Greetings to all. I saw a tomcat recently in Anacortes and really liked it. I'm beginning to think it may be in our future. Now that several are in service, would anyone care to give a synopsis? For example, I see that she will take up to 300HP. For those with less money to spend, What is the minimum adequate HP? How does the boat feel and handle in a variety of sea conditions? Any early flaws been exposed by use? These things may have already been covered in this site, but I've been away for a while. Thanks, Mike.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
New Tomcat feedback
- Thread starter westward
- Start date
I have covered my initial impressions both in the "Thataway" posts and in several of the other Tom Cat threads. We have not put as many miles on the boat as we would like because I am slow at putting in the electronics, and we get distracted (good) by visitors.
My personal feeling is that the Suzuki 150 is the best engine for the boat--and that may be somewhat biased, because that is what I put on it. The reason is that the engine is as light as any of the others, has the largest displacement (same engine as the 175, where as many of the other 150's are the same engine as the 130 +). It can swing a 16" prop, which gives a lot more "bite" on the water, and faster accelleration(VS 14.5" prop). There are reports of similar engines getting from 3500 to 7000 hours and still running well! For outboards this is almost unhead of--getting close to diesel engine longivity.
My initial impression was that the 150 Suzuki's make the boat handle better than smaller engines. The accelleration is very rapid. (We got idle to 30 in 5 seconds!--from 8 to 22 is only a couple of seconds) This is important when working big waves--I have no reluctance to slow down, knowing it will take me only a couple of seconds to be back up on a plane.
This can make all of the difference when running a breaking inlet or in heavy seas. Do not necessarilly equate larger engines with poorer gas mileage. The increased weight may equate to more fuel consumption--but with the same weight engines, the mileage will be the same at any one speed. The fuel consumption is related to HP used, not HP available.
Could the boat be powered with twin 115 and get on a plane? Probably. Would it perform well?--I don't think it would. The TC 24 did fine with twin 115, but its weight is substantially less. However, if you put twin 115 on the TC 255, you would be running those engines at close to max much of the time and your handling would not be as good.
Now the costs: I don't have the actual numbers, but you might save $3000 by putting on 115 vs 150's. In the long run, it would not pay. The resale would be significantly less, the engines would probably wear out faster and you would not be happy with the boat's performance. (I did some quick on line checking and found that you can buy 150's for about $1000 more than 115's on one site--but then there is rigging costs)
Remember that the Tom Cat 255 is a planing boat, and to operate most effeciently it needs to be run on a plane. Boats like World Cat and Glacier Bay are semidisplacement boats, and will do fine at intermediate speeds, and remain fuel effecient at these speeds. The Cat designer Malcom Tennant documents this phenomen very well in some of his articles. The planing cats are more effecient at a narrow range of speeds, after they are on a plane. Thus if you tried to operate in a semidisplacement mode (12 to 18 mph) you will be burning proportionately more fuel--and it will not take long to burn up $3000 worth of gasoline!.
As for handling--There is no question in my mind that going directly into seas the Glacier Bay is the best handling boat. It will go right thru real 4 footers at speed. The Tom Cat 255 is limited to about 3 footers at speed head on. You can quarter off, and run into 4 + footers. However, a real 4 foot sea is a very serious sea! Most people over estimate seas. The boat will handle swells 5 to 6 feet, on up, again depending on the angle of attack. On my initial ride, I thought that the boat would not handle speeds of 10 to 18 knots well. I was wrong, and it was due to the engines and trim. With the Suzuki engines, and trimming (I have not yet added Permitrims, but may)--the boat will run in this speed range fairly well, but it will not be as fuel effecient. (I don't have the exact numbers, because of a minor glitch on one of my fuel flow meters) From what I am seeing in smooth waters, over 2 mpg will be obtainable--in rough waters it will be less. I think that 3 mpg will be unusual to see, unless at low speeds--and there I do believe that on one engine, you will see 4 miles a gallon at 6 to 7 mph.
The TC255 handles 2 to 3 foot chop far better than a Rinker 270 fiesta V that I just sold. There is some noise, and if it is windy, and whitecaps, there will be some spray. The boat can handle more than I can.
Down and across waves, the Tom Cat 255 handles better than the Glacier Bay and World cats (In my opinion). It is also more stable at trolling speeds. The Tom Cat handles more like a conventional planing boat down wind/waves, than the semi displacement boats.
As far as accomidations: the Tom Cat 255 wins by a large margin in trailerable cruising boats.
Hope this helps. Please feel free to ask any questions.
