MacGregorSailors.com

Id like to know liability personally. Say some lawyer finds out the engine was bigger than what the boats rated for. Does that mean coverage is dropped? Ive heard that but dont really know how it is practically. But I can imagine any insurer or lawyer trying to find any legalize to get out of paying a settlement or getting a bigger one on the flip side of that.

pitchpolehobie wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 3:12 pm Id like to know liability personally. Say some lawyer finds out the engine was bigger than what the boats rated for. Does that mean coverage is dropped? Ive heard that but dont really know how it is practically. But I can imagine any insurer or lawyer trying to find any legalize to get out of paying a settlement or getting a bigger one on the flip side of that.

Hmm I never thought about the legal aspect, being Canadian. Here, I call my home insurance company, say I'd like to change my insurance to cover a new 90HP motor on my Mac26X, they say fine, add $50/yr to cover the new higher valuation. Done. And if something happens, I have 100% confidence that they'll pay out.

In the USA I understand that things are a bit different than what I'm used to.

I think when you set up insurance, you have to say what hp you have.

For liability, there would need to be a connection between the motor and the harm. For instance, if the motor caused the boat to be unsafe, and had you had a motor within limits the harm would not have occurred. Like if the extra weight /power resulted in boat hill material fatigue which in turn resulted in someone being harmed such as through a drowning.

Just having a higher hp motor doesn’t necessarily increase law suit risk unless that higher motor has resulted in proximal harm.

This is merely my lay opinion and does not constitute legal advice.

pitchpolehobie wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 3:12 pm Id like to know liability personally. Say some lawyer finds out the engine was bigger than what the boats rated for. Does that mean coverage is dropped? Ive heard that but dont really know how it is practically. But I can imagine any insurer or lawyer trying to find any legalize to get out of paying a settlement or getting a bigger one on the flip side of that.

Funny thing about lawsuits/legal actions. You never know how they'll shake out. If there is an accident, the attorneys will be gleeful when they see that the manual clearly states:

The boat is designed for an outboard motor of no more than 50 horsepower. Do not use a larger engine.

Whether a jury will buy that motor size had anything to do with the accident is the wild card (and somewhat dependent on the nature of the accident).

Rules for a 26 ft boat with wheel steering and the beam of an X or M, would probably allow a bigger motor than anyone has ever installed. However, the manufacturer statement will override the general rules. But, how many enforcement officials carry around a manual for an X or M? I looked over my boat thoroughly and can't find anything on display that shows max motor size. I doubt you'd ever have an issue if boarded.

Insurance is another wild card. Insurers routinely pay claims for owner stupidity. This may be viewed differently than setting your kitchen on fire because you started frying chicken on the stove, saw your neighbor drive up in a new corvette, and ran out to see it - completely forgetting the chicken - until you smelled smoke (not me, but true story of stupidity claim actually paid). Knowing that the manufacturer limited horsepower, then deliberately exceeding that horsepower, may or may not be viewed as a payable situation if anything goes bad. Best bet would be to call the insurer and check (I can guess what the official answer will be).

Will the transom actually withstand a 90, or a 115? We have members that can verify it will for more than a minimum number of hours.

I'm a rule follower (mostly). Unfortunately, my boat came from the dealer with a 60hp (2013 M). According to the manufacturer instructions on this site, 50hp is still the max. Do you think I'm going to pull it off and buy a 50? Not while it will still run.

Your boat, your rules.

JaxMacX wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:23 pm

This is merely my lay opinion and does not constitute legal advice.

sounds like something a lawyer would say.

Power boats have a horsepower rating plaque that you legally are supposed to obey. Sailboats do not have a placard, because, you know it's a sailboat. Just because our Mac's can make use of big engines, we still fall into the loophole of being a sailboat. In the US you could put a 400hp OB on it and be "legal".

Hi VkMaynard

I’m glad you are having a good experience with your engine and Mac combination.
I really am!

If you choose to operate beyond the original design/manufacturer’s recommendations then that is your choice as was stated earlier.
I can understand your angst at someone pointing out that there are considerations beyond it fitting and not immediately obviously breaking something.

