Association Forum - Outboard Motors

Assn Members Area · Join

Home.

Association Forum

Ships Store

Cruising

Racing

Technical Tips

Photo Gallery - New

Boat Search - Updated

Manuals & Brochures

Swap Meet

Links

Officer Flag Line & Staff

Bylaws & Constitution

Members Area

Join the Association

Notice:
The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.

Association Forum

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

Catalina/Capri 25/250 Sailor's Forums

General Sailing Forum

Outboard Motors

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Author

Topic

aeckhart
Master Marine Consultant

Member Avatar

USA
1709 Posts

Initially Posted - 01/28/2005 : 08:33:36

I found this information on the Boaters Life web site regarding outboard motors.

JD Power & Associates 2002 Consumer Survey - Customer Satisfaction Index.

Four-Stroke Engines (1000 Pt Total)

Yamaha 877
Honda 848
Ind. Ave 841
Evinrude 838
Mercury 807

For those considering replacing their old smoke generator with a new two-stroke, Yamaha again led the survey with 851 points, followed by Evinrude (834), Mercury (763), and Johnson (742). The industry average was 734.

In reviewing a number of posts on the forum, the Yamaha 8 hp 4-stroke with high thrust prop and long shaft, seems to be the auxiliary engine of choice among our members recently. I would add that Yamaha has an eletronic tilt option which is a very nice feature.

Thought you'd like to know,

Al
GALLIVANT #5801

Al Eckhart
GALLIVANT #5801
'88TR

Edited by - on

Frank Hopper
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

Pitcairn Island
6776 Posts

Response Posted - 01/28/2005 : 08:36:00

Odd that Tohatsu/Nissan is not there.

Edited by - on

JimB517
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
3285 Posts

Response Posted - 01/28/2005 : 11:52:17

no doubt my next engine will be the Tohatsu 9.8 HP extra long shaft. Charlie has one on his new C250 and its flawless plus so quiet. Also light weight, really long shaft, good price.

Edited by - on

lcharlot
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Antigua and Barbuda
1301 Posts

Response Posted - 01/28/2005 : 12:27:34

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by aeckhart
 ...the Yamaha 8 hp 4-stroke with high thrust prop and long shaft, seems to be the auxiliary engine of choice among our members recently. I would add that Yamaha has an eletronic tilt option which is a very nice feature.

Al
GALLIVANT #5801

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That's the motor I have - Yamaha High Thrust 8 with Power Tilt. It's a very efficient sailboat kicker, very quiet running, but so heavy, at 130 pounds, that it's probably better suited to boats with direct transom-mounting like the Catalina 250, Mac 26, and Hunter 26. It's way too heavy for frequent trailer-sailing trips if you have a policy of always removing the motor when trailering the boat somewhere. I had to rig a hoist, using the boom vang and a whisker pole, to lift it off the ground and up to the motor mount - there's no way I could have lifted that engine barehanded; whereas I used to be able to lift my old Honda 10 without too much trouble as long as I wasn't tired or had a sore back from lifting other heavy stuff earlier in the day. I knew the Yamaha was going to be really heavy, but I wanted the features it had - especially the gearshift on the tiller handle - so I was willing to accept the high weight. I didn't actually want Power Tilt, which adds 15 pounds to the weight; the dealer didn't tell me that the unit he was shipping was power tilt becasue I didn't think to ask. It was the only 25" XLS he had in stock and the thought never occured to him that I might not WANT power tilt (this dealer is a strictly powerboat operation that sells mostly 100~250hp outboards that go on fishing and ski boats). I guess the power tilt feature is pretty nice, the control is right behind the throttle grip, which saves me the backache of bending over the stern pulpit to tilt it manually. Does that make me a wuss? I guess I must have a mistrust of too much electrical gadgetry on a boat, as the marine environment isn't the friendliest place to have electrical gear, as anyone who has had to re-wire an older Catalina 22/25 with half the lights non-functional can tell you.

Edited by - on

Arlyn Stewart
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
2980 Posts

Response Posted - 01/28/2005 : 20:17:15

I'm not so sure I'm sold on high thrust for the kind of sailing I do. High thrust (more torque at slower boat speeds) seems to come at the cost of increased drag or less efficiency. My upgrade to high thrust came at a cost of 0.65 hours per gallon of fuel economy. Thats almost 4 hours of runtime lost per six gallon can of fuel, which is a big deal for the distances I sometimes cover.

The loss of efficiency however is not easy to pin on high thrust as there are other factors that could individually or collectively be either part or all of the problem.

<ul><li>the high thrust motor while the same hp, is really a larger motor detuned </li><li>the high thrust motor is an xls </li><li>the high thrust motor has more alternator output </li></ul>

The larger discplacement motor, could be less efficient, the deeper foot has to add more drag and the higher capacity charging circuit could be loading the motor more.

