Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Fuel Economy of Twin V6 Two-stroke 150-HP Engines

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Fuel Economy of Twin V6 Two-stroke 150-HP Engines
mopee3 posted 06-30-2014 08:16 PM ET (US)   Profile for mopee3   Send Email to mopee3  
I purchased a 1992 [Whaler 23] Walkaround [Whaler Drive] [these model details were provide later in the thread--jimh] last fall from Harsens Island, Michigan. It now resides in Washington state. It is powered with the original 1992 and 1996 vintage twin Johnson 150-HP engines. The fuel economy is pretty bad. I want to keep the twin configuration but fuel has got to be better than 30 to 40-miles on 80-gallons. A single will troll down to 1.4 so it can be used to fish, but must get better fuel. It will also be used to fish offshore for tuna, up to 80 miles and return.

Help with fuel calibration. Will it help? Or, must re-engine? Salmon/tuna season is only 6 weeks away and need help.



Hoosier posted 06-30-2014 08:49 PM ET (US)     Profile for Hoosier  Send Email to Hoosier     
As I recall you got that boat for a very nice price. I'm very impressed with the performance and fuel economy of the Yamaha F150's [on a 23 Walkaround]. These engines have been around for a while and you might be able to find a decent used pair. I re-powered my 21 WA with a dealer demo Suzuki DF 175 and it was a very sweet engine. Twin DF 150s or 175s would also be a nice package for the 23 WA.
Teak Oil posted 06-30-2014 09:17 PM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
You may be able to raise your current engines and re-prop to a more efficient prop for cruising.
jimh posted 07-01-2014 08:47 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
There is nothing you can do to improve the fuel economy of c.1992 Johnson 150-HP V6 two-stroke carburetor engines. They are going to be very poor at fuel economy, particularly at low speeds. At trolling speeds they will just drink fuel, and will get terrible fuel economy. Outboard engines of that type only get any sort of decent fuel economy when operating at moderate planing speeds.

If you are going to spend a lot of time trolling, get a pair of E-TEC 150-HP engines. The fuel economy of an E-TEC V6 at idle speed is amazing. You could be getting 8 to 10-MPG. It will take five hours for an E-TEC V6 to burn a gallon of gasoline at idle.

By the way, I was thinking about buying that 23 Walkaround from Harsen's Island, but I figured I would soon be spending $45,000 to re-power it with E-TEC engines, and I talked myself out of that idea.

jimh posted 07-01-2014 09:20 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
If you are burning 80-gallons of gasoline to go 30-miles, that is 0.375-MPG. You should be able to get much better fuel economy than 0.375-MPG with your twin Johnson V6 150-HP engines. I would expect they ought to burn about 20-GPH (total) when pushing the boat about 28-MPH. That suggests 1.4-MPG, which is almost four times better than what you report. You should take a close look at your engines and their tuning. Something is not right. When I said earlier that the fuel economy would be bad, I meant it would be about 1.0 to 1.5-MPG, but nothing like 0.375-MPG you are reporting. That is atrocious!

ALAN G posted 07-01-2014 01:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for ALAN G  Send Email to ALAN G     
As a data point for reference, I have a 1990 22' Revenge powered by twin V4 120 HP 1989 Johnsons. I consistently get 1.3 to 1.4 nautical miles per gallon covering all types of usage (cruise, idle in channels, etc.). Perhaps twin V6 Johnsons would approach that, but I would estimate they would get 90% of the twin V4 consumption.

As Jim says, re-power with E-TEC or 4 stroke is the sure way to decrease fuel many cases by half. Props and mounting may make small differences. The old carburetor two strokes were magnificent engines for the price when gas was less than a dollar a gallon and fuel efficiency did not matter as much as today.

As another data point, I have a classic 1967 Lyman 16' with 1967 Johnson V4 60 HP. That gets the same 1.4 NMPG the twins on my Revenge get! Talk about using fuel! It runs like a champ but is even worse than the 1989 V4 twins together!

