MacGregorSailors.com

I recently installed a 115 hp Suzuki on my Mac 26X. I had requests for details of the install so I slapped together a few web pages. It would be nice to put the information on the mods page but there is probably too much information to do so. Most of the information if from Billy's 140 install. He had sent me this information to help me with the install of my 115. One thing he suggested that is not on the web pages was to paint the aluminum parts to prevent rust if the boat is taken into salt water. This was done on my boat.

Things are just thawing-out here in Wisconsin so I was only able to go for a dealer test run last Saturday for a half hour on a small piece of river. It seemed very nice. This motor has a comprehensive 6 year warranty!

I'll be out this weekend breaking the motor in and learning to sail. It might reach 70 degrees on Sunday. According to the owners' manual, I have to run 1hr 45min at 3000 rpm then 1hr at 4000 rpm then 7hrs at less than full throttle. There's this motor break-in and I still have to learn how to sail this boat! But I tell you what, I don't think I've looked forward to much more than this!!

Mark, nice....I have engine envy

Out of curiousity, why did you choose the 115 over the 140 since it appears that the 140 is actually a few pounds lighter?

I got a good price on a last years in stock 2003 model year with a 6 year warranty.

The 115 will move the boat at about 30+ mph. This is as fast as I need to go for water sports.

My mechanic said that a 140 would only take the boat about 3mph faster.

The mecanic also said that the engine was designed to be a 115. The 90 is detuned from it and the 140 is bored-out. (of course I was buying a 115)

Mark Prouty wrote:I got a good price on a last years in stock 2003 model year with a 6 year warranty. The 115 will move the boat at about 30+ mph. This is as fast as I need to go for water sports. ...

Billy wrote: ... I had a person with a boat building/repair background look at the X and he felt it needed nothing even with the Suzuki 140. Just bolt on and run. Stated he had seen power boats with weaker transoms. ...

Re Mark's comment: Suzuki really has taken the outboard industry by storm, beginning with their 4-stroke 70/60 in 1997, followed one year later by the 4-stroke 50/40. They saw large margins in marine equipment, they used technology pre-proven in millions of autos, and they offered incomparable warranties to ease minds of the doubters. When I bought mine in 1999, all other warranties were 1 year versus 3 years by Suzuki, plus the optional upgrade to 6 years.

Re Billy's comment: When I asked my Mac dealer to upsize to a 60 hp, he told me the same thing ... that the transom is amply designed, but that the manufacturer might not warrant it. He discussed it with Roger Macgregor, and they refused to warrant my hull with a 60hp. However, they did express the same opinion, that the transom is not at risk. They were nervous about the hull to ballast tank seams, should I choose to go pounding across choppy waters.

The pix of Billy's and Mark's reinforcements look great to me. Recent installations by many Mac dealers seem to indicate that a Mac with basic 70 hp requires no special mounting precautions ... little did I ever imagine that a 70 hp could be called "basic" or that 140 hp could even be possible. (In retrospect - just 4 years ago, the largest 4-stroke in the market was a 70 or 90).

My dealer did mine (Suzuki 60) with a full-width interior channel bar (drilled to pass the drain hose). The exterior is a fabricated aluminum wedge plate, full-width under the outboard's mounting saddle. He also bridged the top of transom with a trapezoidal-shaped "lift" bar to elevate the motor as well as reinforcement. I lost the pix in a disk crash ... but, I expect the identical structures would be ample for any large outboard - and probably overkill for a 70 hp.

Frank C. - I used to abuse my body badly when racing Moto-cross decades ago. I follow it a bit from time to time. The sport has dramatically changed because of new strides in 4 stroke technology. The pounds are shedding quickly now! There are 500- CC 4 stroke bikes replacing the 250 CC- 2 smokes quickly in this sport, and weight is always a critical factor here for nimble manuevering. The 4 stroke technology used in Motorcycles will spill over to Marine engines, and it will be exciting to see what will be done, hopefully very soon. Gotta get me more ponies!!!!

