posted 01-13-2005 07:59 AM ET (US)            

I am hoping to purchase an E-TEC in the 135 to 150 HP range when they are made available.

posted 01-13-2005 10:40 AM ET (US)            

Do you mean the engine was mounted as high as possible, or do you really mean as low as possibe?

posted 01-13-2005 07:45 PM ET (US)            

I think if the E-TEC engines are like the FICHT ones, after the first 10 hours, the computer cuts down on oil and changes some of the engine timing. I noticed on mine, a lot more torque and a lot less oil usage after that time. I would bet they did something similar in the E-TEC.

My FICHT also says that there is no breakin after the first hour or so other than they asked you to vary the engine speed. But there really is a breakin and it is controlled by the computer.

posted 01-15-2005 08:57 AM ET (US)            

REH: Having had a Revenge 22 for several years and talking 2-strokes only here, I think a properly powered Revenge is one with a minimum of 200 HP coming from a minimum of 3.0L of displacement. This will ensure that the RPM of the motor(s) falls right into the middle of the efficient zone (usually 3000 to 4000 RPM) at the comfortable cruise speed (25 to 30 MPH).

As much as I like what I see in and read about the E-TEC 90, I think a pair of E-TEC 90s on a Revenge 22 will probably be a little light on power for it. The combined displacement of these is the same as BRP's 60 degree V6 135, 150 and 175 HP motors. While I think a 175 is also on the light side for Revenge 22 power, you'd probably be better off with the single 175 rather than the two 90s because there would be less gearcase drag to overcome with essentially the same horsepower pushing the transom. Also, you'd be getting 175 HP from 425 lbs on the transom instead 180 HP from approximately 650 lbs on the transom.

posted 01-15-2005 06:01 PM ET (US)            

LHG,

posted 01-17-2005 02:50 PM ET (US)            

I agree with crabby.

The weight of the E-TEC 75 Hp and the 90 Hp are the same. 320 lbs. Why not get more HP for the same weight.

Here is the ratio on lbs to HP..

E-Tec 75 = 4.26 lb/HP
http://www.evinrude.com/en-US/E-Tec/2005/MID-SIZED/75

E-Tec 90 = 3.55 lb/HP
http://www.evinrude.com/en-US/E-Tec/2005/SALTWATER/90.IN-LINE.3/

Also, in the 90 Hp model, you have a choice of two colors.. Dark Blue or White. In the 75 Hp model, you can only get Dark Blue. (If this matters to you). Also, when you go to the E-TEC 90-HP page, you need to click on the E90DSL model to view the 20 inch shaft version.

http://www.evinrude.com/en-US/E-Tec/2005/SALTWATER/90.IN-LINE.3/

posted 01-21-2005 12:59 AM ET (US)            

I also have a Montauk with a original (1987) 70 Johnson and am considering the E-TEC 90.

You said that the new motor is no signicantly faster. Hmmm

What has been your top speed with the etec?

With my 70-HP at WOT I can at best get an honest speed in the
low 30s.

At 5,000 rpms on a perfectly flat greasy day I would say I get around an honest 30 mph.

Also, what do you think your gas mileage is on average?
With my 70 I get around 20 to 23 miles on my 6 gallon tank before it needs to be swithed. So, I figure that I burn about 5 gallons for something in the low 20 mile range.

Do you think that the E-TEC has twice as much gas mileage?

They advertise around 8-MPG.

posted 01-21-2005 12:38 PM ET (US)            

I also have a 90 E-TEC on a 1977 Montauk replacing a 1977 70 Hp. Johnson. With my old 70, the boat would run about 30 mph at wot. I only have about 25 hours on the new engine and have not had smooth conditions to see really how fast it will go but I have had it up to 38 mph in a short burst on water too rough to really get it trimmed out. (These are gps measurements) Fuel milage is good but not twice as good as the old 70. It is probably about a 30% improvement. You have to remember that you are also increasing the horsepower considerably since the old engine was rated at the power head.

The E-TEC is everything that Evenrude claims. It is very quiet even at cruising speeds and it has incredible acceleration. You better be holding on to something when you push the throttle in.

posted 01-21-2005 12:48 PM ET (US)            

Thanks for the info. Did you mount the motor yourself/
Were you able to use the same mounting holes?

What brand and size prop did you decide on?

Do you have any idea of the hours that you put on the old 70?

posted 01-21-2005 01:43 PM ET (US)            

Evinrude's E-TEC website has a couple of peformance reports for the E-TEC 90. The reports suggest a maximum fuel consumption rate less than 8.5 GPH at WOT. At 42 MPH, as has been reported here for a 90 E-TEC powered Montauk, that works out to almost 5 MPG at WOT! At slow trolling speeds, Evinrude's data is showing mileage greater than 13 MPG! This is where a direct injected motor really shines compared to the conventional 2-stroke.

Based on the Evinrude data given for a boat heavier than the Montauk, I think you can expect a cruise efficiency in the neighborhood of at least 6 MPG for the Montauk. With 20 gallons on board, that motor should give the classic Montauk a range of better than 90 miles without exhausting all the fuel in the tank.

posted 01-21-2005 04:19 PM ET (US)            

5mpg at WOT isn't much better than what the old 70does already. Doesnt sound right.

