I am in the process of outfitting a MacGregor 26M, which will be purchased later this month. I will be doing a journey on the Great circle route and then off to the Bahamas. I am a true sailor and not a motorboat person and speed is neither necessary or desired on a long sailing journey but I am not sure what to expect from something like a 15 HP or 25 HP 4 Stroke. Since the boat is supposed to be faster than the older ones and since it is a light boat, One would assume (that word again) that a smaller motor would be able to run at a slower speed, closer to that of big sailboats and get a lot better gas mileage. One also would think that it might still top out at a decent speed say around 10 to 12 mph for those days when you just have to get a few miles further. There is no way I want to buy a motor that uses 5 gallons an hour. Anybody used smaller engines on any of the 26's? What kind of fuel economy did you get? What kind of speed? Thanks for your help Gene
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Answers
I too see a great circle route in the future. If you have read a lot of the great circle voyager's logs, you will see that a great part of the route is motoring, out of necessity, due to either lack of wind, too much wind, heavy traffic, narrow channels, locks, etc. Your boat is only light as it comes from the factory. It will weight around 5000 lbs when you get provisions and crew on board for your journey, including water ballast for sailing or rough weather stability. Although 10 hp might work, I think 15 hp is a more prudent choice for safety's sake. Usuallly same motor exactly, just different jets, timing, etc. or different rpm limit in some cases I'm told. Gas mileage will be about the same at cruising speeds, will be slightly more on the 15 only at WOT. Get a properly sized and pitched four blade prop for more power and torque for the ease of low speed manuvering. Regardless of which engine, get three gas tanks. Get a three way shutoff valve and install it so you can easily reach it from the helm when one of your tanks runs dry at critical moment in traffic ina current in a bridge approach with limited clearance. Based on the cruise accounts of others in MacXs and Ms in this and other forums, if you really want to run up at 11 to 12 mph with a cruising weight in much of any sea or against a current in rivers, passes or the Gulf Stream, you will need 40 to 50 hp. And based on my experience in my 26X, which has a cruising weight (water, fuel, food, gear for self sufficient two weeks ) of 4700lbs with the 50hp 2 stroke on the back, and full ballast. I get 11 to 12 mph at WOT. I get 15-16 mph with empty ballast.
I too see a great circle route in the future. If you have read a lot of the great circle voyager's logs, you will see that a great part of the route is motoring, out of necessity, due to either lack of wind, too much wind, heavy traffic, narrow channels, locks, etc. Your boat is only light as it comes from the factory. It will weight around 5000 lbs when you get provisions and crew on board for your journey, including water ballast for sailing or rough weather stability. Although 10 hp might work, I think 15 hp is a more prudent choice for safety's sake. Usuallly same motor exactly, just different jets, timing, etc. or different rpm limit in some cases I'm told. Gas mileage will be about the same at cruising speeds, will be slightly more on the 15 only at WOT. Get a properly sized and pitched four blade prop for more power and torque for the ease of low speed manuvering. Regardless of which engine, get three gas tanks. Get a three way shutoff valve and install it so you can easily reach it from the helm when one of your tanks runs dry at critical moment in traffic ina current in a bridge approach with limited clearance. Based on the cruise accounts of others in MacXs and Ms in this and other forums, if you really want to run up at 11 to 12 mph with a cruising weight in much of any sea or against a current in rivers, passes or the Gulf Stream, you will need 40 to 50 hp. And based on my experience in my 26X, which has a cruising weight (water, fuel, food, gear for self sufficient two weeks ) of 4700lbs with the 50hp 2 stroke on the back, and full ballast. I get 11 to 12 mph at WOT. I get 15-16 mph with empty ballast.
