Ideal engine size for cruising.

[aya16]

My first reply, My 2004 m will run around 14 mph at 3/4 throttle, with the ballest full. It has a suzuki 50 4 stroke. I wanted to put a merc big foot 60 but the dealer I bought the boat from sold the suzuki, any way My thoughts are the bigger the better to a point. The new Ms are rated for a 70 If installed by a dealer, Why I dont know, But With the 70 you would turn less rpm to get the speed I get with my 50, Less fuel, less wear and tear. and the option to go faster than I have even if you dont want to, the option is there. A smaller engine will work harder and if your not happy with the speed you cant just give it more throttle. My boat sits a little front heavy so the heavier engine might balance it a little more. Im happy with the 50 its very quit at idle but makes as much noise as a 2 stroke at higher rpm, with out the smoke. I dont see any reason to under power the boat anything less then a 50 And I do see reasons to go a bit bigger then 50. The skier thing is kinda of a joke anyway unless you get some monster 140hp. then your not much of a sail boat after that. I dont think youll be unhappy with a 4 stroke 50 or 70 I do think you will be wanting with a 25, or 40. My two cents your 6 thousand dollars.
Good luck Mike

[aya16]

I burned about 10 gallons of fuel when the engine was just broken in to go 35 miles to catalina, since then the engine seems to get better millage. But I sail mostly and the fuel isnt much of an issue. ( have been using the same 24 gallons for the last 2 months), Just switched to the second tank last week. Ive used the engine off and on but because the fuel isnt used up fast I will wait till I have about 3 or 4 gallons left then refuel with fresh gas. The answer to your question I guess is that fuel is the last thing Im concerned about with 24 gallons, so I havent kept track very well.

[jmann]

Not sure where you're located, but Blue Water Yachts, in Seattle, is the only dealer "authorized" to install anything larger than a 50HP. I learned this from Bill at the factory.

[norbert]

although i sail mostly and rarely run longer distances under motor i'm glad to have a 50hp on my transom. i needed it some times: going up the river seine in france in spring when meltig snow built up to a 8 knot current; in brittany when we made a mistake in tide calculation and had to go upstream for some 100 yards; 2 or 3 times when i saw a tunderstorm arriving on the baltic sea and could reach the marina before it started...

i have a yamaha 4stroke 50hp since '98 and it was always reliable.

[Matt 777]

I was in the same "boat" as you - I was looking at used vs. new - and for my own reasons - decided to go with a new 05' M - I debated the question about whether or not I needed a larger motor - or just something to get me out into the wind. Steering a 26' boat under power with a tiller under the seat just didn't seem very comfortable - so I knew I would be spending $ to have the controls installed on the pedestal. I began pricing motors and found that the price differences between 25hp vs. 50hp was not enough to justify going with the smaller one, installing the controls, and then be second guessing myself about the bigger motor. I bought a Mac because I wanted the versatility of being able to sail all day long to the other end of the lake and then motoring home if necessary just before dark. If I had no intention of ever motoring quickly somewhere - or taking advantage of this option the Mac presents, I'm not sure I would have bought a Mac.

Personally, I went with the E-Tec 50hp - but from reading all of the posts on this board, it sounds like there are a lot of good engine options My vote is for a 50hp.

[richandlori]

Last August I became a owner of a 2004 26M with Honda 50HP. Honestly, I could have been just as happy with a 2002X and saved about $5-$8K, but such is life, I got a new (month old) boat with no prior mods. The one thing I will say about X vs M, I son't like the vynal seat covers as they get clammy when cold and I don't like the carpeted walls......I have a 6 and 7 year old...can you say mess? (oh and me too)

Engine size, when you look at the price factor (25 vs 50hp) it just isn't worth not going with the larger and option to go faster.

I was out in rough water and about 3/4 throttle, got me 15knts by GPS and I was very happy with the speed I was able to get back to the harbor!

You will love your Mac whatever the choice, so be happy and enjoy the process.

Rich

[Randy Smith]

96X- 50 hp Tohatsu......dang, what a great motor......no probs and so reliable.........

If I were you, and I am not , I would get the Suzuki or the Honda 50- 4 stroke. Cruise comfortably, quiet and fuel economy is good. A 70 would be good, but the fuel economy may not be as great.....remember with the X and the M, there is deminishing return at higher speed due to you having a "semi-planning" hull........It is a fine point and each motor, owner and boat have to find that place........I realized early on that I am never going anywhere too fast in the X, so for the cash and the inability to figure a proper way to carry extra fuel conveniently, I would still with the 50.....hey, save a few bucks and the 70 doesn't perform that much better to justify it..........what do I know? I am just a poor rag bagger on the Columbia.......... Randy

[Frank C]

Installing any new outboard less than 50 hp is foolish - pardon the blunt force. Further, WADR, examining fuel economy of a boat is akin to herding cats - but it's simpler to manage the cats!

Given that you're already discounting the value of used boats with undesireable motor choices ... consider your own market 5 years from now. The minor additional cost of a 50 hp will be more-than returned in resale value, not to mention the quietude and comfort during your ownership period. Period! Nobody driving a Hummer is studying the delta between 9 and 10 miles per gallon. Fuel economy (lack thereof) of pushing a hull through the water is truly analagous. Remember that winds and currents will impact your economy - overwhelmingly.

