We are planning to buy a new 26M and trying to decide on o/b motor size. The dealer says we will appreciate the extra speed of the 70hp, however we are seldom in a hurry. Also, I looked up the specs of the two (Suzuki) motors and the 70 is a whopping 100# heavier than the 50hp. Isn't all that extra weight going to affect how the 26M sails? Any thoughts on this are appreciated.
50 vs 70hp on 26M
- Thread starter Jim22483
- Start date
- Status
My 2 Cent OPINION...
I can say that an extra 100# is quite a bit...especially considering how much power I get out of my 50 HP Nissan. Since you seem to be less interested in "SPEEEEEEEED"...I betcha the 50 HP would be to your satisfaction. MY First Mate always wants me to slow down...can you imagine what SHE would say if I had a 70 HP. BUT, anyway, I'M happy with a 50 HP, and less BOAT WEIGHT. HAPPY SAILING to you and yours.....
I can say that an extra 100# is quite a bit...especially considering how much power I get out of my 50 HP Nissan. Since you seem to be less interested in "SPEEEEEEEED"...I betcha the 50 HP would be to your satisfaction. MY First Mate always wants me to slow down...can you imagine what SHE would say if I had a 70 HP. BUT, anyway, I'M happy with a 50 HP, and less BOAT WEIGHT. HAPPY SAILING to you and yours.....
go w/ a lite-weight 90
this topic get's discussed on a regular basis. it's not just the speed, but the ability to push the boat to "plane" w/out over taxing the motor & minimizing MPG. for a suzuki 50 to push a normally loaded M to a plane, you must max out the motor to 6500 rpm's w/ a 10 pitch prop. even then you will be "plowing" and maybe get to 16mph (on a good day). most who now have a 50 (on an X or M), wish they had more power/speed. but the cost to repower is expensive. you see...you may not think/believe you will need the extra power now, but once you get loaded up with gear, full water ballast, and several passengers you'll appreciate it. that is...picture yourself all loaded up, little or no wind, and now you gotta get back to port late on a Sunday afternoon. many new M owners are opting for the highly efficient and clean burning 2 stroke 90's. that includes the Evinrude Etec 90, and the Nissan/Tohatsu 90 TLDI. the beauty of both of these motors is their power to weight ratio. that is, they both weigh under the suzuki 70 335# (325# & 315# respectively). you can power at 18-20mph with 2/3 to 3/4 throttle. burn less fuel and experience less engine noise. IMHO, the suzuki 70 is a nice outboard that doesn't power a Mac much faster than a 50 (maybe 2-3mph at WOT). just so you know, i traded in my '02 suzuki 50 for a tohatsu 90 TLDI last year and i could not be any more happy with my expensive decision. so...now the balls in your court.
this topic get's discussed on a regular basis. it's not just the speed, but the ability to push the boat to "plane" w/out over taxing the motor & minimizing MPG. for a suzuki 50 to push a normally loaded M to a plane, you must max out the motor to 6500 rpm's w/ a 10 pitch prop. even then you will be "plowing" and maybe get to 16mph (on a good day). most who now have a 50 (on an X or M), wish they had more power/speed. but the cost to repower is expensive. you see...you may not think/believe you will need the extra power now, but once you get loaded up with gear, full water ballast, and several passengers you'll appreciate it. that is...picture yourself all loaded up, little or no wind, and now you gotta get back to port late on a Sunday afternoon. many new M owners are opting for the highly efficient and clean burning 2 stroke 90's. that includes the Evinrude Etec 90, and the Nissan/Tohatsu 90 TLDI. the beauty of both of these motors is their power to weight ratio. that is, they both weigh under the suzuki 70 335# (325# & 315# respectively). you can power at 18-20mph with 2/3 to 3/4 throttle. burn less fuel and experience less engine noise. IMHO, the suzuki 70 is a nice outboard that doesn't power a Mac much faster than a 50 (maybe 2-3mph at WOT). just so you know, i traded in my '02 suzuki 50 for a tohatsu 90 TLDI last year and i could not be any more happy with my expensive decision. so...now the balls in your court.
