Twin Honda 40’s to twin Honda 60’s

100% of my claims over 20 something years are because the trailer failed on our really crappy roads. Proving that extra hp caused an accident would be pretty hard. Up here, I'd say the most common claim is hitting a rock - don't think extra hp caused that.....lol....
 
One week Lake Powell trip. 245 total miles. Burned 47 gal fuel. 184 miles or 75% on plane vs 61 miles or 25% displacement speed. Averaged 5.2 mpg with 15 pitch stainless props. WOT at 5800 rpm was 34.5 mph. The more I run these motors the more I like them. On my Alaska extended cruises running between 1200 & 2300 miles on the old Honda 40’s doing about 15% on plane & 85% at displacement speed my trips averaged about the same mpg of 5.2. Those old carbonated Honda 40’s were made to last, but I’m loving the fuel burn rate & power of these new Honda 60’s.

Jay
 
Jay, sorry if I missed it there, but have you tried getting on plane with a single 60, and if so, any difference from your 40s?
 
Bill, this is how I answered a similar question from Roger early in this thread (it’s getting a little long for one to check back through, so don’t mind at all re answering.

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.

Bill, The 40 single would not have allowed planing on Yellowstone Lake at 7800 feet elevation. If not for the virus, I would now be in SE Alaska & definitely know if one 60 could get it on plane with the 15 pitch at sea level. My plan was to bring along a single 10 pitch prop just in case one motor did fail, so I could then for sure make a quick prop change & continue on plane if needed.

My old twin Honda 40’s only put out 61 hp on Yellowstone Lake & even loaded pretty heavy could always cruise on plane at reasonable speed & rpm at between 12 & 16 mph with WOT of around 19 mph with 10 pitch props.

Jay
 
For similar reasons,I replaced my carbureted Honda 40's with the Tohatsu 50's a couple years ago.I couldn't be happier about the swap. I'm within 4 lbs+- , with better fuel economy and noticeably more power. While the Hondas still ran well, they were showing corrosion at the swivel brackets, which always concerned me and was something I didn't want to tackle on 20 yr old motors. One of the things I'm most pleased with is, the security of how much quicker to start when cold, with the injected motors.
 
My boat has the 1998 Honda twin BF40 set up like your boat did.

Tenacious C question; Do you notice that your new Tohatsu twins make less noise than your old Hondas?

I was chatting with a Sea-Tow boat Captain the other day. His company repowered a fleet of six boats with all Tohatsu outboards. He had his idling at the dock next to me. I didn’t even know it was running! He mentioned that it was a Honda outboard engine with different paint and stickers. Kind of like the Johnson and Evinrude back in the day. If I had any complaints about my engines it would be that they are rusting apart, and they are noisy for a 4-stroke engine! I keep it in my mind that they are 22 years old and that could be the issue. But the new BF40 looks the same, so how could it be any quieter?

Has anyone replaced there old Hondas with new ones of the same HP? Are they quieter? (Would like to put away the earplugs at 2000 rpms.) Other than that, I LOVE the twin engine set up. But not a good excuse for me to replace them yet. Thanks for any feedback.
 
T.R. Bauer":whqi5yko said:
I wonder what twin 70 hp yammis would be like - pretty sure you could even plane on just one. It's an interesting thought.
Click to expand...

New_F70_s_02.jpg

They would be like heaven.

I had them on a 23 as replacements for the original Yamaha F50's. The 23 is heavier than the 22 to begin with, and I generally used the boat heavily laden for long range cruises, so it was marginal planning on one engine. That said, with the 70's I had a couple more mph at top end, and better mileage at best cruise (22-24 mph) with lower rpm.

I think the weight was comparable (maybe a little less) than a single 150 with a 8-10 hp kicker.

Anyway, I absolutely loved them. I would guess you could plane a 22 with one of these, especially with a little prop experimentation, unless the boat were really heavily loaded.
 
WeekiTiki":3pg5go4c said:
Off topic but for what reason is the 23 transom so much lower?
Click to expand...

Here's another view. The Venture has a full-height splashwell. The forward wall of the splashwell is the same height as the gunwales. The 22 C-Dory has a cut-out in the middle of the splashwell.

New_F70_s_05.jpg
 
I've looked at them

They seem to sit so low

I'd think there'd be water intrusion through the self bailing port

Like the size and extra weight of the hull

Just think it needs some tweeking

Like the twin 70s hitit.gif
 
WeekiTiki":1wvi29q1 said:
. . .

I'd think there'd be water intrusion through the self bailing port
. . .
Click to expand...

I assume you know it's just the splashwell that is "self-bailing," not the cockpit. At any rate, water intrusion into the splashwell is certainly not a problem. Not enough water could accumulate in there to put the ports below the waterline. I worried about lots of things in more than 6,000 miles up and down the Inside Passage. The splashwell was not one of them.
 
I think twin 70s yammis would be great on a 22 for some people. They only weigh a handful of pounds more than the twin Honda setup. The thing about the 22 is it cruises along great when conditions allow well into the upper 20s and low 30s when lightly loaded. The boat does very well in these conditions.

