F200/F175 or smaller?

[Bushwacker]

Originally Posted by Lordwrench

. . . CG/power balance is worth infinitely more pleasure in the long run living with it for years compared to saving a few coins in the pocket on the deal of the week . . .

Excellent advice! I originally planned to go with a 4-stroke in 2006 when I repowered and really looked hard at all competing motors. I put together a spreadsheet comparing details of all the motors in the 115-150 hp class. (Can e-mail a copy if you send me an address.) As a mechanical engineer, I was most impressed by the 417 lb 140 Zuke, with it's chain driven cams and clever offset driveshaft/crankshaft which provides extra gear reduction without the additional drag of a larger bullet on the lower unit. A local guy offered me a new 140 JohnZukie for about $9K that I almost bought, but his shop was a mess and he sounded like he was from the Bronx, so I passed. (He's now in prison - evidently was a very accomplished scam artist!) However, the Zukes remain my favorite 4-stroke motor because of the unique features they've incorporated to address the valve train complexity and lack of midrange torque common to all the 4-strokes. The bigger displacement 150/175 Zukes have the same advantages but they're much heavier, close to 500 lbs when you look at wet weight with 6-7 qts of oil on board, and numerous Bahama trips with heavy loads convinced me that the 20' hull definitely rides and handles better when you keep the CG where it was designed to be!

I then started looking at the E-TECs and spoke to the BRP engineers at the Miami Boat show in 2004, 5 & 6. They had been watching the problems with the early Optimax and FICHT's for several years and because of their experience with DI 2-S snowmobile engines, were confident they understood the causes and how to fix them. They just waited for OMC to go belly up so they could buy the company for pennies on the dollar! In the meantime, a colleague I had worked with at Pratt & Whitney for many years had left P&W to become the Chief Engineer at OMC's test center in Stuart, Fl., and was there during the transition to BRP. I spoke to him and he said OMC's quality control really went to hell in the late 90's as their financial situation became increasingly desperate, causing them to buy off all sorts of deviated parts from suppliers! He said BRP really cleaned house, threw out all the bad parts, and he was very impressed with the management and engineering team they brought in. He said anything built by BRP was top quality and that I shouldn't worry because the company was trying to overcome the FICHT's bad reputation with extraordinary product support, so they were really standing behind the new motors. So I took a chance on the E-TEC, and have been very pleasantly surprised! After almost 9 years and over 550 hrs, the instant starts, awesome mid-range torque, smooth, quiet operation, low fuel consumption, and lack of problems is still impressing me. Because of it's torque at 3000-4500 rpm, it's actually quieter than the 4-strokes because it doesn't have to be wound up so high - it's nice to be able to converse normally at 30 kts! Although the Optimax appears to be slight better on fuel consumption, I didn't seriously consider it because it's just as loud as the 1975 Evinrude I'd been running for 31 years and I was tired of all that noise! The 2.6L small block V-6 E-TEC is about the same weight as the 140 Zuke, but with 155 cubic inches vs. 122 cu. in. on the Zuke, it's a MUCH stronger motor that doesn't have to work hard at all to push the 20' hull. The 115/130 hp V-4's are also plenty of power for the 20, and used to be only about 375 lbs, but are now up to about 390 lbs, so not much lighter than the small V-6; they're probably running the V-6 lower unit. You might also find some very good deals on the 135 HO, which is just a slightly detuned 150. Most of the E-TEC's actually put out about 10% more HP at the prop than advertised, so be advised that there's serious sandbagging on the power ratings!

When you're shopping, also don't overlook maintenance costs, especially the valve lash adjustments required on some motors at about 600 hrs! Most all the engine makers offer special deals/extended warranties this time of year. I got a 7 year warranty with mine.

[FishStretcher]

I keep hearing about valve adjustments for four strokes. Shim over bucket cam followers practically NEVER need adjusting. Over 10 years onn VWs, Suzuki bikes and Yamaha outboards, I have had to re shim a VW once after 140,000 miles. The suzuki and yamaha didn't need adjustment.

On the Yamaha F100, it took me an hour or two to check the valves. If they did need adjustment, that would be a pain, but they didn't. I did it for peace of mind, knowing that like every other shim over bucket cam follower, it was probably fine, and on the F100, it was. I don't know how many hours are on the motor, I think 800ish. The hour meter say a bit under 700, and it hasn't been plugged in all the time.

