2004 JOHNSON 70hp

[NYharleyrider]

I'm looking for an opinion on this motor.

2004 JOHNSON 70hp 2 stroke weighing in at 197lbs

I still need to decide what I'm going to power my 05 M with and I stumbled into this motor at a really great price, but I'm not sure if it would be a good choice.

From what I've learned so far... four strokes are quieter and less smokey and two stokes are noiser, but faster.

I guess my question is to to those who say they wish they'd gone larger would you consider this motor... why or why not???

Thanks,
Brian.

[Catigale]

Brian - I went with the Mercury bigfoot fuel injected 4 stroke in 2002. It is so quiet, fuel efficient, and doesnt smell.
I don t know anything about the Johnson so I cant comment on it specifically

NY is second only to CA in Enviro- Nazism so I think it is inevitable that 2 strokes get s* canned here eventually.

For touring NYS canal system I think the advantages of a quiet and not smelly engine would eliminate 2 strokes for me. If it was just a kicker to get me out of Irondequoit bay .....I would probably still get a 9 HP 4 stroke!!

(...and I did get a 4 stroke to be environmentally clean, I just dont like the Gub-Ment telling me what to do.)

Stephen

[waternwaves]

NY,

Emmisions leader at this time (Lowest tested by CARB, and 3 star rated) is the E-tec series of direct injection 2 stroke engines by evinrude. and the Etec is far quieter than previous two stroke offerings. Where this was most notable for me was at WOT.



4 strokes also burn some oil...The numbers I have seen for the honda and the Suzuki indicate 2 to 4 qts per 100 hours of operation. And there doesnt seem to be much of a difference between the 50 and 70 hp. This is higher than I expected. Especially for the 70 Suzuki, which seems to be the fuel economy leader for the 4 strokes.


the direct injection 2 strokes.. are an evolving technolgy, operating much hotter than older outboards , and in the case of the E-tec, requiring considerable increase of cooling water flow and new alloys for the pistons because of the much higher operating temp. however the manufacturer has put a comprehensive 3 year waranty on that power head.... so... someone is betting the farm on service and reliability.

I am hopeful of the potential of the E-tec, becasue I dont think anyone wants to go through the Ficht debacle again.

But Evinrude is not the only manufacturer of direct injection, the TLDI 2 stroke froom Nissan/tohatsu, while noisier, sips fuel.... Because of their lower manufacturing costs, I suspect the 2stroke /4stroke battle will continue for a few more years.. 4 strokes getting lighter and cheaper, 2 stokes getting cleaner and quieter...

But if you were going to use emmisions as the only criteria.... E-tec wins.

And the major restriction imposed on lake (tahoe) by the polution control authority uses E-tec engines on the lake.



Technology advances......

I wouldnt rule out two strokes just yet...

[Billy]

4 strokes also burn some oil...The numbers I have seen for the honda and the Suzuki indicate 2 to 4 qts per 100 hours of operation.

I'm not looking to get into an argument here, but if my 4 stroker used 4 qts of oil in a 100 hrs of operation, I would have some major concerns and probably a "prayer meeting" with my dealer/factory rep. I have about 225 hours on my Suzuki 140 and have never had a noticable drop in engine oil. I would think with that kind of usage it would smoke like a 2 stroke. I have never had to add oil and when I change it at 100 hrs. it is still clear.

I'm sold on 4 strokes and synthetic oil. (Same as my off road bikes. Even the moto-xs are evolving to 4 stroke.)



Though the new 2 stroke may be lower in decibels for noise, the difference in the pitch of the sound may need to be considered.

Another thing to considered. I don't know many that run at WOT. When one runs at lower rpms, the torque (rather than the hp) should be a concern. I have found 4 strokes usually win out here because they are heavier (flywheels, etc.).

Best of luck on you decision.

[Moe]

I'm not going to do it, but I'll bet if I put up a poll for four-stroke owners, about how much oil is added between 100 hour oil changes, there wouldn't be anyone who even added a half a quart, and most would add none. That's based on my BigFoot experience where the oil is barely down on the dipstick at that time. It might burn 2-4 ounces in a 100 hours.

If I have to add a quart or two on the Suzuki DF50, I'll be replacing it with another BigFoot.
--
Moe

[Dimitri-2000X-Tampa]

Agree with Billy and Moe, if your 4-stroke is burning any oil, you may have a piston ring problem. My Mercury BF 50 doesn't burn a drop.