Both motors however had regulators and I don't think there was any difference in the charging needs so I'm thinking the charging circuit isn't to blame. The extra safety of the xls had to come at an increased drag price for 5 inches deeper prop but 30% loss? Perhaps the foil of the high thrust which allows better performance in reverse is that much less efficient in forward?

The four blade large prop has to equate to drag as well... I've an extra prop for the old motor...but unfortunately, I don't think it fits.

High thrust is really not an issue, the only problem I had relative to the old motor was shaft length. In a steep sea it was a safety issue but there were no problems stopping or backing up.

At this point I have to agree with those who are buying the Tohatsu, I think high thrust may be less an issue than we think it is or infact have traded away efficiency to gain something that wasn't needed to start with. For example, reverse thrust was not so much a prop issue as it was exhaust gasses from thru the hub exhaust.

Any one else upgraded to high thrust and noted a significant loss of fuel economy?

Edited by - Arlyn Stewart on 01/28/2005 20:21:58

Bay Tripper
1st Mate

Members Avatar

USA
56 Posts

Response Posted - 01/28/2005 : 20:29:56

I added the Yamaha T9.9EXHC to the boat last year. Love the power for cruising the Chesapeake Bay. We have a lot of days with no wind and must use the iron jib. The only problem is getting the motor to fit in the small area on the 250. I'm getting better fuel economy with the new motor, but the old motor was giving me problems and no power in reverse. The new motor has great power in reverse for backing into the slip. The cost was high $2400 w/tax but has been worth the investment.

Edited by - on

cclark
Navigator

Members Avatar

USA
104 Posts

Response Posted - 01/28/2005 : 20:54:05

A related but different subject, Has anyone tried the Power Thrusters advertised on the Catalinaowners website?
http://shop.catalinaowners.com/detail.tpl?cart=110696345483737&fno=20&group=294
I have a '99 Johnson 8hp. I have to crank the throttle up to full to get it up any where near hull speed. I'm thinking this might help, but I haven't seen any mention of it on the forum.
If anyone has experience with this product, I would be interested in hearing.
Chris

Edited by - on

dlucier
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Virgin Islands (United Kingdom)
7583 Posts

Response Posted - 01/28/2005 : 21:55:09

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by cclark
 ...I have a '99 Johnson 8hp. I have to crank the throttle up to full to get it up any where near hull speed.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Chris,

What size is your prop?

I experimented with a lower pitch prop and it resulted in having to max out the rpm's to get to hull speed. Since I like to have a few rpm's in reserve, I changed back to a slightly higher pitch prop which gets me to hull speed at a little over half throttle.

Edited by - on

Charlie Vick
Captain

Members Avatar

USA
423 Posts

Response Posted - 01/28/2005 : 22:48:00

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dmosteller
 The new motor has great power in reverse for backing into the slip. The cost was high $2400 w/tax but has been worth the investment.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Whoa! Thats more than a third of the cost of my boat!
Mine came with a early 80's 7.5 Evinrude which has never been off the boat and starts in 3 pulls no matter how long I've left it, and thats been a month at the most. (Knock on wood)
It doesn't have electric start, controls at the tiller or charge the batteries but it gets me away from the dock and back to it when there's no wind so I guess its never been a major component of the boat to me.
Then again, I sail on an inland lake and don't face the problems of those who sail on the blue.

(edit) And it will push her at 4.8 knots...

ok so now...

I digress.

Edited by - Charlie Vick on 01/28/2005 22:57:25

matsche
Captain

Members Avatar

USA
280 Posts

Response Posted - 01/29/2005 : 08:26:52

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Charlie Vick
 
Whoa! Thats more than a third of the cost of my boat!
Mine came with a early 80's 7.5 Evinrude which has never been off the boat and starts in 3 pulls no matter how long I've left it, and thats been a month at the most. (Knock on wood)
It doesn't have electric start, controls at the tiller or charge the batteries but it gets me away from the dock and back to it when there's no wind so I guess its never been a major component of the boat to me.
Then again, I sail on an inland lake and don't face the problems of those who sail on the blue.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well said Charlie. I'm in your camp. I'd rather spend my efforts on stuff to make her sail better.

Edited by - on

oldsalt
Admiral

Members Avatar

USA
578 Posts

Response Posted - 01/29/2005 : 09:51:43

Re: the Power Thruster, how cool it would be to cruise along at nearly 28 miles per hour under power just like a 50 H.P. Mac.

Edited by - on

ClamBeach
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

3072 Posts

Response Posted - 01/29/2005 : 10:39:22

"... tried the Power Thrusters advertised on the Catalinaowners website?"

Looks like a backdoor way of putting a ducted prop (aka 'kort nozzle') on an outboard. Ducted props are usually seen on tugboats and trawlers (the working kind) and are known to increase pulling effeciency under load.

