MacGregorSailors.com

I know that many on this board have large outboards installed, up to 90HP, which has really made me druel and regret getting the 50. Although I'm really happy with my E-Tec, I would love to be able to go faster. It typically takes me 45 min- 1 hr to motor out from the marina to the good sailing area. It would be nice to cut that down to about 30 minutes. From what I've read, the E-Tec 90 and The Tohatsu TLDI 90 are the best 2-strokes on the market. They're both only 80 lbs heavier than my 50, so it shouldn't be a huge compromise in performance.

My questions for you guys with the bigger engines:
1. Have you had any problems with the boat, hull, transom etc?
2. Todd at BWY, per someone else's post, I believe Tom's, mentioned that the boat shouldn't have anything more than 70 HP, i.e. the decision to put a 70 on the Black Pearl. Any thoughts as to why he would thin that?
3. My E-Tec 50 has about 120 hours on it. Any idea how bad of a bath I would take if I was to trade up to a 90? I paid just over $7k (installed.)

Thanks & Happy New Year Everyone!

Leon, when I bought my new boat in 1999, I chose Suzuki's bigger brother (60hp in my case) for the benefit of larger 14" prop. Gene Arena (Dan's father had a dealership in Alameda) installed the larger engine with some transom reinforcement. No transom problems with the 335 lb. motor that I've seen ... you'll be able to look at it someday if you want.

I'd even install the next larger Suzuki (90/115/140 hp) with the same transom stiffener. But ....
I'm still curious about why BWY is upgrading the Pearl's 2-stroke 70 to a Suzuki 4-stroke 70 ???

Frank C wrote:I'm still curious about why BWY is upgrading the Pearl's 2-stroke 70 to a Suzuki 4-stroke 70 ???

All I can think of is to add weight aft, moving the center of lateral resistance aft. That would be desired to solve a weather helm problem, wouldn't it?

delevi:

1. Have you had any problems with the boat, hull, transom etc?
2. Todd at BWY, per someone else's post, I believe Tom's, mentioned that the boat shouldn't have anything more than 70 HP, i.e. the decision to put a 70 on the Black Pearl. Any thoughts as to why he would thin that?
3. My E-Tec 50 has about 120 hours on it. Any idea how bad of a bath I would take if I was to trade up to a 90? I paid just over $7k (installed.)

1) No problems so far. here is the standard recommended transom install to accomodate the 90hp. you can paint the 1/4" thick aluminum plate in a white epoxy to match. you'll never know it's there.





2) i have never been able to figure out why so many insist that a 70hp is OK but a 90hp is overkill. a Tohatsu or Evinrude 90 weighs 310# (+/-), while a Suzy 70 weighs over 335#. as long as common sense is used (ie. no hole shots, etc.), you'll be fine while having enough power to plane at 20mph w/ full ballast, fully loaded, and at 3/4 power.

3) if you still have a warranty on the 50, i'm guessing you could get $4-5K minus any consignment/sale fees. it'll be tough to sell yourself. a new 90 installed will be $8-9K. so...ultimately it'll cost you $3-4K for the upgrade. my best guess.

Bob T.
"DaBob"
'02X w/ '04 90 TLDI



The New 2006 TLDI-90

Bobby,

Great Pics. Thanks. How fast can you go at full throttle without ballast?

Frank,

Would love to see your setup. Perhaps over lunch at Angel Island when the weather improves.

Does anyone know if the larger engine is an insurance liability, since Mac recommends a maximum of 50hp? Also, I wonder if this voids the warranty. I have nearly a year left on mine, though so far, I haven't been able to get anything fixed under warranty except a possible DB replacement, on which I'm still waiting to hear back. The warranty probably isn't worth much, unless something major was to happen, and even then, they would probably find a way to blame it on the owner... per my experience.

Moe wrote:

Frank C wrote:I'm still curious about why BWY is upgrading the Pearl's 2-stroke 70 to a Suzuki 4-stroke 70 ???

All I can think of is to add weight aft, moving the center of lateral resistance aft. That would be desired to solve a weather helm problem, wouldn't it?

I don't think so. My take on the potential from adding aft wt. bias ... it increases mast rake, especially evident if it depresses the aft waterline. This is how I've understood weather helm:

• 1. Exaggerate this aft dynamic by placing the hull on a 20* heel.
  2. Now imagine a gust that pushes down on the mainsail leech, burying stern.
  3. This pops the bow up, onto the surface, and around to weather.

I've understood that reducing mast rake deters these dynamics.