I second BT's recommendation for Tohatsu 90HP TLDI
Jim, BobT and I have the same motor the Tohatsu TLDI 90HP on our Mac 26 Power Sailboats. He's got an X and I've got the M. Some of this is redundant with what Bobby told you, but here goes. Definitely over-power the 26M boat if you want a dual purpose boat. Don't do it if you want a sailboat only. That's the best advice I can give. I've had both and it's all what you want now. I used to sail a Hunter 27 with a 7HP inboard diesel and it was all that boat needed. However if you want a dual purpose boat then go ahead and over-power that 26M and go all the way and you'll be glad you did. The 70HP 4-strokes all weigh between 325 and 350 lbs. They are all over-rated, under-performers on this boat in my opinion, and too expensive to boot. However, you may benefit by looking into the Tohatsu 90HP TLDI for that Mac. If your going to bump up in HP don't mess around with 10HP that will net you 1MPH if you're lucky. So forget the 60HP motors out-right. The 90 HP Tohatsu TLDI weighs only about 310# or so which is less than all of the 70HP 4-strokes of other mnfgs. This new 2-stroke technology runs as quiet as a 4-stroke, gets as good a gas mileage (at some RPM's slightly better at some RPM's slightly worse). It requires less maintenance and cost less than a 4-stroke 70HP. Have you ever seen a race between a 2-stroke and a 4-stroke motorcycle? The 2-stroke wins hands down every time. Well the principle is the same in outboard motors. Look at the RPM/HP curves. If you look at the rainbows (engine performance curves) the 4-stroke flatens out early and the two stroke continues smother through the acceleration. Going with the 90 with that much HP in reserve you have the extra muscle to pull any skier you want or do anything you want (within reason) whenever you want to do it, including cruising with a full ballast tank at only 3500RPM up over the wake going 17-19MPH easy. The thing about gas mileage is the slower the RPM the lower the gas consumption. So while its true the 90HP consumes more gas overall, at the lower RPM it takes for it to go 17-19MPH (about 3500) vs. going the same speed with a 50HP (which would be cranking 5500-6000 RPM's to maintain that same speed) the gas consumption is about the same for both motors pushing the same boat weight at the same constant speed. Rule of thumb is that at half the RPM you will use half the gas. The key is going to be at what speed you can run and have the boat on plane. If you have more HP you can run on plane at lower RPM's (which also dramatically reduces fuel consumption on a TLDI). The lower HP will have to run at higher RPM's but as long as you are not at wide open throttle all the time, the gas savings will be significant. 3500 rpm to 3800 is the optimum cruising range for power and overall gas consumption. Most "normal" 2-stroke TLDI users realize 40 to 50 percent less gas usage over 2-stroke carburetor engines. The TLDI system injects air and fuel directly into the cylinder. The oil is a multi port oil injection at different points of the engine (there is no mixing of oil and gas anymore). The TLDI does this at low pressure which is an advantage Tohatsu has over doing it at the high pressure that all of the other 2-stroke injection mnfgs. I highly recommend the Tohatsu TLDI 90HP. It weighs exactly the same as the Tohatsu TLDI 70HP (it is the same engine block). So why go with the de-tuned lower HP model? Always go with the higher HP in the same engine block no matter what you buy. It is wasted weight and wasted motor performance if you don't. As far as longevity it all comes down to maintenance. Most boaters put very few hours on their engines per year, so unless you are commercial or a very avid fisherman life expectancy is really not an issue on 2-stroke vs. 4-stroke. I hope this helps. Oh and don't forget to get a spinaker which is must have equipment for the trip down wind. After all it is a sailboat too. Have fun and be safe. Kind Regards, JonBill
Jim, BobT and I have the same motor the Tohatsu TLDI 90HP on our Mac 26 Power Sailboats. He's got an X and I've got the M. Some of this is redundant with what Bobby told you, but here goes. Definitely over-power the 26M boat if you want a dual purpose boat. Don't do it if you want a sailboat only. That's the best advice I can give. I've had both and it's all what you want now. I used to sail a Hunter 27 with a 7HP inboard diesel and it was all that boat needed. However if you want a dual purpose boat then go ahead and over-power that 26M and go all the way and you'll be glad you did. The 70HP 4-strokes all weigh between 325 and 350 lbs. They are all over-rated, under-performers on this boat in my opinion, and too expensive to boot. However, you may benefit by looking into the Tohatsu 90HP TLDI for that Mac. If your going to bump up in HP don't mess around with 10HP that will net you 1MPH if you're lucky. So forget the 60HP motors out-right. The 90 HP Tohatsu TLDI weighs only about 310# or so which is less than all of the 70HP 4-strokes of other mnfgs. This new 2-stroke technology runs as quiet as a 4-stroke, gets as good a gas mileage (at some RPM's slightly better at some RPM's slightly worse). It requires less maintenance and cost less than a 4-stroke 70HP. Have you ever seen a race between a 2-stroke and a 4-stroke motorcycle? The 2-stroke wins hands down every time. Well the principle is the same in outboard motors. Look at the RPM/HP curves. If you look at the rainbows (engine performance curves) the 4-stroke flatens out early and the two stroke continues smother through the acceleration. Going with the 90 with that much HP in reserve you have the extra muscle to pull any skier you want or do anything you want (within reason) whenever you want to do it, including cruising with a full ballast tank at only 3500RPM up over the wake going 17-19MPH easy. The thing about gas mileage is the slower the RPM the lower the gas consumption. So while its true the 90HP consumes more gas overall, at the lower RPM it takes for it to go 17-19MPH (about 3500) vs. going the same speed with a 50HP (which would be cranking 5500-6000 RPM's to maintain that same speed) the gas consumption is about the same for both motors pushing the same boat weight at the same constant speed. Rule of thumb is that at half the RPM you will use half the gas. The key is going to be at what speed you can run and have the boat on plane. If you have more HP you can run on plane at lower RPM's (which also dramatically reduces fuel consumption on a TLDI). The lower HP will have to run at higher RPM's but as long as you are not at wide open throttle all the time, the gas savings will be significant. 3500 rpm to 3800 is the optimum cruising range for power and overall gas consumption. Most "normal" 2-stroke TLDI users realize 40 to 50 percent less gas usage over 2-stroke carburetor engines. The TLDI system injects air and fuel directly into the cylinder. The oil is a multi port oil injection at different points of the engine (there is no mixing of oil and gas anymore). The TLDI does this at low pressure which is an advantage Tohatsu has over doing it at the high pressure that all of the other 2-stroke injection mnfgs. I highly recommend the Tohatsu TLDI 90HP. It weighs exactly the same as the Tohatsu TLDI 70HP (it is the same engine block). So why go with the de-tuned lower HP model? Always go with the higher HP in the same engine block no matter what you buy. It is wasted weight and wasted motor performance if you don't. As far as longevity it all comes down to maintenance. Most boaters put very few hours on their engines per year, so unless you are commercial or a very avid fisherman life expectancy is really not an issue on 2-stroke vs. 4-stroke. I hope this helps. Oh and don't forget to get a spinaker which is must have equipment for the trip down wind. After all it is a sailboat too. Have fun and be safe. Kind Regards, JonBill
tohatsu 50 not enough
I have a 98, 26x with a tohatsu50.Empty ballast and one person top speed of 16mph is all I can squeeze. I'm already preping my wife for the opportunity to repower. I'm leaning toward the tohatsu 90 as well.