When trolling for tuna at around 6 -7 mph what will the etec get? Maybe that is where the extra power will really come in on the gas savings.

posted 01-21-2005 08:34 PM ET (US)            

I purchased my engine from a local dealer and he did the installation. It was mounted directly on the transom using the same holes that the old 70 had used. The dealer had thought that the blind holes were still provided but he was mistaken, so he had them drilled out and used that spiral stainless steel material that is used to improvise threads and lag bolts. The prop is a SS, 3-bladed Evenrude Viper 13.?? dia. X 17" pitch. The prop was chosen using a comparable sized aluminum prop and making sure that at wot that it ran within the operating rpm range. I am not overly concerned with maximum possible speed as I seldom operate in water where I can run that fast and I don’t need to win races. I wanted more power for the large Pacific Ocean swells and for a few years from now when my grand kids want to water ski. The 70 was somewhat under powered for both. I figure that the 70 had over 3000 hours on it and was still running strong but it was seeping a lot of salt out of the edges of gaskets and I was worried about its reliability for running off shore.

posted 01-21-2005 11:33 PM ET (US)            

You must have taken care of your motor well to get 3000 hours out of it. I was guessing that right around 2000 hours would be the average life of the motors. Good to hear that since I only have 900 hours on my 70. Even though I fish a lot we don't put many hours in per day when mooching for salmon or fishing for rockcod. The few days that weather allows for tuna and for tuna to be close enough to get to are rather limited. Guess I will have to wait a bit to justify the need to repower. At this point I am leaning more toward trading up to the 18 foot outrage.

After going through the evinrude site and reading their test reports, it seems like the best average mileage for the 90 on a 1000 pound boat is between 6 and 7 mpg while cruising at 3500 to 4000 rpms at a speed around 25 mph.

For my old 70 it would be more like somewhere between 4 and 5
mpg at 4000 rpms going around 20 miles per hour.

posted 01-24-2005 03:18 PM ET (US)            

Great info.

How much did it cost for the controls and wiring?
Did you order it at the same time as the motor?

What motor did you replace? How many hours did you get out of the old motor?

What was the total costs to replace everything plus the charges to do the settings?

posted 01-24-2005 06:20 PM ET (US)            

So, the total costs would be around 7500.00 Start to finish
for parts and setup by the dealer and 18 hours of your own sweat equity?

posted 01-25-2005 10:48 AM ET (US)            

I had a 1986 Evinrude 70 on the Montauk; this motor was rated at the prop and ran to 6000rpm's (it has more displacement than older three cylinder motors and a lower gear ratio). Swinging a 17inch SST prop I used to get up to 38 mph in favorable conditions (that was by gps when the motor was still running strong).

With the new 90 I have had it up to 42 mph with a 19 inch SST prop, 41 with a 17 inch SST, and 41 with a 15 inch Stiletto. The 19 has a lot of bite but I did notice some "sootiness" in the hub when I swapped it out for the 15. The 19 would only rev to 5200 or so rpm's, while the 15 will go to max rated. The 17 would also max out but I traded for the 19 hoping to get a few more MPH but it didn't work out that way and I got a great deal on the 15 so that is what I am running right now.

As for fuel consumption, well, due to some initial problems I had with the 90 e-tec I never got to do a lot of my regular fishing runs this past fall so it's a little hard to say but I would estimate that where I used to need 9 gallons of gas to make a run to the inlet and back, I would guess that I was using about 6 or 7 at the most. This is a 40 minute run in both directions, actually a little less than 40 minutes with the new motor. Nowadays I have just been running around the bay out to the marshes or over to the ocean beaches mostly at WOT so I know I am burning more fuel than I would if I were trying to be thrifty and backing down on the revs.

If you search the various threads on these forums you will see some of my posts detailing my setup but in simple terms the motor is mounted directly on the transom two holes up. Total cost including NYS taxes, SST prop, no extra warrantee, no controls, and dealer installation was about $9200 (I purchased this motor at the end of the summer when I was panicking that my 70 was giving up the ghost; I know I really paid a premium but I could not stand the thought of missing the looming fall season...). I could have handled rigging the motor myself but was a bit put off by the computer setup stuff and figured it was better to establish a full relationship with a good service shop/dealer rather than walking in cold to someone and saying "hey can you help me with my new motor I just bought elsewhere...". (When I put the '86 70 on my boat I did all the rigging and never really had any problems with it that I needed a dealer for throughout most of it's life, and it is still going to go on something else this summer, maybe my old houseboat!) In this particular set of circumstances I did the right thing for once in my life as I did need warrantee work.

posted 01-31-2005 03:13 PM ET (US)            

Now I think the 90 e-tec is a great engine and an awesome choice for the 17'...might be a tad shy on hp for an outrage 17 though being they weigh about 400lbs more. The 320lbs is awesome.

posted 01-31-2005 04:10 PM ET (US)            

I see the 70's going for about $5k(w/prop) if ya shop. Last year a dealer posted that he had a few leftovers for $4700. Most here are paying like $7k for the 90 and that was what raised the question. Maybe Suzuki was really dumping?

posted 02-02-2005 06:39 PM ET (US)            

Suzuki 70HP costs $67.00 per horsie.
Evinride E90DSL costs $70.00 per horsepower, unless Evinrude offers the $4.00 per HP rebate (again), in which case the Evinrude is less, per horsepower unit, than the Suzuki. E-TEC owners are paying an overage of $270.00 for the additional 20HP. This difference could easily be made up in the first three years of dealer maintainance required by Suzuki.