If your figures are correct, you are getting less than half a mile per gallon and something is not right. I would check to make sure all cylinders are firing. It is easy for a V6 to run well with a bad ignition coil...and all the fuel in one cylinder does nothing but disappear in the exhaust. Check your plugs. They should all look the same. If one is clean/no carbon, that cylinder is not firing.


mopee3 posted 07-01-2014 03:14 PM ET (US)     Profile for mopee3  Send Email to mopee3     
OK I need to remember it was not an "exact" mileage I am quoting, however I still want, no I need better mileage from this boat. Otherwise it sits, that would be a really really sad outcome. Can I add 4 stoke to 2 stoke on the boat, or do the twins need to use the same oil system?
Why you ask, well outside the E-Tec don't most 4 stokes idle and generally get better mileage while 2 stokes better speed? Seems if I combine I get the best of both worlds.

Hoosier can you give me model, year of Yamaha's and how and what metering system you use? I looked at Tom Clark's Flosan system and the quote I received was a lot to rich for my blood.

I believe many people, especially in Great lakes area, looked at this boat and like you Jim considered buying it. But probably for the challenge of re-engine it didn't buy it. I and my wife love this boat, to us its better that a WT model yet not quite an outrage.

So whether E-Tec or 4 stroke it will happen. My kids think we need to take one less trip to Hawaii and Disney World per year. That's how we can pay for the engines.



Hoosier posted 07-01-2014 05:38 PM ET (US)     Profile for Hoosier  Send Email to Hoosier     
Yamahas are 2010 F150s that came with the boat. They had about 60 hours on them when I got it. Fuel efficiency was measured by a combination of the Lowrance EP-85 Memory Device discussed in another thread and the engines' ECM data displayed on a Lowrance LCX-28c HD chart plotter that also came with the boat, all networked on a Lowrance NMEA 2000 network. I had a similar set-up on my previous boat, a 21 Walkaround with the Suzuki DF-175.
dfmcintyre posted 07-01-2014 09:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for dfmcintyre  Send Email to dfmcintyre     
I'll throw in a data point:

1992 25' Revenge W/T, with twin 1991 150hp Evinrude's, we cruised 20-25 [knots] and filled twice; 1.7-nmpg.

Regards - Don

mopee3 posted 07-02-2014 01:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for mopee3  Send Email to mopee3     
As Jim has mentioned there is something really wrong with the set up of these engines.

Thanks for all the input. I have a bunch of work to do to find where the fuel is going.

Thanks again


dfmcintyre posted 07-02-2014 05:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for dfmcintyre  Send Email to dfmcintyre     
Monty--first two items mentioned, engine height and prop pitch are the easiest to check.
mopee3 posted 07-02-2014 06:30 PM ET (US)     Profile for mopee3  Send Email to mopee3     
Last weekend I was looking at the depth of the engines when cruising. The ventilation plate is too deep, but not quite sure how to change it. Just loosen bolts and jack it up to next hole?

Prop pitch is next and will look back on some of Jim's data.

Anything else? I will try about anything short of changing engines this summer. I need to troll but not going to add a bracket if at all possible.

Thanks for the suggestions


kwik_wurk posted 07-02-2014 06:44 PM ET (US)     Profile for kwik_wurk  Send Email to kwik_wurk     
First, get a kicker if trolling for salmon. (Assuming you plan on trolling a fair amount.) This will translate to several gallons saved per fishing trip, and help keep the main engines from gumming up. I suggest a Yamaha 4S, 9.9 High Thrust, with trim/tilt, with an after market steering linkage and over-sized prop guard (to act more like a Kort Nozzle). (I pushed a 28' with this set up in a lot of snotty conditions no problems.)

Second, if you don't already, get SS props. If you are running dinged up aluminum props, it's like driving a car with flat tires... (I suggest reaching out to Tom Clark on ideas and options.)

Third, if your MPG numbers are below 1-MPG you have an engine problem. And you should do the carbs a once over, and check firing on all while at speed.

Lastly if you are doing a tuna run 30nm offshore, trolling with big motors doing 6 to 8-knots, yes, you'll burn some fuel, but not 80 gallons. More like 50 gallons per run. (Running 80nm offshore, you need to wait a few weeks for the fish to be closer runs, period paragraph!)

