170 Montauk with E-TEC 90 - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  170 Montauk with E-TEC 90

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   170 Montauk with E-TEC 90

SC Joe posted 03-14-2010 12:10 PM ET (US)
What are everyone's thoughts on the WOT speed of a 170 Montauk if an E-TEC 90-HP were installed in place of the Mercury 90-HP FOURSTROKE? I have participated in several conversations here where, due to the displacement and gearing differences between the Mercury and the Evinrude, I did not think the 90-HP E-TEC would be able to go as fast at WOT as the Mercury 90-HP FOURSTROKE on the Montauk 170. Since I don't know of anyone who has done this conversion, the top end question is only supposition. But with Evinrude's current purchase incentives, I am thinking seriously (again) of changing the engine out, as I have lost confidence in my Mercury 90-HP FOURSTROKE.
As for placing a larger engine on the Montauk 170, I do not want a 115-HP E-TEC due to potential liability concerns at resale, nor a separate oil tank (no room for one), and most importantly, the price difference between the 90-HP E-TEC and 115-HP E-TEC is prohibitive.
Of the 12 performance tests of the 90-HP that Evinrude posts on their web site, only four of these reported a top speed of 40-MPH or greater. Three of those were very light (<1000-lbs) inflatables. The fourth was also a very light aluminum boat that reported a top speed of 40.8-MPH. My current 90-HP Mercury FOURSTROKE will push the 1,400-lbs (dry weight without engine) to about 45-MPH. Is there any reason to think the 90 E-TEC can do the same? I am not looking for a performance increase, but I also do not want a performance decrease.
Tom W Clark posted 03-14-2010 12:14 PM ET (US)
With the E-TEC 90 you will see better acceleration and a slightly reduced top speed.
WT posted 03-14-2010 12:27 PM ET (US)
I would guess that you spend less than 2% of you time over 40 mph or at your top end range of the outboard.
I would think the ETEC would give more torque (two-cycle motor) at the bottom end range so that a performance increase might be more noticeable here.
I would also check out check out Suzuki, Yamaha and Honda 90's. Suzuki 90 4 cycle is only 21 pounds heavier than the ETEC 90. The Honda Marine website is down, so maybe more models being introduced?
Good luck,
Warren
jimh posted 03-14-2010 01:09 PM ET (US)
With the E-TEC replacing the Mercury FOURSTROKE, you will lose about two feet of cowling height.
WT posted 03-14-2010 02:08 PM ET (US)
You'd lose about 79 pounds off the transom too.
Warren
SJUAE posted 03-14-2010 02:50 PM ET (US)
I'm sure Tom will point you in the right direction but also ensure your dealer has some props for you to try as you will also not find any reference data for this.
I had the same problem with my 210 Outrage and my ETEC 200HO and took a while to get sorted due to lack of availablity here.
I see marginal difference of top speed considering the BW test data with a 200 Verado had light loading and no options, where my boat has them all (except freshwater tank) including T-Top with outrigers and a 100lb kicker.
Regards
Steve
SC Joe posted 03-14-2010 03:36 PM ET (US)
I guess prop selection was my main concern--and if it would be possible to get 44 mph out of it. That would be my target.
SJUAE posted 03-14-2010 04:16 PM ET (US)
Getting the set-up (transom height) and hitting the right rev's at WOT is first then you can choose a go faster or mid range cruise prop to suit your preferences.
Regards
Steve
rtk posted 03-14-2010 07:28 PM ET (US)
What type of boating do you do that going 44 miles per hour as opposed to 40 miles per hour is important?
To be honest with you for the amount of time I have spent in a 17 foot boat it was very hard to tell the difference between 40 and 44 miles per hour when I was running wide open throttle. Without a GPS reading I think anyone would be hard pressed to accurately say if they were going 40 or 44 miles per hour.
I'm not busting your chops. I know you have been through hell with your boat. But I do know that I rarely run my 1997 21 Outrage at 50 miles per hour. Most of the time if I ran 40 miles per hour it would be punishing to me and the boat given the prevailing coastal conditions that I boat in most of the time. Comfortable performance in the 25-35 mile per hour range is how I run the boat 95% of the time.
When I was considering an engine for my boat I was trying to put as much horsepower on it as possible. I went with a 250 horsepower instead of a 225 horsepower.
