Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Honda 90 on 17' Montauk?

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

Author Topic:   Honda 90 on 17' Montauk?
Ramrod posted 02-07-2004 04:40 PM ET (US)   Profile for Ramrod   Send Email to Ramrod  
I am repowering my 72 17 Montauk. I would like to put a Honda 90 on it. Does anyone know if it is too much weight.
When the motor is trimmed up is the foot out of the water?
Thanks very much.
Ramrod posted 02-07-2004 05:03 PM ET (US)     Profile for Ramrod  Send Email to Ramrod     
Also I did look in the archives and saw the comments on weight. I am still interested to know if anybody has one on their Montauk.
Thanks
unsinkable_2000 posted 02-07-2004 06:40 PM ET (US)     Profile for unsinkable_2000  Send Email to unsinkable_2000     
I would be a bit concerned with the weight. That is a lot of money to spend if it doesn't work out. I am repowering a 65 Eastport and have gone with a 90 E-tec. Though the Honda is a nice engine it is heavy. However the only actual real account I know of was I had discussed this option with a marina in Ontario, Canada and the Honda dealer had installed the same setup and the marina was not happy at all with the set-up. The marina owner said that after they installed the 90 on the whaler it "listed" in the water as looking a little aft-heavy. Sea trial on the boat showed a bit of drag but boat would perform well only after it planed out. Both the marina and owner were not happy and switched to a 90 OMC. That is just one experience, who knows, the boat itself could have been a bit heavy due to water-weight, but I would research it a bit more.
tarbaby posted 02-07-2004 08:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for tarbaby  Send Email to tarbaby     
A friend of mine repowered his Mauntauk with a Honda 90. Not a good setup in my opinion. Too heavy. I spent many hours in the boat and the performance was just not there. He was not happy with it either. Backing up poured water into the splash well. A Johnson 90 is the best motor for that boat.

Shay

Perry posted 02-07-2004 11:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for Perry  Send Email to Perry     
Any 90 HP 4 stroke will probably be too heavy. The Honda 90 is lighter than the Mercury 90 Suzuki 90 and about the same as a Yamaha 90 but all are heavy. Your best bet would probably be a Suzuki/Johnson 70 HP 4 stroke or a 2 stroke.
JayR posted 02-08-2004 08:03 AM ET (US)     Profile for JayR  Send Email to JayR     
Go with the 90 2 stroke. It is a match made in heaven. Performance and extreme fuel economy.

It's not worth the trouble for a little less noise.

Certainly, the cost is more than a consideration for so few benefits.

Add up the benefits of that Honda and then ask yourself if is worth the cost and chance.....

David Jenkins posted 02-08-2004 09:13 AM ET (US)     Profile for David Jenkins  Send Email to David Jenkins     
When I switched from a 2-stroke to a 4-stroke I more than doubled my fuel economy. Powered with the Evinrude (Suzuki) DF 70, my 15' now gets 10 miles per gallon at cruising speed (3800 to 4600 RPM). I don't get better fuel economy when I am pulling the boat on a trailer! And the quietness is fantastic. And no smoke. Give one a test drive before you decide.
jmorgan40 posted 02-08-2004 09:14 AM ET (US)     Profile for jmorgan40  Send Email to jmorgan40     
I would look at the Evinrude E-Tec. Perfect match for the 17. Light with most of the benefits of a 4-stroke and all the performance of a 2-stroke. They also have a great rebate offer right know or you can take a 7 year warrenty. Here is the link. I just priced one at about 7,800.00 with my existing controls and prop.
http://www.evinrude.com/docs/100/0_US.htm
Mumbo Jumbo posted 02-09-2004 12:45 AM ET (US)     Profile for Mumbo Jumbo  Send Email to Mumbo Jumbo     
The Suziki 70 4 stroke weighs 335. The E-Tec is unproven.

The Yamaha 90 2 stroke weighs 261 lbs, is a dependable, proven engine and perfectly matched to the Montauk. It would be fine performer.

