ETEC 90: Poor Motoring Performance

beene · Post by **beene** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:11 am

Sounds like a slow leak.

Highlander · Post by **Highlander** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:16 pm

I was out in a storm one time in 15-25 ft breaking swells in my 22ft cuddy cabin 140hp i/o when climbing some of the breaking 25footers I found myself having to throttle WOT to get up near vertical breakers & throttle right back just before cresting sometimes the swells were so close we would bury right into the next one half way down the previous breaker & need WOT to push through them it felt like breaking the great divine with 10-12ft water going over our heads bilge pumps going like crazing buddy bailing like crazy with a bucket this was about 16-17yrs ago out in the middle of lake Ontario that was an experiece I'll never forget but I beleive we would not have made it with a smaller eng. the 140hp mercruiser was just barely getting us up the near vertical 25ft breakers. So having the extra hp is definately a safety factor with out it you could be sliding back down the breakers & thats not going to be a heathy situation

& don't always rely on the weather reports that storm was suppose to hit the other side of the lake

.
Anyway my

has a df40 & moves along really nicely as the

is half the weight of the

but I'm going to install a recently purchased TH Marine pro-high-jacker 10" set back with trim plate this will give me more top end speed, higher planing cruising speed with reduced throttle & better fuel economy rather than going to a bigger eng. has anyone else done this on an x or m

John

Duane Dunn, Allegro · Post by **Duane Dunn, Allegro** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:59 pm

In last Modays conditions I do not think a bigger motor would have contributed anything extra (but I still want one for other reasons). I had more than enough power in reserve to go faster than prudent in the conditions. Neither lack of power or control was an issue. You just couldn't go any faster without launching the boat off the crests and slamming down on the backsides. The size of the waves really wasn't an issue at all. It was their extreme steepness and close spacing that limited what was possible.

When we settled down to our 5 knots we were turning under 2500 rpm. This gave the boat just enough drive with the full ballast to punch into and climb the waves without launching off the backside. Once I found the speed I didn't have a need to touch the throttle all the way across. The trick is to find the sweet spot where you don't loose momentum when impacting a wave yet on the other side the boat drops quickly enough to keep it's bottom in the water.

These steep smaller waves are tougher in a way than the much bigger yet wider spaced waves up in the Strait or the ocean. In those you have the issue of climbing a true hill much like you describe on Lake Ontario. That's not an issue in the conditions I was in. The goal is a speed than rolls smoothly through them rather than skipping along the tops of them.

With the front hatch closed and our full canvas enclosure protecting the entire cockpit there was no bailing required. We had our raingear handy but didn't even put the coats on. All we needed was a sweat shirt. I don't have bilge pumps (other than my manual emergeny one) but they would have had nothing to do. The only water in the bilge after the trip came from the cooler where my wife forgot to screw the cap on the drain.

My Maxxon holds air great. I would look for a small slow leak.

Rolf · Post by **Rolf** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 3:35 pm

sorry this is off topic but the leak couldn't affect all three main chambers, could it? Seems to soften slightly then maintains that air pressure, still works great, but slightly "soft". Maybe I overfilled it when it was new..

Rolf

Zoran · Post by **Zoran** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:04 pm

Duane,

I had similar experience, trying to get through the pass against the 6 knot current and with the wind. 5-6 foot standing waves. We were actually surfing with X, I also had one rudder down (and find later that was a mistake), but also had jib out to stabilize the boat. Another X was following me, one rudder down and reefed main. In the middle of the ruff stuff he had to bail and power back into the wind, his rudder bracket was broken. I made it through and found out that my rudder was cracked. We figured that we should have lower both rudders and they will share the forces and probably we could get out with no damage.

Zoran

Dimitri-2000X-Tampa · Post by **Dimitri-2000X-Tampa** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:52 pm

When I'm in conditions like that, I usually use the motor as a third rudder also. Powersailing (just enough motor power for control - but most drive comes from the sails) seems to be the most stable configuration and I think it would take some stress off of the rudders in those rough following sea scenarios.