I have a 98, 26x with a tohatsu50.Empty ballast and one person top speed of 16mph is all I can squeeze. I'm already preping my wife for the opportunity to repower. I'm leaning toward the tohatsu 90 as well.
50 HP Honda
I have a 50HP honda and have reached top speeds of 20mph @ 6000 rpm, still not quite planing though. I have a 2003 26M and if I am lightly loaded for day sailing 20MPH is achievable. The Honda weighs in at aprox 212lbs and is one of the lighter 4 strokes. There are many Mac owners who are very satisfied with this choice, albeit they are never in a hurry. I have noticed that when I am loaded for several days cruising that the extra weight drops the top speed. Also notice that when the hull gets overgrown speed also drops. I only get the 20MPH at the beginning of the season with a fresh waxed hull, by the end of summer with all the growth it drops to about 13mph. If speed is important definitely go for the TLDI 90HP for the best power to weight ratio, otherwise the Honda is a tried & true alternative that will provide years of reliable service.
I have a 50HP honda and have reached top speeds of 20mph @ 6000 rpm, still not quite planing though. I have a 2003 26M and if I am lightly loaded for day sailing 20MPH is achievable. The Honda weighs in at aprox 212lbs and is one of the lighter 4 strokes. There are many Mac owners who are very satisfied with this choice, albeit they are never in a hurry. I have noticed that when I am loaded for several days cruising that the extra weight drops the top speed. Also notice that when the hull gets overgrown speed also drops. I only get the 20MPH at the beginning of the season with a fresh waxed hull, by the end of summer with all the growth it drops to about 13mph. If speed is important definitely go for the TLDI 90HP for the best power to weight ratio, otherwise the Honda is a tried & true alternative that will provide years of reliable service.
compatible
There's a couple with a 26M in our marina. They have a 90hp motor. She said as long as she can waterski, he could have his sailboat
There's a couple with a 26M in our marina. They have a 90hp motor. She said as long as she can waterski, he could have his sailboat
Capt, please don't take offense
Capt Kermie, please don't take offense Sir, but there's a really big difference in 20 mph and 13 mph. May I suggest it's possible that in obtaining the higher speed with your 50 HP that in addition to it being springtime and the hull being in polished condition, that you may have forgot to add that a really stiff wind was at your back, you were running in the direction of a really strong current, was carrying only 3 gallons of fuel, was in the boat alone and left the mast onshore to-boot. Otherwise you may have just set the water speed record for a Mac 26 M or X with a 50 HP motor at 20 MPH. BTW Thanks for being a good sport! Seriously the average speed obtained running linear in two directions, say out and back is the only fair way to determine how fast your motor is pushing your boat. Also your boat plains-out (rides over its own bow wake) at about 14 MPH, so if you were going 20 your boat was definitely plained. Kind Regards, JonBill
Capt Kermie, please don't take offense Sir, but there's a really big difference in 20 mph and 13 mph. May I suggest it's possible that in obtaining the higher speed with your 50 HP that in addition to it being springtime and the hull being in polished condition, that you may have forgot to add that a really stiff wind was at your back, you were running in the direction of a really strong current, was carrying only 3 gallons of fuel, was in the boat alone and left the mast onshore to-boot. Otherwise you may have just set the water speed record for a Mac 26 M or X with a 50 HP motor at 20 MPH. BTW Thanks for being a good sport! Seriously the average speed obtained running linear in two directions, say out and back is the only fair way to determine how fast your motor is pushing your boat. Also your boat plains-out (rides over its own bow wake) at about 14 MPH, so if you were going 20 your boat was definitely plained. Kind Regards, JonBill
No offense taken!
