I would be hard pressed to believe there is 5 mph difference. Are they geared different?

 

Same here, depending on hull type, I doubt there would be much of a difference on top speed.

I fought with myself on the same question not long ago. I had twin 2003 Suzuki 140's on the back of my boat, they had over 2,000 hours each, still ran strong, but wanted to repower for long term ownership of my rig.

In my particular situation, given the hull type, design, usage, and the added weight of the engines, I felt like the total gain of 20HP was not justified for the added weight of moving up to 150's.

With the added weight, I figured I may have actually lost performance and mpg's, and not changed the top end at all.

Plus the boat would have sat lower in the backend, especially when at rest, with over 100lbs more weight on the transom. I fish mostly offshore, so a light rear end is a plus when it comes to waves hitting it, or following seas.

So I ended up going back with twin DF140's, and do not regret it at all, the newer engines are stronger than the older ones and I get 3 to 3.2 mpg at cruise making my trips allot more affordable, and the boat handles really well.

My previous boat of 10 years was an 18 ft Kenner, I had a 135 Optimax (same block as the 150,175) on it, 135hp was the max hp rating on the boat.

It was a fishing machine for the bays no doubt, but always felt a lighter engine would have made it handle much better, the Optimax was way too heavy, as you can see in the picture below, it sat really heavy in the transom, the self draining deck scuppers would be under water at rest, so I was always fighting with finding a decent pair of scuppers that would seal at rest, finally ended up with the pingpong ball type which worked fairly well. But, I would have much rather had a lighter engine running at peak horsepower, then the "detuned" bigger block weighting it down.

FV Relentless

 

Slightly; 2.59-1 on the 140, 2.50-1 on the 150.

 

That is probably why it is a little faster. I bet the 140 has a better hole shot. Also, cruise speed will be about the same IMO

 

150 is the same block as the 175. 140 is the same block as the 115. 150 is a strong 150 vs the 140 being a strong 115

With that being said. I think the new 140A performs much better with the new gear ratio if weight is a concern

 

150 is the same block as the 175. 140 is the same block as the 115. 150 is a strong 150 vs the 140 being a strong 115

With that being said. I think the new 140A performs much better with the new gear ratio if weight is a concern

Thats a x2

 

Is there torque differences?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

I have been pleased by re-powering with Suzuki 7 years ago. My max rating was 175 so I went with that. IF my max had been 150, I may have chosen the 140. It seems I have heard good about their 140, and no bad.

 

A lot of the your decision can be answered with how do you fish? Skinny vs shallow and on average how many people will be in the boat? The 150 is about 3 to 5 mph faster than the 140 when both are propped for all around. The difference come into play if you are trying to get out of skinny water with a soft bottom. The 140 unless propped more for hole shot just doesn't have the same torque the 150 has and you are turning a smaller diameter prop. The 150 use the same diameter as any 6 cyl. engine and the 140 is the same diameter as any 115 hp engine. We can prop the 140 to have the ability to get the same hole shot, but you will lose more than 5 mph probably closer to 8 to 10. I have personally ran both on the 20 cat and tested several props on both. My personal opinion is that if you want to maximize the abilities of the hull the 150 is the best choice.

Of coarse as you mentioned the 140 cost less also. You can save $1,400. My best advice for this is if you want to save the money then go for the 140, but from experience if you buy the 150 and spend the extra money and are happy with it you won't ever think about that money again. But on the other hand if you go with the 140 to save that money and are not happy with it that money is all your going to think about.

Thanks,

Jared Poole
Waypoint Marine
361-651-2628

 

A lot of the your decision can be answered with how do you fish? Skinny vs shallow and on average how many people will be in the boat? The 150 is about 3 to 5 mph faster than the 140 when both are propped for all around. The difference come into play if you are trying to get out of skinny water with a soft bottom. The 140 unless propped more for hole shot just doesn't have the same torque the 150 has and you are turning a smaller diameter prop. The 150 use the same diameter as any 6 cyl. engine and the 140 is the same diameter as any 115 hp engine. We can prop the 140 to have the ability to get the same hole shot, but you will lose more than 5 mph probably closer to 8 to 10. I have personally ran both on the 20 cat and tested several props on both. My personal opinion is that if you want to maximize the abilities of the hull the 150 is the best choice.

