700 Hours of Engine Use--Data - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  700 Hours of Engine Use--Data

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   700 Hours of Engine Use--Data

elaelap posted 12-16-2005 05:48 PM ET (US)
I got my boat back from the shop a couple of days ago after her 700-hour service (actual hours--694). I've posted engine use data here at 300- and 500-hours and the information has apparently interested several CW members. Here are my 700-hour numbers:
1988 Outrage 18/2004 Yamaha 115 hp four stroke EFI:
"Data Logger (Engine operating hours according to engine speed)
Engine speed/Time [h]
-1000 r/mi.....498.5
1000-2000......43.8
2000-3000......15.8
3000-4000......100.4
4000-5000......35.3
5000-6000......0.9
6000-7000......0"
These data are consistent with the earlier numbers--I continue to use my boat almost three-fourths of the time either trolling at low speeds (2.5-4 mph) or drift fishing with the motor on; my favorite cruising speeds are achieved at 3000-4000 turns (18-28 mph); I avoid whenever possible the clumsy, uneconomical, bow-in-the-air, plowing-the-sea, not-yet-on-plane range of 2000-3000 rpm; and I almost never exceed 5000 rpm (WOT with my current prop is 5600 turns). I account for the relatively high number of hours at 1000-2000 rpm by guessing that this is when I'm moving short distances from place to place while drift fishing, and when I'm going through 'No Wake' zones and putting around the harbor looking at other Whalers.
Tony
ratherwhalering posted 12-17-2005 12:01 PM ET (US)
Good stuff Tony, thanks for the update. I was inspired by your previous posts to investigate my own engine RPM log on my E-TEC 90, and was surprised at the number of hours I logged under 1000 RPM. The most surprising was that my secondary RPM range was right around 3400. I used to consider myself hard on the engine, racing around the bay, opening it up to WOT whenever I got the chance, but it turns out that after 130 hours, I had less than 1/2 hr at >5000 RPM. Funny how that log tells a tale, huh? Looking at mine, I would guess I was a conservative boater, who idled around quite a bit, and rarely opened her up. That is not the way I picture myself!
ratherwhalering posted 12-17-2005 12:13 PM ET (US)
Based on our last fishing trip on Cetaceous, I would venture to guess:
-1000 r/mi.....troling for salmon and taking flak from George on the radio about "bubalicious"
1000-2000......avoiding a Coastie breathalyser while exiting/entering the harbor
2000-3000......15.8 exiting the bay, so as not to spill beer and retreving lost hats.
3000-4000......cruising to your "sure thing" fishing grounds
4000-5000......cruising to the fish
5000-6000......Trying to convince me that 115 on an 18-Outrage is plenty of power.
;-)
elaelap posted 12-17-2005 12:19 PM ET (US)
Give it twenty or twenty-five years, Rob, and your tired old bones will force you to re-examine that picture you have of yourself ;-)
Tony
Sal DiMercurio posted 12-17-2005 12:29 PM ET (US)
Tony, thats great info but it seems your running your engine at the rpms [ 3000 - 4000 ] I say are optimum, yet Rev 25 posted figures that say 4000 to 4500 rpms is optimum.
Just curious, do you get your best fuel economy between 3 - 4000 ...or 4000 - 4500 rpms ? 100 hours between 3 & 4000 rpms vs 35 hours between 4 & 4500 rpms.
If I'm not mistaken, [ off the top of my head, no manual in front of me ] your factory recommended maximum rpms for that engine is 6200 rpms. & your only able to twist 5600 rpms. which indicates your twisting 3 inchs to much pitch in your prop.
I would say your twisting a 20p" prop & you really need a 17p" to allow that engine to reach it's recommended maximum rpms.
Now lets see how much trouble I can get myself into by contradicting the figures posted by another source?
Sal
Sal DiMercurio posted 12-17-2005 12:34 PM ET (US)
Oops, pushed the button to soon.
