# Johnson 90/65 Opinions?



## rotus623 (Nov 8, 2017)

Hey fellas,

Long time, no see. Still running my 16' rhino with 4 stroke 60/40. I love the motor but with a tunnel cut in, .190 gauge bottom, UHMW on the bottom, bait tank and live well (30-40 gallons) and two people we are wanting more throttle.

Anyways, I came across a 1993 90/65 Johnson factory jet for $750. The powerhead is locked up but that doesnt matter to me. These blocks are all over the place. I was just wondering what you guys thought about this platform? This motor is framed on a 99.6 cubic inch block. Only thing I am leary about is it is a crossflow motor. I haven't fooled with many crossflows. I know they idle well, drink lots of gas, and dont have the upper end that the loopers do. Would that stop you from buying one?

Icing on the cake: My uncle has a 1992 Johnson 115 that he wants to take off of his bass boat to turn into a reservoir boat. He told me if I buy him a 24v transom mount trolling motor and two batteries, he will trade me. I would also get him an onboard battery charging system and install it all for him. 

Basically, if I made this move, I would have a 115/80 sleeper motor...............


----------



## handyandy (Nov 9, 2017)

The 115 power head would go on that 90 mid if I'm not mistaken. The 90 and 115 are good engines if everything is up to snuff. Usually what kills them is a gummed up carb causing a lean condition burning up a cylinder, or bad t stats that cause it to run to cold or too hot. I would get the 90 and then make the trade for the 115 and put that power head on the jet mid. I would haggle down the 90 price some as all your really buying is the outboard jet since the power head is junk. You will most likely have to go to a different impeller than what is in it if you put the 115 power head on. That and your boat might need pods for the added weight, but you will be very pleased with the power/performance gain, you won't like the fuel consumption.


----------



## rotus623 (Nov 9, 2017)

Andy agree with all that you have said. Except for one thing, I cAnt really argue with the price. It has a working power trim on it as well as controls. I get $250 for trim system and $100-$150 for controls around here. Plus all the goodies are still on the powerhead. I wouldn't sell that jet unit for less than $1000 out this way, and that's if that is all I was selling. But markets are different all over, so it may be different out your way. Also, OBJ is 4-6 months backed up last I checked.

I can live with the gas consumption cause I only get to fish 1 day a week. I just wanna go fast!!!!


----------



## handyandy (Nov 10, 2017)

It's not a bad deal I'm just cheap lol. That engine would probably push a 17-18ft just fine as well if you ever decided to go to a little bigger river boat.


----------



## rotus623 (Nov 13, 2017)

I hear ya. Well they are very hard to find around here. The guy who makes the jet boats has a few motors, some from 2000 up to a mercury optimax in the 2006 range. He wants $6000 for each of them. He knows they are hard to come by. On top of that there is a 16 week wait for the jets from OBJ right now, and he doesnt even have any ready to go!!!

With all that accounted for, the guy that I am getting the 90 jet from is going to paint her all up fresh for me in whatever paint scheme I want for $1100. I see 90-115 crossflow v4's all over around here, in the $500-$1500 price range. I should be right at $2000 with a freshly painted engine. Cant beat that!!

P.S. I am selling my 60/40 and will have it listed on here.


----------



## handyandy (Nov 13, 2017)

Unless it is a heck of a paint job I'd just pay the 750 for it. But then again I don't care about paint on my engine as long as it runs good. To each their own, glad you found a deal. That boat will be even more arse heavy now though.


----------



## rotus623 (Nov 14, 2017)

Well the guy selling it is a good dude and he paints and restores motors for a hobby/side biz. He isn't making much on the motor so we decided it would be fair to us both to get her all painted up. The rhino is too pretty (IMO) to throw a faded motor on the back of.  She ain't too heavy in the rear right now. The reason that the water line is so high back there is when we are pulling in big cats we both stand back there. One to wind em up, one to net em. The boat actually sets pretty in the water at a drift. The bigger 2 stroke also weighs a little less than 50lbs. more than the 60/40.

I am going to stick the motor on there and see how she runs/floats. I am considering putting some custom float pods on the back if need be. Here is how she floats with 2 "people" at the console: 



Truth be told, Id probably be better off with a 1654 and the 90/65. Lots of reasons to keep this boat though. It is set up just how I want it to be.

With the CC mounted up front and my passenger and I up there she runs skinnier than ever now. Just needs a little more go-go juice.

