It is currently 21 Apr 2018, 05:29
Join the free forum or login with your account and the annoying banner goes away

“TheRescueStep”

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




 Page 2 of 3 [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Johnson 90/65 Opinions?
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2017, 11:22 
User avatar

Joined: 02 Jun 2015, 09:56
Posts: 319
Location: southern indiana
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-Suprem ... 796315661/


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Johnson 90/65 Opinions?
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2017, 15:59 

Joined: 26 Oct 2017, 09:46
Posts: 21
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


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Johnson 90/65 Opinions?
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2017, 16:01 

Joined: 26 Oct 2017, 09:46
Posts: 21
pics of the boat after much work...


20171118_084750.jpg
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Johnson 90/65 Opinions?
PostPosted: 09 Dec 2017, 09:54 

Joined: 28 Sep 2014, 09:02
Posts: 244
Location: Charlottesville, VA
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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Johnson 90/65 Opinions?
PostPosted: 09 Dec 2017, 09:55 

Joined: 28 Sep 2014, 09:02
Posts: 244
Location: Charlottesville, VA
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........


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Johnson 90/65 Opinions?
PostPosted: 10 Dec 2017, 12:27 

Joined: 11 Mar 2017, 21:52
Posts: 134
rotus623 wrote:
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?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Johnson 90/65 Opinions?
PostPosted: 11 Dec 2017, 17:21 

Joined: 28 Sep 2014, 09:02
Posts: 244
Location: Charlottesville, VA
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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Johnson 90/65 Opinions?
PostPosted: 12 Dec 2017, 00:32 

Joined: 11 Mar 2017, 21:52
Posts: 134
My engine is a 2000 so that leaves me out. Thanks for the info though.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Johnson 90/65 Opinions?
PostPosted: 12 Dec 2017, 11:43 
User avatar

Joined: 02 Jun 2015, 09:56
Posts: 319
Location: southern indiana
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


jet boat bottom.jpg
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Johnson 90/65 Opinions?
PostPosted: 13 Dec 2017, 09:22 

Joined: 28 Sep 2014, 09:02
Posts: 244
Location: Charlottesville, VA
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.........


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Johnson 90/65 Opinions?
PostPosted: 27 Dec 2017, 19:33 

Joined: 22 Jul 2012, 10:16
Posts: 90
rotus623 wrote:
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.


IMG_3836.JPG
IMG_3874.JPG
IMG_3875.JPG
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Johnson 90/65 Opinions?
PostPosted: 10 Jan 2018, 09:49 

Joined: 28 Sep 2014, 09:02
Posts: 244
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Heck of a boat.

Out of my ball park though.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Johnson 90/65 Opinions?
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 21:50 

Joined: 20 Aug 2012, 22:01
Posts: 445
Location: martinsburg, wv
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.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Johnson 90/65 Opinions?
PostPosted: 26 Jan 2018, 11:57 

Joined: 26 Oct 2017, 09:46
Posts: 21
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...


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Johnson 90/65 Opinions?
PostPosted: 01 Feb 2018, 16:29 

Joined: 28 Sep 2014, 09:02
Posts: 244
Location: Charlottesville, VA
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:


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 2 of 3 [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Join the free forum or login with your account and the annoying banner goes away

akmccallumco