140hp or 150hp Suzuki on 22SS twin elliptical

Kozzie2020

Well-Known Member
Messages
54
Reaction score
106
Location
Australia
Our 22SS will finally arrive in Australia on the 24th December 2020. Ordered 3rd August 2020. It is currently on a ship somewhere between Mexico and Tahiti. We realistically won’t get the boat until early January 2021 because of the Christmas break and some things that need to be fitted i.e. electric anchor winch, sounder, docking lights and full enclosure around double bimini.

The boat has been Suzuki pre rigged and outboard will be fitted in Australia on arrival. The 22SS has the twin ellipticals so is rated to 150 hp. My dilemma is, should I install the lighter 140hp (126lbs lighter) or the considerably heavier 150hp at $3000 more? The 150 hp shares its engine architecture with the physically identical 175hp and 200hp. There will be 3-5 people on board and very occasionally pulling a tube.

A few photos of the boat in the factory.
 

Attachments

  • 7495EC53-EAA0-4337-84D5-015D05398A49.jpeg
    7495EC53-EAA0-4337-84D5-015D05398A49.jpeg
    116.4 KB · Views: 12
  • F5F6877E-FCEA-4D22-AC76-6271AF3C9EB5.jpeg
    F5F6877E-FCEA-4D22-AC76-6271AF3C9EB5.jpeg
    118.2 KB · Views: 14
  • 8F86468C-203B-416C-85C4-E4F28C701B30.jpeg
    8F86468C-203B-416C-85C4-E4F28C701B30.jpeg
    89 KB · Views: 15
  • CB4F6744-94F8-4A3D-8F8A-5AA98FC8192A.jpeg
    CB4F6744-94F8-4A3D-8F8A-5AA98FC8192A.jpeg
    110.3 KB · Views: 15
Ah! A double Bimini for those hot Australian summers! Good choice! There are others who can reply with more experience than I, but to me, the weight should not be the issue. It’s the cost. I would dare say that once loaded down with passengers, gear, gas, and the occasional tube, the MPH and hole shot between the 140 and 150 would be negligible at best. Especially for $3,000 more. However, I would prefer the Yamaha over the Suzuki... not because the Suzuki is a bad engine, it’s just that Yamaha is a great engine. Either will serve you well, and the WOT speed will darn near be the same, and probably indistinguishable. But... I would love to hear what others think.
 
Welcome ! Wow Australia! I would spend the extra cake and get the 150 h.p. if you can afford it why not? I'm only guessing but with the ellipticals would you be pushing more water? Sit tight members will chime in with ideas for you .
 
If it’s like a Yamaha 175 sho and a Yamaha 200 sho or even standard Yamaha 200 vs the sho then the motor is a bigger block and will have much better torque. The big question is is that worth 3k? I can not answer that for you. I did go with the 200SHO over the 175 SHO and the “normal” 200 because I did not want regrets. I am interested to see what more knowledgeable people on Suzuki outboards have to say.
 
That will be a great pontoon! For your stated use, the difference should be negligible. I know very little about Suzys. But if they use design concepts similar to certain Mercurys, the 150 HP will have more displacement than the 140 AND be electronically limited to stop it from producing as much as the higher rated motors in that series (there may be other differences including gear ratio, intake or exhaust...but maybe not too).

The point is the 150 is likely to accelerate harder than the 140, but then the HP will clearly flatline at some predetermined RPM (the motor will wind higher, but no more HP is there). That kind of performance would bug the heck out of me. So I'd likely stay with the 140 and maybe get a little better long range cruise economy. HOWEVER, if you are so motivated, there may be now, or in the future, some hack to "upgrade" to at least near the higher HP levels...or just replace the ECM with one intended for an up-rated motor. Obviously, none of that does good things for a warrantee.....

The key to the decision may be in how much you will be using the pontoon and if future expected needs/desires might change. I think you will find there is plenty of speed with the 140 and ellipticals. This is where the same ol' question pops up: Speed costs money, how fast do you want to go?
 
Last edited:
Thank you all for your prompt and detailed replies. Most helpful.
I know Yamahas are very popular and I have had them in the past but here in Australia Suzuki is really gaining in popularity because it offers such a long warranty (6yrs) and widespread authorised Suzuki dealers. Lots of commercial guys use them and swear by them. I’ m leaning towards the 140hp but still could be swayed.
In Australia just about every pontoon boat has a double bimini because it’s so hot, particularly where I live.
 