From purely anecdotal evidence, I doubt you'd find too much consumption difference between a Suzuki 50 and a Suzuki 140 - that's really true. If you plan to motor at 10 knots (which is probably the worst possible speed choice for economy) I'd bet those two motors would each consume nearly identical fuel over the same 100 miles. The X-boat easily carries 24 gallons of fuel. However, if you're planning to cruise at 10 knots, you'll not carry a consistently reliable 150 miles of fuel storage regardless of the motor choice ... unless you plan to sail half the distance.

Finally, among the 50-and-larger outboard choices, those motors with a 14" propeller have a decidedly useful advantage over those with only a 12" prop. The Honda/Suzuki 50s will need more RPMs to accomplish any task, cruising, docking, reversing, etc. To find the larger prop, you're limited to Mercury/Yamaha 50 or 60 with the Bigfoot drivelines, or jumping to Suzuki's larger 60/70 hp blocks. I chose the latter - never been sorry.

So there 'ya go - one more opinion, FWIW. Good luck on your search - it was a fun exercise & experience for me.

[Duane Dunn, Allegro]

I would suggest any of the 4 stroke 50hp motors, choose your favorite flavor.

We cruise extensively, our big trip last summer was 500+ miles, 95% of which was under power. We averaged just over 7 knots for the entire trip. A cruising boat is a heavy boat. With all the stuff needed on board for more than 3 weeks out for 5 people the boat is a load. Our 50hp Tohatsu topped out at 14 knots loaded this way.

I don't think you'll be happy with anything less than a 50hp. A 50hp motor is not in any way too much power. 3/4 throttle will get you 10-12 knots with a typical cruising boat load. Blank out the silly water skiing marketing hype (although I have done it behind my boat). The 50 hp does not give you a blazing ski boat. It gives you a reasonable powered cruising sailboat that is still slow by any powerboat standards. It's what the boat is designed for. You'll find even with a 50hp you will still be stretched to keep up with even the displacement trawlers and any sport cruising boat will leave you in it's wake.

Just for the record, my X with tanks full to the brim carries 26 gallons in the lockers. The X can carry just as much fuel as an M. Add the 3 gallon dingy tank under the helm seat and I have 29 gallons on board. If I am willing to motor at hull speed, just over 7 knots, I get 4 Nautical miles per gallon for a maximun range of 116 Nautical miles. (this is with my old, inefficient carborated 2 stroke Tohatsu 50). At this speed the 4 strokes will get closer to 6 Nautical Miles per gallon. In the real world, we rarely cruise that slow. A more normal pace is around 10-12 knots where I get 3.25 NMpg and have a range of 94 NMiles. I use 3 NMpg as my planning number. This has proved to be plenty of fuel for anywhere in Puget Sound and the Canadian inside passage. The longest we had had to push so far in 4 years of cruising is the 70 mile round trip up Jervis Inlet to Princess Louisa and back. Up here fuel is never far away. Drinking water can be harder to find.

[Zoran]

I purchased my X used with 30HP 2 stroke Nissan. I do not like it for being 2 stroke (smell and noise) and less important I do not like it for being 30HP. Often enough I would like to speed up more than 11kt, that is my top speed with 2 on board, no ballast. But even with this engine I still love my boat and I am using it as much as I can.
If I have choise now it wil be the most quiet 4 stroke 50HP. From what I've seen so far it looks like Honda.

Zoran

[Chip Hindes]

Most of the answers suggesting a larger four stroke are good, so I won't add to them.

However, something nobody has mentioned is that your chosen cruising speed of 10knots is not a happy speed for a Mac. Doesn't matter what engine/ prop combination you end up with, at that speed, loaded for cruising, you're just starting to come out of the hole. You'll be squatting at the stern, high in the bow, and the motor will be laboring fairly hard. You'll be paying a fairly stiff penalty in gas mileage, without the benefit of higher speed.

A better speed is 7-8 knots.

Just my opinion. And just so you know I have a 50HP carbureted 2-stroke, which I don't recommend.

[Duane Dunn, Allegro]

I'll add to Chip's comments.

The 9-10 knot speed not only lifts the bow high, but also is one of the most unstable speeds as far as directional control. It may be better in a M than an X as the M has a deeper hull shape, but I find the boat is much easier to drive at 11-12 knots. This can be seen most when I have the autopilot steering. It works hard at the 9-10 knot speed range and still suffers accuracy. Speed up to 11-12 and there seems to be more hull form stability, the pilot has to correct about 1/2 as often whether human or computer. The boat has a better head of steam which makes it less likely to be pushed off course by the wind and waves. I think a lot of it is also once you cross that 7-8 line and have to lift all the boards there is really too little surface area in the water with the motor alone down to offset the wind and waves. Once you get going faster the motor alone in the water is able to balance the boat better.

Perhaps with a 4 stroke there would be better fuel efficiency at the slower speed, but my two stroke uses just as much fuel at 9-10 as it does at 11-12. Given that we opt for the faster speed. The only drawback for us is the roar of the 2 stroke motor makes conversation pretty much impossible in the cockpit. Time to put on the headphones and listen to a book on the PDA.

Mind you all this best speed, stability, and mileage stuff is totally dependant on weather and sea state as well as tides and currents.