MacGregorSailors.com

We have the Suz 70 that came on our boat from BWY's and I think any motor able to push a fully loaded ( 4 weeks of food and water) crusing Mac 26M and dingy at 15mph GPS is all you need. We rarely use full power except for a time or 2 when the current in the Salish Sea causes whorl pools and sunken waves that need the extra power to get thru bad conditions. Usually were keeping a sharp eye for floatsome so we don't hit loggs and dammage our boat. We have never pulled a water skier or other water toys just our dingy. Usually we cruse at 6 mph and get better fuel echomy.

Today we had three Mac friends get together all with motors 90 Hp or more. If you don't think this boat deserves 90 Hp or more take a ride on one.

We had a great time. Our picky teenagers were amazed with the transformation of our boat powered by a 2010 Suzuki DF90A. Billy (XX) has been running his Suzuki 140 26X since 2001 with NO problems.

Check out this YouTube video shot today. Keep in mind our 2010 Suzuki DF90A powered 26X chase boat kept up with the 140 Hp 26X in the background (with and without ballast). We had no mast and a little less load. All the boats were super stable.

Bill's ETec 90 M also ran great. The engine was very quite and strong. You can see how quickly the M gets out of the hole. This was not a race just a great video opportunity.

Victor

Can of Worms Gone Wild!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eovBozRo5gg

!	kmclemore:
	Fixed URL for video... it was going to the YouTube user's homepage.

I loved it when Billy circled back, makes a high speed turn and leaves again. The 26X looked very stable.

~Rich

To me it doesn't look like the M was right up on plane but probably because it's only a blue one

The motor Vic selected, the Suzi 90, was most impressionable. His install is to be commended. Where the 140 has a deep sounding exhaust (probably because of the 2 liter+ size), the new 90 sound reminds me of an Indy racer or Hayabusa. Definitely sounds "race tuned".

The run between Bill's Boom Boom II, the M with the Etec 90, and XX with its 140 was probably an even match for gear, rigging, and weight. Both boats were heavily loaded (and biminis up). I had near 700 lbs.+ of additional weight on my X over Victor's X and Bill was still loaded from last year's cruising. Bill's M was the first Etec 90 I had seen on a Mac. It was quiet for a 2 stroke, small and quick. Hard to believe that much HP can be crammed into a engine that small! (Only neg.--I could still pick up a whiff of oil burning exhaust, but that's just me and my sensitive nose. lol) And no I didn't do a hole shot. I allowed Boom Boom to start and then I accelerated. Personally I like his blue hull, but I'll stick with my white X-140.

The results seemed to prove what has been discussed here over the years. The design of the M hull leans toward sailing while the X leans toward powerboating--thus not allowing the M to "ride" out of the water as much as an X. (Like the old Migs, just add bigger motor to overcome.) 2nd, for every 100 lbs., plan on dropping a mile an hour. That run was upwind. I topped out at a little over 26 kts. (30 mph). Lightly loaded, I can hit about 32 kts. (36 mph).

Earlier, Victor's 90 hp boat with no mast/rigging and very lightly loaded stayed with my 140 at all times--acceleration & top end. Full ballast-about 18 kts (21 mph): no ballast- 26 kts (30 mph) Next time, I strip. (Then, maybe it was the Polyglow he put on his X that contributed to his speed. Never know.)

Mike stated the same thing I did 8 years ago when I first ventured into the big motor game. You are on your own--liability and boat wise. Be straight up with your insurer. Anything can happen and in America, there's always an attorney willing to sue even though it's not your fault. Common sense must prevail. (The run yesterday, we waited until no boats were around and then kept our distance apart.) Over the years I have corresponded with several Mac owners that have switched over to big engines and used the same technique I did--so far, no failures. It's not just the boat hull and the transom at question, but also the stress being put on the mast and rigging. Fast speeds can throw enormous stress loads on the wires--especially the forestay. I always run the jib halyard to the bowrail for extra security.

As for the factory, I have found them to be most helpful---both in replacing defective parts (cb) and selling me parts. One cannot expect total factory cooperation when one exceeds factory design specifications and recommendations. I can also understand as the factory not participating in the forum as anything they state could be interputed as an endorsement and used "against them in a court of law", or against any of us.

The comment about my not needing that kind of horsepower; well, follow me and try to make that Honda 50 push a loaded Mac up the face of a 6-10 foots waves (not swells)--for real. It's nice not to have to use full throttle.

