Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
http://www.contender.com/boats.aspx?id=494

Pobbisly with F350s - I want to test drive a few first before I make
up my mind on power.

Damn, I thought you were moving to SC, inland and were looking for a
Pontoon Boat. It is a wild ride to go from a pontoon boat to a Canyon
Battleship.

When I saw you were thinking about twin F350's I thought it might be
overkill, until I saw the boat.

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 05:12:11 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

When I saw you were thinking about twin F350's I thought it might be
overkill, until I saw the boat.

I'd go for the triples 350s if you really want outboards. It should
still run on plane with 2, problematic with one. You can always tilt
up the middle and run on twins for "economy" mode, such as it is.
Personally I'd prefer twin inboard diesels on a boat that size.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 05:12:11 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

When I saw you were thinking about twin F350's I thought it might be
overkill, until I saw the boat.

I'd go for the triples 350s if you really want outboards. It should
still run on plane with 2, problematic with one. You can always tilt
up the middle and run on twins for "economy" mode, such as it is.
Personally I'd prefer twin inboard diesels on a boat that size.

I agree. It's funny that for a guy who drives and appreciates a diesel
powered truck, SWF seems to have an aversion to diesel powered boats. It's
not all about speed offshore as the boats get bigger, although with the
right turbo diesels, he'd have plenty of it.

Diesel inboards would be better for close quarter handling, fuel economy
and, (arguably) reliability for long runs.

Eisboch

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:56:49 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

It's
not all about speed offshore as the boats get bigger, although with the
right turbo diesels, he'd have plenty of it.

It's been my experience that when conditions get rough, we all run at
the same speed. The only difference is that I don't have to slow
down. :-)

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:03:21 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:56:49 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

It's
not all about speed offshore as the boats get bigger, although with the
right turbo diesels, he'd have plenty of it.

It's been my experience that when conditions get rough, we all run at
the same speed. The only difference is that I don't have to slow
down. :-)

LOL!!

Gotta give you that one.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:56:49 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

It's
not all about speed offshore as the boats get bigger, although with the
right turbo diesels, he'd have plenty of it.

It's been my experience that when conditions get rough, we all run at
the same speed. The only difference is that I don't have to slow
down. :-)


I don't even have to slow down to observe the speed limit coming into the
harbor channel. (GB)

I learned a lesson with the Egg Harbor we had for a couple of years. It was
a 37 footer and of the newer (2002) design that made it lighter. It was
powered by twin 450hp Cats and was capable of WOT speeds in excess of 35
kts. Big deal. In anything over 2-3 foot seas, the damn thing went
airborne, crashing back hard enough to loosen your teeth.

Most of our "high speed" cruising out to the fishing spots was at 19 -20 kts
which, ironically, is the much heavier Navigator's normal cruise even in
heavier seas.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 05:12:11 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

When I saw you were thinking about twin F350's I thought it might be
overkill, until I saw the boat.
I'd go for the triples 350s if you really want outboards. It should
still run on plane with 2, problematic with one. You can always tilt
up the middle and run on twins for "economy" mode, such as it is.
Personally I'd prefer twin inboard diesels on a boat that size.

I agree. It's funny that for a guy who drives and appreciates a diesel
powered truck, SWF seems to have an aversion to diesel powered boats. It's
not all about speed offshore as the boats get bigger, although with the
right turbo diesels, he'd have plenty of it.

Diesel inboards would be better for close quarter handling, fuel economy
and, (arguably) reliability for long runs.

Eisboch



But the Yamahas give him a chance to buy into solid, four cycle outboard
technology!

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:19:29 -0400, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 05:12:11 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

When I saw you were thinking about twin F350's I thought it might be
overkill, until I saw the boat.
I'd go for the triples 350s if you really want outboards. It should
still run on plane with 2, problematic with one. You can always tilt
up the middle and run on twins for "economy" mode, such as it is.
Personally I'd prefer twin inboard diesels on a boat that size.

I agree. It's funny that for a guy who drives and appreciates a diesel
powered truck, SWF seems to have an aversion to diesel powered boats. It's
not all about speed offshore as the boats get bigger, although with the
right turbo diesels, he'd have plenty of it.

Diesel inboards would be better for close quarter handling, fuel economy
and, (arguably) reliability for long runs.

Eisboch



But the Yamahas give him a chance to buy into solid, four cycle outboard
technology!

I've had lots of 'boat ho's' in the bay contribute $20 for gas. I don't
know if I could ask them to chip in $220!

John H. wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:19:29 -0400, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 05:12:11 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

When I saw you were thinking about twin F350's I thought it might be
overkill, until I saw the boat.
I'd go for the triples 350s if you really want outboards. It should
still run on plane with 2, problematic with one. You can always tilt
up the middle and run on twins for "economy" mode, such as it is.
Personally I'd prefer twin inboard diesels on a boat that size.
I agree. It's funny that for a guy who drives and appreciates a diesel
powered truck, SWF seems to have an aversion to diesel powered boats. It's
not all about speed offshore as the boats get bigger, although with the
right turbo diesels, he'd have plenty of it.

Diesel inboards would be better for close quarter handling, fuel economy
and, (arguably) reliability for long runs.

Eisboch


But the Yamahas give him a chance to buy into solid, four cycle outboard
technology!

I've had lots of 'boat ho's' in the bay contribute $20 for gas. I don't
know if I could ask them to chip in $220!


You should be well pleased with the fuel burn on your new Yamaha.

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:50:01 -0400, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:19:29 -0400, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 05:12:11 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

When I saw you were thinking about twin F350's I thought it might be
overkill, until I saw the boat.
I'd go for the triples 350s if you really want outboards. It should
still run on plane with 2, problematic with one. You can always tilt
up the middle and run on twins for "economy" mode, such as it is.
Personally I'd prefer twin inboard diesels on a boat that size.
I agree. It's funny that for a guy who drives and appreciates a diesel
powered truck, SWF seems to have an aversion to diesel powered boats. It's
not all about speed offshore as the boats get bigger, although with the
right turbo diesels, he'd have plenty of it.

Diesel inboards would be better for close quarter handling, fuel economy
and, (arguably) reliability for long runs.

Eisboch


But the Yamahas give him a chance to buy into solid, four cycle outboard
technology!

I've had lots of 'boat ho's' in the bay contribute $20 for gas. I don't
know if I could ask them to chip in $220!


You should be well pleased with the fuel burn on your new Yamaha.

I'm sure it'll be much better than that 5.7L Mercruiser. I think that thing
burned gas while it was off!