Home Egret Boats

Any 189 owners running the Suzuki 140?

gal218gal218 Posts: 105 Officer
My current order with Frank is for the Yamaha FA150. However, I'm now considering the Suzuki 140.

Why?
- $2,200 less
- Weighs less
- Quieter
- More fuel efficient
- 6 year warranty (3 + 3 with current promotion) vs 5 year (3 +2)
- Don't give up much power (if any)???

Am going to the Miami Boat Show Thursday...will talk with both Yamaha and Suzuki to try and sort things out.

In the meantime, if anyone has some direct experience to verify or refute any of the above...the input will be greatly appreciated.

I forgot to mention one more reason for the Suzuki...it is available in White (to keep the wife happy)

Replies

  • mtd885mtd885 Posts: 1,159 Officer
    gal218 wrote: »
    My current order with Frank is for the Yamaha FA150. However, I'm now considering the Suzuki 140.

    Why?
    - $2,200 less
    - Weighs less
    - Quieter
    - More fuel efficient
    - 6 year warranty (3 + 3 with current promotion) vs 5 year (3 +2)
    - Don't give up much power (if any)???

    Am going to the Miami Boat Show Thursday...will talk with both Yamaha and Suzuki to try and sort things out.

    In the meantime, if anyone has some direct experience to verify or refute any of the above...the input will be greatly appreciated.

    I went through the same process you are now going through. A few things I'll pass along from my research. It is an EXCELLENT motor! You should consider the dealership where you will be having it serviced, go there and ask to see their parts supply. If they only have a small stock of parts go elsewhere! Part's at times can be hard to find, that being said you probably won't need parts they are so solid. Corrosion, it's a must to spray that motor frequently with anti corrosion spray. Hondas and Suzy's have known issues with corrosion. Both Saltwater Junkie and, gee I forgot Bryan's handle, anyway they both love their Suzy's. Like Pete says if someone gets there 5 minutes sooner they he dos so what? The lighter motor will have you sitting higher in the water and allow you to run a little skinnier. It was my second choice to re-power my skiff. I opted for the new Mercury 150 4 stroke for the above reasons, parts everywhere, fewer corrosion issues, 3 certified Merc service centers near home. I should have her back next week. I feel like I'm getting a new boat :)
  • Egrets LandingEgrets Landing Posts: 949 Officer
    It will provide about 2" shallower draft on a typical 18 when compared to a 2 stroke 175 merc.
    Pretty good reports on reliability.
    Quiet
    Prone to rust at the steering arm
    Will not run the boat faster at wot than low 40's with a couple of people and typical load. If you desire to ever go faster than that, it wont work.'
    Not the best choice if you dont have good dealer representation (more than 2 nearby) as parts reported scarce by comparison to Merc or Yam
  • Saltwater JunkieSaltwater Junkie Posts: 1,086 Officer
    gal218 wrote: »
    My current order with Frank is for the Yamaha FA150. However, I'm now considering the Suzuki 140.

    Why?
    - $2,200 less
    - Weighs less
    - Quieter
    - More fuel efficient
    - 6 year warranty (3 + 3 with current promotion) vs 5 year (3 +2)
    - Don't give up much power (if any)???

    Am going to the Miami Boat Show Thursday...will talk with both Yamaha and Suzuki to try and sort things out.

    In the meantime, if anyone has some direct experience to verify or refute any of the above...the input will be greatly appreciated.

    I forgot to mention one more reason for the Suzuki...it is available in White (to keep the wife happy)

    Unless something has changed. I don't think you can get a white 140.

    I haven't done any research on the new motors in years. But if you can find a 150 or 175 HP that weighs 390lbs. Buy that. That's the weight that the boat was designed around. Otherwise, buy the Suzuki 140. I've got approx. 2000 hours and have only changed oil,oil filter, lower unit gear oil, fuel filter, spark plugs, impellerwhen needed. It likes good batteries. Aside from a rusty steering arm, I can't say anything bad about it. Yes I would buy another one. I was ready for a charter the last time I checked top speed. Full fuel, water in the baitwell, cooler with ice and drinks and I got 46 mph. I cruise mid to low 30's.