R
Randy Shanks
Small motor on 26M
I have a 2005 26M with an 05 Mercury 25 bigfoot. My boat will only top out about 9.5 mph. The boat is not able to get on plane with only 25 hp. I wish I would have gone with a 50. You are only supposed to go 6mph max with the rudders down. If you lift the rudders and try to go fast without planning , the boat will wander and not hold a heading. Especially if you are going on a long trip it would be nice at times to have a motor big enough to get on plane and then throtle back to an economical power setting. The 26M is a great boat , mine could actually use more weight in the back so go for a bigger motor,power tilt and trim, more speed, and higher resale. Randy
I have a 2005 26M with an 05 Mercury 25 bigfoot. My boat will only top out about 9.5 mph. The boat is not able to get on plane with only 25 hp. I wish I would have gone with a 50. You are only supposed to go 6mph max with the rudders down. If you lift the rudders and try to go fast without planning , the boat will wander and not hold a heading. Especially if you are going on a long trip it would be nice at times to have a motor big enough to get on plane and then throtle back to an economical power setting. The 26M is a great boat , mine could actually use more weight in the back so go for a bigger motor,power tilt and trim, more speed, and higher resale. Randy
G
Gene Besch
Tks for input so far
Actually, I have already run the Great Circle route first down the Lakes to Hudson and ICW etc. Second time down Mississippi. Both in larger sailboats one with 5 foot draft. While what you say is true, I sailed many hours using only the Jibs. No roller furling made this a little difficult. A well planned sailing journey, even to Bahamas should never require high speeds, if the boat will sail. If this boat does not sail, I want to know it now as I am a sailor. Randy said he could not plan with 25 and this makes me wonder. Ofcourse 8 mph is faster than a heavy sailboat can do. They average 5 or 6 mph under the very best of conditions. I main problem is I still do not have a sense for the difference in fuel consumption.
Actually, I have already run the Great Circle route first down the Lakes to Hudson and ICW etc. Second time down Mississippi. Both in larger sailboats one with 5 foot draft. While what you say is true, I sailed many hours using only the Jibs. No roller furling made this a little difficult. A well planned sailing journey, even to Bahamas should never require high speeds, if the boat will sail. If this boat does not sail, I want to know it now as I am a sailor. Randy said he could not plan with 25 and this makes me wonder. Ofcourse 8 mph is faster than a heavy sailboat can do. They average 5 or 6 mph under the very best of conditions. I main problem is I still do not have a sense for the difference in fuel consumption.
Between hp?
Congrats on having done the loop before. Are you asking about difference in consumption between 10 and 15 hp? My experience has been that there is very little difference between 10 and 15 hp except at half throttle and above. Then it was on the order of 1 to 2 mpg less for the 15. Sorry I don't have exact figures available for a four stroke over a distance or a time. My previous ownerships in that hp were of older 2 strokes, and not measured precisely. I can tell you the boat won't plane with 15 hp. I can tell you that it sails well without fus or bother unless you are beating into seas over 3 or 4 feet then it will pound more due to the flatter, planing type hull. If it was a long time ago that you sailed the loop, note that it has changed dramatically in the amount of traffic in some places in recent years due to lack of maintenance in certain waterways both for depth and navigation aids. There has not been adequate funding for waterways and charts since the Reagan admin cut it out. As you know, the loop is an easy voyage, but a long one, and requires knowing where you are precisely at times to meet bridge schedules, lock times, etc. I have no doubts about the Mac being an ideal boat for a loop voyage if, as you say, the trip is properly planned and the boat and crew well prepared. I had a tabel once on fuel consumption I'll see if I can find it.
Congrats on having done the loop before. Are you asking about difference in consumption between 10 and 15 hp? My experience has been that there is very little difference between 10 and 15 hp except at half throttle and above. Then it was on the order of 1 to 2 mpg less for the 15. Sorry I don't have exact figures available for a four stroke over a distance or a time. My previous ownerships in that hp were of older 2 strokes, and not measured precisely. I can tell you the boat won't plane with 15 hp. I can tell you that it sails well without fus or bother unless you are beating into seas over 3 or 4 feet then it will pound more due to the flatter, planing type hull. If it was a long time ago that you sailed the loop, note that it has changed dramatically in the amount of traffic in some places in recent years due to lack of maintenance in certain waterways both for depth and navigation aids. There has not been adequate funding for waterways and charts since the Reagan admin cut it out. As you know, the loop is an easy voyage, but a long one, and requires knowing where you are precisely at times to meet bridge schedules, lock times, etc. I have no doubts about the Mac being an ideal boat for a loop voyage if, as you say, the trip is properly planned and the boat and crew well prepared. I had a tabel once on fuel consumption I'll see if I can find it.
