1987 17ft with 2004 70 hp Suzuki 4s

[dusky]

It's been a while since my last post but I got rid of my smoky 1987 Merc 115 this Spring and waited for the right engine to come along.  I thought I would go with a 90 hp 4 s Suzuki but the dealer said it would be heavy and I could get away with a 70.  I was in disbelief and reserved the 90 in case.  A used 2004 70 came in, we put a 15 pitch on it.  Perfect!!!

Though I went about 35 mph with the 115 merc, I cruise at 25 mph and 4500 RPMs with the Suzuki.  2 guys, gas and a 30 gallon full livewell.  Tops out at 31 mph.  Even with the added weight of a 4 s. It sips gas, I often forget to bring down my gas cans.  I'll post some pics soon.  I am very satisfied with the Suzuki performance.  I hope it holds up forever.  I've owned 2 stroke Yamaha,  Merc, Tohatsu, and Evinrudes in the past and they don't compare.

[JimCt]

Hey Dusky.... glad to see you're still kicking!

Thank you for posting the your performance numbers.  I caught some flak a while ago when I mentioned I was pushing 32 MPH with my Merc. 75 on the 170.  It was politely hinted something was wrong with my numbers or my GPS.  For my money, and comfort, I still maintain 170's are over-powered with anything over 90 HP...

 I think you'll be real happy with the 70.  Fuel burn-rate is better and the loss of 4 mph is immaterial.  After all, how often did you run WOT anyway?

Look forward to the pictures.

[RickK]

Bet that 70 4 stroke weighs as much as the 115 you had on it though - which ends up with the same low freeboard in the back, problem.  Maybe by '87 they had fixed that problem.

[dusky]

Rick

The 70 4s actually weighs more than the old merc straight six 115.  That's why we stayed with the 70 and no the 90.  I am happy with 30mph, in the ocean (or bays, the only place the boat has been) I would never run the 115 at WOT as I figured one wave not seen and I'd flip it.

I always keep an eye on the low stern while fishing or lobstering.  Something you get used to with the Aquasports.

[RickK]

When I first bought my 170 (19 years ago) it had a straight 6 Merc on it but the decals said 150.  She would flat fly
After some research, I found out Merc didn't make a 150 that matched the serial# that was on the clamp so someone had done some mods, to include putting a new set of decals on it.  All I know is that it flew. It would give you a free face-lift if you stepped out from behind the windsheild. :twisted:

[dusky]

Here are some pics from this Saturday in Magnolia Harbor.  Still amazed with the Suzuki after another week of bass fishing.

[JimCt]

Where's Magnolia Harbor?  Up around Gloucester?

[dusky]

Jim

Magnolia is between Manchester and Gloucester.  Pretty Harbor, but not much protection from the elements.  

Jim

[MJB]

Dusky,

Just when I think I have a plan for re-power of my 17' I see this -- looks great and sounds like the she can handle the weight.  I was looking at these and figured the weight would be too much (359# according to the literature).  I was leaning towards a 2s 90 Yamaha which comes in at about 260# or an ETEC around 300# if I remember correctly.

Beautiful pics on the Harbor.

[dusky]

Mike

I could not be happier with the Suzuki 70.  It does not sit lower in the stern than the other engines I've had on this and other Aquasports.  I also was looking at the 90 Yamaha 2s.  Let me know if you have any questions.

[MJB]

Dusky,

Thanks for the info.  Does your 17' have the cockpit drains and if so are the drains below the waterline as she sits with the Suz 70?

[DOCREED]

The pictures bring back memories.  I'm from Marblehead originally.

[dusky]

MJB

The cockpit drains are just below the waterline when no one is on the boat.  They are below when it is loaded.  I have the ball drains on the transom and screw plugs on the inside for extra safety.  When I am running the boat drains no problem.  I just have to keep an eye around idle and put the plugs in at rest.

Dusky

[ddd222]

very nice set up by the way, my buddies is identical w/ 96' 115 mariner, at 1st glance it looks on those beatiful pics that your's sits SLIGHTLY low aft. I say this because i see my buddies boat 5 days a week in the marina i work in. Now 1st let me CLARIFY as his boat has had some modifications, and at a glance his bottom paint from bow to stern sits real level and above the water line. He started by hiring a fiberglass guy(because the boat was too wet, and built up the notched transom almost the height of the gunwhales). To address water coming in he also had the console moved forward 3-4 inches if i can recall. Still not satisfied he modified his scuppers w/ the rubber flap type, to then the finished product now which is the built up transom, weight shifted forward, and now the "ping pong ball"type scuppers, which really seem to do everything they claim.
      One thing i forget and feel is worth mentioning, is when this fiberlass guy built up the transom, did he raise the original scupper height? Will find out and let u guys know.
       On another note i'm very impressed w/ those performance #'s, sacrificing 45hp and the "umph"of a 2 stoke. I always like to max the hp of a given boat to lower the workload of the motor. Lower rpm's to cruise and plane from every expert i've learned from translated to longer engine life. But those #'s u posted are quite respectable. Repowering an older boat w/ a 4 stroke should be well thought out, your's is a good benchmark for others here, good luck!

[dusky]

ddd222

It does sit low aft at rest, but if you look close you can see the livewell draining, its 30 gallons and filled with 12 pogies at the time of the pic.  With the livewell drained, the scuppers are just at the waterline.