    I haven't had any problems with parts...I haven't needed any. The motor doesn't break!
  • UFGator86UFGator86 Posts: 99 Deckhand
    I built a Mocassin 210 last year with a Suzuki 175. I have owned many Yamaha's in the past so it was a big change for me and I'm happy with the choice. I saved nearly a third with electronic controls and factory white neither were available from Yami at the time. There were two guides ahead of me in production that went with Suzuki also. They were pleased last time I communicated with them as well. The new 200 looks very interesting too!
  • gal218gal218 Posts: 105 Officer
    Unless something has changed. I don't think you can get a white 140.

    I haven't done any research on the new motors in years. But if you can find a 150 or 175 HP that weighs 390lbs. Buy that. That's the weight that the boat was designed around. Otherwise, buy the Suzuki 140. I've got approx. 2000 hours and have only changed oil,oil filter, lower unit gear oil, fuel filter, spark plugs, impellerwhen needed. It likes good batteries. Aside from a rusty steering arm, I can't say anything bad about it. Yes I would buy another one. I was ready for a charter the last time I checked top speed. Full fuel, water in the baitwell, cooler with ice and drinks and I got 46 mph. I cruise mid to low 30's.

    I haven't had any problems with parts...I haven't needed any. The motor doesn't break!


    The 2015 catalog shows the white 140.

    Thanks again for all the great information. Will check out Suzuki and Yamaha in Miami on Thursday...at this point am leaning towards the Suzuki
  • Carolina FlyCarolina Fly Posts: 71 Deckhand
    You might want to PM T-Shirt Bob up in Jax. We both have 167s not 189s. I still run my E-Tec but he repowered with a Zuke a couple years ago. We corresponded several times over prop choices and he was a great help. He is the one who did the 167 walk-thru on the Egret site. The word up here in the Carolinas is the Zuke is very well designed and seldom gives a problem but if it does the company is tougher to deal with than others. If it was time for me to repower it would be either Suzuki or another E-Tec. I mostly fish the Carolina Low Country and need a light weight motor for draft.
  • rbtbryanrbtbryan Posts: 99 Deckhand
    Nothing but good to say about the Suzuki. I have the 140, and other than one minor incident with some electronic part that dropped the power down for one reason or another, which once they identified the problem, there have been zero issues. Have had it a little over two years.
    Glenn and I compared draft on our way out to the Marquesas two summers ago, where the boats, which are identical in heritage, year, live well fill height, fuel etc, and were sitting transom to transom at the fuel dock, showed a marked 2" plus difference in draft at the back end of the boat. Quite a difference between the Optimax Pro175 and the Suzuki. No oil in the rear hatch either. Best of luck!
  • Saltwater JunkieSaltwater Junkie Posts: 1,086 Officer
    rbtbryan wrote: »
    Nothing but good to say about the Suzuki. I have the 140, and other than one minor incident with some electronic part that dropped the power down for one reason or another, which once they identified the problem, there have been zero issues. Have had it a little over two years.
    Glenn and I compared draft on our way out to the Marquesas two summers ago, where the boats, which are identical in heritage, year, live well fill height, fuel etc, and were sitting transom to transom at the fuel dock, showed a marked 2" plus difference in draft at the back end of the boat. Quite a difference between the Optimax Pro175 and the Suzuki. No oil in the rear hatch either. Best of luck!

    Thats what she said...That Glenn had two more inches.:grin
  • HeartNShoalHeartNShoal Posts: 937 Officer
    I am curious to know the physics behind a 2" improvement in draft with the Suzuki 140. I keep telling my girlfriend that a couple of inches doesn't make a difference but she keeps insisting that it does. :banana

    According to the manufacturer, the Egret 189 requires 600 pounds of force to push the boat down 1 inch in the water, assuming the 600 pounds is evenly distributed.