G
Gene Besch
Actual Looking for GPH vs the 50 HP
I am looking to see how many gallons per hour are used in smaller motors, and also in the 50 when traveling about 10 mph. The 50's use about 5 gallons an hour which is way to low. No matter which engine I use I want to keep the throttle at about 1/4 or less. to slow of engine speed causes troubles and much faster uses way to much gas. With regard to planning. I have shown many people how to get boats to plane with smaller motors. Most people just try driving straight ahead until the boat comes up on a plane but the way to get a hard to plane boat up is to cross your own wake. A person can try to turn right and come back at the beginning of the wake. Most boats will plane at speeds much slower than people think. I don't know if a 15 would make it plane but I would bet money that a 25 would get it up on a plane. If it can not than the manufacturer has some explaining to do. They should say that only a 50 will work. Having said that it brings up another question. Does a planning boat when not going fast enough to plane cause more trouble than a non planning boat. That is are you pushing less water with a planning than with a displacement hull, or are you pushing more, thus defeating the purpose of the planning hull? Note: I did east coast in 1996 after hurricane and found places less than 4 feet. I did the Mississippi/Tenn Tom in 2002 in the worst winter flood ever and had very little trouble even clearing bridges with 40 plus mast. Thank you for all of your advise.
I am looking to see how many gallons per hour are used in smaller motors, and also in the 50 when traveling about 10 mph. The 50's use about 5 gallons an hour which is way to low. No matter which engine I use I want to keep the throttle at about 1/4 or less. to slow of engine speed causes troubles and much faster uses way to much gas. With regard to planning. I have shown many people how to get boats to plane with smaller motors. Most people just try driving straight ahead until the boat comes up on a plane but the way to get a hard to plane boat up is to cross your own wake. A person can try to turn right and come back at the beginning of the wake. Most boats will plane at speeds much slower than people think. I don't know if a 15 would make it plane but I would bet money that a 25 would get it up on a plane. If it can not than the manufacturer has some explaining to do. They should say that only a 50 will work. Having said that it brings up another question. Does a planning boat when not going fast enough to plane cause more trouble than a non planning boat. That is are you pushing less water with a planning than with a displacement hull, or are you pushing more, thus defeating the purpose of the planning hull? Note: I did east coast in 1996 after hurricane and found places less than 4 feet. I did the Mississippi/Tenn Tom in 2002 in the worst winter flood ever and had very little trouble even clearing bridges with 40 plus mast. Thank you for all of your advise.
Inadequate data
Gene, my data table doesn't answer your questions. Try asking about the gph, or mpg for your proposed boat with a 25 hp motor on this forum: http://www.macgregorsailors.com/
Gene, my data table doesn't answer your questions. Try asking about the gph, or mpg for your proposed boat with a 25 hp motor on this forum: http://www.macgregorsailors.com/
planing a Mac X or M
at what speed does a mac plane? many have argued this topic. bottom line, you gotta get to 18-20mph to get a Mac on a plane. in order to do so, you need horsepower. a 50hp can do it in a lightly loaded boat with a 200# captain only and minimal fuel. some claim that their 40hp can do it as well. however, i've never heard anyone argue that their 25hp will get a Mac on a plane. probably because a 25hp will only get you to 10-12 mph maximum. if i was you and fuel economy, light weight, and minimal fuel was important i would still go with the lightest 50hp four stroke available. all the 4 strokes get excellent fuel economy at slow speeds (10-12mph) and at 7/8 throttle in a loaded MAc will get you to 15-16mph & take you nearly 25 miles on 5 gallons. Probably get you that far in 1-1/2 hours the Honda is just at 200# vs. the Suzuki which is 250#+. in 25hp: Suzuki has a new 4-stroke 2 cylinder model that's only 160# (vs. their 3 cylinder 30/25hp that's 209#). Tohatsu 4 stroke 3 cylinder is 182#. a 20hp Honda is only 110#+ and at WOT will probably get you to 8-9mph. it will get a little better MPG than a 50hp at the expense of time. also the small prop on the 10-30hp will not allow you to control the Mac very well without the rudders down.