First Thought posted 02-09-2004 01:25 PM ET (US)     Profile for First Thought  Send Email to First Thought     
A good friend put a Honda 90 on his Montauk in August. The boat was stern heavy and did not have the performance it did with the old Yamaha 90. He was so unhappy he sold the motor in November and is now running a new Yamaha 90 and he is thrilled.
Ramrod posted 02-09-2004 04:51 PM ET (US)     Profile for Ramrod  Send Email to Ramrod     
Thanks for the input. I am leaning toward a Yamaha 90 HPDI.
Will let you know.
Bill
bloller posted 02-09-2004 09:29 PM ET (US)     Profile for bloller  Send Email to bloller     
Unless Yamaha just came out with some new motors, they dont make a direct injection 90. I believe those motors start out at 150HP but never the less the Yamaha 90 would be the perfect engine. Ive got a 70 yamaha and am pleased with that but if you are leaning toward a light four stroke or direct injection outboard, it sounds like the Johnson/Suzuki 70 is your best bet.
JayR posted 02-10-2004 06:40 AM ET (US)     Profile for JayR  Send Email to JayR     
90 2 stroke is the best! Cheap, long lived and the gas consumption is already miniscule.... Add on top of that the tried and true technology and you have the winner...
Bigshot posted 02-10-2004 11:03 AM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
90 2 strokes burn more than double that of my 70 Evinzuki 4 stroke. I have owned them all and HIGHLY recommend the Johnson/Suzuki 70hp if you can live with 39mph and burn only 2.5gph at cruise(my 90 burned 6).
jimh posted 02-10-2004 04:14 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
The HONDA engines are fine engines, just expensive and heavy, as are most of these modern engines.
Landlocked posted 02-11-2004 11:16 AM ET (US)     Profile for Landlocked  Send Email to Landlocked     
I re-powered my montauk with a 2002 Merc 90 2-stroke. Could not possibly be happier. Top end low 40's. Fuel consumption 4.5 mpg based on several tests. Its also very quiet, starts easily, and though it does smoke a little at idle - its not unnacceptible. Even to my wife who suffers from asthma.

I strongly suggest you look at the 2-stroke. The newer engines are not anything like those made in the past that gave 2strokes such a bad name.

Ll.

JayR posted 02-12-2004 12:31 PM ET (US)     Profile for JayR  Send Email to JayR     
I had a 70 HP on my hull when I bought her. She did OK with just myself in the boat. BUT>>>> when I had a friend or 2 along... she was a dog.

70% of max HP on this hull is cutting too far back.

ryanwhaler posted 02-12-2004 08:36 PM ET (US)     Profile for ryanwhaler  Send Email to ryanwhaler     
Landlocked,

What did it cost to purchase and mount your Merc?

I'm looking into repowering options for a Montauk (smerkless one).

Haven't decided weather it will be a two stroke or a four.
My mind has been made up that if I go two it will be a 90 hp Mercury, four stroke would be a 70 hp 'Rude.

Problem with the four strokes is, as I see it, they are two heavy. You are pretty much limited to 70 hp. I saw a 167 hull with Honda 90s, it was ass heavy, looks eazy to take a wave over the stern.

Landlocked posted 02-13-2004 10:01 AM ET (US)     Profile for Landlocked  Send Email to Landlocked     
Ryan,

I'm ashamed to say I don't remember the exact costs for the motor and install - guess I'm aging. It was in the 5 grand range with install. If you do a search you should be able to find a thread from a couple of years ago where the member's here helped me with my decision. I'll try and and do it for you later if I get a little time.

I purchased the motor at Bass Pro who by far had the best price at the time.

I certainly see the advantages of having a 4-stroke, but for me they didn't justify the costs. Two-strokes have been around for a long time, are proven technolog. I'm happy with my decision.

Ll.

Landlocked posted 02-13-2004 10:02 AM ET (US)     Profile for Landlocked  Send Email to Landlocked     
Ryan,

I'm ashamed to say I don't remember the exact costs for the motor and install - guess I'm aging. It was in the 5 grand range with install. If you do a search you should be able to find a thread from a couple of years ago where the member's here helped me with my decision. I'll try and and do it for you later if I get a little time.

I purchased the motor at Bass Pro who by far had the best price at the time.

I certainly see the advantages of having a 4-stroke, but for me they didn't justify the costs. Two-strokes have been around for a long time, are proven technolog. I'm happy with my decision.

Ll.

Landlocked posted 02-13-2004 10:18 AM ET (US)     Profile for Landlocked  Send Email to Landlocked     
Ryan,

I paid 5,025 + install + prop. Total under 6 K.

SS17 posted 03-22-2004 10:29 AM ET (US)     Profile for SS17    
I just picked up my 1988 17 Super Sport Limited with a 2002 Honda 90. I've read all the posts about the weight too. I ran it for several hours on the ICW at Boca on Saturday and was happy with the performance.

Yes, it sits low in the rear, especially with 18 gallons of fuel and the battery in the rear. The Super Sport probably sits even lower than a Montauk since everything is aft, plus it has a rear deck which adds weight as well. Even so, it planed fine and has great top end right under 40.

I jumped a lot of wakes from passing yachts and it did fine. The weight in stern makes the bow light if you trim up, and it does porpoise if trimmed up at slow cruising speeds. At manatee zone (slowwww) speeds it runs bow high, but not at an extreme angle that blocks vison while seated.

I had my GPS and believe I had a slow cruise around 18, so tubing with the pylon should work fine. If not, I'll add a doel fin or like.

The best part of course, was when I checked the tank after running 35 miles in the ICW. This and the quietness will probably make the extra weight worth while.

Of course I bought the package used and didn't pay the big up front difference in cost, so if I were re-powering I would probably go for a 2 stroke. But I think it makes a pretty nice package with the Honda 90.

