posted 09-15-2011 11:40 PM ET (US)        

1988 Montauk
Rite-Hite 5” Jackplate
2006 Etec 90 hp Motor
1 Person (195 lbs)
Approx 18 gallons of fuel
Water Temp was 74 degrees
Wind was 5-10 mph dying off later in the morning.

These numbers are an average of two runs. One upwind and one downwind. Speeds are from the GPS and fuel consumption (gallons per hour) was from the Lowrance EP-60R fuel flow sensor. All these runs were with the engine trim in neutral. The cavitation plate was set parallel to the bottom of the hull. The final top speed numbers were obtained by playing with the trim for top speed. (trimmed way up)

Jackplate set at 2-1/4” above the bottom of the hull. Stiletto 13-1/4”x15 prop

1500 rpm 6.3 mph 1.0 gph
2500 rpm 15 mph 2.2 gph
3500 rpm 27 mph 4.0 gph
4500 rpm 35.4 mph 6.8 gph
4900 rpm (WOT) 38.1 mph 8.3 gph
Top Speed was 39.7 mph at 5300 rpm with motor trimmed up.

Jackplate set at 2-1/2” above the bottom of the hull. Stiletto 13-1/4”x15 prop

1500 rpm 6.6 mph 1.26 gph
2500 rpm 15 mph 2.25 gph
3500 rpm 26.5 mph 4.44 gph
4500 rpm 34.7 mph 7.0 gph
4900 rpm (WOT) 38.3 mph 8.46 gph
Top Speed was 41.5 mph at 5400 rpm with motor trimmed up.

Jackplate set at 2-3/4” above the bottom of the hull. Stiletto 13-1/4”x15 prop

1500 rpm 6.3 mph 0.95 gph
2500 rpm 15 mph 2.39 gph
3500 rpm 26.6 mph 4.07 gph
4500 rpm 35.3 mph 6.85 gph
4900 rpm (WOT) 38.2 mph 8.4 gph
Top Speed was 40.8 mph at 5300 rpm with motor trimmed up.

Jackplate set at 2-1/2” above the bottom of the hull. Evinrude Aluminum 13-3/4”x15 prop

1500 rpm 6.5 mph 1.2 gph
2500 rpm 14.5 mph 2.08 gph
3500 rpm 24.1 mph 3.84 gph
4500 rpm 32.4 mph 6.36 gph
5100 rpm (WOT) 36.2 mph 8.20 gph
Top Speed was 38.5 mph at 5400 rpm with motor trimmed up.

posted 09-17-2011 02:06 PM ET (US)            

I do note, however, that it amazing what a difference the stainless steel Stiletto makes over the OEM aluminum prop of the same pitch.

posted 09-19-2011 09:24 AM ET (US)            

When discussing boat speed, we also see many factors influence. For example, as noted by Tom Clark, a very substantial change in boat speed was produced by a change in the propeller material to stainless steel from aluminum. The boat went 3-MPH faster with a propeller change. The engine was still making the same horsepower.

And we know that on a small boat like a MONTAUK 17 there can be considerable influence from weight. An extra 200-lbs might take off 1-MPH, or some such relationship.

posted 09-19-2011 10:59 AM ET (US)            

I am not sure it is possible to make broad statements about the E-TEC horsepower as have been proposed here which will be accurate in all cases.

posted 09-19-2011 04:07 PM ET (US)         

Thank you Nick for your report of actual experiences with various Montauk power.

I think Jeff has reported that his Dad's Montauk ran 47 MPH with a Mercury 2-stroke 90 "Tower", and I remember Rob Schmidt saying he got smoked in his 90 E-tec powered Montauk by a Montauk running a Merc 90 tower. Several people have reported their Montauks ran 44 MPH with an OMC V-4 2-stroke 90.

posted 09-19-2011 06:16 PM ET (US)            

Given the choice of seat-of-L H G's-pants estimate of the horsepower based on his personal interpretation of anecdotal boat speed data, or the EPA certificate of compliance, I put more faith on the dynamometer test data. The E-TEC 90-HP engine produces 88.8-HP at the propeller as tested on a dynamometer.

Are there perhaps other outboard engines that produce more than 88.8-HP at the propeller and also have a cowling decal that says "90"? Perhaps there are. You can look for them in the EPA test data if you are curious about them. I am not.

posted 09-19-2011 06:24 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

with a good SS performance propeller...

---

posted 09-19-2011 07:08 PM ET (US)         

The E-TEC easily doubles the gas mileage of my tower but is seems to lack somewhat in top speed.

Based on first hand experience by Tohsgib with his Suzuki 70, and boat test reports of the the E-TEC 90 and Suzuki 90, it seems Suzuki's have better top speed for whatever reason.

posted 09-19-2011 07:54 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

I think Jeff has reported that his Dad's Montauk ran 47 MPH with a Mercury 2-stroke 90 "Tower"

---

Larry, we were paced by Buckda running across Mullett Lake at 47 - 49 mph. He had the GPS on his 18 Outrage with the Merc 150 WOT and we ran side by side. He had 50-51 showing on his GPS and only gained about 1/2 a boat length over about a minute run. That was turning an aluminum Quicksilver prop and the motor was likely one hole too low.
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v427/jeff_rohlfing/dads%20whaler/ ?action=view¤t=IMGP2289.jpg

That said, you now have the right boat to get real numbers on a 17 Montauk powered by a 90hp Merc inline 6 with a good stainless prop and set at the right height. Be sure to get it on video to quiet most nay-sayers..

My 17 Newport with it's 1794 85hp (powerhead rated) Evinrude Starflite V4 turning an OMC SST 13 3/8" x 17" prop actually managed to show 41 mph for a run this past August. It's a solid 40 mph on any given day and it is still mounted 2 holes lower than it should be. See the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCO2INErDUk

posted 09-19-2011 10:08 PM ET (US)         

So you can derive the torque of the motor quite easily if you know it's power output at a given RPM.

So if the E-TEC is doing 88.8 HP at 5000 then it's putting out 93.27 lbf-ft of torque.

So you see torque is nothing without RPM, put them together and you have the measurement we call horsepower. In fact dynamometer doesn't measure HP directly, just like a speedo doesn't measure speed directly. It measures torque and rpm to derive HP.

posted 09-19-2011 10:41 PM ET (US)            

I know there is some fun and plenty of nostalgia in maintaining and running an old two-cycle with 1960's technology and 1970's parts. And considering how much gas they're burning it might very well be that some of the larger displacement engines with "90" on the cowling will crank out a few extra hosepower. However, I don't see them as any sort of competition to the E-TEC 90.

The E-TEC 90 is without much debate the best choice for re-power of a MONTAUK. You just have to ask the 100 or so people who have written about their re-power with the E-TEC, and you find just about all of them completely happy.

I do have to give Larry some credit for persistence. Every time someone mentions another MONTAUK that has been re-powered with an E-TEC--and what is this one, perhaps number 101?-- he tries to turn the discussion into a debate about the power output of the E-TEC. There is no real debate. The EPA has all the data. Look up any engine you like.

posted 09-19-2011 11:21 PM ET (US)         

If you sort the spreadsheets by power you will see this trend across all engines, those in the same hp bracket having many times the exact same power to the 1/100th kW between various manufacturers.

posted 09-20-2011 12:02 AM ET (US)            

"Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races." -Enzo Ferrari. Yes, that is related to cars, yes cars have many gears, and have many acceleration cycles during a race....Still more torque will turn larger gears and taller pitched propellers at the same Horsepower and RPM range netting is a higher top speed.

I stated my opinion that torque is a forgotten factor in these debates. Can ANYONE provide real Horsepower AND Torque plots for the E-Tec 90, or any other "90" horsepower motor discussed in these __ Whaler powered by __ motor threads? Independent dyno plots would be the best and most objective looks at product to product comparisons as I am sure Outboard manufactures play the same "published" numbers game the auto industry does. That said, even manufacture dyno plots of Torque and Horsepower would be better than nothing.

posted 09-20-2011 12:26 AM ET (US)         

This is the essence of torque. You can get any torque you want by gearing an engine a certain way, the problem is gearing the engine a certain way. That is, your transmission is a limiting factor especially in an outboard. In Archimedes case the lever would have to be 4.3 billion light years long, a very limiting factor.

posted 09-20-2011 12:31 AM ET (US)         

quote:

---

Still more torque will turn larger gears and taller pitched propellers at the same Horsepower and RPM range netting is a higher top speed.

---

This is incorrect, horsepower rpm and torque are interrelated, if HP and RPM are the same, torque is the same.

posted 09-20-2011 01:08 AM ET (US)         

Conversely, these same regulations can be used to defraud the consumer by selling a lower HP engine, such as the E-tec 90 at 83HP and selling it as a 90. That way it can actually be a more polluting engine at 83 HP and the higher 90 HP rating gives it more leeway on emissions. Plus you can sell it for a higher price. Fair to the consumer?

My attitude is that if I'm paying top dollar for a 90 HP engine, I want true 90 HP or greater.

posted 09-20-2011 08:33 AM ET (US)            

If you think that Evinrude is committing a fraud in the sale of the E-TEC, you ought to contact your state Attorney General and inform them of this crime.

posted 09-20-2011 08:48 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

The EPA data certainly looks useful, however when browsing it there is an odd pattern, 90hp from BRP, Mecury, and Suzuki all have exactly 66.19kW or 88.8 HP at either 5000 or 5500 rpm.

---

I find jharrel's comment above worth repeating. I assert that its nearly impossible for three engines with radically different technologies to have the exact same output to within one hundredth of a point. This tells me that the EPA numbers that jimh is basing his entire argument of equivalency on are derived in some manner other than actual testing. Lets call it an EPA-seat-of-pants measurement.

In fact, when actual testing is reported on this forum, the numbers are most decidedly not identical. The ETEC tends to yield around 10% less WOT speed than other outboards reported. How can this disparity be explained?

posted 09-20-2011 10:05 AM ET (US)            

It's simple -- because it diverts attention away from the fact that an operational Mercury 90 FourStroke weighs over 400 lbs and its cousin, the Optimax 90, weighs 375 lbs. The weight of both of those motors makes them far less attractive as repower candidates for a Montauk transom.

The maximum power stated in the EPA database is certified by the manufacturers. The power is determined using the SAE J1228 standard.

posted 09-20-2011 11:09 AM ET (US)            

http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/1996/September/Day-19/pr-23668DIR/Other/ maine.txt.html

The suggestion that the EPA horsepower data is somehow arbitrary or "made up" is absurd.

I still fail to see any credible evidence that other 90 HP outboard are more powerful than the Evinrude E-TEC 90 HP outboard.

posted 09-20-2011 11:24 AM ET (US)            

Any logical person can see that three different engines let alone three different engines from different manufacturers can not possibly be exactly the same HP to within one hundredth of hp or that several engine will be exactly 225.0 hp.

posted 09-20-2011 11:35 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

...different manufacturers can not possibly be exactly the same HP to within one hundredth of hp or that several engine will be exactly 225.0 hp

---

They're not.

The Yamaha F225 is shown to put out 208.39 HP, not exactly 225.0 HP.

posted 09-20-2011 11:55 AM ET (US)            

E-tec E200 149.14KW@5250 = 200HP
E-tec E250 186.00KW@5150 = 250HP

Honda BF200 149.1KW@5500 = 200HP
Honda BF225 167.8KW@5500 = 225HP

posted 09-20-2011 12:33 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

I still fail to see any credible evidence that other 90 HP outboard are more powerful than the Evinrude E-TEC 90 HP outboard.

---

Even if you go by the EPA power numbers the Yamaha F90TLR shows higher power at 68kW(91.1HP) than the E-TEC at 66.19kW. So there is some evidence.

I think any reasonable person would question power numbers that are exactly the same down to the 100th Kw between 3 manufacturers with very different engines. You can't get that level of consistency on the same engine run at two different times.

Also there are discrepancies between the models and power listed on on the "Family Info" sheet vs the "Models" sheet. The Honda BF90 does not appear in the family info and the Suzuki listed on the "Family Info" is the old 1.9L 90, while the newer 1.5L model is listed on the other sheet. What is the difference between the two sheets?

