Print Page | Close Window

Motors again - 70-90hp

Printed From: The Fishing Website
Category: General Forums
Forum Name: The Boat Shed
Forum Description: Discuss all things boating.
URL: https://www.fishing.net.nz/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=128408
Printed Date: 29 Mar 2024 at 11:24pm


Topic: Motors again - 70-90hp
Posted By: letsgetem
Subject: Motors again - 70-90hp
Date Posted: 04 Jul 2018 at 3:07pm
Im thinking about getting a extreme 500. That's an alloy boat, length overall 5.0m. Relatively heavy as uses 5mm/4mm aluminium.
What motor should I get?
I havent been able to  get a ride on a 500, but have tried a Extreme 540 - that's about 10% heavier. With a Yamaha F70, it went max speed 30knots at 5800rpm - in fairly calm, 3 POB. . I would normally have 1 POB and get a higher top speed, that would do me. 
So Im thinking 70hp would be enough. For local servicing availability I would like Yamaha or Mercury - Yamaha F70 vs Mercury 4str 80 or 90.
The Yammie is far lighter at 119kg, with a tiny 1L capacity; so presumably its highly tuned to get that HP. BUT - the Yammie F70 howled like a tortured banshee, I thought it was a two stroke at first. How come a 4 stroke makes that awful high pitched noise? Is that normal - how do others regard that? Im not used to the high pitch, coming from a nice growly Honda.
The bigger Yamaha F90 weighs 162kg, about the same as the Mercuries. Question - does the Yammie 90 sound the same high pitch as the 70?
 
The Mercuries are both 165kg, 43 kg heavier than the Yammie. Wow that's a lot more weight! Capacity is 2.1L, over twice the Yammie. Presumably the Mercs have much more Torque at lower revs. I haven't heard the Mercs, but obviously need to.
 
Im in a dilemma. Take the Yamaha 70 for the lighter weight (but awful howl), or the Yamaha 90 or Merc 90 for quieter sound, but higher weight?
 
What should I do?
  



Replies:
Posted By: SpearPoint
Date Posted: 04 Jul 2018 at 3:35pm
The F70 shares the same block with the F50 and F60. The Merc 80 or 90 share the same block with the 100 & 115. I don't think you can really compare them as they will be miles apart in the torque department due to there being 1.1trs difference of displacement between them.

If the boat can take the weight I'd take the Merc not just for the extra HP but for the big increase in torque.

I'm pretty indifferent about noise but that's just me.

What was the difference in price by the way?


Posted By: MikeAqua
Date Posted: 04 Jul 2018 at 4:40pm
The F70 makes that noise because it's a small block working hard.

I don't think 140HP is enough for that boat.  I also don't think two F70s are enough displacement.   I'd go for 90s.  Fit trim tabs if the stern squats a bit too much.


Posted By: Schampy
Date Posted: 04 Jul 2018 at 5:22pm
Have you looked at the suzuki 70/90?  They are about 145 kg I think but a much larger block than the yam. (1.8 if I can remember correctly.... its been a while)   Had The 70 suzi on my previous boat..5m center consol and it was an absolute peach of an engine. Compared to the 70 yam I had on surt 485 before that was like night and day.
Suzuki has way more torque... meaning much more relaxed cruising speed and better fuel economy. Loved it.
The 70 Yam sorta suited my surtee 485 better in the sense that the hulls are not very buoyant in the arse. Combined with 2 full tote tanks at the back..... Any thing heavier than a 125 kg engine would have the boat dragging its bum like a dog with worms.  Seemed to have to thrash the engine pretty hard to cover distance though. But with The 5m cc (much heavier than surt.. Ply/glass) The suzuki with bigger displacement and  and superior torque was much better suited to heavier hull. Even though there was a weight penalty....  It didnt phase boat.... she would just lop along at 4200 rpm doing 30 mph all day.


Posted By: Joker
Date Posted: 05 Jul 2018 at 1:34pm
I've got the Merc 90hp on an alloy 560 C/C and its a perfect fit with lots of torque, quiet, reliable and economical. I have the Command thrust model which is supposed to help it plane at a lower speed - seems to work. 


Posted By: RC1
Date Posted: 05 Jul 2018 at 6:56pm
F70 is too small for that hull. You would be best to go for the F75/90 Yamaha. The 75 is a de tuned 90hp and goes really well. If the budget allows go for the F90 Yamaha. These new Yamahas are nice engines.


