Twin Engines?

[markshoreline]

I just read an archived reply about purchasing a C-Dory 22 that said, "get twin engines if you can". Is this really the case? It seems that a single 75-90 would get better fuel economy and coupled with a 9.9 high thrust kicker would give good trolling plus be less expensive to purchase while giving an emergency ride home when needed.

So what's so hot about little twins?

Speaking strictly from ignorance, of course!

Thanks
Mark

[colobear]

There have been several threads on this topic. You might use the search feature to find them. The consensus is...no consensus, ford or chevy, etc.

[REBEMUP]

The amazing thing is how many words have been written and how many factors found to favor one over the other. Still no conclusion.

Looking at the Marinaut 215 advertisement at the top of the page were I am composing this...I notice no capability for twins...hence... he...he.....

Ron

[Chester]

Bottom line, twins look cooler...

[hambone]

For me it's nothing more than having a second motor to come in on if I were to loose one, nothing more. Yes, you can come in on a kicker, but if you have ever done it for any distance in rough seas you know why there is another big motor on my boat. Single or double all work fine. It's a personal choice, nothing more.

H

[davewilke1]

This question comes to the forefront for us. I have been attempting to research the pros & cons of choices for the motor(s) on our new boat. (Currently we are leaning toward the V26.) The Kenneth Wayne will have as part of it's mission great lakes capability. I've read the arguement that most engine failures are due to fuel problems and would affect both motors. If the engines and tanks are new and care is taken in fuel selection, is this really a concern? Does anyone have any fuel burn numbers for single vs twin in the 200 total HP range? Decisions, decisions!

[Will-C]

Twins are heavier ,more expensive to buy and rig. They are usually a little slower because of the added weight and drag. They offer the option of running on one to conserve fuel. If you boat can't plane on one of your twins why bother? I wanted a boat with twins I settled for a single and will add a kicker in the near future for fishing and using it to save fuel where the bigger motor is not needed. With todays additives that are commonly used and recommended along with 10 micron fuel filters bad fuel should be less of a problem.
DaveWilke1,
Check with Eric who owns a 25' cruiser Chack Chack. He has a 200 hp Suzuki and has completed the Great Loop. He raves about his boats performance. I would lean towards a 175 or 200 hp. Some have run twin 90's although most on this site have 135 or 150 hp Honda's.
The new lighter Yamaha 70's in a twin set up might be a consideration. The Venture's sharper v up front lets this boat cruise faster in a chop than the older mostly flat bottom 25' Cruisers. A Venture 26 is a little heavier than a 25' Cruiser so maybe the extra hp is not a bad idea. It all depends on what you are looking for, higher speeds, are you going to load the boat heavy? Maybe the big single 200 hp is for you. Or you are happy going slower, the boat won't be loaded that heavy, mostly just two people aboard and you adore saving fuel then maybe a set of 70 hp twins is in your future. Or a 135 or 150 hp single. But make no mistake an under powered boat is no fun. Loafing along a 30 mph sometimes is fun when you have boring miles you want to burn down.
D.D.

[potter water]

Just ask yourself. Assuming you are a typical airline passenger. Are you happier to see two engines on the airplane? Or would you be just as happy if there was only one engine on the airplane you are about to board? Seems like a simple choice to me.

[Grumpy]

I'll settle for 4 on airplanes, only because they don't make 'em with 5
But then, I'm biased and the ticket price is the same. Not quite so with my boat but 2 works for me.

M

[potter water]

I suppose another question might be. If you want to board a plane with two engines how would you feel if one of them was only one tenth the power of the big one?

[ghone]

Yes there is lots of discussion on this one. Several threads. It also depends where you do your boating. In many places like the San Juan's we see twins predominantly. In BC single with a kicker many times. On the west coast of BC with first nations, usually singles only. Arctic waters of USA and Canada, singles only. I am a single only guy as I maintain the heck out of the engine. What the mechanic says that's what I do. In many cases we see twins or single and kicker boats as well as single only disabled due to bad fuel or electrical issues So if you get bad fuel, what kills the main in short order kills the kicker. In my area we even see triples with a kicker on 31 ft Boston whalers. The owners are worried alot it seems hard to pay for or maintain. A single is simple and easy to maintain. Therefore much discussion and no answer. Take your pick. Good luck and welcome aboard. George

[localboy]

[T.R. Bauer]

It is mostly about money. Twins cost lots of $ to buy and keep up. There is an added degree of safety with twins, but a kicker will get you back too. I have twins and an 4 hp kicker I use primarily for trolling for kings and for tooling around in the dingy. It probably would eventually get a guy back to the dock too, but with a top speed of around 3.5-5 mph, the 4 hp would take forever....

Really, it is up to you and if you think twins are worth it or not. When I repower, hopefully a long time off, I will go with a single 90 of sorts as twin 50s are really outside of my budget.

As noted, there really is not going to ever be any consensus on this.

[Dora~Jean]

I think there's more than a few reasons to go with a single or twin, and they've all been explored on this site -- more than a few times!

1) It depends on how far offshore, how far away from a safe haven and how much inclimate weather can come up quickly in the area you typically boat in. For me, I go offshore 20-50 miles typically, that's a LONG way to come home on a kicker at 5-6 knots (or less if going into seas/wind).

2) Lots of people say fuel is the biggest killer of engines when least expected. I've owned my boat for 9 years, 1000's of miles, never had a failure due to fuel. But I have had an engine fail for the following reasons:
a) Regulator burned up (probably my fault for paralleling a dead battery months earlier while running).
b) Kelp or a plastic bag caught in the prop while running, docking or pulling up to a mooring. This is the most compelling reason for me to have twins, you're very near other boats, usually a wind blowing, you must maintain control. This has happened numerous times for me, Catalina seems to have an abundance of kelp in some of the closer to shore moorings.

So for me, with my type and distance of boating, twins work and the extra maintenance cost and effort is minimal, at least for me since I do most all on my own. The initial cost was more than a main and kicker, yes.

I also like the extra turning control when docking or maneuvering. I get on average about 2.75 nm/gal, not much different than a single from the comparisons I've read. Plus of course -- they're cool....

[colobear]

We have twin 40's. If I were to repower I would go with twin 50's. I can just barely plane with one engine when heavily loaded. Twins IMHO allow me a greater safety margin, currents here, in my cruising area, often run well over 4kts. A kicker that gives me 4-5kts might not be enough for safety in bad weather and opposing currents. I can spin the boat in its own length, use opposing propulsion, one in forward one in reverse, to maneuver in tight spots, etc. I don't know the exact costs but two Honda 40's are about $10,200 not twice as costly as a single 90 which is about $9300. When you add in a 9.9hp kicker at about $2300 you actually spend more for the single and kicker. Maintenance cost differences are not as great as you might think. I have a total of six cylinders, a 90hp has a total of 6 cylinders, I think. Yes I have to buy two fuel filters, oil filters, impellers instead of just one but the bigger ones needed for a single cost more. And, don't forget the kicker has maintenance costs too. Yes there is some weight penalty but I'd check the actual figures. Modern engines are so reliable I'd be comfortable with either a single or twins but I am overall more comfortable with twins, I like redundancy in mechanical systems that can mean my safety. Example, I am going out Deception Pass against a strong 7kt flood and an engine dies. I push throttle forward on the other engine and proceed. With a single plus kicker, I leave the helm, go to the cockpit, put the kicker down, start it and....