at what speed does a mac plane? many have argued this topic. bottom line, you gotta get to 18-20mph to get a Mac on a plane. in order to do so, you need horsepower. a 50hp can do it in a lightly loaded boat with a 200# captain only and minimal fuel. some claim that their 40hp can do it as well. however, i've never heard anyone argue that their 25hp will get a Mac on a plane. probably because a 25hp will only get you to 10-12 mph maximum. if i was you and fuel economy, light weight, and minimal fuel was important i would still go with the lightest 50hp four stroke available. all the 4 strokes get excellent fuel economy at slow speeds (10-12mph) and at 7/8 throttle in a loaded MAc will get you to 15-16mph & take you nearly 25 miles on 5 gallons. Probably get you that far in 1-1/2 hours the Honda is just at 200# vs. the Suzuki which is 250#+. in 25hp: Suzuki has a new 4-stroke 2 cylinder model that's only 160# (vs. their 3 cylinder 30/25hp that's 209#). Tohatsu 4 stroke 3 cylinder is 182#. a 20hp Honda is only 110#+ and at WOT will probably get you to 8-9mph. it will get a little better MPG than a 50hp at the expense of time. also the small prop on the 10-30hp will not allow you to control the Mac very well without the rudders down.
G
Gene Besch
If it takes 22 mph to plane it is not a planner
I have an 18 foot motorboat and it planes within the first 500 feet with a twenty horse and maintains a plane until dropping below 1/4 throttle. While it is true that most other boats I have had, had very large engines, I can't see how they can claim that this is a planning boat if it only goes into a plane at full throttle and empty. In fact some articles by MacGregor claim they had the boat planeing with sails up. It just does not make sense and if what you are saying is a fact I might just buy a Hunter instead since it already don't plane and uses a 10 hp and has a similar draft. Thank you for the information
I have an 18 foot motorboat and it planes within the first 500 feet with a twenty horse and maintains a plane until dropping below 1/4 throttle. While it is true that most other boats I have had, had very large engines, I can't see how they can claim that this is a planning boat if it only goes into a plane at full throttle and empty. In fact some articles by MacGregor claim they had the boat planeing with sails up. It just does not make sense and if what you are saying is a fact I might just buy a Hunter instead since it already don't plane and uses a 10 hp and has a similar draft. Thank you for the information
Apples and oranges?
Are we discussing a boat for cruising in comfort and safety along any coastal or interior waterways, or not? 18 ft. motor boats don't have a full set of standing rigging with or without furlers, biminis or such for more windage. My 12ft motor boat with me aboard and 1 gallon of fuel with 6hp 4 stroke gets on plane in five seconds at 3000 rpm (half throttle)but the gross weight of that combo is only 340 lbs and there is no windage to speak of but me. I don't see now information like that can help one prepare for a circle cruise. More helpful I think is the following. My 26X (and the M26) have a calculated hull speed of 7.44 mph as a displacement boat. Because of the hull design it is not limted to that as a displacement hull would be. More power equals more speed equals planing. My X weighs 2900 lbs with no ballast but full rigging, 50 hp motor, 12 gals of fuel and one 220 lb crew and attains plane (defined as three feet of hull at bow above water surface) at 9 mph in about 10 seconds from standing start and uses 3800 rpm. Speed increase at a faster rate per 1K rpm after it planes because there is less water resistand with a smaller portion of the hull, the "pad" on the water. Could an X or M plane with a smaller motor? Absoulely, however, not with much of anything on board, including standing rigging and any amenities or more than one crew. I'd say that if you are a sailor and fuel economy matters more to you than anything else, just go with the X or M and a 15 hp 4 stroke. The best economy I have gotten with my X and its 1997 50 hp Merc carbureted, 2 stoke and 4 blade 12.5 x 8 prop is about .25 gal per hour at idle speed of 1k rpm, or 4.0 mph, with a full ballast tank, standing rigging including furler and cover, many modifications, head, 12 gal waste tank, 18 gallons water, etc. and crew grossing out at 4700 lbs. Any less weight would be better economy, but wouldn't be cruise ready. So which is most real to you? With the rig down and the ballast empty you should be able to cut that fuel use in half if not better.
