MacGregorSailors.com

Why more HP when you want sails not fumes? I'll share my perspective. I avoid running the engine as much as possible. The only time I run it is to get in and out of the marina, when there isn't enough wind, or if we just need to get there (usually influenced by the admiral or crew.) That said, if you're already in a situation when the sails are down and you're running in motor-boat mode, why not get the most oomph you can? I have an Etec 50 and am very happy with it, however, despite my preference to sail over motor by an overwhelming margin, I wish I had a 90 or 115 Etec. Certainly not worth it for me to upgrade considering the cost and that I probably won't keep the boat for more than a year or so. (Want to go bigger.) That said, consider your sailing grounds. Anything larger than a 50 hp is useless in heavy seas or even chop. In heavy seas, you won't want to go more than 5-6 knots. In chop, you'll get soaked if you go much above 7-8 knots. If you're in smooth water, you'll really reap the benefits of the larger engine. 10 HP is fine if you have no desire or need to go fast, but it can get you in trouble if you find yourself in big seas, strong wind or current.

As for brand, Etec is the best outboard out there bar-none. Do some searches on this site. You will notice that the Etecs get better performance at the same HP than other brands, plus they’re reliable, and clean burning. The one exception to performance may be the Merc 75. The downside is the Mercs are massive. Suzukis are quite a large package too. Compare a Suzi 60 to an Etec 115. Almost the same size. I believe the Etec 90 is smaller than the Suzuki 60 or Merc 75. Yamaha is slender but quite tall. Perhaps too tall to clear the helm seat (the larger HPs of course.)

As for weight, I don't believe a Mac would suffer much from anything under 400#. It may actually benefit, except in very light air. Reason being is that the Mac is bow-heavy. A large portion of the water ballast and the 300# permanent ballast is in the front 1/3 of the boat. Having some weight on the transom, in theory may balance it out. I think this will likely be the case on a broad reach with quartering seas. I almost always sail with the engine tilted up (disconnected from the steering.) In quartering seas, however, I lower it. The drag and lower weight distribution on the stern actually makes the boat more stable and decreases the tendency to broach when swept by a quartering wave. You do go a bit slower, but sail much straighter which ultimately is faster. I would venture to guess that stability would increase even more with a heavier engine.

Take all with a grain of salt. On my pond, I usually have to put up the full enclosure to open up my 50 HP at WOT, otherwise, I’d get soaked rather quickly. My next engine/next boat will probably be a 30 hp inboard diesel, delivering about 7 knots.
Good luck with your selection.
Leon

Answer- 25hp diesel outboard.
I got the Suzuki 70 for my M and was surprised how little space was left to pass by to boarding ladder. Good thing I have skinny legs. That is the only downside with it. It was about the same price as smaller Suzuki but 100lbs more. I'm not interested in driving around all the time at WOT but figure for the same lower speeds, the larger motor would be running at lower RPMs with less stress on it making it last longer and quieter too. I don't think the 350lbs affects the MAC at all, more ballast down low if anything. With full ballast and heavy cruising gear my boat with 70HP goes max around 15-16mph, empty ballast, little gear,on smooth water, mast down (less wind resistance) made 22.5mph. In ocean with waves couldn't do better than around 8mph or less. Uses too much fuel at high speeds anyway.
I was considering a Yamaha 25 HP diesel outboard until found out couldn't buy one in USA. Would be an trustworthy, long range cruising motor with plenty of power for reasonable cruising speeds.Longer range than gas engines. That would be my ideal, long range cruising motor. Mac makes a nice roomy 26' trawler. Wouldn't do any water skiing though with it.
I totally agree with Delevi, I think it may be safer having a higher power motor on the MAC than something like a 9.9 hp kicker like on , I was going to say true sailboats but it's a motor sailer if there is a motor, so how about nonpower sailers. My old 24' keel boat 6hp was fine. This is because the MAC is high with quite a bit of windage and little draft so can get blown about more by wind and is light so also affected greatly by currents. Good to have extra power than bare minimum for hull speed to maintain control in these situations. Being blown about is hardest thing to get used to switching from boat with keel but really love the shallow draft which is great for FL. Also, trailerability to explore far away places. Bob

The best quote here is
(
by James V » Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:28 am

A lot depends on the service in your area. )

After four years and over 400 hours trying to get the bugs out of our Etec and then finally having to spit the dummy to get real action it is quite plain that all the motors have problems but if you have to travel long distances or the dealer is crap you are going to be unhappy this is more so for BRP as they are very protective about anyone else sevicing or having accesss to their programs.
On the plus side our 2010 powerhead is a dream and would be much better if it was a 60hp but the difference in economy between 1500 rpm and 3000 is absoplutely crazy.

An X of course has a lot more room to get by a bigger motor than an M does.

