20 Master Angler 115 ETEC v. 150 ETEC - Page 2

Bigshrimpin · #11 02-14-2008, 05:01 AM

Quote:

He said that on his 20 Mako (same weight, if not heavier) the boat tops at 38 MPH and cruises at the mid upper 20's at 3.9 GPH (per Icommand)

Thats perfect for my application. When I asked about the 150 he said no sense to spend the extra money.

I have a 1979 Mercury Blackmax chrome bore vertical reed 200hp on my seafari. The motor cruises at 35mph, burn is 3.5+ mpg . . . I've seen as high as 3.9 mpg @ 4200rpm flat calm conditions with 4 people + full tank. These motors can be had for less than $1000. The boat likes to be driven at 35+ mph. Don't go the 115 . . . 150 will have been fuel economy and live longer.

gordonhg · #12 02-14-2008, 07:52 AM

I just put an Etec 115 on my 20ft SF. I haven't had time to really use it yet but it runs fine, plenty of get up and go. (I used to have a Yamaha 175 on it..) I like the lighter weight as the SF tends to have water come in the drain holes with weight on the stern (original deck height). The water we run in is usually rough enough that you can't get to full speed except in the bay.

If I had my choice I'd raise the deck, put a 150 on it and not worry about the money, but since the deck is low and its a few grand extra, I am happy with the 115 so far.

Don't know about MGP yet.

GradySailfish · #13 02-14-2008, 06:01 PM

Still deciding guys, tough choice to make, only about 2 grand difference between the two engines.

As I said earlier, top speed is not an issue for me, efficient mid range crusing is the most important aspect for me.

One reason for this is that I'm not a speed demon, another reason is that given conditions most of the time around here I can't run at higher speeds prudently.

As for the weight, the 150 is 420 pounds while the 115 is 369 pounds.

SOS · #14 02-14-2008, 06:18 PM

35 horses for 51 pounds...piece of mind...not having to run her hard. I would go 150...

Go luck, great problem to have (picking out a motor)

SOS

76Red18 · #15 02-14-2008, 08:00 PM

Go with the 150. I think the 175 weighs 420 also

zach · #16 02-14-2008, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Go with the 150. I think the 175 weighs 420 also

so does the 200...

76Red18 · #17 02-15-2008, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Go with the 150. I think the 175 weighs 420 also

so does the 200...

I thought the 200 and 250 were larger blocks

GradySailfish · #18 02-15-2008, 12:08 PM

Both of you guys are right!

There are two versions of the 200, the 200 standard and the 200 H.O, the standard is based on the same block the 150 is based off, I believe 2.6 litres. The 200 H.O is based on the larger block, which I believe is 3.3 litres.

oldbluesplayer · #19 02-16-2008, 11:19 AM

Grady -

I guess the first question I have is, what is your transom height ? If you've got a 20", then weight would be the deciding factor to me, and I go with the 115. If a 25" then do the 150 if you want to spend the money.

Not sure where you boat, but up here in New England, my 115 / Seafari, is speed limited by water conditions, not horsepower. With a 20" transom on mine, I would not want to go any heavier than the V-4 Johnson I have - though I could see a 130 Yam as a nice upgrade, for those few early morning FAC runs out to the bank that I've had.

just my confusing .02 worth.

Bill

GradySailfish · #20 02-16-2008, 01:12 PM

Hi guys, looks like I order the 150

Still monday morning quarterbacking about this issue though lol

Yes I did raise my transom to 25 inches as opposed to the previous 20 inches. The only thing worry about is the fact that I didn't raise my splashwell height, and therefore left the drainage hopes in the same spot as they once were. I don't think though that she will sit so low to cause water coming in through those drains.

-Alex