E-TEC 90-HP on 16/17-foot Hull - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  E-TEC 90-HP on 16/17-foot Hull

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   E-TEC 90-HP on 16/17-foot Hull

andiamo posted 11-23-2004 09:26 AM ET (US)
I need to re-power my 1986 Montauk this winter. I am leaning towards the 90-HP E-TEC to replace the 1986 Evinrude 90-HP that gave up the ghost this past summer.
Do any members have any real world experience with the E-TEC 90 on a Boston Whaler 16/17 ft hull?
jimbob28 posted 11-23-2004 01:01 PM ET (US)
I have a new E-TEC 90 on my 1977 17 Montauk. The motor is a 2005 less than 2 months old. I have had the boat on three fishing trips, each about 65 miles of running across San Francisco Bay and about 15 miles one way in the Pacific Ocean for salmon fishing. Trolled using the motor also. 25 hours time on the motor.
The E-TEC replaced the original Johnson 70 hp.
The new engine is everything the ads claim. Smooth, quiet, very powerful. Starts on the first revolution.
I don't have an accurate way to measure fuel consumption but it seems to be getting about 7 to 8 mpg for the total trip including the trolling (sounds too good to be true and it may be). The run across the bay and in the open ocean was typically made between 3000 and 4000 rpm, most closer to 3000. It's just too rough to run much faster.
I am using the XD 100 oil and it appears to be running at about a 110/1 ratio. Again, not real accurate measurements.
Living in California and wanting to be able to run the boat on lakes, I felt that I must get a CARB approved engine. In comparing the four-strokes with the E-TEC, I was sold on the lighter weight as well as the ability to start the engine with a rope. I also liked the fact that there were no oil changes, valve adjustments, or belts to fool with. I was concerned about buying new, unproven technology from a company that may not be as strong as the competitors.
All that said, I believe that the weight difference is the trump card for the classic whalers and so the E-TEC is a best fit for these boats.
ratherwhalering posted 11-23-2004 03:38 PM ET (US)
I have a 2004 E-TEC 90 DSLSR (saltwater edition) on my 1986 Montauk. I love it. It sips fuel, uses hardly any oil, is quiet, powerful, and light weight. I have not smelled any smoke for six months now. The only drawback is that there are no "blind hole" mounts on the E-TEC's transom bracket. I mounted it using 4" CMC set back brackets, which I drilled to fit the old transom blind holes.
The performance is better than my old 1986 Johnson/Evinrude 90-HP V-4. I still have 2.5 years until my first dealer maintainance, and 6.5 years until my warranty expires. I noticed a slight rattle at low RPMs at first, but since then, the engine has settled in and just keeps getting better and better the more hours it has on it.
The boat sits higher on the water due to the lighter weight. Even with the jackplate, stainless steel propeller, and battery in the stern, the splashwell is dry. One of the nicest features is that the engine's lower end tilts a full 6" out of the water.
jimh posted 11-24-2004 09:40 AM ET (US)
When re-powering with the E-TEC, were any of the old controls re-used in the new rigging?
jimbob28 posted 11-24-2004 12:24 PM ET (US)
All new controls were used on my installation. The new controls have plugs that match the cables from the motor saving lots of time that would be spent splicing wires. The new tach had the built-in 4 trouble lights.
I reused the steering box (helm) and cable.
As ratherwhaler said, the blind mounting holes had not been drilled at the factory. My installing shop had these holes drilled and mounted the engine directly to the transom using the same holes as the original engine. He did not charge me for this as he had assumed that they would have been drilled and tapped at the factory. He gave the factory hell about this.
ratherwhalering posted 11-24-2004 03:48 PM ET (US)
Jim: My 1986 Johnson 90 did not have the "systems check" capability that was introduced by OMC in 1996. There were a few options, including adapters and a separate "systems check" cable; however the cost of a comprehensive new wiring harness was $85.00, about the same for the adapters. Connecting the new harness to the engine was easy, similar to "plug-and-play" on a computer. The console end of the harness is the same, and is plug-and-play for OMC instruments, discussed below, or allows for standard, non-OMC instruments and control box. This is where the splicing would begin, should you not have OMC instruments and an OMC control box, but the instructions for this procedure are pretty clear.
