4 stroke motor choice?

[kdawg]

I'm with Goose89 - If I could have gotten a Suzuki/Johnson for the same deal as my Yammi 150 on the back of my Skeeter, I would have done it. I had a 140 Johnson on my last boat and as others have said, it's whisper quiet and puts out good power. I have zero complaints about my Yammi, other than it is SIGNIFICANTLY louder than the Johnson was - don't get me wrong, it's not bad, but when compared to the Johnson, it sure seems like it. Good luck.

[goose89]

Agreed...the Yamaha F150 has a slight "growl" to it. Not the "purr" of the Suzi DF140.

[KatoMike]

I have a Suzuki DF 115 on my Alumacraft Navigtor Sport 175. Great motor. Quiet, fast and reliable. I have been very happy with the combo so far (I have had it just one season).

[trolloni]

The Suzuki will get significantly better fuel mileage on the water ,how important is that theese days ?i had a 70 hp fuel injected on my 1800 pro v according to my trip meter on my depthfinder i got 185 miles with 20 galons . That 140 is a real workhorse and reliable, my folks have one on their 1800 lund fisherman ,only thing done to it in 4 years was a new water pump, which some guys put a new one on every 2 years just as regular maintenence.i thought i needed a new motor so i put a yamaha 80 on my 1800, big difference on fuel consumption ! good strong motor though, much faster but 10 more horse and twice as loud as the suki.

[thebman]

It's a 10% allowance so 140-10%= 126HP. The 128HP that it puts out is a well publisized number. It's still a great motor though. It should be listed as a 130 instead of a 140 but it's legal to do it the way that Suzuki does it so I guess it is what it is. Anyways, people will pay more for a 140 than a 130 so why change?

Sorry but please show us the well publisized number. I've searched for years for this and no one can show it. Also the 10% allowance is wrong, please go to the link listed earlier and find the correct info.

[ib_jigged]

I think I found a really nice clean used '99 Lund 1600 Pro Sport, with a Honda 90 on the back.

Anyone have any history on this boat or motor?

Thanks,

[JohnMickish]

Sorry but please show us the well publisized number. I've searched for years for this and no one can show it. Also the 10% allowance is wrong, please go to the link listed earlier and find the correct info.

Here is the well publisized number. 128.

I can't post a link but go to thehulltruth and do some searching. A great place for boat and motor geeks.

It is a 10% allowance, that is why the Etec 250HO and Optimax 250 ProXS put out power in the 275HP range. Also well publisized numbers. Check out etec owners group and verado owners club and do some digging.

[boatfixer]

Im not argueing for or against the 128 thing. But....

other than another forum and hear say, have you ever found data provided for actual testing from an accredited source? In other words someone other than a bunch of motor heads hashing it out on a forum? Thats the data I'd want to see. So far "hear say" is the only published number I've come across.

I'm only trying to be objective, I have no horse in this race

[marine_man]

I think I found a really nice clean used '99 Lund 1600 Pro Sport, with a Honda 90 on the back.

Anyone have any history on this boat or motor?

Thanks,

The honda's from that era were pretty good.. but very heavy compared to the competition and pretty cold blooded. It is a mechanically sound motor.

I think this was covered before; but with non-efi 4 stroke engines you have to be extremely particular with fuel and using fuel stabilizer to prevent gumming of the jets.

marine_man

[JohnMickish]

What I have found is on different marine engine consumer websites that the dyno numbers have been posted. Not a my "motor is better than your motor" kind of thing, just what they are real world numbers. Suzuki makes a great motor and nobody is doubting that, but in every engine class there has to be one motor that has the least power and one that has the most.

I didn't mean to ruffle anyones feathers, I was just tyring to supply some info.

[ib_jigged]

I went to look at the Pro-Sport and decided against it. Saw a 2010 Lund 1725 Rebel Sport with a 90 Merc 4 stroke on the back of that. With any luck this will be my next boat!

Thanks for all the input guys!

[delcecchi]

In the filing with CARB they list the "rated power" as 102 KW or 138 hp. I don't know what that means, other than something to do with california emissions.

[thebman]

Im not argueing for or against the 128 thing. But....

other than another forum and hear say, have you ever found data provided for actual testing from an accredited source? In other words someone other than a bunch of motor heads hashing it out on a forum? Thats the data I'd want to see. So far "hear say" is the only published number I've come across.

I'm only trying to be objective, I have no horse in this race

Exactly right! I have researched this for years because I wanted to make an informed purchasings decision. Even when asked to show thier "proof" or "well publisized numbers" it all falls back to heresay on a bunch of other forums. A forum like this is hardly published numbers but some take them as fact. I have posted the site before (www.icomia.com) that clearly states motors rated over 100KW have a 5% tolerance on their rating. The 10% number is thrown out on every site as fact but when others present some researched info it seems to be ignored. I personally have no dyno sheets showing the motor makes 138 HP, all I have is the "published" government mandated emissions ratings to go on.

[JohnMickish]

If anyone still cares it looks like it's a 10% allowance (both above and below rated power) that the motor manufacturers can get away with.

This is from a HSOforum clarifying the ICOMIA rules on this.

The "rated power" is recommended to be presented so that there is no more than a 6% difference between the rated power and the peak power which occurs in the full throttle speed range. (6.2). For example, an engine rated at 225-HP should not have more than 238.5-HP at any speed in the full throttle speed range. In general, the measured horsepower will be greater with engine speed. 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.

The tolerance for variations in manufacturing permits engines to deviate not more than ± 10% from the "rated power" (7.0). Thus an engine sold as a 150-HP engine could produce as much as 165-HP or as little as 135-HP due to variations in manufacturing tolerances. Note that the more restrictive tolerance mentioned (± 5%) applies only to "governed engines" (i.e., engines running under a governor) whose rated power is greater than 134-HP (100 kW). It is my understanding that outboards are ungoverened engines in the context of this standard, and thus all individual production units are permitted a ± 10% tolerance in actual propeller shaft horsepower compared to "rated power."

[solbes]

One of the government websites, I believe the EPA, has the actual dyno measured power numbers for different manufacturers and models tested. When I last looked at it a year or two ago, it was kind of difficult to determine which test went to which exact outboard model. But it's out there if someone is smart enough to decode it.