Etec 50:
WOT: 16-22 mph *only achieved 22 once* Typically 17-19 mph w/o ballast lightly loaded. With ballast, 12-17 mph light to medium load. Heavily loaded for extended trip and 4 people: 10-15 mph. I use a 14x13 prop but occasionally swap to a 13.25x13, especially when going up to higher altitude... all numbers drop when that's the case.
If I could do it over again, I would most definitely get the etec 90. That said, I often wonder how frequently I would take advantage of the 90 since I typically use the motor when coming home at the end of the sailing day and by then there is plenty of chop so anything over 7-8 mph is a soaking wet ride i.e. no need for the big OB.
Leon
Overpowered 26M question?
-
aya16
- Admiral
- Posts: 1362
- Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 6:29 am
- Location: LONG BEACH CALIF Mac M 04 WHITE
The question asked was how fast do you go with the bigger motors. And most answers were, I want a bigger motor or I dont think its a big deal with a bigger motor.
A 90 hp motor is considered a small motor for small outboard powered boats. 16-18 foot power boats. A 50hp is a joke as for any performance on any boat. Its more a fishing boat motor for a large john boat or something like that. I have a 50hp on a 13 foot boat.
Now Macgregor sells all they can make, so it seems they have a mindset that 50 is good enough. and to their credit the speed these boats produce with only a fifty is amazing. But there are a lot of people that powered with a 90 and I havent heard a single complaint about those boats. Just concerns from others that it might break the transom, or it weighs to much or on and on.
Heres the deal, mac selling all they make why should they Improve the product for the bigger engine? Why give the thumbs up on anyone that wants to re power to a bigger engine? Why even discuss this with people that already own and like these boats?
A dealer asked a question and we all tried our best to answer with more info than he wanted. Did we answer the question Mike? or did we overwhelm the question?
Bottom line for me as I sail in an area that I believe requires a larger engine. 17mph for the sake of argument, is needed for these boats to handle better at speed. Less steering input, less fatigue, and less work for the engine even a 50hp.
we put junk in our boats for our comfort. Dinghies, food water, cats and dogs and people, and much more. Why do we do that? because the boat screams for it. the room the feel of the boat is made for what we all do. when we get to our place of rest we have all we need at our finger tips.
The mac was designed as a day sailor no one disputes this. But some of us dont use it that way. we spend a week end or a week in them. Look at the video it shows the mac being used for a day trip speeding around sailing around lightly loaded and later a nice video shot of it sitting in a slip or mooring somewhere with the lights on and the table lightly set for a romantic night with your favorite mate. Thats great but we dont use them like that all the time, at least me.
I think Mac is behind the times as opposed to us using this boat for more than its made for. The mac was over designed a little where people can drop a 90hp on it and get a little more out of the boat than what it was designed for safely I think. At least common sense will hopefully play a part and its not over stressed when we do.
If I was mac, I would realize that the boat he designed many years ago and steadily improved lightly is meeting the wants of the buyers but not from design but from someone taking a chance it can handle it. Mac is so far behind. all the testing all the chances were taken by the customers.
Mac may feel secure in its place. They sell all they make. But one guy with a dream and the money can put mac out of business in a heart beat and copy some innovations mac came up. My opinion Mac doesnt look to far ahead.
what do you think will happen to sales if a mac type boat hit the market that was 27 feet long 8.5 feet wide, you can get any motor you want up to a 90hp, had the same amount of room or more, and cost 200.00 dollars more than the mac? I would say Mac would need to worry about all the expenses to stay in biz not count the profits they now make.
Mike Mac needs to hear the customers, Its a great boat now but if 10 more hp makes the difference of a few mph and that mph makes the mac go past the sweet spot of the mac (17mph) they need to listen.
Like I said you're in a tuff spot. you know the performance is way better, not slightly better, with a bigger motor but you cant just say that to a customer. I guess you can send them to this website and we can rant on about it........Then they can say, no I want the bigger motor, and you can say ok.
A 90 hp motor is considered a small motor for small outboard powered boats. 16-18 foot power boats. A 50hp is a joke as for any performance on any boat. Its more a fishing boat motor for a large john boat or something like that. I have a 50hp on a 13 foot boat.
Now Macgregor sells all they can make, so it seems they have a mindset that 50 is good enough. and to their credit the speed these boats produce with only a fifty is amazing. But there are a lot of people that powered with a 90 and I havent heard a single complaint about those boats. Just concerns from others that it might break the transom, or it weighs to much or on and on.
Heres the deal, mac selling all they make why should they Improve the product for the bigger engine? Why give the thumbs up on anyone that wants to re power to a bigger engine? Why even discuss this with people that already own and like these boats?
