Twin Honda 50 feedback needed
- Thread starter markm
- Start date
I have no experience with that switch. I do have 40 twins, are extremely happy with them and my understanding of the 50's from discussions with Les (RIP) is that 50's will have reduced performance in midrange compared to 40's and will only get you one mph (or so) extra top speed at WOT. So his advice was why spend the extra money when you mostly run at midrange. So if you run usually at higher speeds, I would look at twins 60's that at least one Brat has installed and was extremely happy with.
MTCW, Jay
MTCW, Jay
The best Posts on upgrading Honda outboards:are this series by Jay on Hunkydory.. He gives his rational for going from 40 to 60, rather than 50. It is worth a read before deciding on your coarse.
thataway":jvbw3iu4 said:
Believe me I have read that thread a hundered times. I have thought about the honda 60's but have really narrowed my search down to Honda 50s or maybe Suzuki 60s.
I had decided to go for the Honda 50s because of 115hp rating. I did call NMI and they said to not exceed that HP rating.
I appreciate all your feedback and would really love to hear from those that have gone to the Honda 50s. There certainly must be some on here.
jkidd
Active member
markm":13dz684g said:
Well Sportcraft Marine was told by NMI that it was ok to mount a Suzuki DF140 on my 22. For boats over 21 feet the Yellow decal isn't required. I did mine that way because I lose 24 percent of the horse power at Yellowstone and 10 percent at Lake Powell. It sure does run nice at sea level.
jkidd":32cv8p2l said:
I'm asking the OP, markm.
I have the same model and year boat, and I'm still running the original honda 50s, basically same as his 40s. I'm guessing he is having issues with his engines or else he will not be spending all that money on a small upgrade, I'm just curious to know what are his reasons.
If his engines are original like mine, they are most likely carburated, new one will be FI, a nice upgrade, but not worth it on its own for me. I have no other experience then my set-up on a C -Dory so I can't bring much else to this conversation.
C-Wolfe":2habo0kt said:
Great question. I am just over carbureted and want the EFI. To me they are worth it. I have limited time on the water each year and when I go I want to know that my engines are ready to roll with me. I would love to get a bit more juice out of the boat. I absolutely love the 22 cruiser and honestly cannot see spending what they are asking for other boats.
I have upgraded all of my electronics, new radar, customized the transom with a bait table and cooler storage, downriggers, shrimp puller, new Wallas, new sink pump and faucet new led lights throughout. Basically, a new boat other than the fiberglass. The only thing left is the repower. And you are right the struggle I am having is I am not gaining much from the existing 40s. I would certainly install 60s if I thought I would gain that much. If I go 60s I am going with Suzuki.
As long as I am not out of Coast Guard Compliance I am totally fine with exceeding the HP recommended sticker. May need to call the Coast Guard direct and get the actual code number.
Mark, why the preference of Suzuki over other choices? I’m not down on Suzuki, as I own 2 small Suzuki motors & all I know, who own are overall pleased with them, but as I wrote in the thread about my change from Honda 40’s to 60’s that Bob referenced earlier in this thread, this is why I chose a larger heavier Honda 60 over the lighter other makes including Suzuki.
“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
“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
T.R. Bauer
New member
I would repower with the 60s and I don't think it matters if it's with Honda or the Suzuki engines as they both have solid reputations. There has been some chatter about small displacement vs large displacement comparisons and longevity, and I think there is some merit to the discussion, but I wouldn't let that drive your decision...there is far more to an engine than simply how much it displaces.
Also, I'm not sure how much outboards even care about being spun up to the max RPMs. Some people think there is twice the wear at 4k than there is at 2k, but that is not accurate and isn't a linear function at all. There is more wear, but it is generally negligible and you might have to scope the cylinder walls and mic the bearings to even measure it after many thousands of hours. I don't spend much time worrying about what RPMs my engines are running.
What I'm trying to say is they are going to last a really long time with proper maintenance while running within their designed parameters. It's only anecdotal, but I have nearly 3 thousand hours on my 30 year old Honda 45s and I have not babied them in that regard at all. If I want to go 30 mph at 6k RPMs, I do it the rare times the seas allow it. And they have spent dang near their whole life running between 4.5-6k RPMs. They don't really burn any oil and have the same performance as they did decades ago. It's probably harder on them to troll for salmon at low RPMs due to the lower operating temperatures and the considerably lower oil PSI you get at only 600 RPMs.