DF150A - 2867cc
DF140A - 2044cc

40% more displacement is significant to me, and from what I’ve read the 150 dyno’s significantly higher (almost 160) while the 140 dyno’s less. Lots of misinformation out there so who knows if thattrue, but I would guess the 150 is much stronger than the 140 based on cc alone. The 150 has a lower gear ratio so that indicates to me there is much more torque available and can handle a bigger prop. Alternator is slightly bigger on the 150 but that may not be material enough to justify.

As you know pontoons are fairly heavy and plow water more than a monohull so if it were me I would be very wary of under-motoring based on your needs. If you just want to cruise around with max fuel efficiency, the 140 seems to be the much better option. But if top speed, time to plane and hauling load is important, the 150 might be worth the $$.



Here are two performance bulletins you can compare from the Zuke site. Ultimately it will come down to your needs and budget considerations. Happy deciding!!



09514B43-68C6-41CE-9994-9C6E66A37CED.jpeg
821EC0A2-722D-430D-B34B-98815D5365A2.jpeg
 
Thanks Potomacbassin! Great information. Interesting performance comparison between the 2 motors.
 
Holly crap!!!! The fuel burn for the 150 is almost 50% greater at WOT for only ~5% more speed also at best cruise speed the burn is still ~37% greater. BTW: the gear ratios are less than 4% different.

The differences between a 140 performing as expected and a defanged 150 are greater than I expected. Electronically detuning a motor not only ticks me off, but is clearly a bad idea. As another example, look at what flat-rating does to even the Volvo Gen5 V6. The power is clearly flatlined at only 3000 RPM. Ample reason to never own a 200 HP version, although the 240 (now called a 250) would be acceptable with the 280 being mo-betta. Note the same basic engine is rated at 285 HP in Chevy and GMC trucks.

V6-200/240/280-G (PDF, 608.5KB)

My bet is still that the 140HP with ellipticals will provide all the performance needed with way better everyday economy.
 
Holly crap!!!! The fuel burn for the 150 is almost 50% greater at WOT for only ~5% more speed also at best cruise speed the burn is still ~37% greater. BTW: the gear ratios are less than 4% different.

The differences between a 140 performing as expected and a defanged 150 are greater than I expected. Electronically detuning a motor not only ticks me off, but is clearly a bad idea. As another example, look at what flat-rating does to even the Volvo Gen5 V6. The power is clearly flatlined at only 3000 RPM. Ample reason to never own a 200 HP version, although the 240 (now called a 250) would be acceptable with the 280 being mo-betta. Note the same basic engine is rated at 285 HP in Chevy and GMC trucks.

V6-200/240/280-G (PDF, 608.5KB)

My bet is still that the 140HP with ellipticals will provide all the performance needed with way better everyday economy.

PB - maybe I’m reading this wrong, but instead of comparing WOT to WOT wouldn’t it better to compare equivalent speeds?

The DF140 at 62 mph is burning 33 l/hr and getting a converted 4.44 mph. The DF150 at 62 mph is burning slightly more (36 l/hr) and getting 4.06mph. So more like a 10% difference in efficiency. Of course at WOT the 150 is going to burn a lot more and be less efficient since it’s doing more work than the 140.

One other opinion - OEM’s sharing blocks between models and de-tuning them seems like a sheisty way to make more $ for less effort, but I also think it’s an efficient way to mass produce a product. If Zuke, Yamaha, Merc et al. made different blocks and different components for each HP-sized motor, it would cost them more to manufacture and ultimately may cost the consumer more. For the extra cash I agree there should be more than just a different fuel map... maybe a cool sticker like the SHO!

<sorry VF owners, ducks hurled bottles>
 
PB - maybe I’m reading this wrong, but instead of comparing WOT to WOT wouldn’t it better to compare equivalent speeds?

The DF140 at 62 mph is burning 33 l/hr and getting a converted 4.44 mph. The DF150 at 62 mph is burning slightly more (36 l/hr) and getting 4.06mph. So more like a 10% difference in efficiency. Of course at WOT the 150 is going to burn a lot more and be less efficient since it’s doing more work than the 140.

One other opinion - OEM’s sharing blocks between models and de-tuning them seems like a sheisty way to make more $ for less effort, but I also think it’s an efficient way to mass produce a product. If Zuke, Yamaha, Merc et al. made different blocks and different components for each HP-sized motor, it would cost them more to manufacture and ultimately may cost the consumer more. For the extra cash I agree there should be more than just a different fuel map... maybe a cool sticker like the SHO!

