| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Well, I've made up my mind...
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. |
Well, I've made up my mind...
On Sep 26, 7:28 pm, 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. "...the Contender 38 comes standard with 460-gallon fuel capacity along with an option to add an additional 110 gallons. ...Engineered to accommodate triple engines up to 1100 hp, Contender builds this boat to get there and back with speed and comfort...." Deffinately not for the economy-minded..... |
Well, I've made up my mind...
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. Well, you'll be able to drive a few down here next month on Parkers and Gradys. Why do you want such an oversized fuel-wasting monster? |
Well, I've made up my mind...
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:22:22 -0400, HK wrote:
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. Well, you'll be able to drive a few down here next month on Parkers and Gradys. Why do you want such an oversized fuel-wasting monster? Because I can and I'm tired of fishing inshore. |
Well, I've made up my mind...
Tim wrote:
On Sep 26, 7:28 pm, 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. "...the Contender 38 comes standard with 460-gallon fuel capacity along with an option to add an additional 110 gallons. ...Engineered to accommodate triple engines up to 1100 hp, Contender builds this boat to get there and back with speed and comfort...." Deffinately not for the economy-minded..... At least 40-50 gph at cruise, right? $150 an hour for fuel. |
Well, I've made up my mind...
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:20:20 -0000, Tim wrote:
On Sep 26, 7:28 pm, 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. "...the Contender 38 comes standard with 460-gallon fuel capacity along with an option to add an additional 110 gallons. ...Engineered to accommodate triple engines up to 1100 hp, Contender builds this boat to get there and back with speed and comfort...." Deffinately not for the economy-minded..... Actually, All things considered, it's not as bad as it sounds. |
Well, I've made up my mind...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:20:20 -0000, Tim wrote: On Sep 26, 7:28 pm, 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. "...the Contender 38 comes standard with 460-gallon fuel capacity along with an option to add an additional 110 gallons. ...Engineered to accommodate triple engines up to 1100 hp, Contender builds this boat to get there and back with speed and comfort...." Deffinately not for the economy-minded..... Actually, All things considered, it's not as bad as it sounds. This seems a better deal for Tom...and it has the proper two cycle engines he prefers. http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...Boatfortom.jpg |
Well, I've made up my mind...
SWEET BOAT!! What else can I say.
--Mike "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... 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. |
Well, I've made up my mind...
On Sep 26, 8:26 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:20:20 -0000, Tim wrote: On Sep 26, 7:28 pm, 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. "...the Contender 38 comes standard with 460-gallon fuel capacity along with an option to add an additional 110 gallons. ...Engineered to accommodate triple engines up to 1100 hp, Contender builds this boat to get there and back with speed and comfort...." Deffinately not for the economy-minded..... Actually, All things considered, it's not as bad as it sounds. 570 gallons? at approx. $4.00 per. marina fuel = $2280.00 Will that be cash? or charge? |
Well, I've made up my mind...
On Sep 26, 8:43 pm, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:20:20 -0000, Tim wrote: On Sep 26, 7:28 pm, 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. "...the Contender 38 comes standard with 460-gallon fuel capacity along with an option to add an additional 110 gallons. ...Engineered to accommodate triple engines up to 1100 hp, Contender builds this boat to get there and back with speed and comfort...." Deffinately not for the economy-minded..... Actually, All things considered, it's not as bad as it sounds. This seems a better deal for Tom...and it has the proper two cycle engines he prefers. http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...oatfortom.jpg- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That *almost* looks like something Batman would commandier |
Well, I've made up my mind...
On Sep 26, 8:25 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: Because I can and I'm tired of fishing inshore. If that be the case, then Tom, you need a Russian Meteor! http://en.wikivisual.com/images/8/84...rHydrofoil.jpg Very fast, very furious, and very BIG! 1000 hp v-12 turbo diesel, and all the room you need for that fishing gear! One sold on ebay last year for (I think) about $50,000.00 USD |
Well, I've made up my mind...
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. |
Well, I've made up my mind...
