Duane Dunn, Allegro wrote:1309+ nautical miles in Puget Sound so far and no logs yet.
It's very rare for us to go WOT with our 50 hp. This is mainly only done when playing with water toys out in Lake Washington. For us we have two main speeds, 7-9 knots is the slow cruise that allows talking in the cockpit (Our carb'd 2 stroke Tohatsu 50 is a loud motor), and 11-13 knots which is the fast cruise. No problems avoiding logs at that speed.
For the last 5 years I have kept detailed distance and time logs from the GPS for our trips. I find it interesting that the 1309 Nm covered divided by the 186 hrs, 51 minutes of underway time gives an average speed of just over 7 knots. Of course this is motoring and sailing, but we are 90%+ motoring on most trips. I'm hoping for more sailing as the boys get older and take a more active role in operating the boat.
That is a lot of miles. I would bet our usage will work out somewhat the same. The kids don't have the same appriciation as I do for taking it easy. I'd like to do some boat camping at Lake Crescent though and I'll squeeze out to sail whenever I get a chance. If I have to be in a hurry I don't want to be doing it.
Just a general question for you since you are in the same waters. Do you have an enclosed cockpit and how many months of the year do you use your Mac?
LOUIS B HOLUB wrote:My former boat, a Mac 26S with an 8 HP Merc. was fun, and we liked it. My current boat, a Mac 26X with its 50 HP is plenty of H.P. in my opinion and it was a "BIG" motor speed difference than the former boat. The speed is remarkable. I wouldnt feel safe on a boat designed for a 50 HP, with anything more than a 70 HP.
i would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that the 70 & 90 Nissan/Tohatsu and the 75 & 90 Etec have the same powerheads for nearly the same price.
that is, the 70 is a "de-tuned" 90, and a 90 is a "up-tuned" 70 (or visa versa). the power difference is not significantly different.
in fact, when i re-powered with my Tohatsu 90, it was less expensive than re-powering with a Suzuki 70 (the Etec was brand new at the time and premium priced).
in conclusion (and i mean that because i'm starting to feel like my name is Moe)...i'll probably be having a similar conversation on this board 2 years from now when my engine warranty expires and i'm ready to re-power once again with a "new technology-5 Star" something else.
Concerning my earlier post about the 50 HP, maybe I should add that when I crank down on all those 50 horses...the boat seems that its at "capacity" and adding more horses may be a "strain" on the manufactured specifications. Maybe 70 HP would be okay, but I think 90 HP or more "may" be too much. I'm likely wrong though, since many folks power up with 90, and it handles well according to what Ive read. Surely I'm no expert, it's just safety and care of the boat that would concern me.
I would like to experience someone's Mac with a 90 HP sometime, no doubt it would be a blast. A couple of Macs in my Marina have 70s, and no problems. One has a 40 HP, and all others have 50 HP. Amazing how content and happy they all are with their boats, individually.
I have not met an unhappy Mac owner yet.
Happy Sailing & Motoring !
With some exceptions, most people feel that you need more than 50hp to get up on a good plane. I agree with that. I know my 40hp won't do the job (from looking at pictures, it is clear that I'm not on a full plane), and I get comparable numbers to what 50hp 4stk owners have posted.
I'm thinking about a 90hp, 1 - because I'm sold on ETECs, 2 - it is essentially the same motor as a 75hp, 3 - with relatively little added cost from my research, and 4 - I'm not sure the 60hp is enough.
I also think you can go too far. But, that largely depends on the conditions. I think you'd be fine opening up a 90 (obviously a 140 works on a X) in smooth lake-like conditions. I also think you'd be foolish opening up a 70 trying to power through rough stuff...
What a versatile boat the MacGregor! The dedicated Blow Boater seeks to maximize their sailing by customizing the Mac with upgrades in standing and running rigging, while maintaining the trim and balance to enhance sailing and motion. They purchase expensive sail upgrades to achieve incremental speed increases through optimization of sails and shape for their preferred sailing. Hardware and controls are purchased to improve leads, and lines led aft benefit a better set. Some allocate boat bucks for experimental sailboat appendages, in keels and rudders, to point higher and sail faster, offering their end result to those tracking their achievement.
