posted 12-02-2009 11:47 AM ET (US)        

--$13,000 for Boat, Motor, Trailer

--$9,000 E-TEC 115 H.O. rigged but I have to mount the motor then bring it back to an authorized dealer for start-up (Over power liability the dealer can't mount it)

--$3,500 credit for the Yamaha-Mercury 90-HP.

posted 12-03-2009 09:10 AM ET (US)            

That is a good deal.

I think it would help the reference section if you purchase and repower.

Photos and performance numbers would be good.

posted 12-09-2009 06:12 PM ET (US)         

What would I do? For the 9K price of that E-tec, I could put a 135 Optimax on her from one the Bass Pro Shop's deals ($8100). Now we're talking V-6 power.

But just as I am with Merc, if you must have E-tec, I can certainly understand that too.

Hydraulic steering not needed for any of this. Just use a "Steersman" grease nut on the ram output side and you'll be fine with the 4.2 No-feedback.

posted 12-09-2009 07:35 PM ET (US)            

Price aside, lets compare the two 115's -

Mercury Optimax Pro 115 XS:
Max RPM (WOT) 5000-5750
Cylinders inline 3
Displacement (CID/cc) 92.96/1526
Bore & Stroke (in) 3.63 x 3.00
Gear Ratio 2.07:1
Dry Weight (lbs.) 375

Evinrude E-Tec 115 H.O.:
Max RPM (WOT)5500-6000
Cylinders V4
Displacement (CID/cc) 105.40/1727
Bore & Stroke (in) 3.601 x 2.588
Gear Ratio 2.00:1
Dry Weight (lbs.) 390

Any conculsions we can draw from the spec'S?

The Opti is giving up 201CC's to the E-Tec, that's 11.5% less displacement. I would think that would translate into very difference in torque curves for each engine. Plus the V4's shorter stroke could mean the E-Tec spinning up faster into it's ideal power band. Looks like the E-Tec is making it's highest HP father up in the RPM band. Slightly different gear ratio's. I think the V4 would be a smoother running engine the the inline 3. What your thoughts? Has anyone seem the HP and torgue charts mapped out for each of these engines?

posted 12-09-2009 08:44 PM ET (US)            

I like three cylinder engines in the 70-90hp range displacing less cubes than the 115hp Mercury. But very few of them I have owned could match the idle quality and smoothness running of a V-4. There truly is no replacement for displacement, the E-tec wins there.

Brian

posted 12-13-2009 04:48 PM ET (US)            

rides.webshots.com/video/3004712040101354590UinMPp
rides.webshots.com/video/3066520300101354590gwteby

posted 12-13-2009 09:56 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

The Opti is giving up 201CC's to the E-Tec, that's 11.5% less displacement. I would think that would translate into very difference in torque curves for each engine.

---

lol...I made the same point about the 90 HP Merc Four Stroke vs the 90 HP E-TEC and was told that any such comparisons are merely speculation and no useful inference can come from that.

To the OP, Congrats on your boat and repower--I will 'speculate' the 115 E-TEC will make about 45-47 mph top end.

posted 12-13-2009 11:18 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

The oil tank will be mounted in the center console; I am thinking of designing a remote oil fill.

---

posted 12-14-2009 07:17 AM ET (US)            

The difference with the argument you made is that you were comparing a 4-stroke to a 2-stroke not a 2-stroke to a 2-stroke. 4-strokes need more displacement to produce the same power curve of an equivalent HP 2-stroke. Some data suggests the 4-stroke needs as much as 25 to 30 percent more displacement. A recent confirmation of that can be found in Yamaha's new V6 4-stroke products.

posted 12-14-2009 11:48 AM ET (US)            

I think Peter's prediction is reasonable. Since we have no record of anybody putting an E-TEC 115 H.O. on a Whaler, we have to make some assumptions.

posted 12-14-2009 01:07 PM ET (US)         

Boston Whaler also reported that the 170 ran 43MPH with the 2-stroke 90, and 46 with the Verado block 4-stoke 90, conservatively installed. You don't have to believe them either. So that tells me the Verado 90 is quite powerful, in spite of its weight.

I'm still waiting for some sucker to remove a Verado 90 and put a 90 E-tec on instead hoping for better performance, and then to hear about the E-tec 90 performance and fuel economy on a 170. I think Ridge runner is smart to go way up in HP if installing Evinrude. A 127HP engine should run well on a 170 if the insurance company doesn't mind. That engine exceeds the 10% rule?

posted 12-14-2009 02:23 PM ET (US)            

Yes, you've been "told" lots of things over the years. You shouldn't believe everything you're told.

