NE Saxitilis Posted June 4 Report Share Posted June 4 Another newbie question…. What is the Min/Max HP for the Master Angler? Currently, I have a 90hp on mine, but the engine may have just given its last rev Thanks Quinn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redzone1 Posted June 4 Report Share Posted June 4 I assume you are talking about the 17 master angler, and not the 18…….and certainly not the 21. I had an F150 on my 2008 17MA……that was the max. Most came from the factory with an F115….if you are talking about one built after about 2002 or so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whichwaysup Posted June 4 Report Share Posted June 4 There is no minimum per se, but there's definitely a point where you aren't going to be happy with performance. A lot depends on year and model, so more specifics can help us - max HP will also be on your coast guard placard where maximum weight/occupancy is listed. If running an 18, 115 to 175 (depending on model year) is the range you are going to want to stay in, with 150 being the sweet spot. The 17s always seemed well matched with the old 2S 130's, but not sure what the right current day replacement would be. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE Saxitilis Posted June 4 Author Report Share Posted June 4 My bad! 🤦♂️ I just bought a 1991 Master Angler 18. It’s got an old Johnson90 on it and goes pretty well - love how the hull handles rough water. My main question is: can I get away with a 70hp 4s, or, go with larger HP? she sits seemingly stern low, and I was hoping to flatten her out. Naive, maybe. Thanks, Quinn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE Saxitilis Posted June 4 Author Report Share Posted June 4 PS… haven’t found the CG placard… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lap it Up Posted June 4 Report Share Posted June 4 Your 90 is a V4 OMC (loved me some old OMC’s BTW). They were torque monsters. Your 1991 MA18 likely came with a max rating of 130 or 150hp. What you choose to hang on it is up to you, but I don’t think you’d be satisfied with a modern 70. MA’s aren’t particularly light by today’s standards. If it were me, I’d find a modern 4 cylinder between 115 and 150hp. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE Saxitilis Posted June 4 Author Report Share Posted June 4 @Lap it Up Thank you ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim33042 Posted June 5 Report Share Posted June 5 Another option for you might be a 4s Suzuki. There seems to be a slight advantage for weight distribution being a little forward of center. My neighbor had a 90s hull with a 115 and he said he hands down would prefer a 140 Suzuki over his current newer model with a 115 sho. The 140 is very close in weight to the 115. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE Saxitilis Posted June 5 Author Report Share Posted June 5 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whichwaysup Posted June 5 Report Share Posted June 5 16 hours ago, Lap it Up said: Your 90 is a V4 OMC (loved me some old OMC’s BTW). They were torque monsters. Your 1991 MA18 likely came with a max rating of 130 or 150hp. What you choose to hang on it is up to you, but I don’t think you’d be satisfied with a modern 70. MA’s aren’t particularly light by today’s standards. If it were me, I’d find a modern 4 cylinder between 115 and 150hp. Agree wirh this and the 140 zuke. I cant remember the 91 layout, does it have the recessed front deck or is it flat? The models with the recessed decks were lighter than the later models so you can get away with less power. Ifnit were me, i would go 150 either way and move weight forward. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Seither Posted June 5 Report Share Posted June 5 Any option you go with adds 100 or more Lbs, agree with Whichwaysup with rebalance will be needed, 115 should push the boat in the mid 40 MPH range all depends on your needs or need for speed. Zuke 140 410 Lbs Merc 150 455 lbs SHO 150 485 Lbs Your OMC V4 90 310 Lbs 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoneyB Posted June 5 Report Share Posted June 5 This tag is from a 1992 18 foot MA.I think it has a different cap than the 1991. I am not sure about other changes in the hull. The 1992 may have been the first year to move the tank to under the floor. I would not even consider putting anything less than a 115 on the master angler. That being said I do like boats with more power. I will be in search for a 150 at minimum for my project hull. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE Saxitilis Posted June 6 Author Report Share Posted June 6 Thank y’all for your help! My 91 has a recessed foredeck. My boat is at the boat hospital with a sick engine. Hopefully, it’s fixable. Your input is very helpful, if I need to seek a newer engine. I won’t be able to repower with a NEW engine until my daughter graduates college. