Best outboard motor if you were to repower

[argonaut]

FYI I understand the ETEC line now includes sizes down to 25HP.
...of course, now that I´ve already repowered with a 4 stroke Yammy!!!
arrrgggghhhhhh!!!!

[bscott]

How come no E-tec 60 @ 240#

bscott

[DaveB]

Bscott, I have a 50 hp Honda with twin 27's batteries up against the forward Vberth as house and the starter battery at original location, also have many other items on board for long range cruiseing and when I go out for a week I am loading over 1200 lbs with all aditional weight I put on boat plus provisions.
This I found was bow heavy in a 3 ft. chop and with a 100-125 lb motor would add to comfort and less spray.
I also could get the boat up to planeing speed @16 knots in calm waters useing 3/4 rpms on a 90 hp.
This for me is ok as I would only use the power when needed in calm condition (or when a sailboat passes me and I cheat).
I have cked out the transum of my X and only need minor support for the extra thrust. (I am a Cert.structual inspector but not Lic. enginner).
The important thing in installing a HP engine above manifactures specs. is to use it in a seawise usage and lots of common sence. It's not the weight of the engine it is the stablity of the whole fiberglass structure.
Just mounting aluimum backing plates at stern only reinforces the stern section and not even the round stern sections on the sides leading forward Starboard and Port aft sections.
It is old news a few have put on 140 hp outboards on their X's and a lot of reviews on how the added diffrent support to Transum but I bet they never try to use the power in even a light chop (2-3 ft.chop).
The way I look at it....would be nice to do 16 knots at times in 1-3 ft. chops or calm conditions useing 3/4 rpms. But I cruise a lot at 6 knots and will get a lot more MPG at 6 knots than with a 90 hp.
So I am back to square One!
Dave

How come no E-tec 60 @ 240#

bscott

[Hardcrab]

DaveB,
To me, you have raised the $64,000 question.
What will use more gas ----- a ten hp wide open to do 6 knots or a 90hp at 1300rpm to do 6 knots????
(Numbers for arguments sake only, YNMV)
Same boat --- same sea conditions --- same loading.

Logic and physics says it takes "x" amount of energy to move the mass that speed. Period.
The fuel is providing the energy.
Are small engines and small props at high rpm's more efficent than larger engines and large props at lower rpms?
What about service life?
Will one wear out faster than the other?

Personally, I think the props rpm and size will be a bigger factor than most folks realise.
Large props at low speeds should have less slippage and cavitation, I'd think, and therefore be more efficent
in coupling the energy to the water.

Whats the real answer????

[vkmaynard]

We are going to use a Suzuki 2009 DF 90. Weight 348 lbs.

It now shares the same block with the 70/80, not the 115/140.

Victor

[Bobby T.-26X #4767]

We are going to use a Suzuki 2009 DF 90. Weight 348 lbs.

It now shares the same block with the 70/80, not the 115/140.

Victor

that's actually a good choice now that Suzuki has upgraded the old 60/70 powerhead to achieve 90hp and still remain under 350#.
it now competes with the Honda VTEC 90 which is listed at 365#(?) and the Mercury 4-stroke 75/90/115 @ 399# plus.

Bob T.
"DāBob"
'02X w/ '04 90-TLDI (14" x 11 pitch)
Dinghy Motor: '06 2.5-Suzuki

[Kelly Hanson East]

Useless question without additional information of

- How will boat be used

- How long will you own boat

My answer would range from a 9.9 to a 140 HP screamer depending on this info.

[bscott]

I average 50/50 sail to motor and prefer the sailing mode so a light weight engine on the transom and access to the boarding ladder is a priority. I have found that getting the crew weight forward increases sailing boat speed on all the sailboats I have owened, including the . I can barely get Huff n' Puff up on plane at 8,000' altitude with a 9 x 14 prop at 5,000 rpm ballasted so my E-tec 60 acts more like a 40HP at sea level. A 90hp is more like a 62hp with too much weight (and cost). I also like the 25 non-dedicated amp alternator that has never left me flat. As a side note, the E-tec starts on less than one turn of the starter so I know that the start box I carry on board will start the engine even with flat dead batteries.

The RPM sweet spot with my load is about 3,100 RPM and gives me 10 knts. 1.500 r's = 6knts at no noise. I went all season without filling the oil tank, no smoke any time and enough power out of the hole to dust off a BF60. I'm going to check out other props--maybe a 9 x 13.5 will get me 5,500 r's and maybe 2 mph more top end. Not sure it's worth it as specs call out 5,500/6,000 rpm.

My biggest concern about high speed running in 3-4' lake chop is the rigging mast pump so I harden up my dual back stays so there is no slack in the forestay and a totally unacceptable crashing ride complete with major bow spray. When the wind is blowing hard enough for these conditions, we prefer to sail.

