2001 Conquest 28 Re-power - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  2001 Conquest 28 Re-power

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   2001 Conquest 28 Re-power

Blackbeard posted 10-09-2006 11:58 AM ET (US)
Planning a re-power of 2001 Conquest 28. Getting rid of Yamaha Saltwater 250's in favor of Yamaha four-stroke motors. F225s are slightly more fuel efficient but am I surrendering power I'll wish I had; should I go with F250's? Can I expect any trade value on the old Saltwaters (about 200 hours and like new)? Any recommendations of what to watch out for? Thanks in advance.
bluewaterpirate posted 10-09-2006 01:33 PM ET (US)
What's the max power rating of your Conquest. There is no difference of weight 225 -vs- 250. Go with the max hp your boat will handle. If cost is not an issue. Have you looked at the Zuke 250?
Good Luck!
TRAFFICLAWYER posted 10-09-2006 03:27 PM ET (US)
I anticipate you'll shell out at least $15,000 to $17,000 or more for those F250's, that's gonna take a long time to break even on the fuel economy differential.
Blackbeard posted 10-10-2006 08:09 AM ET (US)
600-HP is the max rating. Have not looked at the [outboard motors made by Suzuki]. I've had a couple of Yamaha motors and have always had good results. Is there something about the [outboard motors made by Suzuki] I should look at? Fuel efficency on a cost basis alone would not be enough to justify the repower. With the two strokes, I can't make a (100 mile) canyon run without bladders, extra oil and some prayers I'll make the inlet with more than just fumes in the tanks. Thanks for the comments.
bluewaterpirate posted 10-10-2006 10:45 AM ET (US)
better torque, fuel efficency inline. Just another option. I have some friends who are running [outboard motors made by Suzuki with] 250-HP, and they can't say enough good things about them.
handn posted 10-12-2006 01:13 PM ET (US)
At 4,000-RPM I cruise at 23 knots with Yamaha 225 EFI four-strokes on a 305 Conquest and burn 19-GPH. You should do better wiith a lighter 28 Conquest. In most sea conditions, I could not comfortably run much faster. Trolling with one engine at 7.2 knots, I get two nautical miles to the gallon. I get a comfortable range of 320 nautical miles on a 300 gallon tank so the 225's should get you out to the canyon and back comfortably and not deafen you or rattle your fillings while doing it.
The EFI four-stroke motors are not as powerful as your 250 gas guzzlers, but are not slugs, either.
I highly recommend Revolution4 or other similar four-blade props. My Revolution4 propellers are 17 pitch and perform very well on the boat.
Peter posted 10-12-2006 01:28 PM ET (US)
On plane at cruise speeds, I don't think the F225 is significantly more efficient than the Ox66 250s. The F225 will likely need to rev about 500 RPM higher to maintain the same speed as the 250.
The reports of significant fuel savings of a four-stroke over an EFI 2-stroke like the Yamaha Ox66 250 in terms of percentages, like the often quoted 35 percent, is at idle. As you move up in the RPM band to the ideal cruising speeds, the gap narrows considerably. The gap will then widen at the upper end of the band near WOT where the Ox66 250 will guzzle about 27 GPH but of course it will be moving the boat much faster than the F225 would be at WOT. Pull throttle back on the Ox66 250 so that fuel consumption is around 21 GPH where the F225 is at WOT and you might be surprised to find that the 250 is making close to the same speed as the F225 is at WOT.
Take a look at my post of four years ago comparing the fuel economy of the Ox66 225 to the F225 on a Pursuit 2470 Walk Around. It's about 1/2 way down in this thread ==> continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/001019.html . Basically the Ox66 design is inefficient by todays standards at low engine speeds but not so bad in the middle of the operating band according to the Pursuit test data. If the bulk of your running time is running out 100 miles, I'm not sure you'll see enough of a fuel economy improvement to extend your range significantly.

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: 2001 Conquest 28 Re-power
Blackbeard	posted 10-09-2006 11:58 AM ET (US) Planning a re-power of 2001 Conquest 28. Getting rid of Yamaha Saltwater 250's in favor of Yamaha four-stroke motors. F225s are slightly more fuel efficient but am I surrendering power I'll wish I had; should I go with F250's? Can I expect any trade value on the old Saltwaters (about 200 hours and like new)? Any recommendations of what to watch out for? Thanks in advance.
bluewaterpirate	posted 10-09-2006 01:33 PM ET (US) What's the max power rating of your Conquest. There is no difference of weight 225 -vs- 250. Go with the max hp your boat will handle. If cost is not an issue. Have you looked at the Zuke 250? Good Luck!
TRAFFICLAWYER	posted 10-09-2006 03:27 PM ET (US) I anticipate you'll shell out at least $15,000 to $17,000 or more for those F250's, that's gonna take a long time to break even on the fuel economy differential.
Blackbeard	posted 10-10-2006 08:09 AM ET (US) 600-HP is the max rating. Have not looked at the [outboard motors made by Suzuki]. I've had a couple of Yamaha motors and have always had good results. Is there something about the [outboard motors made by Suzuki] I should look at? Fuel efficency on a cost basis alone would not be enough to justify the repower. With the two strokes, I can't make a (100 mile) canyon run without bladders, extra oil and some prayers I'll make the inlet with more than just fumes in the tanks. Thanks for the comments.
bluewaterpirate	posted 10-10-2006 10:45 AM ET (US) better torque, fuel efficency inline. Just another option. I have some friends who are running [outboard motors made by Suzuki with] 250-HP, and they can't say enough good things about them.
handn	posted 10-12-2006 01:13 PM ET (US) At 4,000-RPM I cruise at 23 knots with Yamaha 225 EFI four-strokes on a 305 Conquest and burn 19-GPH. You should do better wiith a lighter 28 Conquest. In most sea conditions, I could not comfortably run much faster. Trolling with one engine at 7.2 knots, I get two nautical miles to the gallon. I get a comfortable range of 320 nautical miles on a 300 gallon tank so the 225's should get you out to the canyon and back comfortably and not deafen you or rattle your fillings while doing it. The EFI four-stroke motors are not as powerful as your 250 gas guzzlers, but are not slugs, either. I highly recommend Revolution4 or other similar four-blade props. My Revolution4 propellers are 17 pitch and perform very well on the boat.
Peter	posted 10-12-2006 01:28 PM ET (US) On plane at cruise speeds, I don't think the F225 is significantly more efficient than the Ox66 250s. The F225 will likely need to rev about 500 RPM higher to maintain the same speed as the 250. The reports of significant fuel savings of a four-stroke over an EFI 2-stroke like the Yamaha Ox66 250 in terms of percentages, like the often quoted 35 percent, is at idle. As you move up in the RPM band to the ideal cruising speeds, the gap narrows considerably. The gap will then widen at the upper end of the band near WOT where the Ox66 250 will guzzle about 27 GPH but of course it will be moving the boat much faster than the F225 would be at WOT. Pull throttle back on the Ox66 250 so that fuel consumption is around 21 GPH where the F225 is at WOT and you might be surprised to find that the 250 is making close to the same speed as the F225 is at WOT. Take a look at my post of four years ago comparing the fuel economy of the Ox66 225 to the F225 on a Pursuit 2470 Walk Around. It's about 1/2 way down in this thread ==> continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/001019.html . Basically the Ox66 design is inefficient by todays standards at low engine speeds but not so bad in the middle of the operating band according to the Pursuit test data. If the bulk of your running time is running out 100 miles, I'm not sure you'll see enough of a fuel economy improvement to extend your range significantly.