90-HP Options: Yamaha Two-stroke - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  90-HP Options: Yamaha Two-stroke

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   90-HP Options: Yamaha Two-stroke

bmc720 posted 08-11-2007 11:30 PM ET (US)
Would I be nuts to use a 90-HP Yamaha today? Significantly less [cost] than an E-TEC, significantly lighter than four-stroke power, and those old Yamaha motors sure run for a long time.
It seems all the discussion is on the new stuff. Is an old fashined outboard no longer practical?
Thanks!
Casco Bay Outrage posted 08-12-2007 08:00 AM ET (US)
The 90-HP Yamaha two-stroke engine is a very good choice given its proven design, power to weight ratio and record of reliability. I loved my 1987 on my classic Montauk.
If you are looking to have a light motor, and are not concerned with the older technology, a Yamaha 90-HP two-stroke is a no brainer in my opinion.
Just for comparison, the E-TEC is low weight, compared to a four-stroke but is more efficient and less poluting. The cost for this is a bit more money.
Do you boat in waters that have or will have restrictions (out west?)
Hope this helps.
CBO
jimh posted 08-12-2007 08:46 AM ET (US)
I was browsing through the newest Yamaha outboard motor catalogue, which, by the way is marked as "Effective July 1, 2007" but otherwise does not mention any model year designation because Yamaha no longer designates their products with a model year. I noticed that the older two-stroke motors were still listed in the back of the booklet on the SPECIFICATIONS page, but otherwise there was no mention or appearance of them.
A classic two-stroke motor like the Yamaha 90 is still a good motor, and it will have all of the classic qualities of a two-stroke outboard:
--good power to weight ratio
--simple design
--strong low-RPM torque
--low maintenance
and also these qualities, too:
--poor fuel economy
--smoke in exhaust
--poor run quality until warmed up
--difficult to start in some situations
Historically we tend to look at the modern outboard motor as being a big improvement, but consider the classic two-stroke motor in this context: imagine all outboard motors were four-stroke motors and were very large and heavy. If the classic two-stroke motor were just invented, it might be hailed as a breakthrough design which drastically reduced the size, weight, complexity, and cost of an outboard.
bigjohn1 posted 08-12-2007 08:51 AM ET (US)
I don't think you'd be nuts at all to consider a Yamaha 2-stroke, they have an outstanding reputation. If you do have restrictions where you boat and must chose between an E-tec and a 4-stroke though, choose the E-tec for the weight advantage, not the superior fuel efficiency. The average economy of an E-tec versus a comaparable 4-stroke is a wash - econonomy figures are about even.
bmc720 posted 08-12-2007 10:13 AM ET (US)
Thanks guys.
Souds to me the Yamaha at 5300/each for a 90hp is the way to go. 2700 per engine will buy more fuel than I would use over the engine life. I boat in the ocean, i don't see restrictions coming into play anytime soon.
In addition, I have to beleive in 5-10 years there will be alternatives to ETEC and 4 strokes will be lighter, cheaper and even more reliable. Personally, I think they are just too heavy right now, so for me its a choice between yamaha and etec.
Jefecinco posted 08-12-2007 10:42 AM ET (US)
If you had ever had an E-Tec you probably wouldn't consider an old technology two stroke of any kind. But if you are accostomed to old two strokes you don't know what you're missing and you'll probably be very happy with the Yammie.
You can't miss what you've never had, eh?
Butch
lordswork2007 posted 08-13-2007 12:40 PM ET (US)
It seems like you will never use $2700 worth of fuel, but at 8-9 gph, all it takes is about 100 hours, assuming fuel (with oil) is a shade over three bucks.
If the modern outboard saves 30% on fuel, you get your $2700 back in about 300 hours, not counting the capital carrying cost (interest). Counting the interest on the capital outlay, it would depend on how long it takes to run the 300. If 2 years, you will be ahead with the modern outboard. If 10, no.

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Author	Topic: 90-HP Options: Yamaha Two-stroke
bmc720	posted 08-11-2007 11:30 PM ET (US) Would I be nuts to use a 90-HP Yamaha today? Significantly less [cost] than an E-TEC, significantly lighter than four-stroke power, and those old Yamaha motors sure run for a long time. It seems all the discussion is on the new stuff. Is an old fashined outboard no longer practical? Thanks!
Casco Bay Outrage	posted 08-12-2007 08:00 AM ET (US) The 90-HP Yamaha two-stroke engine is a very good choice given its proven design, power to weight ratio and record of reliability. I loved my 1987 on my classic Montauk. If you are looking to have a light motor, and are not concerned with the older technology, a Yamaha 90-HP two-stroke is a no brainer in my opinion. Just for comparison, the E-TEC is low weight, compared to a four-stroke but is more efficient and less poluting. The cost for this is a bit more money. Do you boat in waters that have or will have restrictions (out west?) Hope this helps. CBO
jimh	posted 08-12-2007 08:46 AM ET (US) I was browsing through the newest Yamaha outboard motor catalogue, which, by the way is marked as "Effective July 1, 2007" but otherwise does not mention any model year designation because Yamaha no longer designates their products with a model year. I noticed that the older two-stroke motors were still listed in the back of the booklet on the SPECIFICATIONS page, but otherwise there was no mention or appearance of them. A classic two-stroke motor like the Yamaha 90 is still a good motor, and it will have all of the classic qualities of a two-stroke outboard: --good power to weight ratio --simple design --strong low-RPM torque --low maintenance and also these qualities, too: --poor fuel economy --smoke in exhaust --poor run quality until warmed up --difficult to start in some situations Historically we tend to look at the modern outboard motor as being a big improvement, but consider the classic two-stroke motor in this context: imagine all outboard motors were four-stroke motors and were very large and heavy. If the classic two-stroke motor were just invented, it might be hailed as a breakthrough design which drastically reduced the size, weight, complexity, and cost of an outboard.
bigjohn1	posted 08-12-2007 08:51 AM ET (US) I don't think you'd be nuts at all to consider a Yamaha 2-stroke, they have an outstanding reputation. If you do have restrictions where you boat and must chose between an E-tec and a 4-stroke though, choose the E-tec for the weight advantage, not the superior fuel efficiency. The average economy of an E-tec versus a comaparable 4-stroke is a wash - econonomy figures are about even.
bmc720	posted 08-12-2007 10:13 AM ET (US) Thanks guys. Souds to me the Yamaha at 5300/each for a 90hp is the way to go. 2700 per engine will buy more fuel than I would use over the engine life. I boat in the ocean, i don't see restrictions coming into play anytime soon. In addition, I have to beleive in 5-10 years there will be alternatives to ETEC and 4 strokes will be lighter, cheaper and even more reliable. Personally, I think they are just too heavy right now, so for me its a choice between yamaha and etec.
Jefecinco	posted 08-12-2007 10:42 AM ET (US) If you had ever had an E-Tec you probably wouldn't consider an old technology two stroke of any kind. But if you are accostomed to old two strokes you don't know what you're missing and you'll probably be very happy with the Yammie. You can't miss what you've never had, eh? Butch
lordswork2007	posted 08-13-2007 12:40 PM ET (US) It seems like you will never use $2700 worth of fuel, but at 8-9 gph, all it takes is about 100 hours, assuming fuel (with oil) is a shade over three bucks. If the modern outboard saves 30% on fuel, you get your $2700 back in about 300 hours, not counting the capital carrying cost (interest). Counting the interest on the capital outlay, it would depend on how long it takes to run the 300. If 2 years, you will be ahead with the modern outboard. If 10, no.