17 Outrage II Re-power Suzuki DF140: Six Questions

Optimizing the performance of Boston Whaler boats
CrazedAndConfused
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2021 12:54 pm

17 Outrage II Re-power Suzuki DF140: Six Questions

Postby CrazedAndConfused » Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:20 am

I may repower my 17 OUTRAGE II. The current engine on the 17 OUTRAGE II is an original 1998 Evinrude 115 Ocean Pro (E115SXECM). For me the current performance is great: boat speed is 38-MPH with two people aboard and half-full tank of fuel. At maximum load and full full tank, boat is speed is 34-MPH.

The Suzuki DF140A seems to be a popular choice for re-powering.

Q1: is there a reason not to get the Suzuki 140 for a 17 OUTRAGE II?

Q2: is there a 115-HP that will give comparable performance to the current engine?

Q3: is a DF140BG ruled out due to weight?

Q4: what do I do with the old engine?

Q5: do dealers take in old engines on trade?

Q6: is selling a used outboard engine a giant pain?

Q7: with [new] 115-HP [four-stroke-power-cycle] engines closer [in weight] to the original two-stroke-power-cycle 115-HP, is a new engine lighter [than a DF140A] a better decision.


MANY OTHER OBSERVATIONS

With the current 115-HP engine on the 17 OUTRAGE II, the acceleration onto plane is quick; there a short-duration steep bow rise, then the boat blasts off.

The bow of the boat will oscillate up and down when on plane in flat water. By changing power and trim the oscillation can be stopped. This oscillation is the only negative aspect of the boat.

The 17 OUTRAGE II hull is very sensitive to weight. I can overcome changes in weight with trim.

The 17 OUTRAGE II hull rides better with more than four people people compared to with just four people because the additional people must move toward the bow. When four people go out, the rear seats are always used due to the comfortable ride, but the people sitting there complain about the engine noise.

The 17 OUTRAGE II hul shines in chop and the bow does not oscillate. The hull can take more than I can.

My boating area is the middle Chesapeake Bay.

REPOWERING GOALS IN ORDER
  1. reliability
  2. quiet running
  3. fuel economy

Were Evinrude was still around I probably would go with them.

Suzuki and Yamaha dealers are close.

I can trailer it for Mercury service.

Where I’m located, the vast majority of boats are Suzuki-powered followed by Yamaha. The local watermen use both of those brands for crazy amounts of hours; some of the boats look barely seaworthy but have nice engines.

[Somewhere unspecified a reference is made to a thread called] "the underpowered DF140."

The emission plate on 2020 DF140 shows a power 103.0 kW, and mass of 179 to 205 kg. The 205-kg weight caught me off guard.

I believe the upper [transom] weight limit [for a 17 OUTRAGE II] is around 420 lbs. I understood the Suzuki DF140A to be around 405-lbs, but now I am not so sure having seen that plate on an actual engine.

I’ve seen weights for the Evinrude 115 engine on the boat now between 300-lbs and 330-lbs, and the Ocean Pro 150 weight between 375-lbs and 395-lbs. On my engine it says 85.8 kW and 152 kg (335 lbs).

Going heavier than the maximum-rated-150 weight is a bit concerning.

I’m not sure how large the oil tank is or what that adds in weight.

With [only a 115-HP four-stroke-power-cycle engine] I suspect I’ll be disappointed with the acceleration onto plane from a standing start.

Do either the Mercury ProXS-CT or Yamaha 115 SHO VMAX really delivery significant improvements over their standard 115?

I don’t feel the need to go faster than 38-MPH. but don’t want to go slower with a new engine. I usually cruise between 22-MPH and 26-MPH, depending on the conditions and weight distribution in the boat.

The current engine runs well so I can use it while waiting for a new motor.

I want a higher degree of confidence in the engine than I have with the current one so I can take longer trips with peace of mind. Breaking down can put a serious dent in enthusiasm for boating.

I’m not eager to put more money in the currentengine, when it runs it inspires awe. But it is just old. I’d like a decade or more of turn-the-key and go with only routine maintenance.

Once a season I may pull a tube around. The typical load is two to four people, several times a season with 6 or 7 people.

The 17 OUTRAGE II boat is in fantastic condition, a few craze lines, not many, I don’t feel any need to upgrade or upsize.

