but it
would be nice if you'd report the negatives as well as the positives.

Read it again, if you'd care to.
I mentioned a few things that I thought could be improved a little and observed
a few of the shortcomings of the design from an interior layout perspective.

The twin Yamaha 225s should have been
burning close to 45+ gph at WOT which is not a very cheery number for
most folks, but you were "too busy steering" to notice. Maybe.

Hey, I'm a 9 knot boater. I was busy steering. I accurately reported the
Flo-Scan reading at near WOT. Who gives a monkey dung how many GPH the boat
burns at WOT? How many "hours" is the typical user going to run at WOT?


Another example: "We accelerated to 25 knots, a very comfortable
"slow cruise" speed for the NZ29. The Flo-Scan fuel meters reported a
fuel consumption of 8.6 gallons per hour, per engine." Reporting fuel
consumption "per engine" borders on intellectual dishonesty when

No it doesn't. Did you have any difficulty comprehending the total fuel burn?
Nor would anybody else. Here's an interesting bit of information you might
appreciate:
At 25 knots, the Flo-Scan readout shows
8.6. I mentioned that the Flo-Scan meters reported 8.6 gph per engine because
only one engine shows on the Flo-Scan at a time. You have to flip a toggle
switch to select port or starboard and see the exact reading for that engine.

So in spite of your discomfort with the phrasing, 8.6 gph per engine is a very
accurate description of the Flo-Scan reading. People familiar with Flo-Scan
meters would have no difficulty understanding my meaning. You might have a
point: perhaps it would be well to mention that the meter only shows one engine
at a time.