Mac 26X Repower to New 90 HP Suzuki 4-Stroke

[Wind of Freedom]

Time to repower our 2000 26X with a 90 HP Suzuki 4 stroke fuel injected outboard. We've owned our Mac for 14 years now. Shown is the original 2000 Merc 50 HP 4 stroke engine which is a "Big Foot" Merc meaning a 20 inch shaft. The Suzuki 90 HP has a 20 inch shaft. One reason for the 90 HP is so my young adults can wake board. I will get new controls and SS prop. Thru the years, the largest outboard I've seen, where it is a "comfortable size," is a 90 HP. Comments? Suggestions? Recommendations?

[mac n cheese]

Couple of vids here that are older but still relevant.

[JaxMacX]

Hey, there is a very long discussion on this topic. I’d look there for advice. This topic can get pretty heated as there are two schools of thought. 1. Don’t go beyond 50 hp. 2. Go higher. The reasons are well thought out.

[dlandersson]

And 3. Why have just one?

Hey, there is a very long discussion on this topic. I’d look there for advice. This topic can get pretty heated as there are two schools of thought. 1. Don’t go beyond 50 hp. 2. Go higher. The reasons are well thought out.

[PSNA]

4. Do the obvious, buy a powerboat.

[Starscream]

90 HP is perfect.

No measurable downside, really. It makes an great boat even better.

When it comes time to repower (again) there's no way I'd go with anything less. I can't say enough about how much better it's made our Mac experience, compared to the original BF50A that we bought the boat with.

More activities, more destinations, increased safety, better handling when docking, and sooo much more fun. Also it's just as quiet and efficient as any other motor when in sailing mode.

[PSNA]

I am sure the performance during "sailing mode" with a 300 pound anchor on the transom will be something to marvel at. Sure wouldn't want to be on that boat with a following sea. Perhaps that is why the manufacturer of the boat placed a limitation on weight in the first place. Take a look at the first video. See anything else concerning? Your boat, your money. But you will not double your speed by doubling horsepower.

[Jimmyt]

For general discussion purposes, my Etec 60 2-stroke weighs 240 lbs. The Suzuki DF50 weighs about 230 lbs. The Suzuki DF90A weighs about 369 lbs.

So, the actual weight penalty for the 90 upsize is about 130-140 lbs.

A fleet of different boats, each for a different purpose, is out of my range financially. It is also way beyond what I want to try and maintain. That's why I own a hybrid boat. It would undoubtedly sail better with a 5 hp kicker on back, but that wouldn't get me back to the ramp before dark when I stay out too long... Not a perfect boat, but it is my current choice.

[Starscream]

I am sure the performance during "sailing mode" with a 300 pound anchor on the transom will be something to marvel at. Sure wouldn't want to be on that boat with a following sea. Perhaps that is why the manufacturer of the boat placed a limitation on weight in the first place. Take a look at the first video. See anything else concerning? Your boat, your money. But you will not double your speed by doubling horsepower.

My boat sails just fine, tbh. If I was racing against a 26X with a 50HP I'd probably win the race because our sails are new and the bottom is VC-17 smooth. Sailing technique and reading the wind and waves are much more important than the extra 100 lbs on the stern.

It all comes down to what you want to do with your boat. Race, or head offshore? Don't buy an X. Sail, motor, wakeboard, travel, weekend, have fun...an X with a 90HP does it all.

If there are following seas that create a danger because of the 90HP, I wouldn't want to be out there in a 26X with a 50HP either, or any HP for that matter. The 26X can take it tho, just ask Mad Mike on Zeno's Arrow, who once filled the cockpit of his 26X to the depth of the steering wheel in a rage cut in the Bahamas and came through just fine.

[PSNA]

As I said, your boat, your money.

However, a 370 pound engine plus a loaded fuel tank sitting on the stern of a 3,750 pound sailboat. Gawd, what could go wrong with that? Let me count the ways. I am sure Roger MacGregor will be happy to tell you.

[mallardjusted]

A viable alternative is the Yamaha F70. Only weighs 254 lbs. It gives a HUGE improvement over a 50, yet weighs almost the same.

[Starscream]

As I said, your boat, your money.

However, a 370 pound engine plus a loaded fuel tank sitting on the stern of a 3,750 pound sailboat. Gawd, what could go wrong with that? Let me count the ways. I am sure Roger MacGregor will be happy to tell you.

Lol, maybe he'd tell me I'm an idiot, but 8 years of experience with the 90HP in lots of different conditions have convinced me it's the perfect match for the 26X (the way we use it, not necessarily the way anyone else uses it). Should we add my 2.3HP Honda kicker that's also on the stern to the discussion? There's another 45 lbs or so. But on the plus side I only carry 18 gallons of fuel instead of the 24 that a lot of people have, so I have a savings there. Plus I'm only 165 lbs and usually drive wearing shorts and a T-shirt without shoes, so that's also a good weight savings.

I'm soooo not worried about the 90HP and structural or performance issues. I know a lot of folks believe it's bad news, but in my personal risk analysis for me and my family, there's enough 90HP installed base that I'm convinced it's no problem.

[PSNA]

Like I said. Your money, boat, and your life. However, you are not a structural engineer or a naval architect. You have no business promoting this reckless advice to the general public when the boat's manufacturer clearly states differently.

[Jimmyt]

This topic has been thoroughly discussed many times. A recent discussion can be found here: viewtopic.php?t=27389

Let's keep the discussion civilized, please.

[dlandersson]

Really nice point. I'm interested in keeping the weight as close as I can, but open to more horses.

A viable alternative is the Yamaha F70. Only weighs 254 lbs. It gives a HUGE improvement over a 50, yet weighs almost the same.