Also we all know the ICOMIA "rated" power is not peak power, from jimh's own commentary on ICOMIA 28-83: "This means that if the full throttle speed range is chosen to be a wide range, for example 5,000 to 6,000 RPM, it is possible that the engine's peak horsepower will occur near 6,000 RPM, but the rated horsepower must be that obtained at 5,500 RPM. The difference between these two horsepower ratings is recommended to not be greater than 6%. It appears that manufacturers have some room to fiddle with the engine horsepower rating by adjusting the RPM range which they declare to be the the full throttle speed range of the engine. Rating of the engine horsepower in this way accounts for some of the claims seen in which engines of a particular brand and rating can test at significantly higher horsepower in actual field tests."

posted 09-20-2011 01:17 PM ET (US)         

Using the divtruk's Montauk as a basline and Tohsgib's data on his Suzuki 70 and 88SPL and references to a Montauks average weight being around 2000lbs the most consistent setup on Crouch's calculator is 200 for the hull factor. This gives an E-TEC at 41.5mph 86HP, The Suzuki 70 at 39.5mph 78HP, my inline 6 at 43mph 92.4HP, The 88SPL at 43.5mph 94.6HP and Jeff's inline 90 at 47mph 110HP.

Extrapolating this to compare these two boat tests on identical boats:

http://www.evinrude.com/Content/Pdf/neutral/performanceReports/PE670.pdf

http://www.suzukimarine.com/uploads/Pro-Lite_Flats_18_DF90A.pdf

Would give the pro-lite flats a hull factor of 215.4. This is derived from assuming the 86HP of the E-TEC with the 2900lbs boat. Based on that the Suzuki 90 would have to put out 100HP to attain 41.6mph even with one less person, so 2700lbs instead of 2900lbs.

posted 09-20-2011 03:51 PM ET (US)         

These are the people that first brought us MBTE in our gas, then banned the conventional 2-stroke because MBTE got into the water, then brought us 10% ethanol in all of our gasoline, and is now bringing us 15% ethanol in our gasoline.

What a bunch of idiots, and I don't even belong to the Tea Party.

But getting back to the poor old E-tec 90, as many know there are a few dissidents here who buy MOntauk 170's and then complain about having to have a Mercury Verado block 90 on it, preferring an Evinrude instead.

Please, please, please, one of you guys, get rid of the Merc and put an E-tec 90 on that Montauk 170 of yours, and let's see if it will make even 38 MPH. I doubt it, but it sure would be nice have the proof.

I am also surprised to see the Evinrude people ignoring Jeff's experience here, with his 85HP POWERHEAD rated OMC V-4 engine, (about 80 HP at the prop?) giving 40 MPH on his Newport. That seems to fit with the estimated 83HP rating of the E-tec 90.

posted 09-20-2011 04:30 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

then the Mercury Optimax and the 1st generation Suzuki DF 90 (with 1.9L displacement, now called a DF100 in their lineup) made something less than 83 HP because both had slower top speed.

---

The article specifically states they could not find a tall enough prop for the DF90, it was running a 26p and still over revved at 5800 and 49.5mph(.4 less than the E-TEC), on top of that since 5800 is above the engines rated red line, they
discarded that and went with 44.5 at 5500.

If they could have got a taller prop bringing the engine down to 5500rpm at WOT it would have easily bested the E-TEC.

posted 09-20-2011 05:13 PM ET (US)            

As for the EPA, I say HOORAY. Were it not for their demands for low emission, we'd still be running cranky, smokey, noisy, two-cycle outboards (and automobiles) with 1960's technology.

posted 09-20-2011 07:30 PM ET (US)         

My Merc 2-strokes are not cranky in the least, and perfrom beautifully at all speeds, and although they have a "throaty" idle sound,(which is strictly a value judgement only - some people like quiet, some poeple like throaty) are not any noisier at running speeds than a 2-stroke DFI or 4-stroke, and some are actually quieter, Above 800 RPM, they are no smokier than a DFI, and below that I control smoke with the new low-smoke oils.

In many respects they are better, particular on power-to-weight ratios and classic looks (for our classic Whalers). Spending huge amounts of money for the overpriced 3-star engines is by and large a waste which has simply been forced upon us by know-it-all big government. The fuel savings come nowhere close to paying for these very expensive engines.

posted 09-20-2011 07:40 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

If they could have got a taller prop bringing the engine down to 5500rpm at WOT it would have easily bested the E-TEC.

---

posted 09-20-2011 08:18 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

I figured you'd defend the Suzuki.

---

Oh and what a surprise your defending the E-TEC, Do you have nothing good to say about a Suzuki, I think if you look back at each of our posts we will know who has the more balanced opinion on the E-TEC and Suzuki engines.

quote:

---

But how do you conclude that if it had a taller prop it would have easily bested the E-TEC? They spun the 26P to 5800 RPM and obtained 49.5 MPH. Are you saying it hit a rev limiter?

---

That's essentially what they are saying: "Matched to Triton’s fleet, 17-foot bay boat, Suzuki’s 131/4x26-inch stainless three-blade — the tallest available from the manufacturer — was simply not enough wheel to rein it in on this application."

The DF100, which is basically the same engine shows 6000 for top rpm, which would yield 51.21mph and that with the ridiculous 10% slip that prop had. If the old DF90 had a decent prop with half the slip it would have hit 52 at 5800.

posted 09-20-2011 08:33 PM ET (US)            

We were a little worried about going from 4 cylinders to 3, but the Etec is equal to or exceeds the old 90 in every way.

posted 09-20-2011 08:37 PM ET (US)            

Of course, this is conjecture and speculation..but we see here that in a WOT competition between the OP's smaller, lighter hull with an Evinrude 90 HP E-TEC (that Jimh has stated in the past has more torque than the Mercury 90 HP Four Stroke) would not be faster than the larger, heavier 170 Montauk with a 90 HP Mercury Four Stroke. The 170 Whaler performance specs reports achieving a 42.8 MPH top speed.

posted 09-20-2011 09:48 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

"You guys can pull your superior "my engine is better than yours" attitude routine any time you like, but I could care less."

---

Larry--You entered this thread about an E-TEC to boast about your non-E-EC engine, to make patently untrue statements about the E-TEC, and to accuse Evinrude of criminal fraud. Exactly who do you thing is playing the role of "my engine is better than yours" in this case, and in just about every other thread you barge into with data about your boat and engines?

Personally I think it is incredibly rude to jump into a thread where someone is talking about their boat and engine, then tell them how much better your boat and engine performs. You need to lay back and wait for the threads where people are talking about re-powering their boat with some 1980 Mercury and then you can jump in.

posted 09-20-2011 09:50 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

That's essentially what they are saying: "Matched to Triton’s fleet, 17-foot bay boat, Suzuki’s 131/4x26-inch stainless three-blade — the tallest available from the manufacturer — was simply not enough wheel to rein it in on this application."

---

Interesting interpretation. But I don't read it that way. When I read the entire paragraph including the last sentence in the paragraph

quote:

---

That’s why in our performance charts you’ll see the official speed capped at 5500 rpm, where the Suzuki was running 44.4 mph

---

The rules of engagement per the article

quote:

---

The engine manufacturers were to supply an outboard and a representative to ensure the engine was properly rigged and propped. Each outboard had to remain within its recommended wide-open-throttle (WOT) operating range, and the prop had to be available through a dealer’s parts catalog.

---

If the Suzuki had bounced off the rev limiter, I think BWB, being the experience boat/motor testers that they were, would have said so. They didn't. And to speculate that the motor would have pushed the boat to 52 MPH is, well, just speculation.

posted 09-20-2011 09:58 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

My Whalers will run 40+. My Donzi will run 65+....who really cares? Anyone want to run pinks?

---

ESPECIALLY when it comes to utility boats like Whalers. I'm pretty sure the Merc 90 FourStroke on my 17 Alert is too low. But I'm not about to waste a precious second of my life raising it to get an extra couple of mph. It has an immacualte, stainless prop, and I don't know the brand or the size/pitch. It's a Whaler. A utility boat... like a truck or an SUV. Who cares?

My Hydrostream Viper goes 65'ish with a v4 crossflow, (bubbleback version, mind you), and that doesn't even get noticed over on a certain other forum.

Jeff Rohlfing! I've said it before and I'll say it again... AMAZING stuff with your boat and your stalwart, strong motor. If I weren't already so invested and committed to my V4 crossflows, I could see myself taking the "tower" route. If I knew for sure I won't be forced by the jack-booted, spirit-crushing dreadnought, that is supposedly here to help us, to give up my carbureted two-strokes, I might one day start to dabble in Merc "towers".

posted 09-21-2011 12:24 AM ET (US)            

Let me rephrase the question to accommodate Continuous-Wave's preeminent provocateur, L H G: What credible evidence supports his assertion that the E-TEC 90 is only good for 83 HP?

The answer is, obviously, there is none. You can claim some boat someday long ago once went so fast but until somebody shows me how the E-TEC 90 on a boat we are all familiar with, like a classic Montauk, somehow is significantly and consistently slower than the same boat with a different motor, it is all a bunch of hooey.

How many of the participants in this discussion have spent time running a classic Montauk? How many of you have owned one, or two...or three?

How many of you have run a classic Montauk with an E-TEC 90?

How many of you have run one with a Mercury 90?

Six cylinder Mercury 90?

Three cylinder Mercury 90?

Three cylinder Yamaha 90?

How many of you have owned a classic Montauk with a three cylinder Mercury 90?

OMC V-4 90?

I have done all of the above, in fact I have operated some of the actual boats cited in this thread.

Fellas, I am here to tell you, a 90 HP outboard on a classic Montauk is good for a top speed in the low 40s. Higher or lower top speeds can be achieved under a variety of varying conditions, but there is no remarkably slow 90 HP motors, though the two stroke Yamaha 90, like my brother-in-law had on his 1988 Montauk, was a little weak. That should come as no surprise as the EPA test certification data indicates it is only good for 83.3 HP.

I almost regret digging up that EPA data on the 83 HP two stroke Yamaha 90 some years ago because it seems Larry has now latched onto that number and is tenaciously trying to convince everybody that it is the power of the E-TEC 90 every time a thread pops up discussing the Evinrude E-TEC 90. The irony is that it is the EPA data that Larry is simultaneously trying to discredit.

posted 09-21-2011 01:33 AM ET (US)         

OK, you all love and trust the EPA as Gospel, 15% ethanol and all. That opinion I can accept, although personally, I disagree with that Agency's Big Brotherism.

1. Old fashioned, throwback Yamaha 90 2-stroke does 40-41 on a Montauk. Lots of Montauks have this very popular engine.

2. Hot new, high tech, ultra modern E-tec 90 does 40-41 on a Montauk, with high performance prop needed.

3. Yamaha/EPA say the Yamaha 90 is 83 HP.

4. Therefore, with same output at the prop, E-tec 90 is 83 HP also.

I learned this simple stuff in high school.

I can think of at least six 90 HP engines apparently more powerful than an E-tec 90:

1. Mercury 2-stroke 90 model years 2000-2006 . Several people have indicated this who have run both on a Montauk. Eric(?) in Europe comes to mind. Clark Roberts has indicated he managed to get 48 out of his on a Montauk.

2. Mercury "YamaMerc" 4-stroke. Boston Whaler showed this Yamaha engine to run 44 on a classic Montauk.

3. Mercury Verado block 90. Kind of big on a Montauk, but Sos Merc just installed one, so let's see what it will do. Any bets on power, since WT has said it's faster than the old YamaMerc 90 he used to have on his 170? Boston Whaler says the same thing.

4. Old Mercury L6 "Tower of Power" 90. I doubt if anybody really doubts this old engine (in good condition) will not easily outrun an E-tec.

5. Old OMC V-4 90's. Same comments apply as to the "Tower" above.

6. Yamaha 90 4-stroke, since it still is the same engine sold to Mercury as the YamaMerc. I have no information on relative power of the Honda and Suzuki 90's.

posted 09-21-2011 02:12 AM ET (US)            

Wish I had never posted the damn numbers to begin with. I was never trying to say this motor was any better or worse than any other. I was just telling you what I got.

