25 motor size
- Thread starter dutch123
- Start date
Yes, as long as you don't feel the need to cruise over 20-25 MPH and top out at about 30. VTEC is the only difference between the 135 and the 150 and since torque is king and both engines have nearly identical torque curves, their performance below 4500 RPM is quite similar.
Our 2004 25 (135 Honda) performed very well on the open Pacific Ocean (Oregon Coast) and we never felt the need for more power (any day that I can do 20 MPH on the Pacific is a great day... most are 12-14 MPH).
Our 2004 25 (135 Honda) performed very well on the open Pacific Ocean (Oregon Coast) and we never felt the need for more power (any day that I can do 20 MPH on the Pacific is a great day... most are 12-14 MPH).
Joe, the Honda 130 (137 cu in) is on a different displacement block than the Honda 135 and 150 (144 cu in). By dropping the prop pitch down (to 11" as I recollect) the new owner of Frequent Sea, got adequate performance on the Honda 130 at Lake Powell (about 3700 feet)...
The Honda 135 is what the factory recommended when we ordered our 25, back in 2006. As has been stated here, there is very little difference between that and the 150 until you are running above 4800 rpm. We often run heavily loaded for cruising, and only at higher elevations have we wished for more power. We generally cruise at 6 knots or 16-18 knots, and the 135 has no problem with that. When our boat is lightly loaded, we can get 30 knots out of it (sea level, flat water), but that is a rare circumstance in our experience.
I originally inquired about twin 90s, but at the time, the Honda 90s were not fuel injected. More horsepower is not a bad thing, but the 135 has been great for the way we use our boat.
Best wishes,
Jim B.
I originally inquired about twin 90s, but at the time, the Honda 90s were not fuel injected. More horsepower is not a bad thing, but the 135 has been great for the way we use our boat.
Best wishes,
Jim B.
jkidd
Active member
If you look at just the hull weight to horse power and then compare it to what people are putting on the CD22s some thing is out of wack. It looks like the 135 would be about the same as a 70 on the CD22. If there is no plan to run the boat at altitude looks like they perform ok. At Yellowstone I still want some more power. Of course it would help if I would leave 500lbs of gear at home. Just something to think about.
journey on
New member
Jody, it's worse than what you think. My estimate is that when we cruise with Journey On, we weigh about 7400 lbs, with 2 people on board. And yet we're happy and the boat does well. And good. At 7400/150 = 50 lbs/hp. I don't know is you can double the C-22 weight.
The advertised boat weight for a C-25 is awfully low, and must be for just a bare hull with no interior, etc. Remember, there's no batteries, hot water heater, and most important, no cruising gear. And no engine. Or people.
And as for reaching 30 knts, that water must be as smooth as glass. I've had it up to 25 knts in San Diego Bay, with some small ripples, and I thought the darn thing was going to fall apart. We'll cruise at 14-18 knts and be happy.
Also, the Honda 135 and 150 ARE THE SAME engine, except for the 150's hydraulic mechanism which puts a different cam profile in use above 4000 RPM. Up to 4000 RPM, they put out exactly the same HP.
Boris
The advertised boat weight for a C-25 is awfully low, and must be for just a bare hull with no interior, etc. Remember, there's no batteries, hot water heater, and most important, no cruising gear. And no engine. Or people.
And as for reaching 30 knts, that water must be as smooth as glass. I've had it up to 25 knts in San Diego Bay, with some small ripples, and I thought the darn thing was going to fall apart. We'll cruise at 14-18 knts and be happy.
Also, the Honda 135 and 150 ARE THE SAME engine, except for the 150's hydraulic mechanism which puts a different cam profile in use above 4000 RPM. Up to 4000 RPM, they put out exactly the same HP.
Boris
Jeff Brigner
New member
I would recommend the Suzuki 175. Like mentioned earlier the weight on all engines are close. The Suzuki 175 has VVT which helps get power from off the line to get on plane or anything else power comes in handy for. The Suzuki 150 and 175 are identical except for the VVT and both swing a 16" prop which also is very handy. My 150 is so quiet at idle you must look to see if it is running and at trawler speeds you can set beside it and carry on a conversation without raising your voice. Full load, full power I get 32 mph @ 5400 rpm. The alternator also puts out 40 where most other motors are 30. Thats a big help with running electronics, fridge and still recharging. Good luck!
Like the saying goes "you don't want to be left want'n" :smiled
Like the saying goes "you don't want to be left want'n" :smiled
I would agree and that 175 sounds nice. I am very much into ringing out a little motor on a motorcycle or in a small sports car but not at all on a boat. I don't care much about top speed, the ability to run from a storm, or running in before dark as much as just feeling good about a motor or motors casually, quietly, and easily performing their work without ever being overworked.
For the constant rpm/load running that a boat generally requires, I think that is the way to go. There is nothing more nerve wracking to me hearing or even feeling like an engine is struggling hour after hour. I am not into whipping a tired horse.
We have twin 90s and the power does not seem excessive after 300 hours of use. We run a little heavier than normal but we should be able to in a cruising boat. If I were to go to a single it would be a 175 or even a 200 with no doubt and I would still cruise at 17 knots.
For the constant rpm/load running that a boat generally requires, I think that is the way to go. There is nothing more nerve wracking to me hearing or even feeling like an engine is struggling hour after hour. I am not into whipping a tired horse.
We have twin 90s and the power does not seem excessive after 300 hours of use. We run a little heavier than normal but we should be able to in a cruising boat. If I were to go to a single it would be a 175 or even a 200 with no doubt and I would still cruise at 17 knots.
