There's a great deal of info on OB size and a broader overview would be very helpful. Would you please participate in this poll? I'm looking for the OB size mounted on the M. In your response, list the Manufacturer, Model, satisfaction, and prop size if you know.
I think this will help all of us newer buyers. As I've read over and over, once you buy, it's yours and you can't afford to just buy another.
This type of information is what makes these boards so valuable.
Many thanks,
Michael
Quick Overview OP Poll 50; 60; 70; 80; 90
I believe the Honda has been popular because, at 205 lbs, it is BY FAR the lightest four-stroke you can put on the Mac. On the downside (for pushing a heavy boat), it is also the smallest displacement (808cc 3-cylinder) and has the highest (2.08:1) gearing. Being carbureted, it requires draining the carbs before any significant period of non-use.
Next up is the 243 lb Suzuki DF50, which is fuel-injected. It is also a small displacement motor (815cc 3-cylinder) but has better 2.29:1 gearing. Despite that, it uses the same prop pitch as the Honda, because the Suzuki's rpm operating range some 500 rpm higher, with a 5900-6500 rpm WOT operating range.
These small motors share their powerhead with the 40HP motors. The next step up are the virtually same 996cc four-cylinder Mercury and Yamaha motors, which are not only available with the small, higher geared lower unit, and smaller diameter props, but also with the larger, lower geared (2.33:1) lower unit of the 75-115HP motors, which can take props as large as 14", a good thing when pushing a heavy load They're called Mercury BigFoot and Yamaha High-Thrust and are available in 50 or 60HP. The Mercury has had EFI for the last several years and is spec'd at 264 lbs, while the Yamaha only got EFI this year. Its spec on the website is 237 lbs, but I find that hard to believe.
In this category, I'm also going to toss in the 240 lb Evinrude E-TEC with its 2.67:1 gearing. Although it's hard to compare displacement between 2 and 4 stroke, its 863cc motor is sufficient for 60HP. While it's not on their website, I've heard the brochure included a 70HP version of this motor. If this is acheivable, at over 80HP/liter, I don't believe it will have the mid-range torque of a 360 lb, 1300cc 70HP Suzuki, for example, but with the lighter weight and equivalent horsepower, may even outpeform it at WOT. I've seen an E-TEC in operation, and even as a 4-stroke fan, was very impressed.
We have a 60HP Merc BigFoot on our Whaler and love it. We rented an older Whaler Montauk with new 50HP Honda, and it wasn't as easy to start, and didn't cruise at low rpm or idle as smoothly as the BigFoot, and the mileage, while good, wasn't quite as good as the EFI BigFoot. It did perform well, however, with the lighter motor allowing the boat to "ease" up on plane, rather than climb a steeper bow wave and "pop up" onto plane.
Our Mac came with the Suzuki DF50, and while I'd have preferred the BigFoot I'm familiar with, I've read of many positive experiences with this motor on the Mac from owners here. It's really hard to compare owners' performance results here. Some are in salt and some in fresh water. Some are expressed in knots, others in mph, which can be converted. But the big unknown difference between these reports is the total weight of the modded boat, and where that weight is in the boat. Most posts only detail ballasted or unballasted, and solo vs family, if you're lucky.
Despite conventional wisdom about large displacment, lower gearing, and large diameter props being better for a heavy load, from all the performance reports posted here, I can't find a lot of difference in reported top end performance at the 50HP level, and if anything, see higher speed numbers for the smaller displacement, small foot motors. And that includes the Honda. Go figure!
There are also many claims here that the additional 100-150 lbs of larger motor weight don't make any significant difference in sailing ability because it's insignificant compared to the overall boat weight. I still question that, but don't have any Mac experience with which to dispute it.
One increasingly popular motor on this forum is the 2-star emissions rated Tohatsu 90HP TLDI, two-stroke, due to its high horsepower to weight (315 lb) ratio. I believe, based on my readings, if you want the Mac to plane, as many of us, and as powerboaters, define it, AND do it for long stretches at less than WOT, this is the minimum horsepower you'd want for an M. This motor is also noted here for its narrow profile, something also a plus with the limited access around the motor on the M.
Anyway... hope this helps,
--
Moe
Next up is the 243 lb Suzuki DF50, which is fuel-injected. It is also a small displacement motor (815cc 3-cylinder) but has better 2.29:1 gearing. Despite that, it uses the same prop pitch as the Honda, because the Suzuki's rpm operating range some 500 rpm higher, with a 5900-6500 rpm WOT operating range.