All-in-all she fishes excellently and runs great. I won't be using this boat through the winter and figured I could use a little something to mess with. Just gaining experience and testing all fundamentals here.


----------



## handyandy (Nov 14, 2017)

I'm one of the believers that there is no such thing as too much power so I understand. A 1854 to me would be pretty ideal, but I can understand not wanting to deal with changing hulls, until I have legitemate reason to go to a different I'm sticking with mine. Even though there are better options, I don't feel like spending the time or money dealing with it.


----------



## rotus623 (Nov 17, 2017)

Andy,

I ended up posting the boat on CL just to see what the market thought she was worth. I thought I priced it very fairly. The next day I had a guy send me a deposit from up north. Cant believe I sold the boat in one day.

I posted the motor for sale for 2 weeks and no love. Decided it would be easier on the back just to sell her whole. Plus I want a wider rig.

Needless to say, I am not hull shopping. I can get a new hull, 1754 for the same price as a 1760. I am wondering which route I want to go. Any opinions?


----------



## JL8Jeff (Nov 17, 2017)

I have a 1652 which I like but I would really prefer a 1660. I can fit my 1652 in the garage barely for the winter so I would not want to go any longer and I don't really need the extra length. Sea Ark makes a 1660 and you can get it in a jet tunnel if you wanted to. I think Xpress makes a sweet looking 1660 as well but it's kind of pricey.

Here's a picture of the XPress 1660 a member here (Goaround) posted a couple of years ago.


----------



## rotus623 (Nov 17, 2017)

Thanks for the input Jeff! Thats a nice skiff for sure. Im teetering on 54-60" at this point. I will likely go 60.


----------



## handyandy (Nov 21, 2017)

You still planning on using that 115/80 v4 omc? I wouldn't be scared to go 1860 or 1854 with a 115/80 it will plane out easier with the longer hull. It will draft less and won't be much slower if any than a 16-17ft hull.


----------



## handyandy (Nov 21, 2017)

my case in point on the shorter hulls only going to be faster if you load it light for speed, but they don't perform much better if your going to have a load in it like most of put in them while fishing with a buddy or two. I copied this from a FB group that guy posted that was in search of more speed from his motor that had a shorter hull made and wasn't any faster than his longer hull. Granted these are narrower boats, but same principles apply. Now obviously there is a limit when you can go with a hull that is just too large for the motor. But I would go at least with an 18ft for that size engine won't be any slower, you'll have more room, and will be able to carry a heavier load if you ever needed to. I just copied and pasted this post from SEMO jet boat enthusiast FB page where numerous discussions have popped up over people always surprised that the 18ft boats of same width and similar design are almost always just as fast as the shorter 15-17ft boats when they have they're typical load of 2-3 people, cooler, and some gear. Sure the the little 15 footer made light, loaded light, and set up for speed will be faster with the same 60/40 engine, but if you want to be able to use your boat with a livewell full of water, two guys, fishing gear, and cooler I would go for an 18. 

"Scratching my head on why a smaller,lighter boat has no performance gain on a long heavy boat with the exact same motor. Please tell me what y'all think, I would like to see this small boat work out.
Motor is a 2001 tohatsu 70 powerhead with power trim running on a 6" atlas jack plate
19' by 44" boat, 3/16 bottom/sides/subfloor, full length stringers. Slick bottom. HEAVY. Runs 29 with 2 men, 3 trolling batteries, 30 gal fuel, loaded yeti, trolling motor. Same speed with varying load once it gets on plane. Will run very shallow with front of foot even with boat bottom and trimmed all the way down. Made extension plate to extend boat bottom towards foot which helped with spray and cavitation.
Now same motor and jack on a 15' 48" with 1/8" sides/bottom. No floor. Bottom is slick but has angle welded for strikes on both sides and one up the middle which stops roughly 3' before transom. Same load as other boat. Only runs 29-30 with front of foot 1/2" above bottom. Had extension plate on this boat as well but it was cavitating so I removed it. Must have weight up front to prevent hopping. Any trim at all and it goes into a hop.
I am disappointed the smaller boat did not gain any speed at all. Any ideas on what might improve performance? I have talked to some who say short boats <15' just don't do well with a jet. What should I try? What are some of you seeing or past experience with similar boats? Possibly this motor just won't push beyond 30?"


