88 HP Evinrude Fuel Consumption - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  88 HP Evinrude Fuel Consumption

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   88 HP Evinrude Fuel Consumption

RWendt posted 05-02-2009 09:28 PM ET (US)
What do you guys think is GPH for a 1987 88-HP Evinrude on Montauk 17.
Moby Dick posted 05-03-2009 07:39 AM ET (US)
I have a 1978 Montauk with a 1979 Johnson 100HP. I don't know the GPH but once ran from Bridgman,MI to Chicago (52.8 miles) on 13.5 gallons. Had 4 people on board and went at a slow planing speed
deepwater posted 05-03-2009 10:34 AM ET (US)
my 88 Johnson SPL (1988-89) was thirsty when new and still is now thats it old i dont recall ever trying to figure out the GPH as i just added on more fuel as i went further out in the end i carried 70 gal for all day fishing and trolling out about 50 miles and staying all night i ran a small 2 stroke generator (moped engine) for lights and to attract bait (squid) all night and we fished hard all the next day and ran in just as hard as we went out i would burn 60 gal and cover around 140 miles underway and we could drift 20 miles at night normally i had 7 to 10 gal of fuel at the dock
gnr posted 05-03-2009 11:39 AM ET (US)
I don't know GPH but I have always considered mine to be a gas guzzler.
A well running, quick to plane and fast gas guzzler.
jimh posted 05-03-2009 01:49 PM ET (US)
The brand, the boat, the length, and the model year have nothing to do with this calculation. Figure the fuel flow for any classic two-cycle motor with carburetors as having a brake specific fuel consumption of about 0.6-lbs/HP-Hour:
0.6-lbs/HP-Hour x 88-HP x 1-gallon/6.25-lbs = 8.4 gallons/hour
Tom W Clark posted 05-03-2009 01:52 PM ET (US)
Jim's estimate is for full throttle. At cruise speed the motor is putting out far less lower and will consume far less fuel.
jimh posted 05-03-2009 02:14 PM ET (US)
At 50-HP:
50-HP x 0.6-lbs/HP-hour x 1-gallon/6.25-lbs = 4.8-gallons/hour
Peter posted 05-03-2009 02:23 PM ET (US)
At full throttle, that 88 HP Evinrude will consume more than 9 GPH. The reason is that its output was more than 88 HP. Probably close to 100 HP.
fourdfish posted 05-03-2009 03:26 PM ET (US)
The reason that engine is badged an 88hp is because OMC
settled a complant that said the 90hp was not putting out 90hp at the prop. The 48hp which I had was formerly the 50hp and was in the same situation.
Peter posted 05-03-2009 03:54 PM ET (US)
The reason it was badged an 88 is that its an 88 SPL model which was the no frills version of the 90. No frills meant no VRO and possibly no power trim & tilt. The 88 SPL designation was to distinguish from the up market 90.
fourdfish posted 05-03-2009 06:45 PM ET (US)
That is true Peter but if you check it out, you will find that
the engine was downgraded to an 88 because of the Yamaha
complaint. It had the same block as the 90hp. I know as we bought that cheaper version just when it was downgraded. Check it out!

Perry posted 05-03-2009 08:34 PM ET (US)

quote:
At full throttle, that 88 HP Evinrude will consume more than 9 GPH. The reason is that its output was more than 88 HP. Probably close to 100 HP.
That makes sense. My neighbor had a smirked Montauk with an 88 spl Evinrude on it and it was quick and fast.
I find it hard to believe that the 88 spl was less than 90 HP. What would Yamaha's complaint be?
fourdfish posted 05-03-2009 10:21 PM ET (US)
Perry, Your age is obvious! Since when is 88 more than 90?
I really don't have time to give you a history lesson.
Dick E posted 05-03-2009 10:55 PM ET (US)
A quick guideline for conventional two strokes, at WOT they will consume 10% of their horsepower rating. Thus 90 HP will burn approximately 9 gallons of gasoline at WOT.
Perry posted 05-03-2009 11:34 PM ET (US)

quote:
Since when is 88 more than 90?
Well, ask anyone who is familiar with an 88 spl, like Peter. The 88 is more than 90 (HP).
seahorse posted 05-03-2009 11:44 PM ET (US)

The reason it was badged an 88 is that its an 88 SPL model which was the no frills version of the 90. No frills meant no VRO and possibly no power trim & tilt. The 88 SPL designation was to distinguish from the up market 90.