These small motors share their powerhead with the 40HP motors. The next step up are the virtually same 996cc four-cylinder Mercury and Yamaha motors, which are not only available with the small, higher geared lower unit, and smaller diameter props, but also with the larger, lower geared (2.33:1) lower unit of the 75-115HP motors, which can take props as large as 14", a good thing when pushing a heavy load They're called Mercury BigFoot and Yamaha High-Thrust and are available in 50 or 60HP. The Mercury has had EFI for the last several years and is spec'd at 264 lbs, while the Yamaha only got EFI this year. Its spec on the website is 237 lbs, but I find that hard to believe.
In this category, I'm also going to toss in the 240 lb Evinrude E-TEC with its 2.67:1 gearing. Although it's hard to compare displacement between 2 and 4 stroke, its 863cc motor is sufficient for 60HP. While it's not on their website, I've heard the brochure included a 70HP version of this motor. If this is acheivable, at over 80HP/liter, I don't believe it will have the mid-range torque of a 360 lb, 1300cc 70HP Suzuki, for example, but with the lighter weight and equivalent horsepower, may even outpeform it at WOT. I've seen an E-TEC in operation, and even as a 4-stroke fan, was very impressed.
We have a 60HP Merc BigFoot on our Whaler and love it. We rented an older Whaler Montauk with new 50HP Honda, and it wasn't as easy to start, and didn't cruise at low rpm or idle as smoothly as the BigFoot, and the mileage, while good, wasn't quite as good as the EFI BigFoot. It did perform well, however, with the lighter motor allowing the boat to "ease" up on plane, rather than climb a steeper bow wave and "pop up" onto plane.
Our Mac came with the Suzuki DF50, and while I'd have preferred the BigFoot I'm familiar with, I've read of many positive experiences with this motor on the Mac from owners here. It's really hard to compare owners' performance results here. Some are in salt and some in fresh water. Some are expressed in knots, others in mph, which can be converted. But the big unknown difference between these reports is the total weight of the modded boat, and where that weight is in the boat. Most posts only detail ballasted or unballasted, and solo vs family, if you're lucky.
Despite conventional wisdom about large displacment, lower gearing, and large diameter props being better for a heavy load, from all the performance reports posted here, I can't find a lot of difference in reported top end performance at the 50HP level, and if anything, see higher speed numbers for the smaller displacement, small foot motors. And that includes the Honda. Go figure!
There are also many claims here that the additional 100-150 lbs of larger motor weight don't make any significant difference in sailing ability because it's insignificant compared to the overall boat weight. I still question that, but don't have any Mac experience with which to dispute it.
One increasingly popular motor on this forum is the 2-star emissions rated Tohatsu 90HP TLDI, two-stroke, due to its high horsepower to weight (315 lb) ratio. I believe, based on my readings, if you want the Mac to plane, as many of us, and as powerboaters, define it, AND do it for long stretches at less than WOT, this is the minimum horsepower you'd want for an M. This motor is also noted here for its narrow profile, something also a plus with the limited access around the motor on the M.
Anyway... hope this helps,
--
Moe
-
mtc
- Captain
- Posts: 545
- Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 5:06 pm
- Sailboat: MacGregor 26M
- Location: Panama City Beach, Florida 05 M 'Bellaroo' 60hp Merc BF
Wow, Moe - thank you for the data. I'm new to OBs and see them as I would an automobile engine. I'd much prefer the MFI over carbureted all day long.
As for the weight, where can I get information on the range of weight that transom is designed to support?
The weight of the engine must be the issue here. As for the power, didn't the Mac web factory web site state that the boat would motor at 24mph? As the speed would be relative to the HP/prop combo, I don't see how the HP alone as the issue. Weight, on the other hand would be critical under sail, as well as when the boat's on a trailer - tongue weight.
That's the reason for the poll. I wanted to see what our members thought and had on their rigs. There's a sailor in Miami, Steve, I think who has an m for sale with a 90 mounted.
I want the right engine - not something I will replace probably for the life of the boat, or at least as long as I would imagine having her.
The cat 38 lies in my future. . .
Thanks again for the excellent overview. If you can think of anything else that would help me decide on the best motor - including mounting myself - please let me know. I'll have (hopefully) the boat delivered in 4 to 6 weeks and time's running out.
Michael
As for the weight, where can I get information on the range of weight that transom is designed to support?
The weight of the engine must be the issue here. As for the power, didn't the Mac web factory web site state that the boat would motor at 24mph? As the speed would be relative to the HP/prop combo, I don't see how the HP alone as the issue. Weight, on the other hand would be critical under sail, as well as when the boat's on a trailer - tongue weight.
That's the reason for the poll. I wanted to see what our members thought and had on their rigs. There's a sailor in Miami, Steve, I think who has an m for sale with a 90 mounted.