Of coarse as you mentioned the 140 cost less also. You can save $1,400. My best advice for this is if you want to save the money then go for the 140, but from experience if you buy the 150 and spend the extra money and are happy with it you won't ever think about that money again. But on the other hand if you go with the 140 to save that money and are not happy with it that money is all your going to think about.

Thanks,

Jared Poole
Waypoint Marine
361-651-2628

There you go. Take his advice, he knows.

 

I went for the 150. Speed was not a concern for me, my decision was based on hole shot. My boat if rated for 150 and with a good prop I have no problem getting up in skinny water and still run 40 MPH on the bay.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Is the new Suzuki 150a/175a available yet?

 

If the boat will handle the added weight, and it isn't a whole lot more, I'd go with the 150. it is a heck of a motor. Much better low end than the 140.

 

Good point TXFishin.
Jared, does the 150 horse Suz. squat the 20' Shoalwater in the back more or a lot more than the 140 Suzuki?
The boat you guys took me out in had a 150 Evenrude which weighs only about 14 pounds more than the 140 Suzuki and I didn't notice any bow rise sitting.

 

Not enough to even notice. But the amount of water the 150 pushes is pretty substantial compared to the 140 just because of the diameter of the prop. We have found that when trying to take off with the motor up because of shallow water the larger diameter provides better bite.

Thanks,

Jared Poole
Waypoint Marine
361-651-2628

 

My take on it is if your boat is rated more for a 115 like a 18 ft boat, the 140 is your choice for more power. If your boat is bigger like a 21ft, then I think you go 150.
Like mentioned above they are different classes of motor. You shouldn't focus on the 10 hp difference. The torque difference makes it more complicated than just 10 hp.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

Talked myself into that dilemma

Recommended HP on my rig was 150 with 175 max - after calculations and approx 100# less in weight I went with 140 BIG MISTAKE - prop HP output with the 2016 Suzuki 140 and new ratio, actual mechanical HP at prop is 130 --

Put on the bigger heavier motor and pat yourself on the back

I've been thru four props already trying to get satisfactory TOP end, and mid range, I have it at 6200 RPM's WOT/41 MPH, but mid range cruise is **** and only 30MPH at 4900 RPMS.

Go bigger - trust me --

 

Recommended HP on my rig was 150 with 175 max - after calculations and approx 100# less in weight I went with 140 BIG MISTAKE - prop HP output with the 2016 Suzuki 140 and new ratio, actual mechanical HP at prop is 130 --

Put on the bigger heavier motor and pat yourself on the back

I've been thru four props already trying to get satisfactory TOP end, and mid range, I have it at 6200 RPM's WOT/41 MPH, but mid range cruise is **** and only 30MPH at 4900 RPMS.

Go bigger - trust me --

Yup. 140 has 132 hp while 150 has 159hp

 

Being engineer minded, and all this horsepower talk , I couldn't help but to look into it.

Apparently prior to the early to mid 80's there was no real "standard" as to measuring horsepower, some where at the flywheel, some at the prop shaft (to have a "stronger" engine in a given hp rating"), some at a giving rpm (where others may not develop peak performance).

Sometime after the early to mid 80's in some debates that were giving various manufacturers an edge in the market by having a "stronger" engine per horsepower rating by measuring prop shaft when others were measuring it at the flywheel, a more standard method was adopted? This method allows for up to a 10% variance in rated horsepower?

Since then, and in order to better compete with their competition, in general, manufactures now tend to lean towards the higher side of this 10% margin in an attempt to give them a edge. This somewhat makes sense, because why would I want to put a sticker on my product that was less than claimed, when I could put a sticker on it that would be more than claimed so I can get better customer reviews on performance over my competitors?

