!!! Boat Purchase Update !!!

I called my dealer and asked what it would take to upgrade from the
Honda 40 to the 50. He said "don't waste your money, they're basically
the same engine." He also said you don't gain much moving up in
horsepower with pontoons, which I've heard before. He was very
insistant that the 40hp was the best motor for my "smaller" pontoon. I
don't believe everything this guy says. The 40 I agreed to is a 2003
so I'm wondering if he just wants to move it. It's a huge store so I'm
sure he has 2003 50's too. Honda told me that the 2003's and 2004's
are IDENTICAL so I thought I'd save a couple hundred bucks.

Should I stick with the 40 or push for the 50?

On 26 Aug 2004 06:35:29 -0700, (Marko) wrote:

I called my dealer and asked what it would take to upgrade from the
Honda 40 to the 50. He said "don't waste your money, they're basically
the same engine."

Get a spec. sheet and read it. If everything's the same, why not have
10 more HP?

Scott W.

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:58:58 -0700, Scott W. wrote:

On 26 Aug 2004 06:35:29 -0700, (Marko) wrote:

I called my dealer and asked what it would take to upgrade from the
Honda 40 to the 50. He said "don't waste your money, they're basically
the same engine."

Get a spec. sheet and read it. If everything's the same, why not have
10 more HP?

Another good answer, but I suspect that it's a case of leftoveritis on
the part of the dealer. I have a good friend in the boat business and
he will turn himself inside out to move New Old Stock in particular
engines.

However, it makes sense to go with the 50 if only because, as Wayne
said, in this case, morererer is betterererrerrrrr. When I talk to
folks about boats, the main complaint is almost always underpowered.

Unless he makes the 40 VERY attractive, stick to your guns and get the
50.

Ten horse power can make a difference here - the additional 10
horsepower is like adding 25% more Kw.

By the way, when they say they are the same engine, that's true to
this extent - they may be the same long block, it's the timing and
computer controls controlling fuel flow that give you the extra
horsies.

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
-----------
"Angling may be said to be so
like the mathematics that it
can never be fully learnt..."

Izaak Walton "The Compleat Angler", 1653

On 26 Aug 2004 06:35:29 -0700, (Marko) wrote:

Should I stick with the 40 or push for the 50?

=========================================

It's very rare to hear someone complain about having too much power
but the opposite is quite common.

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:40:58 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On 26 Aug 2004 06:35:29 -0700, (Marko) wrote:

Should I stick with the 40 or push for the 50?

=========================================

It's very rare to hear someone complain about having too much power
but the opposite is quite common.

Short, sweet and succinct - the perfect answer.

Later,

Tom

There is some degree of truth that more HP doesn't change the speed that much.
Pontoons are not speedboats and they never really "plane". You do get a degree
of laminar flow across the pontoons and there is definately a step but it takes
a lot more power to get a tad bit more speed.
When I went down from 75 to 60 my top speed changed about 1-2 MPH.

Ask them what the prop recomendation is for both and what the predicted RPM is
with that prop.

On 26 Aug 2004 15:52:09 GMT, (Greg) wrote:

There is some degree of truth that more HP doesn't change the speed that much.
Pontoons are not speedboats and they never really "plane". You do get a degree
of laminar flow across the pontoons and there is definately a step but it takes
a lot more power to get a tad bit more speed.
When I went down from 75 to 60 my top speed changed about 1-2 MPH.

That's interesting. I thought the opposite because of the nature of
the two hulls. I would think that you would get more speed because of
the nature of the round, non-displacement type hulls. Unless that 1-2
Mph represents a large percentage of total speed.

Ask them what the prop recomendation is for both and what the predicted RPM is
with that prop.

Another good point.

Later,

Tom

When I went down from 75 to 60 my top speed changed about 1-2 MPH.

That's interesting. I thought the opposite because of the nature of
the two hulls.
Unless that 1-2
Mph represents a large percentage of total speed.

I went from 23-25 to 22-24 (depending on the load).

On 26 Aug 2004 16:38:41 GMT, (Greg) wrote:

When I went down from 75 to 60 my top speed changed about 1-2 MPH.

That's interesting. I thought the opposite because of the nature of
the two hulls.
Unless that 1-2
Mph represents a large percentage of total speed.

I went from 23-25 to 22-24 (depending on the load).

Interesting. A 20% drop in horsepower resulted in, for all practical
purposes, the same speed. I assume that the props were similar in
size and pitch?

Just out of curiosity, which was more efficient in terms of GPH?

Later,

Tom

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote in message . ..
On 26 Aug 2004 16:38:41 GMT, (Greg) wrote:

When I went down from 75 to 60 my top speed changed about 1-2 MPH.

That's interesting. I thought the opposite because of the nature of
the two hulls.
Unless that 1-2
Mph represents a large percentage of total speed.

I went from 23-25 to 22-24 (depending on the load).

Interesting. A 20% drop in horsepower resulted in, for all practical
purposes, the same speed. I assume that the props were similar in
size and pitch?

When operating non planning vessels you can throw outragous amounts of
HP at them with little effect in speed

Matt