Are we discussing a boat for cruising in comfort and safety along any coastal or interior waterways, or not? 18 ft. motor boats don't have a full set of standing rigging with or without furlers, biminis or such for more windage. My 12ft motor boat with me aboard and 1 gallon of fuel with 6hp 4 stroke gets on plane in five seconds at 3000 rpm (half throttle)but the gross weight of that combo is only 340 lbs and there is no windage to speak of but me. I don't see now information like that can help one prepare for a circle cruise. More helpful I think is the following. My 26X (and the M26) have a calculated hull speed of 7.44 mph as a displacement boat. Because of the hull design it is not limted to that as a displacement hull would be. More power equals more speed equals planing. My X weighs 2900 lbs with no ballast but full rigging, 50 hp motor, 12 gals of fuel and one 220 lb crew and attains plane (defined as three feet of hull at bow above water surface) at 9 mph in about 10 seconds from standing start and uses 3800 rpm. Speed increase at a faster rate per 1K rpm after it planes because there is less water resistand with a smaller portion of the hull, the "pad" on the water. Could an X or M plane with a smaller motor? Absoulely, however, not with much of anything on board, including standing rigging and any amenities or more than one crew. I'd say that if you are a sailor and fuel economy matters more to you than anything else, just go with the X or M and a 15 hp 4 stroke. The best economy I have gotten with my X and its 1997 50 hp Merc carbureted, 2 stoke and 4 blade 12.5 x 8 prop is about .25 gal per hour at idle speed of 1k rpm, or 4.0 mph, with a full ballast tank, standing rigging including furler and cover, many modifications, head, 12 gal waste tank, 18 gallons water, etc. and crew grossing out at 4700 lbs. Any less weight would be better economy, but wouldn't be cruise ready. So which is most real to you? With the rig down and the ballast empty you should be able to cut that fuel use in half if not better.
a mac weighs 3K#
a mac is light for a 26 footer, but does weigh over 3K# when loaded. then add your 1400# water ballast and you've got nearly 5K# that you're pushin'. a mac has a "planing" hull (flat on the rear third), but you gotta push it with power to get it flat on the water surface. as i previously wrote...the "planing" topic (at what speed a mac planes) has been argued many times and i'm not gonna do it here. i have a tohatsu 90hp on my X. my mac planes fine at about 18mph. and at that speed, i get nearly 5 mpg because i'm at 2/3 throttle. however, i can go 25+ at WOT if i choose. but then, you and i have different wants & needs. to achieve what the mac was manufactured for (a motor sailer), go with a lightweight 50 (or 70 for the M because it's heavier). if you want it primarily as a sailboat (as you have indicated), put a 10hp on the rear. regardless, it's still a great value for a boat that provides cabin cruiser amenities.
a mac is light for a 26 footer, but does weigh over 3K# when loaded. then add your 1400# water ballast and you've got nearly 5K# that you're pushin'. a mac has a "planing" hull (flat on the rear third), but you gotta push it with power to get it flat on the water surface. as i previously wrote...the "planing" topic (at what speed a mac planes) has been argued many times and i'm not gonna do it here. i have a tohatsu 90hp on my X. my mac planes fine at about 18mph. and at that speed, i get nearly 5 mpg because i'm at 2/3 throttle. however, i can go 25+ at WOT if i choose. but then, you and i have different wants & needs. to achieve what the mac was manufactured for (a motor sailer), go with a lightweight 50 (or 70 for the M because it's heavier). if you want it primarily as a sailboat (as you have indicated), put a 10hp on the rear. regardless, it's still a great value for a boat that provides cabin cruiser amenities.