It had a 225 horsepower on it. General performance was more than adequate. I went with a 250 horsepower. I realized a top speed difference of about 3 miles per hour. I realized no difference in planing the boat, accelleration, etc. I spent an extra $1000 dollars for the 250 horsepower engine.
The 225 horsepower engine probaly would have been a bit more efficient at cruising speed than the 250 horsepower.
Long story short I am extremely happy with the engine that I have- I absolutely love it after 5 years. I have left out the brand intentionally because it is not relevant. If I were to do it again I would go with the 225 horsepower because the minimal gain in top speed is not important to me.
If you like the E-TEC 90 I would go with that and forget about the top speed. Based on comments made by others it seems as though the E-TEC 90 would perform real well where it matters- low end "grunt".
Big picture to me would be to get a great engine on that great boat of yours and go out and enjoy yourself!
Best of luck to you Joe.
Rich

SC Joe posted 03-14-2010 07:46 PM ET (US)
Rich-I agree with all of your post. I probably wouldn't notice a difference, practical or otherwise, between 40 mph and 44 mph. 44 is the goal simply because that is what the boat will go now.
What is the general consensus here what the top speed with the 90 E-TEC would be? IMO, 35 mph would be too much of a top end loss to consider the 90 E-TEC.
WT posted 03-14-2010 08:40 PM ET (US)
If you search etec 90 montauk you'll find a few that have dialed in their boats and have hit 42 mph with a classic 17 foot hull and E-TEC 90.
So my guess of top speed of a heavier 170 Montauk with 90 E-TEC would be mid to high 30's.
You have to remember that your 170 Montauk and mine are stock. If we played with raising our motors 2 holes up and tried different props we might get another 2 mph on the top end.
number9 posted 03-15-2010 04:15 AM ET (US)
This discussion sounds like a good reason to consider the Mercury 90hp 4-stroke when re-powering. It's too bad Joe must have gotten a lemon and the problems haven't been taken care of and is considering other options.
erik selis posted 03-15-2010 06:37 AM ET (US)
I agree with what Tom W Clark said: better acceleration and slightly lower top speed.
Erik
jimh posted 03-15-2010 07:52 AM ET (US)
Moved from another discussion area.
ktm3ten posted 03-15-2010 08:52 AM ET (US)
I remembered an old discussion with performance data from an etec 115HO. Performance data from that discussion was:
OST3
13 ¼ x 21
WOT: 6150rpm
Top Speed: 48.6mph
gear ratio 2.0
prop slip calculated at 20.53%
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%

I'm sure some math wiz here can run a calculation of what the reduced horsepower of the 90HP version of the etec will translate to. If anyone wants to reference the previous discussion, it can be found here:
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/007035.html
I'm very interested in this discussion as well. I love the petite size of the etec 90 compared to the monster that sits back there now, I'd also like to know this info. However, I live on a large inland lake in the midwest and I spend about 30-40% of my time at top speed because I'm surrounded by bass boats doing 55-60mph and i have to just to stay out of the way! Another consideration is what would the stability of a Montauk 170 feel like at speed? I feel like at 42mph, mine is pretty squirrely, anyone else feel that? Love to hear others thoughts.
Tom W Clark posted 03-15-2010 09:40 AM ET (US)
For an E-TEC 90 on a Montauk 170 you would want to mount the motor on the third set of holes (two holes up) and use a 13-1/4" x 15" Stiletto Advantage 4.25 propeller.
SC Joe posted 03-15-2010 10:31 AM ET (US)
Tom--as you were just about dead on with your speed prediction on the 115 HO E-TEC/Montauk 170 repower..what are your thoughts here with the prop you mentioned?
SC Joe posted 03-15-2010 10:34 AM ET (US)

quote:
I'm very interested in this discussion as well. I love the petite size of the etec 90 compared to the monster that sits back there now, I'd also like to know this info. However, I live on a large inland lake in the midwest and I spend about 30-40% of my time at top speed because I'm surrounded by bass boats doing 55-60mph and i have to just to stay out of the way! Another consideration is what would the stability of a Montauk 170 feel like at speed? I feel like at 42mph, mine is pretty squirrely, anyone else feel that? Love to hear others thoughts.
