90 HP Outboard (2-stroke or 4)

A forum for discussion of how to rig and tune your boat or kicker to achieve the best sailing performance.
User avatar
Chip Hindes
Admiral
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 6:13 am
Location: West Sand Lake, NY '01X, "Nextboat" 50HP Tohatsu

Post by Chip Hindes »

A lot of the above conclusions are based on statements that are contradictory, logic that does not follow, and unsubstantiated estimates which are simply incorrect.
there is no difference between a TLDI 70 and a TLDI 90 except for the programing in the ECM and a throttle stop. Unfortunately we found that we gained nearly no speed configured as a 90 (though it did match the Suzuki 70) but it sure used fuel like a 90! when configured as a 90, the TLDI motor produces the same torque as a 70, and torque moves these boats.
Though I hate to contradict somebody who has obviously tried some of these things, I also can't let stand unchallenged, statements that are contrary to the laws of physics.

There are two ways to make HP: torque and speed. With torque in lb-ft and speed in RPM, the equation is:

HP=(TxN)/5252; or

T=(5252xHP)/N

Maximum HP on an outboard is reached very close to the max specified engine operating speed, which not coincidentally is also where the boat reaches max speed. Both these engines spec the same number for max engine speed, 5850RPM. So we can easily back calculate that at 5850RPM, the 90HP is making 81 lb-ft of torque, the 70HP only 63. In practical terms, this means the 90 can turn a bigger and/or higher pitched prop, which can't help but increase the max speed.

This is obvously only an estimate, but it wont be off by more than a few %. If we had torque or HP /speed curves for both motors we could do a more thorough direct comparison.

You say that torque drives these boats, as if they are in some way unique. That's only partially true and theyre not unique. When it comes to comparisons of torque versus HP theyre no different than any other boat. For all boats, higher torque is rougly equivalent to higher acceleration, while higher HP means higher speed.

Bottom line is, if you cant get higher top speed out of a 90 (any 90) than you can out of a 70, you need to get back to work because you're doing something wrong.

I'm not an apologist for 2-strokes, I own one (carbureted) and it is probably the worst decision I made on my original boat purchase.

But in general, they are considerably lighter than equivalent HP four strokes.

The above weight comparison also requires some explanation as to where the figures came from. You can't just make them up.

You started with a weight of 208. The Tohastu website says 206.

A 20 pound propeller made of what, depleted uranium? The 11" aluminum prop on my 50HP Tohatsu, complete weighs no more than five pounds.

You added in 5 lbs for the weight of the oil tank in the Tohatsu, but not the crankcase oil in the Suzuki. Why? Do you have data that says the specified Tohatsu weight is dry but the Suizuki weight is not? Not on any spec sheet I could find.

The published weight for the long shaft Suzuki is seven pounds heavier than the short shaft, but your number for the 2S is fifteen lbs. The difference between the long and short shaft on my M50D2 is three pounds, not fifteen. I understood the difference between the carbed and TLDI 2S was in the induction and fuel systems, but that most of the mechanical parts were identical.

You spec the 50 carbureted two stroke at 160. That's a mistake in the other direction. My carbed 00 Tohastu long shaft, which I believe at the time I bought it was the lightest of any 50HP, be it two-stroke or four, is 195 lbs.

Here's one I'll concede: I'm pretty certain the one area the 2S TLDI/ETEC will never catch the 4S is in noise. The 4S is quiter by a lot, it always has been, and probably always will be. There is nothing about a TLDI 2S that makes it inherently quieter than carbureted 2S.
User avatar
DLT
Admiral
Posts: 1516
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 10:24 am
Location: Kansas City 2005M 40hp ETEC

Post by DLT »

In an effort to reconcile Chip and Todd, I wonder if Todd used the same prop on the 90 as he did on the 70? If that's the case, then he would get comparable performance and likely dissimilar MPG...

The water likely doesn't care that torque is being wasted. All it sees is the same drag, prop pitch, and prop speed. That would result in the same realized thrust and therefore boat speed...

So, if you got the right prop on the 90, (larger diameter and/or pitch) you should see more boat speed, taking advantage of the increased torque.

I am quite fat, dumb, and happy with my E-Tec. I will concede, however, that a 4-stroke could be quieter. I'm not confirming it, I'm just conceding the possibility, as I haven't done any comparison...