G
Gene Besch
Cruising into Open Water and the ICW
We are talking about cruising in open water such as lake Superior and the Ocean and in areas like the ICW which also have large bodies of open water. The info about the 7 mph is very helpful as this is faster than that achieved by displacement hull boats. My main concern as I have mentioned is fuel consumption not speed. If a 9.8 uses more fuel to obtain that 7 mph it might not be a wise choice. If a 50 cruising at 7 mph got better gas mileage than a smaller motor it would be the choice but without first buying one, the only way I have of finding out is by asking people who actually use the smaller motors and the 50 at long distance and at slow speed. Yes, I have been out there wishing I could get the 10 miles to shore a little faster but that rarely happens if one plans the day or night with care and a great listen to the weather. I appreciate all of your help and advise but it looks like I will have to toss a coin and pray that it does not come down on the edge.
We are talking about cruising in open water such as lake Superior and the Ocean and in areas like the ICW which also have large bodies of open water. The info about the 7 mph is very helpful as this is faster than that achieved by displacement hull boats. My main concern as I have mentioned is fuel consumption not speed. If a 9.8 uses more fuel to obtain that 7 mph it might not be a wise choice. If a 50 cruising at 7 mph got better gas mileage than a smaller motor it would be the choice but without first buying one, the only way I have of finding out is by asking people who actually use the smaller motors and the 50 at long distance and at slow speed. Yes, I have been out there wishing I could get the 10 miles to shore a little faster but that rarely happens if one plans the day or night with care and a great listen to the weather. I appreciate all of your help and advise but it looks like I will have to toss a coin and pray that it does not come down on the edge.
10hp
the main problem with a 10hp on a mac is that in a headwind in open seas, you may not be able to go faster to 3-4mph WOT. then the motor cavitates as the transom bounces up and down from the swells due to lack of speed. also, if you want to motor fast as possible w/ your small engine, you will need an empty ballast. however, if it's so rough that you need a full ballast (1400# heavy), it will slow you down even more. again, it's a powersailor made for a 50 or 70hp. if you want a real sailboat (you know, one that can sail 1-2mph faster & point better under similar conditions), go to something else other than a mac. although i do understand you fuel dilemma. i guess, bottom line, regardless of what you put on the rear (10, 25, 50, 70, or 90hp) you will not use very often if you're many miles between ports. many on these mac web sites have talked about "motorsailing". that is, engine at slow speed to maintain course while sail is up. with a 4-stroke 50 they get great mileage. i believe someone quoted 8 miles to the gallon. so roughly 1 gallon per hour for 8 mile distance.
the main problem with a 10hp on a mac is that in a headwind in open seas, you may not be able to go faster to 3-4mph WOT. then the motor cavitates as the transom bounces up and down from the swells due to lack of speed. also, if you want to motor fast as possible w/ your small engine, you will need an empty ballast. however, if it's so rough that you need a full ballast (1400# heavy), it will slow you down even more. again, it's a powersailor made for a 50 or 70hp. if you want a real sailboat (you know, one that can sail 1-2mph faster & point better under similar conditions), go to something else other than a mac. although i do understand you fuel dilemma. i guess, bottom line, regardless of what you put on the rear (10, 25, 50, 70, or 90hp) you will not use very often if you're many miles between ports. many on these mac web sites have talked about "motorsailing". that is, engine at slow speed to maintain course while sail is up. with a 4-stroke 50 they get great mileage. i believe someone quoted 8 miles to the gallon. so roughly 1 gallon per hour for 8 mile distance.
B
BW
For what it's worth --
Before buying my Mac X, I sailed a Cutter 24 with a 5 hp motor and a Hunter 24 with a 8 hp motor. Never had any problem with either boat maneuvering in and out of channels and docks and even some open waters. Didn't ever check fuel consumption because like Gene I was mainly into sailing and didn't use the motors that much. I retired in 2001 and decided to get the best of both motoring and sailing and decided the Mac X with a 50 was the boat for me. Now I think I would be just as happy with a 25hp since I'm still more into sailing, but I am very happy with my X. My max speed is between 18 - 20 and the X planes way before that. If I were where Gene is now, I would get the 25 4 stroke. Fuel consumptiom is a factor of several things with two really related to the motor -- prop pitch/dia and rpms achieved without lugging the motor. (more critical factors are related to design and weight of boat and to operating conditions.) Due to weight of provisioned M, the 25 will achieve more rpms with a larger prop under normal load than the 15, and it will take less rpms with a higher pitch/larger dia prop to get more speed. Thus less fuel consumption. In my experience over many years of motoring (I still have my bass boat)motors operate most efficiently at about midrange rpms which for most motors is +/- 2500. Four stroke rpm is a little higher and motor is more fuel friendly. Good luck whatever you decide.
