1969 20' engine choice

[samuelcooper]

Wow! thanks for all the comments. I am a little stuck on e-tecs now but can be persuaded. The 115 is a v-4 and weighs 375#. The 150 is a v-6 and weighs 427#. The Suzuki posted weights have confused me and cause me to doubt. The 115 seems to weigh 427 but they list the 140 at 410 or 420. How can that be? I wouldn't consider a 115 4-stroke (getting on plane a worry) but may go with the 115 etec. It is also about $3000 cheaper than the 150 e-tec. As to the old engine, it was a 175 Johnson. I'm gonna do some research on its weight. With the low transom, the waterline was only a couple inches below the splashwell docked. That old carb engine stalled bad but cruised great. It had no pee hole but did have temp guage and pushed H2O out of two exhaust ports just below the engine. My mechanic said those ports were supposed to be a couple inches out of the water or the carbs loaded up. With mine, they were under H2O when trolling but trimming up the motor when trolling so that they were out of the H20 helped with loading up and stalling. My conclusion is that the old Johnson was too heavy for the boat making it very stern heavy when trolling. I am aware that more power gets you on plane quicker and is usually more efficient when carrying a load or working against a sloppy ocean. But my thinking is that a boat that is less stern heavy will actually troll better and more efficiently - which I do often. Am I right or wrong? It seems that Seacrafts are designed to be stern heavy but what is the limit? In other words, what would Moseley or Potter say about moving weight forward (console, battery, livewell) to offset heavier engine? Wouldn't that change the ride considerably from the way it was designed? Thanks for the link to the motor source. Will check it out.

[JW-Tex]

To my knowledge the 140 Suzuki weighs less than the 115 because it is the same block as the 115 bored for larger pistons (less engine block weight).

I have the 140 and could not be happier....JW

[samuelcooper]

That makes sense, esp if the difference is just 7 lbs. The larger pistons would not weigh as much more as what is bored out of the block - all else being equal. Haven't completely ruled out the Suzuki. Had a 15 that was great and never gave me any trouble.

BTW, the old Johnson 175 I took off weighed 385#'s, according to the manual.

[Bigshrimpin]

115 and 140 have different trim systems, gear ratios, etc. Maybe those small differences add up and account for the difference in weight.

[eggsuckindog]

My 20 MA has a 200 Merc listed at 406 and a standard transom, but has both batteries under the front of the console that would be a must. My livewell is built into the transom and can't be moved, not sure what set up you have. Tough call on this one, maybe the 150 and you go on the Atkins diet [img]/forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] not sure how much you would notice 35# though.

[Ikan Besar]

I am currently redoing a 69 SF 20 ft. (Will raise transom 5 in and deck 3 or so for tank and bailing).

If you are raising the deck 3", you can more or less look at whatever engine you want (within reason). The deck in mine was raised 2.5" and I have a 75 gallon tank along with a Suzy 140 and everything is fine (no splashwell, no plugs in scuppers, etc).

[finestkind]

I've got a 115 suzuki on my seafari. She runs great, great planing speed, great troller. Tops out at 38mph on gps. 28 cruise. Would love a 140 suzuki. Seafari a little heavier than a cc i'd think it would go great!!!! Good Luck!!!

[oldbluesplayer]

Finestkind - a lite blue Seafari on Cape Cod ? - was that you I saw last summer, mid July, outside of Barnstable harbor ? I was trolling in the red Seafari -

Interesting that you have a 115 suzi and get 38 mph gps - well above mine - what pitch / dia. prop are you able to run with that ?

ps - I'm also watching the ultimate Seafari thread with interest - I have a hard time believing that that's not too much top for that boat.

Bill

[dljohn69]

I run an E-Tec 175 on my 1976 MA CC and am quite pleased with the engine. I am on plane very quickly and have recorded a top speed of 51 mph at 5350 rpm on the gps. That being said I am sure that the 115 would do a good job as well. With the Florida rain storms I like to be able to get in quickly. With a 21" prop I cruise at around 3500 rpms at about 32 mph.

[samuelcooper]

I haven't made up my mind completely but I think I may be leaning toward the 150 now. Over the 45 years I've been around boats, I have rarely heard anyone really unhappy about being overpowered but a lot of people are unhappy about being underpowered!