If MacgreGregor had not come out with the X or M, I would probably own a Mac D or S with an inboard 350.

The link didn't work. Funny error message though.

Hi all,
I have watched this thread develop with interest and would like to pitch in. I own a Macgregor with a 90HP fourstroke, the engine brand is unimportant because everyone has the best brand. IMHO, a 90 HP is absolutely perfect for this boat in terms of power, speed, economy and performance I have owned a few boats over the years and driven a few more in the Navy however I am no expert nor do I claim to be because every boat is different. I was always taught that a good rule of thumb for planing is one third of the hull out of the water and two thirds in when planing. This gives the safest, most comfortable and stable ride whilst at planing speed. I have watched the video and found that the blue boat is doing exactly that which confirms in my mind that the 90 is a perfect choice for the Macgregor 26. If a hull comes too far out of the water at speed, the balance is definitely tipped, and not in your favour.

Many people wrongly assume that speed means performance, this is a very dangerous assumption to make and history shows us that. One great example although very extreme that demonstrates this perfectly, is the Donald Campbell Bluebird incident which is easily viewable on Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL3Vi6iyHOU

Before anyone attacks me, I know that this is a very rare occurrence and that it will not happen to everyone who goes fast or has a 140HP on the back. However, take a boat any boat, then put a very large fast motor on it and a few extra people aft then throttle at full speed. Once around 40 -50% of that hull leaves the water and you are going into a strong head wind or you get a sudden gust of wind in your face or even a bit of chop, then you are in the running for an Olympic gold medal for gymnastics.

To me a 90HP is the perfect balance for everything you want and need to do in this boat. I have not driven a Mac with a 50 HP engine, but I think judging from what some have posted, that it does have some limitations especially when fully loaded with gear and people. With the 90HP, I can get around 30MPH which is more than enough for any activity but in reality I rarely travel at that speed and it has more than enough pushing power at lower speeds. The video IMHO showed the blue boat doing a perfectly safe, smooth, balanced, stable and fast run and was probably costing quite a bit less to run than the 140HP. It was doing everything that a reasonable person could hope that this boat would do right up the limits of safety, comfort and true control ability. It did seem to naturally prevent the boat from getting into that state of possible unbalance. I certainly don't think engines larger that 90 are unsafe but I just question if you need to do anything more on this boat than a 90 HP would already allow, which is virtually anything.

I would also like to make it clear that I am not saying for one second, that the person driving the 140 was unsafe, he did an excellent job of proving that these boats are easily capable of safely operating with larger engines than the dealers, for whatever reasons, recommend. If I ever buy another Macgregor I personally would definitely stick with a 90HP because I am far happier with this boat/engine combination than I have been with any of my previous boats. I feel that it is only a matter of time until the recommended engine size for these boats will be a 90HP. When this happens and it will, there will be a lot of Macgregor owners with 50HP who will naturally be very unhappy at how much value will be wiped off their boats in resale value because the 50HP will then seem to be to a 90HP what a 30HP would now seem to a 50HP. I feel that this is part of the reason that it will not be introduced overnight but the writing is definitely on the wall. If people doubt this, just look how the dealers maximum recommended engine sizes has been creeping up over the last few years, 50HP then 60HP now 70HP. Also, please be aware that the change from 60HP to 70 HP maximum recommendation was quite rapid.

Another thing that really confused me was the weight issue. If weight is supposedly an issue, the Suzuki 70HP which is one of the engines recommended by Bluewater, weighs 156KG whilst a Honda 90HP fourstroke weighs 163KG, 7KG difference for 20 more horses??????????????. Bluewater are now making no secret that larger engines have better resale value which does nothing to help the resale value of those who have smaller engines. Look at Bluewater yachts website for proof of this then look at engine choices page of that site, it says it all. http://www.bwyachts.com/Engine%20Choices.htm To be perfectly honest, It was this trait of rapid upward movement of engine size suitability and such articles that prompted my choice of HP, I got worried that a 50HP would be frowned upon by those in a market where a 70 HP was rapidly being seen as the norm and Bluewater publishing articles about better future resale values of boats with larger engines.