----------



## JL8Jeff (Nov 21, 2017)

Too many variables to really determine why that guy still only got 29 out of a 15' boat. It takes a lot of fine tuning to get the best performance. I had to add the transom wedges to get rid of the porpoising at WOT. But it's really the overall package you need to look at for what you plan on doing with your boat. I have no plans to ever run with 2 large passengers and a livewell so the 60/45 works fine for my setup. If I needed more hp then I would also want a wider hull, but I want to fit the boat in the garage so 16' is my limit. We have a guy with a SeaArk 1872 here on the river and that is a sweet setup. but I don't think he gets much more speed than I do and he has at least a 90 jet. Running super shallow might require pods which will then scrub off some speed so there are tradeoffs that need to be balanced out.


----------



## rotus623 (Nov 22, 2017)

Yea I hear ya. I will have to see how much more the 18' is as opposed to the 17'. Id like to see other OBJ hull options but we just dont have a lot of boat builders around here. Id love to find some boat builders on the east coast that I could get some prices off of. 

All in all, Id love to find what I am looking for used, but you know how that goes......


----------



## handyandy (Nov 27, 2017)

There are a lot of variables, true, but he didn't get any faster speeds out the shorter boat cause it just doesn't displace enough water to carry a load of two guys with bow fishing stuff. If it was loaded real light it would be faster, but the longer boat displaces more water and will plane out easier. With a load it won't have much more hull in contact with with the water so it won't be much slower on the top end either. If it were me if you can swing it I would be going 1852-1854, you may have to make a trip for a hull sometimes that part of getting a deal. A shorter hull will end up benefiting from pods, which is a sign that you need a longer hull. Yes I'm going to put pods on my hull, hence why my next hull will be longer. Usually the difference in cost between 17-18ft of the same width from what I've seen is pretty low. This is just my opinion based off my experience, at the end of the day go with what you think will work best for you. If you can get past the BS on the FB page I would recommend looking through the SEMO jet boat enthusiast FB page you might have to dig through the garbage, but there are a number of people on there running 1852-1854 boats that aren't any slower than the guys running 16-17ft boats with the same engines. I'm running a short boat yes, because that's what I already have, but a longer one would be nice. I figure the time when I finally get a longer boat will be when at some point I have kids, and need one in order to get the family out on the water. 

Granted this is a prop scenario, but I have been really impressed by how well my buddies 2060 flat bottom moves with a 1979 70hp johnson with a 13x19 prop. I figured the thing would be a dog with only 70hp, but it runs really well manages 37mph with a two guys and a lighter load, 34mph with a heavy load of a hard side duck blind, decoys, gear, and four guys in it. For experimental sake some day him and I want to try my 1994 evinrude 70hp with the jet lower on it to just see how it will do. But screwing around with a none necessity boat experiment has been one of those low on the list things for both of us. 

Granted these are fiberglass boats, but still similar case top of there page is a video of a 2060 running quiet well with a 90/65. 
https://www.facebook.com/Shawnee-Supreme-Boat-Co-404346796315661/


----------



## Samsdad1 (Dec 7, 2017)

I recently bought a 1997 Sea Ark Mcbass 170 (17feet long and 72" beam) with a 1995 90/65 2 stroke jet on the rear. This boat is not tunneled (For Now) and it can run 32mph downriver according to my GPS Phone App...

rotus623 I noticed your listing right before I bought my boat and almost called, but since I got this one for 2500.00 I could not pass it up. Needed interior work and had to file for a lost title... oh well I expect some work for that price.

I live in Western Goochland and would be willing to give you a test ride to see if this size range is what your looking for.

Matt


----------



## Samsdad1 (Dec 7, 2017)

pics of the boat after much work...


----------



## rotus623 (Dec 9, 2017)

Matt,

Cool lil boat for sure. I would love to take a run on her. You did really well on that one, price wise. Id have paid that for the motor.

The boat I will end up with will have higher sides and a .190 bottom. I am looking into a Mod-V rhino, 17-18' 60" bottom.

As far as the tunnel goes, if you are in Goochland and fishing those waters, I wouldnt bother. Only way Id consider a tunnel was if I fished scottsville regularly. Anyways, Andy has me thinking hard. I will likely rig my next jet boat without a tunnel. I dont think the extra 2" of foot clearance is worth the performance lost.


