#. Same weight as the DF115 and HEAVIER than the DF140.
My opinion is that it is too heavy for the Montauk.
Red sky at night. . .
JB
dogfish2 posted 10-26-2003 12:56 PM ET (US)
I agree with J.B. Too heavy! You might consider the 115 hp Merc 4s, EFI. It's a smoother running motor and is the same weight at the 75 and 90 4s carburated motors. The EFi's and DFI's are far superior in performance aqnd also at idle. Relocation of the bait tank to mid-ship should balance the boat.
JBCornwell posted 10-26-2003 05:08 PM ET (US)
115 EFI Merc 4 stroke is also over 400#.
Red sky at night. . .
JB
JBCornwell posted 10-26-2003 05:10 PM ET (US)
Ooops! 386lb. Still too heavy.
Red sky at night. . .
JB
lhg posted 10-26-2003 07:23 PM ET (US)
JB may be entirely correct, however when the Classic Montauk was still being sold, and only rigged with Mercury engines, there were basically 2 options, the 2-stroke 90 at 303# and the 4-stroke 90 at 386#. I also have seen some factory rigged Montauks with Merc 100 2-strokes, which weigh 356#.
That engine was discontinued a few years ago, however.
Finally, there are many Montauks being run with a big single, 90/100 HP, and a 8 HP pony motor, which also brings the transom weight up close to 386#. So without a kicker, the boat MAY handle it. Might check with Customer Service regarding the 4-stroke Montauks they put out.
rubadub555 posted 10-27-2003 08:05 AM ET (US)
My 1999 Suzuki 85 2-stroke is 271 pounds, and has been flawless.
Bigshot posted 10-27-2003 01:08 PM ET (US)
The 90 is over 420lbs which is like 80lbs more than the 70, no dice in my book.
David Jenkins posted 10-28-2003 05:58 PM ET (US)
Maybe someone who has a Montauk with the 335-pound DF70 could sit an 80-pound child on the top of the engine and take a photograph of the stern of the boat to see how low it would sit in the water.
I have the DF70 on a 1977 classic 15' Whaler and it works for me. But it did not work well when I had the engine installed on a jackplate. That little bit of extra weight (25 lbs) and the 4" of setback made a huge difference. So if you are going to hang a 420-pound engine on the back of a Montauk, you need to determine if you are willing to intall it without a jackplate.
If you install it without the jackplate and you eliminate the trolling motor (or move it to the bow) and move the live bait tank in front of the console, I bet it would work fine.
But if you are going to make so many sacrifices in order to get more power, I would think that you should make it worth your while by hanging the lighter-weight DF140 on the back.
In terms of strain on the transom, you can reduce this somewhat by using CMC transom savers inside the splashwell.
lhg posted 10-28-2003 07:05 PM ET (US)
The Yamaha 90 4-stroke is a relatively lightweight 370Lb. Is the Suzuki EFI worth the extra 50#, especially considering Yamaha has a much larger service network, which would also include Mercury's network for powerhead parts/service. The best set-up out there in MID-range 4-strokes, is the Mercury 115 EFI, @ 386lb., with 3.35# per EFI HP. Nothing else compares.
Is a cheaper Suzuki price what's driving this interest in their 90 4-stroke? Otherwise it seems hard to justify such a purchase.
whaling away posted 10-28-2003 08:03 PM ET (US)
IHG, I think Yamaha products have always been first rate. I am still considering their engines. EFI is really what I'm after. I use my boat in the California Sierras where the elevation can be 5,000 ft. or higher. If normally aspirated engines are anything like automobile engines of the past, they perform terribly in higher altitudes. Performance differences are probably negligible at sea level. But, almost all autos have gone to EFI, why not boat motors.
Barney posted 10-28-2003 08:09 PM ET (US)
Then go for the EFI Mercury. My carbed Merc is great but that 115 EFI is "Superior". Jim
lhg posted 10-28-2003 08:20 PM ET (US)
What about a fuel injected Mercury 90 Optimax at 375#?
And it's 3 star rated. There's not a 4-stroke 90 on the market that will run with it. These should be showing up as an option on new 170 Montauks pretty soon.
whaling away posted 10-29-2003 12:39 AM ET (US)
I've heard good and bad about the Optimax motors. That would be a consideration if they are reliable. Have the Optimax motors changed over the years? Thanks

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: Montauk with Suzuki 90 4-stroke
whaling away	posted 10-24-2003 05:43 PM ET (US) I've heard lots of good things about the Suzuki 70 on a Montauk, how about the 90. I understand it is almost 50lbs. more, but like the idea of having more ponies to pull skiers and have a higher top end. I'm running dual batteries under the console and have a Johnson 90 2-stroke on the back now. I have had an extra trolling motor in the back, along with a 20 gallon live bait tank next to the motor well and the stern seems to ride high enough out of the water. Anyone have this combination?