<sorry VF owners, ducks hurled bottles>
That’s the way I‘ve been looking at it too. Kilometers/miles travelled per litre/gallon. Not a big difference.
 
PB - maybe I’m reading this wrong, but instead of comparing WOT to WOT wouldn’t it better to compare equivalent speeds?

The DF140 at 62 mph is burning 33 l/hr and getting a converted 4.44 mph. The DF150 at 62 mph is burning slightly more (36 l/hr) and getting 4.06mph. So more like a 10% difference in efficiency. Of course at WOT the 150 is going to burn a lot more and be less efficient since it’s doing more work than the 140.

One other opinion - OEM’s sharing blocks between models and de-tuning them seems like a sheisty way to make more $ for less effort, but I also think it’s an efficient way to mass produce a product. If Zuke, Yamaha, Merc et al. made different blocks and different components for each HP-sized motor, it would cost them more to manufacture and ultimately may cost the consumer more. For the extra cash I agree there should be more than just a different fuel map... maybe a cool sticker like the SHO!

<sorry VF owners, ducks hurled bottles>
Hey Potomacbassin' I've look at your profile picture a few times and can't figure it out. Could you explain it to us ? Thanks!
 
Hey Potomacbassin' I've look at your profile picture a few times and can't figure it out. Could you explain it to us ? Thanks!

Just a winter trip... going 50 when it’s 40 degrees out calls for some cold weather gear. I do these long 1-hour runs to some striper areas on the Potomac so a fur hat and ski goggles keeps my head from turning into an icicle.
 
Just a winter trip... going 50 when it’s 40 degrees out calls for some cold weather gear. I do these long 1-hour runs to some striper areas on the Potomac so a fur hat and ski goggles keeps my head from turning into an icicle.
Got cha! Thanks!
 
Hey Kozzie welcome to the forum! We have been to Australia and had a great trip! Beautiful country but it took forever getting there spending 22 hrs. in the air. We made some good friends there that live in Newcastle and they have been to NC to visit us. When we bought our boat last year we saw alot of boats in the lot that had Suzuki 140's on them. We asked them what was the real difference between that motor and the Mercury 150 we were interested in. The main one was displacement. 150- 3.0L. 140-2.0L. The 150 has a better holeshot got up on plane faster and had better midrange response. The Suzuki 140 performed better as far as fuel consumption/efficiency is concerned. They just felt that the Mercury 150 was a proven better overall engine. I'm sure you spent a crazy amount of money having that Bennington built in the United States, having it shipped halfway around the world to Australia. In my opinion spend the extra money on the 150. You won't regret it. As far as fuel economy/burn rate/miles travelled per gallon/blah blah blah........... If it needs gas FILL IT UP!!! One more thing, you mentioned the considerably lighter 140 vs.150. (126 lbs) We went from an I/O weighing 785 lbs. to the 150 outboard weighing 455 lbs. 330 lb. difference. That's like having 2 less people onboard......
 
PB - maybe I’m reading this wrong, but instead of comparing WOT to WOT wouldn’t it better to compare equivalent speeds?

The DF140 at 62 mph is burning 33 l/hr and getting a converted 4.44 mph. The DF150 at 62 mph is burning slightly more (36 l/hr) and getting 4.06mph. So more like a 10% difference in efficiency. Of course at WOT the 150 is going to burn a lot more and be less efficient since it’s doing more work than the 140.
Excepting that we are dealing with km/h not MPH, the point remains the same because pulling the 140 off WOT produces similar fuel savings. There is no surprise that the pontoon is faster with the bigger motor, but what is the long-term cost of performance that will rarely be needed or used? Keep in mind that we are only talking about a couple MPH here anyway.

Years ago I too used to be an advocate for there is no REplacement for DISplacement, todays wonder motors totally blow that away. The only way I'd go for THAT 150 over THAT 140 is if I had an eye toward running a 150 badged motor that is actually hacked to something like 200. BTW: since the pontoon is new, I'm assuming we are talking about the latest version of the 140 too, not the one in the test data posted above. Check that out as the improvements to the current 140 are significant.

I know, somewhat off the topic, but consider this further example: sitting in our garage is a GMC Acadia with a 3.6L V6. In the past I would have never bought a vehicle that size with such a mini-motor. However, that mouse motor produces a nosh#t 310 HP with a torque curve that is darn-near flat over a wide RPM range! On top of that, I have run 80+ MPH (hitting 90 a couple times) with MPG running in the upper 20's (we have seen as high as 34 MPG, obviously at lower speeds). All of that on regular Gas!