I got a verbal quote of $11,500 for a DF140A in black, installed with gauges and controls, but with a five to six month wait and a $1,000 deposit. I’ll be in for more than $11,500 in the end but it sounded reasonable to me.

I’m in no rush.

The 17 Outrage II lives on a trailer at one-mile distance from the marina.

I also own a 110 SPORT. The 110 SPORT sits at a dock in very shallow water. I use it for fishing.

To not have the 17 OUTRAGE II in peak season as it gets repowered isn’t a concern.

My current engine would be a good choice for someone who doesn’t mind working on engines.
1998 17 Outrage II
2006 110 Sport

jimh
Posts: 11659
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 17 Outrage II Repower Suzuki DF140: Six Questions

Postby jimh » Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:55 am

CrazedAndConfused wrote:Q1: is there a reason not to get the Suzuki 140 for a 17 OUTRAGE II?
I don't see any particularly bad aspect of the DF140 engine that would prohibit it from repowering a 17 OUTRAGE II boat. I believe the DF140 model is the best selling Suzuki engine. The only aspect that could be a problem is the weight. At 405-lbs for the 25-inch shaft model, the weight is higher than expected for this hull. As a result, moving weight to amidships from the stern is probably advisable. The engine cranking battery can weigh as much as 60-lbs, and it could be moved to be in the center console.

CrazedAndConfused wrote:Q2: is there a 115-HP that will give comparable performance to the current engine?
Probably the now-out-of-production E-TEC 115-HP three-cylinder would be a modern engine that would give performance similar to your legacy four-cylinder OMC 115-HP engine.

CrazedAndConfused wrote:Q3: is a DF140BG ruled out due to weight?
Without knowing how much this engine weighs, it will be difficult for readers to answer this question. You should provide readers with the actual weight, especially when you ask a question specifically about the weight. To help readers understand your question, I have looked up the engine weight of a DF140BG: 422.4-lbs, which is 17.4-lbs heavier than the DF140A.

You need to inform readers about the difference between the DF140A and the DF140BG. Again, I will help readers: the BG model has electrical shift and throttle (EST) remote controls; the A model has conventional mechanical cable controls. The absence of mechanical cable controls for remote control of the engine in the DF140BG will probably make up for some of the weight difference. Eliminating the mechanical cables connecting to the engine will probably take away about 5-lbs of rigging weight from the transom. On that basis, the weight difference is now reduced to perhaps 12-lbs.

Whether 12-lbs more net weight on the transom is a reason to forgo getting the EST remote controls will be difficult to assess with any real precision.

CrazedAndConfused wrote:Q4: What do I do with the old engine?
Sell it, either as a working engine, or for parts, or for scrap metal. Or give it away to a deserving recipient.

CrazedAndConfused wrote:Q5: Do dealers take in old engines on trade?
Some do, some don't.

CrazedAndConfused wrote:Q6: Is selling a used outboard engine a giant pain?
This depends on your tolerance for person-to-person sales and the asking price.

CrazedAndConfused wrote:Q7: with [new] 115-HP [four-stroke-power-cycle] engines closer [in weight] to the original two-stroke-power-cycle 115-HP, is a new engine lighter [than a DF140A] a better decision?
Reducing transom weight with a lighter engine will improve acceleration, help the boat trim, and reduce the tendency for the bow to oscillate. But without any advice from you about what other engine options are available and what those engines will weigh, the notion that you can get a 115-HP engine that weighs less than the DF140A is something that is not clearly presented here. You should research this option further, and announce your findings.

jimh
Posts: 11659
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 17 Outrage II Re-power Suzuki DF140: Six Questions

Postby jimh » Sat Jan 01, 2022 7:45 am

CrazedAndConfused wrote:I’m not sure how large the oil tank is or what that adds in weight.
I am also completely in the dark about the oil capacity of the oil tank on your boat.

The typical OMC oil tank is a 1.8-gallon capacity tank. The weight of oil depends on the type of oil. Generally motor oil has a lower specific gravity than water. Using a rough approximation as 0.8 compared to water, we can estimate the oil weight from the weight of water. One gallon of water is typically said to weight 8.34-lbs. Multiplying by 0.8 gives 6.67-lbs-per-gallon as an approximate weight of motor oil.