On Sep 26, 5:28?pm, 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. If you would consider "settling" for a 36 footer instead of the 38, this might be a good buy. Only 200 hours on this 2 year old boat. Under $250k. Not all that far from you, either. http://yachtworld.com/core/listing/b...id=4184&url = |
Well, I've made up my mind...
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. |
Well, I've made up my mind...
"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 |
Well, I've made up my mind...
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. :-) |
Well, I've made up my mind...
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! |
Well, I've made up my mind...
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. |
Well, I've made up my mind...
On Sep 27, 2:56 pm, "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, Not anymore;) 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 |
Well, I've made up my mind...
HK wrote:
wrote: On Sep 27, 2:56 pm, "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, Not anymore;) 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 If I were in the market for an offshore fishing boat in that size category, I'd want a heavier boat with twin diesels. Maybe something like this: http://www.badmarine.com/New%20Boats.html The Orca 37, about a third the way down the page. |
Well, I've made up my mind...
JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message . .. 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 never ask guests to chip in for gas. I think it is a bit tacky to ask when you invited them to go out. I typically don't ask, but my fishing buddies volunteer and they buy the bait if we are using bought bait and the ice. I was out a couple of days ago with two buddies, and we burned about 15 gallons of gas. On the way home, they insisted we stop by a gas station and they split the cost of pumping in about 20 gallons. |
Well, I've made up my mind...
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! |
Well, I've made up my mind...
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:29:50 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote: On Sep 26, 5:28?pm, 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. If you would consider "settling" for a 36 footer instead of the 38, this might be a good buy. Only 200 hours on this 2 year old boat. Under $250k. Not all that far from you, either. http://yachtworld.com/core/listing/b...id=4184&url = Thanks Chuck - appreciate it. I saw that one last night - very similar to my 32' Fisharound only a few feet longer. That is an option for sure. |
Well, I've made up my mind...
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:56:49 -0400, "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. I'm not adverse to diesels. Correctly or incorrectly, my view is that for boats of this style and type, outboards are the better choice. Now if I were to purchase a boat like your Navigator, Chuck's Sundowner or Wayne's GB - heck, Mrs. E's GB for that matter, then diesels are the correct choice. However, for a boat styled like the Contender, and considering the type of running I like to do and given the length, in my opinion outboards are a better choice for what I do, how I work and the type of fishing that I prefer to do offshore. Having said that, if I were to purchase a 48/50' class Hatteras, Bertie or Viking - that type of boat, then definetly diesels. For this size and type of boat, I'm not at all convinced that diesels offer any more of an advantage. I could be mistaken in my belief and would be perfectly willing to go the diesel route given the same level of performance. I have been on a new 32' Topaz and all things considered, felt just so-so with the overall performance. I just think that for this type boat, and the way I tend to run the boat, outboards are the preferred power system. By the way, I disagree with the close quarter manuevering, but that's another discussion. |
Well, I've made up my mind...
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. |
Well, I've made up my mind...
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. But the Yamahas give him a chance to buy into solid, four cycle outboard technology! We'll see about that - I scheduled to run a Blue Fin with a 350 Yamaha on Saturday. |
Well, I've made up my mind...
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! |
Well, I've made up my mind...
|
Well, I've made up my mind...
On Sep 27, 4:12 am, "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 thought he was talking matching Ford diesel pick up trucks. One for he, and one for the miss's |
Well, I've made up my mind...
On Sep 27, 5:22 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: Having said that, if I were to purchase a 48/50' class Hatteras, Bertie or Viking - that type of boat, then definetly diesels. You mean, there AORE other power options on a craft that size? For this size and type of boat, I'm not at all convinced that diesels offer any more of an advantage. How about jet turbines? |
Well, I've made up my mind...
Tim wrote:
On Sep 27, 5:22 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Having said that, if I were to purchase a 48/50' class Hatteras, Bertie or Viking - that type of boat, then definetly diesels. You mean, there AORE other power options on a craft that size? For this size and type of boat, I'm not at all convinced that diesels offer any more of an advantage. How about jet turbines? Or a surplus nuclear power plant from a mothballed submarine. |
Well, I've made up my mind...