How interesting the Mac offers the Sailing and Motoring to provide the Blow Boater with acceptable sailing and a good turn of speed while motoring. The Gear Head is also provided a platform to enhance the Motoring potential of the Mac. Hanging a huge/ weighty engine on the transom can provide a 10 mph increase in motoring speed and incremental higher cruising speed. All these Over-Powered enhancements are experimental, as the Manufacturers Warranty does not cover them and are without a doubt outside of the written coverage of Marine Insurance stating they do Not cover power exceeding the boat Manufacturers rated limit.
Im sure Most Blow Boaters are satisfied with the Manufacturers/Insurable power limitations, and also certain Gear Heads have the insatiable appetites for Power outside the coverage provided by the manufacturer warranty or insurance written coverage, boasting and sharing their quest as the Blow Boaters share.
DLT wrote:With some exceptions, most people feel that you need more than 50hp to get up on a good plane. I agree with that. I know my 40hp won't do the job (from looking at pictures, it is clear that I'm not on a full plane), and I get comparable numbers to what 50hp 4stk owners have posted.
I'm thinking about a 90hp, 1 - because I'm sold on ETECs, 2 - it is essentially the same motor as a 75hp, 3 - with relatively little added cost from my research, and 4 - I'm not sure the 60hp is enough.
How is your 40HP ETEC in the noise department at 13-14mph? How does it compare with the 4-strokes that you have experienced with the same load?
The 75/90 is 80lbs more than the ETEC 60 so that might be a consideration. At 320lbs the 90 is not that much more but your going to add some weight doing modifications to transom so let's figure 90lbs difference. I think the cost difference is about $1500-$2000 from the ETEC60 to the ETEC90. You also have to figure the cost of the transom modifications. I'd probably feel fine using the stock Mac with the 60Hp as long as you don't pull any hole shots or get silly in poor conditions.
It is lighter than most of the new 4-strokes.
Those are the considerations I'd make. That and how heavily loaded you generally operate. I bet the 26X will get up on a plane easier than the 26M also. The flatter bottom should plane easier and if I'm not mistaken the 26X is lighter by a couple hundred pounds.
We have an enclosed cockpit and love it. We've has the enclosure for 3 seasons now and even though it cost big bucks my wife still says it's the best money we ever spent on the boat. It greatly extends our season and we no longer have any concern about the weather on a trip. Rain or shine we are perfectly protected and comfortable. It also lets us crash through rough conditions without concern for the resulting spray.
Not only does it add weather protection but it feels like it almost doubles the useable space in the boat. The kids will be below watching a movie while we are up in th cockpit relaxing in a totally separate room. One of our 3 boys even sleeps in the cockpit as well. It lets us use all 26' of the boat in any weather.
You can see all the trips and the dates we've made them in our online log. You'll also find info and pictures of the boat with and without the enclosure in all the detailed log pages. There's also more info in the mod section of my web site.
Great web site. Your enclosure looks like the perfect solution. With the limited space on a boat making good use of all of it seems a wise use of money. I bet it not only extends your season but makes every trip more enjoyable.
I Spent 3 nights on the Eel Pond down in Woods Hole MA at a conference and worked off the boat. I put my enclosure up when the weather turned nasty windy and cold, had a 1 kW electric space heater on shore power and was as snug as a bug down below.
We are having two friends join us on the cape this summer and will be four adults and two kids up on that cruise....guys up in the cockpit and ladies down below -the enclosure will make it all possible.
Duane has the space thing down to an art form imho - check out his website if you havent already ..
Interesting... This exercise was actually for a friend of mine who was looking at an overpowered 20' Outrage. Though I must admit that I had been thinking about putting the Johnzuki 140 4S on my 17 (it actually weighs LESS than the 90-115 - go figure).
At any rate, I just got off the phone with my Progressive agent (I have had auto insurance with them for 5+ years). That conversation was very enlightening. I asked for a quote to insure my boat with a 140. She spoke with the underwriters who informed her that Progressive will NOT insure any boats that have power exeeding the mfgs. rating. I asked her if it was just in MN (they do insure boats in MN), and she said that it was not. According to her, all of Progressive won't insure them (I asked about a surcharge, and she said no). I mentioned that I have a few friends (ok, I don't really know you guys, but you all seem like a decent bunch!) who have overpowered boats insured with them. The response was that they would not cover a claim or a boat if it was found out that the boat was overpowered.
