etec issue

[bahama bound]

I repowered with a brand new 90 etec ,I do not believe anything serious is wrong with the motor ! Would love to get it out of my shed I would take 1650.00 for it .new motor did the same thing ended up being those cheap Attwood universal connectors.

[BOAT]

I repowered with a brand new 90 etec ,I do not believe anything serious is wrong with the motor ! Would love to get it out of my shed I would take 1650.00 for it .new motor did the same thing ended up being those cheap Attwood universal connectors.

Let me get this straight - you went through all that hull and it was all because of the external fuel connectors from the tank to the motor????

The gasoline was not flowing fast enough through a cheap hose connector?? THAT'S IT??? It was an obvious fuel line obstruction and you never checked the actual hose that feeds the fuel to the motor??

And now you say you have a 90 HP etec for sail for $1600 dollars?? This thread is getting really stranger and stranger.

[Jimmyt]

He had a 75 Etec, but wanted a new 90. Now he's selling the 75 he took off for $1600...

[BOAT]

He had a 75 Etec, but wanted a new 90. Now he's selling the 75 he took off for $1600...

Wow, how fast will an X boat go with a 90 HP motor? That's a big motor, right? Gonna suck a LOT of gas at WOT - that explains why it was choking on the stock fuel hose.

[Jimmyt]

That's a pretty popular engine size in this crowd. Several guys are running 90s. Even one of the guys down here is running one on his 26x.

I'm happy with my 60 for the small amount of time the kids want to go fast. It was really nice when we had to run straight against the wind to beat darkness back to the ramp, too.

Of course, with a 90 I could break out the old slalom ski.... Probably just hurt myself.

[BOAT]

Yeah, but HOW FAST? How fast does the X go with a 90 ?? Is it a LOT faster? Are people really going to go WOT with a 90 for traveling purposes? Or is it just because they want to tow toys and stuff? What is the reason for the 90? If it's only difference between 17 knots and 20 knots it's not worth it - three more knots per hour on a 24 gallon tank is not going to make much of a difference since you can only run like that for a few hours.

What is the reason for the popular engine size for this crowd? Why do they do it? Is it only an X thing or do they do that sort of thing on M boats too? Seems like it would make more sense on the X boat.

[Jimmyt]

Best I can tell, low to mid 20's (mph). Had a hard time finding it quickly in old posts. Maybe one of the guys with one will chime in.

I can do 19.5 mph over ground with my 60, no ballast, four skinny crew. Little, or no, current in the mix.

[Starscream]

Yeah, but HOW FAST? How fast does the X go with a 90 ?? Is it a LOT faster? Are people really going to go WOT with a 90 for traveling purposes? Or is it just because they want to tow toys and stuff? What is the reason for the 90? If it's only difference between 17 knots and 20 knots it's not worth it - three more knots per hour on a 24 gallon tank is not going to make much of a difference since you can only run like that for a few hours.

What is the reason for the popular engine size for this crowd? Why do they do it? Is it only an X thing or do they do that sort of thing on M boats too? Seems like it would make more sense on the X boat.

20 MPH fully loaded and ballasted, 24 MPH with no ballast. Why? Lots of reasons:

Kids. With three young boys, 6,8,10 years old, it's really not about sailing it's about going places...beaches, towns, hiking, castles. We have all those things in our cruising grounds of Lake Champlain NY, the Thousand Islands ON, Baskatong QC, Lake George NY, etc. On a real sailboat, in two hours you have a 10 mile radius before the journey is too long for the kids. With a 90 on the back, we have a 40 mile radius in the same time, or the same distance but with an extra 1.5 hours to enjoy being there. Sure the kids love to sail, sometimes, especially on a reach where we try to break speed records, or on a run where we barbecue hot dogs and play chess in the cockpit. But sometimes, sailing takes too long to get anywhere, so the 90 is just perfect for the way we cruise.

Safety. I sometimes make mistakes. The 90 will get me off the lake in a hurry if I need to.

Fun. One of our favorite things to do with the kids in September is to head down to the Marina after school, blast out to our favorite swimming grounds at 20mph, have a swim before the sun goes down, then a calm half-hour sunset sail back to the marina. The kids have a blast at full speed, especially in the channels where we can race other boats and fire our imaginary cannons.