I want the right engine - not something I will replace probably for the life of the boat, or at least as long as I would imagine having her.
The cat 38 lies in my future. . .
Thanks again for the excellent overview. If you can think of anything else that would help me decide on the best motor - including mounting myself - please let me know. I'll have (hopefully) the boat delivered in 4 to 6 weeks and time's running out.
Michael
-
richandlori
- Admiral
- Posts: 1695
- Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:08 pm
- Location: Living Aboard in Morro Bay, CA
- Contact:
-
Jeff S
- First Officer
- Posts: 371
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:13 pm
- Location: Cherry Point, NC 2000 26X Tohatsu 50
Tricky question. Macgregor says 50HP but seems it will honor warranty claims on new M's for up to 70hp motors if dealer installed. The X was never given such warranty allowance as far as I know. If the warranty is of no concern the other issue may be insurance related, although I know of no one here who has needed to confront the issue of exceeding the manufacturer's recommended engine size with their insurance company. There were some differing opinions from various engine dealers on what the boats could support- do a search and see some of those threads.mtc wrote: As for the weight, where can I get information on the range of weight that transom is designed to support?
You will never get anything other than the official answer from Macgregor for liability reasons. I suggest talking with a reputable engine installer who has a lot of experience and looks closely at the boat inside and out. Experiences demonstrated here show the boat will support even up to a 140 with the proper reinforcing.
Jeff S
-
mtc
- Captain
- Posts: 545
- Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 5:06 pm
- Sailboat: MacGregor 26M
- Location: Panama City Beach, Florida 05 M 'Bellaroo' 60hp Merc BF
Thanks, Jeff.
Understand the liability statements - only makes sense. But it makes me wonder where the communication comes from that allows some dealers to install the 70 while others are not 'authorized'; wonder what that's all about?
Apparently the way to go is for a 70 4cycle with injection. Now to find the lightest, best built one. I hear the Evenrude is getting good reviews.
Michael
Understand the liability statements - only makes sense. But it makes me wonder where the communication comes from that allows some dealers to install the 70 while others are not 'authorized'; wonder what that's all about?
Apparently the way to go is for a 70 4cycle with injection. Now to find the lightest, best built one. I hear the Evenrude is getting good reviews.
Michael
Michael,
From the older 26X website, With the 50 hp outboard, the 26 will go about 24 mph.
From the current 26M website, With the 50 horsepower outboard, the 26 will go about 22 mph.
If these figures have any truth to them, they're probably in absolute optimal conditions... mast and boom left home, boat totally empty with no water in the jug(s), no Sani-Potty or other options, 2 or 3 gallons of gas, on calm saltwater seas, probably with a tail wind, with a jockey-sized pilot at the helm, and on the M, a blue hull
The X figure was probably obtained with a roughly 160 lb carbed Tohatsu two-stroke 50.
You really have to read MacGregor's promotional material with a critical eye. The above indicates the X is faster with 50HP, as would be expected with its lower deadrise hull. However, MacGregor says,
There's also no motor weight spec for the Macs. Someone here (I believe it may've been Darren) said something about the transom being 1/2" thick. I find that hard to believe, but haven't checked ours. In comparison, our little Whaler's transom is over 2" thick with 2 layers of 3/4" marine plywood in the center.
MacGregor covers his ass, not only from liability for accidents, but from hull failure as well, by stating, in writing, "We limited the engine size to 50 hp for a number of reasons." There's much debate on this forum about verbal agreement with at least one dealer warranting the hull with greater horsepower, but you'll find nothing in writing from MacGregor except the above.
--
Moe
From the older 26X website, With the 50 hp outboard, the 26 will go about 24 mph.
From the current 26M website, With the 50 horsepower outboard, the 26 will go about 22 mph.
If these figures have any truth to them, they're probably in absolute optimal conditions... mast and boom left home, boat totally empty with no water in the jug(s), no Sani-Potty or other options, 2 or 3 gallons of gas, on calm saltwater seas, probably with a tail wind, with a jockey-sized pilot at the helm, and on the M, a blue hull
The X figure was probably obtained with a roughly 160 lb carbed Tohatsu two-stroke 50.You really have to read MacGregor's promotional material with a critical eye. The above indicates the X is faster with 50HP, as would be expected with its lower deadrise hull. However, MacGregor says,
If you'll read closely in this comparison of powering performance, if they actually performed it rather than theorized about it, they must've run the X with the centerboard down. That's the only condition where the trunk is carrying anywhere near 100 lbs of water, and creating any significant turbulence. With the centerboard up, as you'd have with powering unless you wanted to roll the boat in a turn, there's little room left in the trunk for water, and the surface is relatively smooth.The new boat is significantly faster under both power and sail, and quite a bit faster under main alone. We compared two identically rigged and loaded boats, a 26X and the new 26M, both equipped with 50 hp Mercury Bigfoot engines.