----------



## rotus623 (Dec 9, 2017)

P.S. That 90hp can be converted to a 115 if you are ever interested. Thats the same motor I have but Im going 115. Carburetors, exhaust plate and boom. 25hp........


----------



## eshaw (Dec 10, 2017)

rotus623 said:


> P.S. That 90hp can be converted to a 115 if you are ever interested. Thats the same motor I have but Im going 115. Carburetors, exhaust plate and boom. 25hp........


Is this the only difference and what years does this apply to?


----------



## rotus623 (Dec 11, 2017)

Well,

They made these crossflows from 1978-1998. Two major things happened during this huge span.

1.) HP ratings went from rated at the crank, to rated at the prop. This happened in 1984-85. The 115hp was de-rated to a 90hp. The 140hp was de-rated to a 115hp. That being said, the pre-'85 exhaust manifold needs to be the 140hp, the post '85 needs to be the 115 manifold. These all have the same part number (as far as I can tell) from '78-'97.

If you have a pre- '85 motor, use the pre '85 140 carbs. Post '85, use the post '85 115's. I don't know if the pre '85 140s will work on a post '85 90 block of not. Never done it and the part numbers don't seem to match up.

2.) In 1992 the driveshaft became 7/16" longer. So the gearcases from '78-91 are the same, and '92-'97/8 are the same (for crossflow models.)

So, in short, yes, these are the only differences. You can find them on ebay, but be aware, they can be scarce and pricey. Everyone wants to step up to a 115, nobody wants to step down.

Another difference to consider is that the jet impeller changes a bit from the 65 to the 80. I am going to run the 65hp impeller and see where my rpms are. These motors like to rev up to 5500 so I am hoping that is the mark I am at. It will be fun to do some experimenting.

Also, I am going to put some carbon fiber reed valves in to help with hole shot and allow me to bring my idle down low. I may get my heads milled back to get the compression up and run '93 test. These 100 cubic inch blocks were rated low, hp wise. They are SCREAMERS!! Just never had one on a jet...........yet.


----------



## eshaw (Dec 11, 2017)

My engine is a 2000 so that leaves me out. Thanks for the info though.


----------



## handyandy (Dec 12, 2017)

I don't know the V4's as well as I do the 3cyl omc engines, but I think even that late the only major difference in the 90-115 was carbs, exhaust tuner, and maybe the heads were higher compression on the 115. I'm not for sure on that thought so don't quote me. Rotus if you go mod V look at the jet hulls built by the northwest/western boat builders they have a slight v but go to a straight flat pad ahead of the outboard jet intake, and then usually have a chine crimped in along the edges and maybe one other set of chines as well for grip. I've had a mod v boat where the front has a slight v of maybe 5-6 degrees that continued down the length of the boat, it wasn't any smoother riding or better handling than a flat bottom. My current is a mod v with a slight V pointed front but goes to an entirely flat bottom if I had bought it new I wouldn't have spent the extra for the mod v design. If your going to spend money on having a slight v design and your running a jet this is the sort of design that works best with jets in regards to making them handle and run better. There is a reason most of the reputable jet boat makers use this sort of general design to include woolrich, alumaweld, koeffler, etc cause it works best with jets. It helps clear away air before the intake, gives the boat some gripe in turns, it helps lift the hull for fast planning, and can stay on plane at lower speeds. This was just the best picture of general jet boat slight v, delta pad design with a lifting chine. Alumawelds site also explains the bottom design pretty well granted they have fancy names for each bottom. If I was buying a new hull and had the money I'd go with a design like what I'm referencing, but flat bottoms work pretty darn well with a jet, you get tough flat bottoms made pretty cheaply, and they really don't handle too bad when you know what your doing. Just my 2 cents worth. I think once I'm finally to a point a needing a new hull I'll probably go flat bottom due to cost. I've been pretty impressed with my friends 2060 for what he paid for it that he had made in Louisiana. Granted he got a pretty good deal cause we were willing to do all the finishing work he bought just a bare hull. We wired it, put it on the trailer, hung his motor on, put his trolling motor on, mounted the gas tank, and painted it was a lot of work, but he came out pretty well over all. 

https://www.alumaweldboats.com/bottom-vee.htm


----------



## rotus623 (Dec 13, 2017)

Eshaw, go to www.marineengine.com. Pull up the 2000 90hp and 115. Look through the parts diagrams. See if the block, crank, heads, carbs, exhaust, and ignition system differs. Takes a few minutes but will answer all your questions there.