When I'm motoring slowly, I can barely hear my E-Tec. When I'm running WOT, I guess I'm not too concerned about the noise... I've had to turn up my stereo, but I can still hear it fine... When I really want quiet, I can cut the motor and hoist the sail....
User avatar
Bobby T.-26X #4767
Captain
Posts: 906
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 10:48 am
Sailboat: MacGregor 26X
Location: Oceanside Harbor, CA

Post by Bobby T.-26X #4767 »

They Theirs wrote:Whoa Bobby!
I am always interested in your comparisons, and I have a question in your calculation?
How have you calculated the weight for the Tohatsu/Nissan TLDI 50?
The Factory states their Weight is for the Lightest of their Models, so the 20 long shaft adds another 15 lbs. The Engine does not come with a propeller, and states you have to select the propeller for the boat and conditions, Add another 20 lbs for the propeller, splined drive hub, thrust washer and locking nut assembly. The US engines show the Power Trim and Tilt are included. Youll also have to include the 5lbs of oil they left out for the oil injection.
Lets see.. Base engine listed at TLDI D50.....208 lbs
Long Shaft Engine.......................................15 lbs
Prop/Hub/Thrust/Nut......................................20 lbs
Fill Oil Injection Tank... .......................................5 lbs
....................................................................................______+
Total actual engine Weight TLDI D50..........................248 lbs

Suzuki DF50 Actual Weight243 lbs
Includes Long Shaft, Propeller, Power Tilt


The Big Winner is the Non-Computer 2-stroke..160 lbs

you mis-understood me.
I'm speaking about this Tohatsu engine. The one that was placed on the original '96 X but is no longer available in the U.S. This outboard is still on many X's, including "Chip's" (above).

Tohatsu 50

The published weigh is 72 Kilos. I don't know what type of prop you put on yours, but it won't get this outboard to 248#.

Bob T.
"DaBob"
'02X w/ '04 90 TLDI
User avatar
Bobby T.-26X #4767
Captain
Posts: 906
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 10:48 am
Sailboat: MacGregor 26X
Location: Oceanside Harbor, CA

Post by Bobby T.-26X #4767 »

Chip Hindes wrote:Here's one I'll concede: I'm pretty certain the one area the 2S TLDI/ETEC will never catch the 4S is in noise. The 4S is quiter by a lot, it always has been, and probably always will be. There is nothing about a TLDI 2S that makes it inherently quieter than carbureted 2S.
Chip, regarding decible level...
I previously owned an '02 Suzi 50 that was extremely quiet at idle around the harbor. Very nice!
However, i usually ran it at near full throttle in order to get to 15-17mph. At that level, the Suzuki 50 was similar loudness to my 90 TLDI at 2/3 throttle (really, no noticable difference even though it's a larger powerhead).
So, I only notice a difference in decible level when trolling around the harbor.

And at 2/3 throttle, my 90 TLDI pushes 18-20 mph and gets abt. 5 mpg (the same fuel comsumption as my Suzuki 50 when at near full throttle).
I only know this because I'm about 60 miles from Catalina and it takes me a little over 12 gallons to get there.
That is...60 miles on 12 gallons currently with the TLDI 90 and previously with the Suzi 50.

Bob T.
"DaBob"
'02X w/ '04 90 TLDI
User avatar
Chip Hindes
Admiral
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 6:13 am
Location: West Sand Lake, NY '01X, "Nextboat" 50HP Tohatsu

Post by Chip Hindes »

The low weight figure cited for the carbed 2S is for a truly rinky motor, the 50D2MF, with a rope pull starter, premix fuel, and no power tilt/trim. I've never seen a Tohatsu 26X so equipped.

Don't forget we're trying to compare apples with apples, and sneaking in a manual start, no PT, premix "ringer" is cheating just as badly as overestimating the weight of a prop or long shaft motor.

The motor that everyone (including me) has is the 50D2EPTO, which includes electric start, automixing and power trim, and the spec, right out of the owner's manual, is 85kg for the short shaft, 86.5kg for the long shaft.

On the other matter, in order to get the same boat speed with a 90HP motor that you got with a 70, you need to make one of two prop mistakes on the 90.

1) You've overpropped so that it never reaches it's design RPM.

2) More likely, you've underpropped so that either it cavitates, ventilates, or otherwise tries to overspeed and hits the electronic rev limiter (assuming it's so equipped); or in the absense of a rev limiter, you have to physically throttle back to prevent overrevving. The 90 never actually gets a chance to put out all 90HP.

In either case, I stand by my original statement: you're doing something wrong.
User avatar
Chip Hindes
Admiral
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 6:13 am
Location: West Sand Lake, NY '01X, "Nextboat" 50HP Tohatsu

Post by Chip Hindes »

I'm not going to argue relative quiteness of the TLDI versus four stroke at WOT, because I've never heard a TLDI or a four stroke up close at WOT. For me that's pretty much irrelevant, because at WOT noise is not my primary concern, and I don't run there that often. At WOT, my carbed 2S is so loud as to make normal conversation impossible, and running it any length of time makes me deaf and gives me headaches. Even at reduced speed, say hull speed of 6-7mph, the 2S is quite loud compared to the 4S. I believe the boat test magazines with actual test equipment confirm this.

I will reiterate my statement that there is nothing inherently quiter about the TLDI 2S compared to the carbed 2S, and by the same token I also believe there is something inherently quieter about the 4S.