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 06 Jul 2018 at 8:36am
Motor weights will have very little or any effect on a boat that size.
ball park a 5.5m boat total gross weight on the water 1100/ 1200 kg well powered is around 140 hp... min well powered is around 115hp

 What do you think the total gross weight will be? ppl fuel gear everything?
 Go for at least the manufacture max hp rating if want the best riding, chop performance from the boat.
 Anything under that is a marketing thing to sell the biggest boat with the least amount of hp to ppl on tight budget.


Posted By: letsgetem
Date Posted: 06 Jul 2018 at 8:54am
Its a 5m boat overall length.
 
On the water weight estimate is 950kg with 2 POB.
 
I agree with the idea that dealers like to market a boat with minimal power, to make the price lower. That's exactly what a dealer did, when I went on a Extreme 540 - reckoned don't need any more than 70hp, and any more would be too much weight for it. When I said but the maker recommends 70-115 - there was a deafening silence.
 
I am generally against a motor being highly tuned to get higher power, as it should be less reliable and durable.
 
Good advice so far, keep em coming. 


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 06 Jul 2018 at 9:48am
Rem top speed is an unrequired side 'symtom' of being able to have good reserve power at normal cruise speeds and hitting a chop/ wake stalling etc...
 Also ball park for these trailer 4.6m thru around 6m min well powered around 42mph and well powered high 40s around 47/48 mph  and propped at full normal load to middle or smidgen below the manufactures max rpm range..

So on 1050kg 
 WoT for 42 mph is about 100hp
 Propped well.. pitch and good slip (grip) cruise around 4000 rpms around 32 mph
 for  47 mph 118 hp
 cruise around 3850 rpm around 37 mph on flat water.
 If go larger engine and cruise at smaller engine speed (32mph) you will have around an extra 7 to 12% better economy... 
cruise at the faster speed and around 5 to 7% more fuel than the smaller engine at slower cruise speed. 

 Get in heavey chop on the smaller engine you will be working the throttle a little to stay on plain, and crew thru more gas..
 On the larger engine you will not have to work the throttle.. set and go..travel more comfortable at a 2 to 3 mph faster and the fuel consumption drops dramatically to well below the normal slow cruise.
 Put a little more weight in , say extra guy and gear , say 90 to 110 kg, the smaller engine will cruise couple mph slower, use more fuel, more 'pig' in chop.
 larger engine, hardly notice the diff, 50 to 75 rpms to maintain same cruise speed, stuff all change in consumption. And heavy chop, no change other than the extra weight will improve ride a little more.

Over power say plus another 10 hp and all the benefits of the larger engine get better....just get in the habit that every time you take off, "all holding on?"
 Cause you will be just in gear, trimmed right down, ask, move throttle, a little forward, let it go, as goes over the bow wave trim up and will be at 3800/ 4000 cruise speed...and have not touched the throttle.
 If they are not holding on they will be on the floor or over the back... little over stated but certainly applies.

I have a lot ppl contact me .. "my boat is not going as well as the original (sales) sea trial... (not fully loaded) can you see if propped right?"
8 times out of 10 it is
1 time, a sight change makes an improvement but not significant to warrant the capital cost of a new prop
Other time is baddly propped , but still cant fix being min to under powered.

Also of interest, several  hull manufacturers, often with a small charge, will increase the load tags for a little more hp for insurance purposes...I assume therefore there tends to be a substantial margin in some hulls.


Posted By: letsgetem
Date Posted: 06 Jul 2018 at 10:09am
I estimated the boat weight wrong - included the trailer - more like 950kg I think, but don't need to assess it again - I can allow for that. Thanks.
 


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 06 Jul 2018 at 11:00am
I have been taking note of tow weight and on water weight.. just as a side interest comparison.. and not thinking as a good example...
 BUT in general 4m to around 6m the tow weight plus people is a pretty damn close.. little surprising...
 Also be careful what the advertised tow weight is.. Some its the net boat trailer weight, 
others it is  trailer net boat plus a motor,
 and others boat trailer, motor fuel and basic gear(batteries)
 Its a bit like advertised hull length.. bow to transom or bow to transom plus any platforms out the back, or even in some cases includes a bow sprit.

 I dont need to get out calculator etc .. I built a app, punch numbers in , any variable and comes up with the calculations... same with the propping.
So At 950kg 47 mph is around 106hp
at 42 mph around 92hp

If anyone has the same boat and can post their hp and speed @ WoT  roughly number ppl fuel  we can get it closer.

