Re-Power: SUPER SPORT 17, SUZUKI 90-HP - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Re-Power: SUPER SPORT 17, SUZUKI 90-HP

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Re-Power: SUPER SPORT 17, SUZUKI 90-HP

Bob of Glenburnie posted 12-15-2004 09:14 PM ET (US)
I would appreciate feedback on the 90-HP Suzuki four-stroke for use with a SUPER SPORT 17. Any other advice for re-powering would be apreciated as well.
David Jenkins posted 12-15-2004 10:57 PM ET (US)
Suzuki has a strong following here in North Carolina. They are reliable, quiet, and relatively inexpensive. The two that I have owned (the 70 and the 140) had good hole shots but their top speed was not especially fast compared to other engines rated at the same horse power. They are also heavy.
At 416 pounds, the 90 weighs more than the Suzuki 140.
The Suzuki 70 will move the boat nearly as fast as the 90 (high 30s) and it will give you better fuel economy (nearly 10 miles per gallon at 4200 RPM). And it costs less and weighs less. If you have to have the additional power and you want to stay with Suzuki, why not go for the 115 which weighs the same as the 90?
Hoop posted 12-15-2004 11:03 PM ET (US)
The 70-HP Suzuki four-stroke is great on the Montauk. I don't think a 90-HP four-stroke is worth the penalties of higher cost and more weight.
Hoop
JBCornwell posted 12-15-2004 11:06 PM ET (US)
Yes. What David said.
My DF70 would move my 1980 Montauk 38-39-MPH. My son's Montauk with a Merc 90 (two-stroke) would do 41-MPH.
Couldn't tell the difference without a GPS.
I think the Suzi/Johnson 70 is an excellent match for 17 Whalers. I think anything over 400 pounds is too heavy.
Red sky at night. . .
JB
Roarque posted 12-16-2004 01:11 AM ET (US)
Good to hear from you JB...
jimh posted 12-16-2004 03:54 AM ET (US)
Suzuki does have a strong following in North Carolina. When we visited there a couple of years ago, we say many Suzuki engines on the transoms of local boats.
The 70-HP Suzuki four-stroke was the only four-stroke with fuel injection for a while. Others have since caught up. The four cylinder design seems like a good size match for a 17-foot Whaler. Too often these days you see engines of behemoth proportions on the back of small boats. The Suzuki is of a proportionate size to the boat.
Suzuki has also been a leader in long warranty protection. Recently they had the warranty period up to six years. Their pricing has also been aggressive. I cannot think of a negative comment that I have heard about these engines.
I believe that Bombardier (BRP) is actually selling more Suzuki engines (with a Johnson brand and paint job) in North America than Suzuki itself. Their dealer system may be a good source of support for the engines.
Bob of Glenburnie posted 12-16-2004 08:43 AM ET (US)
As always many thanks for the prompt and very useful feedback.
A Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all. The boating season is only five months away here in the Adirondacks.
Bob
Disco Stu posted 12-16-2004 12:22 PM ET (US)
I have a Suzuki df70 on my smirkless 17' and it is has been a perfect match up. I'd also advice against the 90hp unless you plan on skiing or if you frequently have 6+ people on board. I can generally do about 32 MPH WOT, although I am running heavy and realistically the conditions ever alow me to comfortably go that fast anyway. Fuel consumption, low-noise, and above all reliability has been spectacular.
ryanwhaler posted 12-16-2004 02:33 PM ET (US)
What they said, and for those who say thats its too heavy, BS.
See:
http://photobucket.com/albums/v222/ryanwhaler/Album-1/?action=view¤t=DSCF0237.jpg
The splashwell drains are even above the waterline.
george nagy posted 12-16-2004 02:39 PM ET (US)
Looks like that is a 70hp in the linked photo. If I am not mistaken the others were talking about the 90hp being too heavy.
LHG posted 12-16-2004 02:40 PM ET (US)
As for EFI 4-strokes, the Suzuki 70HP weighs in at 360#, the Yamaha 90HP weighs in at 370#. Are we haggling over a lousy 10# here? For the 10#, the 90 is a no brainer if you ask me. Are Suzuki's a better engine than Yamaha. I doubt it. Are they sold cheaper, yes. Which will have the better re-sale, and be more serviceable?
ratherwhalering posted 12-16-2004 03:40 PM ET (US)
You should consider the Johnson 70, it is the same engine as the Suzuki 70, with white paint. Personally, I really like the look of the white on the whaler hull. Depending on what you currently have on the transom, you may save some $$ on install. Don't forget to look at the E-TEC 75, or even the 90, both of which are much lighter than a four stroke 70.
