Classic SeaCraft Community  

Go Back   Classic SeaCraft Community > Recovered Threads
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-03-2014, 11:16 PM
3rdday 3rdday is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: FL
Posts: 454
Default 27 Moesly Seamaster Flybridge Power

I have been soliciting opinions on twin power for my 27.
Contemplating twin 250 OX666 or twin 200 OX66.
Talked with an owner who had twin 250 said it was a rocket and tops out at 55mph.
I don't want a rocket I want economy. Wondering if 200s will burn less or more fuel because of the power to weight ratios (overall weight of vessel)
I will troll allot with the boat so I don't want to feed big engines fuel.
__________________
I heard it on the coconut telegraph..........
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-04-2014, 12:41 AM
McGillicuddy McGillicuddy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: 32.77 N, 117.01 W
Posts: 2,184
Default

The performance bulletin in the literature shows the 27 doing 43 mph with twin 2.6L OMC Sea Drives 607 lbs each. Granted your, SeaMaster is a bit different but the hull does the work and I can't imagine a huge difference.

I read somewhere they were rated at about 185 hp being crossflow evinrudes of the early to late 80s. I would think the Yammie 200s would be ample power, and be much lighter than the 250s, and probably more efficient too.

I think the Etec 200 or the Zukes would be where I'd look if I had the clams. you guys seem to have a lot of good repower shops down there with excellent deals by left coast standards. Good luck with her repower.
__________________
there's no such thing as normal anymore...
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-04-2014, 07:14 AM
DonV DonV is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Apollo Beach or Islamorada
Posts: 3,488
Send a message via ICQ to DonV
Default

I actually rode on Carl's 27'er with him and Skipper which was powered by twin 250 OX66 on a bracket. It had a LOT of power, I have no idea of the performance numbers, I was not on the "bridge" with Carl and Skip while it was running, however power was not an issue. If you are looking for economy that's not the way to go. Early technology EFI engines do not get very good mileage....ask me how I know. I think Gilly's suggestion is right on.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-04-2014, 07:51 AM
3rdday 3rdday is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: FL
Posts: 454
Default

Thanks Don & Gilly, I am a raving fan of both Etec and Yamaha ox66 EFI.
I should have stated EFI in my post. I had a 2001 200 EFI 0x66 on my Moesly 21, my average fuel consumption was 2.74 MPG including offshore, on flat water I would get over 4 mpg. It was an absolute bullet getting up on plane !
My first choice , used etec are very hard to find especially twins they are also on average double the cost used vs set of ox66 efi.
__________________
I heard it on the coconut telegraph..........
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-04-2014, 10:03 AM
Terry England Terry England is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, Florida
Posts: 895
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rdday View Post
Thanks Don & Gilly, I am a raving fan of both Etec and Yamaha ox66 EFI.......
I'm pretty sure the OX-66's will have the same place in history as the 302 Fords, 318 Chryslers, the 350 Chevys, the 320-3208 Cats and the International Power Strokes. Bullet Proof even with once a decade maintenance schedules!

You might see a pair of them in the Miami craig's list.

I faced the same dilemma re-powering an old 25 Bert. Find a couple of 150 OX-66's and have them rebuilt or buy new with 6 year warranties and 3 years scheduled maintenance. There are a lot of important factors to consider including required scheduled maintenance intervals, Fuel consumption, Spare parts availability, dealer support, weight, etc. I just got thinking about this one - Dollars Available Vs. Number of Sunsets left on the Tape Measure of life's Inch Years, (or DPD). I still have quite a few Light Houses I want to see from the water side, so I said, "Screw it - let's ride".

I looked carefully at the two Black ones and the Gray ones. The two little White 115's hurl that 3/4" thick hull, hardtop "axe" along at 38 MPH and get still get 1.8 mpg. At 8 mph "trawler speed" they get 8 miles per gallon. They plane it at 15 mph @ 2800 and make 18 mph @ 3000. That boat never saw 38 MPH with the 130 Mercruisers. I'll know in ten years if they are half as good as the OX-66's
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-04-2014, 10:39 AM
DonV DonV is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Apollo Beach or Islamorada
Posts: 3,488
Send a message via ICQ to DonV
Default

"so I said, "Screw it - let's ride"."

Amen brother Terry!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-04-2014, 11:16 AM
gofastsandman gofastsandman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: W.P.B. ,Fl.
Posts: 4,586
Default

Mr Whacker`s 20 SeaFari sees 10.5 mpg at idle. You like to troll. ETEC.

Search onecraigslist. It`s a really good mash.

Cheers,
GFS
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-04-2014, 11:34 AM
McGillicuddy McGillicuddy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: 32.77 N, 117.01 W
Posts: 2,184
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry England View Post
I just got thinking about this one - Dollars Available Vs. Number of Sunsets left on the Tape Measure of life's Inch Years, (or DPD). I still have quite a few Light Houses I want to see from the water side, so I said, "Screw it - let's ride".
I heard that...and decided I should go shopping. Guess I'll tell the lady when the white thingies arrive .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry England View Post
I looked carefully at the two Black ones and the Gray ones. The two little White 115's hurl that 3/4" thick hull, hardtop "axe" along at 38 MPH and get still get 1.8 mpg. At 8 mph "trawler speed" they get 8 miles per gallon. They plane it at 15 mph @ 2800 and make 18 mph @ 3000. That boat never saw 38 MPH with the 130 Mercruisers.
Guess you repowered - the "Hard Toppie Moppie" - numbers sound great! BRP Vipers, huh? Guess the B-25 likes the pointy end up to get that bulb a-planing.
__________________
there's no such thing as normal anymore...
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-04-2014, 01:18 PM
Bushwacker Bushwacker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: N. Palm Beach, Fl.
Posts: 2,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rdday View Post
I have been soliciting opinions on twin power for my 27.
Contemplating twin 250 OX666 or twin 200 OX66.
Talked with an owner who had twin 250 said it was a rocket and tops out at 55mph.
I don't want a rocket I want economy. Wondering if 200s will burn less or more fuel because of the power to weight ratios (overall weight of vessel)
I will troll allot with the boat so I don't want to feed big engines fuel.
With a reported 600 ft-lbs of mid-range torque, ONE of these guys might do the job, besides being cheaper to operate! http://www.evinrude.com/en-us/engine...etec_250_ho_g2

If a pair of "115's" (~260 hp) will push Terry's big Bertram 25 to high 30's, I would guess that 275 hp would handle that 27, which I'm sure is a more efficient hull!
__________________
'72 SeaFari/150E-Tec/Hermco Bracket, owned since 1975.
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z...Part2019-1.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-04-2014, 03:07 PM
3rdday 3rdday is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: FL
Posts: 454
Default

thank you all , I did consider a single 300 etec , now I'm thinking about it again.
Boat had a 300 hp bravo I/0 was a real pig. Wish there was a 300 ho or 350 etec
__________________
I heard it on the coconut telegraph..........
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All original content © 2003-2013 ClassicSeacraft