Does 20mph at 4000 rpm. Top speed of 32. I could only go that maintain that for a couple of minutes because of break-in instructions.

I camped on a sandbar on the Wisconsin River last night. I couldn't have done that in my old sailboat. It sure is quiet out there this time of year. The lake just thawed completely last weekend. Its a little precarious though because the channel bouys arent't out yet.

I'll be getting her out on a bigger lake, Mendota, next weekend to put her under sail.

It was strange launching the boat. After I got the centerboard unjambed from the trailer, I found it a real challenge to steer. I was being hit by a broadside wind down a channel. I dropped the centerboard and she seemed to handle a little better. It sure is a bigger challenge than my 16' run about.

A maiden voyage can be a challenge - high hopes that no major damage will occur. I did manage to ding the propellor. Under full power, it draws more than my run about. I did slightly scrape the bow on the cement ramp when launching. I'll have to put her in a little deeper next time.

Mark

Congratulations, Mark, on your 115 installation and its performance. Thanks for saving the mods I sent you. My harddrive crashed and I lost everything. (didn't do a back up.)

Sounds like your performance is close to the 140. I just got back from the 2 weeks in the Bahamas this morning. FWIW, we motored from Andros back to Bimini doing 2000 rpms and got over 32 nautical miles off one 6 gal. tank. We did better than the other X with the Honda 50, until our throttle hand got itchy.

What size prop did you go with?

Billy

Billy,
Just curious about a few questions re your cruise:

What's your approx speed at 2000 rpms?
How were the general sea conditions going & returning?
Could you have traveled faster (than 2000 rpms) if you'd wanted to?
Do you have a problem outrunning your flotilla partners?
Have any pix of those 2 weeks, you lucky dog?

Frank,
The best I remember, the speed at 2000 rpms was between 6-7 kts. It seems the other boat (Honda 50) had to turn 3000 rpms.

Sea conditions varied. (Warning, I am very conservative in wave measurement.)
East over the stream-3 to 5 ft. had to motor. Have great pictures of the bottom of the other boat.
Coming back-4-6 ft. Had to motor. Night. Winds are screwy during March.
From Bimini to Chub Cay across the Bahama bank-winds around 20 with seas building to 3 feet--sailed most of the way-about 75 miles, half night sailing.
From Chub to Andros-seas were 6-8+ with winds at 20. Ran a reefed 150 only and obtained speeds of up to 10.3 kts. A few of the waves exceeded 10 feet and the other boat claims one wave was equal to the spreader bar. Though I did not see this, I don't doubt, as I have seen unsual waves build and disappear within a very short distance. Some people on Andros saw us entering and questioned us the next day. They wondered if we were going to make it. We didn't know any better. I had a repaired rudder break and the '99 X broke both rudder brackets. (Great story on repairs.)

Could we have traveled faster than 2000 rpms? Yes, and we did. When we left Andros, the water was flat and little wind. We tached about 5500 and ran about 22 kts for a while. Only got a little over 2 miles a gallon (boat was loaded, dodger and radar were up) but it was fun. (Also across Biscayne Bay as we were ready to get home.)

Problem outrunning flotilla partner? motoring or sailing?

Got plenty of pix of the islands but only a few boating as we each needed the "one hand for ourself". Smooth sailing was limited. We were told by someone who had crossed the stream 47 times, March is not the time for cruising the Bahamas. Maybe not, but it made for quite an adventure.

I am in the process of purchasing a 2002 26x with a 50hp suzuki. I REALLY like the idea of increasing my engine size. The people at BWY said "run away" when I mentioned I was looking at one for sale with a 90 hp. They claim that the hull/transom cannot take the higher speeds. They also said the additional weight seriously effects the sailing performance.

Any feedback would be great.