If it was just me and my wife, a real sailboat would be just fine. We're in no rush to go anywhere, and a 5 hour round trip from Alexandria Bay NY to Singer Castle sounds like heaven. If we did that with our kids, they probably wouldn't be looking forward so much to this upcoming summer. So instead, it's a half hour run at 20mph to the castle, chasing huge lakers and tour boats on the way, then explore the castle, eat, then a leisurely half-hour sail while the winds are good gets us halfway back, followed by another high speed run that gets us back to town for the Alexandria Bay car show. That's why the 90.

It just gives us a lot of options, and maximizes our use of the boat. Gas? Yeah, it eats fuel at WOT, no question. Just have to plan ahead and it's never been an issue. One time, two years ago, we spent four days in the 1000 island region and spent $8 in gas because the winds were PERFECT every day, blowing 90 degrees to where we wanted to go every time we headed out on the water. The kids loved that trip too, but the overall distance we travelled was low and we spent lots of time exploring the area on land. That was a one-in-a-thousand trip, though.

[bahama bound]

No I tried other tanks and hoses ,went to my local etec dealer and he had a left over 2015 etec 90 for like 6500.00 bucks with 6 year warranty I thought it was a great deal .i still think this motor needs fuel system cleaned ! If it was me I would replace fuel pump ,vst filter and have injectors cleaned . It sat for 3 years with bad fuel .

[BOAT]

The 2015 90 for that 6 grand price is a very good deal. You can't go wrong with that - as for the need for all that HP:

As starscream said the kid thing for the 90 makes total sense to me and that is sort of what i thought - to pull the toys and keep bored kids from getting bored. That makes perfect sense to me – I knew it could not be for speed. That extra 3 miles per hour is not going to make a hills-beans difference getting to a place 10 minutes faster – but if you do have 4 kids and parents on board it would make sense to have 90 HP to push the boat with a full ballast tank for safety of the kids and all the extra weight. With all that weight and ballast a 60 is only going to go 17 miles per hour. Even my stock boat with two people and no ballast only goes 21.5 mph at WOT but really backing off to 20 is just fine for me and will get me wherever I want to go as fast as I want to be there and with fuel to spare.

You guys with the 90’s might want to check out the new 17 gallon tanks at BWY – that would make your capacity 34 gallons - your gonna need it.

[Tomfoolery]

My BF50 will only push the boat to 16 mph with no ballast. I don't believe it's fully on-plane, either, if such a thing exists for these hulls. The extra power may bring the bow over and, while not being efficient per se, may allow faster speeds with relatively little less power requirement once it's on-plane.

Someone here has done a bit of study on the subject, though I don't remember who, nor what the outcome was, nor if it was even applicable to the . But plowing along at full throttle with 50 hp doesn't feel like it's quite out of the giant gas-sucking-for-its-speed range, like when big power boats are going at half-speed and kicking up giant wakes (where getting up on plane would make less of a mess of the surface, for the rest of us to enjoy while hanging on for dear life).

[BOAT]

No, 'boat' is defiantly getting totally out of the water when the motor is going fast - last time out with a buddy we were actually getting some air in the swells at less than full throttle - and also I noticed there was no spray over the sides.

When I have full ballast and i run up the motor to WOT there is a LOT of spray and if it is windy the spray will even blow into the cockpit but if I open the valve and let the water out the boat stops spraying water and 'boat' goes faster. I really think it's all about weight - which is why a 90 makes sense to me if your practice is to run WOT with full ballast and 5 people on board - in that situation a 90 will make the boat get out of the water more - but since I have no 90 I really can't say. I do know that 'boat' gets well up on top of the water when empty - not so much when full, (ballast, that is).

[Seapup]

My BF50 will only push the boat to 16 mph with no ballast. I don't believe it's fully on-plane, either, if such a thing exists for these hulls. The extra power may bring the bow over and, while not being efficient per se, may allow faster speeds with relatively little less power requirement once it's on-plane.

Wow, how fast will an X boat go with a 90 HP motor? That's a big motor, right? Gonna suck a LOT of gas at WOT - that explains why it was choking on the stock fuel hose.

I'll play

My experience was with the honda 50 and suzuki 90 on the same boat. My was slow and heavy with bottom paint.