Yes!, there is a big difference between 13 mph & 20 mph. I was never so disappointed to see only 13 mph on the GPS last September. It was the last day of the season for me up here in the Pacific Northwest so I took her out for a spin before haul out only to be dissapointed. Once I got her in to my driveway it all made sense, must have been a quarter inch of growth or more on that hull, it was really bad, barnacles, muscles, algae, & some other strange circular critter. But that's only part of the equation, you should have seen all the stuff I cleared out for winter layup. I could not believe the amount of unnecessary gear & supplies I emptied out, I plan to be a bit more aware of what I am carrying next season. Yes, 20mph may be hard to believe, actually it was 19.8 on the GPS I just rounded it up, I shall try for the full 20mph next spring. I may have had a tide current on side but I did try a couple different directions last May and I definately did not have a stiff wind at my back because I have no use for an engine when the wind is up, I get the sails up as soon as I leave the marina. It was on a dead calm day when there was no use hoisting the sails, nothing to fill them with. Mast was there too! I don't usually start the season loaded for cruising so admittedly I was travelling light, but also you'd be very surprised to discover hou much influence marine growth on your hull has on your top speed, (not to metion excess weight). Since there was no wind that day I was out comparing the difference between my three blade and four blade propellers so I doubt there were any serious variables being overlooked,(perhaps smaller variables) I had to come back to my slip to change props then go back out and duplicate the run. There was only a small difference between the props, similar speeds but theoretically way more slippage on the three blade. 3 X 10.75 X 13 vs 4 X 11.4 X 9.5 The 13 pitch had to be slipping way more to be at a similar speed, actually the 4 blade is more effective and I prefer it even if it only gets 19.8 (the 3 only gets 19mph, diameter too small). Still I am not getting the 22mph the manufacturer claims for the M or the 24mph they claim for the X. I am going to try that super slick VS721 bottom wax from Aurora Marine next spring, perhaps that will get me the 22mph the factory claims. PS. I am not BS ing you on the 19.8mph, it was displayed on my GPS, but I will do the test again next spring to confirm it, make sure I was not dreaming.
Yes!, there is a big difference between 13 mph & 20 mph. I was never so disappointed to see only 13 mph on the GPS last September. It was the last day of the season for me up here in the Pacific Northwest so I took her out for a spin before haul out only to be dissapointed. Once I got her in to my driveway it all made sense, must have been a quarter inch of growth or more on that hull, it was really bad, barnacles, muscles, algae, & some other strange circular critter. But that's only part of the equation, you should have seen all the stuff I cleared out for winter layup. I could not believe the amount of unnecessary gear & supplies I emptied out, I plan to be a bit more aware of what I am carrying next season. Yes, 20mph may be hard to believe, actually it was 19.8 on the GPS I just rounded it up, I shall try for the full 20mph next spring. I may have had a tide current on side but I did try a couple different directions last May and I definately did not have a stiff wind at my back because I have no use for an engine when the wind is up, I get the sails up as soon as I leave the marina. It was on a dead calm day when there was no use hoisting the sails, nothing to fill them with. Mast was there too! I don't usually start the season loaded for cruising so admittedly I was travelling light, but also you'd be very surprised to discover hou much influence marine growth on your hull has on your top speed, (not to metion excess weight). Since there was no wind that day I was out comparing the difference between my three blade and four blade propellers so I doubt there were any serious variables being overlooked,(perhaps smaller variables) I had to come back to my slip to change props then go back out and duplicate the run. There was only a small difference between the props, similar speeds but theoretically way more slippage on the three blade. 3 X 10.75 X 13 vs 4 X 11.4 X 9.5 The 13 pitch had to be slipping way more to be at a similar speed, actually the 4 blade is more effective and I prefer it even if it only gets 19.8 (the 3 only gets 19mph, diameter too small). Still I am not getting the 22mph the manufacturer claims for the M or the 24mph they claim for the X. I am going to try that super slick VS721 bottom wax from Aurora Marine next spring, perhaps that will get me the 22mph the factory claims. PS. I am not BS ing you on the 19.8mph, it was displayed on my GPS, but I will do the test again next spring to confirm it, make sure I was not dreaming.
50 Honda
honda makes great products, no doubt about it. and the outboard motor is no exception. it's very reliable and lightweight for a 4-stroke. in fact, i believe that it has more torque than an equivalent suzuki 50. it's definitely ligher, thus pushes a Mac a bit (notice how I used the word "bit") faster. that said...one reason why most are opting away from the honda is because it's a carburated motor. and today, why not choose a high-tech fuel injected outboard rather than old technology? so, even though it's "proven" technology vs. new technology, you rarely see them on the rear of a new Mac M. all of that said, i have yet to see one or hear of one that pushes a Mac (let alone a new "heavy" M) at 20 mph. maybe they supercharged yours by mistake...you lucky s.o.b.
honda makes great products, no doubt about it. and the outboard motor is no exception. it's very reliable and lightweight for a 4-stroke. in fact, i believe that it has more torque than an equivalent suzuki 50. it's definitely ligher, thus pushes a Mac a bit (notice how I used the word "bit") faster. that said...one reason why most are opting away from the honda is because it's a carburated motor. and today, why not choose a high-tech fuel injected outboard rather than old technology? so, even though it's "proven" technology vs. new technology, you rarely see them on the rear of a new Mac M. all of that said, i have yet to see one or hear of one that pushes a Mac (let alone a new "heavy" M) at 20 mph. maybe they supercharged yours by mistake...you lucky s.o.b.