On second thought I'd say your running a 19p prop & you need a 15p w/slight cup or 16p.
Yeh, there's usually one in every crowd, I usually ignore them & they normally go away so fire away.
[ Gotta love this site for a good brain stimulation ].
Sal
Tom W Clark posted 12-17-2005 12:35 PM ET (US)
I tend to agree with Sal. A lower pitch prop may be in order.
The redline for the F115 is 6000 and Tony is able to turn it up to 5600 with his current 19" pitch prop. I believe he is going to try an 18" prop and if that is not satisfactory then a 17" prop will be tested.
I suspect Tony runs more at 3000 to 4000 not because of fuel economy (the difference being almost irrelevant on a gas sipping machine like the F115) but because that boat is too fast at engine speeds higher than that in the ocean.
elaelap posted 12-17-2005 01:47 PM ET (US)
Thanks, Sal, and while you're a little off on the Yamaha 115 four stroke manufacturer's WOT recommendation (they like the motor to be up close to its redline--6000 turns wide open), your analysis is of course correct. I have been serously considering making a move down from my 19" pitch black stainless OEM Yamaha prop to a 17" or 18". In fact, I'm waiting to test an 18" stainless prop that Tom Clark has located for me when it arrives in the mail. I've probably waited a little too long to experiment, mainly because the mechanic at the dealership where I bought the motor keeps telling me that I've got the boat and motor dialed in nicely as it is, and that the comprehensive data their computer receives from my motor's chip each time I have it serviced (every couple of hundred hours; I change oil myself every +/- 70 hrs) is very good--especially considering the motor's hard and frequent use over the past couple of years. There is something to be said for the old cliche, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'
I've received considerable assistance in learning about these matters over the past three years from you, Sal, from LHG/Larry, from Joe Kriz, from Tom Clark, from Rob/ratherwhalering, and from many others I've never talked with directly or exchanged emails with, like Peter, Bigshot/The Judge, etc, etc. This website is truly amazing!
Tony
elaelap posted 12-17-2005 01:56 PM ET (US)
Oh yeah, Tom is exactly right about my relatively extensive engine use at 3000-4000 rpm...that range gives me about 18-28 mph, which are the speeds I usually find most useful and comfortable on 'nice' days in the often-somewhat-lumpy ocean north of San Francisco. That speed range does happen to be my boat/motor's most economical, which is sure a happy coincidence for me. The 35+ hours I've spent over the past two years (actually about 21 months) at 4000-5000 rpm represents time Whalin' along on smooth(er) waters, mostly cruising the San Francisco Bay.
Tony
elaelap posted 12-17-2005 05:03 PM ET (US)
I want to add one more thing about my preferred cruising range, 3000-4000 rpm. I get somewhat defensive at times hearing my boat described as 'underpowered,' even though it seems perfect for my uses (and it's not as though I don't use her enough to have an educated opinion). The strongest argument I've heard for having the maximum power on our Whaler hulls is that with more power the motor's usual cruising range is achieved at lower rpm, thus putting less strain on the motor and prolonging its life.
As you can see from the above data, because of the way I use my boat this is just not an important factor for me. My motor/boat combination just feels right between 3000-4000 turns, motor trimmed out a ways, cutting through the sea like she's on tracks, perfectly balanced and dialed in to my idea of perfection. On the other hand, if I consistently cruised at higher speeds for long distances on smooth waters, boated with three or four passengers, or waterskiied, wakeboarded, or tubed, I'd certainly be happier with a 150.
Tony
Sal DiMercurio posted 12-17-2005 05:25 PM ET (US)
Tony, thanks for the come back on your most economical rpm range because I've been preaching that 3000 to 4000 is the best fuel economy range fror most outboards yet I'm being shot down by stats of 4000 to 4500 rpms is the most economical rpm range.
This stems from my insisting that a bigger engine running at only 3000 - 3500 rpms is going to get better fuel economy than a lessor engine being run at 4500 rpms to achieve the same mph.
