Author Topic: 115 hp Honda vs Yamaha for 17 Sea Chaser (Read 1936 times)

Fishgriller · « **on:** February 06, 2018, 05:18:55 PM »

I have a deposit on a 17 foot Sea Chaser, this is the largest size that will fit in my garage, so a 19 foot is not an option. I would like some info on power. I decided to go with 115 hp for several reasons. Although the boat will be used predominantly for fishing, there will also be tubing and wakeboards. I will likely have 3-4 adults in the boat at times. I am planning to keep the boat for a very long time, and do not want to face a situation where I wish I had more power. I understand the fuel economy may suffer a bit, but I also think that a more powerful engine not working as hard can have can have economy not far off a less powerful engine working harder. My power options are a 115 Honda or Yamaha only. I am getting a much better deal on the Honda. The only disadvantage of the Honda that I see is that it is built on a 2.4L block from the Honda 115/150/175 family and Yamaha is built on a 1.8L block from the 75/90/115 family, thus according to the specs the Honda is about 100 lbs heavier. I would think that the larger displacement would give me better torque and negate the extra weight. Another way of thinking about it is the transom weight of a Yamaha 75/90/115 + a kicker is the same as 115 Honda without the kicker. And I am not getting a kicker. Any thoughts on the subject? Thank you very much for any advice.

Fisherdv · « **Reply #1 on:** February 06, 2018, 05:35:37 PM »

What are the torque differences between the two? I would tend to lean towards the lighter Yamaha motor. 100 pounds is quite a bit lighter for the same horsepower. Also 100 pounds lighter may negate the difference in torque between the two

Fisherdv · « **Reply #2 on:** February 06, 2018, 05:40:42 PM »

Add a 4-blade prop and trim tabs and that should be a sweet setup

Fishgriller · « **Reply #3 on:** February 06, 2018, 05:55:59 PM »

I don't know the torque numbers as the are not published. In the automotive world 2.4L and 1.8L engines have a significant difference in torque. I would presume the Honda produces more torque at lower RPM. Also, according to the specs, the full throttle range for Honda is 4500-6000 RPM and Yamaha is 5300-6300 RPM, looking like Yamaha needs to be revved more for similar power.

Fisherdv · « **Reply #4 on:** February 06, 2018, 05:59:31 PM »

475 pound Honda just seems too heavy to me. Especially with 3-4 adults in the boat. Your transom will sit real low in the water. Most people run a 90 on a 17 but I can see wanting a 115 if it’s light enough. The Yamaha is 375

Threeweight · « **Reply #5 on:** February 06, 2018, 06:05:17 PM »

IMO, you are better off going with a 90.

Weight is a real issue on 17' hulls... it isn't about having more power to lift the weight out of the hole, it's about the butt-heavy handling of the boat making it want to plow into the chop, and having the motor well frequently submerge in a following sea. More power doesn't help with those things... moving weight forward can, or going with lighter engines in the first place. The 17' hulls were designed in the era of 2 strokes, when a 90 hp motor weighed 250#... the conventional wisdom is with modern engines 90 hp is ideal for a 17', 115 for a 19', and 135-150 for a 21'.

The Yamaha 115 is the same block as the 90... the extra HP comes at the top of the RPM range where it really isn't very useful in an Arima. The Honda 90 will have similar performance. My personal preference would be the Suzuki 90, which is lighter and geared lower (which lets it turn a bigger prop, which helps improve the Arima handling characteristics). There is no way I'd put a nearly 500# motor (or even a 400# one) on a 17' Arima.

Spend the $$ you save on nicer electronics, or a kicker. The 115 will make the boat slightly faster (from 32-34 mph top end to 34-36). The idea of a bigger engine not working as hard and getting better fuel economy in an Arima doesn't really hold up. In years of following this forum, the best fuel economy numbers I have ever seen on a 17' Arima were with a 90 hp Suzuki (AK Angler's old set up).

Fishgriller · « **Reply #6 on:** February 06, 2018, 06:24:14 PM »

Thanks for the information. My only options are Yamaha or Honda. I thought about a 90. I've seen quite a few 17 foot Arimas with 90 hp outboards and kickers. As I do not plan to get a kicker, so I thought since transom weight of a 115 Honda is the same as a 90 (or 75) Yamaha with a kicker, the boat's handling should be about the same too. I have not seen posts where there are complaints about the 90 or 75 motor + kicker setups. Perhaps my logic is wrong, anyone with thoughts and experience on this matter is greatly appreciated.