A dealer asked a question and we all tried our best to answer with more info than he wanted. Did we answer the question Mike? or did we overwhelm the question?
Bottom line for me as I sail in an area that I believe requires a larger engine. 17mph for the sake of argument, is needed for these boats to handle better at speed. Less steering input, less fatigue, and less work for the engine even a 50hp.
we put junk in our boats for our comfort. Dinghies, food water, cats and dogs and people, and much more. Why do we do that? because the boat screams for it. the room the feel of the boat is made for what we all do. when we get to our place of rest we have all we need at our finger tips.
The mac was designed as a day sailor no one disputes this. But some of us dont use it that way. we spend a week end or a week in them. Look at the video it shows the mac being used for a day trip speeding around sailing around lightly loaded and later a nice video shot of it sitting in a slip or mooring somewhere with the lights on and the table lightly set for a romantic night with your favorite mate. Thats great but we dont use them like that all the time, at least me.
I think Mac is behind the times as opposed to us using this boat for more than its made for. The mac was over designed a little where people can drop a 90hp on it and get a little more out of the boat than what it was designed for safely I think. At least common sense will hopefully play a part and its not over stressed when we do.
If I was mac, I would realize that the boat he designed many years ago and steadily improved lightly is meeting the wants of the buyers but not from design but from someone taking a chance it can handle it. Mac is so far behind. all the testing all the chances were taken by the customers.
Mac may feel secure in its place. They sell all they make. But one guy with a dream and the money can put mac out of business in a heart beat and copy some innovations mac came up. My opinion Mac doesnt look to far ahead.
what do you think will happen to sales if a mac type boat hit the market that was 27 feet long 8.5 feet wide, you can get any motor you want up to a 90hp, had the same amount of room or more, and cost 200.00 dollars more than the mac? I would say Mac would need to worry about all the expenses to stay in biz not count the profits they now make.
Mike Mac needs to hear the customers, Its a great boat now but if 10 more hp makes the difference of a few mph and that mph makes the mac go past the sweet spot of the mac (17mph) they need to listen.
Like I said you're in a tuff spot. you know the performance is way better, not slightly better, with a bigger motor but you cant just say that to a customer. I guess you can send them to this website and we can rant on about it........Then they can say, no I want the bigger motor, and you can say ok.
-
LOUIS B HOLUB
- Admiral
- Posts: 1315
- Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:40 am
- Location: 1999 Mac-X, Nissan 50 HP, Kemah, TX, "Holub Boat"
26M with 50hp
I have the Honda 4-stroke 50Hp on my 2004 26M.
I used to keep the boat in salt water, so I have ablative (i.e. not at all smooth) anti-fouling paint on the bottom. With my normal gear and just myself on board, no ballast, I get around 14-15 knots WOT, and the boat is not planed out.
I suspect with a smooth, clean bottom, the 50hp might be able to get me to the "sweet spot" of a comfortable plane, but I won't know for sure until the anti-fouling wears to the point that I decide to remove it and go back to a smooth bottom (I am in fresh water these days).
If I was to buy again knowing that the "22mph with 50hp" is more than a little over-optimistic, I'd find a dealer that could give me the 70hp motor with the warranty intact. Now that the boat is out of warranty anyway, if something happened to the 50Hp I would repower with a little more "oomph".
It's not about the speed, it's about having the boat planing properly and "feeling right" when it's supposed to be in powering/planing configuration.
- Andy
I used to keep the boat in salt water, so I have ablative (i.e. not at all smooth) anti-fouling paint on the bottom. With my normal gear and just myself on board, no ballast, I get around 14-15 knots WOT, and the boat is not planed out.
I suspect with a smooth, clean bottom, the 50hp might be able to get me to the "sweet spot" of a comfortable plane, but I won't know for sure until the anti-fouling wears to the point that I decide to remove it and go back to a smooth bottom (I am in fresh water these days).
If I was to buy again knowing that the "22mph with 50hp" is more than a little over-optimistic, I'd find a dealer that could give me the 70hp motor with the warranty intact. Now that the boat is out of warranty anyway, if something happened to the 50Hp I would repower with a little more "oomph".
It's not about the speed, it's about having the boat planing properly and "feeling right" when it's supposed to be in powering/planing configuration.
- Andy
-
bscott
- Admiral
- Posts: 1143
- Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 2:45 pm
- Sailboat: MacGregor 26X
- Location: Arvada, Colorado 2001 X, M rotating mast, E-tec 60 with Power Thruster, "HUFF n Puff"
Timely subject for me as I am looking for a 2000-2002X--everything I find is either a Tohatsu/Nissan or Honda 50HP which will not work for high altitude motoring. At 8,000', the 50HP, adjusted for altitude is only 42HP. 70HP is only 60HP. Changing jets on a regular basis is a PITA.