Using the approximation for the oil to weigh 6.67-lbs, then a full oil tank containing 1.8-gallons would weigh 12-lbs. The tank itself, the fittings for the oil pick-up and the float sensor, the hoses, and the primer bulb will all add weight, which should be considered when eliminating the oil tank system. Let's say 4-lbs for the weight of that rigging. Now we can estimate that eliminating the oil tank, the oil in the tank, and the associated rigging will save 16-lbs.

OMC also offered a larger capacity oil tank that held 3-gallons. The weight saved would then be 8-lbs greater. Of course, all these estimates assume the tank is always at full capacity.

There is a fundamental problem in the proposed idea that eliminating the oil tank for a two-stroke-power-cycle engine will reduce weight if a four-stroke-power-cycle engine replaces it. The four-stroke-power-cycle engine weight will always be given as the dry weight, that is, without any oil in the crankcase reservoir. The engine must be filled with oil to be operable, so the weight of that oil has to be added to the total engine weight.

The oil sump in a DF140A has a capacity of 5.5-liters or 1.45-gallons of oil. Unlike the remote oil tank for the two-stroke-power-cycle engine which will change its weight as the oil is consumed, the 1.45-gallons of weight for the oil in the DF140A is going to always be there; add back 9.7-lbs to any calculations of saved weight.

I believe the real answer to how much weight will be "saved" if the remote oil tank is eliminated will come down to just the weight of the tank and hose, or about 4-lbs.

I don't think there is any point in the decision process in which a change in total engine weight on the transom of only 4-lbs is going to represent a tipping point.

User avatar
Phil T
Posts: 2602
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Was Maine. Temporarily Kentucky

Re: 17 Outrage II Re-power Suzuki DF140: Six Questions

Postby Phil T » Sat Jan 01, 2022 11:49 am

CrazedAndConfused wrote: Going heavier than the maximum-rated-150 weight is a bit concerning.
There is no maximum weight specification on any pre~2002 Boston Whaler boat.

All 150-HP engines currently available will be not be a problem for transom weight.
1992 Outrage 17
2019 E-TEC 90
2018 LoadRite 18280096VT
Member since 2003

User avatar
Phil T
Posts: 2602
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Was Maine. Temporarily Kentucky

Re: 17 Outrage II Re-power Suzuki DF140: Six Questions

Postby Phil T » Sat Jan 01, 2022 11:52 am

In today's no-inventory, hurry-up-and-wait environment, a verbal quote has no value.

Without a written sales slip there is nothing keeping a dealer from increasing the price at the time of delivery. Markup from dealers has been reported in the $500 to $2,000 range.

I would expect the out-the-door price will be more like $15,000, and that price would include removal, install, rigging, stainless steel propeller, and sales tax when the dealer actually gets the engine.

Personally, I would wait. Pricing will remain inflated with long waits until 2023.
1992 Outrage 17
2019 E-TEC 90
2018 LoadRite 18280096VT
Member since 2003

azegarra43
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat May 09, 2020 12:45 am

Re: 17 Outrage II Re-power Suzuki DF140: Six Questions

Postby azegarra43 » Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 pm

The Suzuki engine price [as given above as a verbal quote of $11,500 for a DF140A in black, installed with gauges and controls, but with a five to six month wait and a $1,000 deposit] seems good.

I re-powered my 17 Outrage II with a Yamaha VMAX SHO 115. My costs for the repower with the Yamaha VMX SHO was $14,000, including the installation. If I could redo the repower I probably would buy a used E-TEC 150-HP engine and save money.

ASIDE: I did not choose a 150-HP model due to their weight; I am glad about that decision.

The Yamaha VMAX SHO 115 engine powers the boat perfectly with a three-bladed 17-pitch propeller. [The engine can accelerate to a maximum crankshaft speed that is] within the manufacturer specification. The boat can accelerate to 39-MPH. The Yamaha VMAX SHO 115 engine sound is very quiet. On long trips to Catalina island from Long Beach, the engine fuel economy is 4-MPG to 5-MPG, with the boat crew consisting to two large men. The boat has trim tabs. When on plane the bow of the boat does not oscillate.