I am having to much fun with my boat to worry about all this crap. Some of you guys need to get a life.

posted 09-21-2011 09:57 AM ET (US)            

The latest tack taken here is to dismiss all performance reports of 90 HP engines because they aren't undertaken on the exact same boat in the exact same conditions. Sure, thats one method to shield or dismiss consistent results from the 100 or so E-TEC / Montauk repowers.

posted 09-21-2011 11:08 AM ET (US)            

What I don't know is, when the EPA tests the E-TEC 90 say, do they grab several at a time and test them all and report the average result? If they only take one, do they pick it at random? Or does Evinrude get to pick it for them, thus inducing the possibility they sent up a "ringer" for the testing? Not picking on Evinrude here. This line of questioning applies equally to all of them.

FWIW, If I were in the market for a repower, I'd probably get an E-TEC 90, too. Even if they were a little less powerful than the others (not saying they are), because I don't care about the last tittle of speed in a utility boat like a Whaler anyway.

posted 09-21-2011 11:20 AM ET (US)            

Divtruk, you should spool down a little, mmmbrah. These guys are a group of curmudgeons who have been jabbing and jousting for years. They like it... it's fine. Frankly, I like it, too. :)

posted 09-21-2011 11:26 AM ET (US)         

quote:

---

If the Suzuki had bounced off the rev limiter, I think BWB, being the experience boat/motor testers that they were, would have said so. They didn't. And to speculate that the motor would have pushed the boat to 52 MPH is, well, just speculation.

---

If you can't get the proper prop setup the engine will be handicapped, as it was here, they even said so. I got 52mph by running it through the prop calculator on this site and reducing the slip from 10% to 5%. 10% slip obviously means an incorrect prop. It should have probably been a 13 3/4 to 14" diameter like all the propellers Suzuki recommends for that engine. 13 1/4 is too small for the large 2.59:1 ratio and they don't even list it in their prop catalog for that engine? The 26x14 or 28x14 would have been a much better choice for that boat.

This same block revs all the way to 6200 in the 140, to get 90 out of this engine it obviously was artificially limited, 5800 makes a lot of sense for a rev limiter, again the same engine re-badged to a 100 HP revs to 6000.

quote:

---

Any motor on any given day will produce more or less power based on any number of environmental factors as well as motor state itself.

---

Then why do the EPA number show exactly the same power down to the 100th kW across 3 brands of 90? This doesn't seem even a little unusual to you?

posted 09-21-2011 11:36 AM ET (US)            

Will the new Mercury 90 FourStroke top out at 41-42 mph too? If so, it might end some arguments of horsepower ratings.

Warren

posted 09-21-2011 11:36 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

10% slip obviously means an incorrect prop.

---

No, that is incorrect. There is nothing wrong with slip. If a boat is faster with a prop with more slip than less slip, so be it. There is nothing magical about low slip numbers. The slip calculation is useful for relative comparisons. Every model of propeller will tend to fall within different range of slip.

posted 09-21-2011 11:41 AM ET (US)            

Why do all motors in a HP range NOT share the exact same Kw numbers?

posted 09-21-2011 12:31 PM ET (US)         

If you guys think all of this is baloney, be my guest, and I won't be offended.

posted 09-21-2011 12:42 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Just what I have read here on CW.

---

posted 09-21-2011 02:04 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

We already have a legitimized "VERADOSAURUS" here, Jim's sole creation. Maybe we should label this engine an "ETECOSAURUS" also, just to keep things on an equal footing, although it appears the VERADOSAURUS is a more highly evolved creature.

---

Ahh, now we are getting to the bottom of it. Calling the Valurado a Veradosaurus has put a bee in Larry's bonnet.

quote:

---

If you can't get the proper prop setup the engine will be handicapped, as it was here, they even said so.

---

No, what they said is:
[quote]Unofficially, it would have posted the third fastest top end, clocking 49.5 mph at 5800 rpm.

posted 09-21-2011 02:23 PM ET (US)            

Here is a quote from Teak Oil:
Teak Oil posted 09-22-2009 10:53 PM ET (US)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I run an older style 20" Raker on my 90hp V4 with good results, with a top speed of over 47 at 5300 rpms."

posted 09-21-2011 02:32 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

Slip calculations of 5 to 15 percent are pretty normal.

---

Too bad BWB didn't list all props used and not just Suzuki. divtruk's Montauk is showing -8% Slip at 41.5mph, The Pro-Line Flats that had both an E-TEC and Suzuki 90 showed nearly 0% for the E-TEC and -%5 for the Suzuki, yet +10% is normal?!

Suzuki doesn't even list a 13 1/4" prop for that motor, they are all 14" in that pitch, hmm why would you want more diameter, I think that would help with something...

quote:

---

They could have said that "we think the Suzuki could go even faster but we hit the rev limiter at 5800 RPM". But they did not.

---

posted 09-21-2011 02:37 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

For example, how do you explain the Yamaha F225 at 208.39 HP and the Mercury OptiMax 225 at 221.94 HP?

---

A question answered with another question. Ok, because Manufacturers obviously have some leeway in what they submit meaning the power numbers are useless for determining actual peak power of any engine listed.

posted 09-21-2011 03:23 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

It would make more sense that the E-TEC puts out 83HP. If you apply that to the two boat tests on the Pro-Lite boat, the Suzuki would be putting out 97HP instead of 100HP using Crouch's speed calculator.

---

Or it could make just as much sense that the -5 percent calculated WOT slip in the Suzuki report means that there is an error in the data. It could be that the tachometer reading was off and the speed was correct or it could mean that the tachometer was correct and the boat speed through the water really wasn't 41.6 MPH. As the disclaimer at the bottom of Suzuki's report says

quote:

---

Results may vary.

---

posted 09-21-2011 05:56 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

Or it could make just as much sense that the -5 percent calculated WOT slip in the Suzuki report means that there is an error in the data.

---

So divtruk has an error in his data at -8%, and Evinrude has an error in their data with -3.9% at 5000 on Pro-Lite? Only an error when a Suzuki has negative slip right?

posted 09-21-2011 08:27 PM ET (US)            

The heaviest, and also the longest boat with a 90 HP E-TEC that goes over 40 MPH (it reached 42.4 mph) is the Sea Ark Stealth 186, an aluminum hull that is 18'6" and weighs 1100#.

In contrast, the Mercury 90 HP Four Stroke is published to push the Boston Whaler 170 to 42.8 mph..and the boat weighs a full 824 pounds more than the Sea Ark Stealth.

In your opinion, if you added 824# to the E-TEC powered Sea Ark, could it reach 40 MPH?

posted 09-21-2011 10:46 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

It is crazy to compare different boats with different motors. Did you read my comment where on the same boat with the same motor I get 4-MPH variations as the weather changes?

---

834# difference.

I'm not very good at making a boat go faster..but I can sure make one go slower.

posted 09-21-2011 10:46 PM ET (US)            

If the 1100 pound Sea Ark Stealth goes 42.4 MPH with the E-TEC 90 then I suppose we can conclude that, according to the Crouch Calculator and the novel logic recently employed here, that the 900 pound Montauk should be good for 44.3 MPH.

posted 09-21-2011 11:42 PM ET (US)            

That's 834 additional pounds. The Montauk weighs 834 pounds MORE than the Sea Ark.

posted 09-22-2011 10:05 AM ET (US)            

It is good for 41.5 MPH now, not 40. It is hitting 5400 RPM when the E-TEC 90's optimal engine speed range is 5000-5200 RPM.

If a 13-1/4" x 17" Stiletto Advantage 4.25 were substituted and the motor were raised on the jackplate as I have already recommended, I am sure divtruk's Montauk would exceed 44 MPH at 5000-5200 RPM.

posted 09-22-2011 10:16 AM ET (US)            

The displacement of the 90hp E-Tec does make it the runt of the litter regardless it maybe just about the perfect engine for a repowering a classic 17 montauk. The compact size, lack of smoke, quick response and weight makes it just about perfect. It is a nice fit between the 70hp's and the big boy 90s.

Bigshot has sold me on the 70hp combo on this hull but the Evinrude 90hp [E-TEC] does seem like a great overall fit. I have not met many people that would go from a DFI/Four Stroke back to a carb. The only way I would ever want another carb would be below 25hp.

posted 09-22-2011 11:37 AM ET (US)         

quote:

---

If a 13-1/4" x 17" Stiletto Advantage 4.25 were substituted and the motor were raised on the jackplate as I have already recommended, I am sure divtruk's Montauk would exceed 44 MPH at 5000-5200 RPM.

---

44mph would be great, has there every been a confirmed Classic Montauk that can consistently hit 44mph with an E-TEC?

This is the closest I could find: http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/003510.html

It's a 70's Nauset with a 19p prop, and even Peter said: "The Nauset here is showing a little better speed than a comparable later model Montauk. I think that is consistent with the understanding that the older 16' 7" hull shape is a little faster, but a little wetter than the newer 16' 7" hull shape."

posted 09-22-2011 12:28 PM ET (US)            

Why didn't the the three cylinder Mercury 90 on my last Montauk push it past 42 MPH? And that was after I installed a 13-1/4" x 20" Quicksilver Lightspeed (aka Mercury Laser II).

posted 09-22-2011 12:40 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

44-45 MPH is excellent. It jives precisely with predicted performance of the 17-foot hull with that horsepower.

---

This statement is in perfect agreement with all the comments made within this article; that 44 MPH is both the expected and predicted performance of the Montauk with a 90 HP outboard.

Unfortunately, this expected speed came on a 1970 16'-7" Nauset, a hull that weighs substantially less than a Classic Montauk (Either 5 or 700 pounds versus 900 pounds bare hull, someone else might provide the exact difference).

Its getting quite difficult to pin down those E-TEC supporters that assert their favorite engine brand produces a peak HP equivalent to other 90 HP engines.

To recap, we have the following reasons for the disparity in performance results suggesting the E-TEC 90 is not as powerful as most other 90 HP outboards.

1. The E-TEC puts out less peak HP than other engines (jimh 9.19 6:16 PM)
2. Performance reports are unreliable and merely anecdotal. Too many variables (jimh 9.20 5:13 pm)
3. Performance reports are worthless because they aren't done by repeatedly swapping engines on the exact same boat in the exact same conditions over and over (Peter 9.21 7.01 am)
4. E-TEC owners may not know how to set up their rigs for WOT bragging rights (I get this one! prj 9.21 9:57 am)
5. Larry is pissed about jimh's derogatory nickname for Mercury's new FourStroke, a near genius and humorous deflection to protect the E-TEC (Peter 9.21 2:04 pm)
6. Data input error, related to sidebar of different boat, same engines (Peter 9.21 3:23 pm)
7. Criteria other than peak HP matters more to Montauk owners (Andy Gere 9.21 4:43)
8. One of my favorites: WOT speeds vary up to 3-4 mph when a specific boat is rigged different, from canvas to load difference, and run in different seasons, climates and water conditions. Therefore, no one can truly know WOT speeds. (jimh 9.21 5:03 pm)

Did I get that right?

posted 09-22-2011 03:14 PM ET (US)         

The E-Tec had one person and 60 deg air temp: 38.6mph

http://www.evinrude.com/Content/Pdf/neutral/performanceReports/PE850.pdf

The Yamaha 2 people and 70 deg air temp: 39.1mph

http://www.yamaha-motor.com/assets/products/otb/bulletins/ bulletin_4stroke_midthrustjetport_al_alm-dominator165cs-f90tlr.pdf

posted 09-22-2011 03:26 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Well I did it. Put the Evinrude E-TEC on my 1983 Montauk. WOW Smooth sweet power with a flawless motor. I went with the white salt water series E-TEC 90. The boat gets up real quick on plane and sounds awsome. GPS measured 42 MPH out of the box but I still have to adjust a few settings.

---

So let me see if I get this right,

1. An E-TEC is an 82 HP propshaft rated motor according to Larry.

2. The 82 HP E-TEC 90 can push a Montauk 42 MPH out of the box .

3. Nick says an 82 propshaft HP is the equivalent of about 90 powerhead HP.

4. Whaler (per Nick and Tom) says 90 powerhead HP (which is 82 prop rated HP) should only fetch 38 MPH.

posted 09-22-2011 03:47 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

I put the white E-TEC 90 on my 69 Katama, I get about 42 WOT on flat water, with 2 adults and 2 kids aboard.

---

Also contributing to that thread (and this thread) is Rob Schmidt who owns a 1987 Montauk powered by an E-TEC 90 (l think the ninth one ever made.) He reports that his boat is good for 42.5 MPH.