StreamFixer · « **Reply #7 on:** February 06, 2018, 06:37:33 PM »

I have run both a 90 (Honda) and a 115 (Yamaha) on my 17 SC -- similar props. In my opinion, the 90 outperformed the 115, hands down. That 115 is just WAY too heavy for a 17 -- splash well constantly partially submerged- pushing more hull below water--- Sweet on my 19, but not so good on the 17.

Torque is important when you are dealing with overcoming friction (resistance). When it comes to water, the density is a constant... The weight of the unit being moved, and it's resistance (hull surface/friction) to that movement are the key elements. For what we are dealing with, in my opinion, worrying about torque is akin to picking the fly poop out of the pepper... That could explain why Outboard motor specs seldom list torque...

Your $$$ and your Boat so you will do what you want.

I would heed 3wt's recommendation...

StreamFixer

ATGEP · « **Reply #8 on:** February 06, 2018, 06:43:28 PM »

Get the lightest engine you can. The new honda 90 looks like a sweet motor and the weight difference will be more than you can imagine. On my 21, I usually run my 135 at half throttle (fuel flow) and cruise nicely a 23mph. The 17 likely need. 50-60 hp to cruise in the mid 20's.

Fisherdv · « **Reply #9 on:** February 06, 2018, 06:52:53 PM »

The Honda 90 is 359#, and the Yamaha 115 is only 373#. That’s only a 14# difference for 25 more horsepower. The cost would probably be the main concern there. But, no way I would even consider that 475# Honda

wedocq · « **Reply #10 on:** February 06, 2018, 07:03:25 PM »

If you are planning on trolling for salmon, I would strongly recommend the lighter motor, and a kicker. You said you plan on keeping this boat for a very long time, why rack up the hours on the main motor so quickly?
-Shawn

Marine40 · « **Reply #11 on:** February 06, 2018, 07:05:28 PM »

This site is sounding more like we have bass boats that are flying to each fishing spot

You have heard a few comments from Arima owners that have had 115 Yamaha's on 17 Chasers. I will add to that list of 17 Chaser owners with the beautiful 115 Yamaha motor. Do not do it...........I have pictures that will show you how the ass sits in the water.

Good luck with this topic.

Darren

Marine40 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 06, 2018, 07:29:45 PM »

Also.....I will add to this that the reason I bought a 115hp was I knew I was moving to a bigger boat. I took my 115 from a 17 Chaser, to a 19 Chaser and now to the final boat a 21 Ranger. Arima boats are do not need a lot of power.

Darren

polarbill1999 · « **Reply #13 on:** February 06, 2018, 07:41:28 PM »

If you have no plans on getting a kicker I think the 115 Yamaha sounds like a great option. Hell, if it really is the same weight as the 90 then it doesn't really matter if you do add a kicker.

I wouldn't consider the Honda at 100# heavier.

First Cabin · « **Reply #14 on:** February 06, 2018, 07:53:03 PM »

The 90 or 115hp Yamaha is the proper choice. 20 lbs for 25hp more is a good trade if it doesn’t cost too much more. Once you get the right prop for the application, either motor will work.

These discussions remind me of the motors Mr. Arima had available when he designed the Arima’s.

Sometimes I still miss my 1980s Mercury Tower of Power....six cylinders, less than 300lbs...enough torque to pull a ski team out of the hole...

Tj805 · « **Reply #15 on:** February 06, 2018, 08:58:49 PM »

My Yamaha dealer told me a 115 Yamaha is ten pounds lighter than a 90 hp.
Do you honestly think your going to notice 10 more pounds on the rear ?

Markshoreline · « **Reply #16 on:** February 06, 2018, 09:21:47 PM »

The shorter the boat the more leverage the motor will affect the front/rear weight balance. A heavy motor will plunge a 17’s butt into the water so you’ll need trim tabs to cope. I’d go with the Suzy 90 for best overall performance. Can you get a sea trial anywhere to experience the reality? These wide boats will get on plane nicely if the stern isn’t too heavy.

Fisherdv · « **Reply #17 on:** February 06, 2018, 09:24:19 PM »

To be honest I think the “new” boat specs to a “new” buyer are a little misleading. Take my 16 SC for instance. It’s rated max HP is 100. BUT, with today’s 4-stroke motors and their heavy weights there’s no way that’s gonna happen. I realize that these boats were designed around lighter 2-stroke motors, but this is 2018 and pretty much no one is going to buy a new, 2018 Arima and put a new 2-stoke on it. Point being is at this present time the actual max HP ratings on these new boats should be adjusted to reflect that

mustang65fbk · « **Reply #18 on:** February 06, 2018, 09:35:07 PM »