Before buying my Mac X, I sailed a Cutter 24 with a 5 hp motor and a Hunter 24 with a 8 hp motor. Never had any problem with either boat maneuvering in and out of channels and docks and even some open waters. Didn't ever check fuel consumption because like Gene I was mainly into sailing and didn't use the motors that much. I retired in 2001 and decided to get the best of both motoring and sailing and decided the Mac X with a 50 was the boat for me. Now I think I would be just as happy with a 25hp since I'm still more into sailing, but I am very happy with my X. My max speed is between 18 - 20 and the X planes way before that. If I were where Gene is now, I would get the 25 4 stroke. Fuel consumptiom is a factor of several things with two really related to the motor -- prop pitch/dia and rpms achieved without lugging the motor. (more critical factors are related to design and weight of boat and to operating conditions.) Due to weight of provisioned M, the 25 will achieve more rpms with a larger prop under normal load than the 15, and it will take less rpms with a higher pitch/larger dia prop to get more speed. Thus less fuel consumption. In my experience over many years of motoring (I still have my bass boat)motors operate most efficiently at about midrange rpms which for most motors is +/- 2500. Four stroke rpm is a little higher and motor is more fuel friendly. Good luck whatever you decide.
G
Gene Besch
Thank You I have Decided What to Do
Since it is all subjective and since a subjective question requires a single answer, I have flipped a coin and it landed on the 25. I forgot to mention two other things and that is ease of getting in and out and it appears a 25 will assist with that. The main reason for getting the Mac M was the draft. I need to be close enough to make getting PJ to shore when I can. Also, in the Bahamas and beyond, there is much more room for shoal draft boats that are really shoal draft. I hated looking at boats called shoal draft only to discover that they considered 4'6" as shoal draft. Since my 3' Westerly touched over 40 times on the ICW, I am a firm believer in the shallower the better. On the ICW being able to have the roller furling Jenny will make it possible to take advantage of winds when the river turns left and then the motor when it turns right and is against the wind. Thank you all for your opinions and advice
Since it is all subjective and since a subjective question requires a single answer, I have flipped a coin and it landed on the 25. I forgot to mention two other things and that is ease of getting in and out and it appears a 25 will assist with that. The main reason for getting the Mac M was the draft. I need to be close enough to make getting PJ to shore when I can. Also, in the Bahamas and beyond, there is much more room for shoal draft boats that are really shoal draft. I hated looking at boats called shoal draft only to discover that they considered 4'6" as shoal draft. Since my 3' Westerly touched over 40 times on the ICW, I am a firm believer in the shallower the better. On the ICW being able to have the roller furling Jenny will make it possible to take advantage of winds when the river turns left and then the motor when it turns right and is against the wind. Thank you all for your opinions and advice
Well That Depends
I always had Mercuries and am still found of them but my recent 2hp 4stroke honda has been great. It will depend on Cost and Available for one and size and shape for another. Actually if there was room I might opt for 2 15's instead but probably not. Mercury has the lead and it will be Electric start with Amp and all the bells and whistles I can afford. Note: Screen Name is name of all of my boats until this one, which will probably be named the Heart Attack Kid
I always had Mercuries and am still found of them but my recent 2hp 4stroke honda has been great. It will depend on Cost and Available for one and size and shape for another. Actually if there was room I might opt for 2 15's instead but probably not. Mercury has the lead and it will be Electric start with Amp and all the bells and whistles I can afford. Note: Screen Name is name of all of my boats until this one, which will probably be named the Heart Attack Kid
Seems that way
I run both Mercury and Nissan. I'm pleased with my choices for the applications, but I'm not prejudiced for any company I only want the most intended performance for the money. A brief search of the websites of Mercury, Yamaha, Honda, Suzuki and Johnson led me to agree with the choice of Mercury. I know that Mercury and Johnson have been the most pouplar engines in east for fifty years. Every mechanic knows how to fix them. Parts and service might be harder to find and farther between for the other brands, which would be a factor for me in a cruise. Mercury 25 was only 160 lbs compared to the Johnson's 212 lbs. For a sailor that's a difference worth noting. Both have 15 amp alternators for the electric start, tilt and trim, which is the only way to go with engines that big unless maybe you are a muscle man under 60 yrs. Both have a wide range of props available. The other makes either have carbs( imagine keeping three carbs in tune) instead of EFI, are a lot heavier, or use ordinary ignition instead of electronically controlled. The Honda was the lightest by 15 lbs, but only has a 10 amp alternator and isn't widely used on the east coast or southeast. In addition, Mercury is often discounted at retailers, where as Honda and others sell at a much higher price. So I'd guess Mercury takes the prize for a long distance cruiser on the east coast, Florida, the Bahamas or the Caribbean. We'll see what else factors into it if the purchase is made and Gene shares his choice with us.