Maybe I am the rare guy who maintains his motors? So this doesn't seem like such a cost burden to me. I will do carbs and timing belts and valve lash and oil changes. So that might give me a different viewpoint

Also:
Looking at the Evinrude web page, the 135 is a lot heavier than I thought. I thought in previous years there was a 130 that was the same weight as a Yamaha F90, but it doesn't seem to be available any longer? So it seems like the modern 2 and 4 strokes are closer in weight than I used to think.

[McGillicuddy]

Verch,

I think the Yammie and the Suzuki are both fantastic products, but for a 20 of either generation, I would favor the Suzuki 140 over either brands 175, for the approx 80 lb weight savings. I also think the offset drive feature Bushwacker mentioned is a very clever way to keep some weight forward. I believe the 140s performance will be better in every category except top speed, wherein the 175 should beat the 140 but probably not by more than 3 or 4 mph.

If there is one thing I've learned from this forum, it is the "mantra" that "light is right" on a 20 foot SeaCraft hull. A 20 should feel nimble. I don't foresee that sensation with nearly 500 lbs on the transom.

Either way, new power is good. Enjoy!

[Bushwacker]

I agree with Gillie that the 140 is a better match for the 20' hull than either of the bigger 4-S motors for the best low speed planing performance and ride. My experience with the Seafari, which is still heavier than the Tracker CC models and with more of that weight forward than in a CC, is that the less weight you have on the transom the better. I ran it for over 30 years with a 300 lb motor on some long Bahama trips in rough conditions and was amazed at how well it could stay with 23-24' boats! With only ~ 100 hp at the prop, I could only cruise at about 20 kts and would have trouble staying with the guys running bigger engines in flat conditions, but once seas kicked up to 2-3', they'd have to slow down and then I could stay with 'em! The ride was just amazing and it's too bad that so many CSC guys have never run the 20' hull with a light motor like Gillie has because they'll never know how well it performs when it's balanced as originally designed!

Regarding the E-TEC's, I believe that the 2.6L V-6, which combines the weight of the 140 Zuke with the power and performance of the bigger 4-S motors with even more mid-range torque, is now the optimum new power option for any of the 20' hulls.

The 130 hp and nearly identical 115HO V-4's that were originally listed at 369/375 lbs wet weight (20/25"models) in 2006 had grown to 390/405 lbs by 2009, but as far as I know, only the 115 was available after 2012. The 115 supposedly had more mid-range torque than the 130 V-4, which was evidently replaced by the 135 HO V-6, which I believe came out in 2013. Since the 2.6L V-6 (in 135HO/150/175/200 ratings) offers 1/3rd more displacement with only 28 lbs more weight than the V-4, most folks would probably pick the 135 V-6, provided cost and fuel consumption weren't significantly higher. The other even lower cost and weight option is the 90 HP I-3 E-TEC at 320/325 lbs which is also plenty of power for the 20' hull if you're not interested in running over about 30 kts.

[Terry England]

Denny, Would you quit pushing those E-Tec Water cooled Chain Saws! We pay good money for outboard motors and we sleep better at night knowing there is extra "stuff" werring around in our engines. Valve springs, cam chains, belts, sprockets, pulleys a such give you a sense of sophistication when you are out on the water. Life is complicated and we need to keep it that way no matter how much it costs. And don't be bring up any of that Pratt and Whitney engineering stuff about "power to weight ratios" or "cost of scheduled maintainaince" because we fully entrenched in the principal that "More is More" and that "Less is More" is just too old school. So wake up and smell the Double Expresso Caramel Micchiato with a splash of Creme de Mint and quit asking for black coffee.

[verch]

Thanks Bushwacker for all of your input. You certainly raise valid points. I've read through several of your posts as well as other postings on the topic of horsepower/weight issues. I know that without a doubt the small engine is the ticket for the east coast where you see blue water often. The truth is though that I may only see blue water in the gulf once or twice a year and that would only to be to run to the rip or the closest oil rig on a super clear day in the summer. I live about 2 hours form the coast and 95% of the use of this boat will be for pleasure ridding in the bayous and lakes and fishing inshore along the coast. My old Yami 115 weighed 140lbs and the scuppers were fine. I see guys with Yami 150's on these all the time and they are constantly posting about "why cant I get over 40 mph". The Yami 150 weighs the same as the new F200 so I was hoping to hear from some folks like Cayaman who have the F200 or similar engines. Trust me, I know what your saying about lighter is better. I grew up ridding the old 2 stroke dirt bikes that you could easily throw around and now I hate the new heavy four strokes. That would be an easy decision for me but I know how to rebuild those and it isn't nearly the investment of a new outboard. I know that if I cant cruise at least 35 mph in the RPM sweet spot "4-6 gph" I wont be happy with the boat for the long haul. I love the Seacrafts and I knew I was going to be challenged to get new boat options in an older boat but her curves were just too sexy to pass up. So here I am. At a fork in the road.