I'm sure you guys have read your policies and are indeed covered with Progressive. I just find it odd that I got a completely different answer to my inquiry.
We bought our Mac X in 2002 with extended cruising in mind. High speed motoring capability was an exciting feature, and in the first year of use we ran full throttle most of the time, on limited duration excursions. We set the boat up with a Nissan 50 hp low emission injected 2 stroke. Concerns when we chose between 2 and 4 stroke were the extra weight and higher cost of the 4 stroke. In retrospect I wish we'd gone with the 4 stroke. We set up with a pair of 12 gallon tanks, requiring only slight modification of the fuel lockers. In our first summer, with local cruises on Puget Sound and nearby freshwater lakes I averaged about 4 miles per gallon, and we could do a top speed of 14 - 15 knots.
We embarked on an extended trip in July 2003, an 11 month highway and waterway oddessy around the country. Preparations for this trip involved extensive modifications designed to improve liveability on board, but also resulting in additional weight. The interrelationships of weight, throttle setting, speed and cruising range all came into focus during our most ambitious venture, crossing the Gulf Stream to the Bahamas.
Preparations for this cruise involved stowing more provisions than usual (we planned a 2 month cruise). The night before departing from West Palm Beach I filled the water ballast, and was surprised to see over 2 inches of water in the "well" which encloses the air release plug. We were sitting 2 to 3 inches deeper in the water than usual, with all the supplies and gear on board.
I was a bit anxious about the crossing, 65 miles of open water to West End on Grand Bahama, easily the longest exposed passage we'd ever attempted. My plan was to cross as quickly as possible, which meant taking advantage of the Mac's speed. At 4 miles per gallon, with 29 gallons of fuel on board, I figured we had a comfortable fuel cushion for a full throttle run. We left Sailfish Marina at 4:30 am, motored through the Lake Worth Inlet and onto the Atlantic swell, dark ahead and receeding lights of Florida astern. I gave her full throttle but, with our extra weight, the 3 to 4 foot swell, and the "southing" we needed to make against the Gulf Stream in order to hit our destination, I could only get between 4000 and 4500 rpm's out of the motor (usually ran full at 5k) and speed was a disappointing 8.5 knots. I usually expect around 11 with typical cruising load. No matter, we were on our way, and the butterflies began to leave as dawn arrived. That is, until the engine cut out only 24 miles into the crossing. Well under halfway across, and we had consumed 12 gallons of gas. Under the conditions we were in, we only got 2 mpg.
At that rate it was clear that we would run out of fuel before making West End. Definitely time for a change in strategy. After switching tanks I let out the jib and began motor sailing, with the throttle down to about 2500 rpm. The boost of the sail plus lower rpm, along with less current as we got further across the Stream all aided in fuel economy. We completed the crossing on only 7 gallons of fuel, at an average speed of 5 to 6 knots. That worked out to 6 miles per gallon and a significantly extended cruising range.
From that time on, we rarely run at full throttle when motoring. I can usually average 6 knots at 2500 rpm, and generally figure 5 miles per gallon, with variations depending on wind, current, and ability to motor sail. Full throttle runs are limited to special situations such as making a scheduled bridge opening, reaching a rapids or anchorage at a desired tide/current stage, or making a short side trip where distance to the next fuel dock is not a concern. On 2 occasions in Southeast Alaska, distance to the next fuel dock approached 200 miles, and fuel efficiency was a significant issue.
I'm considering repowering with a 4 stroke, and will be looking for the best combination of fuel efficiency, quiet operation, and reliability. Weight will be less of an issue since, with our cruising gear aboard, our top end speed is already restricted (I heard somewhere that every 100 pounds of weight added costs about 1 mph of speed). I'm more interested in comfort and versatility aboard, along with maximum cruising range.
Nice point for the Macgregors ability to Motor/Sail. I appreciate hearing the balance of power, Sail and Engine. I would do the same in selecting the proper engine when due to replace your lightweight. Remember to keep the weight out of the extremities in maintaining some good Sailing characteristics, not to mention the sails ability to steady the boat when motoring.
