BoatUS- The dangers of low transom boats
 

HK wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 17:10:05 -0400, HK wrote:

Oh, it's not "too" bad, it's just more per hour than I like to burn.
I'll be working to find that sweet spot of around 25 mph and just under
6gph, if it is findable.
25 mph with only 60 hp?

I don't think so.

When you use a boat for only 115 hours in 4 years, who gives a crap
about hourly fuel consumption.



When you have more than one boat, Bilious, you have choices as to which
one to use on a given day.


Which half of the canoe did you use the rest of the time, bozo?

BoatUS- The dangers of low transom boats
 

HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:48:46 -0400, HK wrote:

I suppose we could have gone with an etec and gotten more noise,

Never in a hundred years.

more vibration,

HAH!!

more pollution,

Wanna bet?

and less performance. :}

You wish. :)

With a 150, that makes sense now - I thought you had a 225 again.

That's not bad at all. As you know, I have the 200 HO 90 degree block
and those figures come pretty close to mine - with the additional 50
horse power and different block.

Still, pretty good for ancient technology.l


Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I considered a 200 Yamaha four-stroke for a little while, but it just
didn't seem to make much sense to go for additional horses.

The 200 would have added some to the top end, but with the prevalent
hard chop on Chesapeake Bay, there aren't that many days you can run
more than 25-30 mph on a small boat. So, why have a boat that will do 45+?

The 200 weighs about 100 pounds more than the 150. No advantage for the
200 there.


snip

Actually 100# more on the back of that boat would be a HUGE
disadvantage. He would have to add ballast to the front of the boat to
keep the transom cut-out above the waterline.