I have actually spent operating Rob's boat both with him and by myself as well as with my wife and with Tony Wilde on different occasions. I remember once running the boat at WOT with Rob at Richmond just off Brick Yard Cove.

posted 09-22-2011 03:49 PM ET (US)            

I did not say that. I only speculated that it might be possible that there is another modern EPA certified engine with a cowling decal of "90" that makes 89-HP.

He also notes:

quote:

---

...jimh's...nickname for Mercury's new FourStroke [is] near genius and humorous....

---

Thank you. I thought VERADOSAURUS was good. JURASSIC FOURSTROKE was also a good alternate, but does not seem to have caught on as well.

I think you can summarize my position regarding horsepower rating as this:

The jimh Postulate

Certified dynamometer measurement is likely to be more accurate horsepower measure than selective third-party interpretation of anecdotal results of completely uncontrolled comparison tests.

posted 09-22-2011 03:57 PM ET (US)            

The 88.9 HP (acccording to the EPA certifcation data already cited) E-TEC 90 was good for 38.6 MPH

The 91.1 HP Yamaha F90 was good for 39.1 MPH.

Interestingly, this is exactly what Crouch's Speed Calculator predicts:

http://continuouswave.com/cgi-bin/crouchcalc.pl

posted 09-22-2011 04:14 PM ET (US)            

30 years ago this fall, I bought my second new Boston Whaler, a 1981 Montauk. It was powered by the (then new) 1982 Johnson 90. For 1982 OMC dropped the 85 and the 100 and simply offered a 90 HP model.

That boat was fast. Back then everybody claimed their 90 HP powered Montauks were good for 50 MPH. Of course they weren't but the pitot tube speedometers we used back then, and like I installed in that Montauk, would often show 47-48 MPH if everything was just right and you were going downwind in a light chop trimmed way out. We just rounded up and claimed 50 MPH.

Of course today we know those pitot speedometers always over registered and the amount they erred went up as speed increased. Had we had GPS back then, I suspect we would have found our boats traveling in the low 40s.

posted 09-22-2011 06:23 PM ET (US)         

E-TEC 90: Supposedly 88.8hp according to EPA, 1 man so 1955 lbs, 38.6mph: yields 181.1 hull factor.

Yamaha F90, 2155lbs with two men 39.1mph with 181.1 hull factor: 100.1 HP

Whoops! 100hp out of the Yamaha seems kinda high probably because the E-TEC isn't 88.8hp. Let's try it the other way:

Yamaha F90, 91.1HP from EPA, 2155lbs with two men 39.1mph: yields 190.2 hull factor.

E-TEC 90: 1 man 1955 lbs, 38.6mph, 190.2 hull factor: 80.5HP!

Ouch that's pretty low, let try LHG's 83 HP:

E-TEC 90: 83hp according to LHG, 1 man so 1955 lbs, 38.6mph: yields 187.3 hull factor.

Yamaha F90, 2155lbs with two men 39.1mph with 187.3 hull factor: 93.9 HP

Now that's more reasonable. SO unless the E-TEC had one big guy at 300lbs and the Yamaha two skinny guys at 150lbs, it's seems the Yamaha has more HP.

posted 09-22-2011 08:41 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

I personally like cbone's [derogatory term for E-TEC]--that's not derogatory is it?
It seem to just represent the facts like the "SAURUS" postfix.

---

posted 09-22-2011 08:57 PM ET (US)            

Where in the test reports does it say what the total weight of each boat is. I see the F90 powered one but not the E-TEC 90 report. Where does it say how much the persons weigh?

Is the Alumicraft the same boat or merely the same model of boat? One test was from 2007, the other from 2011. Do you suppose everything is exactly the same over those four years? Do you suppose anything might not be accounted for? How about the gas? in 2007 is was probably straight gasoline. In 2011 it is probably E10.

But wait! What about the propellers and RPM? Could there be any difference there? Oh yes, I see that the E-TEC seems to be a little underpropped at 5425 RPM. The Optimal WOT RANGE for the E-TEC 90 is 5000-5200 RPM. Gee, I wonder what might have happened if the tester had used a 19" Viper instead of the 17" Viper? Let's go visit the Propeller Calculator and find out:

http://continuouswave.com/cgi-bin/propcalc.pl

Hmmm...36.8 MPH at 5425 RPM with a 17" prop (and 2:1 gear ratio) is 11.6 percent slip, a rather normal number for the Viper.

OK, we know increasing 2 inches of pitch should drop the engine speed by 300-400 RPM so let's put that, say 350 RPM, deduction into the Propeller Calculator and see what happens:

5075 RPM with a 19" Viper and 11.6 percent slip and we get? 40.4 MPH.

posted 09-22-2011 08:58 PM ET (US)            

[quote]...it's seems the Yamaha has more HP.[quote]

posted 09-22-2011 09:00 PM ET (US)         

Interesting it's not listed on Wikipedia's disambiguation, instead the first entry is a virus that causes diarrhea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETEC :)

Wouldn't "D-TEC" make more sense? I guess that doesn't have the same ring to it.

posted 09-22-2011 09:02 PM ET (US)            

[quote]There have been several engines where the higher HP models have been the exact same as the lower HP versions and only the decal was different.[quote]

posted 09-22-2011 09:37 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

Where in the test reports does it say what the total weight of each boat is. I see the F90 powered one but not the E-TEC 90 report. Where does it say how much the persons weigh?

---

Unless two people weigh the same as one, which there is a slight possibility, the avg male human weight in this country is currently 190lbs, female 164 lbs. Most boat test I have seen specify 200lbs a person with gear.

quote:

---

Is the Alumicraft the same boat or merely the same model of boat? One test was from 2007, the other from 2011.

---

The dry weight listed is identical, it is the exact same model, why should we assume different? Do you think they put 200 lbs somewhere after market?

quote:

---

How about the gas?

---

quote:

---

5075 RPM with a 19" Viper and 11.6 percent slip and we get? 40.4 MPH.

---

RPM change would be dependent on HP if slip remains constant, what your essentially saying is the E-TEC makes more HP at 5075 RPM than 5425 RPM? I guess it's possible, Evinrude doesn't seem to know how to prop their boats for their own enigne tests, they seem to chronically run them up to 5500, maybe you should consult with them.

Hey lets do the same with the Yamaha, since it too is running to close to redline. Guess what it's getting 14.9% slip. go to a 21 inch and lower the rpm 350, and it fetches 40.6 mph, still faster with more weight. If we take your advice and stick with 88.8hp for the E-TEC that still puts the Yamaha at 98 HP! That didn't change a thing, but a decent Argumentum Verbosium.

Don't ignore the 8 degree difference in air temp, or do you think colder air doesn't help an engine?

Still waiting on that answer how a Merc, Suzuki and a E-TEC engines scored the exact same power rating down to the 100th kW, don't leave me hanging on that one too.

posted 09-22-2011 10:36 PM ET (US)         

Anyway given wstr75 data, the Montauk shows a 188.9 hull factor on Crouch's if Tohsgib's correct and a lightly loaded Montauk is roughly 1600 lbs and Tom/EPA is right with 88.8HP for the E-TEC.

posted 09-22-2011 11:09 PM ET (US)         

This does raise an interesting thought though, if Evinrude came out with an E-TEC 90 H.O. would it still be listed as 66.19kW with the EPA?

posted 09-22-2011 11:40 PM ET (US)            

Don't question the EPA Kw/HP ratings either. They are done in some magical way that no one here can explain but they are certain they are peak HP even though it does not make any sense.

posted 09-23-2011 08:33 AM ET (US)            

1. Whaler says 85/90 HP (powerhead rated) is good for 38 MPH. We'll use 85 HP. Under the simple rule that you need to square the HP to double speed, to reach 42.3 MPH, as reported by WSTR75 you would need 105 HP (powerhead rating).

2. You tell us that powerhead rating is about 10 percent higher than propshaft rating. So a 105 HP (powerhead rating) is equal to about 95 HP propshaft rating.

3. Last time I checked 95 does not equal 82. So something isn't quite right with Larry's assertion.

JHarrell -- Back in 2010 when you started promoting the Suzuki DF90A you stated:

quote:

---

From what I can gather here and from boat tests a modern 90 should get between 39-45 mph depending on how its proped and which engine. For instance the 3 cyclinder Etec at 1296cc seems to top out at 39-40mph on a 17, where a 4 cyclinder 1502cc 90 Suzuki should get 42-43mph.

---

In light of WSTR75's report of 42.3 MPH without a jack plate, do you think you need to revise your statement regarding the E-TEC's speed capability? Also, since you are taking the position that the Suzuki DF90A should be 3 MPH faster based on a single comparative test report, maybe you should also revise your statement to say that the Suzuki should get 44 to 45 MPH on a Montauk. That promise ought to get some high speed folks (maybe you included) to take the plunge on a Suzuki DF90A so we can get some actual data to see if it lives up to that expectation.

posted 09-23-2011 09:18 AM ET (US)         

quote:

---

maybe you should also revise your statement to say that the Suzuki should get 44 to 45 MPH on a Montauk.

---

Your right Peter, I have been looking for good speed data and fuel burn numbers of modern engines on a Montauk, and at the time I could not find any above that speed, so yes I revise my view in light of new information, see it's not so hard to do ;). 44.5mph seems attainable by one account, although most seem lower than that, it would be interesting to know why.

I wonder if I will ever get such a concession out of you for anything? Maybe you will revise the "-5% is an error" statement about the Suzuki since wstr75 is getting -16%?

quote:

---

That promise ought to get some high speed folks (maybe you included) to take the plunge on a Suzuki DF90A so we can get some actual data to see if it lives up to that expectation.

---

posted 09-23-2011 10:05 AM ET (US)         

http://www.bwbmag.com/output.cfm?id=943183

"The most impressive aspect of our 90 shoot-out is the closeness of the results. With the exception of the over-revving Suzuki — and again, this engine was limited by available props — the difference between the slowest and fastest was 2.2 mph."

"Quinlan went on to say that there’s no doubt in his mind that if the Suzuki had a bigger prop to keep it within its recommended wide-open-throttle range, it would have been the fastest engine of the bunch."

posted 09-23-2011 10:21 AM ET (US)            

- We now have aluminum boats used as solid comparisons for the classic Montauk.

- We have the 170 Montauk confused with the classic Montauk in our comparisons.

- We have arguments about motors other than the E-TEC 90 this thread is about.

- We have blindly ignorant statements made with zero supporting evidence because they are what "People" say.

- We have horsepower data from the EPA discredited as meaningless because it's their fault we have Ethanol in our gasoline.

- We have personal first hand experience and speed data from members here dismissed yet speed data provided by the outboard manufacturers themselves promoting their products are taken as Gospel.

posted 09-23-2011 10:48 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Quinlan went on to say that there’s no doubt in his mind that if the Suzuki had a bigger prop to keep it within its recommended wide-open-throttle range, it would have been the fastest engine of the bunch

---

I never said the Suzuki couldn't be the fastest if it was propped to keep it within the recommended WOT range. I only observe that there is no mention of banging off the rev limiter by the BWB crew. Unlike you, the experienced BWB crew doesn't speculate wildly about speeds like 52 MPH.

I do think you should put your money where your mouth is and buy a Suzuki DF90A and put it on the Montauk instead of relying on published manufacturer reports. I have no reason to believe that a Suzuki DF90A does not produce 90 HP (or 82 HP by Larry's standards).

Again, let's refocus your attention back on the assertion by Larry that the E-TEC is an 82 HP motor instead of diverting attention away to other things Do you still believe Larry given the accounts on CW of being able to achieve 42.3 MPH without a jack plate? You previously asserted that it was only good for 39-40 MPH. Apparently, that is factually incorrect.

posted 09-23-2011 10:55 AM ET (US)         

quote:

---

We now have aluminum boats used as solid comparisons for the classic Montauk.

---

Nope that was used to compare the E-TEC to a Yamaha.

quote:

---

We have horsepower data from the EPA discredited as meaningless because it's their fault we have Ethanol in our gasoline.