There are three basic options with the system check, with #1 being the most expensive, and decreasing in price:
1. A tachometer with incorporated system check.
2. A system check gauge.
3. A system check "black box" that sounds the alerts but has no lights.
I started with a Faria Tachometer and separate systems check gauge, but later changed to the OMC Tachometer with systems check after some minor sporadic readings. I added a water pressure gauge where the systems check gauge had previously been.
Standard OMC control cables and box are compatible, as are many other brands with adapter kits, however I replaced these since I am anal.
crabby posted 11-24-2004 03:56 PM ET (US)
Replaced my old '86 70hp with a leftover 2004 90hp E-TEC. Mounted two holes up on the transom (dealer did the mounting, plugged the old blind holes with silicone (which I will be repairing properly next spring along with some other repairs)). Used the old OMC binnacle mount but needed new ignition and tach.
Boat runs a lot differently than it did with the 70hp, not a heck of a lot faster but certainly more powerful and it rides way higher with much lighter steering effort with the motor set high on the transom.
If you search this forum for some of my other posts you will notice that I purchased a bit of a lemon (on my third powerhead since 1 Sept 04) but I have used nearly a full oil tank on the most recent powerhead now and so far it's still running. I'm currently running a 19inch SST prop but will shortly trial a 15inch Stiletto. I get up to about 42mph (gps) with the SST hauling just myself (175 pounds), the dog (90 pounds), and 12 gallons of gas. I may try the CMC setback plate as used by Ratherwhalering but this will be a project for next spring.
As others have noted, no oil aromas or smoke, although on cooler days a bit of exhaust condensation can be seen from the relief port (by cooler I mean down in the 30's or low 40's F). ON my old 70 I never would have noticed over the oil smoke. As far as cold weather operation is concerned, I am keeping my fingers crossed that it will run without issues in temps that sometimes drop into the teens here on LI. I'm using the xd100 oil; I may just add a little to the gas just in case when the temps start getting real low.
Overall it was a spendy purchase but probably a good choice in the long run over a 4 cylinder carbed 90 or 115 2 stroke.
crabby posted 11-24-2004 03:58 PM ET (US)
Forgot to mention that my boat is a 1985 Montauk purchased slightly used in August of '85.
ratherwhalering posted 11-24-2004 07:39 PM ET (US)
Oops, Mike is right, I had to buy a post-1996 OMC key switch too.
rumrunner posted 11-25-2004 10:32 AM ET (US)
What are you guys finding the cost of a 90 hp ~~E-tec~~ E-TEC to be vs. a comparable hp 4-stroke?
I was thinking about a 70 hp Yamaha 4 stroke (for a 1986 Montauk, currently powered with a 90hp Evinrude), but I'm starting to lean towards an ~~E-tec~~ E-TEC 90hp.
17 bodega posted 11-25-2004 11:22 AM ET (US)
326 lbs is pretty light compared to over 400 for a 90 four stroke. Does the ~~E-tec~~ E-TEC have similar "high thrust" specs to the lower unit of the yamaha? This engine seems to make a lot of sense when you consider weight, power and emissions. I saw this combo in Tomales this last year. Nice setup as I remember. I think the white engines look nice too.
Steve
seahorse posted 11-25-2004 01:49 PM ET (US)
The twin cylinder E-TECs use the high thrust gear ratio gearcase that is used on the commercial engines, and the 3 cylinder 75 and 90hp models use the 2:1 ration V4 gearcases, except for the XL shaft 90 which uses a V6 style gearcase.
jimh posted 11-26-2004 12:18 AM ET (US)
With the V-6 gearcase on the 90-HP 25-inch shaft engine, I guess you could use the same propellers on the engine as you could with the V-6 engines.
This pairing also has me thinking the mid-range E-TEC engines may not be far away. If they already have the V-6 lower unit paired to the 90-HP model, it should be easy to mate it to a 4-cylinder version with 115- to 135-HP.
I did hear a report of seeing what looked like at 135-HP E-TEC being tested on the water in Waukegan harbor a few weeks ago.
seahorse posted 11-26-2004 12:07 PM ET (US)
The upcoming E-TEC's in the above 115 and under 150hp ranges will be V4 blocks, similar to the 120-140 loopers.
sjohnson posted 11-27-2004 11:50 AM ET (US)
I've heard conflicting reports about the saltwater series E-TEC's. Some say there is no difference between the blue and white versions, some say there is, Evinrude actually is very unclear about this. They say there are stainless parts used in the saltwater series, while others say it's just the steering bar, etc.. Anyone have any definative answer to this? I like both, but partial to the blue, but will use it in saltwater primarily.