These suggestions are ordered based on the most expensive and longest lead time to solve, since Tuna season is really close. From a cost perspective, working in the reverse order makes more sense.

mopee3 posted 07-02-2014 07:27 PM ET (US)     Profile for mopee3  Send Email to mopee3     
Hoosier--Thanks for the information, the electronics you have on the boat, well you are really talking a foreign language to me. But I learn fairly fast and will continue to figure out what I need on this boat. I have a hand held Garmin GPSMap 78sc, and the boat came with a Raymarine depth finder that has a 10-12" screen, it needs electronics. We love the boat so it will be a ongoing upgrade for a while. Thanks again.


mopee3 posted 07-02-2014 07:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for mopee3  Send Email to mopee3     

My problem with kicker is where to mount the thing? Maybe have a bracket made to sit on the starboard side, port carries the swim ladder.

Suggestions are always noted and helpful this close to fishing time. I have a slip reserved in the Ilwaco, Wa boat basin for the month of August.

Will take the boat down there end of July no matter what, it can sit there just as well as my drive way.



mopee3 posted 07-02-2014 07:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for mopee3  Send Email to mopee3     
Boat came with SS props, will look tonight and see what make and perhaps twist.
Hoosier posted 07-02-2014 08:02 PM ET (US)     Profile for Hoosier  Send Email to Hoosier     
OK. If you are going to be fishing offshore 50 to 80 miles you need to bring the boat's electronics into the 21st century. Here's my $0.02 contribution, you'll get many others here to join in with theirs. Get a Lowrance Link 8 DSC radio, about $300, get a Lowrance HDS-7 on eBay, maybe $800 to 1000, and a NMEA 2000 starter kit for around $75 or so. That will get you a good sonar and a very good radio. It won't help with your engine problem but your boat will be ready for when you do upgrade. What's important you'll be compatible with the Coast Guard's Rescue 21 system so if you do get in trouble "out there" they can find you, quickly.
mopee3 posted 07-02-2014 11:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for mopee3  Send Email to mopee3     
Well I am home, looked at the engines and props. Port engine is Counter Rotating with decal that says as much on the back, prop is a Michigan 013021. Starboard engine has no decal like port engine, but the prop is a 15X19 RH SS0 819-C, or SSO 819-C.

Did the people I had who went through the lower units put the wrong props on the wrong engine? Or these the correct ones for each engine.

Another thing about the latest test drive, I went through almost a gallon of Evinrude 50 wt oil over the last 40 gallons of fuel. There is soot in the prop on the starboard engine, not much in the port prop.

I will get to spark plugs Friday.



mopee3 posted 07-02-2014 11:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for mopee3  Send Email to mopee3     
Thanks Hoosier. I will start tomorrow on pricing and changing electronics. Thanks again--Monty
jimh posted 07-03-2014 09:03 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Please use SMALL BOAT ELECTRICAL to discuss electronic gear for your boat.
jimh posted 07-03-2014 09:16 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Does your 23 Walkaround have the notched transom? Or the long Whaler Drive bracket? This may affect the installation of a third engine, an auxiliary for trolling.

Generally I don't think a third engine on the transom is a good idea. That is too much weight in most cases, and probably particularly so if you have the long Whaler Bracket option. Since you already have twin engines, the transom is already cluttered with rigging hoses and cables. Adding a third engine will make that even more congested. Also, adding a steering link for a third engine may be a problem. And finding a way to remote control the shift and throttle of the third engine will also be a problem. Finally, if you need to troll at a high speed of 8-knots, you may not be able to reach that speed with a smaller auxiliary. You may need a 10 or 15-HP auxiliary.

Given the atrocious fuel economy you have reported (0.375-MPG) there is probably something awry with your engines. The first effort you should take in improving the boat's fuel economy is a careful look at the engines. See if you have a fuel or spark problem that is contributing to the terrible performance. As I noted, and several others have confirmed with their own real-world numbers, you ought to be able to get above 1-MPG, about four times better fuel economy than you report now, with twin 150-HP V6 classic two-stroke engines.

Teak Oil posted 07-03-2014 09:45 AM ET (US)     Profile for Teak Oil  Send Email to Teak Oil     
It seems to me that the problem is that you have provided NO accurate data to help yourself with. Things we need are:
Prop model and pitch
Engine mounting height (what set of holes)
WOT engine RPM and top speed
Current mpg (can be calculated with a cheap hand held gps if you have none)

Get dome info and we will be happy to help you out

mopee3 posted 07-03-2014 01:03 PM ET (US)     Profile for mopee3  Send Email to mopee3     
TPort engine is Counter Rotating with decal that says as much on the back, prop is a Michigan 013021. Starboard engine has no decal like port engine, but the prop is a 15X19 RH SS0 819-C, or SSO 819-C.