If the additional weight in the stern reduces sailing performance, don't care since my wife and I am not interested in PHRF racing anymore. Dual axle trailer with sliding axles and extended frame/bunks will also be required if going to the 70/90 HP option--at least for my safety level.
I will be spending equal time between 8,000', sea level, and points inbetween so EFI or E-tec are the only options since the TLDI is only good to 3,000'.
Repowering to a 70/90HP becomes very expensive since no one wants a 50HP on trade or even on Craig's/Ebay. So I will probably bite the bullet and go for a new M with financing--ouch!
Hopefully Mike is reporting directly to Roger with the results of his questions from this 4M.
If the additional weight in the stern reduces sailing performance, don't care since my wife and I am not interested in PHRF racing anymore. Dual axle trailer with sliding axles and extended frame/bunks will also be required if going to the 70/90 HP option--at least for my safety level.
I will be spending equal time between 8,000', sea level, and points inbetween so EFI or E-tec are the only options since the TLDI is only good to 3,000'.
Repowering to a 70/90HP becomes very expensive since no one wants a 50HP on trade or even on Craig's/Ebay. So I will probably bite the bullet and go for a new M with financing--ouch!
Hopefully Mike is reporting directly to Roger with the results of his questions from this 4M.
-
kziadie
- First Officer
- Posts: 242
- Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:17 pm
- Location: "Sundancer" 2006 26M Honda 50 MACM1338C606..... BAZS-3601239..... Central Chesapeake Bay
With my Honda 50, which I think is the slowest popular engine choice, on my M I max out at about 12-13 knots or about 15MPH. I am perfectly happy with that but I realize I hold the minority view here. I believe however that a big reason why so many people feel so strongly about using larger motors is the fact that Macgregor's marketing materials are misleading. The claims of 22MPH and towing a waterskier on a sailboat really make people take notice of the boat and although they may not be the decisive factors for most people in making a purchase decision, I think they lead to disapointment once people load up their boats and realize the dropoff in performance.
Although many people have used oversized engines succesfully I am not convinced that it is good for the hull long term. I have seen the argument that the hull is rated for 22MPH so you can put on whatever it takes to get you there, but that is incorrect. The hull is tested with a particular speed AND weight combination which is another matter entirely. I have no problems with those 60HP engines that are a "hotter" variation of the manufacturers 50 with little or no weight difference but that is as far as I would go. If you put yourself in Roger's shoes.... if a 90 or 140 were perfectly safe, why not advertise it. The marketing materials could then claim a top speed of 25 MPH or 30MPH or whatever the top speed of an empty boat would be. It would only make the boat look even more attractive to potential buyers so why not do it? That tells me that the choice is not a no brainer.
Kelly
Although many people have used oversized engines succesfully I am not convinced that it is good for the hull long term. I have seen the argument that the hull is rated for 22MPH so you can put on whatever it takes to get you there, but that is incorrect. The hull is tested with a particular speed AND weight combination which is another matter entirely. I have no problems with those 60HP engines that are a "hotter" variation of the manufacturers 50 with little or no weight difference but that is as far as I would go. If you put yourself in Roger's shoes.... if a 90 or 140 were perfectly safe, why not advertise it. The marketing materials could then claim a top speed of 25 MPH or 30MPH or whatever the top speed of an empty boat would be. It would only make the boat look even more attractive to potential buyers so why not do it? That tells me that the choice is not a no brainer.
Kelly
-
waternwaves
- Admiral
- Posts: 1499
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:18 pm
- Location: X less in North Puget Sound -have to sail other boats for a while
On another note........
I would guess that as people repower to 70/90.... there go a lot of new boat customers that won't trade up after putting an 8000 cash payment onto their old boat. Mike, Cheryl, Todd, Bill, do you still see most people financing their boats??
I already figure on reusing 50 nissan for a fishing boat replacement.
but if you are going to a true 8 1/2 feet in width, and a real towed weight of 4000 dry, go to a real 32-34 ft in length..and do it right. I have the drawings........
Anyone interested in a nice lightweight waterballasted aluminum hulled 34 ft. sailboat? hehehehehe
I would guess that as people repower to 70/90.... there go a lot of new boat customers that won't trade up after putting an 8000 cash payment onto their old boat. Mike, Cheryl, Todd, Bill, do you still see most people financing their boats??
I already figure on reusing 50 nissan for a fishing boat replacement.
but if you are going to a true 8 1/2 feet in width, and a real towed weight of 4000 dry, go to a real 32-34 ft in length..and do it right. I have the drawings........
