Older vs Newer Johnson 90hp

[medic one]

I'm shopping for a used outboard for a 1958 Skagit (a vintage 20' fiberglass runabout). Having experience with Johnson-OMC I'm looking to stay in that family. I'm looking at a 1993 (for $2,000) and 2003 (for $3,000) Johnson 90hp V4. The 1993 I assume to be a crossflow and the 2003 to be a looper. The 2003 uses optical ignition. I'm sure there are other differences as well.

By spending $1,000 more for a 10-year-newer engine, am I getting significant improvement? Or, is the simplicity of the 1993 a better value? The 1993 was rebuilt a couple of years ago.

I've read so many posts about the reliability and simplicity of the older motors. If a guy can find an older motor that has been well cared for, is that the right course?

Or, is a newer, but still a carburetor (not a FICHT) two-stroke-cycle engine a more prudent path?

Thanks for the thoughts.

 

[boobie]

I'd go with the newer motor as long it was carbed and not Ficht..

 

[ondarvr]

Performance will be significantly better with the looper.

 

[emdsapmgr]

I've run and fixed a ton of crossflows. But when it comes down to the best engine, go with the looper. It's quieter, has more grunt out of the hole and will provide better fuel economy. Those 60-degree carbed loopers have excellent reliability and durability. The crossflow may afford a better purchase price, but on the other hand-you'll be putting a lot of fuel into it. Since the crossflow was recently overhauled, neither would be considered a "bad" decision.