Home Egret Boats

Egret 189 Restoration - repower

mike345mike345 Posts: 14 Greenhorn
I know this subject has been beat to death on other posts ( Merc 175 Pro XS best power to weight ratio, etc) but given the new additions of the yamaha 150 SHO and soon to be released yamaha 175 4 stroke here's the question:

I have been restoring a 1996 189 ( will post pics at some point when done) and have come to the point where I am gonna drop some cash to repower. The Merc Pro XS 175 has the best price (similar to Vmax 175) and 5 year warranty vs 3 for Yamaha. I have already put significant money into restoration and a 2 stroke Merc or Vmax would save me a few thousand bucks vs. 4 stroke 150 SHO or 175 but either way gonna probably have more money in boat than it may be worth. I plan to keep it for awhile. But if I'm gonna drop that much money I am debating whether to splurge on the 4 stroke Yamaha ( resale, quieter, " 4 stroke future of engines", always been yamaha owner, etc.). I would welcome any thoughts or advice on this.

Thanks

Replies

  • FlatsBoyFlatsBoy Posts: 1,390 Officer
    All i can say is i owned a Mercury 175 Pro XS and it was a great motor power to weight ratio.
    The Yamaha 150 SHO weighs in at 480 lbs. The Mercury 175 Pro XS weighs 431 lbs.
    That's 49 lbs. on the transom and will effect draft!
    Go with the Mercury Pro XS cost less you get the extended warranty and will give you great fuel economy!
  • Egrets LandingEgrets Landing Posts: 949 Officer
    Your boat is going to draft about 13" with the pro xs so if draft is any issue for you, the 4 strokes are out as an option. 13" is about as deep of a draft as I can tolerate and in some situations becomes a problem. If the noise is more of an issue than the draft the pro xs is the looser because it is much louder and on longer runs can get really start to bug you if you are sensitive to it. If price is an issue, the pro xs wins on cost and on service as the parts for the Yamaha are more than 2x as much.
  • rbtbryanrbtbryan Posts: 99 Deckhand
    Mike,
    Give some thought to the Suzuki 140.
    Unless speed is a major issue for you, the 140 sits at approximately 400 lbs, is super quiet, sips fuel, and is a very reliable rig.
    Authorized dealer availability needs to be considered, but I have the 140 4 stroke on my '95, and it fantastic. Best weight to power ratio, and ideally suited from a weight perspective on that boat.
    Talk to Pete Silot about it, as he and I spoke at length on the virtues of going that route, and he has had the 140 for years now. He will certainly give you all the positive reasons to consider that unit given the vessel characteristics.
    FYI, I sacrificed on top end, although that to me was not as much of an issue as reliability, quiet and fuel consumption. I had the 175 on it before, and I definitely dropped about 10mph. Not an issue for me.
    WOT on my boat fully loaded with one live well full of crabs is 45mph.
    Good luck with the reposer. For what its worth, I completely rewired the boat with new wiring harness and electrics when I did the reposer, to ensure total reliability. That to me is paramount.
  • rbtbryanrbtbryan Posts: 99 Deckhand
    FYI Mike,
    Glenn will verify, but when we had the boats stern to stern gassing up for the Marquesas run, and the boats identically loaded, his boat was sitting about two inches lower in the water at the stern than mine. Huge difference!
    Approximately the same year, with fully loaded fuel tank.