Maybe it's time for anti-fouling bottom paint
Capt, Please permit me to recommend the obvious that everyone reading this thread is no doubt wondering why -- pehaps it's about time we applied some anti-fouling bottom paint. Highly recommended if you're leaving it in the water all summer, because those barnacles usually take some fiberglass with them when you go and clean them off. I knew an old salt once that was a Jeweler by trade that anchored off of St. Johns where he called home in the AVI's, he had so much marine growth on his hull that he had to be towed back to St Thomas harbor to get supplies every other month or so. I still have the Cruifix that he made me. That was a long time ago. Oh well just a thought! Kind Regards, JonBill
Capt, Please permit me to recommend the obvious that everyone reading this thread is no doubt wondering why -- pehaps it's about time we applied some anti-fouling bottom paint. Highly recommended if you're leaving it in the water all summer, because those barnacles usually take some fiberglass with them when you go and clean them off. I knew an old salt once that was a Jeweler by trade that anchored off of St. Johns where he called home in the AVI's, he had so much marine growth on his hull that he had to be towed back to St Thomas harbor to get supplies every other month or so. I still have the Cruifix that he made me. That was a long time ago. Oh well just a thought! Kind Regards, JonBill
E-Tec 50
I bought a 26M, and after extensive research I opted for an Evinrude E-Tec 50. Has all the zip of a 2-stroke but as quiet and as clean as a 4 stroke. I can easily go 18-20 MPH with a full ballast and 2-4 passengers. We pulled adults on a tube with 3 passengers, and bounced them off the waves air born. When we got back to Harbor other boaters couldn't believe they saw the sailboat pulling tubers. Anyway, I am delighted with it and you may want to consider.
I bought a 26M, and after extensive research I opted for an Evinrude E-Tec 50. Has all the zip of a 2-stroke but as quiet and as clean as a 4 stroke. I can easily go 18-20 MPH with a full ballast and 2-4 passengers. We pulled adults on a tube with 3 passengers, and bounced them off the waves air born. When we got back to Harbor other boaters couldn't believe they saw the sailboat pulling tubers. Anyway, I am delighted with it and you may want to consider.
Re: Tohatsu 90HP TLDI and sailing performance
I'm contemplating the 26M, and your posts about the 90HP motor are very informative. No one mentioned, however, whether sailing performance is affected by the heavier motor. Does the 26M perform under sail differently with the 90HP's weight?
I'm contemplating the 26M, and your posts about the 90HP motor are very informative. No one mentioned, however, whether sailing performance is affected by the heavier motor. Does the 26M perform under sail differently with the 90HP's weight?
motor weight
this is all about weight, right? most Mac dealers in southern California are providing 2 primary options for motors on the rear of the M. #1: the Suzuki 50 @ 255# #2: the Suzuki 70 @ 340# (there's also the Honda 50 @ 210#, Honda 90 @ 390#, Mercury 50/60 @ 260#, Yamaha 50/60 @ 245#.) the 90 Nissan/Tohatsu weighs 310# (+/-). the 90 Evinrude Etec weighs 320# (+/-). remember, the original premise by Roger Mac for putting a 2-Stroke Tohatsu 50 on the rear of the '96-X was that you could "pull start" it if the battery went dead. That was a 160#(?) motor that is now only sold internationally (Japan/Mexico). it's a high output/torque "smoker" that pollutes heavily. Yamaha also has a 2 stroke international model that weighs 190#. however, times have changed... Popular clean burning 4 stroke motors are heavy and sluggish (pound for pound), while 2 strokes are a bit heavier now than they previously were, yet cleaner burning/fuel efficient/smoother running and provide the same high output. so, bottom line, you can get an efficient 2 stroke 90 that weighs a mere 50# more than a 4 stroke 50. I've done both. I love the 2 stroke 90. for me, sailing performance is no different now than it was 50 pounds ago. other 90 owners will attest to the same.
this is all about weight, right? most Mac dealers in southern California are providing 2 primary options for motors on the rear of the M. #1: the Suzuki 50 @ 255# #2: the Suzuki 70 @ 340# (there's also the Honda 50 @ 210#, Honda 90 @ 390#, Mercury 50/60 @ 260#, Yamaha 50/60 @ 245#.) the 90 Nissan/Tohatsu weighs 310# (+/-). the 90 Evinrude Etec weighs 320# (+/-). remember, the original premise by Roger Mac for putting a 2-Stroke Tohatsu 50 on the rear of the '96-X was that you could "pull start" it if the battery went dead. That was a 160#(?) motor that is now only sold internationally (Japan/Mexico). it's a high output/torque "smoker" that pollutes heavily. Yamaha also has a 2 stroke international model that weighs 190#. however, times have changed... Popular clean burning 4 stroke motors are heavy and sluggish (pound for pound), while 2 strokes are a bit heavier now than they previously were, yet cleaner burning/fuel efficient/smoother running and provide the same high output. so, bottom line, you can get an efficient 2 stroke 90 that weighs a mere 50# more than a 4 stroke 50. I've done both. I love the 2 stroke 90. for me, sailing performance is no different now than it was 50 pounds ago. other 90 owners will attest to the same.