My personal feeling is that the Suzuki 150 is the best engine for the boat--and that may be somewhat biased, because that is what I put on it. The reason is that the engine is as light as any of the others, has the largest displacement (same engine as the 175, where as many of the other 150's are the same engine as the 130 +). It can swing a 16" prop, which gives a lot more "bite" on the water, and faster accelleration(VS 14.5" prop). There are reports of similar engines getting from 3500 to 7000 hours and still running well! For outboards this is almost unhead of--getting close to diesel engine longivity.
My initial impression was that the 150 Suzuki's make the boat handle better than smaller engines. The accelleration is very rapid. (We got idle to 30 in 5 seconds!--from 8 to 22 is only a couple of seconds) This is important when working big waves--I have no reluctance to slow down, knowing it will take me only a couple of seconds to be back up on a plane.
This can make all of the difference when running a breaking inlet or in heavy seas. Do not necessarilly equate larger engines with poorer gas mileage. The increased weight may equate to more fuel consumption--but with the same weight engines, the mileage will be the same at any one speed. The fuel consumption is related to HP used, not HP available.
Could the boat be powered with twin 115 and get on a plane? Probably. Would it perform well?--I don't think it would. The TC 24 did fine with twin 115, but its weight is substantially less. However, if you put twin 115 on the TC 255, you would be running those engines at close to max much of the time and your handling would not be as good.
Now the costs: I don't have the actual numbers, but you might save $3000 by putting on 115 vs 150's. In the long run, it would not pay. The resale would be significantly less, the engines would probably wear out faster and you would not be happy with the boat's performance. (I did some quick on line checking and found that you can buy 150's for about $1000 more than 115's on one site--but then there is rigging costs)
Remember that the Tom Cat 255 is a planing boat, and to operate most effeciently it needs to be run on a plane. Boats like World Cat and Glacier Bay are semidisplacement boats, and will do fine at intermediate speeds, and remain fuel effecient at these speeds. The Cat designer Malcom Tennant documents this phenomen very well in some of his articles. The planing cats are more effecient at a narrow range of speeds, after they are on a plane. Thus if you tried to operate in a semidisplacement mode (12 to 18 mph) you will be burning proportionately more fuel--and it will not take long to burn up $3000 worth of gasoline!.
As for handling--There is no question in my mind that going directly into seas the Glacier Bay is the best handling boat. It will go right thru real 4 footers at speed. The Tom Cat 255 is limited to about 3 footers at speed head on. You can quarter off, and run into 4 + footers. However, a real 4 foot sea is a very serious sea! Most people over estimate seas. The boat will handle swells 5 to 6 feet, on up, again depending on the angle of attack. On my initial ride, I thought that the boat would not handle speeds of 10 to 18 knots well. I was wrong, and it was due to the engines and trim. With the Suzuki engines, and trimming (I have not yet added Permitrims, but may)--the boat will run in this speed range fairly well, but it will not be as fuel effecient. (I don't have the exact numbers, because of a minor glitch on one of my fuel flow meters) From what I am seeing in smooth waters, over 2 mpg will be obtainable--in rough waters it will be less. I think that 3 mpg will be unusual to see, unless at low speeds--and there I do believe that on one engine, you will see 4 miles a gallon at 6 to 7 mph.
The TC255 handles 2 to 3 foot chop far better than a Rinker 270 fiesta V that I just sold. There is some noise, and if it is windy, and whitecaps, there will be some spray. The boat can handle more than I can.
Down and across waves, the Tom Cat 255 handles better than the Glacier Bay and World cats (In my opinion). It is also more stable at trolling speeds. The Tom Cat handles more like a conventional planing boat down wind/waves, than the semi displacement boats.
As far as accomidations: the Tom Cat 255 wins by a large margin in trailerable cruising boats.
Hope this helps. Please feel free to ask any questions.
Mike,
There has been lots of discussion on the new Tomcat 255 with some great information posted. Do a search on Tomcat and 255.
Particularly informative threads include:
New Tomcat 25
Another New Tomcat
Thataway
There are quite a few photo albums, too. See photo albums for DiveCat, Discovery, Dreamer, and Thataway.
Factory recommends a minimum of 270 hp.
There has been lots of discussion on the new Tomcat 255 with some great information posted. Do a search on Tomcat and 255.
Particularly informative threads include:
New Tomcat 25
Another New Tomcat
Thataway
There are quite a few photo albums, too. See photo albums for DiveCat, Discovery, Dreamer, and Thataway.
Factory recommends a minimum of 270 hp.