09 suzuki 70/80/90

The new 90 sounds interesting in that it's 75 pounds lighter than the old 90 but it also only has a 27 amp alternator compared to the 40 amp of the older 90 which has actually been upgraded to 100 HP.
 
Looks to me the new 90 is built on the smaller 1298 cc block that they have used for many years for the 70 hp engine, whereas the new 100 is built on the larger 1950 cc block that was formerly the 90 and 115.

The old block 90 (and 115) weighed 416 lbs, so if the new one is 75 lbs lighter, it weighs ~341 lbs, quite a bit lighter than the ~370 or so for the older Honda and Yamaha 90's.

I'd welcome the weight loss on the transom, but, personally, I'd rather have the big displacement 090 over the smaller one, just because I assume the larger displacement engine would have more torque, a longer life span, and I just think you're not taxing the engine so much all the time.

The same trend is happening in autos, I believe.

To make cars more efficient and meet EPA and other guidelines/requirements, engines are getting smaller and developing more hp for their given displacement.

The smaller engine uses less fuel at idle and slower speeds, and the smaller displacement engine is simply more heat efficient.

Equivalent hp is developed through more efficiency, higher reving, and the employment of technological developments, especially in the computer engine control sector.

But that's just my take on it, not having read any real analysis of what's happening, so maybe instead off offering you all my 2¢, I'm in error and will have to take a big fat zero on this post!

Marc at Wefing's should be able to set us straight on this!

Joe. :teeth :thup
 
I noticed Suzuki's lineup change and was very intrigued. Not to re-start an old debate, but "the lighter the better" for the transom of a CD22. For those who are not completely comfortable with the 2-stroke E-Tec 90 and not able/willing to install twin Honda's, the new Suzuki 90 looks like a possible solution. On much the same reasoning as Joe, I was previously always inclined towards larger displacement engines of the same horsepower. Honda's reliability and durability record with their automobile engines has really changed my mind in this regard. These engines make amazing horsepower per liter displacement AND regularly outlast larger displacement comparable horsepower engines, with greater reliability/less maintenance along the way. Just change the oil! Many of Honda's outboards are based on proven automobile engines. I imagine Suzuki and some of the others are of comparable build and design quality, so I would not be a bit troubled by the lower displacement in and of itself. Perhaps some C-Brats with engine service experience can weigh in on the track record of the old Suzuki 70, which has been in service for several years now. Holding out till the SBS...Mike.
 
marvin4239":dqnvc0r1 said:
Here's a link to the new 90 specs aside from the weight and displacement difference it's also a higher reving motor 6300 RPM
http://www.suzukimarine.com/sr_09/df90-80-70/features/
Click to expand...

Like I said above, in relation to and comparison with automotive engine evolution, the higher revs are required to to the equivalent hp out of the smaller engine, so the 6300 rpm max is not surprising.

What causes some wonderment, until you stop and think that the engine has to last and at the same time, be abused, poorly serviced, cooled by cold water, and run at 3/4 or more of WOT a lot of the time, is why 6000 rpm is the general limit to most outboards.

Motorcycle and automotive racing engines can be designed to run well above 10,000 rpm, but only for short periods of a few hours and under very careful preparation standards and must be rebuilt or discarded after that.

No 19,000 rpm Formula I engines for your C-Dory, I'm afraid! (Or for your Ranger Tug, either, no matter how much of a hot rodder you might be!) :lol:

Joe. :teeth :thup
 
A few comments. First, I have no concern over the reliability of these higher horsepower per liter 4 strokes from Suzuki, Honda, and Yamaha. All of these companies have had years of experience designing very high revving motorcycle engines and have proven their reliability. Honda, in particular, is known for building extremely reliable engines across all of their divisions.

The bigger concern for most of us is probably the noise and vibration associated with higher RPM running. Let's just say hypothetically that a C-Dory 22 requires 50 horsepower to maintain a planing speed. Also assume that the old Suzuki 90 needs to turn 4000 RPM to make this much power. Now assume that the new Suzuki 90 needs to turn 4600 RPM to make this much power. Which is going to be more comfortable when you are running for hours on end? I don't know the answer, but in my experience lower RPM operation generally results in lower noise and vibration levels.

Last year I chose the Honda 90 because it was the lightest four stroke 90 horsepower available and it has a lot more alternator capacity than the Yamaha 90. Even with these new Suzuki's I'd choose the Honda since it has much greater alternator capacity and can be serviced by an authorized Honda dealer at Twin Bridges. But if you don't need the extra alternator output and have a good Suzuki dealer nearby, this may be the best four stroke for the CD22.
 
I have not yet put my hands on one of these technomarvels . I have heard tell that they are quite zippy and the weight speaks for itself . I am looking forward to rigging one on a 22' or a 19' to report on the performance . I have spoken to our Suzuki Tech Rep and some manufacturers that were at the press debut and they all say they are great . All the new 4 strokes in the upper H.P. range of a "platform" are going to higher revs . The 150 Honda can turn 6200 without hitting the rev limiter , the 175 Suzuki the same . Thats where they make their power . I think its a new block as the old 70 was almost 360 LBS and was their first 4 stroke for Suzuki and therefore their oldest technology .It is and was a bulletproof motor albeit a tad heavy .They report that the new 90 makes 90 H.P. at 5800 RPM which tell me at full throttle [6300] its more than 90 H.P . It also has a spiffy streamlined lower unit and the 2.59 to 1 gears . More to follow when I get my hands on one .
Marc
 
I read the review in this month's Trailer Boats magazine. I like the fact that you can choose between the 70/80/90 HP for the same block. I like that it is lighter. I don't like the fact that the alternator is pushing out less amps than the "old" 90.

We originally had the Suzy 70 hanging on C-Dancer. After finally getting the prop sorted out, it was adequate but I always felt that I wanted more engine behind me. The brutish Suzuki 90 gives me the confidence that it has the power when summoned. Although a heavier engine, I really like the "old" Suzy 90. It's been extremely reliable, starts every time and is very smooth. I agree with Joe's assessment of having the big displacement 90 over the smaller one,
Joe":1be8k49e said:
I'd welcome the weight loss on the transom, but, personally, I'd rather have the big displacement 090 over the smaller one, just because I assume the larger displacement engine would have more torque, a longer life span, and I just think you're not taxing the engine so much all the time.
Click to expand...
Now, if the new line of 70/80/90 can give the same amount of power with a lighter block, I'm all for that! However, no way am I trading in my "old" Suzy 90 for anything, at least not now. :wink
 
Your were right Charlie 240 Hp would have been to much. I bought a 90 E Tec . This is a great site lots of great minds and experienced captains. I looked into Suzuki the dealers were few and far between. Then three of the four wanted to sell me a different color. So I went with the E Tec dealer that is 1000 feet from my mooring. If it breaks I can cast of on an incoming tide and in 10 minutes Ill be ramming into his dock. So thanks for all your insight guys, Ill let you know if Im crying into my Gin and Tonic by July :}.
 
Funny this should come up today as we are in the process of selling a 19 Angler that will have a 2009 Suz. 90 on it . Ill report how it works on the 19 footer . We have rigged one on a 16 Whaler Dauntless and my techs had the telltale ear to ear grin when they returned form the sea trial . They said it was a screamer on that boat .
Marc
 
Back
Top