Said it before and will say it again. I really believe that 175HP is about perfect for the 25. This limits you to the big block Suzuki and E-Tec but hard to disparage either brand (except for that 4stroke nonsense).
If you go 200HP (other than the E-Tec) or with twin 90’s you put a lot weight on the transom, fine for some but not my cup of tea for a number of reasons.
200HP moves you into the slightly overpowered range (last prop tweak gave me 40Mph WFO) and C-Dorys are not 40 MPH boats.
Most of my trips on the pacific are 12 to 14 mph slogs through rough and sloppy seas also but 200HP will let me jump on the back of a swell and stay with it fully loaded and I know my much loved Yamaha 115 was waaaay underpowered in those conditions.
Other than the upfront cost what is down side of more power? My 200 gives the same economy as a 135 or 150 at the same speed with less stress on the motor and includes the option of more power if needed.
stevej
If you go 200HP (other than the E-Tec) or with twin 90’s you put a lot weight on the transom, fine for some but not my cup of tea for a number of reasons.
200HP moves you into the slightly overpowered range (last prop tweak gave me 40Mph WFO) and C-Dorys are not 40 MPH boats.
Most of my trips on the pacific are 12 to 14 mph slogs through rough and sloppy seas also but 200HP will let me jump on the back of a swell and stay with it fully loaded and I know my much loved Yamaha 115 was waaaay underpowered in those conditions.
Other than the upfront cost what is down side of more power? My 200 gives the same economy as a 135 or 150 at the same speed with less stress on the motor and includes the option of more power if needed.
stevej
starcrafttom
Active member
I have a 225 honda on my 27. and the way we load a boat we need it. I find that I can run anywhere from 15 to 30 mph at the same mpg and in a following sea I like to run towards 30. I have to agree that I like running a engine at half throttle a lot better then full throttle most of the time. Now if I have to get to cover I can run 40 in the smooth stuff but I can still run 30 in the 2 to 4 chop because of the weight and the lenght of the boat.
Just like radar ,spare tires, saftey equipment and fire arms, when you need them you better have them on you cause you will not have the ablitliy to go get them.
Just like radar ,spare tires, saftey equipment and fire arms, when you need them you better have them on you cause you will not have the ablitliy to go get them.
I think the reason the loaded up CD-25's tend to run so much heavier proportionately than a loaded up CD-22 is the internal volume relationship.
There's simply a lot more room in a 25 than a 22 in which to cram extra stuff! (Some of which you may not really need!) Add in the head/shower and any other accommodations that allow the Admiral to bring on her accompanying baggage/equipment/wardrobe/necessities, and the weight can go through the roof!
I want you to consider the following little understood math concept:
The 25 is not simply 3 feet longer than the 22:
1. The outer skin (hull) weight goes up with the square of the linear dimensions, while
2. The volume contained inside the hull (and thus the capacity to add weight inside the hull), goes up with the cube of the dimensions.
dimension = 25
dimension squared = 625
dimension cubed = 15,625
dimension = 22
dimension squared = 484
dimension cubed = 10,648
ratio of linear dimensions = 25/22 = 1.136 times as long, wide, etc.
ratio of surface areas = 625/484 = 1.291 times as much hull area (AND hull weight!)
ratio of internal volumes = 15,625/10,648 = 1.457 times as much internal volume and 1.467 times as much space to load up with STUFF!
It even gets worse when you figure that in either boat you can't load up the passageways with stuff, and that in a 22 those are a proportionately larger part of the interior than they are in a 25, and thus the 25 again has more space or volume for CRAP ABOARD!
It's a good thing this hull length/ hull weight / load carrying capacity thing works, or Noah would have had to build the Ark super tanker sized out of 2x4's!
Luckily, volume = dimensions cubed!
Here comes the Admiral!
(This concept has all kinds of implications in biology and all the other sciences.)
Joe. :teeth :thup
There's simply a lot more room in a 25 than a 22 in which to cram extra stuff! (Some of which you may not really need!) Add in the head/shower and any other accommodations that allow the Admiral to bring on her accompanying baggage/equipment/wardrobe/necessities, and the weight can go through the roof!
I want you to consider the following little understood math concept:
The 25 is not simply 3 feet longer than the 22:
1. The outer skin (hull) weight goes up with the square of the linear dimensions, while
2. The volume contained inside the hull (and thus the capacity to add weight inside the hull), goes up with the cube of the dimensions.
dimension = 25
dimension squared = 625
dimension cubed = 15,625
dimension = 22
dimension squared = 484
dimension cubed = 10,648
ratio of linear dimensions = 25/22 = 1.136 times as long, wide, etc.
ratio of surface areas = 625/484 = 1.291 times as much hull area (AND hull weight!)
ratio of internal volumes = 15,625/10,648 = 1.457 times as much internal volume and 1.467 times as much space to load up with STUFF!
It even gets worse when you figure that in either boat you can't load up the passageways with stuff, and that in a 22 those are a proportionately larger part of the interior than they are in a 25, and thus the 25 again has more space or volume for CRAP ABOARD!
It's a good thing this hull length/ hull weight / load carrying capacity thing works, or Noah would have had to build the Ark super tanker sized out of 2x4's!
Luckily, volume = dimensions cubed!
Here comes the Admiral!
(This concept has all kinds of implications in biology and all the other sciences.)
Joe. :teeth :thup
starcrafttom
Active member
I am still trying to figure out how we took a two weeks cruise that Susan constantly worried about having enough food for, but managed to return with three weeks worth of food left over???????????