At low speeds they burned the same fuel, but the 90 turned 1/3 lower RPMs for the same speed so was much quieter and the 4cyl was smoother.

99% of the time I ran fast or slow, little inbetween. The honda was too slow, noisy, & inefficient at WOT to make running it at WOT desirable so I didn't. The 90 was actually fast enough to make it powerboat fun to run it WOT, so I did whenever I had the opportunity.

I only saw 16mph in ideal configuration with my honda 50, same configuration with the suzuki 90 did 28mph. Real world for me was about 13 mph and 24mph. WOT Honda used 5gph and suzuki 7gph

In theory the suzuki 90 would take 3 hours and 21 gallons to get to catalina and honda 50 would take 6 hours and 30 gallons.

BUT that does not take into account the magic factor needed for computing macgregor performance in their home state waters of CA.

[BOAT]

My BF50 will only push the boat to 16 mph with no ballast. I don't believe it's fully on-plane, either, if such a thing exists for these hulls. The extra power may bring the bow over and, while not being efficient per se, may allow faster speeds with relatively little less power requirement once it's on-plane.

Wow, how fast will an X boat go with a 90 HP motor? That's a big motor, right? Gonna suck a LOT of gas at WOT - that explains why it was choking on the stock fuel hose.

I'll play

My experience was with the honda 50 and suzuki 90 on the same boat. My was slow and heavy with bottom paint.

At low speeds they burned the same fuel, but the 90 turned 1/3 lower RPMs for the same speed so was much quieter and the 4cyl was smoother.

99% of the time I ran fast or slow, little inbetween. The honda was too slow, noisy, & inefficient at WOT to make running it at WOT desirable so I didn't. The 90 was actually fast enough to make it powerboat fun to run it WOT, so I did whenever I had the opportunity.

I only saw 16mph in ideal configuration with my honda 50, same configuration with the suzuki 90 did 28mph. Real world for me was about 13 mph and 24mph. WOT Honda used 5gph and suzuki 7gph

In theory the suzuki 90 would take 3 hours and 21 gallons to get to catalina and honda 50 would take 6 hours and 30 gallons.

BUT that does not take into account the magic factor needed for computing macgregor performance in their home state waters of CA.

Trust me - the "in" theory is way over ambitious - the numbers don't add up - at 28MPH it's a 84 mile trip but at 16 it's 96 miles? Or is it 3 hours at 24 MPH? (=72miles) yet at 13 MPH in 6 hours that's 78 miles? Your speed does not change the distance. It does not matter, because your not going to make the run to Catalina at WOT with any motor - and even if you had a 28MPH top speed you could never hold that getting across the San Pedro channel - the boat would get pounded to death in the sea - it's more reasonable to hold an average speed of about 13 knots under power on that crossing and even the Catalina Express boats only average 20.

In really good flat sea conditions you could open up either engine close to WOT and then pull back a little to save fuel and get like you said about 24MPH (plenty fast) but even with a 60 going a little off WOT you can hold 19MPH pretty good but on a 50 mile trip that is only a difference of thirty minutes. I don't quite accept your "in theory" numbers and as a person that has done the trip many time under power and under sail I can say that most folks even in power boats will ride the calm seas in the AM at a brisk 20MPH and then pull back to around 15 for the final 10 miles into Avalon because of the swells, but to each his own I guess.

It could be as I suspected that the X boat does a better job at planing the water with a big motor than the M boat does. That would bring in the macgregor performance correction factor for the M boat which is more designed and suited for the home waters of the Pacific than the X boat is.

[Seapup]

Trust me - the "in" theory is way over ambitious

Ahhh, I have never been real good with numbers. I didn't realize catalina was so close right off the coast, I always thought it was out there in the ocean. I guess I would have to get a couple computer bones hooked up with some buzzers and lights or something to wake me up and let me know I was there.

You guys with the 90’s might want to check out the new 17 gallon tanks at BWY – that would make your capacity 34 gallons - your gonna need it.

Cool. So with a bigger motor I need to get a bigger tank. Got it. Check.

Is 34 gallons enough? How much more fuel will the bigger motor need than the smaller motor to go like 75 miles wide open? Is 34 over 24 gallons enough extra fuel for the big motor to go the distance?