I must make it clear that I don't believe that either Macgregor nor their dealers are intentionally trying to devalue current boats with 50 HP engines or less. However, you do not have to have a degree in marketing to realize that significant devaluation of a boat with a smaller engine than the factory or dealers maximum recommended engine size will be a natural consequence. I am sure that they must also see this as a dilemma. I am not badmouthing small engines because it's horses for courses, but how many of you would honestly now buy a Macgregor with a 15HP knowing what you know now that the maximum recommended engine size is at least 50HP? When Macgregor say maximum recommended, we all know that it also becomes the minimum that must people will settle for. Read what Bluewater are saying about Macgregors with smaller engines compared to the maximum 70 HP that they recommend, I certainly read it as saying that if you want real decent performance get at least the 70HP and they seem to be encouraging people to go for the 70HP. If I personally was looking for a new boat and engine, based on the article in the above link, I would now certainly steer away from anything less than a 70HP. I would think that because it's written by a Macgregor dealer so it must have some element of reliability. One must also realize that this dealer presumably also sells used Macs so they will have a good idea about resale values and what people now want. To those of you considering a new Macgregor, really do consider the pros or cons of a larger vs smaller engines and whether it will or will not offer a degree of making your investment more future proof. I am fully expecting to get slaughtered for this post but I mean no offence, it's just my observations and I believe that it is the natural order of things.



Regards
J

I dont really connect to the guys who want power, so Im naturally biased on this topic. My Merc 50 HP BF rarely goes over 3000 rpm and certainly not for long.

but how many of you would honestly now buy a Macgregor with a 15HP knowing what you know now that the maximum recommended engine size is at least 50HP?

I would for one. You've missed a critical point in this discussion. If you buy a brand new anything of size (roughly 30 HP or more) the value of the motor as a used one is severely depreciated. Moreover, anyone contemplating a change of motor will devalue your boat by a professional install cost including new throttle controls, which is reasonable.

I would gladly buy a new Mac, re-sale concious, with a new 9.9HP and install myself. I could easily sell that boat to someone who wanted a more powerful motor by simply removing the 9.9 in my driveway and letting the new buyer power to her/his choice.

Reselling a good condition small kicker is easy - go on to craigs list and try find one at less than 3/4 price of new......

J,
What you have stated is logical and for the most point and for the most part, ok for owners that respect the seas and operate their boat in a proper manner.
Problem is the ones who don't and take their boats thru 3-4 ft. chops at 20- 25 knots and could do Minor to Major structual damage and hurt Guest aboard.
These boats are not built like a 22-26 ft power boat that can take a beating.
That being said I would also add with mast up the lateral force on a Mac. above 20 knots in seas above 2-3 ft. with a powerboat Zooming by you creating a major roll can snap the rigging.
As I said a prudent Sailor will adjust speed and heading to allow for this shock but others or one who isn't paying attention on auto pilot can get in trouble.
Most of us are happy with 6-8 knots but for those who want that 20 knot cruise , go for it but keep it safe.
Another good point for the higher HP is being able to get on plane when against a 3 knot current.
For me I wish I had a motor that could get on true plane (16 Knots) on my heavy Mac.X at times, My Honda 50 is down to 13.2 knots with empty Ballist.
I enjoy all the remarks and will keep watching to make a plan for next Outboard.
Dave


(I must make it clear that I don't believe that either Macgregor nor their dealers are intentionally trying to devalue current boats with 50 HP engines or less. However, you do not have to have a degree in marketing to realize that significant devaluation of a boat with a smaller engine than the factory or dealers maximum recommended engine size will be a natural consequence. I am sure that they must also see this as a dilemma. I am not badmouthing small engines because it's horses for courses, but how many of you would honestly now buy a Macgregor with a 15HP knowing what you know now that the maximum recommended engine size is at least 50HP? When Macgregor say maximum recommended, we all know that it also becomes the minimum that must people will settle for. Read what Bluewater are saying about Macgregors with smaller engines compared to the maximum 70 HP that they recommend, I certainly read it as saying that if you want real decent performance get at least the 70HP and they seem to be encouraging people to go for the 70HP. If I personally was looking for a new boat and engine, based on the article in the above link, I would now certainly steer away from anything less than a 70HP. I would think that because it's written by a Macgregor dealer so it must have some element of reliability. One must also realize that this dealer presumably also sells used Macs so they will have a good idea about resale values and what people now want. To those of you considering a new Macgregor, really do consider the pros or cons of a larger vs smaller engines and whether it will or will not offer a degree of making your investment more future proof. I am fully expecting to get slaughtered for this post but I mean no offence, it's just my observations and I believe that it is the natural order of things.)