The point is the manufacturer’s design and analysis data isn’t in the public domain, it is still Rodger MacGregor’s intellectual property or that of his business heirs.

As it would appear you (or I) dont’t have the manufacturers design and analysis, nor does it appear that you have a valid independent engineering design analysis related to oversized engines, then as was stated earlier, the only real valid engine size reference are the original design/manufacturer’s recommendations. That doesn’t negate the general design considerations.

The original question was “what was the max engine size recommendation?”
The answer is found in the manufacturer’s max engine recommendation which is 50 hp for all years of the Mac26X and Mac26M per the manufacturer’s manual recommendations under ‘Powering’ sections as can be found in the resources tab of this forum.



Beyond that manufacturer’s recommended engine size the owner is basically doing it at risk as a pioneer.
Pointing that out and attempting to describe the general design engineering considerations involved isn’t ‘scare tactics’ or ‘fear-mongering’ by any rational measure, it’s factual.

There isn’t any credible data to substantiate a larger engine choice other than what can be term ‘anecdotal’ or ‘word of mouth’ or what they have ‘gotten away with’ (which is their choice) but isn’t substantiated by the designer/manufacturer’s recommendations or substantiated engineering analysis.

As others have pointed out there are also valid legal and insurance and disclosure obligation considerations.
Most liability insurance policies have what is colloquially termed a ‘failure to disclose clause’ which means if you didn’t disclose to the insurer that you have a principle component (like an over size engine) they can or reserve the right to cancel or void a policy or claim.
Generally if you explicitly disclose the accurate condition and components (like an oversized engine) then they are aware of the condition and generally make a reasonable assessment of the risk and adjust their premium price accordingly.

Now when it comes to the aspect of a lawful marine law enforcement (such as USCG or other agency with jurisdiction) not having an engine size placard visible may not be relevant as they have the option (and the means should they choose) to access vessel databases based upon designer/manufacturer’s recommendations. (What an agency with jurisdiction chooses to do if/when an incident occurs relevant to an oversized engine is beyond me….).

This is not fearmongering, it’s the factual realities that a responsible owner should consider when choosing to install an oversized engine.

You may not like it, I may not like it, but it is what it is.

Again Victor, I’m glad, very glad, you and others are enjoying their oversized engine choices and are apparently not having experienced/reported associated issues.

Again, Best Regards
Over Easy

There is no "maximum HP" plaque on a Mac (at least the 26Xs). The manufacturer gave RECOMMENDED HP ratings, and gave an explanation in their brochures of why they chose those recommendations. They had nothing to do with safety. Weight of motor, easier to pull start, uses less fuel. They were things mentioned in the somewhat infancy of 4-stroke O/B designs. I always kept a laminated copy of USSCG regs showing how the 26X could be rated. With their formulas, you could use a 270hp outboard ..... but their is no way I would do that. But, my 4-stroke 70 Yamaha weighed almost the same as the 50s from 30 years ago. If you go larger than that, it would be wise to beef up the transom are to be safe. And my insurance asked what the max hp rating is for the boat, and I explained the manufacturer DID NOT put a placard on the boat, and gave them the USCG regs link for their reference. Had no problem.

USCG regs:
https://www.govregs.com/regulations/tit ... tion183.53

Associated plaque I made:



matt, Lt, USCGR retired

My wife told me on our honeymoon that "bigger is better". That should count for something.

OverEasy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:03 am
There isn’t any credible data to substantiate a larger engine choice other than what can be term ‘anecdotal’ or ‘word of mouth’ or what they have ‘gotten away with’ (which is their choice) but isn’t substantiated by the designer/manufacturer’s recommendations or substantiated engineering analysis.

Hi MallardAdjusted!

Yer pranking me …Right?

Hi MallardAdjusted!

This is getting a bit on the ridiculous side.
Reminds me of the pseudo debaters in the school cafeteria conversations about how to travel faster than the speed of light or going backward in time…. … Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to but it just ain’t gonna happen

I know from your other posts that you are smarter than this so I figure your jus pranking me.
But all the same not quite sure where you are coming from….as some might actually think you found the ‘golden loophole’….. not.