When I read that the experienced guys on this 4M are repowering to 90 plus I sometimes have HP envy then I get real again and think about how I can get the most out of "free wind" that the stink pots despise

bscott

[DaveB]

Hardcrab, There are many things one has to take into consideration. I will give you a example: The Mac.X is basicly flat bottom, The M has a slightly more Vhull. Both of these boats move thru the water (Like a Caralina skiff) with much less HP than a VHull power boat that has a hull between 10-23 degrees or more deadrise. The Mac is much more efficiant than these boats.(show me a 26ft. powerboat with full cabin and a 50 hp outboard that can do 14 knots or more)
I have seen many charts for diffrent outboard motors but none for a Mac (only those who have repowered and gave gps reading ) for fuel consumption, the 24 ft. Pontoon's are the closest I can find to compare to the Mac.
I agree that the larger the prop. the less cavataion you will have. On my Honda 50 I have tried out 5 props. 3 and 4 blade but the largest diamiter I can get for a Honda is 11.8 inches and have a 4 blade 10 pitch on it now. It does best for me even tho max. rpm's is 4800 and it should be 5500. I just like cruiseing at 6 knots at 2200 rpms and at top speed will still get me around 14.5 knots for my heavy boat.
I have cked out every outboard up to 115hp and saw many vidios on performance testing against other outboards.
I am still thinking of the Bigfoot 60 hp as it will turn a 14 inch prop. and geared for it.
I think it will get me the 1.5 knots more than the Honda for planeing.
I have bad vibes on my many yrs on 2 strokes and concerned about 5-10yrs down the line with the smoke. Yes they have great torc. and easy maintance but if I am doing 6 knots down the intercoastal with a 10 knots wind behind me, I don't want to smell the oil.
I will say this, when I anchor off Popcorn cove next to the Intercoastal waterway and 100 boats of all sizes go by me in 5 min. at 5-6 knots I look at outboards burning oil. The new Etex's I don't smell anything and when they go by me cruiseing , They are very quite.
Getting back to your ? about does a 90 hp burn more fuel than a 50 hp. Yes it does, because it weighs more and has more torc. hp. . Look at fuel consumption charts. If you were to full throttle a 50 hp. Honda at say 14.5 knots, the 90 HP will get slightly better MPG at 2/3 throttle for same speed. It's if you want 15 knots or more most of the time do the 90HP. If you cruise like me at 6 knots and want to get ahead of a thunderstorm or empty Ballest, a 50-60 hp is fine.
The 50-60hp is also more fuel efficiant than larger hp at 6 knots.
Dave
PS: I go cruiseing to relax, not to have white knuckles.

DaveB,
To me, you have raised the $64,000 question.
What will use more gas ----- a ten hp wide open to do 6 knots or a 90hp at 1300rpm to do 6 knots????
(Numbers for arguments sake only, YNMV)
Same boat --- same sea conditions --- same loading.

Logic and physics says it takes "x" amount of energy to move the mass that speed. Period.
The fuel is providing the energy.
Are small engines and small props at high rpm's more efficent than larger engines and large props at lower rpms?
What about service life?
Will one wear out faster than the other?

Personally, I think the props rpm and size will be a bigger factor than most folks realise.
Large props at low speeds should have less slippage and cavitation, I'd think, and therefore be more efficent
in coupling the energy to the water.

Whats the real answer????

[blue angel]

The Mercury Marine website has a test of the 60 bigfoot vs. the Yamaha high thrust, vs. etec and suzuki, and it shows the merc and yamaha get much better mpg. says the merc is faster than the yamaha, but then it is merc site. one can also look through the site at tests of other size mercs to get a rough idea of fuel usage comparisons.

Also shows big foot/high thrust versions doing better for pontoon boats than the merc or yamaha regular prop versions. pontoon boats are kind of big and not too fast with 60 hp, more like a mac than a speedboat, so it kind of confirms that the big prop versions are probably better for macs

[bscott]

The E-tec 60 swings a 14" prop, no smoke, faster than the BF60 but I can't quote fuel mileage since we never have the same conditions using 6 gallons but I can sail and motor 50/50 distance traveled and only burn 4-5 gallons/weekend.

bscott

[Kelly Hanson East]

At the 6 knot metric the 9.9 will give the best mileage, the 50/60 next best, the bigger engines the worst. The difference (for a given engine family of either 2 stroke or 4 stroke) wont be too big however.

A 9.9 wont be at top rpm to make 6 knots btw.

[DaveB]

Bscott, running on two cylinders on the e-tec and high torc. is one of the reason I like that motor. I am looking for the life span on this motor and if it gradually smokes thru it's time.
It's been about 5 yrs when E-Tec version came out. I am still on the back burner and for size, weight,thrust, quite.
It is on my high list for repower.
The BF 60 and the E-tec 60 , I have looked at a lot, and what I see they are very close to what a prudent buyer needs.
Cost Verses/performance. I think most buyers in todays market is looking for cost effective buying.
Dave

The E-tec 60 swings a 14" prop, no smoke, faster than the BF60 but I can't quote fuel mileage since we never have the same conditions using 6 gallons but I can sail and motor 50/50 distance traveled and only burn 4-5 gallons/weekend.

bscott

[bscott]

DaveB, BRP(Bombardier Racing Products) has been using this same design in their SkiDoo 600cc two stroke two cylinder snowmobile engines now for 2 years. They pump out 110 hp at 8,200 rpm in a severe environment with no problems. They will introduce an 800 2 cylinder that will put out 160 hp next year. These engines are getting twice the fuel economy, no smoke. excellent oil consumption and quitier operation.

I am a believer, especially after a side by side race with a BF against an at 8,000'. It's hard to justify the extra weight and twice the moving parts of a 4 stroke. I have had two stroke engines on my boats since 1951 and have never had an engine failure other than a couple of water pumps.

Where is your closest dealer and how good are they? If everything is equal in your mind then dealer service should provide the tipping point.

bscott