Reduced size of the e-tec is definitely a plus over the Mercury. I saw a newer 170 last summer about 300 yards in front of me. From that distance, I couldn't identify what type of boat it was from the back, but i did comment to my wife how stupid the huge motor looked on it. She laughed when we caught up to it and the boat was identical to mine.
As for stability..I'm not sure what you mean? My boat feels fine at 42.
MosslandingJoe posted 03-15-2010 09:05 PM ET (US)
At speeds over 40mph I do not feel stable on my 170. And I always remember Jay at the Outboard Motor Shop where I bought her, tell me on my test ride that"You can't sink'em but ya can capsize'em".Fortunately top end is not a number I find while boating in Monterey Bay, where I avg. low 20's(less after one o'clock).I enjoy taking my time and not just 'cuz I think it's safer but why hurry in my Whaler? It's almost uncool, after all, it's touted as the safest not the fastest. The Etec off the back would look great....best to all , Joe
ktm3ten posted 03-15-2010 09:23 PM ET (US)
Maybe it's not the speed, but at 1000 ft above sea level, I have to really trim out my 90HP veradito to get to 40 (or 43mph which is my top speed). When the boat is trimmed out that far, I'm often on glass smooth water, and it just feels very skittery. I can't describe it, but feels almost like a big gust of wind could spin the boat around and i'd be goin for a ride!
WT posted 03-15-2010 10:11 PM ET (US)
Don't do a speed run on glass smooth water, you boat sticks to the water. You'll get more speed on water with a little chop.
WT posted 03-15-2010 10:27 PM ET (US)
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v665/warrent/ 2010%20Golden%20Gate%20Winter/?action=view¤t=VID00067.flv
The weather that day was mid-40's and overcast. I was solo with ski gloves on and had a hard time with the throttle and camcorder. I wasn't planning on doing a speed run that day but oh well, boys will be boys.
44 mph up and down the river on an ugly day. I hope to average 46-47 mph next week after my motor gets raised 2 holds and I cover my prop vent holes.
Warren
johnhenry posted 03-16-2010 08:59 AM ET (US)
I don't think the 170 gets that skittery at WOT. I guess comparing to the classic 13 that I repowered with a Suzuki 40hp 4stroke, the Montauk is downright stable.
Ridge Runner posted 03-16-2010 12:48 PM ET (US)
Over 50mph was a very white knuckle ride.
WT posted 03-16-2010 07:44 PM ET (US)
If you guys don't like the ride of your 170 Montauk at high speeds, perhaps you might want to install a Baystar Hydraulic steering system. Maybe it's the feed back from the (Non-feedback)steering at speed that you don't like?
L H G posted 03-17-2010 06:10 PM ET (US)
I'm hoping SC Joe does indeed put a 90 E-tec on his 170, and I will be anxious to hear results. The performance and fuel economy should be excellent. It will be a nice fit, and with a corrosion-proof paint job. That will end his (and others) JIHAD against Mercury, at least. That E-tec 90 has 3 big cylinders with lots of cubes, and lots of high end 2-stroke torque and top speed when compared to the 4-stroke Merc. And low end acceleration will be brutal, even though Mercury says the L4NA 90 out accelerates the E-tec 90. That is indeed laughable, and not believable at all. I would also check out the E-tec injector thread for well rounded pre-purchase research, even though it is posted by anti-E-tec trolls with no credibility.
I would go with the E-tec and be done with it. People need work in Wisconsin.
SC Joe posted 03-18-2010 08:35 AM ET (US)
First I was a "customer from Hell", and now I have a JIHAD against Mercury.
And to think, if Mercury just could make their engine run and back their warranty, I would be neither of these things.
L H G posted 03-18-2010 03:39 PM ET (US)
Don't take it too seriously, Joe. I just borrowed that term from JimH, who recently used it on the guy complaining about E-TEC injector failures. I figured if Jim thinks it's good enough for a guy complaining about Evinrude, it's good enough for a guy complaining about Mercury.
But I would like to see you get that Evinrude 90. They have sold a lot of them to Whaler owners, so it must be a fine engine.
SC Joe posted 03-18-2010 08:06 PM ET (US)
It must be a joke. I got a Mercury engine catalog from Mercury marine today. The letter that accompanied it started out with "Thank you for your recent interest in Mercury Marine..."
