Am looking at a new boat approx 20-21 ft in length with 15 degree
deadrise, sort of a flats type hull shape for shallow water. The
manufacturer rates the transom for up to 200 HP, the dealer claims
that 150 is plenty and that anything larger is a "waste of money" in
both initital cost and operating costs. He also claims a speed
increase at WOT of only 2-3 MPH.

I have looked over the Yamaha website for performance on specific
power packages but can't seem to find the same hull with two different
HP performance tests.

My previous experience indicated that by having maximum rated HP on
the transom that one could turn a larger prop, say a 21 inch pitch
while the less powerful engine would force the prop pitch down to a 19
or less.

I realize that at WOT a 200 HP will burn more fuel but it is my intent
to operate for the most part in the 30-35 MPH range on a hull that
will offer in excess of 50 MPH. Will the reduction in RPM on the
larger motor to achieve a given cruising speed provide adequate
additional fuel economy and performance increase to justify the
increased initial expense?

One issue to consider is the engine displacement of the two outboards you
are considering.

Many companies use the same block for many HP configurations. This means
that you might see a 150, 175, and 200 with the same block. In *this* case
both outboards weigh the same so the 200 would give you better performance
and perhaps slightly better gas mileage at throttle settings under WOT, but
prolly get slightly worse mileage up at the top-end.

When comparing outboards check the displacement and weight - those being
equal, I'd opt for the higher output version of the block.

-W




"roy" wrote in message
om...
Am looking at a new boat approx 20-21 ft in length with 15 degree
deadrise, sort of a flats type hull shape for shallow water. The
manufacturer rates the transom for up to 200 HP, the dealer claims
that 150 is plenty and that anything larger is a "waste of money" in
both initital cost and operating costs. He also claims a speed
increase at WOT of only 2-3 MPH.

I have looked over the Yamaha website for performance on specific
power packages but can't seem to find the same hull with two different
HP performance tests.

My previous experience indicated that by having maximum rated HP on
the transom that one could turn a larger prop, say a 21 inch pitch
while the less powerful engine would force the prop pitch down to a 19
or less.

I realize that at WOT a 200 HP will burn more fuel but it is my intent
to operate for the most part in the 30-35 MPH range on a hull that
will offer in excess of 50 MPH. Will the reduction in RPM on the
larger motor to achieve a given cruising speed provide adequate
additional fuel economy and performance increase to justify the
increased initial expense?

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
news:iXAfb.677583$Ho3.144064@sccrnsc03...
One issue to consider is the engine displacement of the two outboards you
are considering.

Many companies use the same block for many HP configurations. This means
that you might see a 150, 175, and 200 with the same block. In *this*
case
both outboards weigh the same so the 200 would give you better performance
and perhaps slightly better gas mileage at throttle settings under WOT,
but
prolly get slightly worse mileage up at the top-end.

When comparing outboards check the displacement and weight - those being
equal, I'd opt for the higher output version of the block.

-W


One more thing, I have never heard anyone complain of too much horse power!
Greg

Yanno - actually - I have. sigh

I knew some guy with a '87 115 on a little bass boat - said it was "way too
much motor" for the boat. LOL. Now, I'm using the same basic block on the
PM-II and I could think of a thousand things I wanna do to trick it out to
make about 175hp "when I have the time". LOL

-W



"Greg O" wrote in message
...

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
news:iXAfb.677583$Ho3.144064@sccrnsc03...
One issue to consider is the engine displacement of the two outboards
you
are considering.

Many companies use the same block for many HP configurations. This
means
that you might see a 150, 175, and 200 with the same block. In *this*
case
both outboards weigh the same so the 200 would give you better
performance
and perhaps slightly better gas mileage at throttle settings under WOT,
but
prolly get slightly worse mileage up at the top-end.

When comparing outboards check the displacement and weight - those being
equal, I'd opt for the higher output version of the block.

-W


One more thing, I have never heard anyone complain of too much horse
power!
Greg

Old proverb: "Where there is loss there exists gain, Where there is gain
there exists loss" I think it's merely a question of hair splitting. Opt.
for the Max. HP. once on plane, back the rpm's off and just cruise. Max HP
might be an edge in the resale side of the equation.
"roy" wrote in message
om...
Am looking at a new boat approx 20-21 ft in length with 15 degree
deadrise, sort of a flats type hull shape for shallow water. The
manufacturer rates the transom for up to 200 HP, the dealer claims
that 150 is plenty and that anything larger is a "waste of money" in
both initital cost and operating costs. He also claims a speed
increase at WOT of only 2-3 MPH.

I have looked over the Yamaha website for performance on specific
power packages but can't seem to find the same hull with two different
HP performance tests.

My previous experience indicated that by having maximum rated HP on
the transom that one could turn a larger prop, say a 21 inch pitch
while the less powerful engine would force the prop pitch down to a 19
or less.

I realize that at WOT a 200 HP will burn more fuel but it is my intent
to operate for the most part in the 30-35 MPH range on a hull that
will offer in excess of 50 MPH. Will the reduction in RPM on the
larger motor to achieve a given cruising speed provide adequate
additional fuel economy and performance increase to justify the
increased initial expense?

"roy" wrote in message
om...
Am looking at a new boat approx 20-21 ft in length with 15 degree
deadrise, sort of a flats type hull shape for shallow water. The
manufacturer rates the transom for up to 200 HP, the dealer claims
that 150 is plenty and that anything larger is a "waste of money" in
both initital cost and operating costs. He also claims a speed
increase at WOT of only 2-3 MPH.