    If the Suzuki 140 weighs 407 pounds, and the Yamaha F150 weighs 491 pounds. How does 84 pounds accomplish 2 inches of reduced draft? I understand the 84 pounds is not evenly distributed, but rather concentrated at the stern. However, ballast on the bow with angler/cooler should even that out.

    Fully loaded with gear/bait/fuel I am drawing 11"-12", that's 12" with a 100-pound chick the boat at the stern, and 11" with her on the front. I have my two 12v batteries in the front under the bulkhead compartment. I measured this from the sandbar. I can draw 10.5" with an adult male angler on the bow as ballast. Haven't tried using the cooler as a casting platform yet but I will try this weekend.

    I am not seeing how the 84 pounds spells 2" of draft based on the physics of the boat. The draft published by the manufacturer is 10"-11" which makes it even harder for me to believe that 84 pounds would result in a swing even wider than this published tolerance.
  • Saltwater JunkieSaltwater Junkie Posts: 1,086 Officer
    I am curious to know the physics behind a 2" improvement in draft with the Suzuki 140. I keep telling my girlfriend that a couple of inches doesn't make a difference but she keeps insisting that it does. :banana

    According to the manufacturer, the Egret 189 requires 600 pounds of force to push the boat down 1 inch in the water, assuming the 600 pounds is evenly distributed.

    If the Suzuki 140 weighs 407 pounds, and the Yamaha F150 weighs 491 pounds. How does 84 pounds accomplish 2 inches of reduced draft? I understand the 84 pounds is not evenly distributed, but rather concentrated at the stern. However, ballast on the bow with angler/cooler should even that out.

    Fully loaded with gear/bait/fuel I am drawing 11"-12", that's 12" with a 100-pound chick the boat at the stern, and 11" with her on the front. I have my two 12v batteries in the front under the bulkhead compartment. I measured this from the sandbar. I can draw 10.5" with an adult male angler on the bow as ballast. Haven't tried using the cooler as a casting platform yet but I will try this weekend.

    I am not seeing how the 84 pounds spells 2" of draft based on the physics of the boat. The draft published by the manufacturer is 10"-11" which makes it even harder for me to believe that 84 pounds would result in a swing even wider than this published tolerance.

    Grasshopper...if it takes 600lbs. to make the boat go down 1 inch. Then why is it that when you step off the dock onto the gunnel the boat goes down??? You don't weigh anything close to 600lbs. The reason the boat goes down is because you are not evenly distributing your weight over the entire wetted surface. To test this, stand on the dock and have the 100 pound chick stand in front of the console. While she is standing there. Look at the waterline on the transom where the trim tab is in relation to the water surface. Now get her to stand on the center of the poling platform. Next get her to stand on one of the back corners, then have her make you a sandwich.:grin Ok you got the pebble, now is time for you to leave.

    Oh yea...if you had 2 more inches you would be working in low budget films.
  • Egrets LandingEgrets Landing Posts: 949 Officer
    Grasshopper...if it takes 600lbs. to make the boat go down 1 inch. Then why is it that when you step off the dock onto the gunnel the boat goes down??? You don't weigh anything close to 600lbs. The reason the boat goes down is because you are not evenly distributing your weight over the entire wetted surface. To test this, stand on the dock and have the 100 pound chick stand in front of the console. While she is standing there. Look at the waterline on the transom where the trim tab is in relation to the water surface. Now get her to stand on the center of the poling platform. Next get her to stand on one of the back corners, then have her make you a sandwich.:grin Ok you got the pebble, now is time for you to leave.

    Oh yea...if you had 2 more inches you would be working in low budget films.