OMC used the " 8 " designation for all the stripped down economy models. There were the 28, 48, 88, and the 112 (no "8" in that model designation)
Peter posted 05-04-2009 07:05 AM ET (US)
My 15 SuperSport came with a no frills Johnson 48 SPL. Performance wise it was every bit the same as the Johnson 50 (I'm guessing probably a few more ponies than 50) except it didn't have VRO and it didn't have power trim and tilt. They didn't detune the 50 by 2 HP to make it produce 48 HP just like they didn't detune the 90 to make it produce 88 HP.
fourdfish posted 05-04-2009 07:21 AM ET (US)
How could it possibly have more than the 50hp? After talking to my brother, I stand by my statement about the hp at the prop complaint and the OMC response. The no frills engines were in response to that! My brother still has that 48hp engine. We replaced that cheap gas tilt with a used regular one. Since we had several family friends working for OMC at the time, I think we had better info than most.
fourdfish posted 05-04-2009 07:44 AM ET (US)
BTW- I never posted that the 48 was a detuned 50. It was alleged that the 50 hp was not rated at the prop. Since no one remembers or knows about the hp at the prop complaint, it does not matter. We knew about it around here. BTW Perry, Peter can post for himself. You have no knowledge about this topic.
Peter posted 05-04-2009 08:25 AM ET (US)
The 88 SPL and the 90 use the same part number for the cylinder and crankcase assembly. In other words, both models use the same 99.6 cubic inch V4 non-bubble back cross-flow powerhead.
The SPL models were originally for the low cost OMC packaged boats, a response to the low cost Baylinder/Force product acquired by Brunswick. The peculiar "8" & "12" designation was used to distinguish from the regular models.

gnr posted 05-04-2009 10:21 AM ET (US)
If they "had " to call it the 88spl because of actual HP output then how were they able to keep the "90" which is esentially the same outboard with a frill or two added.
It doesn't make sense.
fourdfish posted 05-04-2009 10:26 AM ET (US)
Peter, I'm sorry but you have NO IDEA what I'm talking about!
I will just leave it at that!
Peter posted 05-04-2009 10:53 AM ET (US)
Guess I don't. In the 1997 model year, the SPLs were back to 50, 90 and 115 SPLs. Perhaps Yamaha complained that the 88 SPL was producing more HP than 88 and forced OMC to stop using the "8" or "12" under rated designation on the 50, 90 and 115.
Dick E posted 05-04-2009 11:30 AM ET (US)
Horsepower "Labeled " ratings can be plus or minus 10 % of actual horsepower So,if an outboard actual produces 90 HP it could be rated 81 HP to 99 HP. This gives marketing some influence in where the want to position their motor.
Tohsgib posted 05-04-2009 12:07 PM ET (US)
Fourd I have no idea what the hell you are talking about but if that is what you believe go for it. All engines by 1986 were prop rated. The SPL's came out in 86 or 87 and were no-frills. I was looking to repower my 15 Sport and a new 88spl was way cheaper than a 70hp...tempting. I owned a 48spl as well as a 88spl.
To answer the question at large, my 88spl with PTnT was a thirsty beast. At 4k cruise she would burn about 6gph. I had twin 6 gal tanks and they would run dry at about an hour steady cruising.
Mr T posted 06-04-2009 11:37 PM ET (US)
So I see where there are numbers for WOT, and a 4K estimate, but does anyone have any burn rates for this motor at say 1000 RPM to WOT in 1000 RPM increments?
I want to tak my nauset out this coming weekend for the rockfish opener, but only have a 12 gallon tank. Without some better numbers I'm very nervous about going out in the open water. (actually not nervous, just won't do it).
I figure this motor has been on a good number of 16-17 hulls, can anyone help out?
deepwater posted 06-05-2009 07:01 AM ET (US)
Don't worry about how much gas your going to burn,,get another tank and fish have fun ,,when one tank runs dry switch to the other and find a marina,,your boat and skill and how you load /run determins your max fuel consumption
Peter posted 06-05-2009 07:21 AM ET (US)
"anyone have any burn rates for this motor at say 1000 RPM to WOT in 1000 RPM increments?"
I think if you add 10 percent to the numbers in this report ==> www.yamaha-motor.com/assets/products/otb/bulletins/ bulletin_otb_2StrokePerf_HPMidPort_90hp_02-216-CSK-B.pdf you'll be pretty close.