The techno-wizardry of today's wonder motors is only getting better, especially for most of the outboard manufactures. Head design has pushed allowable compression ratios over 10-to-1 (our 3.6L Acadia runs 11.5-to-1) on regular gas. The precision fuel/spark delivery of the very latest designs is worth having in a motor allowed to take full advantage of those things. But, much of that gets thrown in the rubbish if the motor is electronically throttled to some output well below its design and intended potential.

I could well go for a midrange HP variant, but not the bottom of the family (like the Volvo 240/250 versus the 280, forget about the 200). Off-idle might be pretty good, but running out of breath somewhere just above midrange RPM is not the way to nirvana.
 
Hey Kozzie welcome to the forum! We have been to Australia and had a great trip! Beautiful country but it took forever getting there spending 22 hrs. in the air. We made some good friends there that live in Newcastle and they have been to NC to visit us. When we bought our boat last year we saw alot of boats in the lot that had Suzuki 140's on them. We asked them what was the real difference between that motor and the Mercury 150 we were interested in. The main one was displacement. 150- 3.0L. 140-2.0L. The 150 has a better holeshot got up on plane faster and had better midrange response. The Suzuki 140 performed better as far as fuel consumption/efficiency is concerned. They just felt that the Mercury 150 was a proven better overall engine. I'm sure you spent a crazy amount of money having that Bennington built in the United States, having it shipped halfway around the world to Australia. In my opinion spend the extra money on the 150. You won't regret it. As far as fuel economy/burn rate/miles travelled per gallon/blah blah blah........... If it needs gas FILL IT UP!!! One more thing, you mentioned the considerably lighter 140 vs.150. (126 lbs) We went from an I/O weighing 785 lbs. to the 150 outboard weighing 455 lbs. 330 lb. difference. That's like having 2 less people onboard......
G’day BigKahuna, thanks for your information. Good to here you have visited Australia and made some good friends. I live on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland. Lovely balmy summer weather now.

Even with $9000 shipping costs it was still cheaper to purchase the Bennington than the equivalent size Australian pontoon boat. Labour costs are much higher here and you can’t beat Bennington’s 10 yr warranty.
American pontoon boats have a wider beam than Australia which is nice. The trailer towing regulations are different here.
In the end our family settled for the 22SS, twin ellipticals. Would have loved something more premium but had to draw the line somewhere. Plus exchange rate was not good.
I’m sure my family will be super happy with our new Bennington.
 
Excepting that we are dealing with km/h not MPH, the point remains the same because pulling the 140 off WOT produces similar fuel savings. There is no surprise that the pontoon is faster with the bigger motor, but what is the long-term cost of performance that will rarely be needed or used? Keep in mind that we are only talking about a couple MPH here anyway.

Years ago I too used to be an advocate for there is no REplacement for DISplacement, todays wonder motors totally blow that away. The only way I'd go for THAT 150 over THAT 140 is if I had an eye toward running a 150 badged motor that is actually hacked to something like 200. BTW: since the pontoon is new, I'm assuming we are talking about the latest version of the 140 too, not the one in the test data posted above. Check that out as the improvements to the current 140 are significant.

I know, somewhat off the topic, but consider this further example: sitting in our garage is a GMC Acadia with a 3.6L V6. In the past I would have never bought a vehicle that size with such a mini-motor. However, that mouse motor produces a nosh#t 310 HP with a torque curve that is darn-near flat over a wide RPM range! On top of that, I have run 80+ MPH (hitting 90 a couple times) with MPG running in the upper 20's (we have seen as high as 34 MPG, obviously at lower speeds). All of that on regular Gas!

The techno-wizardry of today's wonder motors is only getting better, especially for most of the outboard manufactures. Head design has pushed allowable compression ratios over 10-to-1 (our 3.6L Acadia runs 11.5-to-1) on regular gas. The precision fuel/spark delivery of the very latest designs is worth having in a motor allowed to take full advantage of those things. But, much of that gets thrown in the rubbish if the motor is electronically throttled to some output well below its design and intended potential.

I could well go for a midrange HP variant, but not the bottom of the family (like the Volvo 240/250 versus the 280, forget about the 200). Off-idle might be pretty good, but running out of breath somewhere just above midrange RPM is not the way to nirvana.
My head says 140 and the boy in me says 150.
 
If you get the 150 you won’t wonder...should have I? If you can afford get the 150.
 
Back
Top