---

Still waiting on that answer about the 3 different engines. The Evinrude HO listings pretty much discredit the EPA data, either that or Evinrude is ripping people off with the HO's, which one is it?

quote:

---

We have personal first hand experience and speed data from members here dismissed yet speed data provided by the outboard manufacturers themselves promoting their products are taken as Gospel.

---

Who dismissed anything? I certainly didn't.

quote:

---

But what we DO NOT have is any credible evidence the Evinrude E-TEC 90 is significantly less powerful and slower than all the other 90 HP outboards being sold.

---

posted 09-23-2011 11:05 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

...the E-tec 90 at 83HP...

---

The two stroke Yamaha 90 does NOT perform like the E-TEC 90. That is clear to anybody who has operated them both, as I have, on classic Montauks. My brother-in-law had a 1988 Montauk with a two stroke Yamaha 90 for several seasons. There is no comparison.

posted 09-23-2011 11:18 AM ET (US)         

quote:

---

I never said the Suzuki couldn't be the fastest if it was propped to keep it within the recommended WOT range. I only observe that there is no mention of banging off the rev limiter by the BWB crew. Unlike you, the experienced BWB crew doesn't speculate wildly about speeds like 52 MPH.

---

Yes they only speculated 50+.

You said:

quote:

---

But how do you conclude that if it had a taller prop it would have easily bested the E-TEC?

---

posted 09-23-2011 11:24 AM ET (US)            

Yes I did. And as stated before by you, the EPA does not dyno the engines that manufacturers do. The manufacturers did not call each other up and agree to test the engines in the same location on the same day with the same dyno. So my question stands but you wont answer it.

How is it possible for three completely different engines, with three completely different technologies, tested on three different dynos, on three different days, in three different locations to be EXACTLY THE SAME with not one hundredth a difference in HP difference.

posted 09-23-2011 11:37 AM ET (US)         

quote:

---

And, a hundred or so posts later, did anybody here even bother to read the old document about how the EPA tests procedures are conducted, actually at that time, proposed to be conducted?

---

I read it, it was extremely long and I could find no details on how engine power was derived, perhaps you could point me to the relevant section, since you seem to know it.

It mentions a "steady state test cycle" which leads here: http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/cycles/iso8178.php

The most relevant note I could find is: "Rated speed is the speed at which the manufacturer specifies the rated engine power"

Generally it seems up to the manufacturer to specify what "rated power" is and the EPA does not test themselves.

posted 09-23-2011 11:40 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

But we are all sure they are NOT peak HP as tested on a dyno

---

posted 09-23-2011 11:44 AM ET (US)         

quote:

---

We are not discussing diesel engines, were are discussing outboard motors.

---

posted 09-23-2011 11:53 AM ET (US)            

The horsepower data from the EPA is discredited as meaningless because it is IMPOSSIBLE for three completely different engines, with three completely different technologies, tested on three different dynos, on three different days, in three different locations to be EXACTLY THE SAME.

Also the HO version come out to be exactly the same as the regular version when it has been proven that the HO's perform better. Also because several engines landed directly on the HP which while not impossible would be very difficult once but over four times leads me to believe that these are not peak HP numbers.

posted 09-23-2011 11:56 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Jim - With the Yamaha 2-stroke 90 also running the same top end as the Evinrude E-tec 90 reported here, remember that Tom Clark pointed out to us that Yamaha shows that engine as an actual 82 or 83HP.

---

posted 09-23-2011 11:59 AM ET (US)            

You can't have it both ways, relying on the EPA data in one case and dismissing it in another.

posted 09-23-2011 12:04 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

You can't have it both ways, relying on the EPA data in one case and dismissing it in another.

---

Yes you can, the data comes from two different manufacturers.

If it's up to the manufacturers to test, data from one could be accurate, while another is not.

It sounds to me as though you believe Evinrudes power ratings are accurate. In that case do you believe the 115 HO is actually the same power as the normal 115, and in fact you would just be paying for stickers?

posted 09-23-2011 12:10 PM ET (US)            

Nick said his Montauk went 41.5 MPH with its two stroke Yamaha 90.

posted 09-23-2011 12:34 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

This is hilarious! You can choose to believe one manufacturer's data but then dismiss another's arbitrarily?

---

No I never said I believed one over another, all I said it is possible for one to be accurate and one to be inaccurate therefore if you conclude one to be accurate that does not mean they are all accurate, which you claimed, this would be a logical fallacy of composition.

posted 09-23-2011 01:00 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Owtrayj25 -- The E-TEC 90 on wstr75's Monatuk goes 44.5 MPH.

Nick said his Montauk went 41.5 MPH with its two stroke Yamaha 90.

How can you describe that as "the same top end"?

---

posted 09-23-2011 03:29 PM ET (US)            

I have located an Adobe Flash viewable copy of SAE J1228 on a Chinese website. See: http://www.docin.com/p-122421125.html .

Section 8 of SAE J1228 makes it clear that actual horsepower may vary by up to 10% from declared horsepower:

quote:

---

The declared (rated) power at declared (rated) engine speed of any individual marine propulsion engine or propulsion system shall not deviate from its measured value by more than:

a. ±5% for engines or propulsion systems with speed governors of more than 100 kW declared power,

b. ±10% or ±0.45 kW, whichever is greater, for all other engines and propulsion systems.

---

posted 09-23-2011 05:37 PM ET (US)            

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/ICOMIA28-83.html

I carefully transcribed that document from a rasterized source a long time ago. I don't think it contains anything new.

Larry--Please stop your efforts to give the E-TEC a name. It already has a name. However, I would appreciate it if you could learn to spell it more accurately. E-TEC is all capitals and with a hyphen. It is always surprising to me how much trouble people have with spelling E-TEC properly.

posted 09-23-2011 06:11 PM ET (US)            

That being said, however, the SAE standard by which the engine data are to be reported clearly permits a certain amount of inaccuracy. At ± 10%, there could conceivably be as much as a 20% difference in horsepower between two engines nominally designated as 90 horsepower engines. When a manufacturer self-reports that an engine produces 90 horsepower at 5,500 rpm, what they are really reporting is that the engine produces somewhere between 81 and 99 horsepower at 5,550 rpm. In other words, it is quite possible that the E-TEC 90 produces less than 90 peak horsepower, notwithstanding the fact that BRP reports data to the EPA for that motor based on a horsepower rating of 90.

posted 09-23-2011 06:46 PM ET (US)            

Before the Evinrude haters get too excited about an Evinrude coming in last....there is something quite peculiar about the test. Read on.

quote:

---

We needed a test hull that was perfectly balanced, easy to rig, easy to handle, quick to plane, fast, adaptable to five different engines with shaft lengths of either 20 or 25 in., had lots of room for test gear and, last but not least, looked pretty in our photos!

Everyone we talked to suggested Kenner Boats, County Rd. 63 E., Knoxville, AR 72845; 501-885-3171; www.kennerboats.com. Cousins Bill and Dale Kenner enthusiastically agreed to make a stripped version of their center-console 21 V-150, 21 ft. 7 in. long, with a 91-in. beam and 16 degrees transom. It's hand-laid fiberglass, 100 percent foam-filled and covered by a five-year warranty.

This particular hull has the transom cut down to 23 in. and is equipped with an aircraft aluminum CMC Power Lift rated for 300 hp. This allowed us to test engines with either a 20- or 25-in. shaft.

---

Huh? If I read that right they actually purposely set out to test some 20 inch models and some 25 inch models of 115 HP outboard motors side by side for a "no-holds-barred comparison test of the top five outboards in which 2-stroke, 4-stroke, Ficht and Optimax technologies slug it out head-to-head" before they picked a test boat. If you were going to do a "no-holds-barred" test, why would you choose different motors with different shaft lengths? Who came up with that goofy test protocol?

The Evinrude they tested happened to be one of the two 25 inch models. The other was the Yamaha. The rest were 20 inch models. If you know anything about Evinrudes, the 25 inch model is equipped with a 25 inch leg and the large V6 gearcase housing stuffed with 2.25:1 gears (rather than the 1.85:1 gears used in the V6) not an intermediate size gearcase like the 20 inch models have with 2:1 gears. If you know anything about Yamahas, they get a 25 inch model out of sticking a 5 inch shaft extender onto the 20 inch intermediate size gearcase. The proper testing protocol would have had all of the motors uniformly having either 20 or 25 inch shaft lengths, but more preferrably 20 inch lengths where all motors use intermediate sized gearcases. If they had done that, then they would have had a "no-holds-barred" test.

PM should stick to doing a no-holds barred test on screw drivers and the like.

posted 09-23-2011 07:19 PM ET (US)         

Actually, the Japanese have made fools out of the Amercian builder's marketing. They are straight and to the point, with no gimmicks. They simply put decals on their engines saying exactly what they are: (brand name) + FOUR STROKE. Some also add EFI to distinguish from carburetors. At some time they might want to use DFI instead of EFI if it ever happens. That's it.

I'm glad to see Mercury now doing what their Japanese competition does, on engines from 2 to 150-HP. No gimmick names. Just plain old 4-stroke decals like the Japanese do, which seems to work since 80% of the market now belongs to FOUR STROKES.

With Mercury and Evinrude, the only builders left of 2-stokes, the words "TWO STROKE" need not be used, because 2-strokes have had 100 years of being the norm. But all these engines really need is a decal that says Evinrude DFI or Mercury DFI, and get rid of the E-TEC and OPTIMAX garbage. I kind of even like "TWO STROKE DFI".

But in the meantime, for the sake of pure entertainment and readship hits, I think the use of dinosaur names is kind of clever.

If some want to point out that they think the brand new Mercury 150 platform is a Japanese style 4-stroke dinosaur, be my guest. If some want to point out that the now 7-year old Evinrude 90 2-stroke is a less powerful, fuel consuming dinosaur, that's fun too.

posted 09-23-2011 08:16 PM ET (US)            

Regarding OptiMax and VERADO, these are made-up names. OptiMax seems to invoke a notion of a combination of optimum and maximum. VERADO is a completely made up word, but with a Latin-sounding root. Maybe Mercury wanted it to appeal to customers in Florida and Latin America. Sales of the VERADO are highly correlated with the inverse of distance from Miami, and anyone who has been to Miami lately knows that Spanish is spoken there more commonly than English. Es la verdad. When I first heard the model name VERADO I was not particularly positive about it, but since then it has become very familiar to me. VERADO immediately describes a specific segment of the Mercury product line. It is a very good name. I have never referred to the engine as anything but a "VERADO" and that is because Mercury has given the product a very good and very distinct name. I do not agree that VERADO engines should be called "Four Stroke" engines.

Evinrude has already said that E-TEC does NOT have a meaning, it is not an acronym. I think the "TEC" is interpreted by most to mean technical or technological. The 'E" as a prefix is just about universally interpreted to mean electronic. Therefore, although Evinrude says that the E-TEC does not have a meaning, for most it likely evokes a notion of electronic technology. Considering we have E-mail, and E-Commerce, I do not think it is particularly very far out of the mainstream to have E-TEC. The only downside to E-TEC is that no one seems to be able to spell it correctly.

I am not ready to pronounce that all American manufacturers ought to throw in the towel and follow the lead of the Japanese. Neither was George Buckley, an engineer with a Ph. D. degree and plenty of savvy business leadership. Buckley drove Mercury Marine and later Brunswick to a new level, a level where they could invent the VERADO--a new propulsion system instead of a copy-cat Japanese four-stroke.

posted 09-23-2011 10:48 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Actually, I think FICHT, E-TEC, BLACK MAX, OPTIMAX, and VERADO are all stupid names. What in the world does E-TEC actually mean? Absolutely nothing, just a corny made-up word, and so are the others.

---

posted 09-24-2011 09:20 AM ET (US)            

--a completely specious value for the true horsepower of the E-TEC 90 was introduced. It apparently was invented out of thin air. An irrational attempt to justify it followed. The basis for the horsepower value was deduction of engine power from boat speeds obtained in poorly controlled and randomly reported tests of dissimilar boats and engines;

--a certified value of true horsepower was introduced. This value was based on the accepted dynamometer test procedures used for all outboard spark ignition engines sold in the USA. An irrational attempt was made to discredit this test data on the basis that none of the participants were completely familiar with or could explain in detail the test procedure and its standards. On the other hand, the EPA, the government agency which regulates the sale of outboard engines by measurement of their exhaust emission, apparently is satisfied with the measurements.

