Twins vs Single

W

Westfield 11

New member
Can anyone direct me to any debate regarding the relative merits of a big single as opposed to the same hp in two smaller motors. The boat would see use in Alaska, PNW, Baja as well as marina cruising.

How reliable are the newest 4-strokes? Can I use my dinghy kicker as a get home and would it ever be more than a remote possibility that I would ever have to?

Would two high thrust 60's be better than one 115? Or a 150 better than two 75's?
 
This topic has been debated many times on this site. Just search under twins versus single or some such thing and you should easily find information. As I recall the results were basically personal preference. I don't remember any definitive conclusion that proved one say was better than the other. I personally have twin Honda 40's on my 22. I chose that for redundancy, figuring getting home on a single 40 would be easier than getting home on a 9.9. I also like the close quarter maneuverability of the twins. My maintenance and parts costs are slightly higher. Were I to do it over I'd probably go for twin 50's. There are equally good arguments on the other side.
 
I think Les at EQ got this right when he (and probably others) said that as soon as you put a kicker on the transom you anyway have two engines (and most of the expense that goes with that) so why not make them the same size and get the advantages. Only caveat I can see is that the size be small enough for those that want/need to slow troll.
Like Barry, we went with 2 ea 40 HP and don't regret it for a minute.
In the end it's what you feel best about.

Merv
 
My own thoughts twins are lower in height easier to fish over,nice to have a second motor. The down side to twins is no swim platform,extra expense at time of puchase for rigging etc. Also most 40 and 50 hp motors are not fuel injected making them more suceptable to gumming up if they sit for any length of time. More so than the new injected 90's or 115hp so I've been told. Weight wise a new Honda 90 vtec weighs 365 against 212 x 2 =424 for the forties. Not alot but I would venture to say running the same rpms the bigger single would do better fuel wise. I too am looking at a 22 C-Dory its a matter of what floats your boat. DDeem
 
I'm with Barry on this one. Twins, redundancy, improved close-quarters maneuverability, and better get home if one goes out. I have 40 Yamaha's and if I were ordering new, (mine came set-up on the boat), I would opt for 50's. and it looks :smiled .
Harvey
SleepyC/b] :moon
 
I guess I have to represent the single + kicker crowd. I love our Suzuki 90hp and the 9.9 hp kicker combination. The main is fuel injected, which I really like. No cold starting, no choke etc. The kicker took care of us when we needed it, having to bring us back to our marina when we were 3/4 of the way to Bellingham a couple of summers ago. And it works great when we use it to troll for fishing, it saves on gas and we tie it directly to the main so that we can steer from the helm.

So for us, the main and kicker combination works great. Of course, I've never owned a boat with twins so I couldn't do a direct comparison. As others have said, it all depends on your own personal preference.

Peter
C-Dancer
 
A little more information re twins. I have twins and a swim step, designed and installed by Les at EQ, so that is not an issue. And, I think but am not sure, that the 2007 and later Honda 40-50's are fuel injected. Can't speak for other brands.
 
Main and kicker is the only way to go. More fuel efficient at trolling and if you hit something submerged you still have your kicker to get you home. With twins you stand the chance of loosing both lower units and waiting for a tow (if available).

Bill
 
The most compelling reason for me to have twins is the distance offshore I regularly go. Anywhere from 20-80 miles, therefore I prefer a get-home method with a little more clout in big seas and wind. For those that slow-troll, you have to be inventive to slow it down a bit (tilt engine, tow a bucket, etc), but I don't have that need. All arguments for/against are valid, just have to understand your own particular needs. My gas mileage is very close to a single big engine, so that isn't really a factor. My 2c.
 
I am a single main and kicker or use the dinghy engine as the kicker.

I have yet to have a modern outboard fail. Many of the newer 4 strokes are getting thousands of hours--close to diesel longivity. There are reports of motors in commercial use (that means every day some time at lower speeds, some at high speeds, as in charter boats and Coast Guard of over 7,000 hours in some 4 strokes).

I have pushed boats with amazingly small engines. I have gone many miles in a 26 foot boat with 5 hp pushing it at hull speed. A 4 to 6 hp will get you home (but slowly--and may not push against some currents--on the other hand, many boats do not go faster than 6 knots and get anywhere they want to go).
 
