Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Snake River  King

2007 Alumacraft sc navigator 175 with a 140 johnson 4stroke???

7 posts in this topic

Hello Im looking to mabey buying a 2007 Alumacraft sc navigator 175 with a 140 johnson 4stroke and i was woundering what you guys think of this package??? How is the motor?? How fast would it go?? Is it dry??? thanks for the Info Im just so excited grin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice balanced rig for sure! I bet it would go about 45-48 mph gps speed, that might read 50+ on the speedo. Lots of people love that motor, but I am not familiar with it. The hull is great and solid. You will get wet on rough windy days, but all but the big glass boats would as well on real rough days like that.

Have fun with it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A buddy of mine has a 115 johnson and loves it. I fished with him all last week at Lac Seul, he with his Johnson and me with my Yamaha 150 and I have to say his Johnson was just at quite as my Yamaha if not more so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'l like the layout. We have a fairly old TP175 and like it quite a bit but if I was getting one today I'd look really hard at the Navigator as well. My only suggestion would be to get as much HP as the boat or your wallet can stand. Not so much so you can break a land speed record, but if you ever end up with a fat guy or two as fishing partners its nice to have the power to get out of the hole. Its also just plain fun to drive fast! smile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 2006 185 nav. with a 150 yamaha & T-8 kicker. Bought this package new in 2006. I was told by a couple different dealers that the 140 johnson was made by suzuki (same motor as there 140) a buddy of mine has the suzuki 140 4 stroke on his lund 1700 fisherman it is a very nice motor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm assuming the motor is an '06 or '05. Suzuki did make Johnson 4 strokes up to 2006. I don't believe Johnson has a 140 4 stoke after that time (might be wrong.)

I've got a 175 TP cs with a 140 Suzi and a T8. I'll get 42-3 max by myself. I doubt you'll see over 45, definately not 50. BUT, you'll love that set up. Very nice boat and motor, IMO. Good luck.

Oh, ya, you'll get wet on a windy / wavey day if your going anything but directly with or against the waves. But still a lot better ride with the reverse chine and deep V than alot of aluminum boats I've been in, esp. if trimmed correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • Rather than the concepts of teams I think it more appropriate to think in terms of philosophies. Each "team" has a philosophical way of dealing with certain issues: tax codes, immigration, war on drugs etc,  So even though your candidate may be weak you are going to vote, not for them, but for that teams way of dealing with those issues.   A simple example would be tax codes.  The democrats think individual taxes for the top 10%'s should be increased where the republicans believe that reducing taxes on that same 10% will stimulate growth through trickle down economics.   So in essence, you're not voting for a particular candidate, you're voting for the team that will deal with these issues in a way you feel is best. 
    • Like Obabma, he sets up a straw man false premise and then proceeds to attack said straw man.      He is deceived by the fact that the most polarized folks are the ones making the noise, thereby creating a false impression.    You persist in wanting to discuss this article.  Why is that?      
    • So lets recap.   Decriminalization will not reduce prison populations by a noticeable amount.    Will not reduce crime.   Will not reduce monies spent combating drug suppliers and dealers.   Will not lower the consumption rates.    - Will allow regular everyday citizens who use/possess and get caught, not ruin their lives with a crippling criminal record.   May encourage the the habitual users to seek treatment/help.      Which I have no issues with.   My issues are saying with decriminalization it will save tax payers any money.   That's my beef.    
    •   I didn't see the Socialist party listed

    • Nick they are all trash, your party included, until you figure that out you are no better than some blind Trump supporter.
    •   That was a long time ago.   The media has become far more partisan than it was at that time.   

    • You are starting to sound like a helpless snowflake in desperate need of big government to take away the burden of personal responsibility away from you. I try and take a big picture approach and not mico manage our laws based on political views outside of science or common sense.

      No one is advocating for drunk driving or murder to be legal but I guess that doesn't stop you from using wild assumptions without anything to back them up.

      All most of us are asking for is simple freedoms and choices and a government that stays out of the way. Having a bunch of drugs that kill and half of the legal and half of them illegal makes no sense. You either stand for personal freedom and responsibility across the board or you don't, picking and choose this stuff based on political leanings is about as backwards as it gets and you just end up looking like a complete hypocrite. Keeping drugs outlawed because people die is the same kind of reasoning people use to take away guns. All the while you are more likely to die from eating too much McDonalds, you simply can't outlaw stupid people or the things they do and expect that to work. We as a people need to stop trying to control things are completely out of our control, all it does is waste tons of money and time and it does a wonderful job of ruining people's lives.
    • I really don't like a president calling out news media outlets by name and whining about the media. Obama did it with FOX and talk radio and now Trump is doing it with CNN and the NYT's. It's one thing for each men's supporters to do it. But I don't recall GWB or Reagan or Carter calling out the media by name in public.   I don't buy the claim from some(nobody here) that doing such is a sign of a dictator(the same, btw, who cheered BHO doing it). It just makes a president look weak and whiny and looking for other's to blame for their own failures. Not that I'm a fan of the NYT's, but I do believe in freedom of the press even the press I personally don't care much for.   If you're an elected official, the press is supposed to be a thorn in your side
    •   This is what Del was probably talking about and yes he is right, we do have to pick a side or at least a candidate when we go to the polling booth but there is no need to defend every single move the candidate makes and vilify every single move the opposition makes.      I'm not sure what makes us think and behave the way we do, I didn't take enough psychology or anthropology courses in college to answer that question but I do know that to me it is even more repulsive than the small minded thinking that goes in to hating one sports team although they are basically the same as your chosen sports team. I can see liking and rooting for one sports team or political faction over another but the pure hatred for the opposite team is mind boggling to me.     These are the fine points of this article as I see it. Now would anyone like to have a discussion on these points?
    •   This paragraph is important because I believe that most people now when faced with a political discussion do indeed "turn off their intellect". It's the only way to get through the hypocrisy that arises when one chooses a side so completely.  
  • Our Sponsors