Bring “Real” back Reality!
Thanks JonBill….For Dong Bud’s w/BT Bring “Real” back Reality! Heavy on the PowerBoy Syndromes and The “WE” Factor, Light on “Justification”. My Neighbor Smiled too, until he ruined his ride. Don’t be so Quick to Promote your own personal preference as if you had your “Facts Straight” Most purchase the Mac with the 50, and those so inclined to exceed the Manufacturers Written Warranty at the risk of Structural Damage, Stress Cracks, and the Potential Heavy Cost of Repair and Structural Enhancement of the Transom. The Power is more than Double the Designers and Engineers tested and Warranted Limit. Don’t try to gain credibility by leading potential owners astray with “Power Hungry” Motor Boater obsession. If the necessity to have such power is in your Gene’s (By Your Thinking) you most certainly should have an overpowered Bayliner or SeaRay Motor Boat as they congregate for this type of alteration. I’m only trying to provide “Real World” advice to Potential MacGregor owners looking for the Macs best Sailing and Motoring ability, I have nothing to offer those seeking “One More Cheap Thrill” by modifying a Well Designed, Balanced wonderful Boat for the Drama created by Barstool Thrill seekers and Backyard Engineers claiming Nautical Prowess over the Proven Success created from the most constantly Successful Powersailor Designer. Those skilled enough to read and understand boat Design have long noted those warnings printed on building plans not to attempt modifications from the “Designers” intent. I have recently observed visitors to the MacGregor Factory posing their intent to perform an engine upgrade over the “Written Warranty” such as you propose, in an attempt to enhance the MacGregor “M” Powersailor Designed Performance. The Long Time Factory Representative admitted some have performed this conflict, but they “Highly Recommended” the 50 for the “Best Overall Designed Performance”. Steve Paul I agree with some of your simple analogy. I’ve always been aware of the Dock Boater, whose boat had every conceivable upgrade sporting a finish welcomed at any boat show. There are also Yachts seen daily in the Harbor demanding almost any hint of attention. The Racer cannot find common ground with the cruiser, and Stinkpotters find little satisfaction with Blowboaters, and visa versa. Some Powersailors have a lot of the same problems; they lack skill and ability for sailing, so they bolt on an engine “So Big” it compromises their Boat’s Sailability. I wonder what those capable of enjoying both would think of someone’s Powersailor enhancement by removing the 50, only to replace it with a 5 and install a taller spar, stationary deep rudders, and a permanent deep, solid ballast keel? Wow! Were all boaters, some of us just cannot justify the extremes!
Thanks JonBill….For Dong Bud’s w/BT Bring “Real” back Reality! Heavy on the PowerBoy Syndromes and The “WE” Factor, Light on “Justification”. My Neighbor Smiled too, until he ruined his ride. Don’t be so Quick to Promote your own personal preference as if you had your “Facts Straight” Most purchase the Mac with the 50, and those so inclined to exceed the Manufacturers Written Warranty at the risk of Structural Damage, Stress Cracks, and the Potential Heavy Cost of Repair and Structural Enhancement of the Transom. The Power is more than Double the Designers and Engineers tested and Warranted Limit. Don’t try to gain credibility by leading potential owners astray with “Power Hungry” Motor Boater obsession. If the necessity to have such power is in your Gene’s (By Your Thinking) you most certainly should have an overpowered Bayliner or SeaRay Motor Boat as they congregate for this type of alteration. I’m only trying to provide “Real World” advice to Potential MacGregor owners looking for the Macs best Sailing and Motoring ability, I have nothing to offer those seeking “One More Cheap Thrill” by modifying a Well Designed, Balanced wonderful Boat for the Drama created by Barstool Thrill seekers and Backyard Engineers claiming Nautical Prowess over the Proven Success created from the most constantly Successful Powersailor Designer. Those skilled enough to read and understand boat Design have long noted those warnings printed on building plans not to attempt modifications from the “Designers” intent. I have recently observed visitors to the MacGregor Factory posing their intent to perform an engine upgrade over the “Written Warranty” such as you propose, in an attempt to enhance the MacGregor “M” Powersailor Designed Performance. The Long Time Factory Representative admitted some have performed this conflict, but they “Highly Recommended” the 50 for the “Best Overall Designed Performance”. Steve Paul I agree with some of your simple analogy. I’ve always been aware of the Dock Boater, whose boat had every conceivable upgrade sporting a finish welcomed at any boat show. There are also Yachts seen daily in the Harbor demanding almost any hint of attention. The Racer cannot find common ground with the cruiser, and Stinkpotters find little satisfaction with Blowboaters, and visa versa. Some Powersailors have a lot of the same problems; they lack skill and ability for sailing, so they bolt on an engine “So Big” it compromises their Boat’s Sailability. I wonder what those capable of enjoying both would think of someone’s Powersailor enhancement by removing the 50, only to replace it with a 5 and install a taller spar, stationary deep rudders, and a permanent deep, solid ballast keel? Wow! Were all boaters, some of us just cannot justify the extremes!
