Anyone else use "wimp" motors?

[JRonUnderSail]

Ahoy,
I've had two 26X's (a 95 and a 2000) both with small motors. These were 9.9 or 15 hp... The darn boat sails "really nice" with less metal hanging off the back and I still manage 7-8 mph under power... The present rig is a 4 stroke 9.9 Yamaha and without ballast, you would swear it might plane! Give me just two crew on board and these boats can move undersail!..
Does anyone else have the "down-sized" motor on?
Cheers,
JR

[ronacarme]

We have a 2001 X, originally with a 2000 Evinrude 4str 9.9 and now starting our 3rd spring with a Honda 9.9 4str. Bot the boat cause its interior layout was for us a great improvement over our '88 D, not because we wanted to waterski or try to outrun unanticipated storms.An unanticipated benefit of the X is that it can steer itself for 10-30 minutes on a reach or closehauled if the CB position is set to balance the sailplan, which the D would not. For us the 9.9 4str is a good match for the X. I have no interest in the extra stern and trailering weight, cost and fuel consumption of a 50.
Ron

[Buzz]

I bet there will be a lot more wimpy motors until the gas prices go back down. Gas is $4.85 a gallon this Memorial weekend on the the lake and I am not noticing less motor boat traffic. Must be nice to be rich.

[pokerrick1]

I don't know about that, Buzz, on weekdays at Marina del Rey (not exactly a "poor" area or marina) - - - sailboats often outnumber powerboats (actually out on the water being used) as much as 10 to 1

Rick

[davidbagnall]

I have a 30hp on the back of my 26x and it really works a treat.

It has enough grunt to get the boat on the plane and she will sit arround 15knots all day. We have even towed the kids behind on one of those tow things.

I agree that having a little less weight hanging off the tramsom (acutally I keep my boat as light as possible) helps sailing performance and I have outsailed other macs in the past.

[argonaut]

What I've wondered is how you tilt the smaller motors on a 26X or M since they usually don't have power tilt/trim. In a pinch I don't want to have to do gymnastics to get the prop in the water.
Also, do you connect them to steering like the bigger motors?

I'm considering repower options now and am not really a go-fast guy either. Much prefer to sail. But I need reliability and reasonable power for ocean inlets.

9.9 sounds too wimpy for the 26X since it has so much freeboard but having not tried it idunno. Maybe a high thrust version?

I love the idea of a lighter easier to maintain powerplant with decent alternator output for charging.

[JRonUnderSail]

I've never had a problem with the 9.9 hp not handling the 26X in wind, and most of the years, I sail Lake Superior... The Yamaha is very easy to tilt up. I have a friend using a 8 hp. version that has "electric tilt"... JR

[ronacarme]

1. Powertilt....The Evinrude 9.9 4str had none, but was not all that hard to manually tilt. The Honda 9.9 has it and it is a delightful luxury.
2. Motoring into a breeze.... Both OBs have "power props", the Evinrude a 7 pitch 3 blade (large area, round shape) and the Honda a 6.5 pitch 4 blade. Both do about 7.2-7.3 mph at WOT in flat conditions, the Evinrude on rare occaisions 7.4 (all GPS speeds), i.e. calculated displacement hull speed for the X's 23 foot waterline length, not bad for none too smooth ablative bottom paint and lots of weight onboard (cruising gear, spares etc.). Headwind and big waves on the nose slow the boat maybe 0.5-2.0mphat WOT, depending on wind speed, with less effect at reduced throttle, so in those conditions I throttle back a bit and loaf along at about 4-5 mph, which also gives less pounding and spray.The X with either 9.9 seems to give about the same overall motoring performance as my old 26D with a Nissan 8 2str, except the 9.9s use less gas, at least at less than WOT.
Ron

[tangentair]