-SJohnson
crabby posted 11-28-2004 08:42 AM ET (US)
I have a 2004 90hp E-TEC originally manufactured in Jan04 (purchased 1 Sept04). When I purchased it I was unaware of a saltwater version so I got the "blue" one. This one is obviously NOT a saltwater version as the bolts that hold the exhaust cowling together are just plated and corroding already and the tiller arm is definitely not stainless as it is corroding where the dealer managed to chip chunks of paint off during the multiple uninstall/reinstall cycles this package has gone thru.
If you search through this forum you may eventually find (as I did too late) a posting indicating that all NEW 90hp E-TECs are built to "saltwater edition" specs; had I known this prior to my purchase I would have spent the extra few bucks and gone with the 2005 model year motor.
It almost looks like I have more stainless fasteners in my old 1986 70hp Evinrude than in this new one, at least in spots that have caught my eye... BTW, my usage is 100% saltwater and the boat lives either in (mostly) or just above the water year round.
Some further "experience": My initial propeller was an Evinrude 17inch pitch SST prop. After my first "service" experience I had the dealer bump up the pitch to 19inches. This dropped my top end rpm's to about 5200 while giving me about the same turn of speed (41-42mph gps). Just yesterday I hung a 15inch Stiletto prop on the motor based on another member's experience with the same setup (although he has a CMC setback/jack plate). I got back all my rpm's (and probably more, it was too choppy and windy out to really get a good feel as to whether the rev limiter (if it exists) is kicking in). Speed dropped a little and the prop doesn't seem to have the same bite that the 19 did (very evident in tight high speed turns running thru the marsh channels) but the boat still gets up and goes. I haven't had a chance to trial it with some weight on board (it was just the dog and myself out there yesterday for a few hours). I may need to extend my propeller collection and try out the 17inch Stiletto one of these days.
I am not certain where I saw this posted but someone mentioned reading the "soot" on the prop hub as an indicator of good motor tune/proper rpm's/loading of the motor; when I pulled the 19 off the shaft yesterday the thrust washer was sooty dirty. Once I give the boat a few hours with the smaller prop I'll pull it just to see if this has changed.

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: E-TEC 90-HP on 16/17-foot Hull
andiamo	posted 11-23-2004 09:26 AM ET (US) I need to re-power my 1986 Montauk this winter. I am leaning towards the 90-HP E-TEC to replace the 1986 Evinrude 90-HP that gave up the ghost this past summer. Do any members have any real world experience with the E-TEC 90 on a Boston Whaler 16/17 ft hull?
jimbob28	posted 11-23-2004 01:01 PM ET (US) I have a new E-TEC 90 on my 1977 17 Montauk. The motor is a 2005 less than 2 months old. I have had the boat on three fishing trips, each about 65 miles of running across San Francisco Bay and about 15 miles one way in the Pacific Ocean for salmon fishing. Trolled using the motor also. 25 hours time on the motor. The E-TEC replaced the original Johnson 70 hp. The new engine is everything the ads claim. Smooth, quiet, very powerful. Starts on the first revolution. I don't have an accurate way to measure fuel consumption but it seems to be getting about 7 to 8 mpg for the total trip including the trolling (sounds too good to be true and it may be). The run across the bay and in the open ocean was typically made between 3000 and 4000 rpm, most closer to 3000. It's just too rough to run much faster. I am using the XD 100 oil and it appears to be running at about a 110/1 ratio. Again, not real accurate measurements. Living in California and wanting to be able to run the boat on lakes, I felt that I must get a CARB approved engine. In comparing the four-strokes with the E-TEC, I was sold on the lighter weight as well as the ability to start the engine with a rope. I also liked the fact that there were no oil changes, valve adjustments, or belts to fool with. I was concerned about buying new, unproven technology from a company that may not be as strong as the competitors. All that said, I believe that the weight difference is the trump card for the classic whalers and so the E-TEC is a best fit for these boats.