However, at high speeds (think planing) the additional drag overcomes the increased low-speed 'pulling' effeciencies. That's why they aren't found on your typical powerboat. I noticed that the advertisement specifically talked about increasing 'acceleration'... which is probably a truthful claim.

You may see similar setups on all outboards in the future... not because of performance, but due to safety considerations (aka lawsuits) over propeller injuries.

Edited by - on

lcharlot
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Antigua and Barbuda
1301 Posts

Response Posted - 01/29/2005 : 10:49:00

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Arlyn Stewart
 Any one else upgraded to high thrust and noted a significant loss of fuel economy?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I have only run the new motor (Yamaha T8) for a total of maybe 2 hours, on two separate day trips, so I haven't put enough run time on it yet to see if there's a significant difference in fuel economy from the old '79 Honda 8 that came with the boat. One other issue that probably affects this is prop pitch. The old Honda had an 8" pitch prop, and the new Yamaha has a 5" pitch prop. This means the Yamaha will probably rev about 60% faster to produce a given boat speed. On the other hand, I was told that the 5" pitch prop is what should be used for a sailboat kicker, and that the 8" pitch prop was meant for a boat with a planing hull cruising at much higher speeds than a sailboat. I have noticed a big difference in idle speed on the boat. The old Honda would move the boat at 1.8 knots at idle, and the new Yamaha moves the boat at 0.5 knots at idle. In fact, the Honda was annoying in that respect, as 1.8 knots is way too fast on approach to a dock, and I would have to keep kicking the motor in and out of gear to maintain a reasonably slow approach speed. The 0.5 knots the Yamaha produces at idle is much nicer when bringing the boat in to a dock. And of course the Yamaha has WAY more reverse thrust than the Honda did. On the fuel economy issue, I will take a guess that the 5" pitch prop on the Yamaha will increase the fuel consumption, but it's hard to guess how much. Countering the low-pitch prop, the newness of the engine (it's a 2004 model), means it has Federally mandated Clean Air emissions standards, which the manufacturers mainly accomplish by leaning out the air/fuel mix ratio as much as possible. So it might be about a wash on fuel economy. Besides, the difference between 0.5 gallons per hour and 0.7 gallons per hour, when I only run the engine maybe 4 or 5 hours in a whole season, isn't going to break my piggy bank. I plan on taking the boat to the San Juans this summer, and that trip will involve at least 40 hours of motoring, unless it turns out to be a lot windier than the San Juans usually are in July. I'll be able to get a feel for the fuel economy of this new motor on that trip.

Edited by - on

Doug
Captain

Members Avatar

USA
457 Posts

Response Posted - 01/29/2005 : 11:16:34

We ran a new Yamaha all year last year. My thumbnail review:
MOTOR- T8 high thrust XL shaft. Got the electric start, but not the electric lift.
THE BAD- It's heavy, but not that much more than the Honda that was on the boat. It's expensive. Think we paid about $2,100 on a year same as cash program from Yamaha.
MOUNT- New Garhauer mount. Better built than the old one and works fine.
CONTROLS- Most all controls are at the end of the XL tiller. Flush hook up and oil drain are both on the outside of the engine and easily reached. The pull cord start is mounted just like every other outboard, not some small back up to the electric start. Nice, 'cause we rarely use the electric start.
OPERATION- Smoothest and quietest engine I've ever used.
THRUST- I think the boat feels a little slower at max cruising speed, but maybe by only half a knot. The GPS and arrival times haven't confirmed the slower speed. The beast is great in and around the docks. The high thrust is great when working in a tight marina with current or wind. I’ve also plowed through some pretty good currents with it.
ECONOMY- Like max speed, I think we're using a little more fuel, but not that much more. Normal use of NOETA involves a lot of motoring from home to cruising areas- Tacoma to the San Juans, Olympia, etc. We tilt the motor out when sailing so there’s no increase in drag when sailing. The slightly lower economy may have more to do with switching from a Honda 9.9 to an 8 hp. We simply run the 8 at higher RPM sometimes.

Edited by - on

aeckhart
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1709 Posts

Response Posted - 01/29/2005 : 17:42:18

Our local Yamaha dealer told me that the motor was designed to be a trolling kicker for the larger walleye trolling boats. Thus, high thrust at low rpms, which is often needed when plowing through large chop the bigwalleye lakes like Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. The electric tilt was also a design feater targeting the walleye fisherman. I suspect the JD Power survey also targeted this or similar group.

Two of our club members have gotten the 8 high thrust and consider them the best boat investment they've ever made, next to the boat of course.

As for me, I'm in the market and hedging toward the Yamaha. We don't have a Tohatsu dealer so I can't do a "touchy feely" with it. I'll hang with my Evinrude for another year or two I guess.