After what I read, and the debates that started around Mercury outboards out-performing other manufactures during this time period, and making strides in the racing circuit, I'm more inclined to believe that unless there was a manufacturing issue, a "one-off", that most modern outboards would take advantage of this 10% margin, manufacturing their engine to run on the high side, above the "stickered" horsepower, in order to gain every competitive edge they can, horsepower, weight, etc..

Here are some clips from a few discussions I ran across that seem to support this.

"I have only had one outboard run on a dyno. It was a 1995 Suzuki DT-140.It came in at 144 HP at 5800 rpm. Obviously, well within the 10% range.

Most of the newer motors will be rated kinda conservative. Everybody wants to have the most powerful motor in a given class"

FV Relentless

 

Thanks for the input everyone!
I guess I will stay with the 150 Suzuki. In this instance it is better to have more than not enough.....I suppose.

 

Head Horsepower VS Mechanical

For every gear you go thru you loose HP at output - so from your spline at the head , you go to a rt angle gear drive , you loose HP at the gear change -- same on any machine ever built !!

The 150 thru the 200 Suzuki weigh the same, (511-529# depending on LU)

The 140 weighs 394-405 depending on LU

Gear ratio for 150-200 is 2.50:1

Ratio for 140 is 2.59:1

 

I have a 140 and so far I like it. I am still learning the engine and the hull though (new boat). With three people I can get up in shin deep water with a soft bottom. Not a TRP but pretty respectable. Trying to keep the engine hooked up is the biggest issue I have, but that is prop related. The power band is weird to me coming from a yamaha two stroke. I think they are getting the HP by turning the engine up to 6200rpm.

 

Agree with you on the powerband, I've been running twin Suzuki's for about 5 years or so now, and prior to that it was 2-stroke Mercury, Evinrude and Johnson's, and I can say the Suzuki's do like to run higher on the rpm's than I've been used to in the past, but still sip fuel and no issues, the pair that came with my rig had over 2,000 hours each and were running like a top when I sold them to repower

FV Relentless

 

I purchased a 2016 20 cat in august, i went with the 150 Suzuki on mine instead of the 140 and everything i've read and heard i'm glad i did. With that motor and Lenco trim tabs, my boat gets up shallow and real quick without having to pour the chili to it. I'm still really happy with my decision and hope this helps you out with yours.

 

Hello everyone, I can tell you from first hand experience the Suzuki 150 kills the Suzuki 140! I had a 2021 140 on my StarCraft svx 191 deckboat and while the motor ran very well and got great fuel economy, I always felt like it was lacking just a little. So after 3 months of ownership and 90 hours of running time I ordered a 2022 Suzuki 150. I was thrilled with the difference, the boat comes on plane 500-700rpm quicker and will stay on plane 1000rpm lower. Added 5mph to the top speed of the boat, but cruise at part throttle so much better. 150 is the max rating on my boat and the Suzuki 150 is great. I am spinning a 16x18.5 prop which I think is a bit big. My 150 is also whisper quite just as the 140 was.
My only complaint is that the steering of the boat is slightly heavier, but it still steers very easily.

 

I can say this. I had a 2018 Bluewave 2000 with the 140. It was anemic. Folks who had the same boat but with the 150 had much better hole shot and better performance overall. Added weight might add an inch or so to the draft, but the torque gained would probably be well worth it.

If I were putting a motor on a boat, there would be no question about going with the 150 over a 140.

dang it… got me. This thread is 5 years old. DOH!

 

Never under power a boat. If it says 150 max put a 150 on it. Save yourself the the regret on the front side.

 

I test drove a 2020 Shoalwater 20' cat with the 140 and IMO it felt like a dog. Had no top end, upper 30's, and the hole shot was terrible. Now this was just a test run so I may have needed more time to learn the boat but I passed on it more due to the engine performance than anything else. A friend bought a similar boat about the same time with the 140 and he ended up repowering after a few years to a 150.

IMO the 140 is good for smaller boats like 18-19 ft range or boats that don't require near as much hole shot. I'm sure that those that do have the 140 make do OK on bigger boats but if I was doing it it would always be the 150 Suzuki.

FWIW I ended up buying a 20ft boat with a 175.