On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 22:01:55 -0400, HK wrote:

I talked to the engineer who ran that test. He believes that with my
typical fuel load (half a tank, max, 310 pounds), nothing in the
livewell, et cetera, I can get close to 6gph at 25 mph. We'll see.

Maybe if it's real light. I've run a 19 footer with a 90 horse. It
was OK with one person but not exactly a power house. With 3 or 4
people it really bogged down. A neighbor in FL has a 20 footer with a
135 on it. It goes pretty well but I doubt it would plane with half
that. Hard ride in a chop.

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.


Harry Krause,
Since you have published so many pictures of YoHo 1 and 2, I would love
to see a picture of your other boat, the one you spend most of your time on.

"HK" wrote in message
...
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.


That is true. Don't you wish you had a choice?

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 22:01:55 -0400, HK wrote:

I talked to the engineer who ran that test. He believes that with my
typical fuel load (half a tank, max, 310 pounds), nothing in the
livewell, et cetera, I can get close to 6gph at 25 mph. We'll see.

Maybe if it's real light. I've run a 19 footer with a 90 horse. It
was OK with one person but not exactly a power house. With 3 or 4
people it really bogged down. A neighbor in FL has a 20 footer with a
135 on it. It goes pretty well but I doubt it would plane with half
that. Hard ride in a chop.


Different boats perform in different ways.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:09:22 -0400, HK wrote:

Got some preliminary performance figures on the new boat:

1000 RPM 4.3 mph .70 gph

4000 RPM 26.2 mph 6.9 gph

4500 RPM 30 mph 8.9 gph


Engine is too young for a sustained wide-open run, but I am guessing
5900 rpm, 40+ mph, and (gulp) 16+ gph.

It's not that I don't believe you - really. Those figures seem a
little suspect.

How much horsepower?

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:09:22 -0400, HK wrote:

Got some preliminary performance figures on the new boat:

1000 RPM 4.3 mph .70 gph

4000 RPM 26.2 mph 6.9 gph

4500 RPM 30 mph 8.9 gph


Engine is too young for a sustained wide-open run, but I am guessing
5900 rpm, 40+ mph, and (gulp) 16+ gph.

It's not that I don't believe you - really. Those figures seem a
little suspect.

How much horsepower?

150. Got these and two separate performance reports from Parker that
provide almost identical results. Theirs are a hair, just a hair, less,
because of the way they load their boats for testing, with a full load
of fuel, a full livewell, "gear," and two galoots. Two reports from
Parker because they tried two different props.

If you check the Yamaha performance bulletins, you'll find a 2120SC, a
boat with the came hull as mine, but with a cabin and heavier. It
performs just a bit worse than mine.

I suppose we could have gone with an etec and gotten more noise, more
vibration, more pollution, and less performance. :}

HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:09:22 -0400, HK wrote:

Got some preliminary performance figures on the new boat:

1000 RPM 4.3 mph .70 gph

4000 RPM 26.2 mph 6.9 gph

4500 RPM 30 mph 8.9 gph


Engine is too young for a sustained wide-open run, but I am guessing
5900 rpm, 40+ mph, and (gulp) 16+ gph.

It's not that I don't believe you - really. Those figures seem a
little suspect.

How much horsepower?

150. Got these and two separate performance reports from Parker that
provide almost identical results. Theirs are a hair, just a hair, less,
because of the way they load their boats for testing, with a full load
of fuel, a full livewell, "gear," and two galoots. Two reports from
Parker because they tried two different props.

If you check the Yamaha performance bulletins, you'll find a 2120SC, a
boat with the came hull as mine, but with a cabin and heavier. It
performs just a bit worse than mine.

I suppose we could have gone with an etec and gotten more noise, more
vibration, more pollution, and less performance. :}



Oh. Forgot. When I bought my 2520XL Parker, they sent me a performance
sheet and when I actually took delivery of the boat, I found that their
numbers were precisely on the money. In fact, they indicated that boat
would just kiss 40 mph at WOT with a 225 and it did.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:09:22 -0400, HK wrote:

Got some preliminary performance figures on the new boat:

1000 RPM 4.3 mph .70 gph

4000 RPM 26.2 mph 6.9 gph

4500 RPM 30 mph 8.9 gph


Engine is too young for a sustained wide-open run, but I am guessing
5900 rpm, 40+ mph, and (gulp) 16+ gph.

It's not that I don't believe you - really. Those figures seem a
little suspect.

How much horsepower?

It looks like they match the specs listed on Yamaha's web site for a
Yamaha F150TXR matched to a Parker 2100SE. As to be expected the sweet
spot with the best fuel consumption is at 3500 rpm.

Performance Data
RPM MPH GPH MPG
1000 4.3 0.7 6.14
1500 5.8 1.1 5.27
2000 7.1 1.9 3.74
2500 8.4 3.0 2.80
3000 13.6 4.2 3.24
3500 20.9 5.1 4.10
4000 26.4 6.6 4.00
4500 30.3 8.8 3.44
5000 34.5 10.9 3.17
5500 38.4 14.4 2.67
6000 43.0 16.4 2.62
Seconds to Plane 3.44

http://www.yamaha-motor.com/assets/p...se-f150txr.pdf

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

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.

The 200 burns more gasoline than the 150. No advantage there.

As quiet as the 200 is, the 150 is quieter.

The 200 will out-accelerate the 150. Yawn.