PFSQUAN posted 12-16-2004 04:45 PM ET (US)
Bob: a fellow I work with had a 17 Sport and put on the 90 Suzuki. He loved the motor. But he sold the boat because it sat too low in the water when he was in with his two teenagers. With the flat seats of the Sport, you can't really run the boat while standing, like aboard a Montauk. Great boat, great engine, wrong combination. Peter
jimh posted 12-16-2004 08:51 PM ET (US)
[Moved from another forum.]
JBCornwell posted 12-16-2004 10:21 PM ET (US)
Larry, I believe that the Yammy F90 4 stroke is carbureted and the "370#" is actually listed as 376#. The Suzi/Johnny DF70 is 356# ready to mount. We are talking about a lot of differences, not just "10#".
If Yamaha has introduced an EFI F90, I believe it will weigh a lot more than 376#.
The man asked about the Suzi DF90 EFI 4 stroke. That one is about 420#. We pretty much agree that it is too heavy for the 17.
I hope JimH doesn't object to my using industry-common nicknames for the brands.
Red sky at night. . .
JB
sport posted 12-16-2004 11:27 PM ET (US)
I have a new 90 Yamaha 2005 and it is EFI. Weight 369, not
installed on boat. Still in the box. Going on a 1979 17 foot sport.Hope to have it ready in about two months.
JBCornwell posted 12-17-2004 10:24 PM ET (US)
Thanks, Sport.
I wasn't up-to-date on the new Yamaha offerings. An EFI F90 at about 370# sounds very attractive.
To compare weight fairly, though, the 369# does not include oil or prop. The 356# for the DF70 does; it is 336# in the crate.
I have to agree with LHG that 10# (even 30#) is a trivial difference, leaving the question of proven record vs. new product.
Red sky at night. . .
JB
Moe posted 12-20-2004 01:24 PM ET (US)
I would like to see something that documents the new 358 lb published weight as "with oil and prop." That is certainly not standard practice in the industry.
--
Moe
The Judge posted 12-27-2004 02:18 PM ET (US)
I have 3 different weights for the Zuki 70 and 356 or so is with oil and prop according to my service manual, 336 dry.

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: Re-Power: SUPER SPORT 17, SUZUKI 90-HP
Bob of Glenburnie	posted 12-15-2004 09:14 PM ET (US) I would appreciate feedback on the 90-HP Suzuki four-stroke for use with a SUPER SPORT 17. Any other advice for re-powering would be apreciated as well.
David Jenkins	posted 12-15-2004 10:57 PM ET (US) Suzuki has a strong following here in North Carolina. They are reliable, quiet, and relatively inexpensive. The two that I have owned (the 70 and the 140) had good hole shots but their top speed was not especially fast compared to other engines rated at the same horse power. They are also heavy. At 416 pounds, the 90 weighs more than the Suzuki 140. The Suzuki 70 will move the boat nearly as fast as the 90 (high 30s) and it will give you better fuel economy (nearly 10 miles per gallon at 4200 RPM). And it costs less and weighs less. If you have to have the additional power and you want to stay with Suzuki, why not go for the 115 which weighs the same as the 90?
Hoop	posted 12-15-2004 11:03 PM ET (US) The 70-HP Suzuki four-stroke is great on the Montauk. I don't think a 90-HP four-stroke is worth the penalties of higher cost and more weight. Hoop
JBCornwell	posted 12-15-2004 11:06 PM ET (US) Yes. What David said. My DF70 would move my 1980 Montauk 38-39-MPH. My son's Montauk with a Merc 90 (two-stroke) would do 41-MPH. Couldn't tell the difference without a GPS. I think the Suzi/Johnson 70 is an excellent match for 17 Whalers. I think anything over 400 pounds is too heavy. Red sky at night. . . JB
Roarque	posted 12-16-2004 01:11 AM ET (US) Good to hear from you JB...
jimh	posted 12-16-2004 03:54 AM ET (US) Suzuki does have a strong following in North Carolina. When we visited there a couple of years ago, we say many Suzuki engines on the transoms of local boats. The 70-HP Suzuki four-stroke was the only four-stroke with fuel injection for a while. Others have since caught up. The four cylinder design seems like a good size match for a 17-foot Whaler. Too often these days you see engines of behemoth proportions on the back of small boats. The Suzuki is of a proportionate size to the boat. Suzuki has also been a leader in long warranty protection. Recently they had the warranty period up to six years. Their pricing has also been aggressive. I cannot think of a negative comment that I have heard about these engines. I believe that Bombardier (BRP) is actually selling more Suzuki engines (with a Johnson brand and paint job) in North America than Suzuki itself. Their dealer system may be a good source of support for the engines.