I'm wondering if the Tohatsu was just noisier than the Suzuki 70s that BWY had commonly been installing (a la Tom Spohn). Further, I'm certain that the post '99 26X has ballast to compensate for heavier motors, as mine floats true. Maybe that bias was amplified by the M-design, or maybe Todd's hull mods created some bow forward bias?

Looking fwd to commentary from BWY.

Bobby T wrote:i have never been able to figure out why so many insist that a 70hp is OK but a 90hp is overkill. a Tohatsu or Evinrude 90 weighs 310# (+/-), while a Suzy 70 weighs over 335#.

Because transom weight is only a small portion of the equation, and even then it's only particularly critical when trailering. In the water, even without hole shots, 90HP compared to a 70HP at max output, every single system will be loaded at a minimum 90/70 (or 90/50, if you use the original specified max number) times the origianlly designed amounts. Everything on the boat is already amply stressed at high speed, when the speed's higher, so is the load. Think of slamming into a wave at 90HP instead of 50HP and you'll figure it out in a hurry.

Without looking at previous posts on the subject, I believe it was Mark who hit an underwater obstruction with his big motor on his brand new boat, and instead of kicking up without damage, per design, as would probably have been the case with a 50HP, he sustained major transom damage which took many months to get repaired.

delevi wrote:Does anyone know if the larger engine is an insurance liability, since Mac recommends a maximum of 50hp?

This has been covered at length, almost ad nauseum, on previous multiple threads on this subject. Many people have insured their Macs with motors as large as 140HP. As far as insurance is concerned, you will at least theoretically be covered as long as the insurance company has the facts. If you tell them you have a bigger motor than recommended by the manufacturer, you at least have legal standing were a claim to arise. If you don't bother telling them or misrepresent the size of your motor, it's fraud and there's a good chance a savvy insurance adjuster could deny your claim.

I think it's important to point out that simply getting somebody to write you a policy doesn't necessarily mean you're home free in every situation.

When those three kids were tragically killed by the Mac rollover a few years back, the lawyers went after Roger M. for faulty design. They lost based on the preponderance of evidence that the design itself was sound, but these things are never certain. As far as I know, none of the big motor guys has ever had a problem, but if somebody is ever hurt badly or killed and the accident can be even remotely attibuted to excessive HP on the boat, there's no doubt in my mind lawsuits will follow. And you know if it happens, Roger M will not be on your side.

delevi wrote:Also, I wonder if this voids the warranty.

Ditto. The hull is warranted for 50HP. Mac has given a few dealers special permission to install motors up to 70HP. Other dealers, private individuals, and anything over 70HP, no warranty. You may be able to find a dealer or motor installer who will guarantee his own installation; you'll want to get that in writing; otherwise, you're on your own as far as hull warranty is concerned.

delevi wrote:I have nearly a year left on mine...The warranty probably isn't worth much, unless something major was to happen

You're kidding, right? What is the purpose of a warranty?

I don't mean to sound totally negative. If I had it to do again, I'd go for 90HP or more. Chances are you'll be glad you did, but such happiness is never guaranteed.

delevi wrote:

How fast can you go at full throttle without ballast?

an X lightly loaded, captain only, without ballast, and a stock 15 pitch prop will get to 30mph (but only 4800-5000 rpms). however, a loaded X with this prop will lug the motor and damage it.

it's recommended that you use an 11 pitch prop which will max out at 26mph (5800rpms) on a loaded X. although an M friend of mine with a 90 Tohatsu uses the 13 pitch and gets 2 mph faster, but the rpm's aren't much above 5K. I have suggested to him on several occasions to purchase the 11 pitch.

Chip wrote:

In the water, even without hole shots, 90HP compared to a 70HP at max output, every single system will be loaded at a minimum 90/70 (or 90/50, if you use the original specified max number) times the origianlly designed amounts. Everything on the boat is already amply stressed at high speed, when the speed's higher, so is the load. Think of slamming into a wave at 90HP instead of 50HP and you'll figure it out in a hurry.

everytime the power subject comes up I get into this same discussion with Chip.

I agree that if one vehicle travels at 16mph and another at 22mph, and they both crash into a solid wall, that the one going 22 will sustain more damage than the one going 16. that the one going 22 puts more stress/strain on the components than the one going 16. i agree with all of those details.

however, my take is this...
the boat was designed (or so Roger promotes) to go 22mph under power.

with a 90, i can now go 20mph while under power (a safe speed...2 mph under Roger's promoted max), and only use 3/4 throttle. thus, not overtaxing the motor and maintaining excellent fuel economy. that is, with my '02 Suzuki 50 I was maxed out, got to 16-17mph, but i always felt i was stressing the motor.