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whichwaysup Posted June 6 Report Share Posted June 6 11 hours ago, NE Saxitilis said: Thank y’all for your help! My 91 has a recessed foredeck. My boat is at the boat hospital with a sick engine. Hopefully, it’s fixable. Your input is very helpful, if I need to seek a newer engine. I won’t be able to repower with a NEW engine until my daughter graduates college. I believe that, with the recessed deck, you also have a narrower beam and smaller tank up in the bow and flow-through livewells in the sponsons (il.e. no plumbing or pumps). If so, All of that is associated with the lighter version of the MA that I had with my '87. As a comparison point for you as you consider what you want to do, my 87 had the original 115 2s and I saw 43/44 with just me, but stayed over 40 WOT fully loaded with gear and passengers. There is a guy on here that put a 90 on that boat, so if you want to pick his brain on performance with a newer 90, I can get you his contact info. I would struggle to believe that the boat will perform well at all under 90, and am not even sure what the performance with a 90 would be like, so you have more expertise there than I! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim33042 Posted June 6 Report Share Posted June 6 We all seemed to go bigger in size suggestions... a 90 suzuki weight is 344, that's probably as close you can get to your current weight setup and there's usually a used engine out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tender Posted June 6 Report Share Posted June 6 1 hour ago, jim33042 said: We all seemed to go bigger in size suggestions... a 90 suzuki weight is 344, that's probably as close you can get to your current weight setup and there's usually a used engine out there. I'd go with a Merc 115 before I'd put a 90 on, it only weighs 15#'s more than the 90 and you get 25%+ more HP out of it. In their current form 90's are almost worthless unless they can shed some weight, only other reason to go with a 90 IMO is if you are limited by HP rating on the hull. If weight is a factor go with a 70 that's almost 100#'s less if not skip the 90 and go with a 115. You'd be much happier with the performance for a very minimal weight increase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeH Posted June 6 Report Share Posted June 6 I had a 1991 Hewes Redfisher with a 1991 Yamaha 2 stroke 130 hp. That was a great combination, and I always thought anyone with the same boat with a 115 HP was underpowered. It looks like the question is whether there was a model change between 1991 and 1992. Since your USCG plate/sticker is nowhere to be found, a safe assumption is that your boat has a max hp rating between 130 and 175. My 1991 Hewes 18 Redfisher had a max hp rating of 130 hp, I seem to recall. My opinion is that a 140 Suzuki or a 150 Yamaha would be the best engine for your boat. 90 hp is grossly underpowered. Also, look in the "Maverick Owners Photos" and "Vintage Maverick" sections of this forum and you will see that the sterns of the old Hewes and Mavericks kind of squatted a lot, but ran great on plane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE Saxitilis Posted June 7 Author Report Share Posted June 7 Thank you so much ! Great info and homework for me. Mine has the teak trim and that’s my first project, while I await engine fix. -Q Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoneyB Posted June 7 Report Share Posted June 7 Post up some pictures of your new sled. Everyone loves pictures! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE Saxitilis Posted June 7 Author Report Share Posted June 7 The guy I bought it from did more freshwater fishing than salt. So, changes and projects galore. Thank you all for the insights. I’ve been doing a lot of reading in all of these forums and learned a great deal ! -Quinn 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE Saxitilis Posted June 7 Author Report Share Posted June 7 PS…. I’m an idiot! I now see the Capacity plate 🤦♂️ 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoneyB Posted June 7 Report Share Posted June 7 Hull looks to be in good shape! Nice boat 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishmanjj Posted June 10 Report Share Posted June 10 I had a Yamaha two stroke 115 on mine many years ago….. it was a very good combination Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fsu11 Posted June 11 Report Share Posted June 11 On 6/5/2024 at 9:02 AM, George Seither said: Any option you go with adds 100 or more Lbs, agree with Whichwaysup with rebalance will be needed, 115 should push the boat in the mid 40 MPH range all depends on your needs or need for speed. Zuke 140 410 Lbs Merc 150 455 lbs SHO 150 485 Lbs Your OMC V4 90 310 Lbs just throwing this out there that this is slightly decieving, as a 140 zuke and a 150 zuke are two entirely different motors with a big difference in horsepower even though it appears to only be 10 hp difference. So a 140 zuke compared to a merc 150 or sho 150 isnt even in the same playing field would need to consider a 150 zuke to either of those motors for comparable power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Seither Posted June 11 Report Share Posted June 11 Most of what I’m seeing in South Louisiana are Yamaha, Mercury and Suzuki, bunch of commercial folks have jumped on the Suzuki band wagon, 150 as far as I know is a good engine, has 1 year more standard Warranty than Yamaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.