Most every boat I've owned in the last 30 years including my Alaska commercial fishing boat, has been with the absolute maximum recommended hp & in some cases way beyond the maximum & my fuel economy has been far & above much better than comparable boats with lessor hp.
I have a saying, never buy a boat that has less than 85% of it's maximum recommended hp or you will wish you had more hp in the very near future.
Tony, I agree with the water conditions you frequent as I'm only 20 miles to the South at the Golden Gate & 40 miles at Half Moon Bay.
Believe it or not, there have been days when I could run 50 mph on the ocean & than there was the day I didn't see the 6 - 800 lb Sunfish just under the surface & hit it doing 3500 rpms & I thought I hit a submarine because we were 10 miles out & the engine kicked "ALL" the way up & I just knew the transom had been ripped off but no damage to anything except the gouge on the Sunfishes nose.
They are also known as ..Mola Mola fish,...they are solid bone with only a very tiny piece of flesh on the inside of their head.
My buddy Bob Franko hit one with the "Fishin Machine",... {inboard diesel ] & it bent the shaft, prop , skeg & rudder.
Oops, getting off the subject, uncle Jim is gonna chew me out.
Sal
elaelap posted 12-17-2005 08:11 PM ET (US)
I know those Mola Mola well, Sal, and I've always understood that it's very bad luck to purposely kill one. Kids and newcomers always get a kick out of seeing them for the first time as they drift along just under the water, not a care in the world.
Tony
I get a kick out of them too...
ratherwhalering posted 12-18-2005 01:16 AM ET (US)
For the record Tony, it took you to convinced me that 115 is plenty for the Outrage-18, much like a 70HP on a Montauk-17.
17 bodega posted 12-19-2005 03:31 PM ET (US)
Looks like you're gonna pass me up with your hours this coming season. I'm only about 850 hours into a 2002 motor. Now I'm curious to see what my engine data is.
is the fact that such a high percentage of the engines usage is at idle speeds mean the engine will last much longer than if it were being pushed at 4000 rpms under load constantly?

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Author	Topic: 700 Hours of Engine Use--Data
elaelap	posted 12-16-2005 05:48 PM ET (US) I got my boat back from the shop a couple of days ago after her 700-hour service (actual hours--694). I've posted engine use data here at 300- and 500-hours and the information has apparently interested several CW members. Here are my 700-hour numbers: 1988 Outrage 18/2004 Yamaha 115 hp four stroke EFI: "Data Logger (Engine operating hours according to engine speed) Engine speed/Time [h] -1000 r/mi.....498.5 1000-2000......43.8 2000-3000......15.8 3000-4000......100.4 4000-5000......35.3 5000-6000......0.9 6000-7000......0" These data are consistent with the earlier numbers--I continue to use my boat almost three-fourths of the time either trolling at low speeds (2.5-4 mph) or drift fishing with the motor on; my favorite cruising speeds are achieved at 3000-4000 turns (18-28 mph); I avoid whenever possible the clumsy, uneconomical, bow-in-the-air, plowing-the-sea, not-yet-on-plane range of 2000-3000 rpm; and I almost never exceed 5000 rpm (WOT with my current prop is 5600 turns). I account for the relatively high number of hours at 1000-2000 rpm by guessing that this is when I'm moving short distances from place to place while drift fishing, and when I'm going through 'No Wake' zones and putting around the harbor looking at other Whalers. Tony
ratherwhalering	posted 12-17-2005 12:01 PM ET (US) Good stuff Tony, thanks for the update. I was inspired by your previous posts to investigate my own engine RPM log on my E-TEC 90, and was surprised at the number of hours I logged under 1000 RPM. The most surprising was that my secondary RPM range was right around 3400. I used to consider myself hard on the engine, racing around the bay, opening it up to WOT whenever I got the chance, but it turns out that after 130 hours, I had less than 1/2 hr at >5000 RPM. Funny how that log tells a tale, huh? Looking at mine, I would guess I was a conservative boater, who idled around quite a bit, and rarely opened her up. That is not the way I picture myself!
