Twin Honda 40’s to twin Honda 60’s

H

Hunkydory

New member
This summer my twin 20 year old Honda 40’s are running as well as they ever have, but being as I like to explore in remote areas where engine troubles may be more than just an expense & irritation, I’ve decided to repower with new twin Honda BF 60’s. Only their use will confirm or not the added price & extra 50 pounds total weight over the twin 40’s to be worth the benefit of having more power at lower rpm, either when running just one or both. One thing for sure, I’ll never be concerned in rough seas about boat control if one of the motors does go down like many who run a single with a kicker & I will likely be able to plane on just one motor if that option becomes necessary.

For those interested, Sportscraft Marine who is the oldest C-Dory dealership has no problem with selling & installing the twin 60 hp motors even though they are 5 hp over the max plate rated hp. The owner of Sportscraft Marine informed me, as I already knew, that their is no legal requirement for hp ratings on a power boat over 21 feet. The rated hp from the factory for the CD22 is a recommendation only, though in the motor mounting process they will be making sure my transom is sound. Also the total weight of the twin BF 60’s are the exact same as the Honda BF115 that C-Brat, Lew had mounted on his CD22 without a kicker.

Jay
 
How exciting to get new and more updated Honda motors Jay. I will keep my eyes open for your boat being worked on the next time I am at Sportcraft. :thup

Gary.
 
Jay, Very cool upgrade. Glad to hear Sportcraft is working with you. I called them a while ago about Yamaha. They don't do them. Sorry.

Great numbers on life extension by running singles so much. What a bonus. I need to be doing more of your style. Thanks for the reminder.

Harvey
SleepyC :moon

9_Sept_Seq_2019_Cal.thumb.jpg
 
Jay, I thought I remembered you mentioning in the past considering Tohatsu. With the Tahatsu being less cost for the same motor, what was your thought process? We are thinking of replacing our 2,000 hr ‘99 Honda BF75 in the next year with either the 90 hp Honda or Tohatsu.
 
Ken, I chose the Honda BF60’s over the other makes with the number one reason being availability of the motors I had narrowed my choice to & responses from the dealerships when asking for information & availability. Many were to busy to respond with the biggest surprise there, being EQ marine. I was told from them after a months wait, they were just two busy to provide the information I requested & reluctant to put twin 60’s on a CD22. After a month I was told the new lighter Tohatsu 60 was on a long waiting list with no known availability time, so that ended that choice for me. The heavier older Tohatsu is the same motor as the Honda BF 60. I had asked for price quotes from EQ for their different motors, but after a month & several calls with them being to busy to respond, I went with the Honda at Sportscraft Marine. Responses from closer areas to where I live such as the Salt Lake City area were similar. Sportscraft Marine in Portland responded by connecting me directly to the owner, Larry & he answered all my questions in a very forthright way immediately giving price quotes & trade in value of my old Honda’s, clinching the deal with the Honda’s, before eventually turning me over to Tim to work out the timing to have the motors installed. Working out a reasonable deal on pricing was only half of my concern over where & to whom to do the purchase. I wanted the install to be done right & from passed on information from this site, I knew Sportscraft & EQ would do so.

I chose Honda BF 60’s over the Suzuki 60’s at Sportscraft Marine, primarily because the 40, 50 & 60hp Suzuki motors are all the same cc with the hp increases coming, I believe more in the higher rpm range & not with torque & hp in the rpm, I would find most useful. The Tohatsu 60 in which I was most interested also had the same cc as the Tohatsu 40 & 50 making it most likely to have the same rpm power responses as the Suzuki, but it’s very low weight made it tempting & if EQ Marine would have been more responsive & the motors readily available it would have likely been my 1st choice.

Jay
 
Thanks Jay. We have a Tohatsu dealer about an hour away so will see what they can do. I’m happy with the 99 BF75 but plan to do more long range cruising as you have and would like more reliably. So unless someone puts a small diesel outboard out under $12,000 🙂, will likely go with Tohatsu or Honda in 75 or 90 hp. Your experienced wisdom means a lot.
 
You're gonna love'em if they're propped right.

I've never regretted making the "more vs less" power choice;
cars, trucks, boats or bikes.

Aye.
 