    rbtbryan wrote: »
    Mike,
    Give some thought to the Suzuki 140.
    Unless speed is a major issue for you, the 140 sits at approximately 400 lbs, is super quiet, sips fuel, and is a very reliable rig.
    Authorized dealer availability needs to be considered, but I have the 140 4 stroke on my '95, and it fantastic. Best weight to power ratio, and ideally suited from a weight perspective on that boat.
    Talk to Pete Silot about it, as he and I spoke at length on the virtues of going that route, and he has had the 140 for years now. He will certainly give you all the positive reasons to consider that unit given the vessel characteristics.
    FYI, I sacrificed on top end, although that to me was not as much of an issue as reliability, quiet and fuel consumption. I had the 175 on it before, and I definitely dropped about 10mph. Not an issue for me.
    WOT on my boat fully loaded with one live well full of crabs is 45mph.
    Good luck with the reposer. For what its worth, I completely rewired the boat with new wiring harness and electrics when I did the reposer, to ensure total reliability. That to me is paramount.
  • mike345mike345 Posts: 14 Greenhorn
    Thanks for all the input. That's a great looking '95! Amazing how what seems like minor weight differences can affect the draft that much. I guess there are many options and all seem reasonable. Question for all, but particularly owners of older boats, what do you think a pristine older boat with new power is worth? While I plan to keep the boat in question if I drop 11-15K on new engine/install/controls, as well as money spent on new electronics/trolling motor, etc. I'll have around 30K in boat that looks and runs like new but is a '96 which is more than I planned on when I started this project. Not sure if its worth pulling the trigger on it or or bailing and picking up a newer boat with low hours as they occasionally pop up in the 35-40K range.
  • flchacondflchacond Posts: 6 Greenhorn
    The older hulls have a very good reputation so I wouldn't see that as a negative in your value consideration. A 1996 189 hull is a good thing.
  • Egrets LandingEgrets Landing Posts: 949 Officer
    mike345 wrote: »
    Thanks for all the input. That's a great looking '95! Amazing how what seems like minor weight differences can affect the draft that much. I guess there are many options and all seem reasonable. Question for all, but particularly owners of older boats, what do you think a pristine older boat with new power is worth? While I plan to keep the boat in question if I drop 11-15K on new engine/install/controls, as well as money spent on new electronics/trolling motor, etc. I'll have around 30K in boat that looks and runs like new but is a '96 which is more than I planned on when I started this project. Not sure if its worth pulling the trigger on it or or bailing and picking up a newer boat with low hours as they occasionally pop up in the 35-40K range.

    That is what I did. I had my 96 for several years and then decided rather than getting a new one just totally redo it. No regrets at all totally refurbishing. I redid everything except replacing the gas tank.
  • FishinMcNutFishinMcNut Posts: 536 Officer
    That is what I did. I had my 96 for several years and then decided rather than getting a new one just totally redo it. No regrets at all totally refurbishing. I redid everything except replacing the gas tank.
    Same here. Has much to do with design and use of high quality materials during original construction. I'm convinced this is my last boat...
  • FlatsBoyFlatsBoy Posts: 1,390 Officer
    I'm convinced this is my last boat...

    That's what i thought also.
    Wait to you ride in mine! Lol :grin
  • Saltwater JunkieSaltwater Junkie Posts: 1,086 Officer
    FlatsBoy wrote: »
    That's what i thought also.
    Wait to you ride in mine! Lol :grin

    I rode in yours....That was very impressive! But mine is on the cover of a Florida Sportsman book. So, I'll have to keep it:grin
  • FishinMcNutFishinMcNut Posts: 536 Officer
  • mtd885mtd885 Posts: 1,159 Officer
    I rode in yours....That was very impressive! But mine is on the cover of a Florida Sportsman book. So, I’ll have to keep it:grin

    Yeah Pete! You Rock that cover girl:willynilly
  • Renagade69Renagade69 Posts: 1,234 Officer
    lol..... Pete is the cover girl?
    Hells Bay Estero Bay Boat and Hells Bay Marquesas
  • mtd885mtd885 Posts: 1,159 Officer
    Renagade69 wrote: »
    lol..... Pete is the cover girl?
    Geez Frank you sure know how to hurt a guy!
    His BOAT is the cover girl for those of you that passed 9th grade English…LMAO
  • trponhuntertrponhunter Posts: 249 Deckhand
    mike345 wrote: »
    Thanks for all the input. That's a great looking '95! Amazing how what seems like minor weight differences can affect the draft that much. I guess there are many options and all seem reasonable. Question for all, but particularly owners of older boats, what do you think a pristine older boat with new power is worth? While I plan to keep the boat in question if I drop 11-15K on new engine/install/controls, as well as money spent on new electronics/trolling motor, etc. I'll have around 30K in boat that looks and runs like new but is a '96 which is more than I planned on when I started this project. Not sure if its worth pulling the trigger on it or or bailing and picking up a newer boat with low hours as they occasionally pop up in the 35-40K range.