Tohsgib posted 06-05-2009 10:42 AM ET (US)
Do your own. I would not rely on people's testimony if it were me. Run the boat a couple weekends and get a feel for how much she will burn. No big deal carrying a couple extra 5gal jerry jugs either.
jimh posted 06-05-2009 12:04 PM ET (US)
The brake specific fuel consumption will not vary too drastically at different engine speeds and loads in the mid-range of engines speeds. You use a BSFC of 0.6-lbs/HP-hour and compute fuel consumption at any horsepower you like. To estimate horsepower you can use engine speed as a roughly linear correlation.
In estimating fuel required for offshore trips you should allow an ample margin of safety for variations in sea conditions, boat speeds, and engine performance. The approximation of fuel consumption from BSFC and engine speed ought to be suitable for initial planning.
TransAm posted 06-05-2009 12:27 PM ET (US)
Wow, I just computed my horsepower, based on my fuel consumption to be 625 HP. At 5,400 RPM I burn 60 GPH. That's pretty good for twin 250 HP engines.
Mr T posted 06-06-2009 08:46 AM ET (US)
Ok the word is get a bigger tank. I tried a trip out in the bay last week with a 5 gallon spare tank, did not need it, so added it to the tank when I got home. The idea of doing that in a rolling boat after doing it on dry land was not good.
Someone sell me a RPS cheap so I have a place to sit with a 26 gallon tank under my tush.
that would be very good!
jimh posted 06-06-2009 04:57 PM ET (US)
60-gallons/1-hour x 6.25-lbs/1-gallon x 1-HP-hour/0.6-gallon = 625-HP
If you are only getting 500-HP then your BSFC is very high:
60-gallons/1-hour x 6.25-lbs.gallon x 1/500-HP-hour = 0.75-lbs/HP-hour
A BSFC of 075-lbs/HP-hour is not very good.
modenacart posted 06-08-2009 07:48 PM ET (US)
I was just talking with my mechanic today about the 88 versus the 90 and he stated that the 88 has a slightly smaller throat on the carburetors and a slight smaller exhaust so in theory it should be slight less than the 90 but its still puts out a lot for an 88 hp.
brisboats posted 06-08-2009 09:33 PM ET (US)
Time to get a new mechanic.
Peter posted 06-08-2009 09:40 PM ET (US)
Your mechanic must not have compared the parts list for the 88 and 90. The part numbers for the carburetor assembly, exhaust adaptor and inner exhaust housing for the 88 and 90 are identical.
Tohsgib posted 06-10-2009 09:49 AM ET (US)
Mechanics who don't know Jack should not talk about him.