I run both Mercury and Nissan. I'm pleased with my choices for the applications, but I'm not prejudiced for any company I only want the most intended performance for the money. A brief search of the websites of Mercury, Yamaha, Honda, Suzuki and Johnson led me to agree with the choice of Mercury. I know that Mercury and Johnson have been the most pouplar engines in east for fifty years. Every mechanic knows how to fix them. Parts and service might be harder to find and farther between for the other brands, which would be a factor for me in a cruise. Mercury 25 was only 160 lbs compared to the Johnson's 212 lbs. For a sailor that's a difference worth noting. Both have 15 amp alternators for the electric start, tilt and trim, which is the only way to go with engines that big unless maybe you are a muscle man under 60 yrs. Both have a wide range of props available. The other makes either have carbs( imagine keeping three carbs in tune) instead of EFI, are a lot heavier, or use ordinary ignition instead of electronically controlled. The Honda was the lightest by 15 lbs, but only has a 10 amp alternator and isn't widely used on the east coast or southeast. In addition, Mercury is often discounted at retailers, where as Honda and others sell at a much higher price. So I'd guess Mercury takes the prize for a long distance cruiser on the east coast, Florida, the Bahamas or the Caribbean. We'll see what else factors into it if the purchase is made and Gene shares his choice with us.
50HP Honda on 26X
MPG/GPH table for Honda 50 on 26X. I can't vouch for accuracy but you might contact the author (e-mial address on web page). It seems the boat was fairly well loaded since top speed is only 15MPH at 6000RPM. http://www.apmweb.com/Sailing/Support/ All this data seems to be taken above hull speed but below planing speed. At 5MPH fuel economy should be in the 10MPG range or better. Happy sails *_/), MArk
MPG/GPH table for Honda 50 on 26X. I can't vouch for accuracy but you might contact the author (e-mial address on web page). It seems the boat was fairly well loaded since top speed is only 15MPH at 6000RPM. http://www.apmweb.com/Sailing/Support/ All this data seems to be taken above hull speed but below planing speed. At 5MPH fuel economy should be in the 10MPG range or better. Happy sails *_/), MArk
mpg
the Honda 50 MPG chart in the below link shows 5mpg at 6K RPM's (15mph). that's very similar to my findings with my previous '02-Suzuki 50. i would run it just a bit below WOT, got 15mph in a heavily loaded X, and would travel nearly 30 miles on 6 gallons of gas. i now have a tohatsu 90 tldi, easily cruise at 18-19 mph, 2/3 throttle, and still get nearly 5mpg. and, as previously wrote, can get to 25+mph if needed or wanted. but at that speed/high RPM's, the mpg would drop dramatically.
the Honda 50 MPG chart in the below link shows 5mpg at 6K RPM's (15mph). that's very similar to my findings with my previous '02-Suzuki 50. i would run it just a bit below WOT, got 15mph in a heavily loaded X, and would travel nearly 30 miles on 6 gallons of gas. i now have a tohatsu 90 tldi, easily cruise at 18-19 mph, 2/3 throttle, and still get nearly 5mpg. and, as previously wrote, can get to 25+mph if needed or wanted. but at that speed/high RPM's, the mpg would drop dramatically.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.