Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  1970 SAKONNET Re-power

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   1970 SAKONNET Re-power
Geo2 posted 03-21-2010 11:44 PM ET (US)   Profile for Geo2   Send Email to Geo2  
I recently purchased a 1970 Sakonnet 16 ft Whaler and would like to add on a new motor. I don't like the idea of buying a heavy 4-stroke, so I am considering the Yamaha 90 h.p. 2-stroke. Can anyone offer me some advice as to whether this is a good option? How would it compare with the Evinrude 90 h.p. when used on this boat?
brisboats posted 03-22-2010 07:47 AM ET (US)     Profile for brisboats  Send Email to brisboats     
The Yamaha would be an excellent choice. If you are comparing it to an older carbed Evinrude 90 the Yamaha is lighter while the Evinrude has more cubic inches of displacement making more torque. The cross flow Evinrude will also consume more gas than the loop charged Yamaha. Do a search on this site there is lots of in depth discussion on this topic.

Brian

jimh posted 03-22-2010 11:22 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
There are literally hundreds of threads on this topic with many articles in each. There is a reference article on this topic that includes links to just a small sampling of prior discussions. See


http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/16-17/repower.html

You will find that in addition to the discussion forums there is also a reference section with well written and well organized articles on many topics. See:

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/

The fragmented article you posted will be deleted.

Tohsgib posted 03-22-2010 12:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tohsgib  Send Email to Tohsgib     
How strong is your transom? 16's are light so you can be very happy with a 60hp. The newer 70-90 Suzukis are quite light and the new 60-70 range Suzuki, Honda, and Yamaha 4 strokes are even lighter than a 2 stroke.
jimh posted 03-22-2010 12:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
In just about every re-power discussion there are two significant trends:

--power the boat at its maximum horsepower, or more

--power the boat below its maximum transom weight

For the 16-foot classic Boston Whaler hull, we see the horsepower maximum was 100 and the horsepower minimum 35. This is an astounding range, almost 3:1, which is seldom seen these days in modern boats. The wide range comes from the light weight but strong hull construction, and the easily driven hull shape. Nowadays boats are heavy and need much more power to reach plane.

We also should factor that the power rating in place when the classic 16-foot hull was produced was measured at the crankshaft of the engine, not the propeller. To convert to modern horsepower ratings we might say the range was more like 30-HP to 90-HP.

There are many who say to use the maximum horsepower rating, as it will give higher top speeds, faster acceleration, and greater reserve power for carrying heavy loads. Of course, maximum power also brings greater expense, higher fuel consumption, and greater weight on the transom.

On the maximum transom weight, there is no actual guidance from Boston Whaler, but attempts have been made to impute a maximum transom weight that would be appropriate. This discussion might give some guidance:

Maximum Engine Weight
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/002449.html

Regarding transom weight, it may also be interesting to read this prior discussion, which resulted from a capsize of a classic 16 or 17-foot Boston Whaler hull. The owner gave his opinion on transom weight recommendations, tempered by his experience of near drowning. Yes, it is more conservative than others might recommend, but others might never have experienced the terror of capsizing in a 16-footer:

Storm Story: July 17, 2006, Manitoulin Island
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/013113.html

Since we really don't know the manufacturer's recommendation for maximum transom weight, we can make some inference about it by using the weight of contemporary outboard motors. Here is a somewhat unorganized listing of older outboard motor weights:

Weight of Older Outboard Motors
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/011042.html

Ultimately, the decision on what engine to use is yours. If you want a lighter weight, carburetor two-cycle engine, you should have some urgency in buying one, as they don't seem to be destined to be available in the United States for much longer.

L H G posted 03-22-2010 01:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for L H G    
Can you still locate a Yamaha 90 2-stroke? Merc 90 2-strokes are now almost impossible to find.

The Yamaha 90 is a nice reliable engine, but my eperience with them is a loud, unpleasant running sound. They are about an 82 HP engine.

contender posted 03-22-2010 07:39 PM ET (US)     Profile for contender  Send Email to contender     
I would go with the Evinrude 90 (get a white one) then the Yamaha 90....good luck ...There is a place in GA. Statesbourgh that sells outboards cheap forgot their name
macfam posted 03-22-2010 08:18 PM ET (US)     Profile for macfam  Send Email to macfam     
Is there a dealer nearby that you trust?
There are really great 60-90 horsepower motors from a variety of manufacturers.
The dealer can be as important as the brand you choose.
Geo2 posted 03-30-2010 08:34 PM ET (US)     Profile for Geo2  Send Email to Geo2     
Thanks to all who answered my inquiry. I went ahead and purchased the 90 h.p. Yamaha 2-stroke this week m(March 2010). It was not that difficult to find one, as all 3 Yamaha dealers I contacted were able to provide one. However, the price varied tremendously from one dealer to the next.

One other issue -

Now I have to find a suitable trailer for my 1970 Sakonnet. Any suggestions?

Post New Topic  Post Reply
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.