Bob of Glenburnie	posted 12-16-2004 08:43 AM ET (US) As always many thanks for the prompt and very useful feedback. A Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all. The boating season is only five months away here in the Adirondacks. Bob
Disco Stu	posted 12-16-2004 12:22 PM ET (US) I have a Suzuki df70 on my smirkless 17' and it is has been a perfect match up. I'd also advice against the 90hp unless you plan on skiing or if you frequently have 6+ people on board. I can generally do about 32 MPH WOT, although I am running heavy and realistically the conditions ever alow me to comfortably go that fast anyway. Fuel consumption, low-noise, and above all reliability has been spectacular.
ryanwhaler	posted 12-16-2004 02:33 PM ET (US) What they said, and for those who say thats its too heavy, BS. See: http://photobucket.com/albums/v222/ryanwhaler/Album-1/?action=view¤t=DSCF0237.jpg The splashwell drains are even above the waterline.
george nagy	posted 12-16-2004 02:39 PM ET (US) Looks like that is a 70hp in the linked photo. If I am not mistaken the others were talking about the 90hp being too heavy.
LHG	posted 12-16-2004 02:40 PM ET (US) As for EFI 4-strokes, the Suzuki 70HP weighs in at 360#, the Yamaha 90HP weighs in at 370#. Are we haggling over a lousy 10# here? For the 10#, the 90 is a no brainer if you ask me. Are Suzuki's a better engine than Yamaha. I doubt it. Are they sold cheaper, yes. Which will have the better re-sale, and be more serviceable?
ratherwhalering	posted 12-16-2004 03:40 PM ET (US) You should consider the Johnson 70, it is the same engine as the Suzuki 70, with white paint. Personally, I really like the look of the white on the whaler hull. Depending on what you currently have on the transom, you may save some $$ on install. Don't forget to look at the E-TEC 75, or even the 90, both of which are much lighter than a four stroke 70.
PFSQUAN	posted 12-16-2004 04:45 PM ET (US) Bob: a fellow I work with had a 17 Sport and put on the 90 Suzuki. He loved the motor. But he sold the boat because it sat too low in the water when he was in with his two teenagers. With the flat seats of the Sport, you can't really run the boat while standing, like aboard a Montauk. Great boat, great engine, wrong combination. Peter
jimh	posted 12-16-2004 08:51 PM ET (US) [Moved from another forum.]
JBCornwell	posted 12-16-2004 10:21 PM ET (US) Larry, I believe that the Yammy F90 4 stroke is carbureted and the "370#" is actually listed as 376#. The Suzi/Johnny DF70 is 356# ready to mount. We are talking about a lot of differences, not just "10#". If Yamaha has introduced an EFI F90, I believe it will weigh a lot more than 376#. The man asked about the Suzi DF90 EFI 4 stroke. That one is about 420#. We pretty much agree that it is too heavy for the 17. I hope JimH doesn't object to my using industry-common nicknames for the brands. Red sky at night. . . JB
sport	posted 12-16-2004 11:27 PM ET (US) I have a new 90 Yamaha 2005 and it is EFI. Weight 369, not installed on boat. Still in the box. Going on a 1979 17 foot sport.Hope to have it ready in about two months.
JBCornwell	posted 12-17-2004 10:24 PM ET (US) Thanks, Sport. I wasn't up-to-date on the new Yamaha offerings. An EFI F90 at about 370# sounds very attractive. To compare weight fairly, though, the 369# does not include oil or prop. The 356# for the DF70 does; it is 336# in the crate. I have to agree with LHG that 10# (even 30#) is a trivial difference, leaving the question of proven record vs. new product. Red sky at night. . . JB
Moe	posted 12-20-2004 01:24 PM ET (US) I would like to see something that documents the new 358 lb published weight as "with oil and prop." That is certainly not standard practice in the industry. -- Moe
The Judge	posted 12-27-2004 02:18 PM ET (US) I have 3 different weights for the Zuki 70 and 356 or so is with oil and prop according to my service manual, 336 dry.