Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
![]()
posted to rec.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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
further to the avoidable dangers post | Cruising | |||
OnTopic:BoatUS Insurance Issue | General | |||
More on ICW Dangers | Cruising | |||
West Marine/BoatUS-Happy Story | ASA | |||
BoatUS/WestMarine Happy Story | Cruising |