    I can't advise on the detailed physics in play. But I can tell you that two Identical 1996 boats with similar loads sitting at the gas pump with no people on board were compared. One had the zuke 140 and the other had the 175 merc proxs. The zuke boat was floating about 2" higher at the stern measured from the well drains to the water line. A very substantive difference between those boat's draft. Doesnt make much sense just based on the engine weights but that was what we observed. Also, the published draft of the 18 is a little aggressive I think. Probably closer to 11-12" on average for a CK with typical load and 13" for a glass boat. The older slightly heavier glass boats built in FL with 175 hp float in about 13 - 13.5" at rest. If you bolt a 90 hp engine on there as some have for tenders, it probably would float in 9". I am not sure how they measure some of these published draft indications but some seem like perhaps that what it is with someone standing on the bow.
  • gal218gal218 Posts: 105 Officer
    I don't want to suggest that I'm an expert on this however, a couple observations...
    - I think the comparison was with an Optimax 175, not the Yamaha 150
    - The 600# thing probably refers to 600# placed in the center and the entire boat drops 1"
    - The comparison in question was with the extra weight entirely on the stern and the 2" was at the stern.
  • Saltwater JunkieSaltwater Junkie Posts: 1,086 Officer
    gal218...Did you make it to the boat show?
  • gal218gal218 Posts: 105 Officer
    gal218...Did you make it to the boat show?

    Yes, did the show.

    Talked with Yamaha, Suzuki, Lowrance, Motorguide...saw lot's of neat stuff.

    Have decided to go with the Suzuki 140. I'd like to say it was for all kind of practical reasons...however, my dear wife (who gave her permission for me to buy the Egret), said it ought to have a white engine...and I wanted a 4 stroke vs the E-Tec. Therefore, Suzuki.

    With the money saved, I'm adding a 2nd Power Pole...(I didn't tell her about that...don't think she would appreciate how important that is).

    In talking my Lowrance, it sounds like my HDS 12 Gen3 probably won't ship until the end of March.

    Saw some of the most obnoxious Cigarette boats ever...the only good news is I didn't have the hear them!
  • HeartNShoalHeartNShoal Posts: 937 Officer
    Grasshopper...if it takes 600lbs. to make the boat go down 1 inch. Then why is it that when you step off the dock onto the gunnel the boat goes down??? You don't weigh anything close to 600lbs. The reason the boat goes down is because you are not evenly distributing your weight over the entire wetted surface. To test this, stand on the dock and have the 100 pound chick stand in front of the console. While she is standing there. Look at the waterline on the transom where the trim tab is in relation to the water surface. Now get her to stand on the center of the poling platform. Next get her to stand on one of the back corners, then have her make you a sandwich.:grin Ok you got the pebble, now is time for you to leave.

    Oh yea...if you had 2 more inches you would be working in low budget films.

    Ok Kemosabe. If I step on on the port side gunwale while someone of equal weight steps on the starboard side, no change. So it sounds to me like compensating for the 84 pounds on the stern with weight on the bow would make any draft difference negligible, i.e. fraction of an inch. I know you are used to compensating...:grin

    We can settle this with a weiner, 'er, draft measuring contest. With ballast on the bow of course. Let's get the rulers out. And don't be unloading all that crap you carry around in the compartments. I learned that from you and carry much too much also so let's keep it apples to apples.
  • Saltwater JunkieSaltwater Junkie Posts: 1,086 Officer
    Ok Kemosabe. If I step on on the port side gunwale while someone of equal weight steps on the starboard side, no change. So it sounds to me like compensating for the 84 pounds on the stern with weight on the bow would make any draft difference negligible, i.e. fraction of an inch. I know you are used to compensating...:grin

    We can settle this with a weiner, 'er, draft measuring contest. With ballast on the bow of course. Let's get the rulers out. And don't be unloading all that crap you carry around in the compartments. I learned that from you and carry much too much also so let's keep it apples to apples.

    I'm all for comparing Apples to Apples. The problem is going to be when my wife finds out that I have a 100 pound chick that is young enough to be my daughter on the boat. She is not going to believe it was your idea!:grin
  • HeartNShoalHeartNShoal Posts: 937 Officer
    LMAO! :funnypost
Sign In or Register to comment.