Actually, Larry, you're the one with the botched figures. Whaler reports the Montauk 170 does 42.8 MPH with the 90 HP "Veradito" FourStroke:

http://www.whaler.com/site_media/Performance_Data/170MT_EnginePerf.pdf

posted 12-14-2009 10:34 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

The difference with the argument you made is that you were comparing a 4-stroke to a 2-stroke not a 2-stroke to a 2-stroke. 4-strokes need more displacement to produce the same power curve of an equivalent HP 2-stroke. Some data suggests the 4-stroke needs as much as 25 to 30 percent more displacement. A recent confirmation of that can be found in Yamaha's new V6 4-stroke products.

---

As Jimh as said so many times, does that make 115 hp stronger on one 115 hp engine than another?

I'm no Mercury zealot. I don't particularly care for their 90 HP four stroke engine, and I own one. It's huge, heavy, and black. But I have researched every perf test that Evinrude has released (probably 20?) and have found TWO that push ANY hull over 40 mph with an E-TEC 90 hp.

posted 12-14-2009 11:21 PM ET (US)            

posted 08-14-2002 08:25 AM ET (US)
-----------------------------------------------
OK IT'S TIME TO COME OUT OF THE CLOSET. I changed motors on my Montauk 170 and installed a Mercury 115HP EFI. Now I am sure I will get some flack from forum members about being over the HP rating however I was not happy with my 90 four stroke (underpowered). THIS IS THE RIGHT MOTOR FOR THIS BOAT. It runs so smooth with the EFI. The max for the boat WOT is 50.3 MPH on the GPS. The torque is wonderful .....can pull two skiers with no problem and great for tubing. The best is the idol and low speed running....very smooth. Maybe when Mercury starting make more of the 115's they will raise the Max HP Rating on the Montauk 170 to 115HP. IT'S THE PERFECT MOTOR FOR THIS NEW HEAVIER MONTAUK 170.

The insurance is no problem, have it insured with Progressive and the 115HP motor is written into the policy as over HP rating.

Well there you have it I'm out of the closet.

Tabasco
-----------------------------------------------

posted 12-15-2009 07:16 AM ET (US)            

I don't know whether Jim has said that or not but the simple fact of the matter is that displacement matters and not all 115 HP motors are the same.

Go back and carefully reread RR's post that you quoted. I'll reproduce it here.

"The Opti is giving up 201CC's to the E-Tec, that's 11.5% less displacement. I would think that would translate into very difference in torque curves for each engine."

Your question above appears to confuse peak HP with full operating range torque or power curves. RR was speaking to power curves (available power at any particular RPM) not peak HP. I guarantee you that if you replaced your 1.6 or 1.7 L 90 HP Mercury FourStroke with a 1.7L 90 HP Evinrude V4 DFI on the transom of your boat there would be a blatantly obvious difference in throttle response, yet the boat would probably go about the same top speed. The difference in throttle response is the due to the difference in power/torque curves.

RR wants a motor that is able to do deep water single ski starts with 240lb skier. The low and mid-range torque capability of the 1.7L V4 DFI 2-stroke is really the best tool for that job.

posted 12-15-2009 07:17 AM ET (US)            

I’m a big believer in your can’t beat displacement on a normally aspired engine. Just as I stated above that the E-Tec 115’s have more displacement then the Mercury Opti 115. The reverse is true about the E-Tec 90, 1296cc’s compared to the Opti 90 at 1526cc’s. The E-Tec is gives up 230cc’s that’s 15% less displacement! Also against the Mercury 90hp FOURSTROKE, at 1732cc’s is down by 436cc’s that’s a huge 25% less displacement.
Also if you look at where these engine stand in the HP range for their displacements size you can draw some conclusions. The E-Tec 90 is the highest HP marketed on that 1296cc displacement (75hp & 90hp) the Mercury Opti’s 1526cc displacement (75hp, 90hp & 115hp) and Mercury FOURSTROKE 1732cc displacement (75hp, 90hp, 115hp & 125hp).

I would think that same HP; from a “detuned” block of the same displacement compared to an “enhanced” performance block with less displacement would give very different real life experiences. I believe SCJoe statement about the E-Tec 90 compared to the Mercury FOURSTROKE 90; that Merc block is at the low end of it’s marketed HP and the E-Tec is at the high end…..

posted 12-15-2009 02:17 PM ET (US)         

But when you look at the V-6 2-stroke DFI's, it falls apart, with HP for HP, the Merc Opti's have smaller displacement than the E-tecs, but run at least the same in performance, or mostly better, and generally get 10% better fuel economy. Just ask the bass and performance crowd. In spite of 3.4 cubes, Evinrude makes no engine that will run with the 3.2 liter Merc 300XS, supposedly a 310HP engine according to Mercury dyno tests.