ratherwhalering	posted 11-23-2004 03:38 PM ET (US) I have a 2004 E-TEC 90 DSLSR (saltwater edition) on my 1986 Montauk. I love it. It sips fuel, uses hardly any oil, is quiet, powerful, and light weight. I have not smelled any smoke for six months now. The only drawback is that there are no "blind hole" mounts on the E-TEC's transom bracket. I mounted it using 4" CMC set back brackets, which I drilled to fit the old transom blind holes. The performance is better than my old 1986 Johnson/Evinrude 90-HP V-4. I still have 2.5 years until my first dealer maintainance, and 6.5 years until my warranty expires. I noticed a slight rattle at low RPMs at first, but since then, the engine has settled in and just keeps getting better and better the more hours it has on it. The boat sits higher on the water due to the lighter weight. Even with the jackplate, stainless steel propeller, and battery in the stern, the splashwell is dry. One of the nicest features is that the engine's lower end tilts a full 6" out of the water.
jimh	posted 11-24-2004 09:40 AM ET (US) When re-powering with the E-TEC, were any of the old controls re-used in the new rigging?
jimbob28	posted 11-24-2004 12:24 PM ET (US) All new controls were used on my installation. The new controls have plugs that match the cables from the motor saving lots of time that would be spent splicing wires. The new tach had the built-in 4 trouble lights. I reused the steering box (helm) and cable. As ratherwhaler said, the blind mounting holes had not been drilled at the factory. My installing shop had these holes drilled and mounted the engine directly to the transom using the same holes as the original engine. He did not charge me for this as he had assumed that they would have been drilled and tapped at the factory. He gave the factory hell about this.
ratherwhalering	posted 11-24-2004 03:48 PM ET (US) Jim: My 1986 Johnson 90 did not have the "systems check" capability that was introduced by OMC in 1996. There were a few options, including adapters and a separate "systems check" cable; however the cost of a comprehensive new wiring harness was $85.00, about the same for the adapters. Connecting the new harness to the engine was easy, similar to "plug-and-play" on a computer. The console end of the harness is the same, and is plug-and-play for OMC instruments, discussed below, or allows for standard, non-OMC instruments and control box. This is where the splicing would begin, should you not have OMC instruments and an OMC control box, but the instructions for this procedure are pretty clear. There are three basic options with the system check, with #1 being the most expensive, and decreasing in price: 1. A tachometer with incorporated system check. 2. A system check gauge. 3. A system check "black box" that sounds the alerts but has no lights. I started with a Faria Tachometer and separate systems check gauge, but later changed to the OMC Tachometer with systems check after some minor sporadic readings. I added a water pressure gauge where the systems check gauge had previously been. Standard OMC control cables and box are compatible, as are many other brands with adapter kits, however I replaced these since I am anal.
crabby	posted 11-24-2004 03:56 PM ET (US) Replaced my old '86 70hp with a leftover 2004 90hp E-TEC. Mounted two holes up on the transom (dealer did the mounting, plugged the old blind holes with silicone (which I will be repairing properly next spring along with some other repairs)). Used the old OMC binnacle mount but needed new ignition and tach. Boat runs a lot differently than it did with the 70hp, not a heck of a lot faster but certainly more powerful and it rides way higher with much lighter steering effort with the motor set high on the transom. If you search this forum for some of my other posts you will notice that I purchased a bit of a lemon (on my third powerhead since 1 Sept 04) but I have used nearly a full oil tank on the most recent powerhead now and so far it's still running. I'm currently running a 19inch SST prop but will shortly trial a 15inch Stiletto. I get up to about 42mph (gps) with the SST hauling just myself (175 pounds), the dog (90 pounds), and 12 gallons of gas. I may try the CMC setback plate as used by Ratherwhalering but this will be a project for next spring. As others have noted, no oil aromas or smoke, although on cooler days a bit of exhaust condensation can be seen from the relief port (by cooler I mean down in the 30's or low 40's F). ON my old 70 I never would have noticed over the oil smoke. As far as cold weather operation is concerned, I am keeping my fingers crossed that it will run without issues in temps that sometimes drop into the teens here on LI. I'm using the xd100 oil; I may just add a little to the gas just in case when the temps start getting real low. Overall it was a spendy purchase but probably a good choice in the long run over a 4 cylinder carbed 90 or 115 2 stroke.
crabby	posted 11-24-2004 03:58 PM ET (US) Forgot to mention that my boat is a 1985 Montauk purchased slightly used in August of '85.
ratherwhalering	posted 11-24-2004 07:39 PM ET (US) Oops, Mike is right, I had to buy a post-1996 OMC key switch too.
rumrunner	posted 11-25-2004 10:32 AM ET (US) What are you guys finding the cost of a 90 hp ~~E-tec~~ E-TEC to be vs. a comparable hp 4-stroke? I was thinking about a 70 hp Yamaha 4 stroke (for a 1986 Montauk, currently powered with a 90hp Evinrude), but I'm starting to lean towards an ~~E-tec~~ E-TEC 90hp.