When at a dock we never have used the transom as a boarding pathway. Even with the bigger transom opening it just is to far to step to from the dock. I think that feature shown in the marketing material is silly. We have always just entered and exited over the side of the cockpit.

At anchor, for a number of years we did get into and out of the dinghy through the transom pathway. It worked OK, there was never a problem with space on our X, but even with the motor and rudders down you can only get the dinghy so close and had to make a good sized step over the water to get into the dinghy.

For the last few years we have switched to boarding the dinghy out the side as well. The key to this has been our "Fender Step". http://www.sailorssolutions.com/index.a ... Item=STP01 It wasn't cheap, but it has proven to be well worth the cost. It is much safer to enter and exit the dinghy when it is securely tied along side than it was at the transom. The fender step makes it super easy to get in and out. It's two steps from the dinghy floor to the dinghy tube, then the fender step and into the cockpit. The fender step is also useful when tied to very low docks and of course can be a fender if needed.

This change has allowed us to reconfigure the gear at the transom on and around our arch to come up with a great bbq area and storage for equipment. I'm actually thinking of removing our stern ladder as it interferes slightly with the steering when the port rudder is in the up position.

Duane - we made the same transition from transom-dinghy egress to side egress - I picked up a boarding ladder from WM for about 35 USD on sale - it just hooks over the cockpit side of the

Admiral and girls much prefer stepping on the dinghy rather than coming onto the bow (via transom of the ) with no handholds.

We stow the ladder on the dinghy at night, and also leave all of our Crocs on the dinghy - this reduces the amount of dirt on the boat incredibly!!

Kelly Hanson East wrote:and also leave all of our Crocs on the dinghy - this reduces the amount of dirt on the boat incredibly!!

I find that if I have the Crocs rinse themselves off first, then it keeps the dirt out of the tender. Also, when letting the Crocs stay on the tender, use a steel painter. I have had them bite through regular line and have lost two tenders this way.


~Rich

Duane,

If you eliminate the transom ladder and just use the "Fender Step", how do you board the boat when swimming? Via the dingy?

Jim

Rich!!!

At least I didn't have to explain that joke.

~Rich

Hamin' X wrote:

Kelly Hanson East wrote:and also leave all of our Crocs on the dinghy - this reduces the amount of dirt on the boat incredibly!!

I find that if I have the Crocs rinse themselves off first, then it keeps the dirt out of the tender. Also, when letting the Crocs stay on the tender, use a steel painter. I have had them bite through regular line and have lost two tenders this way.

Yeah, that's a "croc" (mis-spelled "crock") all right! Especially coming from the cold waters of the North!

Reminds me of something I'd heard from a 'Strine sergeant-major regarding some "loose talk in the ranks" ...

"Command has heard of some of our men alleging that our unit isn't up to the mission. Let me advise you that if we do catch those alligators, they are in for a hard time!"

I am looking for another 26M owner with a Yamaha 60hp 4 stroke. Mine is a 2007 model.
RPM's at WOT ? Diameter & pitch of prop used?

Mine WOT's at 4300rpm. Seems to struggle to plane. Prop is 3 blade alloy - 11 3/8" x 12" (13 tooth spline).

Kind Rgds
Dave
26M / Landcruiser HDFT

delevi wrote: As for weight, I don't believe a Mac would suffer much from anything under 400#. It may actually benefit, except in very light air. Reason being is that the Mac is bow-heavy. A large portion of the water ballast and the 300# permanent ballast is in the front 1/3 of the boat. Having some weight on the transom, in theory may balance it out. I think this will likely be the case on a broad reach with quartering seas. I almost always sail with the engine tilted up (disconnected from the steering.) In quartering seas, however, I lower it. The drag and lower weight distribution on the stern actually makes the boat more stable and decreases the tendency to broach when swept by a quartering wave. You do go a bit slower, but sail much straighter which ultimately is faster. I would venture to guess that stability would increase even more with a heavier engine.
Leon

I have heard this theory before about the bow heavy attitude of the M. I offer another theory:
'Displacement Theory'
The M hull sinks low enough in the water to displace a volume of water equal to the weight of the boat. The stern can displace a larger volume of water while floating higher due to its' broad hull at the transom, this also provides the buoyancy needed to support a heavy engine. Conversely the bow being much more narrow will naturally have to sink down lower into the water to displace the amount of water equal to the weight of the bow section. In fact the bow could be somewhat lighter than we think but it will have to sink low enough to displace the required volume of water. The displacement theory may be the biggest contributor to the bow heavy attitude of the M.

sorry,

its not april first.

subtract 10 mph from the above

TexasDan40 wrote:
After breaking it in, my top speed at 4500 rpm pegged 28 mph w/o ballast. With ballast...25 mph.

Sorry, sounds too good to be true...

I agree with Darren:

its not april first.

subtract 10 mph from the above