Andy, I am looking to do the same with my hull. Most of the builders that I am interested in are far, far away. 

The new rhinos are made way better than the one I had. They also include a 3 degree deadrise on all jet hulls. Something for me to consider.........


----------



## fishbum (Dec 27, 2017)

rotus623 said:


> Yea I hear ya. I will have to see how much more the 18' is as opposed to the 17'. Id like to see other OBJ hull options but we just dont have a lot of boat builders around here. Id love to find some boat builders on the east coast that I could get some prices off of.
> 
> All in all, Id love to find what I am looking for used, but you know how that goes......


Well if you want one that has it all here you go 
2017 Rhino. 1860. 26" sides. 190 5086 bottom not his 5052
Five 2x4" structural grade Stringer system not architectural grade stringers.
31 gal fuel tank. Minnkota Ulterra .hummingbird helix 9si. Elect anchor. Center console. Rod boxes , larger gunnel rail. 5' front deck. Full carpet. And better yet full 1/2" UHMW. Tunnel. Good trailer 
2001 Mercury 200/140 efi fresh complete build. New large power pump for outboard. Hydralic steering
Runs great! $22500. Have every bit of that in it plugs I did most of the labor build and uhmw.


----------



## rotus623 (Jan 10, 2018)

Heck of a boat.

Out of my ball park though.


----------



## JoshKeller (Jan 21, 2018)

I run a 1760 xpress with a 115/80 omc. I started with a 90/65 and it turned 5200 rpm. Swapped powerheads, same impeller bumped up to 5450-5500 rpm and gained 2 mph. The proper liner and 80 hp impeller brought the rpm down to 5300. 

speed with the 90/65 was 29 mph. 
speed with the 115/80 and 65 impeller was 31 mph. 
speed with the 115/80 and proper liner/impeller is 32 mph.


----------



## Samsdad1 (Jan 26, 2018)

Hey Rotus thanks and as soon as the water warms and I finish my deck and patio we can take it out. I am plenty satisfied doing 32 on the water as the motor sits, but good to know it is only a small upgrade to 115. I do fish mostly east of Columbia though I have kayaked near Scottsville and definitely understand the perils in those waters... I am really impressed so far with my boat but need more time in it before challenging new waters like far west on the james and new river...


----------



## rotus623 (Feb 1, 2018)

Samsdad, lookin forward to it.

Josh, thanks for the great info. Going up to 115 really doesnt seem to make much of a difference............ I guess I will run this girl with the 65 impeller and see how she does. I am picking up a 1752 riveted lowe, with max hp at 70hp, for free. I am going to slap her on there and see how she does. Gonna beat the tar out of that boat. :LOL2:


----------



## handyandy (Feb 2, 2018)

on a light riveted boat that thing will scoot I will be in virginia come sunday should have the weekend of the 10-11 free hit me up if your throwing that thing on then.


----------



## handyandy (Feb 2, 2018)

on a light riveted boat that thing will scoot I will be in virginia come sunday should have the weekend of the 10-11 free hit me up if your throwing that thing on then.


----------



## rotus623 (Feb 8, 2018)

handyandy said:


> on a light riveted boat that thing will scoot I will be in virginia come sunday should have the weekend of the 10-11 free hit me up if your throwing that thing on then.



Hey thats cool man! You gonna be in VA for a while? Let me know if ya wanna stop by and check out my operation. Got quite a few boats/motors I am working on now.

Buddy backed out on the Lowe, so I am still on the hunt for a decent 17-18' hull. Lots of trackers around here but they are rated for 50hp and .80 gauge boats. Not sure I want to test them out on the rock shoals of the James............


----------



## rotus623 (Feb 13, 2018)

Samsdad1 said:


> pics of the boat after much work...



Hey boss, what is the width at the bottom of your boat??


----------



## Samsdad1 (Feb 14, 2018)

I will have to measure this evening...


----------



## rotus623 (Mar 6, 2018)

So plans have changed. I am slapping the 80 jet (65) on the grizzly. Shes rated for 75HP so I think shell handle her. Got tired of looking for a decent hull. 

I have decided to get a fiberglass CC with my 7 grand and just slap this motor on the Grizz and take my 50hp off there.