Evinrude needs 3.3 liters to come even close to the performance of a 3.0 liter Optimax in the 225-250 HP ranges. Now I would agree that part of this comes from the "V" confuguration, where the big block Evinrudes use an old throwback OMC 90 degree block from the mid '80's, whereas the Merc 3.0 liter 60 degree block dates from 1994, a newer, more fuel efficient modern design. The Orbital Optimax system generally gets better fuel economy across the board than the E-tec system, because of the air injectors.

One thing for sure is that the 115HO will not get as good fuel economy as the smaller 3 cylnder Optimax 115 ProXS, and generally the HO's get poorer economy than the regular E-tecs. But fuel economy is not important to me with my choice of outboards, so I don't see why it should be for you either.

posted 12-20-2009 09:42 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

"...the 3.2 liter Merc 300XS [is] supposedly a 310HP engine according to Mercury dyno tests."

---

posted 01-23-2010 11:54 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Too bad you did not put a Mercury 115-HP 2+2 engine on that boat.

---

posted 01-24-2010 11:20 AM ET (US)            

The simple introduction of the color red on the engine could, and does I would argue, cause aesthetic conflicts on this particular boat that has no other red detail of substance. If my graphics and canvas are blue or black, this creates an unnecessary complexity and point of attention to an otherwise complementary component, the white and black detailed engine.

Furthermore, the graphic itself obscures what could be described as the void, a blank space where the eye can rest, or relax, in what is otherwise a compact and detailed assemblage of many parts and shapes. This blank space that the amateurish and frustrated graphic designers at BRP opted to fill served a critical purpose, setting off and balancing the complexity of the whole.

Finally, lets address the lowest hanging fruit, the shape and message of the graphic itself. There seems to be the suggestion of a checkered flag in the subdued gray grid, which could argue for speed and success. But really, those red scythes, or swoops, hard edged and shadowed on the pointy end, fadeaway on the blunt, are the real "stars" of this piece. They point in different directions, both forward and backward, up and down, sort of following the elegantly detailed and shaped cowling joint trim. Man, I have no idea what message these send other than the designers used just enough of them to fill the entire space.

Really, these graphics rank right in front of the flag themed batch they sent out on an earlier motor. They are indisputably bad by every objective measure.

Otherwise, it looks like a great repower project with clean rigging and right-sized horsepower for the 170. Congratulations Ridge Runner!

posted 01-24-2010 11:25 AM ET (US)            

The red color is contained in the shadow of the word EVINRUDE. I believe this is a consistent graphic element in the logotype for EVINRUDE.

posted 01-24-2010 12:02 PM ET (US)            

I'll put the Advantage up against the Viper any day of the week.

The Viper has a street price of about $350.

posted 01-25-2010 12:56 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

I need strong holeshot to pull a large skier in deep water starts.

---

I cannot imagine that an E-TEC 115 H.O. is going to have any difficulty doing this on a 170 Montauk.

posted 01-26-2010 12:09 AM ET (US)            

5700 rpm
19 pitch prop
2.0 gear ratio
49.3 mph
If the above is correct then the slip is 3.86 for your prop.

Seems to be a pretty efficient prop.

My 2004 170 Montauk that I just ran near WOT was:

5800 rpm
20 pitch
44 mph
6.67 slip

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v665/warrent/ 2010%20Golden%20Gate%20Winter/?action=view¤t=VID00067.flv

I was assuming that if I bolted on a 115 hp Mercury and got a 22 pitch prop:

6200 rpm
2.33 ratio
7 slip
51.74 MPH ESTIMATED.

Have fun going fast in your 170 Montauk, I love it.

Warren

posted 01-26-2010 01:21 AM ET (US)            

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v665/warrent/Montauk170/?action=view& current=2007170Montaukperformance.jpg

Tony was on board and we hit 44 mph running up stream when I dropped him off.

Maybe I need an engine upgrade? :-O

Warren

posted 01-27-2010 02:56 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

No mystery there. The Mercury uses a lower (numerically higher) 2.33:1 gear ratio.

---

Right.

And 25 more horsepower, and I don't know how much more torque. Seemingly, the larger, stronger engine could turn the same size prop to at least it's WOT, as does the Mercury 90.

posted 01-27-2010 11:18 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

You're comparing different propellers. A 19" Stiletto will yield about the same RPM as a 21" Mercury propeller.