JBCornwell	posted 10-24-2003 05:47 PM ET (US) More than that, Away. Try 415#. Same weight as the DF115 and HEAVIER than the DF140. My opinion is that it is too heavy for the Montauk. Red sky at night. . . JB
dogfish2	posted 10-26-2003 12:56 PM ET (US) I agree with J.B. Too heavy! You might consider the 115 hp Merc 4s, EFI. It's a smoother running motor and is the same weight at the 75 and 90 4s carburated motors. The EFi's and DFI's are far superior in performance aqnd also at idle. Relocation of the bait tank to mid-ship should balance the boat.
JBCornwell	posted 10-26-2003 05:08 PM ET (US) 115 EFI Merc 4 stroke is also over 400#. Red sky at night. . . JB
JBCornwell	posted 10-26-2003 05:10 PM ET (US) Ooops! 386lb. Still too heavy. Red sky at night. . . JB
lhg	posted 10-26-2003 07:23 PM ET (US) JB may be entirely correct, however when the Classic Montauk was still being sold, and only rigged with Mercury engines, there were basically 2 options, the 2-stroke 90 at 303# and the 4-stroke 90 at 386#. I also have seen some factory rigged Montauks with Merc 100 2-strokes, which weigh 356#. That engine was discontinued a few years ago, however. Finally, there are many Montauks being run with a big single, 90/100 HP, and a 8 HP pony motor, which also brings the transom weight up close to 386#. So without a kicker, the boat MAY handle it. Might check with Customer Service regarding the 4-stroke Montauks they put out.
rubadub555	posted 10-27-2003 08:05 AM ET (US) My 1999 Suzuki 85 2-stroke is 271 pounds, and has been flawless.
Bigshot	posted 10-27-2003 01:08 PM ET (US) The 90 is over 420lbs which is like 80lbs more than the 70, no dice in my book.
David Jenkins	posted 10-28-2003 05:58 PM ET (US) Maybe someone who has a Montauk with the 335-pound DF70 could sit an 80-pound child on the top of the engine and take a photograph of the stern of the boat to see how low it would sit in the water. I have the DF70 on a 1977 classic 15' Whaler and it works for me. But it did not work well when I had the engine installed on a jackplate. That little bit of extra weight (25 lbs) and the 4" of setback made a huge difference. So if you are going to hang a 420-pound engine on the back of a Montauk, you need to determine if you are willing to intall it without a jackplate. If you install it without the jackplate and you eliminate the trolling motor (or move it to the bow) and move the live bait tank in front of the console, I bet it would work fine. But if you are going to make so many sacrifices in order to get more power, I would think that you should make it worth your while by hanging the lighter-weight DF140 on the back. In terms of strain on the transom, you can reduce this somewhat by using CMC transom savers inside the splashwell.
lhg	posted 10-28-2003 07:05 PM ET (US) The Yamaha 90 4-stroke is a relatively lightweight 370Lb. Is the Suzuki EFI worth the extra 50#, especially considering Yamaha has a much larger service network, which would also include Mercury's network for powerhead parts/service. The best set-up out there in MID-range 4-strokes, is the Mercury 115 EFI, @ 386lb., with 3.35# per EFI HP. Nothing else compares. Is a cheaper Suzuki price what's driving this interest in their 90 4-stroke? Otherwise it seems hard to justify such a purchase.
whaling away	posted 10-28-2003 08:03 PM ET (US) IHG, I think Yamaha products have always been first rate. I am still considering their engines. EFI is really what I'm after. I use my boat in the California Sierras where the elevation can be 5,000 ft. or higher. If normally aspirated engines are anything like automobile engines of the past, they perform terribly in higher altitudes. Performance differences are probably negligible at sea level. But, almost all autos have gone to EFI, why not boat motors.
Barney	posted 10-28-2003 08:09 PM ET (US) Then go for the EFI Mercury. My carbed Merc is great but that 115 EFI is "Superior". Jim
lhg	posted 10-28-2003 08:20 PM ET (US) What about a fuel injected Mercury 90 Optimax at 375#? And it's 3 star rated. There's not a 4-stroke 90 on the market that will run with it. These should be showing up as an option on new 170 Montauks pretty soon.
whaling away	posted 10-29-2003 12:39 AM ET (US) I've heard good and bad about the Optimax motors. That would be a consideration if they are reliable. Have the Optimax motors changed over the years? Thanks