170/175 or 19-6. Now I'm confused

[aquaholic17]

Well, I sold my starcraft over the weekend, with one catch. He bought the hull/trailer only with the intention of using his 135 opti on the hull. That leaves me with a good running '89 140 johnson, with a matching '89 9.9 kicker. I also have a '80 140 johnson with 2 hours on it after full rebuild. The '80 was the original motor I had on the starcraft, but after throwing a rod, I sent off to get a rebuild. A well regarded local mechanic, in the process of expanding his shop, ended up taking on to much work, resulting in him having it for over 2 years until he got it finished. I bought the '89 from a friend to get me back on the water temporarily and it turned out to be a really solid motor. That was 2 years ago, and the '80 has sat winterized in the shed since the rebuild. I have way to much cash into the '80 to even get close to my money out of it if I sell it.

     I was planning on downsizing to a 170/175. My fishing regulars has shrunk down to me solo or 2 of us on a regular basis. That was the plan, but now with these 3 motors sitting in the shed, I'm not sure that I should not just look for a 19-6 to hang one of the 140's on.

     what would you guys suggest?

     Chad

[gran398]

With either of those engines....go with a 19-6

[Georgie]

Presuming shaft length is appropriate, the 1980 140 is a crossflow with HP rated at the crank/driveshaft and is pretty much the exact same weight as a 90-115 crossflow (made through 1996) so you can probably disregard Aquasport's max 130 HP rating in this particular instance. If I'm not mistaken, I believe the OMC crossflow V-4's were the lightest mass-produced V-4's ever made so it would be a perfectly appropriate engine to hang on the back of a classic 170.   My father has a 110 crossflow on his 170 and it balances fine.  That said, it would also push a 19-6 very nicely.

 The 1989 140 is a looper with HP rated at the prop so it will be both stronger AND heavier rendering it dangerous overkill for a 170, but it would probably be a perfect match for a 19-6 or 20 Osprey.  From what you're telling us, the 1980 has NO hours on an assumedly new/remanufactured powerhead (kinda hard to "repair" a block with a thrown rod  ), but is also NOT broken in, while it sounds like the 1989 is broken in and reliable, but may have a lot of hours?  Not sure which of the two I'd pick.  Does the 1989 have its original VRO or has it been switched to premix?

[aquaholic17]

they are both 20" shafts. the '89 has the vro removed. Hours unknown But runs well. the '80  has all new guts including a resleaved block. The only used internal part is the crank. It has 1 hour of low rpm time on a stand. The mechanic and I also took it out on a local lake on his 20' shop boat to give it a test run. It was winterized and sat for 2 years now. No track record other than that.

The '80 has a bubble back



The '89 is different



I'm not sure of the difference.

Chad

[wingtime]

To give you an idea I have a 1997 90HP 60 degree V4 Evinrude on my 170.  More than enough power...  The dang boat almost stands on end when you hit the throttle.  I'd go for a 19'6 if I were you.

[SaltH2OHokie]

All I can contribute is that my 19-6 is almost definitely as waterlogged as one can be, but I surely wouldn't want much more than the 300lbs I currently have on the back. That may or may not translate well to a non waterlogged version, and likewise may or may not be advice for 170... but it's my little nugget.

[wingtime]

I'd look into the weight of the motors.  I wouldn't want any more weight on the stern than I currently have.

[RickK]

A 140 would make a 170 scream but be careful coming off plane too quickly and don't even think of adding the kicker or you'll sink at the dock.
A 196 or 200 would be best.

[GoneFission]

Go with a 222CCP and hang BOTH of those motors on it!    Twin 140s are sweeeeeeet on that hull.     And we all know more is better, right?  

[aquaholic17]

I'm not really a big fan of throwing a 140 on a 170/175. I was thinking more like a nice 70. lol. How would a 19-6 perform with my 140 and a kicker on it? Most likely looking at pre '75 hulls.

[MarshMarlowe196]

How would a 19-6 perform with my 140 and a kicker on it? Most likely looking at pre '75 hulls.

If you ran both engines at the same time, and the kicker was propped right, you'd probably top out at 44 mph.     Running just the 140, only you in the boat, trimmed out, propped right, stars aligned = 42 - 43mph.

[seabob4]

Jessie, love the avatar...

[Georgie]

AH-

Again - the 1980 is not really a 140...it's a 110-115 and likely weighs less than Wingtime's 90 HP looper.  The 1989 looper is really NOT an option on a 170 as it's both too big/heavy and dangerously strong.

Here's a good quote from one of the senior posters on Scream and Fly  

Early v-4 crossflows weighed in between 300 and 310. These were still made until 1996 as 88 to 115 hp. Generally, parts are still readily available for these engines. The 60-degree loopers were made starting in the 1997 range, weigh in at 349 and produced 90 and 115 hp. They did make a 120 and 140 hp 90-degree looper in the late 80's through mid nineties that weighed in at the 375 figure. The 120/140 were larger displacement and much beefier than the original crossflows.

If you decide a 170 is the size boat you want, the 1980 engine is the only one that will work.  If you go with a 19-6 or Osprey 20, then you can use either and base your decision on fuel economy, weight, HP, overall condition, parts, rigging, and other related considerations/costs.