ratherwhalering	posted 12-17-2005 12:13 PM ET (US) Based on our last fishing trip on Cetaceous, I would venture to guess: -1000 r/mi.....troling for salmon and taking flak from George on the radio about "bubalicious" 1000-2000......avoiding a Coastie breathalyser while exiting/entering the harbor 2000-3000......15.8 exiting the bay, so as not to spill beer and retreving lost hats. 3000-4000......cruising to your "sure thing" fishing grounds 4000-5000......cruising to the fish 5000-6000......Trying to convince me that 115 on an 18-Outrage is plenty of power. ;-)
elaelap	posted 12-17-2005 12:19 PM ET (US) Give it twenty or twenty-five years, Rob, and your tired old bones will force you to re-examine that picture you have of yourself ;-) Tony
Sal DiMercurio	posted 12-17-2005 12:29 PM ET (US) Tony, thats great info but it seems your running your engine at the rpms [ 3000 - 4000 ] I say are optimum, yet Rev 25 posted figures that say 4000 to 4500 rpms is optimum. Just curious, do you get your best fuel economy between 3 - 4000 ...or 4000 - 4500 rpms ? 100 hours between 3 & 4000 rpms vs 35 hours between 4 & 4500 rpms. If I'm not mistaken, [ off the top of my head, no manual in front of me ] your factory recommended maximum rpms for that engine is 6200 rpms. & your only able to twist 5600 rpms. which indicates your twisting 3 inchs to much pitch in your prop. I would say your twisting a 20p" prop & you really need a 17p" to allow that engine to reach it's recommended maximum rpms. Now lets see how much trouble I can get myself into by contradicting the figures posted by another source? Sal
Sal DiMercurio	posted 12-17-2005 12:34 PM ET (US) Oops, pushed the button to soon. On second thought I'd say your running a 19p prop & you need a 15p w/slight cup or 16p. Yeh, there's usually one in every crowd, I usually ignore them & they normally go away so fire away. [ Gotta love this site for a good brain stimulation ]. Sal
Tom W Clark	posted 12-17-2005 12:35 PM ET (US) I tend to agree with Sal. A lower pitch prop may be in order. The redline for the F115 is 6000 and Tony is able to turn it up to 5600 with his current 19" pitch prop. I believe he is going to try an 18" prop and if that is not satisfactory then a 17" prop will be tested. I suspect Tony runs more at 3000 to 4000 not because of fuel economy (the difference being almost irrelevant on a gas sipping machine like the F115) but because that boat is too fast at engine speeds higher than that in the ocean.
elaelap	posted 12-17-2005 01:47 PM ET (US) Thanks, Sal, and while you're a little off on the Yamaha 115 four stroke manufacturer's WOT recommendation (they like the motor to be up close to its redline--6000 turns wide open), your analysis is of course correct. I have been serously considering making a move down from my 19" pitch black stainless OEM Yamaha prop to a 17" or 18". In fact, I'm waiting to test an 18" stainless prop that Tom Clark has located for me when it arrives in the mail. I've probably waited a little too long to experiment, mainly because the mechanic at the dealership where I bought the motor keeps telling me that I've got the boat and motor dialed in nicely as it is, and that the comprehensive data their computer receives from my motor's chip each time I have it serviced (every couple of hundred hours; I change oil myself every +/- 70 hrs) is very good--especially considering the motor's hard and frequent use over the past couple of years. There is something to be said for the old cliche, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' I've received considerable assistance in learning about these matters over the past three years from you, Sal, from LHG/Larry, from Joe Kriz, from Tom Clark, from Rob/ratherwhalering, and from many others I've never talked with directly or exchanged emails with, like Peter, Bigshot/The Judge, etc, etc. This website is truly amazing! Tony