Bottom seals were leaking so had local boat shop replace seals and pumps, did the correct props go back on correct engines?

Engine mounting height, top bolt is in top hole of 4 on top of engine bracket, bottom bolt is top of slot on bottom of engine bracket.

Engines are mounted on a Whaler Drive bracket which is a Salt Shaker Marine bracket, attached to transom

WOT gives 4500-RPM and 36.6 mph.

I used a Garmin GPSmap 78sc to get top speed, over a distance of 10.9 miles, I put 40gals in tank and then went [approximately more than] 30 miles and used about 2 gallons of 50 wt oil in ~50 miles.

I am coming to the point where I think I need to change this to a thread titled, "1992 Harsen's Island Walkaround Project" I realize it will take a bit longer than a month to fix/upgrade/change all the stuff that needs to take place before I take it "tuna" fishing.

What say you Jim about the thread change?



jimh posted 07-03-2014 01:26 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Monty hypothesizes that perhaps the propellers on the engines have been accidentally exchanged. This is not possible. If the right-hand propeller were on the counter-rotating engine and the left-hand propeller on the standard rotating engine, when the throttle-shift was placed in Forward, the thrust from the propellers would create sternward propulsion.

Changing the topic of discussion of this thread to become boat electronics is inappropriate. Please start a new thread in SMALL BOAT ELECTRICAL if you wish to seek advice about boat electronics. I have asked for compliance with this twice. Further requests for comments about marine electronics in this thread will be removed.

jimh posted 07-03-2014 01:30 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Monty--you mention that you use "50 wt oil" with the two-stroke engines. This is perhaps a source of the serious problems with engine performance. Marine two-stroke-power-cycle engines do not use SAE 50 automobile lubricating oil. Marine two-stroke power-cycle engines use marine two-stroke oil, typically rated as compliant with the TC-W3 recommendation. If Monty is using automotive SAE 50 lubricating oil there could be a harm occurring in the engines.
jimh posted 07-03-2014 01:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Monty--perhaps you can start a new thread in REPAIRS/MODS if you want to seek advice on making repairs and modifications to your Boston Whaler boat. I would prefer that this thread remain on the topic it has started with. It seems completely on-point for your boat and your primary concern with its fuel economy. I don't see any value in adding new topics to this thread about other repairs or modifications to your boat restoration project or your plans to re-fit the electronics. As I have mentioned several times, you should seek advice about electronic gear in SMALL BOAT ELECTRICAL. Similarly, if you need advice on making repairs or restoration to the boat, please use REPAIRS/MODS. Let us leave this thread on its initial topic, as you began it, by seeking advice on how to improve the fuel economy of twin V6 two-stroke 150-HP engines. I do not think we have even begun to make much progress on your initial topic, and I can't see any point of mixing several other topics into this discussion.

The discussion areas are organized along topics or themes. The PERFORMANCE discussion is the correct place to discuss the topic of improving fuel economy.

jimh posted 07-03-2014 01:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
More on oil: Oil usage is typically measured as a ratio to gasoline usage. The information on oil usages per mile you have gathered is perhaps of interest to you, but it really is not a particularly good measurement. A much better measurement of oil usage is to record the volumes of gasoline consumed and oil consumed, and express those volumes as a ratio for an individual engine. For example, if your twin engines consumed 100-gallons of gasoline (total) and consumed 2-gallons (total) of oil in the process, then the gasoline-to-oil ratio would be expressed as 50:1, assuming each engine consumed an equal amount of oil and fuel.
jimh posted 07-03-2014 01:56 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
More on engine mounting height: to describe engine mounting height we use a unit of "holes" where one-hole is 0.75-inches. We measure from the lowest possible position. There are typically four holes in the OMC engine mounting brackets. This affords four engine mounting heights, which are:

--lowest mounting

--one-hole up

--two-holes up

--three-holes up

Based on your narrative, your engines are presently mounted in the lowest mounting position.

mopee3 posted 07-03-2014 02:16 PM ET (US)     Profile for mopee3  Send Email to mopee3     
Motor oil used, Evinrude Johnson XD 50 2-Cycle Outboard Motor Oil. Recommended by boat yard.