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: 88 HP Evinrude Fuel Consumption
RWendt	posted 05-02-2009 09:28 PM ET (US) What do you guys think is GPH for a 1987 88-HP Evinrude on Montauk 17.
Moby Dick	posted 05-03-2009 07:39 AM ET (US) I have a 1978 Montauk with a 1979 Johnson 100HP. I don't know the GPH but once ran from Bridgman,MI to Chicago (52.8 miles) on 13.5 gallons. Had 4 people on board and went at a slow planing speed
deepwater	posted 05-03-2009 10:34 AM ET (US) my 88 Johnson SPL (1988-89) was thirsty when new and still is now thats it old i dont recall ever trying to figure out the GPH as i just added on more fuel as i went further out in the end i carried 70 gal for all day fishing and trolling out about 50 miles and staying all night i ran a small 2 stroke generator (moped engine) for lights and to attract bait (squid) all night and we fished hard all the next day and ran in just as hard as we went out i would burn 60 gal and cover around 140 miles underway and we could drift 20 miles at night normally i had 7 to 10 gal of fuel at the dock
gnr	posted 05-03-2009 11:39 AM ET (US) I don't know GPH but I have always considered mine to be a gas guzzler. A well running, quick to plane and fast gas guzzler.
jimh	posted 05-03-2009 01:49 PM ET (US) The brand, the boat, the length, and the model year have nothing to do with this calculation. Figure the fuel flow for any classic two-cycle motor with carburetors as having a brake specific fuel consumption of about 0.6-lbs/HP-Hour: 0.6-lbs/HP-Hour x 88-HP x 1-gallon/6.25-lbs = 8.4 gallons/hour
Tom W Clark	posted 05-03-2009 01:52 PM ET (US) Jim's estimate is for full throttle. At cruise speed the motor is putting out far less lower and will consume far less fuel.
jimh	posted 05-03-2009 02:14 PM ET (US) At 50-HP: 50-HP x 0.6-lbs/HP-hour x 1-gallon/6.25-lbs = 4.8-gallons/hour
Peter	posted 05-03-2009 02:23 PM ET (US) At full throttle, that 88 HP Evinrude will consume more than 9 GPH. The reason is that its output was more than 88 HP. Probably close to 100 HP.
fourdfish	posted 05-03-2009 03:26 PM ET (US) The reason that engine is badged an 88hp is because OMC settled a complant that said the 90hp was not putting out 90hp at the prop. The 48hp which I had was formerly the 50hp and was in the same situation.
Peter	posted 05-03-2009 03:54 PM ET (US) The reason it was badged an 88 is that its an 88 SPL model which was the no frills version of the 90. No frills meant no VRO and possibly no power trim & tilt. The 88 SPL designation was to distinguish from the up market 90.
fourdfish	posted 05-03-2009 06:45 PM ET (US) That is true Peter but if you check it out, you will find that the engine was downgraded to an 88 because of the Yamaha complaint. It had the same block as the 90hp. I know as we bought that cheaper version just when it was downgraded. Check it out!
Perry	posted 05-03-2009 08:34 PM ET (US) quote: At full throttle, that 88 HP Evinrude will consume more than 9 GPH. The reason is that its output was more than 88 HP. Probably close to 100 HP. That makes sense. My neighbor had a smirked Montauk with an 88 spl Evinrude on it and it was quick and fast. I find it hard to believe that the 88 spl was less than 90 HP. What would Yamaha's complaint be?
fourdfish	posted 05-03-2009 10:21 PM ET (US) Perry, Your age is obvious! Since when is 88 more than 90? I really don't have time to give you a history lesson.
Dick E	posted 05-03-2009 10:55 PM ET (US) A quick guideline for conventional two strokes, at WOT they will consume 10% of their horsepower rating. Thus 90 HP will burn approximately 9 gallons of gasoline at WOT.
Perry	posted 05-03-2009 11:34 PM ET (US) quote: Since when is 88 more than 90? Well, ask anyone who is familiar with an 88 spl, like Peter. The 88 is more than 90 (HP).
seahorse	posted 05-03-2009 11:44 PM ET (US) The reason it was badged an 88 is that its an 88 SPL model which was the no frills version of the 90. No frills meant no VRO and possibly no power trim & tilt. The 88 SPL designation was to distinguish from the up market 90. OMC used the " 8 " designation for all the stripped down economy models. There were the 28, 48, 88, and the 112 (no "8" in that model designation)
Peter	posted 05-04-2009 07:05 AM ET (US) My 15 SuperSport came with a no frills Johnson 48 SPL. Performance wise it was every bit the same as the Johnson 50 (I'm guessing probably a few more ponies than 50) except it didn't have VRO and it didn't have power trim and tilt. They didn't detune the 50 by 2 HP to make it produce 48 HP just like they didn't detune the 90 to make it produce 88 HP.
fourdfish	posted 05-04-2009 07:21 AM ET (US) How could it possibly have more than the 50hp? After talking to my brother, I stand by my statement about the hp at the prop complaint and the OMC response. The no frills engines were in response to that! My brother still has that 48hp engine. We replaced that cheap gas tilt with a used regular one. Since we had several family friends working for OMC at the time, I think we had better info than most.
fourdfish	posted 05-04-2009 07:44 AM ET (US) BTW- I never posted that the 48 was a detuned 50. It was alleged that the 50 hp was not rated at the prop. Since no one remembers or knows about the hp at the prop complaint, it does not matter. We knew about it around here. BTW Perry, Peter can post for himself. You have no knowledge about this topic.