Bobby T wrote:the boat was designed (or so Roger promotes) to go 22mph under power.

with a 90, i can now go 20mph while under power (a safe speed...2 mph under Roger's promoted max)

I don't remember having this discussion before, but if we had, I would have pointed out that your logic is faulty because your major premise is faulty.

The boat isn't designed to go a given speed under power.

The boat is designed to consume the full power of a 50HP motor wide open. It so happens that is equal to (rougly) 22 mph when empty, or 17mph with ballast, or 14mph with ballast fully loaded. If you run your 90HP motor at a reduced throttle condition such that it is putting out rougly 50HP, everything else being roughly equal, you will get 22 mph empty, 17mph with ballast and 14mph with ballast, fully loaded, same as the 50HP wide open. The loads on the systems will be approximatley equal to those with 50HP. When you start going faster than the 50HP is capable of, under a given loading condition, you're driving the boat harder than it was designed to be driven. The loads on the boat's systems: steering, hull and hull joints, fasteners, rigging; everything, will be higher than they were originally designed to take.

Loads on the physical systems are only peripherally related to throttle settings, mileage, relative stress or wear and tear on the bigger vs smaller motor.

The physics are quite simple. Loads are equivalent to HP.

Chip:
i understand what you are saying and it sounds reasonable.

what i know is this...
an X with a new '96 tohatsu 50hp 2 stroke smoker goes a whole bunch faster than an X or an M with a new suzuki 50hp 4 stroke.
that's probably because:
- the suzuki is much heavier (almost 100 pounds)
- the tohatsu puts out a true 50hp while the suzuki doesn't seem to

so, my goal in re-powering (with a tohatsu 90) is to motor as fast as an old tohatsu 50hp 2 stroke smoker at full throttle, while still enjoying a 3/4 throttle which minimizes noise and maximizes gas mileage.
that's all i want.

my purpose for the 90 is not to test the hull strength by racing cigarette boats.

I anticipated Bobby's performance issues when ordering my new X in 1999. The Suzuki 50 (12" prop) was about $7.000 and the larger 60 hp was only $8,000, making the outboard the single greatest decision after choosing the Macgregor boat ... I definitely didn't want to choose "too small." Further, my dealer strongly recommended the Bigfoot 50 with a 14" prop, which lacked fuel injection back then ... the upsized Suzuki was the only way I could get both EFI and a 14" prop.

Two-smokers back then were still primitive, and the factory was still VERY SQUEAMISH about oversized motors. My dealer's appeal to Roger for extending the hull warranty was flatly rejected, regardless of transom stiffeners. Apparently they told Arena that they fully trusted the transom structure for the power, and they felt balancing the heavier motor was okay too (having just tweaked the ballast tank design). But they felt pounding the hull at speed could unduly stress the ballast tank seams. Such concern seems quite understandable, since the ballast tank is basically "glued into" the molded hull (slight exaggeration).

(I certainly would not place this hull into a rental fleet with anything larger than a 50 hp!)

I elected the Suzuki 60, expecting that the 14" prop would permit the same, relaxed cruising that Bobby describes. Result is the 60 can quietly loaf along at 3800 14-15 mph, or go ~17mph at a more urgent 4300 rpms. WOT is 21 mph at 5100 rpms, clearly over-propped with the 13 pitch. I might order Piranha's new 11 pitch before next summer. I've never regretted oversizing the motor, and I've seen no evidence of hull or transom stresses (nor does ballast leak) ... but I don't race cigarette boats either.

If your dealer claims he is authorized by MacGregor to put an obm larger than 50 hp on it, ask to see it in print from MacGregor

i purchased my X one year used so i was never eligible for warranty.
that's always been a wierd one for me...original owner only?
good thing Tohatsu, Evinrude, Ford, GM, etc. don't take a page out of the macgregor policy manual.

Bobby wrote: purchased my X one year used so i was never eligible for warranty.

I seem to recall the warranty on my new '01 X was only a year. Is it possible the two year hull warranty came later? Course, could be my failing memory.

The M comes with a 2-year warranty but has the best disclaimer in the world. MacGregor Yacht Corp, at its sole discretion determines if the condition is due to a manufacturing defect or not. I brought in a DB with huge chunks etched out of the leading and trailing edges around the top, where it is supported in the trunk. They tried to tell me that I was motoring with it down above the recommened 5 mph. This wasn't true and I guess I got the dealer to reluctantly go to bat for me and got it replaced. Keep in mind this is the 2nd DB. The first one litterly had the lower 1/3 snap off. No collission, no grounding, no motoring with board down above 5 mph. They wouldn't believe me about the no grounding part. It may have broken during low tide when I left it down in a slip (just once, but I made it count.)