Might sound funny, our CD22 felt like you described. I put a little weight in the bow. The anchor is now all chain...200+ plus feeet, but our CD planes nicely at 10mph. The weight of the windlass and the chain seems off set the weight if that very nice honda 90. I know adding weight is counter productive to fuel efficientcy we we consistsntly burn a modest 4 gallons per hour. I am happy and comfy with that number. My buddy has a Steiger 21 with same fuel capacity as I, he burs 8 gallons per our...If i have to change tanks I know he is bone dry.
 
If the CD22 is well balanced for the sea conditions it is in, then the less weight in the boat, the better. To much weight in the stern can cause an uncomfortable ride or more fuel burn, but overloading the bow to the degree that balance cannot be maintained as fuel is burned off can be out right dangerous. With that said, a permanent balance of all chain rode equaling the 50 lbs extra of 60 hp twins over 40 hp twins could be a solution to the permanently added stern weight. I really like my present rode & anchor combination of a 25 lb Manson Boss anchor, 50 feet of 1/4 inch chain & 250 feet of 1/2 in 8 brait line & have found other changes to achieve & actually improve the overall stern to bow balance, I had before with the twin 40’s. The added stern weight in local cruising is a non factor, especially with the larger permitrims added to the Honda 60’s & on our extended SE Alaska cruises where all the added weight could become an issue, I will actually now be running with less weight in the stern than with the Honda 40’s. With the improved fuel economy of the new motors, I will need less extra fuel & with the increased alternator amp output from 20 to 44 amps will now go from a Honda 2000 to a Honda 1000. Overall weight reduction in the stern while cruising SE Alaska is presently projected to be about 93 lbs, accomplished with 20 gal less fuel (124 lbs) & a lighter gen of 17 lbs. the added power should also enable me to achieve the boat angle on plane for best fuel consumption. This in the past was not possible with the twin 40’s, when taking on an additional 55 gal of fuel at 341 extra lbs. That with generator, Wallas fuel, 6 hp Suzuki motor, extra rode etc made for a very heavy stern, that even the added storage room under the sleeping area couldn’t overcome. The amazing to me thing is how well the CD22 has handled the extreme conditions, we’ve been in even with the high overall weight & extreme stern weight, while also towing the majority of the time either a rubber inflatable or the motorized kayak.

This is very preliminary, but with 220 miles so far on the 60’s, 4 mpg on plane & 7 to 8 on one motor at displacement speed looks promising.

The only disappointment so far in this upgrade, has been trying the 4 blade props. Surprisingly the 4 blade, 13 pitch would reach the same WOT speed & rpm as the 3 blade, 14 pitch of 5300 rpm & 27 mph on 7732 feet Yellowstone Lake. This elevation has the Honda’s 120 hp reduced to 92 hp. At all other rpm settings whether running on a single or both. the four blade prop was slightly inferior to the 3 blades. The testing was done with full water & fuel & enough added weight for a 30 day Yellowstone stay. The stats were close enough that I probably will keep the 4 blade props as spares.

With these 60 hp motors we can now run 900 rpm less on the motors at equal speeds while on plane up to the max the 40’s would obtain of 18.5 mph & then if desired increase up to another 8.5 mph. On one single, 2075 rpm = 6 mph & that should be a fuel burn rate of at least 8 mpg. Overall to say I’m extremely pleased with the Honda 60’s addition would be an understatement.

Jay
 
Roger, yes with a 10 pitch prop on Yellowstone Lake. On a motor designed to run WOT at between 5000 & 6000 rpm, I hit 13 mph at 5300 rpm. I couldn’t exceed 9 mph with either 12, 13 or 14 pitch three blade or 13 pitch four blade. It will be interesting to see with an additional 14 hp on each motor at sea level, what I can do with a single. With a 10 pitch prop on a single forty & the boat slightly lighter, I could plane on the Yukon River with the single Honda 40 at 5200 rpm & 12 mph, so I’m hopeful at sea level with the 60, I can with a higher pitched prop.

It’s going to take quite a bit more running time at different altitudes & cruising methods to establish accurate reliable information for both fuel usage & the overall capability of the boat with these motors.