I have looked over the Yamaha website for performance on specific
power packages but can't seem to find the same hull with two different
HP performance tests.

My previous experience indicated that by having maximum rated HP on
the transom that one could turn a larger prop, say a 21 inch pitch
while the less powerful engine would force the prop pitch down to a 19
or less.

I realize that at WOT a 200 HP will burn more fuel but it is my intent
to operate for the most part in the 30-35 MPH range on a hull that
will offer in excess of 50 MPH. Will the reduction in RPM on the
larger motor to achieve a given cruising speed provide adequate
additional fuel economy and performance increase to justify the
increased initial expense?

Not on the lightweight hull you are describing. What's the difference in
weight between the two engines, not if you are planning to run the motor
in the 30s...

I'd guess the difference in top end would be between 3 and 5 mph, a
little more than your dealer sez.


--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On 4 Oct 2003 07:21:34 -0700, (roy) wrote:

Am looking at a new boat approx 20-21 ft in length with 15 degree
deadrise, sort of a flats type hull shape for shallow water. The
manufacturer rates the transom for up to 200 HP, the dealer claims
that 150 is plenty and that anything larger is a "waste of money" in
both initital cost and operating costs. He also claims a speed
increase at WOT of only 2-3 MPH.

I have looked over the Yamaha website for performance on specific
power packages but can't seem to find the same hull with two
different
HP performance tests.

My previous experience indicated that by having maximum rated HP on
the transom that one could turn a larger prop, say a 21 inch pitch
while the less powerful engine would force the prop pitch down to a
19
or less.

I realize that at WOT a 200 HP will burn more fuel but it is my
intent
to operate for the most part in the 30-35 MPH range on a hull that
will offer in excess of 50 MPH. Will the reduction in RPM on the
larger motor to achieve a given cruising speed provide adequate
additional fuel economy and performance increase to justify the
increased initial expense?

50 HP isn't going to make a difference of a mere 2-3 mph. Bear in
mind that not only will the HP change, but so will the pitch of the
screw. You will most likely be turning fewer RPMs at your desired
cruise with the larger engine due to this.... and, again, burning less
fuel. If you really want to burn max fuel and go flat out... you have
the option....

You are in the "driver's" seat.... if the dealer wants to sell the
boat, he must let you sea trial both models. My guess, extrapolating
from your description, is that he has a smaller engine he doesn't want
to get stuck with through the winter.

Be from Missouri...... say, "Show me....."

The rule of thumb is that max speed is proportional to the square root
of hp. If you increase the HP by a factor of 1.333, you increase the
top speed by about 14 %. If the top speed is about 50, that is 7 mph.

But if you are only going to go 35 because of waves or other factors,
then that should be taken into consideration. The bigger motor won't
burn less gas at the same speed fer sure. Maybe not much more, but not
less.

del cecchi

"del cecchi" wrote in message news:NTKfb.139

The bigger motor won't burn less gas at the same speed fer sure.
Maybe not much more, but not less.


Bzzzzzzt.

Anyone who reads this NG can tell you that I had FOUR different motors on
the back of my (dearly departed) Four Winns last year.

76ci 80hp - 89ci 100hp - 99ci 115hp - 99ci130hp (crankshaft ratings to keep
this simple)
All tested with a 14, 15, and 17 pitch stainless props.

I can tell you *unequivicably* that in the case of 2-stoke outboards, output
is governed by two factors - spark advance and throttle openings.

If you have to run a 100hp with spark at max advance and the throttle body
3/4 open to achieve a speed of 25 mph but you can take a 130 and do the same
thing at max advance with the throttle body just cracked a bit - guess which
motor will deliver better mileage??

And that's not even accounting for the propping up you can do with more HP.

I'm sorry, but that sentance could not be *more* wrong.

If I ever wanna help this world deplete it's gas supply - I'll start by
putting the 80hp (I kept it) on the PM-II and pulling tubers all day - OK?


-W

You did fine Gene. He was comparing apples and hammers.

-W

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message

Perhaps I did a poor job of making my point. Your rule of thumb works
when one compares apples and apples....

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
. net...
"del cecchi" wrote in message news:NTKfb.139

The bigger motor won't burn less gas at the same speed fer sure.
Maybe not much more, but not less.


Bzzzzzzt.

Anyone who reads this NG can tell you that I had FOUR different motors
on
the back of my (dearly departed) Four Winns last year.

76ci 80hp - 89ci 100hp - 99ci 115hp - 99ci130hp (crankshaft ratings
to keep
this simple)
All tested with a 14, 15, and 17 pitch stainless props.

I can tell you *unequivicably* that in the case of 2-stoke outboards,
output
is governed by two factors - spark advance and throttle openings.

If you have to run a 100hp with spark at max advance and the throttle
body
3/4 open to achieve a speed of 25 mph but you can take a 130 and do
the same
thing at max advance with the throttle body just cracked a bit - guess
which
motor will deliver better mileage??

And that's not even accounting for the propping up you can do with
more HP.

I'm sorry, but that sentance could not be *more* wrong.

If I ever wanna help this world deplete it's gas supply - I'll start
by
putting the 80hp (I kept it) on the PM-II and pulling tubers all day -
OK?


-W


My guess would have been the 100. That is the way it works for 4 stroke
motors in cars, and if one believes the fuel consumption curves in
magazine tests of outboards, it would appear to be the same for
outboards based on a little extrapolation.

However experience trumps extrapolation. It certainly seems true that
WOT blows the fuel economy.

del