What is the REAL performance of a Suzuki DF-70?
Anyone out there that is running this motor?
Thanks,
Victor
What is the REAL Performance of a Suzuki DF-70?
-
Shane
- First Officer
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:06 pm
- Location: Langley, BC ......."Best O' Both"...... '07 26M w/70 hp Suzuki
- Contact:
Victor,
Very limited comparisons, but I've been very pleased with ours so far (approx. 55 hrs). My stats are not to precise, but I think they're realistic real world accounts...
1) -don't know WOT because I haven't been there; too noisy for me and no reason to). I do know that with a family of 4 (around 475 lbs total crew weight) and an admiral that puts our creature comforts ahead of our payload), we cruise (unballasted) at around 48-4900 rpm, achieving 14.5-14.8 knots depending on how we're balanced/weighted. I find that a good compromise speed -both for engine noise & fuel efficiency. I was down at BWY's winterizing seminar and Todd had some factory graphs that seemed to confirm that, but I didn't look too closely at it.
At that speed I find the bow sits a little high, but soon as the kids go below (amidships or vee berth) the nose drops, we are on more of a true plane, and our speed increases to 15.1-15.3.
2) -it's been 20 years since my last boating, so no real comparisons, but several people have commented on how quiet the engine is, especially at low & idle speeds.
3) -I do like the feel/response of the throttle linkage, although for around the marina I wish there was an 'in between' notch; I find myself having to 'balance' it between 2 notches. It will stay where I set it, but you have to place it there, which takes a moment or two of your concentration.
4) -we moor (unballasted -so the stern sits lower) summers, and what I didn't like not being able to lift the entire engine leg out of the water; just means having to brush the growth off it every couple of weeks. I can adjust the hydraulic lift, but then the engine cover bumps the captains seat. Todd talked me through how to do a 'fine' adjustment that -depending on how our boat balances- may get me enough clearance.
Hope that helps
Regards,
Shane
Very limited comparisons, but I've been very pleased with ours so far (approx. 55 hrs). My stats are not to precise, but I think they're realistic real world accounts...
1) -don't know WOT because I haven't been there; too noisy for me and no reason to). I do know that with a family of 4 (around 475 lbs total crew weight) and an admiral that puts our creature comforts ahead of our payload), we cruise (unballasted) at around 48-4900 rpm, achieving 14.5-14.8 knots depending on how we're balanced/weighted. I find that a good compromise speed -both for engine noise & fuel efficiency. I was down at BWY's winterizing seminar and Todd had some factory graphs that seemed to confirm that, but I didn't look too closely at it.
At that speed I find the bow sits a little high, but soon as the kids go below (amidships or vee berth) the nose drops, we are on more of a true plane, and our speed increases to 15.1-15.3.
2) -it's been 20 years since my last boating, so no real comparisons, but several people have commented on how quiet the engine is, especially at low & idle speeds.
3) -I do like the feel/response of the throttle linkage, although for around the marina I wish there was an 'in between' notch; I find myself having to 'balance' it between 2 notches. It will stay where I set it, but you have to place it there, which takes a moment or two of your concentration.
4) -we moor (unballasted -so the stern sits lower) summers, and what I didn't like not being able to lift the entire engine leg out of the water; just means having to brush the growth off it every couple of weeks. I can adjust the hydraulic lift, but then the engine cover bumps the captains seat. Todd talked me through how to do a 'fine' adjustment that -depending on how our boat balances- may get me enough clearance.
Hope that helps
Regards,
Shane
Victor,
We get 16.5-17.5mph WOT with ballast and about 19.5mph WOT with out ballast. This is with 400lbs crew weight + 37lbs of pugs, and overnight provisions.
This is without bottom paint and with an engine that had less than 20 hrs.
Std prop that BWY orders
jeff
08 M with DF70, dual 6 volt golf cart batteries, single 12v starting battery.
We get 16.5-17.5mph WOT with ballast and about 19.5mph WOT with out ballast. This is with 400lbs crew weight + 37lbs of pugs, and overnight provisions.