1. Powertilt....The Evinrude 9.9 4str had none, but was not all that hard to manually tilt. The Honda 9.9 has it and it is a delightful luxury.
2. Motoring into a breeze.... Both OBs have "power props", the Evinrude a 7 pitch 3 blade (large area, round shape) and the Honda a 6.5 pitch 4 blade. Both do about 7.2-7.3 mph at WOT in flat conditions, the Evinrude on rare occaisions 7.4 (all GPS speeds), i.e. calculated displacement hull speed for the X's 23 foot waterline length, not bad for none too smooth ablative bottom paint and lots of weight onboard (cruising gear, spares etc.). Headwind and big waves on the nose slow the boat maybe 0.5-2.0mphat WOT, depending on wind speed, with less effect at reduced throttle, so in those conditions I throttle back a bit and loaf along at about 4-5 mph, which also gives less pounding and spray.The X with either 9.9 seems to give about the same overall motoring performance as my old 26D with a Nissan 8 2str, except the 9.9s use less gas, at least at less than WOT.
Ron

I was starting to doubt my decission to go up to a 75-90 next (curently 50BF) when I read this last post. Thanks. I had forgotten for the moment the article on sailing to Alaska where he timed the tides wrong. A big motor at slow speeds uses about the same amount of fuel - its a weight/power/effeciency physics thing but it is too close to bother arguing about in my opinion. My opinion remains "to sail softly and carry a big stick."

[John Christian]

I have a 30hp on the back of my 26x and it really works a treat.

It has enough grunt to get the boat on the plane and she will sit arround 15knots all day. We have even towed the kids behind on one of those tow things.

David, Coud you tell us your set up to get to that performance out of a 30 HP? Ballast yes/no? bottom paint? prop size, pitch?

Your 30hp performance seems to be in line with 22 mph / 50hp claimed by the factory and rarely duplicated here.

JC

[jcasale]

David
I too am curious. I have a 2000x with a Honda 30 and can push 7 - 8 knots. 9 if I am lucky. My normal load is 2 - 4 people for a day cruise so a large amount of gear is not the problem. What's your secret?
John
Atlantic Beach, Fl
2000x

[ronacarme]

1. Good point on tides. My 9.9 clearly would get nowhere even at WOT against a 7 mph tidal or river flow ( not an issue here on Lake Michigan). Clearly, it is not useful for anything requiring more than displacement speeds.
2.I have wondered about relative mpg as between a loafing big OB and straining small OB, but have seen no comparative test results on point.
I did look back at my mpg log for the last 3 years. Most motoring has been motor on, out from slip, across Lake Macatawa, out between the piers into Lake Michigan, getting the main up, motor off, and reverse the process when its time to go back. Very little WOT time, a lot of time at 4-5 mph. GPS measures distance motored. Fuel use is by gallons used over the season and amount left in tank measured by calibrated dipstick. Average 2005 = 12.8 mpg, 2006 = 11.4 mpg, 2007 = 12.5 mpg, with Honda 9.9, per the log. Again tho, this is not constant WOT, or hull speed,(straining small OB) operation which should yield less mpg.
The UK mag PBO (Practical Boat Owner) in May 2005 did WOT tests on 9.9 hp 2 and 4 str motors (mounted on an over 5000 pound Contessa 26 keelboat). The 4str motors averaged about 7.3 mpg and the 2 str motors averaged about 4.9 mpg, at WOT, if my nautical miles per liter translation was accurate. The WOT Honda did about 8 mpg.
Would be interesting to compare the mpg of a carbed 50 hp motor at 7-7.5 mpg on a loaded X . Anybody got any data?
Ron

[JRonUnderSail]

My Yamaha 9.9 (4 stroke) averaged 12-13 MPG (GPS logged) over the last two years also. Like you, I only used 12 gallons last year... Gee, we worry more about "if the gas has gone bad", than how much... That's a real nice problem!
Fair Winds,
JR

[Kelly Hanson East]

JamesV posted some data with his 50 HP Merc using the Smartcraft system which gives a reliable direct fuel consumption measurement

[Retcoastie]

I just completed a trip down the Cumberland River and up the Tennessee River, about 1000 miles, on an 02X, fairly heavly loaded with a 50HP Honda. I haven't counted the beans too closely yet but I believe I got about 6 MPG at around 4800 RPM making about 13 MPH and 10-12 MPG at about 2200 RPM making 6-6.5 MPH. The higher mileage may have some current in it, but not much, and some was with ballast and some without. Several times I ran two hours per gallon at low speed.

If its important to anyone I can do additional bean counting.

Ken