elaelap	posted 12-17-2005 01:56 PM ET (US) Oh yeah, Tom is exactly right about my relatively extensive engine use at 3000-4000 rpm...that range gives me about 18-28 mph, which are the speeds I usually find most useful and comfortable on 'nice' days in the often-somewhat-lumpy ocean north of San Francisco. That speed range does happen to be my boat/motor's most economical, which is sure a happy coincidence for me. The 35+ hours I've spent over the past two years (actually about 21 months) at 4000-5000 rpm represents time Whalin' along on smooth(er) waters, mostly cruising the San Francisco Bay. Tony
elaelap	posted 12-17-2005 05:03 PM ET (US) I want to add one more thing about my preferred cruising range, 3000-4000 rpm. I get somewhat defensive at times hearing my boat described as 'underpowered,' even though it seems perfect for my uses (and it's not as though I don't use her enough to have an educated opinion). The strongest argument I've heard for having the maximum power on our Whaler hulls is that with more power the motor's usual cruising range is achieved at lower rpm, thus putting less strain on the motor and prolonging its life. As you can see from the above data, because of the way I use my boat this is just not an important factor for me. My motor/boat combination just feels right between 3000-4000 turns, motor trimmed out a ways, cutting through the sea like she's on tracks, perfectly balanced and dialed in to my idea of perfection. On the other hand, if I consistently cruised at higher speeds for long distances on smooth waters, boated with three or four passengers, or waterskiied, wakeboarded, or tubed, I'd certainly be happier with a 150. Tony
Sal DiMercurio	posted 12-17-2005 05:25 PM ET (US) Tony, thanks for the come back on your most economical rpm range because I've been preaching that 3000 to 4000 is the best fuel economy range fror most outboards yet I'm being shot down by stats of 4000 to 4500 rpms is the most economical rpm range. This stems from my insisting that a bigger engine running at only 3000 - 3500 rpms is going to get better fuel economy than a lessor engine being run at 4500 rpms to achieve the same mph. Most every boat I've owned in the last 30 years including my Alaska commercial fishing boat, has been with the absolute maximum recommended hp & in some cases way beyond the maximum & my fuel economy has been far & above much better than comparable boats with lessor hp. I have a saying, never buy a boat that has less than 85% of it's maximum recommended hp or you will wish you had more hp in the very near future. Tony, I agree with the water conditions you frequent as I'm only 20 miles to the South at the Golden Gate & 40 miles at Half Moon Bay. Believe it or not, there have been days when I could run 50 mph on the ocean & than there was the day I didn't see the 6 - 800 lb Sunfish just under the surface & hit it doing 3500 rpms & I thought I hit a submarine because we were 10 miles out & the engine kicked "ALL" the way up & I just knew the transom had been ripped off but no damage to anything except the gouge on the Sunfishes nose. They are also known as ..Mola Mola fish,...they are solid bone with only a very tiny piece of flesh on the inside of their head. My buddy Bob Franko hit one with the "Fishin Machine",... {inboard diesel ] & it bent the shaft, prop , skeg & rudder. Oops, getting off the subject, uncle Jim is gonna chew me out. Sal
elaelap	posted 12-17-2005 08:11 PM ET (US) I know those Mola Mola well, Sal, and I've always understood that it's very bad luck to purposely kill one. Kids and newcomers always get a kick out of seeing them for the first time as they drift along just under the water, not a care in the world. Tony I get a kick out of them too...
ratherwhalering	posted 12-18-2005 01:16 AM ET (US) For the record Tony, it took you to convinced me that 115 is plenty for the Outrage-18, much like a 70HP on a Montauk-17.
17 bodega	posted 12-19-2005 03:31 PM ET (US) Looks like you're gonna pass me up with your hours this coming season. I'm only about 850 hours into a 2002 motor. Now I'm curious to see what my engine data is. is the fact that such a high percentage of the engines usage is at idle speeds mean the engine will last much longer than if it were being pushed at 4000 rpms under load constantly?