The participants then divided into two groups. One group supports the specious value of horsepower based on the anecdotal reports of boat speed, and the second group supports the measured value obtained from the certified test data using a dynamometer.

In my opinion there are actually no participants who really believe the specious value to be true, and their support for it is simply in fun. They do this to enable a discussion to occur, but, being rational, educated, men of science, in their real minds they know the certified and measured value of horsepower is the true figure. Their insistence on using the made-up figure is simply a position they have assumed for sake of argument. This is the only logical assessment. To conclude they actually believed the nonsensical and invented horsepower figure would imply they were fools. I know many of these people and they are not fools. They are just fooling around with this silly number.

posted 09-24-2011 09:51 AM ET (US)         

quote:

---

The participants then divided into two groups. One group supports the specious value of horsepower based on the anecdotal reports of boat speed, and the second group supports the measured value obtained from the certified test data using a dynamometer.

---

How do you explain this discrepancy:

250 H.O. from your own photo of it's power plate "These labels are often the best source of information about engine power output." : 186.4kW

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/ETEC250HO.html

250 H.O. from the "certified test data using a dynamometer" EPA: 183.87kW

In fact according to the EPA the 3.3 standard E-TEC 250 has more torque at 629.42Nm than the larger displacement 3.4 HO 250 at 573.33Nm

If we go by your suggestion that the EPA is a reliable source of information there would be absolutely no reason to buy an H.O. engine, in fact Evinrude might be committing fraud by selling an engine as "High Output" when in fact it's output is identical to it's normal variant.

posted 09-24-2011 10:52 AM ET (US)            

Jim I would "imagine" that the E in E-TEC stands for Evinrude and Technology and that BRP is lying to you. If not it is too coincidental being that all they do is hype the technology from pistons made from moonrock to injectors from alien spaceships. Then again the Yamaha V-MAX was a motorcycle that had a V4 engine that kicked absolute but when it was released in 1985. It was STILL kicking butt in 2007 when it was discontinued...unchanged for 22 years. What it has in common with a V6 outboard beats the hell outta me.

posted 09-24-2011 12:25 PM ET (US)            

Wouldn't that be the most reliable way to see how a 13-1/4" x 17" Stiletto Advantage would perform on his Evinrude E-TEC 90 powered Montauk?

Of is a Mercury 115 on another Montauk with a completely different propeller a better way to determine how a 13-1/4" x 17" Stiletto Advantage would perform on an Evinrude E-TEC 90 powered Montauk?

It seems to me that if the 13-1/4" x 15" Stiletto Advantage on his Evinrude E-TEC 90 is allowing it to reach 5400 RPM at WOT then increasing the pitch to a 13-1/4" x 17" Stiletto Advantage ought to drop his RPM by 300-400 RPM and put it right smack dab in the middle of the 90 HP Evinrude E-TEC's Optimal Engine Speed range of 5000-5200 RPM.

posted 09-24-2011 01:09 PM ET (US)            

I located and purchased a 1988 Montauk that had a 1988 Yamaha 2-stroke on it. I removed the Yamaha and installed it on the 1974 hull. After some minor hull repairs and clean up I sold the 1974 Montauk for pretty much what I paid for it.

At that point I did the complete rebuild of the 1988 hull. The jack plate was added not just for better performance as much as I like how it moves all the control cables and wiring a bit farther back so there is less clutter in the back of the boat. Plus it looks nice. The 90 E-TEC had the aluminum prop on it when I bought it. By the way, the 1974 hull did just over 40 mph with the E-TEC with aluminum prop and no jack plate.

I purchased the Stiletto based on the comments from people on this board. That left me with the aluminum prop as a spare. Always nice to have a spare. Another reason I wanted to keep the E-TEC is that the E-TEC is approved for use on Lake Tahoe. The Yamaha was not. Most of the decisions I made were NOT based on seeing how fast I could make this boat go.

posted 09-24-2011 01:50 PM ET (US)         

Going to the 17 pitch Stilleto should reduce load carrying and hole shot, but the only report I could find of the 17 performance was from meridian, which seems to be the second fastest know Montauk with an E-TEC 90, fetching 44.4mph at 5300rpm.

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/007297.html

If the 17 where to somehow perform like wstr75 15, it should fetch 50mph! Wouldn't that be something.

With so many hundreds of Montauk and E-TEC owners on this board, maybe one of them will chime in with a higher than 44.5 mph top speed with the 90 and what prop they used.

If divtruk has the money to spend, or someone loans him a 17 Stilleto it would be interesting to know what kind of difference it makes, but it really doesn't seem worth it based on what the 15 is capable of.

posted 09-24-2011 02:14 PM ET (US)            

I do offer this observation: this boat will perform very differently in Lake Tahoe at over 6000 feet of elevation than in Lake San Antonio at only 800 feet.

At that altitude, the 90 HP E-TEC will be closer to a 75 HP motor and the 13-1/4" x 15" Stiletto Advantage will serve much better.

posted 09-24-2011 02:50 PM ET (US)            

In digging around I found this old thread. I believe the report is credible because it comes from somebody I know, Casey Sears, here in the PNW and it describes his classic Montauk THAT ACTUALLY GOES 50 MPH!

Larry will be heartened to note the motor is a conventional two stroke Mercury, as he has always claimed Mercury outboards are more powerful and faster than anybody else's. He has often claimed a three cylinder Mercury 90 on a Montauk can make it go 50 MPH.

Unfortunately for Larry and his wild claims, this boat has 115 HP motor on it, not a 90 HP motor on it. This top speed was hit under ideal conditions, saltwater, good chop, light fuel load and just one person aboard. The 50.3 MPh top speed is not the average of a two way test run but simply the highest value displayed in the GPS.

Interestingly, he later reports using the same boat, same motor, same propeller on Lake Washington here in Seattle (freshwater, 20 feet elevation) and has this to say:

quote:

---

I just had my boat on Lake Washington all weekend and did not see over 46.

---

That is over 4 MPH difference in boat speed between the saltwater of Puget Sound and the freshwater of Lake Washington.

posted 09-24-2011 02:55 PM ET (US)         

I wonder which lake wstr75 runs his boat in, I know Aquone Lake, NC is over 3000ft elevation.

Imagine what wstr75's boat would do in salt water, do you think it could hit -20% slip?

There must surely be an E-TEC 90 on a Montauk that can break 45mph if run in salt at sea-level given Tom's insight?

posted 09-24-2011 04:02 PM ET (US)            

Would somebody be so kind as to run those numbers through Crouch's Speed Calculator and then tell us what the predicted speed would have been, ceteris paribus, if the motor were only a 90 HP motor?

posted 09-24-2011 06:09 PM ET (US)         

Now given ceteris paribus and PSW did not have a jack-plate with the motor mounted only 1 1/3" up:

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/001695.html

We should deduce a E-TEC 90 will not need a setback nor be mounted any higher to attain 44.5mph if it is a 90 HP motor ceteris paribus.

Also PSW lost 4mph by simply going from fresh to salt water! Given ceteris paribus wstr75's Montauk should reach 48.5 mph in salt water!

posted 09-24-2011 08:43 PM ET (US)            

No offense but I doubt that will happen.

posted 09-24-2011 10:36 PM ET (US)            

I'm not sure I'd want to hit even a 1 foot swell at 45 mph on a Montauk.

But I think a perfect spot for a saltwater speed check might be in Bodega Bay Harbor. There is a 1 mile straight away perfectly suited for a speed run if the wind isn't too bad.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v665/warrent/Misc/BodegaBayHarbor.gif

Hitting a swell in Monterey Bay at 44 -45 mph?

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v665/warrent/ 170%20Montauk%20speed%20runs/?action=view¤t=2010-05-15083752.mp4

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v665/warrent/ 170%20Montauk%20speed%20runs/?action=view¤t=2010-05-15083046.mp4

I'm hoping to see my top speeds increase by 2 mph the next chance I get in Bodega Bay Harbor. I never knew about the saltwater effect on the hull.

Good luck and have fun.

posted 09-25-2011 02:47 AM ET (US)            

My 170 Montauk's hull weighs 1400 pounds and your classic Montauk's hull weights just 900 pounds. It wouldn't take much to get you airborne.

Good luck and keep us posted.

posted 09-25-2011 08:42 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Let's just take Casey's report at face value and assume his Montauk went 50.3 MPH with a 115 HP motor.

Would somebody be so kind as to run those numbers through Crouch's Speed Calculator and then tell us what the predicted speed would have been, ceteris paribus, if the motor were only a 90 HP motor?

---

Boat is speed is assumed to always be proportional to horsepower to the 0.5 exponent. If a boat goes 50.3 with 115-HP, then with 90-HP it would go

posted 09-25-2011 10:41 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

The E-TEC 90 on wstr75's Monatuk goes 44.5 MPH.

---

wstr 75's WOT speed with his E-TEC XX HP is a clear outlier. It is the lone example of traditional 90 HP / Montauk performance achieved with the E-TEC.

posted 09-25-2011 01:45 PM ET (US)            

Likewise, during the weekend spent on Lake Washington when Casey's Montauk could not go faster than 46 MPH with its 115 HP motor, it would have, ceteris paribus, only have gone 40.7 MPH if it had had only a 90 HP motor.

This range, 40.7 MPH to 44.5 MPH sounds familiar. It does in fact, correspond nicely with the reported top speeds of classic Montauk equipped with Evinrude E-TEC 90 HP motors on them.

This should not come as any surprise because it also corresponds closely to all reported top speeds of classic Montauk with 90 HP motors on them, regardless of brand.

The question was posed: Where are the Evinrude E-TEC 90 powered classic Montauks that go faster than 45 MPH? I ask: Where are the Montauks with 90 HP outboard of any brand that go faster than 45 MPH?

This is a long thread so it may be worth repeating what I wrote long ago:

"... a 90 HP outboard on a classic Montauk is good for a top speed in the low 40s."

posted 09-25-2011 01:52 PM ET (US)            

At 900 feet of elevation there would be, ceteris paribus, a 2.7 percent loss of horsepower because the air grows thinner with altitude and holds less oxygen.

Here is one of many online calculators that help compute the loss of horsepower with altitude:

posted 09-25-2011 04:29 PM ET (US)            

Maybe, just maybe my 90 E-TEC is slightly stronger than the average E-TEC. There is something called a bell curve, i.e. normal distribution and bell curves have tails.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

Scroll down in the above link to the bell curve diagram and at the two sigma point there is 2.2% of the population from there to the end on the right side tail. Perhaps my lovely 90 E-TEC is one of those 2.2% motors and has an extra three or four hp. Perhaps my newly restored and polished hull last year was also in the top 2.2% bracket for "surface drag factor". Then again, maybe there was an ideal itty bitty bit of ideal chop (again the beyond two sigma zone, i.e. 2.2% of surface conditions) for putting energy saving/speed enhancing air under the hull.

Then again, maybe my GPS is somehow off and is lying to me. I truly don't know. As a guy who designs and sells mechanical stuff dealing with water flows, in reading everyone's technical arguments, my instinct is to doubt my speed number. My only counter argument is the two sigma outlier possibility. I welcome your comments pro and con.
Bill in NC

posted 09-25-2011 04:32 PM ET (US)            

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

posted 09-25-2011 04:54 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

Please, somebody shown me, with some credible evidence, how that general statement is wrong. I have yet to see any in this thread.

---

posted 09-25-2011 07:08 PM ET (US)            

I am also sure they both are being perfectly honest in what they report. Just as I certainly do not think anybody else here is lying though it may be that some participants here are mistaken.

However, wstr75's boat is not the only report of a Montauk with an Evinrude E-TEC 90 HP outboard going 44.5 MPH. Meridian's does too. We have seen no reports in this thread of any 90 HP powered Montauks going 45 MPH, Jeff's notwithstanding.