Yes, my main concern is as you say, "for your boat and your primary concern with its fuel economy."

I had thought Props, oil, fuel mileage, engine height, were part of the equation.

Can fuel mileage be measured accurately with a Flo-scan system without some sort of the "unmentionable" word interface. Do flow meters need a interface to accurately give me fuel mileage? I don't know.

As for your moderation, it needs to happen to keep on subject and I understand that. That is why in a previous thread I asked you if you thought it should be moved, and you did move it. I have asked Hoosier about what he had on his boat to accurately measure said mileage, he told me and I haven't requested anything else about said unmentionables.


mopee3 posted 07-03-2014 02:57 PM ET (US)     Profile for mopee3  Send Email to mopee3     
Do I need to change the mounting to a higher hole, test and then do same again or is there someone's recommendation I should start with.


jimh posted 07-03-2014 04:21 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Thanks for the clarification on the engine oil in use. The figure "50" in the Evinrude brand name XD50 does not refer to any particular parameter of the oil by weight.

Evinrude XD50 oil is a good two-stroke oil. It is unlikely that use of XD50 oil is to blame in any way for the poor fuel economy.

If you want to measure instantaneous fuel economy, you will need to know the instantaneous fuel flow rate. With the c.1992 Johnson engines you have, the only method to obtain the instantaneous fuel flow rate is by inserting a fuel flow sensor in the fuel line.

Measurement of instantaneous fuel economy will also require measurement of the boat speed. Measurement of boat speed is probably already available to you from your Garmin GPS receiver.

As mentioned earlier, trip average fuel economy can often be different from instantaneous fuel economy at best planing speeds. In the case of these older two-stroke carburetor engines, one often sees that the best instantaneous fuel economy, that is best MPG, occurs at planing speeds, and operation at any other speeds usually produces worse instantaneous fuel economy.

As mentioned earlier, the poor fuel economy at low speeds with older carburetor engines is a result of a loss of fuel charge from the combustion chamber without the fuel being ignited. A significant amount of raw fuel goes unburnt out the exhaust of these older engines when they are running at low speeds.

In your initial article you sought advice about re-tuning your carburetor two-stroke engines to get better fuel economy. As mentioned earlier, this is really not possible. The engines need to run with the fuel-air ratios they have been designed to run with. You cannot apply some post-design, post-manufacturing remedy that will significantly alter their basic fuel consumption characteristics.

As mentioned earlier, there is so much evidence in your data that the engines are not in very good condition. They are burning too much fuel, even for fuel-hungry older two-stroke carburetor engines.

As mentioned earlier, your initial focus on resolving the poor fuel economy should be to check the engines for signs of problems with the cylinder fuel induction or cylinder spark to verify that the engines are operating as designed.

As mentioned earlier by first-hand reports from others who have comparable engines on comparable boats, the fuel economy should be in the range of 1 to 1.5-MPG, not in the range you are reporting of 0.375 to 0.5-MPG.

The sum of all this seems to me to suggest that your initial inquiry into improving the fuel economy of your boat and engines is to verify that the engines are operating at the best of their normal and usual fuel economy. Once you have given a close eye to the engines, you can explore other realms for improvement of fuel economy, such as engine mounting height, propeller selection, boat trim, and general hull condition. Before getting to those areas, you really need to be certain that the engines themselves are not causing this abysmal fuel economy.

6992WHALER posted 07-06-2014 11:59 AM ET (US)     Profile for 6992WHALER  Send Email to 6992WHALER     
I have a 1992 23 Walkaround with whaler drive.
It is powered by twin 200 HP Yamaha's
My fuel economy is 1.8 MPG at 27-32 MPH.
I can get over 2MPG if I only run one engine at about 6 MPH.
Jeff posted 07-06-2014 09:40 PM ET (US)     Profile for Jeff  Send Email to Jeff     
Our fuel numbers are fairly similar to John's only with twin 1993 Yamaha 150's.

Our 1993 23 Walkaround Whaler Drive with twin Yamaha 150's are mounted one hole up and will turn a WOT of just over 46mph at 5500rpms turning what I believe at 19p Yamaha Stainless props.

Your note of WOT gives 4500-RPM and 36.6 mph is worrisome. Outside of prop pitch and mounting height, have you checked compression on all of the cylinders?