Thanks,

Bham

Dave's question on long term effects of oversizing the outboard was partially answered, same thread above. My 2000-26X with Suzuki DF60 is now in its fifth season.

Frank C wrote: . . . When I asked my Mac dealer to upsize to a (Suzuki) 60 hp, he told me the same thing ... that the transom is amply designed, but that the manufacturer might not warrant it. He discussed it with Roger Macgregor, and they refused to warrant my hull with a 60hp. However, they did express the same opinion, that the transom is not at risk. They were nervous about the hull to ballast tank seams, should I choose to go pounding across choppy waters.

TRANSOM
Repeating comments from above, the transom is well designed, perhaps "over-designed." Keep in mind that the X was the first-ever "heavy outboarded sailboat" in the industry. Roger wasn't about to mess up on that. We learned that the factory had tested the transom with a Merc Bigfoot 50 . . . by trying to tow a pier! . . . with no adverse effect.

My Mac dealer insisted on stabilizing the transom, spanning it inside with a heavy aluminum channel, sized ~like a 2x3 stud. This reinforcing channel carries the lower motor bolts and the rudder mounting bolts. Scattered owners had installed the Suzuki 70 with no reinforcement, before I chose Suzuki's de-tuned DF60 version. Both models weigh 335#. (It seemed to me that Mark's problem on his 115hp was installation-related, not inate to the transom).

BALANCE
One of the '99 manufacturing changes was enlarging the forward bias of the ballast. Also, adding the forward vent permits more positive filling of the tank. I concentrate my heavier gear (tools & water) at the center sole and fwd dinette, and I have anchor and chain on the bow (~50#). I keep only lighter stuff (PFDs, etc) on the aft berth. My boat's heavier motor does not noticeably affect attitude or sailing performance. The boat floats perfectly level to the bootstripe w/ 3 aboard.

I can easily imagine somebody with a light 2-stroke 50hp having a greater balance problem than me. If you store lots of gear under the cockpit and if your crew size is 4 or 5, you'll quickly surpass the aft bias of my 60hp outboard.

MY EXPERIENCE
My motoring performance was 24 mph at 5000 rpms in light ripple when new (GPS). As the boat aged, WOT has dropped to 20 or 21 mph. I could probably add 2 mph by re-pitching, since max rpms should be 5600. However, I never run the boat above cruising speed, about 16 mph @ 3,800-4,000, so have not bothered. My 3 personal best days under sail were close reaching at 8+ mph and kissing 9 mph (7+ knots) in 20 knot winds, by GPS. This required lots of practice and additional trimming and sail controls, but nothing special regarding the motor. The transom exhibits no signs of abnormal stress.

RISKS
As mentioned in the quote, ballast tank is seamed to the hull, and the factory expressed the opinion that this was at risk by overpowering. Using a more powerful motor to push the boat through heavy chop could quite obviously stress those seams, especially with ballast full. As described, I rarely run WOT, and scrupulously avoid high speeds in heavy chop . . . besides being uncomfortable, I hate to punish my boat that way. I rarely motor with ballast full, never motor at speed with ballast. Only one time did I have 5 aboard, and rarely have more than 3.

BEYOND
I think Billy chose to go with his 140 after hearing my experience was so benign. I also referred him to two others with Suzuki 70s. I would not hesitate to follow his and Mark's path with the next larger Suzuki at 400+ pounds. Billy's 140hp is only another 75# more than my 60hp, and I believe the the fuel economy difference is trivial.

I found it much more compelling to hear (unofficially), that there was concern for a completely different aspect of the boat. Given that I had no intention of stressing the boat in that way, I was willing to abandon my hull warranty. The Suzuki block (1300cc) weighs 50% more than the standard Honda 50. More significantly, it has 60% more engine displacement (read as torque), so five years ago it was step worth studying. Of course, it also has helped demonstrate that larger choices might be serviceable.