This thread started with divtruk being generous to share with us his own data points as precisely as he could. I thank him for that. It is through reports like these that we all learn more about the performance potential of these classic Boston Whalers.

posted 09-25-2011 08:23 PM ET (US)         

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/002718.html

posted 09-25-2011 09:11 PM ET (US)            

Furthermore, Bill's response earlier this afternoon, after the Lions finished dismantling the Vikings, is perfectly reasonable and well expressed. I'm only slightly more certain that this "Bill" fella, with his engineering background, precise and circumspect use of the english language and completed profile isn't our esteemed moderator. Would you have spelled it Thermaco or ThermaCo, Bill?

posted 09-26-2011 10:10 AM ET (US)            

Meridian's boat used a 13-1/4" x 17" Stiletto Advantage not a 13-1/4" x 15" Stiletto Advantage. 44.5 MPH at 5400 RPM is believable with the 17 inch pitch, less so with the 15 inch, as you have already noted.

posted 09-26-2011 10:35 AM ET (US)            

But what really frustrated many here is the reliance on EPA data presented as the basis for authenticating horsepower of various engines. This data has on many occasion proven to be unreliable, and in many cases, impossible to achieve (e.g. 3 engines of differing brand, with differing technologies ALL cited as having precisely the same power output). It was then discovered that the EPA does not test the engines at all, yet relies on the manufacturers to present the data, and provides testing procedures which allow for a 10% deviation in cowl HP. That to me does not seem to be an accurate way to determine a precise power output of an outboard engine.

posted 09-26-2011 10:41 AM ET (US)         

That model Merc was a 2.33:1 ratio correct? If so that shows -7.92% slip with a 20p prop at 50mph. This is half the slip wstr75 reports, and slightly less than divtruk reports at -8.21%. Even meridian is shows -4.31% slip at 5300rpm with his 17p.

posted 09-26-2011 11:59 AM ET (US)            

This prop was installed at the dealer where the boat was repowered (and rehabilitated). I instructed the dealer to install a 15" Stiletto prop as per Tom Clark (and others) comments on this forum. Dealers being dealers have lots of stuff going on in the springtime and I'm now trying to conclusively determine what size/dimension prop is on the motor.
Bill in NC

posted 09-26-2011 12:54 PM ET (US)            

Here are my thoughts:
1. My E-TEC 90 is putting out pretty good horsepower numbers.
2. My prop slippage factor with the 17" wheel is within the expected range.
3. My recollection of that afternoon's speed run was the rpm indicator jumped around a bit. I-Command is all electronic and as such is supposed to to be uber accurate, but oftentimes it seems to "round up" or "round down" the rpm number. Like when the motor is idling, it jumps up and down 50 rpm when it is obvious the motor rpm holding a steady beat. It does the same thing at wide open throttle with rpm numbers jumping around all while the motor's tone is sounding constant. I will get out on the water sometime this fall to re-do the speed run and will give special attention to the rpm.

posted 09-26-2011 12:56 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

it is about the conjecture that the E-TEC 90 is not a (roughly) 90 HP outboard.

---

I'm not certain thats what this article is about at all, Tom. I think the argument is that the E-TEC 90 is the weakest, or among the weakest engines labeled "90 HP". This exact assertion was put forth as Option A in the tenth post of this lengthy article.

While some have asserted that the engine may more accurately be called the E-TEC 83 HP, that was done partially in jest and consistent with jimh's relabeling of his favorite whipping boy brand.

posted 09-26-2011 01:05 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

...we also can all see that the compelling majority of performance reports tell us WOT speeds from the E-TEC are lower than most other engines.

---

posted 09-27-2011 08:04 PM ET (US)            

There are very many Montauks with 90 E-TECs in every harbor. I see them every week. They look great, and seem to run great.
Several boaters have beached nearby, and we talk "Whalers".
From the discussions I've had with a few, they seem "over the top" pleased with the E-TEC's. Perhaps it's the way they start, or the no smoke....but if it's anything like my 30 E-TEC, it's because the have all the attributes of great 2-strokes.....with the "pleasures" of great 4-strokes.....except the maintenance.

posted 09-28-2011 12:44 AM ET (US)            

Anybody?

posted 09-28-2011 11:24 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

...the 43-45 MPH expected top speed that I keep reading a 90 HP yields on a Classic Montauk.

---

Now Patrick, you are beginning to get closer to the truth. I've used the search feature too and keep seeing themes repeated. Perhaps the most prominent theme is that a Mercury 90 can make a Montauk go 50 MPH, or close to it, and as a corollary, a Mercury 90 HP outboard is faster than any other brand of 90 HP outboard.

It has become clear the basis of this theme comes from one enthusiastic and long time Continuous-Wave participant who latched on to the Clark Roberts reports cited earlier in this thread. From the time those reports emerged six or seven or eight years ago, this participant has repeated at every opportunity, that a 90 HP Mercury should be good for 50 MPH, or close to it, on a classic 16'-7" Whaler.

Over and over, in thread after thread, a single data point has now become legendary and has grown to become part of the performance culture around here. Your Montauk only goes between 40 and 45 MPH? Well, you should have a Mercury 90 on it. Clark Roberts reports the three cylinder Mercury 90 is good for 48 MPH!

I'll say it again: A classic Montauk with a 90 HP E-TEC, or any other brand and model of outboard motor is good for a top speed in the low 40s, with the ultimate top speed dependent on any number of environmental and load conditions. Until somebody undertakes a comprehensive review of all performance reports of Classic Montauks and enters said data into a spreadsheet for critical analysis, there will always be the opportunity for accusations of "cherry picking".

And for anybody who believes a Montauk (or a Newport) can go 50 MPH (or even 48) with a three cylinder Mercury 90 turning a 20" HighFive propeller, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

posted 09-28-2011 06:53 PM ET (US)         

So the real question, is 41 slow for a 90? I think it is.

Boston Whaler sold a lot of classic white Montauks before the newer 170 came out, with Merc 90 2 and 4-stroke engines. To help answer Tom's question, can anybody dig up those archived BW performance reports? I want to say I remember 44 MPH.

Here's a performance calculation some of you engine guys can make for me. I am curious how much HP I am using in my own Montauk to go 42 MPH. It has a 115 HP engine, 2.0 gearing just like the E-TEC, and when running a Mercury 21" pitch Black Max aluminum prop, easily loafs along at 42 MPH turning 4500 RPM. How much HP is being used to reach that speed? I haven't had the right conditions to test top end speed with this prop, but it will turn the engine up to 5500 easily. A 22" Laser II should end up being the permanent prop for this rig at a scary fast 52 MPH. Just a guess.

posted 09-28-2011 08:37 PM ET (US)            

We are talking about the classic Montauk here. The Montauk 170 is a completely different boat. When we find a Montauk 170 repowered with an E-TEC 90, it might be fun to compare them.

Also, when, and if, you ever get your Montauk to achieve WOT, please do let us know how fast it goes and at what RPM it does so with whatever propeller you choose to use. It will be fun to see how it does.

posted 09-28-2011 11:19 PM ET (US)            

These E-Tec numbers seem to be done with modern stainless steel props and jackplates. These boats have been dialed in and run very well.

I wonder what a v4 crossflow 90hp OMC with a jackplate and stainless steel prop can run with proper set up. Dont they run 42-43 with aluminum props while mounted on the transom?

I feel that 41-44mph is the average top speed but I feel like that is comparing against other engines on the transom swinging an aluminum wheel.

Is that true?

posted 10-05-2011 10:53 AM ET (US)         

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tech

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tec

The data points keep stacking up for Mercury motors exceeding 44.5 mph on a classic 17 hull, how many must be reported before the possibility is accepted by the E-TEC adherents?

posted 10-05-2011 12:56 PM ET (US)            

There seems to be a relentless and ineluctable force--actually a cadre of Mercury fans--that want to insist that owners of the MONTAUK 17 and E-TEC 90-HP combination are missing something. My impression of what those E-TEC 90 owners are missing is as follows:

--they are missing the smoke in the exhaust of their engine

--they are missing the rough starting and poor idle characteristics in their engines

--they are missing having to change spark plugs, water pump impellers, and gear case lubricant every year in their engines

--they are missing the noise, vibration, and harshness in their engines

--they are missing the bad fuel economy in their engines

--they are missing the prohibitively high exhaust gas emissions in their engines,

and, if you believe a few anecdotal reports of not particularly well controlled boat speed comparisons,

--they may be missing one or two miles per hour in top speed.

It is also my impression that the owners of the E-TEC 90 engines are NOT missing any of the following:

--fantastic engine torque and acceleration

--engine size, weight, and proportions that are appropriate for the MONTAUK 17

--ability to utilize modern electronic instrumentation networking like NMEA-2000

--spending more time on the water.

posted 10-05-2011 02:03 PM ET (US)         

In spite of Tom Clark's accusation, I am happy to see that Russ has collaborated the results that our highly esteemed contributor Clark Roberts has also indicated. So now it appears we have a situation where the Merc 90 2-stroke is possibly over 90 HP, and the E-TEC 90 is definitely less, with about 44 MPH being a good average for a TRUE 90, such as an old OMC V-4 in either 90 degree or 60 degree configuration, or any of the current 4-strokes. Merc L6 "towers" are too powerful for this discussion!

posted 10-06-2011 09:13 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Come on, Jim, what a bunch of pro-E-TEC exaggerated baloney.

---

Larry--You are right. I did exaggerate a bit. When I said

"fantastic engine torque and acceleration"

I probably should have said "really good engine torque and acceleration." Using the adjective "fanatastic" implies that the engine torque and acceleration were something out of a fantasy. They're not. They're just really good.

Now everything else I said is not an exaggeration, but, rather, the simple truth. Those reasons are why the people who actually own Boston Whaler MONTAUK 17 boats with E-TEC 90-HP motors are so happy. If they did not get all of those advantages with their new motor, they would not be so happy. I don't think there is any E-TEC 90-HP owner who is ready to give up all of those advantages in order to take a chance that he could get one or two miles-per-hour greater speed at maximum throttle. There is a simple reason for that.

The number of times and places where you can run a 17-foot MONTAUK at more than 44-MPH is a rather small number and represents only a small fraction of the time spent running the boat and engine. This is another advantage of the E-TEC 90-HP: it will give you a very accurate history of the throttle setting and engine speed. What owners of an E-TEC find out from their engine history is just how very little time they spend with the engine running at maximum throttle. It is typically less than one-percent of the time.

The silly argument that keeps being put forth here is that in order to perhaps get one or two miles-per-hour greater speed during less than one-percent of the operating time of the engine, E-TEC owners ought to give up all the other clear advantages of their modern, low-emission outboard engine. It is no wonder that they don't want to make that sort of a trade-off.

How much difference will 1-MPH hour make? Let's say we are on a 25-mile run with our 17-foot MONTAUKS. If one boat goes 44-MPH and the other goes 45-MPH, what advantage accrues to the faster boat? Over a 25-mile run that means the faster boat gets to the destination 45-seconds sooner. Do you think that anyone is going to give up all the advantages of the E-TEC so that the one day of the year they run at wide open throttle for 25-miles they can save 45-seconds? Now that is fantastic!

posted 10-06-2011 10:14 AM ET (US)            

Again, the ETEC proponents find themselves in clear agreement with the very foundation of the assertions put forth in the 7th post of this article!

I tend to agree with most of jimh's assertions regarding the benefits of the E-TEC 90 on a Montauk and also doubt that there is a better repower option available at this time.

posted 10-06-2011 06:36 PM ET (US)         

We have numberous reports that the 7 year old design of the 3-star Evinrude 90 performs almost exactly the same as the 26 year old design of the NO-star Yamaha 90.

Thanks to some good research work by Tom Clark, we have learned that the Yamaha 90 is putting out only 83HP at the prop. Is Yamaha's HP number for their 2-stroke 90 "nonesense", "made up". "pulled from the air" and "invented"? You decide. After all, it's not my number. But Yamaha has a pretty good reputation around here in spite of the Evinrude attack ads.

posted 10-06-2011 07:57 PM ET (US)            

I've no made any accusations just asked several questions that have still gone unanswered.

posted 10-06-2011 08:02 PM ET (US)            

You said it would go 47-48 MPH but then later you said it would go 47 MPH per GPS in saltwater. Which is it? It certainly sound as if you had it dialed in very nicely with the Stiletto Advantage propeller and the elevated mounting height. You are a wise man.

posted 10-06-2011 08:12 PM ET (US)            

I think that is fine and many guys do just this or even more ridiculous overpowering. I know of one guy who even put a six cylinder 150 Mercury 150 on his Nauset. He was very proud of that.

posted 10-06-2011 09:18 PM ET (US)         

Nobody has been saying a Montauk has to go a certain speed, as you say even a 40 works on the boat.