A couple things here... I honestly don't think you need a 115hp engine for a 17' Arima that only weighs 1,250lbs. As others have said, with the design of the Arima you're probably not going to get much more on the top end as opposed to a 90hp engine but it's ultimately your boat so it's your choice. Also, 20lbs on the back end is going to make very little difference. I personally would go with a smaller motor like a 75-90hp Honda and then throw a kicker motor on there. I myself need to get a kicker motor so if/when I brake down I don't have to call vessel assist or use my paddle to try and paddle my boat back in lol. That being said.... Honda does make a 100hp outboard that might be just what you need in that it's almost halfway between the 90hp and the 115hp options and it weighs the same as the smaller 75-90hp Honda engines at only 365lbs, which is 3lbs heavier than a Yamaha 90hp. Finally, two other things to think about would be that on the Arima Boats website they only recommend a 75hp outboard motor, definitely something to keep in mind. And in terms of Honda vs Yamaha? I'd go with the Honda. They have a standard 5 year warranty on their engines whereas per the Yamaha website they only come with a 3 year warranty. Can you extend your Yamaha warranty? Probably, but that's just extra money that could be spent on a kicker, electronics, fishing gear and so on.

https://marine.honda.com/outboards/motor-detail/BF75-90-100

https://yamahaoutboards.com/en-us/home/outboards/115-50-hp/f115

mustang65fbk · « **Reply #19 on:** February 06, 2018, 09:47:14 PM »

Quote from: Fisherdv on February 06, 2018, 09:24:19 PM

Point being is at this present time the actual max HP ratings on these new boats should be adjusted to reflect that

I always get a chuckle seeing those "max HP" stats on the Arima Boats website as I know there are guys out there that want the maximum amount of hp possible and to go as fast as they possibly can. My boat does right around 35mph and I'm more than ok with only going that speed as anything north of 40-45mph, like my uncles old boat would do, on the water can get very dicey rather quickly if you hit a wave you don't see or whales/sea life surface near you when cruising and so on. Plus it drains the fuel that much more quickly. I'm guessing a 90hp engine on the OP's 17' SC would still get him over 30mph? You aren't going to be pulling someone on an inner tube or wakeboard at that speed because if they crashed it would hurt like hell and if you did do a long haul to go to a fishing spot at say 40mph vs 35mph and it's a 40 mile trek? Well you got there 8 minutes faster. I don't see why you'd need to go or get there any faster but that's just my opinion.

Marine40 · « **Reply #20 on:** February 06, 2018, 10:05:16 PM »

Buy the 115 of any brand and get a kicker motor. Fill the tank up with gas. Make sure you load a couple fat guys in the boat and then
Please take a picture and post it here.

I can say fat guys because I'm fat!

Darren

Holoholo808 · « **Reply #21 on:** February 07, 2018, 12:36:06 AM »

90 and a 4 blade. I don’t know about you guys but I never come across flat enough conditions to hit WOT. I also have my boat loaded pretty heavy when I fish (5 Tiagras, 100 lbs of ice, 40 gallons+ of gas, custom metal top, etc.) and the 90/4 blade get out of the hole just fine.

For reference my friend has twin Johnson (Suzuki) 40s on his 17 SC and it sits fine with the batteries moved to the cuddy.

As long as you balance the weight in the stern with static loads forward (i.e. batteries, not fuel), you should be okay with the 115 if you really want the extra oomph. However, as others have mentioned, the Arima’s forte isn’t in top end and a larger engine kind of misses the point of the hull design.

Ko Ho · « **Reply #22 on:** February 07, 2018, 07:40:27 AM »

I have a Sea Chaser 17 with twin Yamaha 40's (i.e. 80 hp), and it's plenty of power for me. Admittedly, I fish 100% of he time and never pull a wakeboard, though I'm pretty sure I could with no problem. I think a 90 would be fine. You also mention that you'll be fishing, and in Puget Sound, that means a kicker, which you might want to add in the future.

Ko Ho · « **Reply #23 on:** February 07, 2018, 07:55:41 AM »

BTW, if you're ordering a new chaser from Defiance, be sure to talk to Don Gross if he's still there (former owner of Arima) before you power up. Ask him what he thinks about twin motors. It makes the question of main vs kickers moot. The modification for dual throttle controls at the helm can be done at the factory.

blindmonkey · « **Reply #24 on:** February 07, 2018, 08:07:46 AM »

Buy the 115 Yamaha if it’s close in price. At 377 lbs for an additional 20 pounds 25 more hp makes sense and as noted the motor will not be working as hard as 90 hp.

News:

Author Topic: 115 hp Honda vs Yamaha for 17 Sea Chaser (Read 1936 times)