At identical rpm settings, the new boat had an advantage of approximately 2 to 3 mph. This advantage held over a wide range of speeds. It held in both calm and choppy water. The big reason for the higher speed on the new boat is the lack of centerboard trunk drag. When we studied the videos of the speed runs, the turbulence from the 26X centerboard trunk was clearly visible, while the new boat offered a really clean water and spray pattern. The old centerboard trunk carried along about 100 lbs of water, the new trunk, with its tighter tolerances, carries virtually none. The 26X, boat, with its flatter bottom, was slowed each time it came down hard off of a wave.
There's also no motor weight spec for the Macs. Someone here (I believe it may've been Darren) said something about the transom being 1/2" thick. I find that hard to believe, but haven't checked ours. In comparison, our little Whaler's transom is over 2" thick with 2 layers of 3/4" marine plywood in the center.
MacGregor covers his ass, not only from liability for accidents, but from hull failure as well, by stating, in writing, "We limited the engine size to 50 hp for a number of reasons." There's much debate on this forum about verbal agreement with at least one dealer warranting the hull with greater horsepower, but you'll find nothing in writing from MacGregor except the above.
--
Moe
-
Mark Prouty
- Admiral
- Posts: 1723
- Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 8:52 am
- Location: Madison, WI Former MacGregor 26X Owner
I couldn't participate in the poll. I have a 115 Suzuki with a specially reinforced transom. If you're going over a 50hp, I suggest reinforcing your transom. Transom Reinforcement Pictures.
By the way Moe, you have been a tremendous asset to this board since you joined last August. Not only are you very knowledgeable but you are very generous in sharing your knowledge. I have learned a lot from you and I always look when I see one of your postings.
There are those of us who ask most of the questions on this board and those that supply most of the answers. This board amazes with the number of technical people generous enough to supply excellent answers.
By the way Moe, you have been a tremendous asset to this board since you joined last August. Not only are you very knowledgeable but you are very generous in sharing your knowledge. I have learned a lot from you and I always look when I see one of your postings.
There are those of us who ask most of the questions on this board and those that supply most of the answers. This board amazes with the number of technical people generous enough to supply excellent answers.
-
mtc
- Captain
- Posts: 545
- Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 5:06 pm
- Sailboat: MacGregor 26M
- Location: Panama City Beach, Florida 05 M 'Bellaroo' 60hp Merc BF
I agree; Moe obviously has done his homework and is more than willing to share his knowledge - thanks for that.
To all you guys, a big thank you. I've sailed a little, owned a few boats and I know only a thimbleful of what you all collectively have in your sailing minds. I've only sailed for 25 years, and know some about what can happen. I do know what doesn't (didn't) work and have some successes - but for the little Mac, you guys have helped me immensely!!!!
My hat off to you all!
Michael
To all you guys, a big thank you. I've sailed a little, owned a few boats and I know only a thimbleful of what you all collectively have in your sailing minds. I've only sailed for 25 years, and know some about what can happen. I do know what doesn't (didn't) work and have some successes - but for the little Mac, you guys have helped me immensely!!!!
My hat off to you all!
Michael
Thanks, Mark, and Michael. Some of what I pass on is the Reader's Digest version of many posts in the archives here, and thanks is due to those who contributed them in the first place. Thanks especially to Heath, who's provided this resource. I've spent literally hundreds of hours researching through it, and offer my findings to those who haven't.
--
Moe
I prefer the less painful and less expensive way.An unknown author wrote: Knowledge comes from experience and experience comes from mistakes. We can do it the hard way-- make the mistakes ourselves--or we can learn from the mistakes of others. Which will it be?
--
Moe
-
ESPERANZA
- First Officer
- Posts: 219
- Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 8:09 pm
- Location: Black Hills of S.D. 97 26X nisn 50
I agree with Mark and Mike. If I see a post with Moe on it, I read it. Same goes for Mark Prouty, Chip, Frank C, Dimitri, and Duane...
Thamkls for all your knowledge...
Moe, I've got another one for you. I've read your posts regarding, displacement, horse power, and weight but how about physical size. Climbing up the swim ladder around one of these monsters isn't much fun. Who makes the smallest foot print in a 50hp?
Dik...
Thamkls for all your knowledge...
Moe, I've got another one for you. I've read your posts regarding, displacement, horse power, and weight but how about physical size. Climbing up the swim ladder around one of these monsters isn't much fun. Who makes the smallest foot print in a 50hp?
Dik...