    I think with new power the boat is worth around 30 or so, maybe upper 20's - depending on variables like electronics, troller, cover, etc . As far as draft goes, unless you are poling the boat, I don't think the draft really matters, that much - as you need at least 13" of water for the troller to work. I had both the new and old style 189's, and actually prefer the old top deck to the new - I had 150's on both. Big question to me would be if you pole it, and if you do, how much. If you want any chance of poling at all, I would look at the zuk 140. I sold my boats with the 150 because they were really not pole able and drafted too much water for what I wanted to do - for me at least. Now I have a boat with a 90 that cruises at 34 mph and tops out at close to 40 - I give up some things versus the egret, but I can pole it and fish for red's and bones in under 8 or 9" of water - it's all compromises - but if the egret does what you want -I think your money is reasonably safe in re powering.
    *Previous - 2000 Egret 189 carbon w/ vmax 150 - twin rotating prop
    *Previous - 2008 Egret 189 carbon w/ ETEC 150
    *Previous 2010 Beavertail Vengence w/ETEC 90
    *Current - 2015 Beavertail BTV w/ Suzuki 90
  • FlatsBoyFlatsBoy Posts: 1,390 Officer
    :funnypost
    Renagade69 wrote: »
    lol..... Pete is the cover girl?
  • Saltwater JunkieSaltwater Junkie Posts: 1,086 Officer
    FlatsBoy wrote: »
    :funnypost

    That's what makes the Egret family, it's all in good fun.

    As far as repower it's just personal preference and what you plan on doing with the boat. A new 4 stroke, Suzuki 140 is 396 lbs. The ETEC 175 is 419 lbs. Phil said the Yamaha 150 SHO weighs in at 480 lbs. and the Mercury 175 Pro XS weighs 431 lbs. Just remember these weight maybe without oil on the 4 strokes and the 2 strokes will have a oil tank that when full can be 15lbs or so?

    Tight Lines...Pete
  • 91tiger91tiger Posts: 555 Officer
    Pete, do you see similar speeds as mentioned above with the Suzuki 140 4 stroke? 45 MPH top end kind of surprised me. That's only 5 MPH less than my top end with my Yamaha F150. But that weight savings is amazing. I feel like my boat squats more than I would prefer with that heavy motor but I love the reliability and quiet, something you would also have with the Suzuki.

    When you’re making the long run back to the ramp at Flamingo in the afternoons, what RPMs do you usually turn? In other words do you find yourself running wide open to offset the lower horsepower? Do you know what your fuel numbers are for a typical day at Flamingo? Typical day being making the long run through the back country out the Shark and fishing up and down the coast...at least that's a typical day for me where I average around 75 miles of running. I will usually burn around 18 to 20 gallons on those days. On the run back to the ramp I have a hard time not wanting to punch it but then I start watching the fuel GPH on the gauge and it makes me pull the throttle back a little. But if I could run in the high 30's to low 40's without pushing the motor to the max and pick up a couple inches of draft by taking 84 pounds off the back, that's something to consider down the road.
  • Saltwater JunkieSaltwater Junkie Posts: 1,086 Officer
    91tiger wrote: »
    Pete, do you see similar speeds as mentioned above with the Suzuki 140 4 stroke? 45 MPH top end kind of surprised me. That's only 5 MPH less than my top end with my Yamaha F150. But that weight savings is amazing. I feel like my boat squats more than I would prefer with that heavy motor but I love the reliability and quiet, something you would also have with the Suzuki.

    When you’re making the long run back to the ramp at Flamingo in the afternoons, what RPMs do you usually turn? In other words do you find yourself running wide open to offset the lower horsepower? Do you know what your fuel numbers are for a typical day at Flamingo? Typical day being making the long run through the back country out the Shark and fishing up and down the coast...at least that's a typical day for me where I average around 75 miles of running. I will usually burn around 18 to 20 gallons on those days. On the run back to the ramp I have a hard time not wanting to punch it but then I start watching the fuel GPH on the gauge and it makes me pull the throttle back a little. But if I could run in the high 30's to low 40's without pushing the motor to the max and pick up a couple inches of draft by taking 84 pounds off the back, that's something to consider down the road.