I wonder if sending out new engine catalogs to current owners after turning down warranty claims has ever ended up in someone buying a new engine?
Somehow I doubt it.

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: 170 Montauk with E-TEC 90
SC Joe	posted 03-14-2010 12:10 PM ET (US) What are everyone's thoughts on the WOT speed of a 170 Montauk if an E-TEC 90-HP were installed in place of the Mercury 90-HP FOURSTROKE? I have participated in several conversations here where, due to the displacement and gearing differences between the Mercury and the Evinrude, I did not think the 90-HP E-TEC would be able to go as fast at WOT as the Mercury 90-HP FOURSTROKE on the Montauk 170. Since I don't know of anyone who has done this conversion, the top end question is only supposition. But with Evinrude's current purchase incentives, I am thinking seriously (again) of changing the engine out, as I have lost confidence in my Mercury 90-HP FOURSTROKE. As for placing a larger engine on the Montauk 170, I do not want a 115-HP E-TEC due to potential liability concerns at resale, nor a separate oil tank (no room for one), and most importantly, the price difference between the 90-HP E-TEC and 115-HP E-TEC is prohibitive. Of the 12 performance tests of the 90-HP that Evinrude posts on their web site, only four of these reported a top speed of 40-MPH or greater. Three of those were very light (<1000-lbs) inflatables. The fourth was also a very light aluminum boat that reported a top speed of 40.8-MPH. My current 90-HP Mercury FOURSTROKE will push the 1,400-lbs (dry weight without engine) to about 45-MPH. Is there any reason to think the 90 E-TEC can do the same? I am not looking for a performance increase, but I also do not want a performance decrease.
Tom W Clark	posted 03-14-2010 12:14 PM ET (US) With the E-TEC 90 you will see better acceleration and a slightly reduced top speed.
WT	posted 03-14-2010 12:27 PM ET (US) I would guess that you spend less than 2% of you time over 40 mph or at your top end range of the outboard. I would think the ETEC would give more torque (two-cycle motor) at the bottom end range so that a performance increase might be more noticeable here. I would also check out check out Suzuki, Yamaha and Honda 90's. Suzuki 90 4 cycle is only 21 pounds heavier than the ETEC 90. The Honda Marine website is down, so maybe more models being introduced? Good luck, Warren
jimh	posted 03-14-2010 01:09 PM ET (US) With the E-TEC replacing the Mercury FOURSTROKE, you will lose about two feet of cowling height.
WT	posted 03-14-2010 02:08 PM ET (US) You'd lose about 79 pounds off the transom too. Warren
SJUAE	posted 03-14-2010 02:50 PM ET (US) I'm sure Tom will point you in the right direction but also ensure your dealer has some props for you to try as you will also not find any reference data for this. I had the same problem with my 210 Outrage and my ETEC 200HO and took a while to get sorted due to lack of availablity here. I see marginal difference of top speed considering the BW test data with a 200 Verado had light loading and no options, where my boat has them all (except freshwater tank) including T-Top with outrigers and a 100lb kicker. Regards Steve
SC Joe	posted 03-14-2010 03:36 PM ET (US) I guess prop selection was my main concern--and if it would be possible to get 44 mph out of it. That would be my target.