6992WHALER posted 07-07-2014 03:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for 6992WHALER  Send Email to 6992WHALER     
Interesting Jeff,
My 1991 twin 200 Yamaha's at WOT will go 56 MPH at about 5600 RPMS

I agree mopee3's top end is way to slow.
Something is not right.

Hoosier posted 07-07-2014 05:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for Hoosier  Send Email to Hoosier     
I agree that WOT of 4600 is too low. The 36mph at 4600 is about right but he should redline 1000+ rpm higher than that.
mopee3 posted 08-29-2014 09:40 PM ET (US)     Profile for mopee3  Send Email to mopee3     
Well folks, we spend 12 days on the coast with the Harsens Is. Whaler, 1992, 23 ft WA with 2 1992-96 150 hp OMC engines. It is now the, "Gill Cutter", and she lived up to her name.
Before leaving for the Oregon coast, Astoria area, I replaced the props, and moved the engines to the bottom hole, 3 holes down, or 3 holes up? I love the boat, it handled heavy water easily, and we ended up trolling with the 150's. Mileage was much better with different props and height change. Still will be re-powering her, because we still used about 40 gallons in a 6 hour day. We ran about 20 miles then trolled for the rest of the time.
AV plate was dry when she was running, 4500 rpm at WOT, and about 40 mph. On occasion the props would come out but 99.5% of the time they were in too deep to see.
Props are Mercury Mirage? Which is what Tom suggested.

Thanks for all the help and input.


jimh posted 08-30-2014 11:29 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Re engine mounting position and how to describe it: the best description is to describe the engine mounting position in reference to the lowest position, and to use units of 0.75-inch or "holes" to describe the increase, if any, from lowest.

There is no meaningful interpretation to a position reference as "three holes down." From your description, the most reasonable interpretation is you have raised the engine mounting height from the original position to a new position which is best described as "three holes up."

Re the brand and model of propeller you are using: the brand and model are interesting information, but without knowing the pitch (and diameter) much detail is lost. Please pass along the pitch and diameter of the propellers. Also, I suspect you actually have Mercury MIRAGEplus propellers, as the MIRAGE model has not been made for a long time.

Your report of consumption of 40-gallons of fuel in six hours suggests a fuel flow rate of 6.66-GPH total, or 3.33-GPH per engine. However, without knowing the engine speeds being run during those six hours, it is hard to interpret the GPH data.

Measurement of GPH and MPG without having instantaneous fuel flow data and highly accurate boat speed data is generally very imprecise. However, when you are running older two-stroke engines, it is probably best to not measure the fuel flow or fuel economy--it will just depress you.

mopee3 posted 09-01-2014 11:54 AM ET (US)     Profile for mopee3  Send Email to mopee3     
Propellers are Mercury Mirage Plus, a set of 15-1/2 x 17. RH & LH - 48-90159A46 / 48-18278A46.

Motors are set as high as possible.

I am experiencing a slight vibration from the starboard engine at low engine speed, at or below 1,500 rpm. This is also the engine the mechanics were not able to replace bearings and seals in because the race appeared to be "welded" in the housing. Speculation on "welding" had occurred because of leaving the power cable left hooked up with engines in down position in the water when at the marina. It appears electrolysis was the cause of the "welding". Mechanics were afraid taking bearing race out would have broken housing.

Another reason to re-power the boat.

acseatsri posted 09-01-2014 11:54 AM ET (US)     Profile for acseatsri  Send Email to acseatsri     
I would think that the 4500 WOT number is at least some of the cause of the excessive fuel usage. You're lugging those engines pretty hard. They should be hitting closer to 5500 RPM at WOT with a light load.
jimh posted 09-02-2014 06:51 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
It is not unusual that the gear case main retainer nut or fitting does not want to unthread easily on an older outboard engine. You may have to cut it into piece to remove it, then get a replacement. Seek more advice on this repair in the REPAIRS/MODS discussion.
jimh posted 09-02-2014 06:53 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
A mounting height of "as high as possible" is not particularly clear, because some engines have four sets of holes and others have five sets of holes. I believe that Johnson engines tend to only have four sets of holes. This suggests that the present height of the engines on the boat we are discussing is set to three-holes up.

Post New Topic  Post Reply
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.