# Suzuki 175 Vs. Evinrude E-Tec 175



## ccredtrout (Apr 14, 2010)

Well decided Im going with the Shoalwater 21 Cat. But I am caught In between the Suzuki 175 & E-Tec 175. I know the two stroke will have a slight better hole shot. But I am more interested in Top In Speed. So I'm wondering which has better top end speed. Also any other experiences with both engines. Thanks for your help in advance.:brew:


----------



## ReelWork (May 21, 2004)

First, go with the best service in your area - hopefully, that is Suzuki. Second, go with the Suzuki.


----------



## EvansMarine (Jun 7, 2010)

Suzuki


----------



## Salt&Sol (Aug 23, 2010)

*Service*

I would go with the best service and the place that you want to deal with for years to come. I have had a Suzuki and will never own another anything with that name. However I just got unlucky and had a Bad bad lemon engine that went through 4 power heads, I also had dirt bikes and they were terrible... but all engine makers have those stories. I do love our Etech, the power and torque are next to none, its quiet, and has very very low emmisions we just love this motor, cant say enough about it. But our choice was because of the dealer, warranty, price etc... that's what adds up. Also you chose to buy a very shallow running boat, you can NOT deny one thing, when you are in real shallow water and you have a full load on that boat, having the engine that has a Power stroke on every stroke vs every other stroke is pretty key&#8230; Good luck


----------



## ccredtrout (Apr 14, 2010)

*Engine*

I have a good local dealer that i have been using for about three yrs. & they prefer the Suzuki over the evinrude. My main concern is top end. Thanks for the replies and please keep them coming.


----------



## KeithR (Jan 30, 2006)

I ordered the same boat three weeks ago and am still wrestling with the motor I want. Gene talked me into a 150 etec but I am concerned I may need more ponies. What made you decide 175? I may bump up to a 200 depending on my conversation with Gene. Personally i would go etec for a shallow water boat. I had a suzuki and it was great but for that hull I think a 2 stroke is a better choice. Nothing wrong with etec and they all have issues from time to time.


----------



## Stuart (May 21, 2004)

Since you're not going for the fastest 21 foot hull out there, I don't see that it will come down to the fastest motor for you? I assume you'll care more about running shallow, holeshot, staying on plane at slow speeds and maybe carrying a load. Most of which if rigged to do so, don't translate into a "fast" setup.


----------



## pipeliner345 (Mar 15, 2010)

on that boat, it sits very low in the stearn, the 4 stroke is heavy, the 2 stroke is lighter. if you want top end only, thats really not the flats boat cup of tea. shallow water performance is. its really irrelevant what brand, they are all good engines, but MY opinion only is if you want true shallow water performance out of a flats boat..............its 2 stroke.
if you want your ears to flap a hole in the side of your head.........go with SCB. i've said it before, the four stroke is the nascar............the 2 stroke............big bad A## DRAGSTER. i choose the 150 E-tec on my 21' shallowsport. it has been awesome so far. i did have a issue with the throttle but i took it to the shop today and it was a fuelpump vaporizer doohickey chingaletta thing. issue over. on that boat , i would go 2 stroke, hands down.


----------



## shooks (May 12, 2010)

Suzuki 175 474lbs E-tec 175 418lbs. I think the weight saving on that hull should be considered for shallow water and top speed performance.


----------



## 27contender (Dec 22, 2008)

The 175 suke maybe harder to prop. There are less 16" options out there in 4 blades. Diameter seems to help the sukes make up for the 4 strokenenss. That being said, my experience (however inapplicable to you flats boat question) the 175 suke has plenty of punch as compared to a 2 stroke.

Hope that helps


----------



## ccredtrout (Apr 14, 2010)

*Engine*

I'm choosing the 175 due to just being a slight more powerful. Also the 175 Suzuki is supposed to have some kind of sensor that helps saving gas at a certain Rpm. That's what I have been told. Also have been told that they have regeared the Suzuki to have more low end torque. This information comes from a authorized dealer that sells both motors and highly recommends the Suzuki. Also if you add in the oil reservoir for the etec that will add more weight and from what I have read the zuke is 460 pounds. They say top end is similar along with torque but gas milage is definitely better. I just don't know which one to go with and need some help. Has anyone ran these two motors head to head in the same applications. Thx for you alls help.