Peter	posted 05-04-2009 08:25 AM ET (US) The 88 SPL and the 90 use the same part number for the cylinder and crankcase assembly. In other words, both models use the same 99.6 cubic inch V4 non-bubble back cross-flow powerhead. The SPL models were originally for the low cost OMC packaged boats, a response to the low cost Baylinder/Force product acquired by Brunswick. The peculiar "8" & "12" designation was used to distinguish from the regular models.
gnr	posted 05-04-2009 10:21 AM ET (US) If they "had " to call it the 88spl because of actual HP output then how were they able to keep the "90" which is esentially the same outboard with a frill or two added. It doesn't make sense.
fourdfish	posted 05-04-2009 10:26 AM ET (US) Peter, I'm sorry but you have NO IDEA what I'm talking about! I will just leave it at that!
Peter	posted 05-04-2009 10:53 AM ET (US) Guess I don't. In the 1997 model year, the SPLs were back to 50, 90 and 115 SPLs. Perhaps Yamaha complained that the 88 SPL was producing more HP than 88 and forced OMC to stop using the "8" or "12" under rated designation on the 50, 90 and 115.
Dick E	posted 05-04-2009 11:30 AM ET (US) Horsepower "Labeled " ratings can be plus or minus 10 % of actual horsepower So,if an outboard actual produces 90 HP it could be rated 81 HP to 99 HP. This gives marketing some influence in where the want to position their motor.
Tohsgib	posted 05-04-2009 12:07 PM ET (US) Fourd I have no idea what the hell you are talking about but if that is what you believe go for it. All engines by 1986 were prop rated. The SPL's came out in 86 or 87 and were no-frills. I was looking to repower my 15 Sport and a new 88spl was way cheaper than a 70hp...tempting. I owned a 48spl as well as a 88spl. To answer the question at large, my 88spl with PTnT was a thirsty beast. At 4k cruise she would burn about 6gph. I had twin 6 gal tanks and they would run dry at about an hour steady cruising.
Mr T	posted 06-04-2009 11:37 PM ET (US) So I see where there are numbers for WOT, and a 4K estimate, but does anyone have any burn rates for this motor at say 1000 RPM to WOT in 1000 RPM increments? I want to tak my nauset out this coming weekend for the rockfish opener, but only have a 12 gallon tank. Without some better numbers I'm very nervous about going out in the open water. (actually not nervous, just won't do it). I figure this motor has been on a good number of 16-17 hulls, can anyone help out?
deepwater	posted 06-05-2009 07:01 AM ET (US) Don't worry about how much gas your going to burn,,get another tank and fish have fun ,,when one tank runs dry switch to the other and find a marina,,your boat and skill and how you load /run determins your max fuel consumption
Peter	posted 06-05-2009 07:21 AM ET (US) "anyone have any burn rates for this motor at say 1000 RPM to WOT in 1000 RPM increments?" I think if you add 10 percent to the numbers in this report ==> www.yamaha-motor.com/assets/products/otb/bulletins/ bulletin_otb_2StrokePerf_HPMidPort_90hp_02-216-CSK-B.pdf you'll be pretty close.
Tohsgib	posted 06-05-2009 10:42 AM ET (US) Do your own. I would not rely on people's testimony if it were me. Run the boat a couple weekends and get a feel for how much she will burn. No big deal carrying a couple extra 5gal jerry jugs either.
jimh	posted 06-05-2009 12:04 PM ET (US) The brake specific fuel consumption will not vary too drastically at different engine speeds and loads in the mid-range of engines speeds. You use a BSFC of 0.6-lbs/HP-hour and compute fuel consumption at any horsepower you like. To estimate horsepower you can use engine speed as a roughly linear correlation. In estimating fuel required for offshore trips you should allow an ample margin of safety for variations in sea conditions, boat speeds, and engine performance. The approximation of fuel consumption from BSFC and engine speed ought to be suitable for initial planning.
TransAm	posted 06-05-2009 12:27 PM ET (US) Wow, I just computed my horsepower, based on my fuel consumption to be 625 HP. At 5,400 RPM I burn 60 GPH. That's pretty good for twin 250 HP engines.
Mr T	posted 06-06-2009 08:46 AM ET (US) Ok the word is get a bigger tank. I tried a trip out in the bay last week with a 5 gallon spare tank, did not need it, so added it to the tank when I got home. The idea of doing that in a rolling boat after doing it on dry land was not good. Someone sell me a RPS cheap so I have a place to sit with a 26 gallon tank under my tush. that would be very good!
jimh	posted 06-06-2009 04:57 PM ET (US) 60-gallons/1-hour x 6.25-lbs/1-gallon x 1-HP-hour/0.6-gallon = 625-HP If you are only getting 500-HP then your BSFC is very high: 60-gallons/1-hour x 6.25-lbs.gallon x 1/500-HP-hour = 0.75-lbs/HP-hour A BSFC of 075-lbs/HP-hour is not very good.
modenacart	posted 06-08-2009 07:48 PM ET (US) I was just talking with my mechanic today about the 88 versus the 90 and he stated that the 88 has a slightly smaller throat on the carburetors and a slight smaller exhaust so in theory it should be slight less than the 90 but its still puts out a lot for an 88 hp.
brisboats	posted 06-08-2009 09:33 PM ET (US) Time to get a new mechanic.
Peter	posted 06-08-2009 09:40 PM ET (US) Your mechanic must not have compared the parts list for the 88 and 90. The part numbers for the carburetor assembly, exhaust adaptor and inner exhaust housing for the 88 and 90 are identical.
Tohsgib	posted 06-10-2009 09:49 AM ET (US) Mechanics who don't know Jack should not talk about him.