The reference to the general design reference 183.53 is interesting but something of a red herring given the manufacturer’s explicit statement:


The USCG gives deliberate deference to the manufacturer’s stated recommendations over that of general guidance information. This is because the manufacturer is better positioned to know what the actual construction/design/materials utilized. These specific aspects are the limiting characteristics, not generalized guidance information.

The 183.53 general guidance is non-specific reference material that doesn’t address what the material is, the fabrication process or the actual design characteristics.

The 183.53 guidance is an envelope baseline reference for preliminary design guidance. It is providing an upper reference potential horsepower limit for a generalized external envelope for a potential vessel have a proposed length and width. It is not a license to mount that engine on an actual vessel based upon that simplified generalized calculation. No competent cognizant USCG Design Engineering Office would allow that.

While you might have attempted to befuddle a particular insurance agent with this I doubt that the underwriters engineer would give it any relevant credence. (The aspect that you declared it is the item of merit in this and that is your ace in the hole regardless of whether the agent adjusted the policy cost or not relevant to the engine size. That or the agent humored you and just faked it by not giving you the higher policy cost as a discount for multiple policies or customer loyalty like my insurance agent does when I’m up front with actualitys rather than hiding them . )

So, let me ask the obvious question:
Q: If a boat is made of tissue paper, varnish, and cellophane tape by 8 year olds to the external envelope geometry of a Mac26X then you still propose that you could legitimately hang a 270 hp engine on it based on 183.53?
A: Obviously not, you’re smarter than that!

Similarly, any manual comment related to engine size about pull starting, weight, fuel economy, etc… are only consolation remarks to salve those whose desires leaned toward larger engines for whatever reasons they may have …..

MacGregor wasn’t a dolt. He was a sharp intelligent capable individual who was more than smart enough to have competent talented individuals working for and advising him. He also very deliberately made the specific statement regarding engine power:
“The boat is designed for an outboard motor of no more than 50 horsepower. Do not use a larger engine.”

Now if someone wants to know the maximum recommended horsepower for a Mac26X or a Mac26M it is 50 hp per the manufacturer.

Similarly, if someone chooses to install a larger oversized engine they are exceeding the manufacturer’s recommendation and are doing so ‘at risk’ or in other words are acting as pioneers seeking to personally find out how far they can go and ‘get away with’.

Personally I think it’s great that there are those individuals willing to do this as it give me greater confidence in the inherent strength and durability of the Mac26X and Mac26M design, materials and construction. I find it reassuring and gives me confidence in our vessel that it has the potential to adequately handle what may be incurred during normal and reasonable adverse circumstances.

I still figure you’re pranking me…

Best Regards
Over Easy

Apparently my voice to text software wasn’t working correctly. I told it I installed (1) 50hp engine and it came out 115hp. Sorry for the mistake.

OverEasy,
If you have to write 1000's of words to explain you are not fearmongering then .... you are fearmongering. Apologize to Victor and let's all get back to our normal best-boating-forum in the world. The rule seems to always have been here, be kind.
Nothing has happened to higher hp Macs. So, clearly, by definition, your point is what Victor said it was.

Are you implying that Star Trek is not based on fact?

OverEasy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:42 pm
Reminds me of the pseudo debaters in the school cafeteria conversations about how to travel faster than the speed of light or going backward in time…. … Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to but it just ain’t gonna happen

OverEasy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:09 pm Hi MallardAdjusted!

Yer pranking me …Right?

Nope, those are the "rules" I was referencing. Maybe you missed the bottom of his post, "Lt, USCGR retired".

Testing complex structures/assemblies to failure is a common verification methodology. Fortunately, no one on this board has found the horsepower limit (yet).

But, no matter. Unless someone is going to run an analysis on the structure of the X or M, and get a solid answer with reasonable margins for safety, this thread has run its course.

Everyone needs to agree to disagree and move on so the moderators don't have to shut it down.