Legobusier posted 03-23-2004 05:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for Legobusier  Send Email to Legobusier     
I have the exact setup, '98 Honda 90 on a '87 Montauk - just picked it up this weekend. After reading many hours of posts on this board about it being too heavy, etc. I was a bit concerned about its performance. I can tell you I am no longer concerned.

We took it out (my maiden voyage) with 3 adults and 3 kids (probably 700 pounds total), 3/4 tank of gas (24 gallon tank) in about 2' seas - pretty rough. Hole shot was very fast and got up to 38 mph by gps @ 6000 rpm. I was VERY impressed with it - especially in those conditions & with that much weight. I suspect top speed will be 42 or so with just me and a nice clean day - plenty fast.

It is an imposing (size) engine, and is certainly heavy, but I don't think the boat sits too far down in the stearn - I'm sure some here might disagree. Here's some pics if you're interested:

www.covingtonhendrix.com/Montauk

Fuel tank is under the seat and battery is under the console, so that helps with the weight. I have no doubt the performance of a 2 stroke 90 would be better, but the 4 stroke has it's advantages despite it's weight. I think it's a nice match.

SS17 posted 03-23-2004 05:30 PM ET (US)     Profile for SS17    
Legob,

I see your profile is VAb and that is a Fla boat. Did you do the trip this past weekend like I did to pick it up?
I'm in richmond and drove to Naples and back to get mine.

I, like you, read all the second-hand horror stories about the Honda 90 on a 17. I am going to move the battery up under the port console to move some weight forward, but I am not really concerned with the weight now. It performed quite well.

I don't have bottom paint yet so I'll use your pics as a guide for the stern water line. It doesn't look that much higher than the others I've seen.

I am going to add and automatic bilge pump since I think the static height will be about 4 inches deep on the deck.

Nice Montauk you have. A little TLC and it will be quite a nice boat.

Legobusier posted 03-23-2004 08:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for Legobusier  Send Email to Legobusier     
Yeah, drove down on Friday, picked up the boat in Saint James City (not too far from Naples) where my dad lives on Saturday, drove to Vero Beach on Sunday (stayed w/my brother) and drove back on Monday....2000 miles door to door. Pretty brutal, but worth it (I think). I'm still recovering. The boat's in good shape - badly in need of a wax job, but solid. Engine is real nice...got to try to convince the wife to polish it up and we'll be set.

I think the paint line looks normal too - perhaps a tad higher than some, but not much and you can see from the pics it's higher than it needs to be.

It's too bad there isn't a used Whaler market around here - I know a lot of people in this area trekking out to FL and beyond to get them. I sure would have preferred not to make that drive - although it wasn't too bad I guess. :)

SS17 posted 03-23-2004 09:07 PM ET (US)     Profile for SS17    
We didn't miss each other by much. I drove 900 to WPalm Beach Thursday night, to naples and back to WPB on Saturday, back to Richmond on Monday. About 2100 round trip. When you figure the cost of fuel and time I didn't save much if anything, but I got a nice boat and got in a few hours of south florida boating as a bonus.

I'll probably take the boat back next winter for vacation, but I don't feel like driving anywhere far anytime soon.

Legobusier posted 03-24-2004 08:16 AM ET (US)     Profile for Legobusier  Send Email to Legobusier     
Interesting we took the same track on the same weekend to get (esentially) the same rig.

Email me....I have a question for you. The email in your profile doesn't work.
Chris

Legobusier posted 03-27-2004 05:12 PM ET (US)     Profile for Legobusier  Send Email to Legobusier     
By the way, the engine does trim well clear of the water - by about 4" in full up position.
LHG posted 03-27-2004 05:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for LHG    
Mumbo Jumbo and Perry: My 2004 Suzuki catalog, picked up at the recent Miami boat show, shows the Suzuki 60 and 70 HP engines are 359# dry (what does the oil weight in one of these?). For the 60 in particular, this is no lightweight engine, weighing a full 111# more than the Merc/Yamaha 60's! Either they have been previously mis-representing the weight for the 70 for marketing purposes or they have recently added some weight to the engines. The old "break 'em in to the high weight gradually" concept. The 2003 catalog shows no weights at all. I think Johnson has been more honest in always reporting the weight of this 70 at 356#. It appears the 10# difference in weight between this engine and the Honda or Yamaha 75/90's is insignificant on a 17' Whaler, or even compared to the 386# Mercury 115 EFI's.
Perry posted 03-27-2004 11:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for Perry  Send Email to Perry     
lhg, I always thought the weight of the DF70 was 335#. The Suzuki web site lists the weight at 335 lbs. I don't know why they have it as 359 lbs on their catalog. Maybe you are right and it is an example of misrepresentation.

http://suzukimarine.com/sr04/df7060/features_and_specs.php

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.