1995 Sailfish 272 Repower. Suzuki 200 or 225??

G

garrett fish

Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2024
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Age
38
Model
Sailfish
Hey guys,
I'm having a hard time deciding what to do here. Hoping for some advice and real world numbers from maybe some folks who have already repowered with these two options. I currently have a '95 272 with twin 2006 etec 250s. The previous owner reinforced the transom when they did the repower to the etecs. Transom is strong. The etecs are tanking a dump on me and don't want to put any more money into them, so need to repower. Debating between the new Suzuki 200s or the 225s. I am leary about dropping to the 200s and being underpowered. I know the new zukes have different gear ratios to swing bigger props but still don't know if they are going to cut it. I typically run my boat offshore in San Diego pretty loaded down. The pros are that the 200s are same weight as the etecs and come in fly by wire digital controls and cheaper. For whatever reason Suzuki doesn't offer the 225s in fly by wire, just mechanical controls. Had they done this my decision would be much easier. I feel like the v6 225s would probably be a better option for the boat as max hp is rated at 450 and I'm already stepping down in hp from the etec 250s. My question is if anyone is running the 200s and what their performance numbers are and if there is any sentiment on what option to go with. My dealer is hooking me up with a good discount on the zukes and there's good rebates right now. Mercury 225s are out of the question as they are going to be 13k more expensive than the zukes. Are the fly by wire versions really worth it and am I going to be kicking myself if I go with the 225 mechanical? Not sure why Suzuki doesn't offer the digital version. If i went to 250 digital its another 6k and exceeding hp limit. I didn't have any problem getting insurance with the etec 250s, but who knows when it comes down to filing a claim or dealing with a lawsuit. Any thoughts!!!???
 
If you don't mind mechanical twins, then stay with mechanical. I've had both and didn't like mechanical from the getgo. Docking and syncing engines with electronic controls is night and day better.
Suzuki doesn't have 225 digitals because it is an old platform not designed for digital. The 4.0 ap 250s and 300s are digital only.
We have 200 aps on a 270. They are outstanding on this hull, but yours is wider and heavier. If you would be content with WOT of around 40 mph, the 200s might cut it if propped correctly.
Ideally you would want larger displacement engines than the Zukes 2.9s, but other than the Mercs, all are likely too heavy IMO.
If you can't find anyone running 200aps on a 272, I'd look at the guys on here that repowered 265s with them. Your results should be similar.
 
I've never had digital and only experienced mechanical so don't really know any better in that regard but the digital does sound nice. The 225s would add a total of 178 lbs on the transom from what I currently have. And the zukes position the power head more forward to center the weight over the transom better, so not sure it will really affect the way the boat sits at all. Gonna put a buddy on the transom and see where the water line ends up. Right now the suppers are just above water line at rest.
 
Remember, it's not just one buddy on the transom, it's a buddy on the transom and at least one more at the back of boat. That tells you what should more realistically expect.
Counter weight in the bow can help, but at some point a lot of bandaids can't fix everything.
 
Four stroke Mercs are $6,500 more? That's a huge difference. Is that dollar amount worth it in terms of performance? Or... what is the Zuke lacking? I'm just amazed at the difference in price.
 
Suzuki is running a bunch of rebates right now for boat shows etc and getting a trade in rebate for getting rid of the old two strokes plus my dealer getting me a discount. And they are offering a 7 year warranty . Basically the twin zuke 250 digital is 6500 more than the twin 225 mechanical and the 225 mercs are 13.5k more than the 225 mechanical zuke. The mercs are out of the question financially for me so debating on what Suzukis to get. I don't think the Suzukis are less than. The are heavier but reliable good engines. I just think the price is right considering all the rebates etc I listed above.
 
I'm sure that Skunk Boat will be along here shortly, but he repowered with Suzuki 200's on his 265 Express and seems to highly recommend them to anyone doing a repower with the same or similar boat. Of which the 265 Express has essentially the same width of beam that your boat does and a very similar dry weight. I'd talk with him as he actually has some real world experience with the topic at hand and a fairly similar setup. If I were in the same boat, pun intended, I'd go with the Suzuki DF200AP's, save almost 200 lbs total in weight, likely saving some money at the same time and get the digital/fly by wire controls as well over the mechanical. Good luck!
 
Mustang65fbk said:
I'm sure that Skunk Boat will be along here shortly, but he repowered with Suzuki 200's on his 265 Express and seems to highly recommend them to anyone doing a repower with the same or similar boat. Of which the 265 Express has essentially the same width of beam that your boat does and a very similar dry weight. I'd talk with him as he actually has some real world experience with the topic at hand and a fairly similar setup. If I were in the same boat, pun intended, I'd go with the Suzuki DF200AP's, save almost 200 lbs total in weight, likely saving some money at the same time and get the digital/fly by wire controls as well over the mechanical. Good luck!
Click to expand...
Thanks for the input here. Hopefully Skunk Boat chimes in. Interested to hear his numbers. The 272 is a bit bigger but comparable as you said. Wondering what Skunk boats loaded weight is. I typically run mine pretty loaded and its all offshore fishing in SD. Just paranoid about being undergunned especially in rough conditions when I need that extra torque to stay on plane.
 
garrett fish said:
Just paranoid about being undergunned especially in rough conditions when I need that extra torque to stay on plane.
Click to expand...
If propped correctly with the right pitch and prop type, it won't matter.
Doing a Google search revealed there are a couple people that have put df200s on 272s. I didn't look much beyond that.
If top end doesn't matter, my only other concern with the df200s is fuel burn. It likely won't be any worse than the etecs. If you have engines operated outside of their most efficient rpm range, you will burn more fuel than a larger displacement engine running in the optimum range. That said, the df200s seem to have a pretty broad range, but you don't want to cruise regularly north of 5k rpm.
 
family affair said:
If propped correctly with the right pitch and prop type, it won't matter.
Doing a Google search revealed there are a couple people that have put df200s on 272s. I didn't look much beyond that.
If top end doesn't matter, my only other concern with the df200s is fuel burn. It likely won't be any worse than the etecs. If you have engines operated outside of their most efficient rpm range, you will burn more fuel than a larger displacement engine running in the optimum range. That said, the df200s seem to have a pretty broad range, but you don't want to cruise regularly north of 5k rpm.
Click to expand...
Right, that was my only other concern. If Im pushing the 200s hard and consitently operating at higher rpm, my fuel burn probably won't be that great and it will increase wear on the engines. Right now I get about 1.3 average cruising with my etecs. If I'm going to spend 50k on a repower I would hope to get a bit better fuel economy out of the deal.
 
Wait to see what skunk has to say or look up his posts. I'm confident you can beat 1.3.
I can get 2.3 all day with any load in any conditions. Light is 2.5 and that's around 7800 lbs.
You won't wear out a df200.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.