I've heard both the carbed 2S and the 4S at idle to cruising speed, and by my unscientific measurement technique the 2S is so much louder as to make the comparison almost ludicrous.

If they've figured out how to make the TLDI quieter than the carbed 2S, it's more in the "magic" of how they're muffling it.

Also, regarding fuel consumption, I don't believe the 4 strokes were ever all that much better than even the carbed 2 strokes at WOT. The problem with carbed 2 strokes has always been their extremely poor idle and part throttle numbers, and it is in these numbers that Tohatsu, at least, says the TLDI is now better than the 4S.
User avatar
Bobby T.-26X #4767
Captain
Posts: 906
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 10:48 am
Sailboat: MacGregor 26X
Location: Oceanside Harbor, CA

Post by Bobby T.-26X #4767 »

Chip Hindes wrote:The motor that everyone (including me) has is the 50D2EPTO, which includes electric start, automixing and power trim, and the spec , right out of the owner's manual, is 85kg for the short shaft, 86.5kg for the long shaft.
85kg is for the 20" (530mm) shaft.
A Mac has a 20" transom (at least mine does).

however, even if your X does have a 26" transom, my point was directed at "they theirs" who claimed that the 50D2EPTO weighs 250# (which it does not).
i had previously (and incorrectly) stated that it weighs 180# (not 187#)
and the fact that the 50D2EPTO (which is no longer available for sale in the U.S.) pushes an X faster than a Suzuki 4 stroke 50.
that's a fact as i raced one once and got smoked.

look, a Suzi 50 is a great outboard.
i decided that i wanted more power and still maintain the light weight.
i decided this vs. a heavy 4 stroke 70 (350#), 90, 115, or 140 (410#).
plus the fact that the new 2-strokes are fuel efficient and quiet.
i'm now a happy camper & so are the many Mac owners who are putting ETEC & TLDI 90s on their rear ends.

Bob T.
"DaBob"
'02X w/ '04 90 TLDI
User avatar
kmclemore
Site Admin
Posts: 6271
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 9:24 am
Sailboat: MacGregor 26X
Location: Ambler, PA -- MACX2018A898 w/ Suzuki DF60AV -- 78 BW Harpoon 4.6 -- 2018 Tahoe 550TF w/ 150 Merc

Post by kmclemore »

Hmm. I guess I'm spoilt by having little exerience with other motors, but my Tohatsu 50D at wide open throttle doesn't seem THAT bad, noise-wise. I dunno.. maybe it's that I'm deaf, or that I've always liked things that go 'vrroooomm'.
:)
User avatar
They Theirs
Captain
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 1:42 pm

Post by They Theirs »

Bob
I cannot tell how loud the TLDI 70/90 is, or how much faster than another. I like to sail and appreciate a good turn of speed under canvas, and when necessary on the Iron Genny. If it works for you, I like it, but Im not likely to boast of my recent victory over a new Kitchen-Aid Mixmaster installed on the Run-amuck 25 as much as I would enjoy having sailed a better run with friends or pick up competition. As for the older 2stroke engine: Light, compact, powerful, excellent service, good enough. Ill agree with Chip in that we need not compare the ultimate light engine, which is not appropriate for the Mac. It is very difficult to find truth in outboard manufacturers claimed weight.
Chip
I grant you the fuel consumption of the 2 and 4 stroke at WOT are considerably more than at their optimum cruise, but there is certainly something to be said for the coil over plug technology combined with refined computer controlled electronic fuel injection and ignition. The economy obtainable through the computer controlled fuel/air ratio (Stokiometric) of todays 4 cycle engines with 4 valve multi-cam technology cannot be compared to that of either engine with a common seven circuit carburetor, even at WOT.
User avatar
Chip Hindes
Admiral
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 6:13 am
Location: West Sand Lake, NY '01X, "Nextboat" 50HP Tohatsu

Post by Chip Hindes »

BobbyT wrote:50D2EPTO (which is no longer available for sale in the U.S.) pushes an X faster than a Suzuki 4 stroke 50.
that's a fact as i raced one once and got smoked
It's likely that most of the difference in top speed between any two 50HP motors is in the way the motor is propped, how much the boat weighs and how it is trimmed. However, as I stated above, the "torquier" motor will win the holeshot contest; and I believe my Tohatsu will out-holeshot any four stroke I have seen.
Moe
Admiral
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 6:35 pm

Post by Moe »

Since the mid-1980s, outboard horsepower has been rated at the prop shaft, after losses in the drivetrain. What is measured is the prop shaft torque, which is then multiplied by the prop shaft speed to calculate the horsepower. The rated horsepower is expressed at the engine speed, which is the prop shaft speed times the gear reduction. It's fairly simple to calculate the prop shaft torque at the engine's ICOMIA rated horsepower rpm, which is the midpoint of the manufacturer's recommended operating range. Here are prop shaft torques for various outboards that might be used on a MacGregor. Note they, and the prop shaft rpm at which they occur, are HIGHLY dependent on the gear reduction.