Al
GALLIVANT #5801

Edited by - on

Waterboy
Navigator

Members Avatar

USA
204 Posts

Response Posted - 01/30/2005 : 13:38:05

I have a '96 Yamaha 8hp (model 8MLHU) long shaft on the C250. I switched from the original 3 x 8.5" x 7.5" (number of blades x diameter x distance in 1 revolution) to their 'dual thrust' 3 x 9" x 7" (part number 6G1-W4591-01-EL). The difference was truely dramatic, most notably in reverse. Prior to the switch, it took nearly full throttle to get anywhere in reverse, especially with any wind or chop - I'd refrained from launching near lee shores in the past with this prop out of fear. With the new prop, I can back and steer into chop with wind quite easily, and don't have to rev the motor up. In forward, I generally cruise at about 5 knots with 1/3 throttle in moderate conditions, and get close to hull speed at 1/2 throttle or better. I cannot comment on fuel consumption other than it does not seem excessive. Also, while the numbers on the two props don't seem all that different, their appearances side by side show two very different props - the dual thrust looks to have almost twice the surface area. There's also a 3 x 9" x 5" supposedly available. See http://parts.yamaha-motor.com/

Edited by - on

Dave Bristle
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Djibouti
10005 Posts

Response Posted - 01/30/2005 : 23:40:40

The JD Power survey probably didn't include the Nissan/Tohatsu because the current model is very new--no data. My high-thrust Honda 8 revs a little higher at a 5 knot cruising speed--probably the main cause of any increased fuel consumption. (I haven't run long enough distances to measure it.) I had the same "Honda Classic 8" as Arlyn before this one.

Edited by - on

John V.
Admiral

Members Avatar

USA
559 Posts

Response Posted - 01/31/2005 : 07:28:28

I have an old 86 Honda 100 (read 9.9 hp) 23" shaft. It runs great and has wonderful fuel economy. My idle keeps the boat going at about .5 kts. The thing I like most about this motor is that I can run it up and bring the boat to hull speed 6.5 kts. then cut back to about 50% and still get 5 kts. That's where the fuel economy is. Last season we were caught out in 6' seas and in working into the wind we swamped the Honda a few times. It always recovered but I have wondered if the motor is swallowing a little water or does the electircal system ground out when wet. I was thinking of devising some kind of snorkle if the problem was the carb. (I don't choose to go out on days like that but there are times in the upper lakes that while making a crossing that you really have no choice.)

I like the motor discussion, hope we can delve into it further.

Edited by - on

cclark
Navigator

Members Avatar

USA
104 Posts

Response Posted - 01/31/2005 : 14:00:06

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dlucier
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by cclark
 ...I have a '99 Johnson 8hp. I have to crank the throttle up to full to get it up any where near hull speed.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Chris,

What size is your prop?

I experimented with a lower pitch prop and it resulted in having to max out the rpm's to get to hull speed. Since I like to have a few rpm's in reserve, I changed back to a slightly higher pitch prop which gets me to hull speed at a little over half throttle.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
My prop is 8 inches. I just had the motor in for a tune up (the first since I got the boat 2 yrs ago) and did a little test this weekend.
I averaged:
6.5 mph @ full throttle
5.0 @ 3/4 throttle
4.0 @ 1/2 throttle
This seems a little better than before the tune up, but not much.
Am I right in hearing you say that a lower thrust (aka speed) prop would be better? Every conversation I have had with people about this indicated I didn't want this.
Thanks to all for the feedback.
Chris

Edited by - on

John G-
Admiral

Members Avatar

793 Posts

Response Posted - 01/31/2005 : 15:07:05

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by aeckhart
 I found this information on the Boaters Life web site regarding outboard motors.

JD Power & Associates 2002 Consumer Survey - Customer Satisfaction Index.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Could you post the link I couldn't find it.
Thanks

Edited by - on

dlucier
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Virgin Islands (United Kingdom)
7583 Posts

Response Posted - 01/31/2005 : 15:14:46

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by cclark
 ...Am I right in hearing you say that a lower thrust (aka speed) prop would be better? Every conversation I have had with people about this indicated I didn't want this.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I don't know if it would be better for you due to different outboards and gear ratios.

Last season I experimented with a lower pitched 9 3/4" x 6.5" prop (higher thrust) on my 8hp 2 cycle Merc thinking that I would get better performance over the original 9" x 9" prop, but I wasn't happy with either the performance or fuel economy. With the lower pitch prop, my top speed was lower while going to full throttle to get there. The resulting higher rpms about doubled my fuel usage and produced more noise at speed.

Now that I'm back to the original 9" x 9" pitched prop, I have a higher top speed at lower rpms, much better fuel economy, and less noise.

Your results may vary.

Edited by - on

Topic

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Jump To:

Association Forum

Notice: The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.