Regards
J[/quote]

I am going through all the thread of this forum really it is amzing.What a detail discussion in this forum!But I am supporting DaveB because i am also thinking about this topic like him.Very good point in this thread is boats are not built like a 22-26 ft power boat that can take a beating.

We just got our 1996 with a Honda 50HP and have only had it out a few times. So, I'm not going to make any changes any time soon.

However, I am thinking I will probably want to upgrade the motor some time in the future. Being in the midwest (Dayton, OH) I'm not sure how to accomplish this. If it were just a matter of unclamping the old motor and putting a new one on with new controls I'd do it myself. However, I hear about beefing up the transom and I'm not sure what is involved. I do have access to an excellent fiberglass guy but I don't know of any dealers close by that I could just turn the whole thing over to. Frankly I'd rather know how to do it right and do it myself. Does anyone have sources for how to beef up the transom for a bigger motor? If I make the leap I'll probably go to the 90HP.

Frankly the only time I'd need that power is to pull the kids on the tube, or when they get older to ski them. Right now the power I have is fine; it will get me where I need to go quick enough and in heavy weather I know I can push through the wind, etc. High speeds in heavy weather is not on my to-do list for reasons others have mentioned.

alanmoor

Changing out the motor is as simple as unmounting the Honda and remounting the new. I did it twice when our motor went to a friend's Mac then mounting our new motor to our boat in our front yard. The reinforcement may not be needed, just piece of mind.

Victor

A very interesting perspective that jjan wrote, I quite enjoyed it and do not think he is too far off base.
I have been only somewhat satisfied with my Honda 50HP, although it is very relaible and has given me years of service it lacks that omph when I want it. I did change the propeller to a Solas Alcup 4 blade to get more surface area and hopefully more push at lower speeds but there are times I think it to be a bit anemic, a 60hp would have been more to my liking and moreso if it would swing a 14" diameter prop. Up here in the PNW we get large tides and strong currents that sometimes test my confidence in the power my engine has, I often wish I had just a bit more for that extra margin of confidence. Even though I rarely if ever use WOT and mostly putter along at 10 mph when motoring I would like to push that throttle (of a bigger engine) when going through the passes, riptides or currents which we get a lot of here. I think the region a peson sails in has a greater influence on engine choice. I know when the day comes to replace my Honda 50 it will not be another 50hp, but rather something the next range higher, not so much for resale but moreso, to suit my venue.

Now as far as resale and BWY take on it with larger engine, there are other market forces at play. The one market force that keeps circling in my mind is the baby boom generation. We are a large demographic and I think it is us who own these Macgregors as well as many other toys and herein lies the problem. Boomers own boats, motor homes, cars, fifth wheels, motor cycles, properties, small aircraft, all manner of toys. It is only a matter of time before they all start to divest themselves of their toys and flood the market with them. Are there going to be enough younger generation to buy these toys given the high cost of mortgages and living costs? I would be more worried about being able to sell the boat at all let alone selling it easier with a big engine. I think we are all going to end up just giving our toys to our offspring as it is doubtful they will carry much residual value in a toy flooded market.
So, just get the engine that suits your needs today in the area you sail today and be happy with it. I know when I first purchased I really wanted the 60hp High Thrust Yamaha but the dealer was only installing Honda at the time. I might seriously consider a 90hp when I upgrade only because of the tide conditions of my sailing venue.

I've been running a 90 ETEC on my '96 for three years now with no problems. I cruise at 20 and max out at 26, only 2 MPH faster than the top speed promised in the brochure which I couldn't even come close to with the previous Merc 50 4-stroke (17 MPH on a ggod day with the wind at my back). I chose ETEC because it only weighed about 100 pounds more than the Merc. The brochure states that the 50 is about the largest engine you can pick up and move around. I wouldn't try this with either the 50 Merc or 90 ETEC. Also it can be hand started although I wouldn't look forward to doing so with either the Merc 50 or the ETEC 90. Weight and hand starting are two of the reasons that the factory gives for the power limitation and neither apply with the ETEC. The third is fuel economy and my ETEC is as frugal as the Merc 50 it replaced.

So the three reasons given by the factory don't apply to me 90 ETEC. However, the additional torque generated by the ETEC did take some getting used to. I'm always careful to throttle up slowly to limit loads on the transom. Overall, the ETEC makes the boat perform like the factory states that the 50 should, and as far as I'm concerned, the three reasons stated for the HP limitation are bunk!