 PS modern outboards espec 4S  tend to under rate their HP about 5 to 10%
 4 S tends to have a flatter rpm /hp curve below 4000 rpms, having more hp means they pull up as well as a 2S and similar reserve power Wink


Posted By: letsgetem
Date Posted: 06 Jul 2018 at 11:09am
I take that point - tow weights given by the manufacturer are no doubt variable, as they probably want to make it appear lighter so people think its easier to tow.


Posted By: rowboat bob
Date Posted: 08 Jul 2018 at 9:16pm
I'd go for the Merc 90.  I've recently put the Merc 115 Pro XS from the same range,  on my 5.5 m glass boat and it's awesome. What sold me on the Mercs were that although being the latest technology , they are also the simplest and although having the largest displacement at 2.1L they are also the lightest in their class. The designers of this range of Merc engines have gone for "lazy horsepower" which basically means the motors are not working too hard. This approach should be good for reliability and longevity, while the simple,  single cam with factory set valve timing should keep servicing costs down.


Posted By: letsgetem
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2018 at 5:10pm
A question I need to answer, - will a 160kg motor (4stroke 80-90hp) be too heavy for this boat. How do I decide that?
The maker's representative seems a bit unsure - on their website says 70-90 is ok, but later says 50-70 is recommended.. And so far they havent come up with any 500 that's got a 160kg motor for me to enquire about. Im wary about it - as Ive heard of boats that are too heavy in the stern.
Its beam 2.1m. Underfloor fuel tank 80L, that's weight near the stern. Anyone got any ideas? Anyone got a 80-90hp 4 stroke weighing about 160kg on a 2.1m wide boat?  


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2018 at 6:03pm
will a 160kg motor (4stroke 80-90hp) be too heavy for this boat. How do I decide that?
 will be fine.. thats about the weight of older johnnies evinrudes , merc s etc that where common on boats that size.
 From memory the weight of 70 to 115 johnnie is about 160/170kg and the 150 V6 200kg
 The extra 25 off kg on the back of the 5.5 commander made nil difference....even with a couple 10L buckets of muscle added on top sitting back there..
Think about it like this.. you decide to take the grandchildren out and they both decide to sit in the stern...make that much difference? nah

 If you are talking 4 or 4.5 m then you will start to consider that... maybe.. but then you will be well over powering that boat.. becomes a competition speed boat right? 


Posted By: letsgetem
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2018 at 9:15am
Two dealers of extreme boats, have said they think 160kg motor on an Extreme 500 is too heavy. Because, the length of the hull is a factor, and its not long enough to counterbalance that weight on the back - resulting in being too hard to get it planing, ie have to use more power and speed than desirable.
The Extreme 500 is relatively heavy for its length - because it uses thicker aluminium than other makes, 5mm hull and 4mm superstructure. The higher weight, needs higher power to push it adequately. To get the higher power, motors are heavier. The only motor that appears to be enough power, is the Yamaha 70. Its remarkably light weight at 119kg, compared to others 70-115 around 160kg. But, the Yammie 70 makes a high pitched noise, that is not acceptable to me. And it needs to run at relatively high revs to get the power, which increases the noise level.
I cant see any way around that, so Ive scrubbed the extreme 500 from my wish list.
That's ok to me, its also very expensive.
Something else will take my fancy, theres no hurry, and I might not change my existing boat (Stabi 1530).
As I said to the dealer (sales bloke), previous boats have all had something that pisses me off, and the next boat (if any) has to be just right.


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2018 at 10:06am
OK..
 understand the comments  MAY have a merit.. in saying that is holeshot that important?.

 Is the hull actually 5m bow to stern on the 500, or does that include the rear duck boards?

resulting in being too hard to get it planing, ie have to use more power and speed than desirable.
 Both of these are rubbish..
 The hull will have a constant, same as any other trailer boat.. between 195 (cruise) and 205 (WoT) its to do with the area incontact with the water on the plain at a given speed.
 Any power is about moving a given weight at a given speed over a given distance. If you where underpowered and dumped a big heavy engine on ... yes then what they say would eventuate...
 Trouble is to source a real heavy motor with too little power doesnt exist anymore.

With reasonable power , fully trimmed down should still not be an issue.
 The important part for general  use is, I believe good cruise speed, good power for chop (dont have to play the throttle to stay on plain).
 you could dump a heavy V6 on the back, nose will point skywards intial hole shot for a second or to, bow will go over the bow wave, hull will flatten right out you will have thumb on the trim, trim up real quick and be skimming the water surface nps
 
in fairly calm, 3 POB.
 How many do you generally have on board?
We find 5.5m fishes 3 ok , 4 bit cramped....