GreatLooperDave wrote:

Frank C wrote: . . . Keep in mind that the X was the first-ever "heavy outboarded sailboat" in the industry. Roger wasn't about to mess up on that. We heard (not learned) that the factory had tested the transom with a Merc Bigfoot 50 . . . by trying to tow a pier . . . with no adverse effect.

. . . this is nothing more than a parlor trick. The kind manufacturers too often use to impress customers and delude themselves.

I'm nobody's apologist except my own - and certainly not Macgregor's. But, it is not true that I "learned" that Macgregor tested by towing a pier, rather I "heard" such. I never truly "learned" anything about the transom, except that my dealer insisted on reinforcing it, at an engine installation cost of $~1,200.

I am sure that my dealer's reinforcement serves me well. It is not a bar or flat, it's a "channel" that is about 1.5" deep and 3" wide, made of 1/4" aluminum. It spans the bulkheads ~4 feet across the interior transom, and it is drilled to pickup the lower engine bolts and the rudder mounting bolts. I believe that it substantially stiffens the transom. My Macgregor, handled with prudent caution, shows no signs of stress from five seasons with an oversized outboard. (YMMV)

GreatLooperDave wrote: 1. ....MacGregor apparently never published these test results
2. ....However, if, as I am lead to believe, this was their only rigorous test of transom strength, I believe it is fair to say they are deluding themselves
3. ....about having any reliable, scientific data regarding transom strength, transom/hull bonding & overall integrity.
4. ....I am not saying the Mac's transom is not structural sound, I'm saying that MacGregor doesn't have any scientific proof that it is
5. ...Therefore, if MacGregor decided that tank seams & not the transom . . . they had no scientific proof on which to base their decision.

Dave, you obviously know about powerboats and props, maybe about transoms too. But, for your having first asked a question about the Mac's transom, these assertions, if based solely from my above posting, are curious indeed. Makes me wonder why you asked? I would hope not to so indict the builder with a one-word error, but I apologize if I did so.

1. As corrected above, I can't be sure that such a test ever occurred. I can be sure that rumors prove nothing (even my own).
2. The phrase "led to believe this was their only rigorous test ..." Pulleeese!
3. I don't "know" how Macgregor verified structural integrity, but I "have also heard" that the transom is rigidly founded and heavily lapped and tabbed into the bottom and sides of hull.
4. Pretty emphatic declaration - simply from my post, or from item #2?
5. Same question?

Anyway, I'm looking forward to Mark's photos to learn more. I'm not sure much else here is compelling. Please, just the facts, Maam.

GreatLooperDave wrote: . . . So, even if we differ on all the fine points, we agree on that. Also, there is no reprieve from the laws of physics. . . . I was hoping to spark debate. Obviously, your Mac specific empirical data counts for more than my generic advice. . . . 15 lbs. of aluminum has served you well for 3 years . . .

. . . or the five years since August of '99, in my case.

Dave, is obviously looking to debate the merits of a Mac's construction. I noticed that Eric Lowe just joined the forum, with over 100 motors installed on Macs, including mine. He can easily explain how a 2x3 inch channel of quater-inch thick aluminum reinforces the Mac's inner-transom.

(BTW, a hundred pounds of layered fiberglass and stainless might be necessary to reinforce a drag racing transom, but look around for the smiles when you rev-up your Tercel at a stoplight).

GreatLooperDave wrote:...MacGregor advises against deploying the Xs centerboard or the Ms daggerboard under power. If so, this is no doubt due to their desire to reduce side loading & the resulting hull twist & flex @ higher under power speeds which could logically lead to seam popping.

Actually, I think this is more because at speeds more than about 5-8 knots, the drag of the center/dagger board will cause the boat to want to swap ends, creating a power broach, causing the boat to trip over the board, and possibly capsize. As someone who has powered with the board down (accidently), I can tell you it is a very strange feeling when the boat decides it wants to lay down, and you don't even have any sails up.

--Mark