But repeatedly over the years, we see "How can I make my Evinrude 90 E-Tec go faster than 38 with the alum prop. Which means these people are disappointed in that speed for 90 HP. Your 15" Stiletto prop seems to get most of them up to 40-41.5 @ 3 holes up. That speed calculates.

posted 10-07-2011 12:23 AM ET (US)            

When I search Continuous-Wave for "How can I make my Evinrude 90 E-Tec go faster than 38 with the alum prop." I get only a 13 results and none of them are about a Montauk except this thread.

Among those results is Len Simpson describing how his Evinrude E-TEC 90 is good for 52.2 MPH on his Sport 15 [ With? guess what, a Stiletto Advantage ] and how pleased he is with it.

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/006056.html

And then there is Clark Roberts with his first impressions of the Evinrude E-TEC 90 where he writes:

"Yesterday I piloted a friend's 17 Outrage with his new 90 E-TEC...Starting the new engine was instant with just a key turn and idle was smooth and very, very quiet (as quiet as my 115 Merc four-stroke) and acceleration was fierce. Owner said that it was quicker out of the hole than the 115 V4 Evinrude it replaced. Top speed, with just me aboard (190-lbs.), at 5500-RPM trimmed out was 35-MPH (per GPS). I haven't figured out the theoretical top speed yet because I don't know the weight of that hull. Bottom line: I'm very impressed with the engine's fit and finish, size, quietness (quieter at top speed also than my four-stroke), and low end power."

http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/003196.html

posted 10-09-2011 09:55 PM ET (US)            

2700 rpm - 21.1 mph
3050 rpm - 24.5 mph
3300 rpm - 26.8 mph
4700 rpm - 39.6 mph
5450 rpm - 44.62 mph (was bobbling from 44.3 to 44.62 mph)

90 hp Evinrude E-TEC 2009 model year
1987 Montauk
17" Stiletto prop
Adjustable aluminum set-back plate
3/4 tank of fuel (24 gallon Moeller tank)
205 pound human being (gained a few pounds since last year)
Two batteries located in the console
Driver was crouched down behind the console
The above numbers were shown on both the I-Command gauge GPS and the Lowrance HDS-5 GPS (two separate GPS units), i.e. the two GPS units were in agreement.

posted 10-11-2011 04:29 PM ET (US)            

I think my boat/motor set-up has been taken as far it can go. 5450 rpm is likely all that is going to come out of my E-TEC. The prop is somehow still grabbing sufficient water but it's top section has got to be out or almost out of the water judging by the spray pattern. In a future trip I'd like to have someone drive the boat while I look down at the prop. I'm pretty much through with running at max speed and will keep the speed under 40 mph to ensure sufficient water is getting picked-up by the water pump. Another benefit for keeping it under 40 mph is it allows enjoyment of the boating and scenery aspects because to get the extra 4+ mph requires a sensitive touch on the trim and a higher level of concentration. It is a "Who needs the static, it hurts the head kind of boating lifestyle kind of thing, i.e. less engineering/tinkering and more laid-back recreational cruising stuff.

posted 10-11-2011 04:37 PM ET (US)            

When doing performance runs with my boat, I've used a grease pencil on the console gelcoat to scribble down barely decipherable numbers at predetermined and noted RPMs. While still a challenge, its reasonable for one person.

As you note, those WOT speeds are done rarely, for bragging rights and to publish for posterity and reference here. Its certainly not to be considered typical or relaxing boating, regardless of age.

Patrick

posted 10-11-2011 04:43 PM ET (US)            

Seriously, I buy the negative slip arguments you are making. What do you think is reason for the 44.3 to 44.62 mph readings?

posted 10-11-2011 07:48 PM ET (US)            

In the case of the Stiletto Advantage, especially the small tube version (4.25), the slip will, for whatever reason, be negative. How can this be? I honestly do not know. The most obvious reason would be that the manufacturer simply underrates the nominal pitch and there may be some truth there. The Yamaha Performance Series three blade stainless steel propeller is (as far as I can tell) exactly the same propeller, same casting as the Stiletto Advantage and Turbo 1 (all are made by Precision Propeller Industries Inc.) and is made in even numbered pitches, yet the Stiletto and Turbo are made in odd numbered pitches, so a 15" Stiletto will be the same as a 16" Yamaha.

The only trouble with this theory is that in the one case I know of a Stiletto propeller actually being taken into a Prop Scan propeller shop to have its pitch measured at three points on the blades, near the root, middle and near the tip, conformed the pitch was essentially as stated. Go figure.

I do not really care about whether the pitch is over or under stated on any given model of propeller, what I do care about is that any given propeller perform within the range of slip I have come to expect from it.

The Stiletto Advantage 4.25 in a classic Whaler usually runs with between 2 percent and -2 percent slip. The large tube Advantage 4.75 typically runs with between 1 percent and 5 percent slip. When the slip calculations exceed these values, my eyebrow goes up.

Different models of propellers have different typical ranges of slip. For example, the small tube the blade Mercury Vengeance usually has very low slip between -2 and 4 percent yet the four blade Mercury Trophy Plus will usually yield rather high slip values in the 2 to 6 percent range which is exactly the opposite of what the "general rule" about going from a three blade to a four blade suggests.

posted 10-13-2011 01:31 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

The 17' Montauk & 90 Mercury engine were both a 2000 model.
The boat would run a solid 47MPH, with an occasional 48...
Smooth waxed bottom, a great combination.
Very fast for a non stepped or padded hull.

---

Smooth and waxed running surface? At close to 50mph, it might not matter much if you handicap yourself with a shiny waxed bottom, but at bass boat speeds, a shiny waxed pad appears NOT to be the way to go:

http://www.bassboatcentral.com/don'twax.htm

A lot of racers swear by a 400 grit finish

YMMV

posted 10-13-2011 04:53 PM ET (US)         

My Whaler normally needs 23" pitch props, but the 21" Mercury Revolution-4's I am using definitely top out like 23's. I could not turn up 23" Rev-4's.

posted 10-14-2011 09:29 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Cupping on a prop, which all props have today, adds 1" to 2" of effective pitch. That is where the discrepancies may be coming from. A cupped 15" Stiletto will act like a 17" pitch?

---

Uh, no Larry, if all propellers are cupped (which, with few exceptions, they are) then how can a cupped Stiletto act like a 17" pitch unless the 17" pitch propeller is not cupped? We know 17" pitch outboard propellers are all cupped so how do you explain a 15" pitch Stiletto acting like a cupped 17" pitch propeller?

quote:

---

Mercury says that # of blades matters too. A four blade of the same pitch will run like 1 extra inch of pitch, maybe 2.

---

Uh, no, that is not necessarily correct. I just finished cautioning against these general rules of thumb. If this were true, how do you explain the three blade Mercury Vengeance having a greater effective pitch than the four blade Mercury Trophy Plus?

Or the three blade Mercury MIRAGEplus having a greater effective pitch than the four blade Mercury VenSura (Offshore)?

posted 10-15-2011 11:47 AM ET (US)            

I do not believe you have ever contributed a detailed propeller report yet you continue to offer advice about propeller selection based on nothing more than what you have read from Mercury marketing, interpreting it (often incorrectly) as you see fit.

There is no "industry standards" for propeller pitch designation.

posted 10-15-2011 11:59 AM ET (US)            

Slip from boats that go very fast, 70 MPH say, do not necessarily have greater propeller slip than the average Boston Whaler, it depends on a great number of things.

posted 10-16-2011 09:43 AM ET (US)            

General Rule of Propeller Testing

posted 10-28-2011 11:16 AM ET (US)            

Obviously, the 13-1/4" x 17" Stiletto is the better choice and what I believe he has on the motor now, though I have not hear from him what the top speed is with that prop.

His motor is mounted all the way down on the transom and should be raised three bolt holes. That would probably bring his top speed up to 44 or 44.5 MPH.

posted 10-31-2011 12:14 PM ET (US)            

I have previously mentioned in this thread my friend who recently bought a 1987 Montauk with a Mercury 100 motor (mounted one hole up) and found in would only go 39.9 MPH in saltwater with a 12-3/4" x 21" Aluminum Quicksilver propeller at a little over 4700 RPM.

On my advice, the motor has been raised to the fourth bolt hole ("three holes up") and a 13-1/4" x 9" Stiletto Advantage I installed. This weekend he reported he was now able to achieve 42.9 MPH at 5100 RPM.

That is a 3 MPH gain with a simple propeller swap and motor height adjustment.

posted 11-01-2011 10:40 AM ET (US)            

quote:

---

GPS does not lie...we want pics and don't cheat by using your bud's boat.

---

posted 11-01-2011 12:09 PM ET (US)            

There is no opportunity for older folks to reminisce about how fast their Evinrude E-TEC 90 powered Montauk went ten, or fifteen or twenty years ago. And there does seem to be a rough correlation between claims of high top speed and number of years elapsed since that event occurred.

posted 11-01-2011 12:45 PM ET (US)            

What year is your Montauk?

posted 11-01-2011 02:03 PM ET (US)         

quote:

---

Yes, clean up the lower unit and install a 13-1/4" x 19" Stiletto Advantage.

---

The 21 is tempting though, should perform more like a 23" correct?

quote:

---

What year is your Montauk?

---

quote:

---

How high on the transom is the motor mounted?

---

I was tweaking the jackplate up and trimming out it ended up with the vent plate about 4-5" above the keel as shown in the following photo's, you can also see how rough the LU is:

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/ uB-HtRBN8pVfH54MM96uKpNyNflSr_BDos3tKmqm-pg?feat=directlink

https://picasaweb.google.com/107007622155886602752/ WhalerProject?authkey=Gv1sRgCOHiqYL_38ejFw#5670102896295177970

quote:

---

5100 is not over revving on an inline. I think 90 was 5250, 115 was 5500, and 140 was 5750.

---

My original manual disagree's ;):

posted 11-01-2011 02:13 PM ET (US)            

The motor height looks great. All you need is a little sandpaper and a $5 can of Phantom Black spray paint:

posted 11-01-2011 08:05 PM ET (US)         

Redline on the L6 Merc 90s is 5000, (115's are 5500 & 140's are 5800), so I would use a Mercury 20" Laser II (you can get a Quicksilver version for less called Lightspeed). That should keep the revs down and bring the speed up to 46 MPH. Not bad.

If a true 90 gives a Montauk 44, then the E-tec at 41-42 is less HP, and maybe this old L6 is more HP (if the engine can achieve 46).

posted 11-02-2011 09:43 AM ET (US)            

The 1998 Alert and the 1999 Standard are the exact same configuration and vary by only 100 pounds of hull weight due to the Alert's heavier layup. Unless Larry tells us there was a profound change in the design of the Mercury 90 between 1998 and 1999, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your boat went 44.5 MPH because it weighed a little less.

posted 11-02-2011 10:40 AM ET (US)            

The E-TEC faster than the Mercury--well, Howdy Doody, what do ya know about that?

It seems to me that the E-TEC retains all of the good qualities of the old two-cycle engines, and gets rid of all of their bad qualities. It is a good example of a modern, well-designed, well-engineered product that has supplanted the older products of its kind.

posted 11-02-2011 01:53 PM ET (US)            

I wonder what the top two optimized WOT speeds are for some of the other 90 HP outboards on the market? I certainly wish someone would execute and document them as rigorously as wstr75 Bill where the same speed to the hundredth was achieved in both directions ; )

posted 11-02-2011 09:35 PM ET (US)            

Accuracy of GPS Receiver Speed Measurements
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/002179.html

posted 11-03-2011 09:52 PM ET (US)         

Here are a couple more photos of it:

http://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-meYSdwS-1LU/TrBAfOWgh1I/AAAAAAAAAGA/ 7uHiJ0WjIps/s1024/IMAGE_1DF02C12-319B-4FD6-B77E-2CEAAE15630F.JPG

posted 11-04-2011 09:49 PM ET (US)            

When the dust settled the 90-HP E-TEC was measured at 88.9-HP, or within about one-percent of the rated power, which is probably less than the margin of error of the measuring equipment.

It has been a fun ride, and I fully expect we will get to do it all again soon in a few weeks when another classic MONTAUK owner re-powers with a 90-HP E-TEC .