Then loading comes into play and if you go very heavy, like many of us do, and use the boat like the cruiser it is designed to be, bringing everything you think you might need because you're going to the middle of the wilderness, then your "cruise" is now full throttle and only like 22 mph. That's fast enough for many people, but when you have a lot of water to cover, the difference between 16-20 mph (don't like running full throttle) and about 25-30 mph, which I'm sure you could with twin 70s, can become hours.
 
SOOOOOO Jealous C-Whisper! Your 70’s are beautiful, and I bet they are quite too. Yamaha would be my first choice if I was powering with a single engine. I was looking at that set up for my 22 Cruiser but it won’t work for me. 80 hp. fully loaded for a 10-day camping trip is plenty of power. I would rather have the 2.2 gallons per hour at 16 kts. (4200 rpms.) with my twin BF40’s than the 4 gallons per hour with the extra 2 cylinders that need filling. For my boat, running at 22 kts. (5500 RPM. WOT) is not comfortable for me, terrifies the wife, and the boat can go further between fill-ups. Yamaha in my area (South Florida) does zero repowering on boats less than 150 hp. So many things for me, are saying do not buy Yamaha twins to repower my C-Dory 22’. But they are awesome on your 23 Venture!

Went to the boat show and got a quoit for 2 new fuel injected Honda BF40’s with all new everything to the helm station (not installed for $12,000). Has anyone on this website, replaced there original carbureted Honda twins with new fuel injected BF40- BF50’s? I may go Suzuki but would like the more plug and play if installing them myself. Honda’s seem the lightest for this motor configuration. Trying to find out if they are any less noisy than the original carbureted BF40’s. Nothing on YouTube about the new motors, all are about the carbureted ones.
 
Off topic but for what reason is the 23 transom so much lower?
Click to expand...

The 23 has what is called a "Euro Transom".

Be cautious with too much hP on the 22. The transom has been known to have stress failure under certain conditions.
 
NORO LIM":2newyewm said:
WeekiTiki":2newyewm said:
. . .

I'd think there'd be water intrusion through the self bailing port
. . .
Click to expand...

I assume you know it's just the splashwell that is "self-bailing," not the cockpit. At any rate, water intrusion into the splashwell is certainly not a problem. Not enough water could accumulate in there to put the ports below the waterline. I worried about lots of things in more than 6,000 miles up and down the Inside Passage. The splashwell was not one of them.
Click to expand...

Thought the 23 was self bailing

Looked at one at Hontoon and the drains in the transom were under the water line and they weren't on the keel

But then it had a lot of extra weight on the stern at that time too
 
WeekiTiki":215grksq said:
NORO LIM":215grksq said:
WeekiTiki":215grksq said:
. . .

I'd think there'd be water intrusion through the self bailing port
. . .
Click to expand...

I assume you know it's just the splashwell that is "self-bailing," not the cockpit. At any rate, water intrusion into the splashwell is certainly not a problem. Not enough water could accumulate in there to put the ports below the waterline. I worried about lots of things in more than 6,000 miles up and down the Inside Passage. The splashwell was not one of them.
Click to expand...

Thought the 23 was self bailing

Looked at one at Hontoon and the drains in the transom were under the water line and they weren't on the keel

But then it had a lot of extra weight on the stern at that time too
Click to expand...

Yes, you certainly could put enough people or stuff in the cockpit to drive those drain ports below the water line, but that would only allow a little water to enter the splashwell. Until you put enough weight in the boat to drive the full height transom wall or the gunnels under :shock:, you will not sink.

I may have sounded a little cavalier about recommending the twin F70's. Just to be clear, while I whole-heartedly endorse them on a 23, and they are quite light engines for their horsepower, I have no experience with the 22.
 
had 140 hp on a 15 foot boat

But a C-Dory 22

Nah, rarely get to use all 75 I've got now

Have to look more closely at a 23 stern next time

Thought for sure it was a self bailing hull
 
NORO LIM":5w06t8ad said:
WeekiTiki":5w06t8ad said:
NORO LIM":5w06t8ad said:
WeekiTiki":5w06t8ad said:
. . .

I'd think there'd be water intrusion through the self bailing port
. . .
Click to expand...

I assume you know it's just the splashwell that is "self-bailing," not the cockpit. At any rate, water intrusion into the splashwell is certainly not a problem. Not enough water could accumulate in there to put the ports below the waterline. I worried about lots of things in more than 6,000 miles up and down the Inside Passage. The splashwell was not one of them.
Click to expand...

Thought the 23 was self bailing

Looked at one at Hontoon and the drains in the transom were under the water line and they weren't on the keel

But then it had a lot of extra weight on the stern at that time too
Click to expand...

Yes, you certainly could put enough people or stuff in the cockpit to drive those drain ports below the water line, but that would only allow a little water to enter the splashwell. Until you put enough weight in the boat to drive the full height transom wall or the gunnels under :shock:, you will not sink.

I may have sounded a little cavalier about recommending the twin F70's. Just to be clear, while I whole-heartedly endorse them on a 23, and they are quite light engines for their horsepower, I have no experience with the 22.
Click to expand...

I actually don't think you are being cavalier. I really doubt the twin 70s are much different on a CD 22 than they are on your boat. Ford built a 395 hp pickup that I really like and for some reason do not drive it 125 mph although it could probably do it. Maybe that is common sense? Yup....throw it out the window....LOL.....
 
Back
Top