----------



## ATE_UP_FISHERMAN (Jun 25, 2004)

Zuke is an easy call but not because of the performance.


----------



## pipeliner345 (Mar 15, 2010)

you do what you want to do, its your rig but if you put a 175 E-tec and a 175 Zuke on the same hull, there is no question which one would come out first every time except for fuel milage maybe, and it would'nt be the Zuke. but look here. the zuke is a GREAT motor, i been behind many of them but they ain't got the GUTS!! of a two stroke, ain't gonna happen. its a four stroke. the only four stroke that might give the two strokes a run is the SHO and i have not been behind one of those. the bottom line is......either engine will get you from point to point, they are both very good engines. im partial to the E-tec because i own one, and i also own a 4 stroke yamaha, and did own a four stroke honda so i know for a fact about the difference between the two. the four stroke is smoooooth and quiet and fuel efficient. the new 2 strokes are smoooooth and quiet and NASTY!!!!!!! powerful.


----------



## cobrayakker (Mar 23, 2006)

ccredtrout said:


> I'm choosing the 175 due to just being a slight more powerful. Also the 175 Suzuki is supposed to have some kind of sensor that helps saving gas at a certain Rpm. That's what I have been told. Also have been told that they have regeared the Suzuki to have more low end torque. This information comes from a authorized dealer that sells both motors and highly recommends the Suzuki. Also if you add in the oil reservoir for the etec that will add more weight and from what I have read the zuke is 460 pounds. They say top end is similar along with torque but gas milage is definitely better. I just don't know which one to go with and need some help. Has anyone ran these two motors head to head in the same applications. Thx for you alls help.


When I bought my SVT I put my 175 Evinrude on it. It was a Ficht 2 stroke. The e-tech is basically the same motor just improved somewhat. The HP and gear ratio of the Ficht and E-tech 175 is the same. I ran the motor for a year on the SVT and it gave up. I put a 2010 175 Suzuki on it and there is no question that the Zuki is better. Top end is better by 3MPH, hole shot is better and has more low end torque. Fuel mileage on the Rude was a little over 2 mpg and almost 4 on the Zuki. Personally I will never own another 2 stroke. The draft on the boat is the same with both motors too.


----------



## centex99 (Sep 11, 2010)

The small block etec 200 is same weight as the 150 and 175... do my vote is for the 200... it would be faster for sure than the suzuki 175...


----------



## Salt&Sol (Aug 23, 2010)

cobrayakker said:


> When I bought my SVT I put my 175 Evinrude on it. It was a Ficht 2 stroke. The e-tech is basically the same motor just improved somewhat. The HP and gear ratio of the Ficht and E-tech 175 is the same. I ran the motor for a year on the SVT and it gave up. I put a 2010 175 Suzuki on it and there is no question that the Zuki is better. Top end is better by 3MPH, hole shot is better and has more low end torque. Fuel mileage on the Rude was a little over 2 mpg and almost 4 on the Zuki. Personally I will never own another 2 stroke. The draft on the boat is the same with both motors too.


I would have to disagree big time on the fact that the old Ficht and the Etech are basically the same, they are worlds apart!!! HP and Gear Ratio are not what makes an engine blow up. Its the engine that make it blow up and the Ficht and Etech engines are NOT even close.... now thats off my chest.... If you get back to his original question, what has better top end, that is hard to answer, what prop, load etc. (My bet would always be on the 2 stroke) However you can NOT tell me that a 4 stroke at any range on the throttle is going to have more torque than a 2 stroke... EVER EVER EVER, who ever told you that is not telling the truth. 2 stroke, power stroke on every stroke, 4 stroke ever other. 4 strokes are GREAT engines, but if you are looking for Instant power/torque from 1000 rpms to 6000 rpms the 2 stroke delivers unlike a 4 stroke. If you are loaded down and in shallow water, the 2 stroke is going to push you out faster than a 4 stroke, period. (I like 4 strokes, I just would not get one for our shallow boat, because I always take a bunch of people fishing with a very full load and I need that power to take off fast and not drag)


----------



## Sponge (Jun 22, 2004)

*Suzuki*

If you go with the zuke go with the 200HP. It has a lot more nuts than the 175HP because its a big block. It will make a difference! I've had a 200HP Yamaha HPDI 2 stroke and now have a 175 Suzuki. Love the fuel economy, quietness, and not having to buy/put oil in the Zuke. But yes as some mentioned it does not have the hole shot as the Yamaha 2 stroke does but it gets the job done. You just have to way your options but like I said if you go with the Zuke I would def get the 200HP. It's not much heavier.