dissapointed in MacGregor
You and Yours; I know your thoughts and agree with you but am somewhat more tolerant of people's actions. It's difficult and sometimes risky on these forums since writing a quick note can upset people or leave a bad taste when it wasn't really intended. Face to face we seem better able to have these "risky" discussions without inflicting pain or insult on others.I know the people on this forum are kind, helpful and mean the best. I appreciate that we can help all of us with just a few postings, what a great thing. In fact, I had a wonderful 26S and found this to be an excellent sailboat "compromise". I was dissapointed in MacGregor for dropping the 26S design but understand the market needs around that decision. Every boat, no matter what type is a compromise of some sort, none are perfect except for the very pointedly designed offshore or one-kind racers. Indeed, for me the wind makes me smile. Watching my grandchildren smile when my boat heels over and their actions control the boat is absolutely a Zen place for me. The Mac 26X, M or whatever is not for me. The shallow rudders with poor purchase and high freeboard with all that poor weather helm just don't do it for me. Now having said that, I truly appreciate the weekend sailor with a large family who needs a large interior to camp in. No problem and I hope they enjoy it to the fullest. I grew tired of the Mac's low cabin and tight quarters as the Admiral and I are aging a little and don't enjoy the sloop-stoop anymore. So I bought a ComPac 27/2 and discovered what an actual sailboat was designed for. I truly wish I could have kept the Mac and had a fleet. Now the compromises come in again. Not a true trailerable but the Com Pac sails better and safer. Now I have to maintain a diesel but I don't burn much fuel either. Now we can take more people out who've never sailed and offer them the opportunity to appreciate sailing. It's great. I'm not intending to irritate anyone but let all of you know it's about being true to yourself. Do what you enjoy and just do it often. I prefer to throw time at myself instead of money (although I do that well too) so whatever you have make the most of it. Time waits for no-one. Regards to all and a merry Christmas. Steve Paul http://www.com-pacyachts.com/com-pac27.php
You and Yours; I know your thoughts and agree with you but am somewhat more tolerant of people's actions. It's difficult and sometimes risky on these forums since writing a quick note can upset people or leave a bad taste when it wasn't really intended. Face to face we seem better able to have these "risky" discussions without inflicting pain or insult on others.I know the people on this forum are kind, helpful and mean the best. I appreciate that we can help all of us with just a few postings, what a great thing. In fact, I had a wonderful 26S and found this to be an excellent sailboat "compromise". I was dissapointed in MacGregor for dropping the 26S design but understand the market needs around that decision. Every boat, no matter what type is a compromise of some sort, none are perfect except for the very pointedly designed offshore or one-kind racers. Indeed, for me the wind makes me smile. Watching my grandchildren smile when my boat heels over and their actions control the boat is absolutely a Zen place for me. The Mac 26X, M or whatever is not for me. The shallow rudders with poor purchase and high freeboard with all that poor weather helm just don't do it for me. Now having said that, I truly appreciate the weekend sailor with a large family who needs a large interior to camp in. No problem and I hope they enjoy it to the fullest. I grew tired of the Mac's low cabin and tight quarters as the Admiral and I are aging a little and don't enjoy the sloop-stoop anymore. So I bought a ComPac 27/2 and discovered what an actual sailboat was designed for. I truly wish I could have kept the Mac and had a fleet. Now the compromises come in again. Not a true trailerable but the Com Pac sails better and safer. Now I have to maintain a diesel but I don't burn much fuel either. Now we can take more people out who've never sailed and offer them the opportunity to appreciate sailing. It's great. I'm not intending to irritate anyone but let all of you know it's about being true to yourself. Do what you enjoy and just do it often. I prefer to throw time at myself instead of money (although I do that well too) so whatever you have make the most of it. Time waits for no-one. Regards to all and a merry Christmas. Steve Paul http://www.com-pacyachts.com/com-pac27.php
You Yours - That was quite comical!