----------



## Samsdad1 (Mar 15, 2018)

forgot to respond with measurements... Bottom is roughly 60"... Good luck with the new motor. just finished painting mine and putting numbers on... cannot wait until I get it out... Maybe Saturday.


----------



## rotus623 (Mar 19, 2018)

Looks good man. You gonna UHMW the bottom or risk it?


----------



## Samsdad1 (Mar 28, 2018)

UHMW is cost prohibitive for now... so I will risk it... that is why I have insurance on it...


----------



## rotus623 (Apr 24, 2018)

Well fellas, after 5 months of using up much of my spare time and energy on this conversion, she is finally ready to roll!! Got her set up and installed this past Friday and took her to the water on Sunday. Had her weighed down at tournament weight and we were doing 32mph. 2 People, 3 batteries, 12 gallons of gas, full fishing gear, cooler, livewell and 2 people and we were doing 32mph. I just need to add a splash plate on her. Think I got the height set right 1st try, so that's awesome!!

This boat hops right up on plane, and man I'm telling you, I don't think any of this boat is even in the water when we are up and cooking!! The foot hangs down about 3" off the bottom of the boat and Id be totally comfortable running in 4-6" while on plane. I think the 5-6 degree deadrise is perfect for a jet boat. We didnt cavitate one time. I gotta say, Im not missing the tunnel hull one bit.

Here's a video of her:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGnusXUH7Ow


----------



## handyandy (Apr 26, 2018)

Good to hear you like, I bet with some fine tuning, pump, impeller work you'll be able to squeeze some more out of it speed wise. You could probably go up a little higher with the engine with some intake fins maybe?


----------



## rotus623 (Apr 26, 2018)

handyandy said:


> Good to hear you like, I bet with some fine tuning, pump, impeller work you'll be able to squeeze some more out of it speed wise. You could probably go up a little higher with the engine with some intake fins maybe?



Oh yea! The 65hp impeller is in there now, I need to order the 80hp one.

I may be able to come up a hole with some fins because I didnt cavitate one bit with her. Id like to spend a little time fine tuning her but its flathead season so I may just let her eat for now. Just got a Structure Scan transducer so I can read the shallow bottoms and fine those honey holes!


----------



## eshaw (May 15, 2018)

So did any of you fellas try the 90 Johnson on a 16 foot boat? I have one on my pontoon that I'm thinking of taking off and using on my Alumaweld and putting the Yamaha on the pontoon. I'd like some real world feed back on how they draft on the smaller boats and how much weight you can push with it. My boat is 50 inches wide and all welded. Thanks guys.


----------



## rotus623 (May 16, 2018)

Never had that big of a motor on a boat that size. The bottom of this boat is 54", and with me and two other guys back there catfishing she still has plenty of freeboard. I have the start battery, 12 gal of fuel, and another passenger back there and she hops right up on plane and rolls out.

We use it for catfishing. I had a bait tank and livewell on the boat with three batteries, 12 gal of fuel and two OTHER guys and she got right up on plane. She's not as fast as I would like (30-32), but man does she push a load. We were skimming through inches of water while on plane, and had the weight set up to drift 4-5" of water when floating. This motor is one of the lightest, if not the lightest 90/115 that Johnson has produced, at 315lbs for the jet. My 4 stroke 60/40 jet weighed in at 267. So for 50 lbs. more I have twice the HP. That's going from a 1L block to a 1.6L block!!

The 60/40 was on the back of my 1648 .125gauge rhino, with tunnel (heavy). That boat had little to no freeboard with that motor. This motor would have swamped her without pods.

I just got the 80hp impeller and it has been polished up and sharpened. Got her installed with my clearances tight and ready to give her a run. Hoping to get 33-34 out of her.


----------



## eshaw (May 16, 2018)

My boat is a 16 foot 50 inch wide flat bottom. I don't if know I'd have to add pods if I went with the Johnson 90. I think from what I've read on these motors that if I removed the lower unit and replaced it with the jet unit that it would probably add even more weight. Supposedly my 90 Johnson weighs in at 319 lbs.. The 40 Yamaha I have on there now weighs 196 and the kicker is another 96 pounds. Thats 292 lbs. and I figure it's almost a wash or close to it. I could shift some weight forward also, like the gas tank for one. Sounds like your boat pushes a good load. I was hoping that maybe you'd have run the 90 on yours. Thanks for the reply!