----------



## cobrayakker (Mar 23, 2006)

Salt&Sol said:


> I would have to disagree big time on the fact that the old Ficht and the Etech are basically the same, they are worlds apart!!! HP and Gear Ratio are not what makes an engine blow up. Its the engine that make it blow up and the Ficht and Etech engines are NOT even close.... now thats off my chest.... If you get back to his original question, what has better top end, that is hard to answer, what prop, load etc. (My bet would always be on the 2 stroke) However you can NOT tell me that a 4 stroke at any range on the throttle is going to have more torque than a 2 stroke... EVER EVER EVER, who ever told you that is not telling the truth. 2 stroke, power stroke on every stroke, 4 stroke ever other. 4 strokes are GREAT engines, but if you are looking for Instant power/torque from 1000 rpms to 6000 rpms the 2 stroke delivers unlike a 4 stroke. If you are loaded down and in shallow water, the 2 stroke is going to push you out faster than a 4 stroke, period. (I like 4 strokes, I just would not get one for our shallow boat, because I always take a bunch of people fishing with a very full load and I need that power to take off fas
> 
> and not drag)


Man I guess your right dude! What the he'll do I know I only ran both motors on my boat. I guess you know what performs better on my boat than I do. I got my first boat at 15 and have run an rude on every one until I got zuki. I have also been turning wrenches on every thing from boat motors to heavy duty diesels since age 10. The Ficht and e-tech are basically the same. A high pressure DI 2 stroke. The e-tech just has better electronic controls to hopefully keep it from blowing up. A 175 Ficht and e-tech if not blown up will both perform about the same because they are the same HP and gear ratio, and that is what makes the boat go.
I really could care less what you think, but I know for a fact that on MY boat the Suzuki kicks the rudes ***** in every aspect.
What gives the Suzuki the torque is the fact it is a big block inline and has a 2.50 gear ratio. This allows me to pull a 24p 15.5" 4 blade prop, and that moves allot of water.


----------



## GSMAN (May 22, 2004)

I have never understood why folks talk about lack of torque with a 4 stroke. I have a 175 Suzuki on a 22' CC and after finding the right prop, it will flat out throw you out of the boat when you gun it! I don't need any more torque. This is just my personal experience. As far as picking between the 2 stroke vs. 4 stroke, again this is my personal experience with both technologies, 4 stroke would be my choice. My reason has to do with the criticality of the oiling system in a 2 stroke. By that I mean that the lubrication is based on oil and gas being mixed at the right rate. If this process is interrupted or something goes wrong you are screwed. I have burned up several motors due to oiling failures. The Yamaha had an oil injector clog up on me and that motor was toast. A Mercury had the oil "worm" that turns the oil pump break, nylon worm, and that's all she wrote. Had a Johnson VRO go out after being replaced multiple times and finally gave out and burn up the motor. So you see, I want to mitigate as much risk as possible. And with me its been lack of oiling that has lead to the demise of numerous 2 strokes. The 4 stroke eliminates this issue. Not saying 4 strokes don't blow up but I seem to sleep better at night knowing that my 4 stroke always has oil in it. By the way, I own a 25 yamaha 2 stroke that so far has been the best outboard I have ever owned. I mix the oil on that motor.


----------



## southbay (Aug 30, 2010)

We've run both brands on identical South Bay 200's and while both did well, the Suzuki 150 seriously out-performed the E-tec 175 (note the difference in HP). My opinion only, the Suzuki is a better built motor. The Suzuki 150 had a Coastal 4-blade 15 1/5 X 24" pitch. The 175 E-tec could only pull an 18" pitch. That pretty much tells the story right there.