I have no doubt the E-TEC 115 H.O. could easily turn a Mercury 21" or even a 22" prop up to its recommended WOT RPM range...if you could get a Mercury propeller to fit, which it won't.

---

quote:

---

What is a 21" prop?

---

Really?

What is a 19" Stiletto [sic]?

I'll restate, because I'm certain you had no idea what I was asking:

So a Mercury 21" pitch propeller isn't really a 21" pitch marine engine propeller?

posted 01-28-2010 07:26 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

So a Mercury 21" pitch propeller isn't really a 21" pitch marine engine propeller?

To what standard of measurable propeller pitch does it not apply, that a 19" Stiletto[sic] does?

---

Each propeller manufacturer/seller uses their own methods for designating pitch of their propellers. There is no industry standard for designating pitch of an outboard motor propeller. This is why Manufacturer A's 19 inch pitch (as designated by Manufacturer A) propeller may provide the same performance as Manufacturer' B's 21 inch pitch (as designated by Manufacturer B) propeller and we've come to learn this over the years through much propeller testing.

To look at this alternatively, if we used the Stiletto manufacturer's pitch designation as the "standard" then the answer to the first question is YES, the "Mercury 21" pitch" (whatever propeller that is) is not really a 21 inch pitch marine engine propeller. Rather, its a 19 inch pitch marine engine propeller. If we use Mercury's pitch designation as the "standard", then the nominally designated 19 inch pitch Stilleto is really a 21 inch pitch propeller.

By the way, a 2.33:1 gear ratio provides 16 percent greater mechanical advantage than a 2:1 gear ratio. I would not characterize a 16 percent greater mechanical advantage as "slight". A difference of 1 to 2 percent might qualify as "slight". An example of a slight gear ratio handicap can be found in the case where Mercury uses a 1.87:1 gear ratio for some 2-stroke outboards whereas Evinrude used a 1.85:1 or 1.86:1 for its version of the same 2-stroke outboards. The 0.01:1 or 0.02:1 is slight.

posted 01-28-2010 10:18 AM ET (US)            

To answer your question, yes a Mercury 21" pitch propeller is really a 21" pitch propeller....and a Stiletto 19" pitch propeller is really a 19" pitch propeller.

But if I have said this once, I have said it a thousand times: There is far more to propeller design than just pitch...or diameter...or number of blades.

Propellers are not generic pieces of hardware like a wood screw from the hardware store. Different designs of propellers will perform differently for a hundred different reasons.

As to manufacturer's pitch designations, there is a belief that some manufacturers somehow cheat by misstating the pitch of their propellers. I suppose that could be true but I doubt it.

All props have a stated pitch but no modern outboard propeller has a constant pitch, the pitch varies for every single point on the blade. There are in infinite number of different pitches on every propeller blade. So what is one to do?

While I have never seen it codified anywhere, manufacturers use an average of pitch measure at several differs points on the blade and round that number, and I do not hink their methods vary by much.

One might expect, that in the case of Stiletto propeller, that if one were to take a Stiletto prop and props from other manufacturers to the some prop shop and have them measured for pitch using the same criteria, the Stiletto would be shown to have a pitch far less that what it says on it.

posted 01-28-2010 10:59 AM ET (US)            

The props that they had my hub configuration for where: the Power Tech OST3 (I was told is about the same as OMC SST), RED3 (I was told similar to a Stiletto) and RBX4.

Environmental:
Air Temp 38 degrees (Felt a lot colder!)
Location was the mouth of the Raritan River on just before slack low tide about 10:50am.
Engine was raised one more hole to the third hole.
~20 gallons of fuel
2 people on board
All stats measured on the Evinrude I-Command gauges with GPS module

OST3
13 ¼ x 21
WOT: 6150rpm
Top Speed: 48.6mph

This prop would blow out even with moderate trim up and didn’t perform well in hard turns at all. 21” pitch is the max Power Tech makes in this prop, I felt like a 23” would have performed better. In full acceleration the motor could break this prop lose with the new mounting height.

RED3
13 ¼ x 21
WOT: 5500rpm
Top Speed: 51.8mph

This prop had very good grip and had a good mid-range cruise, I wouldn’t say the motor struggled to spin it up from a dead stop but it took a noticeable amount of more time. A 19” pitch would have been the right choice here; but it did provide the highest top end speed. (I have to say over 50 is too fast for my liking, things start to get a little squirrelly).

