26x Review in Boatworks Magazine

[mighetto]

http://www.sailmag.com/boatworks/

The article in the Winter 2005/6 edition ($5 at Barns and Nobles) got me thinking seriously about my new 50 hp 4 stroke.

In October of 2005 I found myself unwilling to spend any additional money on a 6 year old motor and opened up my wallet for a replacement. BoatWorks magazine came out with its review of the Mac26x and strongly recommended 4 stroke engines for them. I had been following the new 2 stroke machines and it took an intervention by my dealer (BWY) and crew members to get me to mount the Susuki 50 four stroke on Murrelet.

Yacht Designers will teach students to size a sailboat motor by a heuristic (rule of thumb). It is this training that prevents boat buyers, owners and novice yacht designers from realy considering large engines on sailboats. And there is the myth that inboard power plants are preferable, this myth coming perhaps from the notion that an outboard is more susceptible to being swamped out of action by a heavy sea.

Today's outboards are at least as reliable if not more reliable than an inboard in heavy seas and the advantages involving internal space, maintenance and replacement of an outboard over an inboard are undeniable. There is also the advantage of not compromising the hull design to accommodate the shaft and propeller of an inboard.

Inboard motors typically can not be tilted more than 10 degrees, this owing to the oil pan. Hence the aft portion of the hull of a sailboat is usually lifted to accommodate the propeller shaft and propeller, this harming greatly planing and surfing potential.

There are two motor heuristics currently holding back the future of sailboat design. The first sizes the auxiliary by sail area and the second by boat weight. Both ignore planing potential, which became possible with modern materials such as fiberglass. FYI these rules are, 1 hp per square foot of sail and 3 to 5 hp per ton respectively. Both rules of thumb make the mater of auxiliary power in a sailing yacht more complicated that it really is.

There is very little difference in cost between a 70 hp or 90 hp motor and a 50 hp motor. There is also little difference in weight and when the boat is designed to be buoyant where the motor is to be placed, as the X is and as the author of the BoatWorks article points out - mthis buoyancy coming from the flat portion of the hull aft. So why not? The operator can always run at low RPM, this being good for the life of the motor and making the motor run quietly and there is comfort in knowing that should the reserve power be necessary, say during the perfect storm or when attached by pirates (no kidding have you seen the latest on that), that it is available. A larger auxiliary motor also means more sail can be carried because the motor can be used to override overloaded sails in an emergency.

Anyway - less than 10 hours on my 50 and the BWY folks did good with the resized prop. Their findings with the pearl's 70hp were a big part of the recommendation to go with the 4 stroke. Nonetheless, I do note that Roger chats about 100 hp motors for the X in his brochure and my experience with the 70 hp motors on a tuning partners X boat was very favorable. Its a thought provoking article. Sorry for running on but I am looking for comments. So many find my notions as revolutionary as Roger markets his X boat. BTW, my "fans" have taken up the bad habit of posting under my mighetto handle. So from now on if you do not see my full name on a post consider it bogus. Even then do send me email when things look incorrect.

Frank L. Mighetto
running for a Directors position at US Sailing

[James V]

I see that "wanting a bigger horse power motor" a lot on this forum.
If the boat can handle it pounding through the waves, go for it. However, more than one boat could not and the cost to repair may be more than the boat itself.
The stern weight issue is interesting. - "by trying to balance the additional weight in the stern by putting more weight in the bow", A point almost never mention is the boat has less wetting area in the bow. How much weight is needed in the bow to really make a differance? or the reverse, How much additional weight on the stern will make the bow raise 5 degrees? 10 degrees?

[Tom Spohn]

I am a believer in the Suzuki engines for the Macs. They are quiet, reliable, and perform very well. Having said that I think there is a place for inboard engines--primarily on larger boats. They sit very low in the boat thus contributing to a low cg. They are usually very efficient diesels and go far on a tank of fuel--bigger consideration today than it used to be. As far as the angle of the shaft/prop in the water, modern saildrives place the prop exactly perpendicular to the surface of the water. It also makes it easier to attach a dinghy to the stern of an inboard drive boat. My point is that any discussion of inboard vs. outboard must also consider the rest of the boat. On the Mac where inside space is at a premium the outboard is the way to go. On larger boats where space is less of a big deal the inboard is the way to go.

[adm]

mighetto,

There are two motor heuristics currently holding back the future of sailboat design. The first sizes the auxiliary by sail area and the second by boat weight. Both ignore planing potential, which became possible with modern materials such as fiberglass. FYI these rules are, [b[1 hp per square foot of sail[/b] and 3 to 5 hp per ton respectively. Both rules of thumb make the mater of auxiliary power in a sailing yacht more complicated that it really is.

Ther must be a typo in rule calling for 1 hp per 2 square foot. Is that mean ~300 hp motor for Mac26? Is it too much peharps?