----------



## LouieB (Jun 7, 2005)

southbay said:


> We've run both brands on identical South Bay 200's and while both did well, the Suzuki 150 seriously out-performed the E-tec 175 (note the difference in HP). My opinion only, the Suzuki is a better built motor. The Suzuki 150 had a Coastal 4-blade 15 1/5 X 24" pitch. The 175 E-tec could only pull an 18" pitch. That pretty much tells the story right there.


Not horsepower. GEAR RATIO.


----------



## Salt&Sol (Aug 23, 2010)

cobrayakker said:


> Man I guess your right dude! What the he'll do I know I only ran both motors on my boat. I guess you know what performs better on my boat than I do. I got my first boat at 15 and have run an rude on every one until I got zuki. I have also been turning wrenches on every thing from boat motors to heavy duty diesels since age 10. The Ficht and e-tech are basically the same. A high pressure DI 2 stroke. The e-tech just has better electronic controls to hopefully keep it from blowing up. A 175 Ficht and e-tech if not blown up will both perform about the same because they are the same HP and gear ratio, and that is what makes the boat go.
> I really could care less what you think, but I know for a fact that on MY boat the Suzuki kicks the rudes ***** in every aspect.
> What gives the Suzuki the torque is the fact it is a big block inline and has a 2.50 gear ratio. This allows me to pull a 24p 15.5" 4 blade prop, and that moves allot of water.


Man I must have hit a nerve.. WOW, I have owned every engine under the sun as well. 5 different brands to be exact. Been on a boat since I was ? and owned my first at 15 also, so we have alot in common. Not sure where I said Sukes suck or did not perform.(I did say in a previous post I had a very bad zuke, but that was just bad luck) Now regarding this statement "I would have to disagree big time on the fact that the old Ficht and the Etech are basically the same, they are worlds apart!!! HP and Gear Ratio are not what makes an engine blow up. Its the engine that make it blow up and the Ficht and Etech engines are NOT even close" You are correct, they have totally new electronics and Computer brains, which in my book make this a totally different engine!!! I just feel in my opinion (since I have been on many boats with 2 strokes and 4's) that in very shallow water with a full load, the 2 strokes pop up faster (at least for the ones I have been on compared to the 4 strokes) Now, with your set up, you may have it dialed in perfect and you should since you have onwed a boat for over 26 years. Smile this is only a thread...


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

I own a Suzuki 175 and I am delighted with it. The Power Tech LFS 3 or LFS 4 series of props seem great for these Suzukis. The Suzuki red lines at 6000, and has a 2.5 to 1 gear ratio. The LFS props I mentioned have 16" diameter, and really bring out the best in these engines. If you pick the correct pitch for your boat you will get a great combo of hole shot and top end, with 95% to 96% efficiency on slippage.


----------



## bb1234 (Dec 24, 2007)

Had a uki 140hp. Great, great, great, never thought of needing more hp, but If i were strictly in the skinny stuff all the time, I would def. opt for the 2stroke.


----------



## 27contender (Dec 22, 2008)

southbay said:


> We've run both brands on identical South Bay 200's and while both did well, the Suzuki 150 seriously out-performed the E-tec 175 (note the difference in HP). My opinion only, the Suzuki is a better built motor. The Suzuki 150 had a Coastal 4-blade 15 1/5 X 24" pitch. The 175 E-tec could only pull an 18" pitch. That pretty much tells the story right there.


Gear ratios are too different to compare the two props. The Suke has a 2.5:1 and the Etec I am pretty sure is a 1.87:1. The key in my case for getting the most out of the Suke is 16" DIAMETER and what that does for TIP SPEEED. Turning a bigger diameter smaller pitch prop slower which is what a 4 stroke would do is more efficient than a smaller diameter higher pitched prop which is what a 2 stroke would do (the way "people" prop them). You may find that the Suke with a 24" prop at 2.5 turns the same amount of water that the Etec did with an 18" prop. Im too lazy to do the math.

R


----------



## BBKing (May 22, 2010)

With the lower gear ratio, the Suzuki can run props with larger diameter and more pitch. Thus, the Suzuki gets a better bite and as a result gets on plan quicker (i. e., better shallow water performance). I'm surprised that other outboard motor companys haven't figured this out yet.


----------



## Rhettfish (Nov 5, 2007)

There shouldn't even be a discussion on this comparison.......Suzuki is hands down twice the engine a e-junk is.....end of discussion...........


----------