You Yours, You had me laughing out loud here at the office reading your post. Quite a humorous post. So what is it that you sail if you don't mind me asking? Another thing what does this mean "Dong Bud’s w/BT". I don't understand that slang expression so perhaps I'll learn something new here. Regards, JonBill
You Yours, You had me laughing out loud here at the office reading your post. Quite a humorous post. So what is it that you sail if you don't mind me asking? Another thing what does this mean "Dong Bud’s w/BT". I don't understand that slang expression so perhaps I'll learn something new here. Regards, JonBill
Unique Powersailing Elements
Steve Paul Unique Powersailing Elements There are Trailerable yachts, (Sailboats, Motorboats, Motor Sailboats, and the Unique Powersailor of which the Com-Pac 27 is surely not. My post here is for the “Trailerable Powersailboat”. There have been many attempts to bring a boat of this type to the market, but no one has come closer than Roger MacGregor. The “X” and “M” Powersailors have evolved and are unique in their ability to Sail reasonably well, and Power much faster than any boat of this type. My intent was not to discredit or anger anyone, but to bring attention to the compromise, trade-off, that you can make by hanging too much weight and power on the transom of this small boat. The balance of any small craft can be offset by ballast placed in critical areas to balance the boat and keep it trimmed on its best lines. You know as well as anyone, your being a sailor that you’re not going to place anyone or anything at the extremities to better balance your small craft. I try to recognize the merit of all boats and their designed use, and advise individuals who feel the need to compromise the sailing performance of the Mac Powersailor to benefit “The Need for Motoring Speed”, as to do so is a personal preference, but please be a candid Corinthian sailor and inform others of the trade off. Just as Your Com Pac displaces well over 6000lbs and is close to 30 feet in length puts it off the trailerable list, and merits no mention of its Powersailing ability. The Unique ability to launch in one-foot of water from a trailer, and have the potential to sail and motor with equal enthusiasm makes the MacGregor’s attributes very desirable to many boating enthusiasts. I like the Com Pac (Hutchens) designed Shoal Sailor for its quality and good looks, but the pricing is well past the $100,000 price tag for a new lightly equipped and canvassed coastal sailboat puts it beyond the means of most Powersailors looking for an economical coastal boat to power them home quickly when the wind dies. Yes, the Merits of the MacGregor Powersailor can be exceptional when compared to the cost and overall performance capability of most boats, and at a very attractive price. Inform others of your choice to install excessive weight and power on the MacGregor “M” Powersailor, but also be truthful and avoid rationalizing your compromising the boats sailing potential. PS I’m not trying to make anyone angry, but I am aware of his sales pitch to “Wanna Be” MacGregor owners from another forums regarding the “Bigger is Better” set of auxiliary symptoms. I understand your Zen feeling when under sail and concur with your description. Sailing can be one of the last euphoric pleasures we experience away from our newly acquired alien neighbors in our parks and shopping centers full of undocumented illegal moochers combined with “Threats” as many of them deserve the “Terrorist” title while imposing their culture, language, and breaking the bank on our welfare, educational systems, civic pride, moral values and their propensity to gang up and break the “LAW”. (Just threw that in for opinion sake)
Steve Paul Unique Powersailing Elements There are Trailerable yachts, (Sailboats, Motorboats, Motor Sailboats, and the Unique Powersailor of which the Com-Pac 27 is surely not. My post here is for the “Trailerable Powersailboat”. There have been many attempts to bring a boat of this type to the market, but no one has come closer than Roger MacGregor. The “X” and “M” Powersailors have evolved and are unique in their ability to Sail reasonably well, and Power much faster than any boat of this type. My intent was not to discredit or anger anyone, but to bring attention to the compromise, trade-off, that you can make by hanging too much weight and power on the transom of this small boat. The balance of any small craft can be offset by ballast placed in critical areas to balance the boat and keep it trimmed on its best lines. You know as well as anyone, your being a sailor that you’re not going to place anyone or anything at the extremities to better balance your small craft. I try to recognize the merit of all boats and their designed use, and advise individuals who feel the need to compromise the sailing performance of the Mac Powersailor to benefit “The Need for Motoring Speed”, as to do so is a personal preference, but please be a candid Corinthian sailor and inform others of the trade off. Just as Your Com Pac displaces well over 6000lbs and is close to 30 feet in length puts it off the trailerable list, and merits no mention of its Powersailing ability. The Unique ability to launch in one-foot of water from a trailer, and have the potential to sail and motor with equal enthusiasm makes the MacGregor’s attributes very desirable to many boating enthusiasts. I like the Com Pac (Hutchens) designed Shoal Sailor for its quality and good looks, but the pricing is well past the $100,000 price tag for a new lightly equipped and canvassed coastal sailboat puts it beyond the means of most Powersailors looking for an economical coastal boat to power them home quickly when the wind dies. Yes, the Merits of the MacGregor Powersailor can be exceptional when compared to the cost and overall performance capability of most boats, and at a very attractive price. Inform others of your choice to install excessive weight and power on the MacGregor “M” Powersailor, but also be truthful and avoid rationalizing your compromising the boats sailing potential. PS I’m not trying to make anyone angry, but I am aware of his sales pitch to “Wanna Be” MacGregor owners from another forums regarding the “Bigger is Better” set of auxiliary symptoms. I understand your Zen feeling when under sail and concur with your description. Sailing can be one of the last euphoric pleasures we experience away from our newly acquired alien neighbors in our parks and shopping centers full of undocumented illegal moochers combined with “Threats” as many of them deserve the “Terrorist” title while imposing their culture, language, and breaking the bank on our welfare, educational systems, civic pride, moral values and their propensity to gang up and break the “LAW”. (Just threw that in for opinion sake)
You and yours cannot afford being too serious
JonBill You and yours cannot afford being too serious I’m glad your see the Humor in the Posts, more than insult or the anger injury. Yes I made the Felonious Interface Error and left the “I" out. But it does make for a unique conceptual thought of doing some “Heavy Bonding” and the use of some illegal substance. Please excuse my taking the liberty of including the tongue and cheek quickie!
JonBill You and yours cannot afford being too serious I’m glad your see the Humor in the Posts, more than insult or the anger injury. Yes I made the Felonious Interface Error and left the “I" out. But it does make for a unique conceptual thought of doing some “Heavy Bonding” and the use of some illegal substance. Please excuse my taking the liberty of including the tongue and cheek quickie!
- Status