17 bodega	posted 11-25-2004 11:22 AM ET (US) 326 lbs is pretty light compared to over 400 for a 90 four stroke. Does the ~~E-tec~~ E-TEC have similar "high thrust" specs to the lower unit of the yamaha? This engine seems to make a lot of sense when you consider weight, power and emissions. I saw this combo in Tomales this last year. Nice setup as I remember. I think the white engines look nice too. Steve
seahorse	posted 11-25-2004 01:49 PM ET (US) The twin cylinder E-TECs use the high thrust gear ratio gearcase that is used on the commercial engines, and the 3 cylinder 75 and 90hp models use the 2:1 ration V4 gearcases, except for the XL shaft 90 which uses a V6 style gearcase.
jimh	posted 11-26-2004 12:18 AM ET (US) With the V-6 gearcase on the 90-HP 25-inch shaft engine, I guess you could use the same propellers on the engine as you could with the V-6 engines. This pairing also has me thinking the mid-range E-TEC engines may not be far away. If they already have the V-6 lower unit paired to the 90-HP model, it should be easy to mate it to a 4-cylinder version with 115- to 135-HP. I did hear a report of seeing what looked like at 135-HP E-TEC being tested on the water in Waukegan harbor a few weeks ago.
seahorse	posted 11-26-2004 12:07 PM ET (US) The upcoming E-TEC's in the above 115 and under 150hp ranges will be V4 blocks, similar to the 120-140 loopers.
sjohnson	posted 11-27-2004 11:50 AM ET (US) I've heard conflicting reports about the saltwater series E-TEC's. Some say there is no difference between the blue and white versions, some say there is, Evinrude actually is very unclear about this. They say there are stainless parts used in the saltwater series, while others say it's just the steering bar, etc.. Anyone have any definative answer to this? I like both, but partial to the blue, but will use it in saltwater primarily. -SJohnson
crabby	posted 11-28-2004 08:42 AM ET (US) I have a 2004 90hp E-TEC originally manufactured in Jan04 (purchased 1 Sept04). When I purchased it I was unaware of a saltwater version so I got the "blue" one. This one is obviously NOT a saltwater version as the bolts that hold the exhaust cowling together are just plated and corroding already and the tiller arm is definitely not stainless as it is corroding where the dealer managed to chip chunks of paint off during the multiple uninstall/reinstall cycles this package has gone thru. If you search through this forum you may eventually find (as I did too late) a posting indicating that all NEW 90hp E-TECs are built to "saltwater edition" specs; had I known this prior to my purchase I would have spent the extra few bucks and gone with the 2005 model year motor. It almost looks like I have more stainless fasteners in my old 1986 70hp Evinrude than in this new one, at least in spots that have caught my eye... BTW, my usage is 100% saltwater and the boat lives either in (mostly) or just above the water year round. Some further "experience": My initial propeller was an Evinrude 17inch pitch SST prop. After my first "service" experience I had the dealer bump up the pitch to 19inches. This dropped my top end rpm's to about 5200 while giving me about the same turn of speed (41-42mph gps). Just yesterday I hung a 15inch Stiletto prop on the motor based on another member's experience with the same setup (although he has a CMC setback/jack plate). I got back all my rpm's (and probably more, it was too choppy and windy out to really get a good feel as to whether the rev limiter (if it exists) is kicking in). Speed dropped a little and the prop doesn't seem to have the same bite that the 19 did (very evident in tight high speed turns running thru the marsh channels) but the boat still gets up and goes. I haven't had a chance to trial it with some weight on board (it was just the dog and myself out there yesterday for a few hours). I may need to extend my propeller collection and try out the 17inch Stiletto one of these days. I am not certain where I saw this posted but someone mentioned reading the "soot" on the prop hub as an indicator of good motor tune/proper rpm's/loading of the motor; when I pulled the 19 off the shaft yesterday the thrust washer was sooty dirty. Once I give the boat a few hours with the smaller prop I'll pull it just to see if this has changed.