Anyone interested in a nice lightweight waterballasted aluminum hulled 34 ft. sailboat? hehehehehe
-
RichardB
- Deckhand
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 9:17 am
- Location: North Palm Beach, FL; 2006 26M; Honda 50; "Windhorse"
a Calvin & Hobbes strip just came to mind. they're driving over a bridge with a "max weight = " sign and Calvin asks dad "how do they know the maximum weight for the bridge?" and dad says "they drive bigger and bigger trucks over it until it collapses, then they weigh the last truck and rebuild the bridge" (dad's a bit of a smart a--)
So whoever cracks their transom first, please report back, allright?
with two people and otherwise lightly loaded I'm still getting ~17-18 mph with my honda 50 (3rd prop's a charm). I mostly sail but in retrospect I would have gotten a 70 if given the choice but it's not a huge deal for me - I love this boat! I was zipping around near the inlet playing with my autopilot at plane last saturday ('nother thread) and when I got in to the marina a guy who followed me in yelled at me "that's the fastest sailboat I ever seen!"
So whoever cracks their transom first, please report back, allright?
with two people and otherwise lightly loaded I'm still getting ~17-18 mph with my honda 50 (3rd prop's a charm). I mostly sail but in retrospect I would have gotten a 70 if given the choice but it's not a huge deal for me - I love this boat! I was zipping around near the inlet playing with my autopilot at plane last saturday ('nother thread) and when I got in to the marina a guy who followed me in yelled at me "that's the fastest sailboat I ever seen!"
-
waternwaves
- Admiral
- Posts: 1499
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:18 pm
- Location: X less in North Puget Sound -have to sail other boats for a while
-
Divecoz
- Admiral
- Posts: 3803
- Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 2:54 pm
- Sailboat: MacGregor 26M
- Location: PORT CHARLOTTE FLORIDA 05 M Mercury 50 H.P. Big Foot Bill at Boats 4 Sail is my Hero
Cracked Transom has been done already on an XRichardB wrote:a Calvin & Hobbes strip just came to mind. they're driving over a bridge with a "max weight = " sign and Calvin asks dad "how do they know the maximum weight for the bridge?" and dad says "they drive bigger and bigger trucks over it until it collapses, then they weigh the last truck and rebuild the bridge" (dad's a bit of a smart a--)
So whoever cracks their transom first, please report back, allright?
with two people and otherwise lightly loaded I'm still getting ~17-18 mph with my honda 50 (3rd prop's a charm). I mostly sail but in retrospect I would have gotten a 70 if given the choice but it's not a huge deal for me - I love this boat! I was zipping around near the inlet playing with my autopilot at plane last saturday ('nother thread) and when I got in to the marina a guy who followed me in yelled at me "that's the fastest sailboat I ever seen!"
Lots of pointing blaming and name calling. In the end ????
IMHO its a pretty light weight 26 ft. boat. NOT because of all the Space age technology and products used.
It is, well designed for what the manufacturer suggest its usage be . They have employed some proven technologies to save weight and keep it strong or even make it stronger. Those guys are not dummies by any stretch of the imagination. But they are not building Island Packets or any other Blue Water Cruiser. BTW if they were I couldn't have afforded one . Or better said , would not have bought one. This boat allowed me to gather no less than a few fun toys and retire early.
-
waternwaves
- Admiral
- Posts: 1499
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:18 pm
- Location: X less in North Puget Sound -have to sail other boats for a while
I tend to agree....
but I have found very few willing to spend 2 weeks of vacation with me on a boat this small..... one week yes if I plan on shore based stops every other or every third night.......
But when I take them on the larger rented sloops 50 ft plus........ they seem to be willing to endure the hardship longer....
and as we were walking by the 65ft Pacific Mariner on the dock saturday night..... I heard her say......
"I could live on that................................"
but I have found very few willing to spend 2 weeks of vacation with me on a boat this small..... one week yes if I plan on shore based stops every other or every third night.......
But when I take them on the larger rented sloops 50 ft plus........ they seem to be willing to endure the hardship longer....
and as we were walking by the 65ft Pacific Mariner on the dock saturday night..... I heard her say......
"I could live on that................................"
-
pokerrick1
- Admiral
- Posts: 2269
- Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 7:20 pm
- Sailboat: Venture 23
- Location: Las Vegas, NV (Henderson, near Lake Mead)
I or We
Was that I could live on that or WE could live on thatwaternwaves wrote:and as we were walking by the 65ft Pacific Mariner on the dock saturday night..... I heard her say......
"I could live on that................................"
Did she mean with or without YOU 
Rick
-
Gerald Gordon
- First Officer
- Posts: 284
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:58 pm
- Location: O'ahu, Hawai'i