[verch]

You know Terry, you may be on to something there. I quit drinking my coffee black when I was about 12. That's about the same time I stopped eating liver & onions and hunting with a crack barrel shotgun. Hell, last year I traded my M1A (16lbs) for Scar 17 (8lbs). I don't always think newer is better but I like what I like. I love the slim sexy lines of the Seacraft 18 & 20 but I cant live with 30-35 mph WOT. Maybe I chose the wrong boat for what I use it for but for now, I still love it and want to try to get the best engine fit that meets my needs without compromising the strength and functionality of the boat. I'll never be the guy in the left lane of the interstate driving 50 mph. It just isn't me. So if your comfortable sitting on your porch drinking your black coffee with your crack barrel shotgun throwing rocks at the new cars as they pass your house, keep on keeping on bro. It just aint for me.

[Bushwacker]

Originally Posted by Terry England

. . . So wake up and smell the Double Expresso Caramel Micchiato with a splash of Creme de Mint and quit asking for black coffee. . .

You have a good point Terry - I used to put more stuff in my coffee but switched to black coffee a couple years ago just because it was simpler and less hassle! Somebody's avatar on here says "Life's too short to own an ugly boat"! I don't drink cheap whiskey and the same rationale should probably apply to other stuff as well - no point in ending up as the richest guy in the graveyard! Maybe I'll even go ahead and cash in that annuity I've been thinking about!

verch - If I lived where you did and ran in flat water all the time, I'd probably be looking for more power and speed too! You're definitely on the right track by trying to keep everything light, but if you want 5-8 mpg @ 35 mph in a 2000#+ deep-V hull, I'm afraid you're gonna be disappointed with any modern motor, even if it's on a SeaCraft! No Bones 20 CC will run about 65 with that souped up "200" 2-S Merc and I'm sure it'll cruise at better than 35, but I bet he'll burn a tad more than 6 gph doing it! Your best bet might be to just go ahead and buy whatever you think will have the best resale value a couple years down the road, and then keep an eye on the G-2 E-TEC! Weight looks kinda high but also includes hydraulic steering and a 2 gal oil tank, so hard to do apples to apples weight comparisons. They're claiming 15% better mpg than existing 4-strokes, so by the time they get done slicing and dicing that new 3.4L 300 hp V-6 into I-2's, I-3's, and V-4's a few years from now, like they did with the current 2.6L V-6, they might have about what you want! A 150 hp I-3 or a 200 hp V-4 would most certainly be lighter than anything currently on the market! Denny

[Blue_Heron]

The Tracker hulls are not as sensitive as the Potter boats to weight aft. If the boat is intended to run 50+mph in smooth water, and there's no need to be able to stay on plane below 20mph, the CG will want to be further aft than a Potter that's bound for 3'-4' seas.

You might be fine with a 500 lb. 200hp motor as long as you don't hang it on a bracket. Check the bottom of the hull from the transom forward about 4' with a straight edge and look for hook. My 20' '83 Seacraft Industries hull has some hook and it keeps the bow low at speed. If yours has some hook in it, that will work in your favor with a heavier engine.
Dave

[Bushwacker]

Dave,

I didn't realize the Tracker models had a hook in 'em! Probably makes sense as they were newer boats and rigged with heavier motors. Is it just the innermost panels or do the other panels also have a hook also?

Didn't we find some rocker in the aft 3-4' of the innermost panels on that Potter 20 CC project boat you picked up? I think that rocker would provide more speed potential than a boat with a hook because you could get more hull out of the water at high speed, although it would be more sensitive to motor weight and CG location.

I was doing some prop testing in flat water on my stern-heavy rig last week and noticed that, at about 25-28 mph, I could trim out to about 50% trim with no porpoising. As I increased speed at the same trim setting however, it would start to porpoise once I got up to about 35 mph! The '69 Boating Magazine test data (attached) on the 20 Seafari shows an increase in running angle above 35 mph, and I suspect that may be a result of some rocker built into the Moesly/Potter hull. That should provide some extra speed in a normally balanced hull, but if is a hull is already stern heavy, I could see how that rocker could make it less stable at high speed! (Carl said the CG on the I/O models is further forward than on the OB models, and it's definitely further forward than it is on mine with the bracket and heavy motor!)