This is without bottom paint and with an engine that had less than 20 hrs.
Std prop that BWY orders
jeff
08 M with DF70, dual 6 volt golf cart batteries, single 12v starting battery.
-
vkmaynard
- Admiral
- Posts: 1011
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 7:02 am
- Sailboat: MacGregor 26X
- Location: Apex, NC - 2001 26X "Compromise" w/ 2010 Suzuki DF90A
- Contact:
Thanks
I would have thought that the DF 70 could get the boat near 24 MPH. Looks like a 90 HP is required to plane and tow wakeboarders with authority.
Victor
Victor
-
beene
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:31 pm
- Sailboat: MacGregor 26M
- Location: Ontario Canada, '07 26M, Merc 75 4s PEGASUS
The trick with this boat is not about HP alone, but more about torque.
My 75 has 300 cc more than the Suzi 70.
An Etec 90 being a 2 stroke in another matter, totally different engine of which personally I am not a big fan. I am all for four stoke outboards. Personal choice. To each their own.
If the Suzi 70 had 300cc more engine, I think it would be able to push a 14x13, then with a clean bottom would reach at least 24mph nil ballast.
I should also mention that the new Merc 75 has 1732cc vs the Suzi at 1298cc.
G
My 75 has 300 cc more than the Suzi 70.
An Etec 90 being a 2 stroke in another matter, totally different engine of which personally I am not a big fan. I am all for four stoke outboards. Personal choice. To each their own.
If the Suzi 70 had 300cc more engine, I think it would be able to push a 14x13, then with a clean bottom would reach at least 24mph nil ballast.
I should also mention that the new Merc 75 has 1732cc vs the Suzi at 1298cc.
G
-
Matt19020
- Captain
- Posts: 576
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 1:29 pm
- Sailboat: MacGregor 26M
- Location: Middle River, Chesapeake Bay MD...2007 MacM Suzuki DF70 4-Stroke ..... "My Time"
- Contact:
Victor,
I get about 19 MPH fully loaded 1 adult and ballast... I rarely run at that speed It sucks the gas down and I hate the noise. I love the motor otherwise.
I typically run at about 2100 rpm and from what I remember this will give me about 8 mph. It is a comfortable pace.
When I first put the boat in with no bottom paint my best speed was 21 mph with ballast & boards up and 2 adults ...but since I have painted the bottom I have never seen that speed again....
I had 7 adults on with full ballast & gear once .... at WOT I did 15.7 mph at slack tide. not impressive but I did not buy a sailboat to break a speed record it is just nice to know it is there if I need it.
If I were to do it over again I may have used the transom wedges and a big eared prop but at this time there is no desire to change my setup ..
I get about 19 MPH fully loaded 1 adult and ballast... I rarely run at that speed It sucks the gas down and I hate the noise. I love the motor otherwise.
I typically run at about 2100 rpm and from what I remember this will give me about 8 mph. It is a comfortable pace.
When I first put the boat in with no bottom paint my best speed was 21 mph with ballast & boards up and 2 adults ...but since I have painted the bottom I have never seen that speed again....
I had 7 adults on with full ballast & gear once .... at WOT I did 15.7 mph at slack tide. not impressive but I did not buy a sailboat to break a speed record it is just nice to know it is there if I need it.
If I were to do it over again I may have used the transom wedges and a big eared prop but at this time there is no desire to change my setup ..
-
Shane
- First Officer
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:06 pm
- Location: Langley, BC ......."Best O' Both"...... '07 26M w/70 hp Suzuki
- Contact:
Forgot to mention that these numbers are with a painted hull. I don't know with certainty how much of a difference that makes, but it was noticeable.
Regards,
Shane
Regards,
Shane
Shane wrote:1) -don't know WOT because I haven't been there; too noisy for me and no reason to). I do know that with a family of 4 (around 475 lbs total crew weight) and an admiral that puts our creature comforts ahead of our payload), we cruise (unballasted) at around 48-4900 rpm, achieving 14.5-14.8 knots depending on how we're balanced/weighted.