[adm]

Me Mine,

Very well said.

To state the obvious the designer of Mac took into account 50 HP and 200 to 250 lbs hanging from the stern, factored in extra buoyancy and decent safety factor. Because of this owners may push this desin a little, but be resonable. If someone needs more then 70 - 90 HP it is time for different boat.

[Randy Smith]

Me Mine, Moe:

Well stated by you both. I have often wondered about putting too much weight on the stern. My Friend, Boatman Bob, talked to Bill @ Mac recently and he again stated that they strongly recommend the 50hp on the X and are margionally supportive of the 70hp on the M, though prefer 50hp.

Moe is correct in people doing what they want with their boats, a whole discussion on insurance coverage and liabilities could be started...again......

Some serious engineering needs to happen if a person goes over the designed weight.

Just my humble opinion, added to a few others.......

Randy

[Bobby T.-26X #4767]

find me a 2002-26' cabin cruiser that moves at 20mph with a built-in back-up motor (ie. sail) for under $50K.
if i wanted another boat that did more things, it'd cost me another $20K+ minimum.
BTW...i love my extra power.

[Gerald Gordon]

Replacing the standard standing wire rigging on the does not qualify as a substantial reduction in weight. Replacing that same rigging with carbon fiber line (or some other exotic material) is a waste of $$$$ and time.
Why replace a 50hp outboard, which by the way, makes the one of the fastest sailboat...under power... with some bigger engine? That's something which borders on vanity. That kind of cash could buy some nice sails or alot of nice dinners.

But sill, who amoung us can avoid the temptation to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

[Jeff Stagg]

IMHO, the best review of the MacX is in the March/April, 2002 issue of "Small Craft Advisor." Granted it was on my boat, but, unlike "Practical Sailor" who tested on a windless day, we sailed and motored both with and without ballast after a thorough on the ground inspection of the boat. It's, I forget, about thirteen pages including photos. I sold hundreds off my website and am out of stock, but you can order back issues OR SUBSCRIBE to this very worthy publication by visiting www.smallcraftadvisor.com . This plug is unsolicited, and I receive not even an e-mail from them, they're too busy. Also did a great review of the MacM this year, as well as a past review of the Venture 22 (not sure which model). There's an index of each issue online.

[adm]

I do not quite understand why people feel need for extra power beyond 70 HP on Mac. Is just few extra knots make that much difference. How long can 400+ lbs keep flexing stern before it starts developing cracks?

How about different approach for those who really can not bear Mac power limitations. It is possible to find 26 ft power cruiser with cabin capable of 200 + HP for 17k and add mast, sails and leeboard for 3k. Will it raise brows among boaters. Will it be crazy? I do not dare to answer.

[Bobby T.-26X #4767]

tell me what 70 you would use...

a suzuki 70 weighs 335# and barely (3 mph) moves the mac faster than a 50 that weighs 250#.
to me, the 70 suzuki is not an option with today's selection of outboards.

the honda 75 & 90 weight the same @ 380#. that's awful heavy for a mac that was originally intended to be used with a 200# two stroke 50.

meanwhile...the tohatsu 70 & 90 are the same powerheads and weigh the same (315#). so do the etec 75 & 90 @ 325#.

the increase in cost (from the 70 to the 90) is negligible, while the increased power allows you to cruise at 2/3 to 3/4 throttle, achieve excellent MPG, and still maintain 20 mph.

to me...it's common sense to go to the 90.

[Rolf]

Like Bobby T and a few others here, I've had the tohatsu tldi 90 for almost a couple of years now on my 2002x and its the best upgrade I ever did. The boat was seriously underpowered with the tldi 50 I had before, especially when ballasted.

The twenty mile open ocean crossing I do regularly to Catalina could be a nightmare when wrestling my 26 foot, narrow boat against heavy waves and swell. The extra torque, not speed, and the extra resulting control is the main reason to power up. The Mac with a 50 or less is like a Hummer with a 4 cylinder-- it'll move, but not efficiently.

Common sense is obviously in order when powering in chop or rough seas-- go fast enough but not so fast that you pound.

As for balance, I've found the extra 100 pounds directly off the transom makes the boat more stable, and actually helps the boat point better under sail while not affecting the balance. The ballast tanks moved forward from 2000 on may explain this, but even powering with no ballast it feels much more stable-- imho there's a lot of freeboard aft and the extra weight helps. Loaded down, no ballast with gear below balanced forward and midship the boat is a $25000(boat and motor) powering dream with a backup motor(sail). I always leave the mast up.

My slightly reinforced transom looks good as new, not a sign of stress or cracks back there. The Mac is more than adequately built to support this slightly heavier motor.

Ask any of the old timers here (Duane A, Chip H, etc.) if they wish they went bigger.
Rolf