SJUAE	posted 03-14-2010 04:16 PM ET (US) Getting the set-up (transom height) and hitting the right rev's at WOT is first then you can choose a go faster or mid range cruise prop to suit your preferences. Regards Steve
rtk	posted 03-14-2010 07:28 PM ET (US) What type of boating do you do that going 44 miles per hour as opposed to 40 miles per hour is important? To be honest with you for the amount of time I have spent in a 17 foot boat it was very hard to tell the difference between 40 and 44 miles per hour when I was running wide open throttle. Without a GPS reading I think anyone would be hard pressed to accurately say if they were going 40 or 44 miles per hour. I'm not busting your chops. I know you have been through hell with your boat. But I do know that I rarely run my 1997 21 Outrage at 50 miles per hour. Most of the time if I ran 40 miles per hour it would be punishing to me and the boat given the prevailing coastal conditions that I boat in most of the time. Comfortable performance in the 25-35 mile per hour range is how I run the boat 95% of the time. When I was considering an engine for my boat I was trying to put as much horsepower on it as possible. I went with a 250 horsepower instead of a 225 horsepower. It had a 225 horsepower on it. General performance was more than adequate. I went with a 250 horsepower. I realized a top speed difference of about 3 miles per hour. I realized no difference in planing the boat, accelleration, etc. I spent an extra $1000 dollars for the 250 horsepower engine. The 225 horsepower engine probaly would have been a bit more efficient at cruising speed than the 250 horsepower. Long story short I am extremely happy with the engine that I have- I absolutely love it after 5 years. I have left out the brand intentionally because it is not relevant. If I were to do it again I would go with the 225 horsepower because the minimal gain in top speed is not important to me. If you like the E-TEC 90 I would go with that and forget about the top speed. Based on comments made by others it seems as though the E-TEC 90 would perform real well where it matters- low end "grunt". Big picture to me would be to get a great engine on that great boat of yours and go out and enjoy yourself! Best of luck to you Joe. Rich
SC Joe	posted 03-14-2010 07:46 PM ET (US) Rich-I agree with all of your post. I probably wouldn't notice a difference, practical or otherwise, between 40 mph and 44 mph. 44 is the goal simply because that is what the boat will go now. What is the general consensus here what the top speed with the 90 E-TEC would be? IMO, 35 mph would be too much of a top end loss to consider the 90 E-TEC.
WT	posted 03-14-2010 08:40 PM ET (US) If you search etec 90 montauk you'll find a few that have dialed in their boats and have hit 42 mph with a classic 17 foot hull and E-TEC 90. So my guess of top speed of a heavier 170 Montauk with 90 E-TEC would be mid to high 30's. You have to remember that your 170 Montauk and mine are stock. If we played with raising our motors 2 holes up and tried different props we might get another 2 mph on the top end.
number9	posted 03-15-2010 04:15 AM ET (US) This discussion sounds like a good reason to consider the Mercury 90hp 4-stroke when re-powering. It's too bad Joe must have gotten a lemon and the problems haven't been taken care of and is considering other options.
erik selis	posted 03-15-2010 06:37 AM ET (US) I agree with what Tom W Clark said: better acceleration and slightly lower top speed. Erik
jimh	posted 03-15-2010 07:52 AM ET (US) Moved from another discussion area.
ktm3ten	posted 03-15-2010 08:52 AM ET (US) I remembered an old discussion with performance data from an etec 115HO. Performance data from that discussion was: OST3 13 ¼ x 21 WOT: 6150rpm Top Speed: 48.6mph gear ratio 2.0 prop slip calculated at 20.53% 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% I'm sure some math wiz here can run a calculation of what the reduced horsepower of the 90HP version of the etec will translate to. If anyone wants to reference the previous discussion, it can be found here: http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/007035.html I'm very interested in this discussion as well. I love the petite size of the etec 90 compared to the monster that sits back there now, I'd also like to know this info. However, I live on a large inland lake in the midwest and I spend about 30-40% of my time at top speed because I'm surrounded by bass boats doing 55-60mph and i have to just to stay out of the way! Another consideration is what would the stability of a Montauk 170 feel like at speed? I feel like at 42mph, mine is pretty squirrely, anyone else feel that? Love to hear others thoughts.
Tom W Clark	posted 03-15-2010 09:40 AM ET (US) For an E-TEC 90 on a Montauk 170 you would want to mount the motor on the third set of holes (two holes up) and use a 13-1/4" x 15" Stiletto Advantage 4.25 propeller.
SC Joe	posted 03-15-2010 10:31 AM ET (US) Tom--as you were just about dead on with your speed prediction on the 115 HO E-TEC/Montauk 170 repower..what are your thoughts here with the prop you mentioned?
SC Joe	posted 03-15-2010 10:34 AM ET (US) quote: I'm very interested in this discussion as well. I love the petite size of the etec 90 compared to the monster that sits back there now, I'd also like to know this info. However, I live on a large inland lake in the midwest and I spend about 30-40% of my time at top speed because I'm surrounded by bass boats doing 55-60mph and i have to just to stay out of the way! Another consideration is what would the stability of a Montauk 170 feel like at speed? I feel like at 42mph, mine is pretty squirrely, anyone else feel that? Love to hear others thoughts. Reduced size of the e-tec is definitely a plus over the Mercury. I saw a newer 170 last summer about 300 yards in front of me. From that distance, I couldn't identify what type of boat it was from the back, but i did comment to my wife how stupid the huge motor looked on it. She laughed when we caught up to it and the boat was identical to mine. As for stability..I'm not sure what you mean? My boat feels fine at 42.