Well....I just became more of a believer in twins. We experienced a high temp reading on one of my Crusader engines and so we limped home with the other engine. Would have been a Sea Tow situation without it.

Mechanic is coming out tomorrow morning. Probably a thermostat or a bad sending unit.

Boats...

-Greg
 
I strongly prefer the main and kicker option. When I fish I anchor or I troll in a river and must constantly mend my line to match the contour of the bottom and keep my lure within two to three feet of it. Downriggers (even electric ones that adjust concurrently with the depthfinder automatically) are not sufficient. Tiller must be in hand and rod in hand or in holder right next to it, readily adjusted. You can't fish this way while up front at the helm. While at speed if a log is struck, the kicker is unharmed, always ready. The big main will work just fine most all of the time. C.W.
 
Well, I read all the debate over this old question and decided on a honda90 and 9.9 kicker. I like the fact that the 9.9 is out of the water and can run on a sperate tank, and be crank started this is true redundancy.
Bad fuel, electrical issues strike something, the 9.9 is still going to get me home or at least keep me safe. A smaller kicker cant fight the wind of currents and though my 9.9 is a tilt power start they still can be hand started.

The fact that decided things for me was that a 40 or 50 as part of twins will never get you up on a plain. And the cost is less for my set up.

The down side is weight distribution at the dock with the water tank empty as it has been since I took delivery, the boat lists noticeably. This in part is due to the fact that I have it mounted on the port side, a must for tiller range. I can link up the 9.9 with the 90 and steer from inside but when actively fishing all kicker operation will be from the stern.
 
Congrats on your decision. Each to their own, but a point......My 22 would plane with one 40 running. Don't know if true for everyone and engines other than Hondas.
captd
 
The CD isn't a speed boat. If going with twins I always thought a set of high thrust engines that would equal the max H.P. rating for the boat would be a great combination. Big prop/gearcase with high torque/big low pitched props should match the CD hull design. Should provide good power using one engine (trolling, emergency running or economy cruising at slow speeds, good control in currents) or two engines for express cruising.

I still like the big single/kicker for the SIMPLICITY of starting, trimming, controlling, maintaining one engine. We poke around here and there, start and stop so I wouldn't like fooling with two mains. The whole engine/house/spare battery/fuel connections/filters choices are simpiler with one main than two singles. With one main the console is less cluttered with engine guages as well. When you buy a perma-trim you only need one, not two.

The kicker can be operated connected to the main from the cabin. However, I really enjoy operating it from the cockpit. On nice days I can't stand being stuck in the cockpit. Out back under the bimini is nice.

When your steering system fails you can still motor on with the kicker. Yea you can wressle the twins but it ain't fun.

When you have total electrical failure you can still motor on with the rope start kicker. The kicker can run electronics and charge batteries as well. As others have said the kicker can run on a portable tank, can be used on a dink and is up out of the way when you crunch the main prop drive.

Does anyone know If the new fuel injected engines can be rope started and run with a completely dead battery?

Maybe it's perception, I find it odd that more 22's have twins and it seems that most 25's have single/kickers. Based on the size of the boat I would think the opposite would be the norm.
 
We have twin Yamaha 40's and have, just to try it, had it up on plane on a single with the other one up and out. :) :thup :love

Harvey
Sleepy-C :moon
 
Hunkydory, "My 22 would plane with one 40 running."

Well that is interesting, for me seeing many folks say that it could not be done eliminated the appeal of twins all together. I have a good friend with a gradywhite with twin 120's and was out when one went down. Our speed went down by 1/3 but we came back in with higher seas and that was nice. So I was leaning that way with peace of mind being the deciding factor. Without getting up on plane on one 40 the 9.9 as a backup is almost as good and it's all the way out of the water when things go wrong.
 
Mine planes with one engine. At 80% WOT I believe the speed is about 17 knots. The manual says I can rope start the engines, a rope w/handle came with each engine, but the dealer said on an 80hp engine, you'll probably only want to do this ONCE in your life!!!
 
This topic has been visited often, but I recently saw what I believe to be the definitive answer in a thread titled "twin 50's". I think it appeared about 3-4 days ago. Mike.
 
Back
Top