----------



## rotus623 (May 17, 2018)

What year Johnson do you have? All of the 4 cyl crossflow 90-115's from 1978-1998 weigh 315 with a jet foot. If you have a newer 60 degree it may be more. I wouldn't use a jack plate, but the power lift like I have used as it doesn't add any set back. You want to avoid setback if you can. Worst case scenario you could always add float pods. Just know that with pods the boat effectively becomes a flats boat and you will NOT be able to trim out in say 1-2' swells. You will plow into them.

What hp does the boat call for? Mine calls for 75hp. The motor I have was a factory 90/65 so it pulls up as 65hp at the insurance company. Pretty nice because I have a 115 powerhead on there :lol: :lol:


----------



## handyandy (May 17, 2018)

eshaw said:


> My boat is a 16 foot 50 inch wide flat bottom. I don't if know I'd have to add pods if I went with the Johnson 90. I think from what I've read on these motors that if I removed the lower unit and replaced it with the jet unit that it would probably add even more weight. Supposedly my 90 Johnson weighs in at 319 lbs.. The 40 Yamaha I have on there now weighs 196 and the kicker is another 96 pounds. Thats 292 lbs. and I figure it's almost a wash or close to it. I could shift some weight forward also, like the gas tank for one. Sounds like your boat pushes a good load. I was hoping that maybe you'd have run the 90 on yours. Thanks for the reply!



That johnson would probably be too heavy, you could however find an old 2 stroke 75-90hp yamaha which might be ok for you. Those big 3 cyl yammies were some of the lightest in that power range. Your other option could be an omc 3 cyl 60-70hp they weigh in around 215 I think and would be a big jump from the 40 yammie. The v-4 omc enignes are well suited to 18-20ft boats. The larger boat also does better with a load it has more hull surface area to displace water and help it get on plane.


----------



## rotus623 (May 17, 2018)

Im with Andy, that small of a boat would be much more suited for an inline triple. Would be fun with this ol V4 back there though!! I know that these V4 motors are everywhere and relatively cheap and sometimes free. I like the availability.

Yamaha 75-90 triple.......... Much harder to find. And when you do they are $3500.


----------



## eshaw (May 17, 2018)

rotus623 said:


> What year Johnson do you have? All of the 4 cyl crossflow 90-115's from 1978-1998 weigh 315 with a jet foot. If you have a newer 60 degree it may be more. I wouldn't use a jack plate, but the power lift like I have used as it doesn't add any set back. You want to avoid setback if you can. Worst case scenario you could always add float pods. Just know that with pods the boat effectively becomes a flats boat and you will NOT be able to trim out in say 1-2' swells. You will plow into them.
> 
> What hp does the boat call for? Mine calls for 75hp. The motor I have was a factory 90/65 so it pulls up as 65hp at the insurance company. Pretty nice because I have a 115 powerhead on there :lol: :lol:



The Johnson I have is a 2000. I've been playing with the idea of sticking it on there just to see how the boat sets with the engine in place. The boat is rated for up to 70 hp. and I'd prefer to not use the float pods if possible. I guess there's only one way to find out!


----------



## handyandy (May 21, 2018)

rotus623 said:


> Im with Andy, that small of a boat would be much more suited for an inline triple. Would be fun with this ol V4 back there though!! I know that these V4 motors are everywhere and relatively cheap and sometimes free. I like the availability.
> 
> Yamaha 75-90 triple.......... Much harder to find. And when you do they are $3500.



That is the reason I don't have one. I'm a fan of the omc triples really good engines as well, funny enough a 56ci omc triple is usually harder for me to find cheap than the v4's just this past weekend I almost bought an old pos bass boat cause the boat, motor, trailer were 600 bucks and it had an early 90's v4 115 johnson.


----------



## rotus623 (May 23, 2018)

So I had the 65hp impeller in my pump and she was winding up a little higher than I wanted. I picked up a used 80hp impeller that had been polished and had a little work on it, and shimmed it out .020 off a fresh liner. Hole shot is now at 1.5 boat lengths, rpms came down, and we are running 34mph lake speed!! That's 32 upriver, 36 downriver. I can trim out and gain speed until the splash kicks up.

I am going to put a splash plate on and see how she does. After I do that I will try some intake fins and lifting the motor 1/4-1/2" and see what I can get. For now, she's performing great, but Im going to get the most that I can out of her, little by little.


----------