MosslandingJoe	posted 03-15-2010 09:05 PM ET (US) At speeds over 40mph I do not feel stable on my 170. And I always remember Jay at the Outboard Motor Shop where I bought her, tell me on my test ride that"You can't sink'em but ya can capsize'em".Fortunately top end is not a number I find while boating in Monterey Bay, where I avg. low 20's(less after one o'clock).I enjoy taking my time and not just 'cuz I think it's safer but why hurry in my Whaler? It's almost uncool, after all, it's touted as the safest not the fastest. The Etec off the back would look great....best to all , Joe
ktm3ten	posted 03-15-2010 09:23 PM ET (US) Maybe it's not the speed, but at 1000 ft above sea level, I have to really trim out my 90HP veradito to get to 40 (or 43mph which is my top speed). When the boat is trimmed out that far, I'm often on glass smooth water, and it just feels very skittery. I can't describe it, but feels almost like a big gust of wind could spin the boat around and i'd be goin for a ride!
WT	posted 03-15-2010 10:11 PM ET (US) Don't do a speed run on glass smooth water, you boat sticks to the water. You'll get more speed on water with a little chop.
WT	posted 03-15-2010 10:27 PM ET (US) http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v665/warrent/ 2010%20Golden%20Gate%20Winter/?action=view¤t=VID00067.flv The weather that day was mid-40's and overcast. I was solo with ski gloves on and had a hard time with the throttle and camcorder. I wasn't planning on doing a speed run that day but oh well, boys will be boys. 44 mph up and down the river on an ugly day. I hope to average 46-47 mph next week after my motor gets raised 2 holds and I cover my prop vent holes. Warren
johnhenry	posted 03-16-2010 08:59 AM ET (US) I don't think the 170 gets that skittery at WOT. I guess comparing to the classic 13 that I repowered with a Suzuki 40hp 4stroke, the Montauk is downright stable.
Ridge Runner	posted 03-16-2010 12:48 PM ET (US) Over 50mph was a very white knuckle ride.
WT	posted 03-16-2010 07:44 PM ET (US) If you guys don't like the ride of your 170 Montauk at high speeds, perhaps you might want to install a Baystar Hydraulic steering system. Maybe it's the feed back from the (Non-feedback)steering at speed that you don't like?
L H G	posted 03-17-2010 06:10 PM ET (US) I'm hoping SC Joe does indeed put a 90 E-tec on his 170, and I will be anxious to hear results. The performance and fuel economy should be excellent. It will be a nice fit, and with a corrosion-proof paint job. That will end his (and others) JIHAD against Mercury, at least. That E-tec 90 has 3 big cylinders with lots of cubes, and lots of high end 2-stroke torque and top speed when compared to the 4-stroke Merc. And low end acceleration will be brutal, even though Mercury says the L4NA 90 out accelerates the E-tec 90. That is indeed laughable, and not believable at all. I would also check out the E-tec injector thread for well rounded pre-purchase research, even though it is posted by anti-E-tec trolls with no credibility. I would go with the E-tec and be done with it. People need work in Wisconsin.
SC Joe	posted 03-18-2010 08:35 AM ET (US) First I was a "customer from Hell", and now I have a JIHAD against Mercury. And to think, if Mercury just could make their engine run and back their warranty, I would be neither of these things.
L H G	posted 03-18-2010 03:39 PM ET (US) Don't take it too seriously, Joe. I just borrowed that term from JimH, who recently used it on the guy complaining about E-TEC injector failures. I figured if Jim thinks it's good enough for a guy complaining about Evinrude, it's good enough for a guy complaining about Mercury. But I would like to see you get that Evinrude 90. They have sold a lot of them to Whaler owners, so it must be a fine engine.
SC Joe	posted 03-18-2010 08:06 PM ET (US) It must be a joke. I got a Mercury engine catalog from Mercury marine today. The letter that accompanied it started out with "Thank you for your recent interest in Mercury Marine..." I wonder if sending out new engine catalogs to current owners after turning down warranty claims has ever ended up in someone buying a new engine? Somehow I doubt it.