1983 140hp Suzuki or a 115hp 96 Johnson ocean runner

Jhayes780

Petty Officer 2nd Class
Joined
Aug 15, 2022
Messages
150
Hey guys about to pick up a different boat and they are both 19 ft. Aquasport with a 1983 suzuki 140 hp and 5hp kicker or a 115 Johnson ocean runner 1996. Wondering which one I should go with. The gel coat on the bayliner with the Johnson looks new and only needs some minor work to get some gauges working, the aquasport and suzi need the same work but it runs well What should I go with
 

Jhayes780

Petty Officer 2nd Class
Joined
Aug 15, 2022
Messages
150
I have the same year auzuki right now but less hp and it’s been an upkeep nightmare
 

Texasmark

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
14,669
I would have guessed just the opposite. Only things I have picked up on in running/using boating forums is that, like their bikes, they build a quality/reliable product. However their representation in my area is sparse.
 

jimmbo

Supreme Mariner
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
13,446
In 84 I was repowering my boat, and was going from a Crank rated 90 to a Prop rated 115, both Mercury. The Dealer also sold Suzuki, and had an 83 115 in the Showroom. He offered me an even better price on the Suki, but I wasn't confident in that Brand. A yr later, that engine was mounted on a boat a couple of feet longer than mine. One Evening, I, along with the Staff, hauled a bunch of Boats from the showroom out to a nearby Lake for some fun. Included in the bunch was the boat with the Suki. I got a chance to drive it, and I was impressed, it had more torque and higher Top Speed than my Merc, and it was underpropped, so I wasn't able to use WOT. All that on a bigger heavier boat than mine. That night I was certainly kicking myself for not buying it. Fast forward 37 yrs, and Parts might be harder to find, but in the next couple of years, most parts for any brand of the 2 Strokes, are likely to become considerably more difficult to procure, as the Mission/Agenda to transition to 4 Strokes intensifies.
 

flyingscott

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
8,095
The Suzuki is an excellent motor. Problem is Suzuki has not kept up with parts supply. No aftermarket support for them. The aftermarket is taking up a lot of slack for the OMC motors. Nothing for Suzukis that old. That Suzuki is as obsolete as my McCulloch 75 hp.
 

Texasmark

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
14,669
The Suzuki is an excellent motor. Problem is Suzuki has not kept up with parts supply. No aftermarket support for them. The aftermarket is taking up a lot of slack for the OMC motors. Nothing for Suzukis that old. That Suzuki is as obsolete as my McCulloch 75 hp.
Not changing the subject but mentioning my Mc 9.9 fisherman....low profile engine, the !@#$%^&*()_+ designers didn't route the exhaust down into the slipstream. It went straight out the back immediately above the AV plate. Every time you got on plane, the roar was deafening. The only reason I sold it. Never had to replace anything. Had a 28 Scott back in the '60's, never changed any parts on that, bought used. Had dad's 10 hp Scott and never changed parts on that and as a teenager, I abused the heck out of that engine out of stupidity.
 

flyingscott

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
8,095
Not changing the subject but mentioning my Mc 9.9 fisherman....low profile engine, the !@#$%^&*()_+ designers didn't route the exhaust down into the slipstream. It went straight out the back immediately above the AV plate. Every time you got on plane, the roar was deafening. The only reason I sold it. Never had to replace anything. Had a 28 Scott back in the '60's, never changed any parts on that, bought used. Had dad's 10 hp Scott and never changed parts on that and as a teenager, I abused the heck out of that engine out of stupidity.
I don't think McCulloch made a 9.9
 
Top