CrazedAndConfused
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: 17 Outrage II Re-power Suzuki DF140: Six Questions

Postby CrazedAndConfused » Sun Jan 23, 2022 1:24 pm

I went to a boat show in Maryland on January 22, 2022, I spoke to two Suzuki dealers. On a new engine order both said there would be a six month to eight month wait; a deposit would be fully refundable. Both dealers were very nice folks willing to discuss their opinions on the various engine options. Both said I’d be disappointed with 115-HP and the 150-HP was too heavy.

Dealer-1: I forgot to ask for a price on the DF140BG. The dealer quoted a DF140ATX at $10,500; he added $2,250 for standard rigging consisting of a control box, aluminum propeller, wire harness, integrated tachometer, and control cables; and he added $150 for white.

Dealer 2: DF140BG for $12,800 installed as total price. He was pushing for trim tabs.

Other than the wait, these prices seem reasonable to me--the price is just as crazy expensive as new engines have been for a while.

Dealer-2 said they are not ordering any mechanical-remote-control versions (DF140ATX) as they found that the DF140BG performance is better compared to the DF140ATX model. They will order the DF140ATX if you want one, but they don’t recommend it.

Another different dealer selling CAPE HORN boats said they stopped rigging Yamaha engines and switched to Suzuki for most boats due to being unable to get Yamaha engines in a time frame customers will accept.

I’ve have not put a deposit on anything yet. I am mulling over the purchase. My local dealer seems just as competitive as these two.
1998 17 Outrage II
2006 110 Sport

Wildcat00
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2022 2:55 pm

Re: 17 Outrage II Re-power Suzuki DF140: Six Questions

Postby Wildcat00 » Tue Jan 25, 2022 5:33 pm

The Suzuki DF140A is the prior engine generation. Suzuki DF140B is the generation debuting in 2021. DF140BG is the model identification specific to electronic shift and throttle remote control; the B model I presume is configured for mechanical control.

A summary of Suzuki DF140B v. Mercury 115 or 150 ProXS can be found in a thread about re-powering my 2002 Ventura 16.

From my research, I would go with the B or BG, but not the A.

jwaters58
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 7:35 am

Re: 17 Outrage II Re-power Suzuki DF140: Six Questions

Postby jwaters58 » Wed Mar 02, 2022 12:49 pm

I owned a 17 Outrage II that had a Yamaha 130-HP engine, and I re-powered with a Suzuki DF140. I am an older boater and this was my first experience owning a four-stroke-power-cycle outboard engine.

The Suzuki seemed to be a quality product.

The DF140 engine was fuel efficient and quiet at low engine speeds.

The DF140 engine had an excellent warranty.

The selling dealer went out of his way to get the set up correct.

My observations:
  • There are challenges that come with re-powering boats designed to use two-stroke-power-cycle engines.
  • My expectations for performance with the SUZUKI DF140 possibly were too high.
  • I found the boat's bow ran too high, that is, higher than with the Yamaha 130-HP engine, and because of this high-bow trim I did not like the way the boat felt. The high bow trim caused me to be beat up badly even in a mild chop. Installing trim tabs might correct the bow high trim.
  • The engine speed when the engine is in "the sweet spot" is a narrow range. The result is the engine needs to be run at a higher speed that desired.
  • Four or five different propellers were tested; I was not satisfied.

I believe the Suzuki DF140 engine is a good product. I am unsure if another engine brand would change anything.

If the boat to be rep-powered by a SUZUKI DF140 engine does not have trim tabs, I recommend you purchase trim tabs.

Prior posts I have made that give performance data and propeller data can be found if you want to search for them.

ASIDE: my current boat but not yet in the water is 190 Outrage re powered with a Mercury 150-HP.

Goodnyou
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2022 12:23 am

Re: 17 Outrage II Re-power Suzuki DF140: Six Questions

Postby Goodnyou » Tue Jul 19, 2022 12:58 am

[In c.2021} put a [SUZUKI outboard engine model DF140B] on my [1984--ALWAYS USE FOUR DIGITS FOR YEAR] OUTRAGE 18.

Now in 2022 and the second season of use, I can give you my thoughts about [the SUZUKI DF140B engine].

[The SUZUKI DF140B engine replaced an older Yamaha 150-HP engine using carburetors.]

The installation of the of SUZUKI DF140B engine was done by [an unnamed provider referred to only as] ship shop in Yarmouth, Cape Cod, [Massachusetts] which is a first-rate operation.