Posted By: Joker
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2018 at 6:50pm
Forget the Yami 70 - its really only a 60hp that gets the extra hp at WOT but doesn't have the mid range thrust that you need. A 5m boat with a 2.1 beam can handle the weight at the back but to be sure I would put a 4 blade prop on it to get the extra lift or go the CT model of the Merc 90.  


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2018 at 9:42am
Forget the Yami 70 - its really only a 60hp that gets the extra hp at WOT but doesn't have the mid range thrust that you need.

 Thats a damn good point.. 4s by nature dont have as a high power curve down low mid range like 2S...which maybe is why 4S tend to be underrated  5/10% to adverttised WoT hp.
 Get to the max ci of a range and that will be very likely to show up when hit a good chop. 
Since the 4s have started to be marketed its damn hard to find any hp/rpm graphs for them....other than where workshops have done actual sea trial numbers.
 Put those 2 things together and one wonders just how much of the 4S marketing performance propaganda is up front and transparent. 


Posted By: Big -Dave
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2018 at 8:59pm
4 strokes with variable cam timing/lift, and variable intake manifold lengths, produce better mid range torque.

Everyone is going to have differing ideas on how much power is necessary.
I found my boat with 3 pob, approx 2000kg, gotup and went fine with 130 hp, the only time it was an issue was climbing up the back of a steep swell, something i rarely had to do.or, when i had 6 or 8 pob.
A bit of gear stowed up front, helps keep the nose down if your motor is a bit heavy on the back.
Wedging the motor to get it to tuck in more, also helps.


-------------
you can't fix an idiot with duct tape, but it does muffle them for a while...


Posted By: terrafish
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2018 at 10:40pm
Re wedging the motor
Whats the cons on doing this. would like a few more degrees bow down on the ****ty b.o.i sw . Gotta fleetline solitaire with a suzi df90.


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2018 at 9:27am
I found my boat with 3 pob, approx 2000kg, gotup and went fine with 130 hp

2000kg / 130 hp  those numbers correct?
That would be a 6m plus trailer boat??
WoT speed around 30/32 mph  most prob a prop around 15" and about a 20/22 mph cruise speed,  only just on the plain

Re wedging the motor
Whats the cons on doing this. would like a few more degrees bow down on the ****ty b.o.i sw . Gotta fleetline solitaire with a suzi df90.

1/ Why do you think needs wedging?
2/ doesnt the motor have tilt trim?
3/ may find a 4 blade or a prop with more rake would sort high bow/ porpoising issue

Thats assuming the engine is mounted correct height and current prop is in ball park or correct...
More likely they are not, and thats your base issue.


Posted By: MikeAqua
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2018 at 4:39pm
Originally posted by Steps Steps wrote:



about a 20/22 mph cruise speed,  only just on the plain



My 6m trailer boat will plane at <15 mph - not if it was at 2,000kg though ...



Posted By: terrafish
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2018 at 6:51pm
When I go solo I tend to bounce a bit more, with 2 or three pob, smooth as, and can trim motor up a bit from hard down, unless its particularly grotty. prop is at low end of min rev wot, 5250rpm 14x19, 28kn, 4000rpm cruise 20kn, spare prop 6200rpm wot still 28kn 4400rpm cruise 17/18kn and fuel consumption higher thru all rev range, prop stamped 14k.Engine is mounted correctly, could have gone one hole higher but this would have reduced my rough water capabilitys by causing more potential cavitation. Dunno if another prop would get past her royal pain in the arse, sorry meant Highness!.


Posted By: Big -Dave
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2018 at 11:50pm
Originally posted by Steps Steps wrote:

<span style="line-height: 17.1429px; : rgb251, 251, 253;">I found my boat with 3 pob, approx 2000kg, gotup and went fine with 130 hp</span>
<span style="line-height: 17.1429px; : rgb251, 251, 253;">
</span>
<span style="line-height: 17.1429px; : rgb251, 251, 253;">2000kg / 130 hp  those numbers correct?</span>
<span style="line-height: 17.1429px; : rgb251, 251, 253;">That would be a 6m plus trailer boat??</span>
<span style="line-height: 17.1429px; : rgb251, 251, 253;">WoT speed around 30/32 mph  most prob a prop around 15" and about a 20/22 mph cruise speed,  only just on the plain
</span>
<span style="line-height: 17.1429px; : rgb251, 251, 253;">
</span>
<span style="line-height: 17.1429px; : rgb251, 251, 253;">Re wedging the motor</span><br style="-sizing: border-; line-height: 17.1429px; : rgb251, 251, 253;"><span style="line-height: 17.1429px; : rgb251, 251, 253;">Whats the cons on doing this. would like a few more degrees bow down on the ****ty b.o.i sw . Gotta fleetline solitaire with a suzi df90.</span>
<span style="line-height: 17.1429px; : rgb251, 251, 253;">
</span>
<span style="line-height: 17.1429px; : rgb251, 251, 253;">1/ Why do you think needs wedging?</span>
<span style="line-height: 17.1429px; : rgb251, 251, 253;">2/ doesnt the motor have tilt trim?</span>
<span style=": rgb251, 251, 253;"><span style="line-height: 17.1429px;">3/ may find a 4 blade or a prop with more rake would sort high bow/ porpoising issue</span></span>
<span style=": rgb251, 251, 253;"><span style="line-height: 17.1429px;">
</span></span>
<span style=": rgb251, 251, 253;"><span style="line-height: 17.1429px;">Thats assuming the engine is mounted correct height and current prop is in ball park or correct...</span></span>
<span style=": rgb251, 251, 253;"><span style="line-height: 17.1429px;">More likely they are not, and thats your base issue.</span></span>
i have weighed the boat and trailer. at 2 tonne. the trailer is around 300 kg. i weigh 140, my normal passengers are around the 80 kg mark each. so we are back up to 2 tonne. it had a 17 inch vengeance prop, and 60kmh was easily achievable most days. Planing speed was around 18kmh. easy cruise was 40 to 50 kmh. 40 kmh was a fuel burn of .7l per km. hull length 6 m.

-------------
you can't fix an idiot with duct tape, but it does muffle them for a while...


Posted By: Steps
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2018 at 10:59am
When I go solo I tend to bounce a bit more, with 2 or three pob, smooth as, and can trim motor up a bit from hard down,...

 So you have trim with more weight? none when on your own? assume gear is loaded towards the bow?
 If dont have any trim solo, then indicates that the engine needs adjusting/ shimming further 'trimmed ' down....or putting another way is not trimmed down far enough ...
 OR having a prop with not enough rake to lever the bow down will do the same...
Crunching numbers
prop is at low end of min rev wot, 5250rpm 
 prop 14x19, 28kn,
 Suzt DF90A gearbox 2.59:1. 
Thats a WoT slip around 12%
you should be targeting around 5%...
 4000rpm cruise 20kn,
 17% slip should be targeting 12 to 15% slip @ cruise.
have an issue with the prop diam/ cupping or number blades.. need more grip
More grip will drop the WoT rpms even further so will need to drop pitch down also.
 
You should targeting the lower end with your normal full loaded boat.. which when the boat is not loaded still have WoT around 3/4 + of the way to the top

 spare prop 6200rpm wot still 28kn
 Slip 26%
 4400rpm cruise 17/18kn
 and fuel consumption higher thru all rev range, 
 Hell yeah , like driving a car reving its heart out with a clutch thats slipping bad and going nowhere

 wot still 28kn 
 This is very significant.. most ppl believe a change of prop will change the WoT speed of a given weight with a given hp will change.. it doesnt.. @ woT the engine is at max hp 90hp.. that will only move a given weight at a given speed..basic high school physics.

Taking the 1st prop as basis.. decreasing slip to 5% and targeting just below the mid WoT rpm spec (5800)  5700 rpm  you need a 16" pitch
This will give WoT the same and cruise 20/22 mph

 And I would be looking at a 4 blade, these usually have far more rake that brings the bow down...  because the 'thrust' cone behind the prop is narrower, it breaks water surface further back, cavitation reduced....
With current prop, if the cone breaks water too close to the prop, it looses the push at the top, and the extra push at the bottom levers the bow up.....
 The 4 blade also provides more grip, and would be looking at one around 13 1/4 to 13 3/4 diameter...