-
Jeff
- Chief Steward
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 2:23 pm
- Location: East Tennessee, 26M, Suzuki 70
Victor,
Here's a link to my performance testing of the DF70.
DF70 prop test
I'm not sure that I'll ever see the 24 mph with the Suzuki 70. Although I hope to squeeze a little more out of it with the adjustments mentioned in my post. I use my boat both as a power boat and a sailboat. Probably about 50/50 each way. When pulling my kids on a tube I do wish for more speed, so the 90's are tempting if I were buying new. However, the Suzuki does run very quiet at cruising speeds (8-10 mph). For the record, my boat bottom has no paint, just a fresh coat of antigrowth wax twice a season and is slipped in freshwater. The way I use my boat, I think if I were doing it over that I would seriously consider the 2 stroke 90s.
Here's a link to my performance testing of the DF70.
DF70 prop test
I'm not sure that I'll ever see the 24 mph with the Suzuki 70. Although I hope to squeeze a little more out of it with the adjustments mentioned in my post. I use my boat both as a power boat and a sailboat. Probably about 50/50 each way. When pulling my kids on a tube I do wish for more speed, so the 90's are tempting if I were buying new. However, the Suzuki does run very quiet at cruising speeds (8-10 mph). For the record, my boat bottom has no paint, just a fresh coat of antigrowth wax twice a season and is slipped in freshwater. The way I use my boat, I think if I were doing it over that I would seriously consider the 2 stroke 90s.
-
richter372001
- Engineer
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:42 pm
- Sailboat: MacGregor 26X
- Location: SF Bay Area or Dalmatia, Croatia
Shane, your stern sits lower without the ballast? Hmm, I guess that means that most of the ballast is towards the bow. Correct? Still can't believe you can't get the entire engine out of the water. I don't have that problem with my DF60. Are they that different?Shane wrote:4) -we moor (unballasted -so the stern sits lower) summers, and what I didn't like not being able to lift the entire engine leg out of the water;
-
Shane
- First Officer
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:06 pm
- Location: Langley, BC ......."Best O' Both"...... '07 26M w/70 hp Suzuki
- Contact:
richter,
The bow is probably an inch to an inch and a half higher at the waterline than the stern is when unballasted. You are correct about the ballast sitting forward; allows gravity to fill it. I'd forgotten about looking at adjusting that until your response -not that I can do much until I have it back in the water. I haven't thought about the cantalever of the transom wedge; don't know if that factors in or not. As far as differences between the 60 & the 70, they do share the same manual, although I'd have to go back and look at weights & shaft lengths. I certainly wouldn't expect much difference either.
The bow is probably an inch to an inch and a half higher at the waterline than the stern is when unballasted. You are correct about the ballast sitting forward; allows gravity to fill it. I'd forgotten about looking at adjusting that until your response -not that I can do much until I have it back in the water. I haven't thought about the cantalever of the transom wedge; don't know if that factors in or not. As far as differences between the 60 & the 70, they do share the same manual, although I'd have to go back and look at weights & shaft lengths. I certainly wouldn't expect much difference either.
-
Frank C
Suzuki's DF 60 and DF 70 are identical except for the ECM, and maybe a governor on RPMs. The HP curve is published only for the 70, which makes that HP at a higher RPM range. I believe the 60 is just cut-off earlier in the climb.
REgarding ballast, the M ballast has been altered versus the X-boat. The X-boat does not exhibit the 26M's bow-down attitude. Roger must have noted the market's preference for larger outboards.
While he's unwilling to authorize such usage, it seems obvious that the M-boat's ballast is intended to counter a heavy motor. For those who chose lighter weights at the stern, then the bow-ballast helps to lift the stern when sailing. All good.
REgarding ballast, the M ballast has been altered versus the X-boat. The X-boat does not exhibit the 26M's bow-down attitude. Roger must have noted the market's preference for larger outboards.
While he's unwilling to authorize such usage, it seems obvious that the M-boat's ballast is intended to counter a heavy motor. For those who chose lighter weights at the stern, then the bow-ballast helps to lift the stern when sailing. All good.