If I were repowering today, I would certainly look really closely at having 60s on the back. I think you'll be happier in the long run with them. Yeah they cost more....and you'll burn more gas because you'll be going faster. But I would gamble that at 25 mph, the gallons per hour will be nearly identical for the 40, 50, or 60 hp engine pushing the same load in the same conditions. Get the 60s.....lol....
Also, I'm not sure how much outboards even care about being spun up to the max RPMs. Some people think there is twice the wear at 4k than there is at 2k, but that is not accurate and isn't a linear function at all. There is more wear, but it is generally negligible and you might have to scope the cylinder walls and mic the bearings to even measure it after many thousands of hours. I don't spend much time worrying about what RPMs my engines are running.
What I'm trying to say is they are going to last a really long time with proper maintenance while running within their designed parameters. It's only anecdotal, but I have nearly 3 thousand hours on my 30 year old Honda 45s and I have not babied them in that regard at all. If I want to go 30 mph at 6k RPMs, I do it the rare times the seas allow it. And they have spent dang near their whole life running between 4.5-6k RPMs. They don't really burn any oil and have the same performance as they did decades ago. It's probably harder on them to troll for salmon at low RPMs due to the lower operating temperatures and the considerably lower oil PSI you get at only 600 RPMs.
If I were repowering today, I would certainly look really closely at having 60s on the back. I think you'll be happier in the long run with them. Yeah they cost more....and you'll burn more gas because you'll be going faster. But I would gamble that at 25 mph, the gallons per hour will be nearly identical for the 40, 50, or 60 hp engine pushing the same load in the same conditions. Get the 60s.....lol....
I would have absolutely no problem putting 120 hp or two 60 HP engines on the transom of a C Dory 22. Take what NMPI has told you with a grain of salt. On other days-as noted they will say 140 HP. I probably would not put a 150 on the 22.
Here is the link to Federal Code: Here is a link to the Federal code on transoms of small boats.
As you can see, there is nothing in this set of regs, which says that you cannot put 5 hp over the plate (if one is present) hp. There is an objective test of boat handling--specific speeds etc.
If you have a home built boat there are some certain standards.
Weight aft in the boat is an issue.
If you are looking for increased improvement of med range speeds, you may not see much in the power range of 3000 to 4500 RPM in blocks which are similar displacement. The difference is mostly in the valve train, timing, and some ECU changes. . You will see it in the higher from 4500 to 6000 RPM. No problem running a modern outboard at 5500 RPM if that is necessary.
You may use a more efficient prop. Also I suspect you will see slightly better speed and mileage with a fuel injected over the carb version.
I would personally go with the 60's, especially. in view of what you want to obtain in performance, and the upgrades you have done to the boat.
Here is the link to Federal Code: Here is a link to the Federal code on transoms of small boats.
As you can see, there is nothing in this set of regs, which says that you cannot put 5 hp over the plate (if one is present) hp. There is an objective test of boat handling--specific speeds etc.
If you have a home built boat there are some certain standards.
Weight aft in the boat is an issue.
If you are looking for increased improvement of med range speeds, you may not see much in the power range of 3000 to 4500 RPM in blocks which are similar displacement. The difference is mostly in the valve train, timing, and some ECU changes. . You will see it in the higher from 4500 to 6000 RPM. No problem running a modern outboard at 5500 RPM if that is necessary.
You may use a more efficient prop. Also I suspect you will see slightly better speed and mileage with a fuel injected over the carb version.
I would personally go with the 60's, especially. in view of what you want to obtain in performance, and the upgrades you have done to the boat.
Check your use.
Check your voyage arena.
Get the right prop(s).
Check the engine weights: twin vs single.
Examine your capability, knowledge and experience.
Go for more vs less horse power; like hiking in cold weather.
You can always reduce but never gain what you don't have.
Aye.
Check your voyage arena.
Get the right prop(s).
Check the engine weights: twin vs single.
Examine your capability, knowledge and experience.
Go for more vs less horse power; like hiking in cold weather.
You can always reduce but never gain what you don't have.
Aye.
markm":1vzos8vr said:
It’s reality not dreaming with the twin Honda 60’s. With a 15 pitch prop running at 4000 rpm, just 66% of WOT, speed with mine is just over 20mph. 80% of WOT will be about 4800 rpm & 28 mph. This is with a medium load in good conditions at sea level & fuel milage if boat well trimmed will be above 5 mpg. I have both trim tabs & Permitrims.