[The SUZUKI DF140B engine] was fitted with a 17-pitch aluminum propeller.

My first impression was less than stellar with an old, heavy, waterlogged boat.

[The power output of the SUZUKI DF140B at maximum engine speeds] was impressive. But the powerband in this outboard engine is located at 4500 to 6300-RPM.

[The acceleration of the boat from a standing start to plane] was a disappointment compared to [the previous engine of] 150-HP.

[This 1984 OUTRAGE 18 boat] is a second boat [used] mostly for [water] skiing and tuning. [Perhaps meant "tubing."]

I was a bit disappointed [with the performance of the new SUZUKI DF140B engine].

I knew that most other [outboard engine] choices [would] add too much weight.

In 2022 I bought a POWERTECH four-bladed propeller of 18-pitch. [The difference this propeller made compared to an aluminum propeller of 17-pitch was described only as] "what a difference."

[The 1984 OUTRAGE 18 boat is operated] in a river with current [described as "good"].

[With the POWERTECH four-bladed propeller of 18-pitch the] slow [boat] speed tracking improvement was unbelievable.

The [1984 OUTRAGE 18] boat used to wander but now [at] slow [boat] speeds [the boat tracks] straight.

[The acceleration from a standing start to plane is] much better [with the new propeller than with the old propeller].

[The POWERTECH four-bladed propeller of 18-pitch] stays hooked up better in sharp turns [than the old propeller which was an aluminum propeller of 17-pitch]. We make many sharp turns.

The top boat speed with the three-bladed propeller was never checked.

[The top boat speed with the four-bladed propeller] is not noticeably different [than it was with the three-bladed propeller].

The top boat speed with the four-bladed proeller is 31-Nautical-Miles-per-Hour [as measured on a device called the] navionics.

On the SUZUKI DF140B engine I have electronic shift and throttle remote controls. The shifting is easy.

On the SUZUKI DF140B there is no exhaust smoke and no exhaust odor, unlike the exhaust smoke and odor [of the the Yamaha 150-HP two-stroke-power-cycle engine]

When the SUZUKI DF140B engine is ON it cannot be heard.

The fuel consumption rate of the SUZUKI DF140B engine at low engine speed impresses me.

The SUZUKI 140-HP four-cylinder engines are a great option unless you really need the extra power of a six-cylinder engine.

The price of a SUZUKI 140-HP engine is right.

In my location charter boat owners are buying SUZUKI engines because they have a six-year-warranty in commercial service.

A six-year-warrant in commercial service is a good deal.

The SUZUKI DF140B engine was a great engine for my application.

jimh
Posts: 11659
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 17 Outrage II Repower Suzuki DF140: Six Questions

Postby jimh » Tue Jul 19, 2022 8:33 pm

The only meaningful way to compare the boat performance when any element that could affect boat performance is changed is to compare the before and after performance with actual data collected in a systematic and consistent manner.

Any time something is changed and the expense of the new item is significant, there is always a tendency to report very enthusiastically about the perceived difference that was made, but without any real data that quantifies the difference made, knowing just what changed becomes difficult.

User avatar
Phil T
Posts: 2602
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Was Maine. Temporarily Kentucky

Re: 17 Outrage II Repower Suzuki DF140: Six Questions

Postby Phil T » Wed Jul 20, 2022 9:32 am

The observations from Goodnyou are another example of the importance of propeller selection. Do not put the wheels from a Radio Flyer wagon on a Ferrari.
1992 Outrage 17
2019 E-TEC 90
2018 LoadRite 18280096VT
Member since 2003

frontier
Posts: 202
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:26 pm

Re: 17 Outrage II Re-power Suzuki DF140: Six Questions

Postby frontier » Sat Jul 30, 2022 9:05 am

Keep the 1998 Evinrude 115 Ocean Pro engine and maintain it. A 1998 Evinrude 115-HP Ocean Pro of the best outboard engines ever made.

jimh
Posts: 11659
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 17 Outrage II Re-power Suzuki DF140: Six Questions

Postby jimh » Sat Jul 30, 2022 10:28 am

This thread is now seven months old. The initiator of the thread has only replied once in those seven months to the many comments. Thanks to all who participated and tried to help the fellow. Thread is now closed.