Duane Dunn, Allegro · Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:26 pm

My theory is to only keep one rudder down so if I break it I have the other as a backup. Plus on my crossing the starboard one would have been lifted high above the water occasionaly and I think this would expose it more to damage. The port one was down nice and deep with more even pressure on it.

My '96 vintage aluminum rudder brackes are still holding up great.

Ou there in the wind and seas I wasn't about to go up top and mess with the main. I suspose I could have rolled out a bit of the genoa without leaving the protection of the cockpit. Maybe next time.

My whole goal was to have a stable, comfortable, easy on the boat ride during the 1 hour and 15 minutes it took us to make the 5 miles of open water crossing. This wasn't just a brief set of waves in a pass. Once I had the speed right things were pretty balanced and it just too minimal input at the wheel to keep on course. As rough crossing go I think it was a pretty relaxed and comfortable crossing for Sam and I.

Here is the log for the trip.

http://www.ddunn.org/LogBook90.htm

You can see the curving gps track for the crossing back where we went higher than the direct route from Pt Monroe to ShilShole.

Dimitri-2000X-Tampa · Post by **Dimitri-2000X-Tampa** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:48 am

The MASS of the boat seemed to me to be the biggest problem with the smaller motor when I motored in swell/chop.

Like Duane, I don't agree with the characterization of a 50hp as a "smaller motor". Sure, if you are comparing a 5hp to a 50hp then that would be a valid characterization....but not between a 50 and a 90. Sure, I would like a 90 also so that I can go faster than 17-19 mph on smooth waters, but we are talking double digit planing speeds here, not the ability to safely maneuver at slow speeds in heavy conditions. My 50 can completely overpower the sails in any conditions and even in the worst currents/waves I have ever experienced, I doubt I ever have used more than 30% of the 50's available power for any kind of maneuver. There are plenty of sailboats in this size category safely maneuvering their boats in heavy conditions with 10HP....50HP is definitely overpowered for hull speed type conditions.

sorcha · Post by **sorcha** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:27 pm

Finally got the correct test wheel from bombardier..Wit the test wheel installed instead of a prop the motor should rev to 5000. All mine would do was 3800.At last proof the engine is down and i mean down on power.Up to bombardier now to rectify it....<its only a few weeks old>it will be interesting to find whats wrong.

delevi · Post by **delevi** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:55 pm

I had a feeling something was worng. You should be getting much more juice from that 90. It's good that you know for certain now. Please keep us posted. Hopefully BBR will stand behind their product. Well, they have to. You're fully under warranty.

Leon

beene · Post by **beene** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:42 am

Starting to sound like the dealer should have had a closer look at why the OB had such poor performance. Why should it be up to the owner to figure it out? Where's the customer service?

sorcha · Post by **sorcha** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:19 am

Prior to testing with Bombarier's test wheel they had said that the motor should rev to 5000 if the motor is developing its full 90hp... All my motor would rev to was 3800 ... After telling Bombardier this .. they now are telling me that 3800 revs is normal ... Does this sound suspect or what?! .. What do I do now?? .. I must add that the local dealer (River City Marine .. in Brisbane) has been totally supportive and very helpful .. the problem seems to be with the Bombardier company itself.... Thoroughly reccommend River City Marine!!!!

Catigale · Post by **Catigale** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:35 am

That 3800 rpm WOT cant be right.. the Mfg specs will tell you where your motor should be..youve certainly found the problem here....

Catigale · Post by **Catigale** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:35 am

That 3800 rpm WOT cant be right.. the Mfg specs will tell you where your motor should be..youve certainly found the problem here....

DLT · Post by **DLT** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:21 am

Look in your manual, or look at their specs online. According to their website, WOT RPM is 4500-5500. It makes 90hp @ 5000 RPM. You ain't getting anywhere near 90 hp...

Normally, when the WOT RPMs are low, you need to reduce prop pitch. But, that's in the water. I assume the "test wheel" thing somehow accounts for all that...

MacGregorSailors.com

MacGregorSailors.com

ETEC 90: Poor Motoring Performance