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:49:57 -0700, Tim wrote:
On Sep 27, 5:22 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Having said that, if I were to purchase a 48/50' class Hatteras, Bertie or Viking - that type of boat, then definetly diesels. You mean, there AORE other power options on a craft that size? No - just that diesels would be the only option and I wouldn't object to them in that scenario. For this size and type of boat, I'm not at all convinced that diesels offer any more of an advantage. How about jet turbines? Or that. |
Well, I've made up my mind...
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:55:32 -0400, HK wrote:
Tim wrote: On Sep 27, 5:22 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Having said that, if I were to purchase a 48/50' class Hatteras, Bertie or Viking - that type of boat, then definetly diesels. You mean, there AORE other power options on a craft that size? For this size and type of boat, I'm not at all convinced that diesels offer any more of an advantage. How about jet turbines? Or a surplus nuclear power plant from a mothballed submarine. That's a thought. |
Well, I've made up my mind...
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:55:32 -0400, HK wrote:
Or a surplus nuclear power plant from a mothballed submarine. Last January I met the guy who is in charge of all USN reactors. I asked him if he could do anything for a GB49 but he wasn't too encouraging. |
Well, I've made up my mind...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:56:49 -0400, "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. I'm not adverse to diesels. Correctly or incorrectly, my view is that for boats of this style and type, outboards are the better choice. Now if I were to purchase a boat like your Navigator, Chuck's Sundowner or Wayne's GB - heck, Mrs. E's GB for that matter, then diesels are the correct choice. However, for a boat styled like the Contender, and considering the type of running I like to do and given the length, in my opinion outboards are a better choice for what I do, how I work and the type of fishing that I prefer to do offshore. Having said that, if I were to purchase a 48/50' class Hatteras, Bertie or Viking - that type of boat, then definetly diesels. For this size and type of boat, I'm not at all convinced that diesels offer any more of an advantage. I could be mistaken in my belief and would be perfectly willing to go the diesel route given the same level of performance. I have been on a new 32' Topaz and all things considered, felt just so-so with the overall performance. I just think that for this type boat, and the way I tend to run the boat, outboards are the preferred power system. By the way, I disagree with the close quarter manuevering, but that's another discussion. The bigger jetboats have started to go to diesels. Yanmars and Cummins. The owners have raved about the power and fuel economy. Pricision Weld and Hells Canyon Marine (HCM) have both sold them |
Well, I've made up my mind...
"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 |
Well, I've made up my mind...
"HK" wrote in message . .. But the Yamahas give him a chance to buy into solid, four cycle outboard technology! Nothing more solid than a pair of four cycle diesels. Or even two cycle, if anybody still makes 'em. Eisboch |
Well, I've made up my mind...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... For this size and type of boat, I'm not at all convinced that diesels offer any more of an advantage. I could be mistaken in my belief and would be perfectly willing to go the diesel route given the same level of performance. I have been on a new 32' Topaz and all things considered, felt just so-so with the overall performance. I just think that for this type boat, and the way I tend to run the boat, outboards are the preferred power system. There's a female in Australia selling big diesel outboards. Eisboch |
Well, I've made up my mind...
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message . .. But the Yamahas give him a chance to buy into solid, four cycle outboard technology! Nothing more solid than a pair of four cycle diesels. Or even two cycle, if anybody still makes 'em. Eisboch I actually saw one of those Japanese (Yanmar?) diesels once, long ago and far away. It was on a crabber's workboat. I think I remember that it seemed noisy. There obviously is a way to put a high output, lightweight diesel in cars (recall that an Audi diesel was the first diesel to win at Le Mans - an aluminum, 5.5-liter, 12-cylinder that produced more than 650 hp) and if there is a market for it, in boats and perhaps someday in an outboard. I wouldn't mind a diesel-powered jet (water pump) deep vee fishing boat. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:18 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com