 Sry the red txt will not change

i have weighed the boat and trailer. at 2 tonne. the trailer is around 300 kg. i weigh 140, my normal passengers are around the 80 kg mark each. so we are back up to 2 tonne. it had a 17 inch vengeance prop, and 60kmh was easily achievable most days. Planing speed was around 18kmh. easy cruise was 40 to 50 kmh. 40 kmh was a fuel burn of .7l per km. hull length 6 m.
 2 tonne. it had a 17 inch vengeance prop, and 60kmh was easily achievable most days. Planing speed was around 18kmh. easy cruise was 40 to 50 kmh. 40 kmh was a fuel burn of .7l per km. hull length 6 m.

 Most 6m boats gross weight  on the water around the 1750/ 2000 kg max.
60km/hr is 37 mph
For 130hp move a given weight (trailer boat planing hull) on water would make the boat approx  1650kg.
 Cruise of 40km (25mph) for a 2T boat would require 73 hp at the cruise rpms, and ideally another 10 to 15% reserve power for performce in chop so doesnt fall off plain when stalls on next wave.

hull length 6 m... this is from bow base to bottom of hull ..not any duckboards etc?  ie a buccaneer 635 bis actually closer to 6m hull.











 



Posted By: Dmnz
Date Posted: 03 Nov 2018 at 7:31am
Hay there legsgetem ....did you purchase the exreme 500? If not yet consider the Suzuki 90. Very light in comparison


Posted By: letsgetem
Date Posted: 03 Nov 2018 at 9:12am
I have just bought a new Figlass Firestar 530. That's going from alloy Stabi to fibreglass. Big change - mainly in looks and keeping it clean.
 
Motor's a mercury 4s 90hp. I went on a trial with that motor and was impressed how efficient it was, ie went faster at lower revs than I expected, given the theoretical power to weight ratio. I am wondering if the fibreglass is more efficient than alloy - eg smoother and less friction. Also, I think the Stabi pontoon shapes result in more drag.
 
I was interested in the extreme 500, but decided against it due to -
- doubt it would tolerate the weight of a 90hp on the back
- cabin rather low, so could not sit up in it; making getting in and out hard.
- very expensive I thought - would cost about $8000 more than the Figlass Firestar I ended up with
 
I chose the Firestar, due to -
- generally good comments about them
-  deadrise 21 deg (same as the Extreme).
- beam 2.1m, modest, so doesn't make the trailer too wide for me - trailer width ended up 2190
- bigger, longer at 5.3m, heavier but towing weight about 950kg which is fine.
- lateral stability will be a bit worse than a pontoon; but seems reasonable to me. The 80L underfloor tank will help ballast. 
- cabin relatively large for its size. I suppose that seems odd for a fishing machine - but I want to be able to get in the cabin to rest and shelter from wind and sun and rain. The outside space in the cockpit, is enough for me - I don't want any more length outside .
- lovely seats - most impressed - thick padding., side support, 360 swivel, for & aft adjust, height adjust, soft ride suspension. Wow, best seats Ive seen on any trailer boat. I can actually get seat position exactly as I want.
- reasonable price - cost $47,000, including a winch (Viper 1000) and anchor costing $2,700
- seemed prepared to customise things I want. mainly - no carpets! on walls or floor. Walls are finshed in grey paint, looks ok. I painted the floor with anti-slip paint.
 
I chose the Mercury 4s 90hp, due to -
- have heard relatively favourable things about the latest Mercs.
- weight at 165kg is slightly more than Suzuki at 156, but not enough to matter to me
- there are 3 options for getting service - 2 on Hibiscus and 1 at Albany.
- on the sea trial, I thought the Merc was noticeably quieter than my Honda 60hp. Time will tell if Ive made a good choice eh!!! 
 
To recap, my main objective is to get significantly softer riding in chop; the Stabi is too hard for my taste. The Firestar - is heavier by about 40%, and has a sharper hull (deadrise 21 compared 17 deg on the Stabi). I haven't yet been out on its first fishing trip.
 
 For the record, there are a couple of things I don't like about the Firestar -
- doesn't have a bowsprit. Odd. I think the anchor retrieval could hit the fibreglass bow and damage it; and with a winch, stowing the anchor on the bow, requires a bowsprit. I got one made in Stainless steel, that's fine, but cost $621!
- cockpit side shelves are too narrow, hold bugger all. Compared to a pontoon hull that has excellent wide side shelves.


Posted By: Norseman
Date Posted: 03 Nov 2018 at 3:23pm
Give a look at the Tohatsu 90hp TLDI two stroke direct injection at 153kg




-------------
"Nothing is so strong as gentleness, nothing so gentle as real strength." St. Francis de Sales



Print Page | Close Window