RBX4
13 ¼ x 17
WOT: 5800rpm
Top Speed: 44.5mph

This is a 4 blade 5/16” ported prop. This prop was my favorite for the way I plan to use the boat. The acceleration was awesome, pulled like a mule, it made the boat feel like it was riding on rails and that you are always in control. This prop held plane at considerably less [engine speed] than the other props.

posted 01-28-2010 11:38 AM ET (US)            

Back in the middle of December I predicted this boat would go 51 MPH.

posted 01-28-2010 12:28 PM ET (US)            

RED3
13 ¼ x 21
WOT: 5500rpm
Top Speed: 51.8mph
gear ratio 2.0
prop slip calculated at 5.28%

RBX4
13 ¼ x 17
WOT: 5800rpm
Top Speed: 44.5mph
gear ratio 2.0
prop slip calculated at 4.68%

Prop slip measures the effeciency of the hull moving through the water at WOT. I don't know of any 170 Montauk that has ever measured a prop slip under 6% (90 hp motors).

So, does the extra horsepower of the 115 HO E-TEC outboard cause the hull to move more efficiently through the water at WOT?

Thanks,

Warren

posted 01-28-2010 12:43 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Prop slip measures the efficiency of the hull moving through the water at WOT.

---

NO, No, no. That is exactly the misconception I am trying to squash.

quote:

---

I don't know of any 170 Montauk that has ever measured a prop slip under 6% (90 hp motors).

---

posted 01-28-2010 12:49 PM ET (US)            

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/007067.html

"...there is a great misconception out there that somehow less slip is better. This is a completely false idea.

There is also a misconception that propeller slip is the same thing as efficiency. This is also completely wrong.

If a boat is faster (or more fuel efficient, or accelerates better, or handles better) with a prop that has a high calculated slip, then so be it. It is the better propeller for the application.

The one and ONLY place where less slip is better and indicates greater efficiency, is when the SAME propeller is tested on the SAME boat with different adjustments made to the rigging. And this is only true if everything else is held constant.

posted 01-28-2010 01:09 PM ET (US)            

Keeping all hardware constant (prop, gear ratio), you try get your prop slip reduced (more efficient) by changing rpm or top speed (raising motor, less weigh on board, etc.)

Warren

posted 01-28-2010 01:41 PM ET (US)            

That 16 percent drop on top speed when going to the RBX4 probably also represents a 16 percent decrease in fuel economy too.

posted 01-28-2010 05:46 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

SC Joe -- Yes, I do understand what you are asking, but you have missed my point completely.

To answer your question, yes a Mercury 21" pitch propeller is really a 21" pitch propeller....and a Stiletto 19" pitch propeller is really a 19" pitch propeller.

But if I have said this once, I have said it a thousand times: There is far more to propeller design than just pitch...or diameter...or number of blades.

Propellers are not generic pieces of hardware like a wood screw from the hardware store. Different designs of propellers will perform differently for a hundred different reasons.

As to manufacturer's pitch designations, there is a belief that some manufacturers somehow cheat by misstating the pitch of their propellers. I suppose that could be true but I doubt it.

All props have a stated pitch but no modern outboard propeller has a constant pitch, the pitch varies for every single point on the blade. There are in infinite number of different pitches on every propeller blade. So what is one to do?

While I have never seen it codified anywhere, manufacturers use an average of pitch measure at several differs points on the blade and round that number, and I do not hink their methods vary by much.

One might expect, that in the case of Stiletto propeller, that if one were to take a Stiletto prop and props from other manufacturers to the some prop shop and have them measured for pitch using the same criteria, the Stiletto would be shown to have a pitch far less that what it says on it.

But that is NOT the case. Actual measurements of Stiletto propellers has shown the pitch to measure like any other propeller.

---

You have gone in a complete circle by saying, 1) yes both props are what they are stated to be, and 2) the pitch from the stiletto is shown to measure like any other pitched prop.

posted 01-28-2010 05:57 PM ET (US)            

Read more carefully. I said the Stiletto will perform like some other propellers with two more inches of pitch.

But I also said that the Stiletto will measure like some other propellers.

If you do not understand that distinction, start at the top of the thread and reread.

I do NOT think that Stiletto propellers are, in general, superior to other propellers, nor do I think they are inferior. The stand among several manufacturers of excellent props.

I think that the Stiletto Advantage model in particular has many very good applications among modest sized Boston Whalers, the boat being discussed here among them.

posted 10-18-2010 01:13 PM ET (US)            

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWXiHQ0pYoo

posted 10-18-2010 06:25 PM ET (US)            

RPM 5,400
MPH 55
gear ratio 2:1
pitch 21 inch
130 HP

SLIP -2.43