Jay
 
Jay, you are so good at keeping track of your numbers. Curious if you have compared running twins both down vs running a single down with the 60's. For my 40's I generally run twins both down. Spent some time with Andy (Osprey running a single 50 down) on his way back from Alaska, and my feeling is that I have to run the single down at higher RPM to run at the same speed I would be running the twins both down. ( Single down about 2900 RPM to do 5 kn, and with the twins both down and running it is about 2100 RPM to do the same speed. I know that a single might yield some fuel savings but I don't like making the engines work that extra bit harder. Are your 60's able to give you a hull speed at under 2500 RPM.

Harvey
SleepyC :moon

9_Sept_Seq_2019_Cal.thumb.jpg
 
Harvey, for clarification, when running at near displacement speed, 6 to 7 mph, (I still think more in mph than knots) I run with both motors down with one off & in neutral. This greatly improves steering & boat control with I’ve found 1/10th mph or at times not measurable penalty in speed. Yes, I’ve made & recorded running both motors or just one with the speed & rpm differences. These numbers will no doubt change with varying boat weight & altitude. I will go through the process again in a couple weeks at lake Powell & then again when running very heavy in SE Alaska next spring. At present, I’m at home & the boat with the information in Yellowstone. I’m heading back there tomarrow & will Post the data when I have internet again. I do remember with a 14 pitch prop one single at very near 2100 rpm made 6 mph or 5.2 knots.

Jay
 
The is the rpm = speed data running 13 pitch 10.5 inch diameter 4 blade Honda aluminum & 14 pitch 11.1 inch diameter props on Yellowstone Lake where the 120 hp twin Honda 60’s put out 92 hp.

2ADF89BF_EEA2_48E4_A58D_10D161C528B4.sized.png

I prefer to save motor hours by running a single at between 2100 rpm & 2700 rpm getting 6 to 7 mph at displacement speeds, then running up hours on both motors to get the same speed running them between 1750 rpm & 2100 rpm. I think the fuel economy will be somewhat better at displacement speed on a single also, but haven’t ran both ways long enough while keeping exact track of fuel usage to say for sure.

Jay
 
Jay, thanks for the new info. About 4.5 mph between both and single at 3400, with higher sped on the 3 blade. That surprised me. I like the 4 blade for slow speed work. They seem more Positive, especially in reverse.

Harvey
SleepyC :moon

9_Sept_Seq_2019_Cal.thumb.jpg
 
On lake Powell with the 14 pitch props, 32 mph at 6000 rpm with 80 gallons of fuel, 30 gal water, 13 foot Kaboat & 6 hp Suzuki aboard. One disappointment, I still can’t get over 10 mph on just one motor & not completely on plane with the 14 pitch prop even though with both can hit the max WOT of 6000 rpm. Might be able to at sea level, but there I now think a 15 pitch is doable, so just planning on always having a back up 10 pitch prop to do 12 to 15 mph on a single 60 hp if needed.

Jay
 
Yes, Honda has the larger gear case BFP 60 that weighs 256 lbs. I felt I was already stretching my desired weight with the choice of the regular BF 60 & it’s 239 lbs. The BFP 60 choice will have to be made & then tried out by someone else. It probably would have made possible planing on a single with my present 14 pitch prop, but it’s weight combined with my preference for extra fuel & other items for my extended cruises may not have worked out well. Also the larger gear case with lower & larger gears made more for boats like the pontoon variety gave me concern about the possibility of lower fuel milage. This much I do know, I’m very satisfied with the twin BF 60’s so far.

Jay
 
Hunkydory":2dirnipi said:
Yes, Honda has the larger gear case BFP 60 that weighs 256 lbs. I felt I was already stretching my desired weight with the choice of the regular BF 60 & it’s 239 lbs. The BFP 60 choice will have to be made & then tried out by someone else. It probably would have made possible planing on a single with my present 14 pitch prop, but it’s weight combined with my preference for extra fuel & other items for my extended cruises may not have worked out well. Also the larger gear case with lower & larger gears made more for boats like the pontoon variety gave me concern about the possibility of lower fuel milage. This much I do know, I’m very satisfied with the twin BF 60’s so far.

Jay
Click to expand...

What are your preliminary burn rates?
 
Back
Top