[Tom Spohn]

Brian,
Suspect the Johnson in question is a 50 if the weight you quoted is right. Also the Johnson web site only lists a 70 as a 4 stroke. Whether this motor is right for you depends on the price, how you will use it, and where you will use it.

For me and price no object, I believe the M benefits from a larger motor than the 50. 70 is adequate, but.........

[Mark Prouty]

By gum, there is no 2004 70 hp Johnson 2 stroke.
http://www.johnsonoutboards.com/docs/200008/0_US.htm

Sure it is not a 4 stroke or a 90 hp Johnson 2 stroke?

I have an X and like the quiet of my Suzuki 4 stroke. At idle you literally can't tell it is running when you're at the helm. It is new this year so I've frequently checked the oil. It doesn't seem to burn any.

[rneville]

I traded out the 40hp Honda 4-stroke that came with the boat ('98 X I bought two years ago) for a 90hp Honda 4-stroke. The 40 and 50 are the same physical size as are the 70 and 90, so I opted for the big beast. Boat goes 26mph now, uses more fuel but hey, I can slalom behind it! And I can get around FAST under power.

[Robert]

315 lbs. Tohatsu / Nissan TLDI 90Hp
384 lbs. Honda 90Hp
416 lbs. Suzuki 90Hp 4 stroke (Suzuki 140 is same weight)
386 lbs. Mercury 90hp 4 stroke
375 lbs. Mercury 90Hp Optimax
357 lbs. Mercury Jet 80 (115Hp PowerHead) 2 smoke
369 lbs. Yamaha F90Hp EFI 4 stroke
415 lbs. Yamaha F115 (80Hp Jet) EFI 4 stroke
390 lbs. Yamaha F90 (65Hp Jet) EFI 4 stroke
261 lbs. Yamaha 90Hp 2 smoke
320 lbs. Evenrude E-Tec 90Hp SaltWater series (white)

The 320 lbs. Evenrude 90Hp E-Tec Saltwater Series looks like it shared the lower unit of the 200Hp to 250Hp E-Tec outboards BigFoot or HighThrust style. It has a gear ratio if 2.25. With a huge 15" prop and 2.25 gears and only 320 lbs. and clean running, I think this is a very good fit for a Mac26.

For very shallow water the Yamaha EFI Jets would be a great fit.

[waternwaves]

Moe,
The factory oil consumption numbers I have are from full output operation 5500-6000 RPM for the Suzuki and honda, both have factory tech briefs discuss allowable oil consumption under load, and 2 qts ,, burned, over 100 hundred hours of full throttle is low usage for a four stroke.....

I am curious why anyone would think that outboard 4 stokes would use less oil than an equivalent auto engine running at full rated output. The numbers I reference are far tougher than the running that the average person does on their boat or car, . which is generally not continuous full throttle ops, so thank you for the opportunity to clarify. Futhermore, the Oil consumption figures were referenced to non synthetic oils..... Evinrude synth testing shows lower oil consumption for synthetic oils (in both their two stroke and four stroke) rather than conventional cracked HC's. At this time, I have not obatined any certified test results for Suzuki or Honda with synthetic oils comparison tests (other than general references in boat reviews). Other testing shows typical oil consumption as being almost an order of magnitude less when these engines are run at half speed (approx 3000 RPM). (this would around also be around 6.5 oz in 100 hours) similiar to what others have observed. (far less than what anyone would detect at home without stringent measurement practices)

As an interesting sidebar...also
the Etec injects approximately 1/2 as much oil into the new etec engines when they are set up for synthetic oil.,

I look forward to seeing what the factory' are willing to allow for oil consumption as more hours are accumulated on the engines out there.

I am sure that individuals consumption will vary based on specific operating conditions.... and I wish all good luck with their choices.,

and that 2.25:1 lower unit on the saltwater 90 evinrude etec sail leg sure looks nice., however that particular model has a 25" leg that seems to be too large for my boat, even with the 15" prop, whereas the 20" leg seems to be the right place (with a 13 to 14" prop) for my 96 X boat.

[Robert]

It seems from the photos on the web page:
http://www.evinrude.com/en-US/E-Tec/200 ... Photos.htm
Click on the bottom photo and see how high it can be mounted. I think they thought about the mounting issue that 25" is too high for a 90Hp, and made it work for lower transoms.

[waternwaves]

I will try and take measurements if I can find a sail version with the 25" leg this week. According to the Factory rep, the length difference is entierely in the leg, power head sizes are the same,

And the mounting on the mac has to stay low for the powerhead to clear when tilted. If anyone else has been able to find the mounting and clearance diagram, for the 25" leg, let me know.