    There are two reasons why I went with the Suzuki.

    1 They don't break...but they need 12 volts.

    2 They don't break and they are the lightest 4 stroke that will match to how the boat was designed. (weights and balance)

    I replaced a 175 the weight 386 lbs. with the 140 Suzuki that's 407 lbs. So I lost 35 HP and gained 21 lbs. My top speed went down 4 miles from a 4 blade to the 3 blade on the Suzuki. The Suzuki turns a bigger prop. The 2 stroke 175 had a much better hole shot. I've gotten use to the slower speed. I usually run around 4500 RPM which is about 34 or 35 MPH. When I want to go faster I run 5000 to 5200 which is 40 mph. My top speed is 46 MPH ready to fish. I don't really look at what I burn anymore. But at last check I was averaging between 4.5 and low 5 MPG. That's with a full bait well me and two anglers, so I'm running heavy.

    At the end of the day I'm happy knowing it's going to take me 2 minutes to go 1 mile. So if the other guy can cruise a little faster, what's he going to beat me to the dock by 15 minutes, who cares. I can put two fat guys and me on the transom with a full bait well. and I down get water over the transom. I like the Suzuki I just don't like the steering arm. It's all rusty. Other than that I'd buy another one.
  • trponhuntertrponhunter Posts: 249 Deckhand
    There are two reasons why I went with the Suzuki.

    1 They don't break...but they need 12 volts.

    2 They don't break and they are the lightest 4 stroke that will match to how the boat was designed. (weights and balance)

    I replaced a 175 the weight 386 lbs. with the 140 Suzuki that's 407 lbs. So I lost 35 HP and gained 21 lbs. My top speed went down 4 miles from a 4 blade to the 3 blade on the Suzuki. The Suzuki turns a bigger prop. The 2 stroke 175 had a much better hole shot. I've gotten use to the slower speed. I usually run around 4500 RPM which is about 34 or 35 MPH. When I want to go faster I run 5000 to 5200 which is 40 mph. My top speed is 46 MPH ready to fish. I don't really look at what I burn anymore. But at last check I was averaging between 4.5 and low 5 MPG. That's with a full bait well me and two anglers, so I'm running heavy.

    At the end of the day I'm happy knowing it's going to take me 2 minutes to go 1 mile. So if the other guy can cruise a little faster, what's he going to beat me to the dock by 15 minutes, who cares. I can put two fat guys and me on the transom with a full bait well. and I down get water over the transom. I like the Suzuki I just don't like the steering arm. It's all rusty. Other than that I'd buy another one.

    I think those are really good numbers considering - and you know the zuk is a total mizer on fuel. My e tec 150 topped out at 52 , and cruised at 40 at 4100 rpms, burning a lot more fuel than the suzuki. Bottom line is, you can still do a fast cruise of 40, but with a silky smooth, quiet engine.
    *Previous - 2000 Egret 189 carbon w/ vmax 150 - twin rotating prop
    *Previous - 2008 Egret 189 carbon w/ ETEC 150
    *Previous 2010 Beavertail Vengence w/ETEC 90
    *Current - 2015 Beavertail BTV w/ Suzuki 90
  • flchacondflchacond Posts: 6 Greenhorn
    Has anyone chosen a 200 etec for a 189? It looks to be the same weight as the etec 175 and lighter than the mercury 175xs. I assume the etec 175 cowling will fit.
  • Egrets LandingEgrets Landing Posts: 949 Officer
    If I had it to do over again I would likely do that. Its got plenty of power and a lot quieter than the pro xs. I lost power and some speed going to the pro xs from the old efi but gained the fuel efficiency. Not sure about the room on the standard stock platform for the cowling but I imagine it will have to be raised as that was the case for the merc. I redesigned the platform to add 12" in height and an extra folding step.
Sign In or Register to comment.