The Suzuki & Tohatsu may do as well, but a gamble to find out, so if you choose the Suzuki let us know how they do in comparison.
Jay
When I compare outboards, I don't pay as much attention to the HP as I do the displacement. Weight is also important and for our little boats the alternator output is also important. (capacity to charge house batteries/ the amount used by the engine.)
Comparing 3 models that your are considering:
The Honda 40 and 50 hp: 808 cc/49.5 cu in; 214#
The Honda 60 larger block: 998 cc/61 cu in 239#
The Suzuki which is 40, 50 & 60 on the same block: 941 cc/57.4 cu in. 229#
They are all fuel injected and have about the same charging capacity. All will give better results than the older 40 hp Honda you have, just fuel injection and older engine being "worn" will make significant difference.
I believe your best choice is between any Suzuki 40/50/60 and Honda 60. There is one other factor and that is the Honda 60 can be counter rotation. For me that is a significant advantage.
I have owned equal number of Suzuki and Honda in the last 20 years. Both have been trouble free and in the 90 hp to 150 hp range. The Suzukis have been faster because of the prop size and gearing.
So it boils down to availability, cost, and service nearby.
Comparing 3 models that your are considering:
The Honda 40 and 50 hp: 808 cc/49.5 cu in; 214#
The Honda 60 larger block: 998 cc/61 cu in 239#
The Suzuki which is 40, 50 & 60 on the same block: 941 cc/57.4 cu in. 229#
They are all fuel injected and have about the same charging capacity. All will give better results than the older 40 hp Honda you have, just fuel injection and older engine being "worn" will make significant difference.
I believe your best choice is between any Suzuki 40/50/60 and Honda 60. There is one other factor and that is the Honda 60 can be counter rotation. For me that is a significant advantage.
I have owned equal number of Suzuki and Honda in the last 20 years. Both have been trouble free and in the 90 hp to 150 hp range. The Suzukis have been faster because of the prop size and gearing.
So it boils down to availability, cost, and service nearby.
I had twin Honda 90s on my 2014 26 CD Venture.
I don't know if twin 100s (available now) would have gotten me "out of the hole"
quicker than the jackrabbit starts as the 90s gave me but I probabley would have
gone for the 100s if they were available then. Keep in mind CDs are relatively
flat bottom planing vessels, and past their 'tolerance speed', per Mfg, they get
squirrely.
Yes, 'horsepower (HP)' is dated (Ya' think?). Even engine cubic inches are not a
true indicator of performance, other than more usually wins over less. It comes
down to "the details"; Mfg claims..., carborated, EFI, turbo or supercharged, use,
weight, prop(s), hull design, vessel load, sea condition, etc.
For us average Joes, Mfg maximum HP ratings are important, not cu in, (violated
you lose insurance, maybe more).
My bottom line is, keep within the specs, and do not underpowered your vessel.
Aye.
I don't know if twin 100s (available now) would have gotten me "out of the hole"
quicker than the jackrabbit starts as the 90s gave me but I probabley would have
gone for the 100s if they were available then. Keep in mind CDs are relatively
flat bottom planing vessels, and past their 'tolerance speed', per Mfg, they get
squirrely.
Yes, 'horsepower (HP)' is dated (Ya' think?). Even engine cubic inches are not a
true indicator of performance, other than more usually wins over less. It comes
down to "the details"; Mfg claims..., carborated, EFI, turbo or supercharged, use,
weight, prop(s), hull design, vessel load, sea condition, etc.
For us average Joes, Mfg maximum HP ratings are important, not cu in, (violated
you lose insurance, maybe more).
My bottom line is, keep within the specs, and do not underpowered your vessel.
Aye.
T.R. Bauer
New member
thataway":1h7fanl5 said:
Twin counter rotating 60s sounds the way to go to me. I didn't know they were a thing in that size. I suspect in a light boat like the 22, they would make a big difference in overall handling and performance. I suspect they would counter many of the stresses on the transom as well, but I can't site any engineering publications to support that because I'm too lazy to look. Jay seems to love them....he's a lot of experience with the 22.
I will have to do some searching on the counter rotating props on a 60hp . My local Honda dealer said that was not the case and they don't counter rotate until you get up into the 115s. Just making sure I cover all the bases now. I did get a quote on the Honda 60s and they added approx $1000 over the Suzuki 60s. So it really comes down to cost of ownership and performance.