Evinrude 90, 60 & 50 HP models
(90 x 5,252)/(5,000/2.0) = 189 ft-lbs @ 2,500 rpm = 90HP

(60 x 5,252)/(5,750/2.67) = 146 ft-lbs @ 2,154 rpm = 60HP

(50 x 5,252)/(5,750/2.67) = 122 ft-lbs @ 2,154 rpm = 50HP

Tohatsu TLDI 90, 70 & 50 HP models
(90 x 5,252)/(5,500/2.0) = 172 ft-lbs @ 2,750 rpm = 90HP

(70 x 5,252)/(5,500/2.3) = 154 ft-lbs @ 2,391 rpm = 70HP

(50 x 5,252)/(5,500/1.85) = 88 ft-lbs @ 2,972 rpm = 50HP

Suzuki DF70, DF60 & DF50 HP models
(70 x 5,252)/(5,500/2.42) = 161 ft-lbs @ 2,273 rpm = 70HP

(60 x 5,252)/(5,500/2.42) = 139 ft-lbs @ 2,273 rpm = 60HP

(50 x 5,252)/(6,200/2.27) = 96 ft-lbs @ 2,731 rpm = 50HP

Mercury 60 & 50 HP BigFoot models
(60 x 5,252)/(5,750/2.33) = 128 ft-lbs @ 2,468 rpm = 60HP

(50 x 5,252)/(5,750/2.33) = 106.4 ft-lbs @ 2,468 rpm = 50HP

Mercury 60 & 50 HP standard foot models
(60 x 5,252)/(5,750/1.83) = 100 ft-lbs @ 3,142 rpm = 60HP

(50 x 5,252)/(5,750/1.83) = 84 ft-lbs @ 3,142 rpm = 50HP

Honda BF50 model
(50 x 5,252)/(5,750/2.08) = 95 ft-lbs @ 2,764 rpm = 50HP

The prop shaft torque isn't the whole story. Ignoring "slip," the torque delivered to the water is the prop shaft torque, in ft-lbs, divided by the propellor pitch, in feet, just like the torque delivered to the ground on a car is the axle torque, in ft-lbs, divided by the tire rolling radius, in feet. If we look at the high (122 ft-lbs) of the E-Tec 50, compared to the low (84 ft-lbs) of the standard foot Mercury 50, with prop pitches that should give the same boat speed, the torque applied to the water should theoretically be the same. If that's a 12" pitch on the E-Tec 50, it should be about an 8.23" pitch on the standard foot Mercury. 122 ft-lbs divided by one foot of pitch = 122 ft-lbs. 84 ft-lbs divided by 0.69 foot of pitch = 122 ft-lbs. Or said another way, 50HP = 50HP.

Unfortunately, you can't ignore slip. For a given load at a given speed, there are many factors that determine how much occurs, or said another way, how efficient the prop is. If you're getting the same speed, with the same boat load, in the same conditions, from a 70HP motor as you did from a 90HP, the most likely reason is that you're propping the 70HP MUCH better. But more likely, it's a combination of that PLUS differences in load and conditions.

--
Moe
User avatar
DLT
Admiral
Posts: 1516
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 10:24 am
Location: Kansas City 2005M 40hp ETEC

Post by DLT »

Well, with the ETEC, you can spin a bigger diameter prop, thereby reducing slip...
Moe
Admiral
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 6:35 pm

Post by Moe »

DLT wrote:Well, with the ETEC, you can spin a bigger diameter prop, thereby reducing slip...
True, but at the cost of increasing the frontal area component of total drag. Also don't forget that by moving the average area for the blade away from the prop shaft, there's some reduction in torque applied to the water. I'm not saying the larger diameter prop isn't better, I believe it is, just that it comes with its own costs. Nor do I know how much a smaller-diameter 4-blade prop closes the advantage gap of the larger diameter, but I'm sure it does at least some (and with an increase in drag compared to the smaller diameter 3-blade).

--
Moe
James V
Admiral
Posts: 1705
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 9:33 am
Sailboat: MacGregor 26M
Location: Key West, Fl USA, 26M 06, Merc 50hp BF "LYNX"

Post by James V »

There is also some difference between SS and aluminum
User avatar
delevi
Admiral
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 1:03 am
Location: San Francisco Catalina 380, former 26M owner
Contact:

Post by delevi »

Ok, so if I'm getting a maximum of 5400 RPM on my etec 50 with a 13 pitch prop (not sure the diameter) and that gives me a top speed of 21 mph, would it be beneficial to downsize? My operating range is 5500-6000 RPM.
Post Reply