economy of 90 vs 115 on a CD22

[Spike]

tbag
No it's mpg's Alittle either side of 3mpg's depending on water conditions, load and my throttle hand. Really, I don't think thats all to bad for a boat at a planing speed. I have trim tabs and a permatrim, I like and use the tabs, but am not totaly convinced on the permatrim. But that is another topic. I think no matter what you will be happy with a Yamaha, 90 or 115.

 

[Yellowstone]

Tbag - My comments may or may not be relevant. I ran a Honda 90 for years with my first 22' Dory, and most of my traveling was at sea level. No need for more HP. Then a trip to Yellowstone Lake with an elevation close to 8,000 feet demonstrated the need for trim tabs and more horsepower to get on plane. That 24% less oxygen at 8,000 does translate into the need for more HP.

My next 22' came with a 100 HP Merc 2 stroke which I quickly replaced with a Merc EFI 115. That engine is really a Yamaha with Merc. cosmetics, No more carb. problems, instant starts and good economy. But.......it is overkill at sea level particularly at WOT. If I were boating at sea level any 90 EFI would be OK.

But.....if you habitually travel overloaded, the 115 might be useful even at sea level. But as the old saying goes, if you have the ponies, you have to feed them.

Another variable enters in - adding ethanol to the gas mixture. That definately affects performance, 90 or 115.

Really depends on where you do most of your boating as to your choice of motor.

Yellowstone

 

[tbag]

I am in Juneau AK so I am at sea level. No roads in or out. The highest elevation I would ever take the boat would be Atlin lake at 2200'. So maybe a 90 is what I need. I am going to look at 2005 Yamaha 90hp tonight. Anything I should look at in particular? Pretty sure it is EFI.

 

[Sea Wolf]

I am in Juneau AK so I am at sea level. No roads in or out. The highest elevation I would ever take the boat would be Atlin lake at 2200'. So maybe a 90 is what I need. I am going to look at 2005 Yamaha 90hp tonight. Anything I should look at in particular? Pretty sure it is EFI.

The 2005's and later Y-90-4S's are EFI.

The total hours should be shown in the instrument cluster with the key on.

Look for rough abuse (if any) on the lower end in terms of scratches, dents, prop condition, etc.

Make sure the tim and tilt work through the whole range.

I'd insist on a on the water trial to hear it run throughout the rpm ranges.

Should start, idle, and run very smooth, like a new car engine. Shifting should be smooth and definite.

If taken to a dealer, the Electronic Control Module, when connected to a computer with the correct Yamaha software, will together print out a complete history of the engine, including problems, errors, hours run at each rpm range, and lots more.

Well worth the few $$ for the analysis.

Have the mechanic check the lower end oil for metal particles, and also check the condition of the water pump.

I'd agree to buy the engine and pay for the work if the engine is in good, acceptable condition; otherwise, the seller keeps the engine and pays for the work.

The final price could be negotiated along with the work involved to make a suitable deal for you.

Get a cost estimate from the dealer beforehand.

Parts of this scheme could be made difficult if the engine is not presently on a boat, so talk it over with a dealer and the owner as necessary.

Good Luck!

Joe. :teeth :thup

 

[T.R. Bauer]

I normally am the kind of guy that says the more power the better. However, I have twin 45s and never had an issue when load very heavy with getting on step of getting up to speed. Just to give you context, the heaviest my boat has ever been loaded was when I had 2 black bear tarped up in the back, an 120 quart cooler full of ice and other stuff, another 120 quart cooler with 4 limits of halibut, rock fish, a full tank of water, a ton of gas, a week's worth of camping stuff, the dingy, a small outboard, and it still operated just fine. The mpgs were less though, but not terribly. Of course, this was just 2 guys and I'm probably missing stuff. The point is it was a heavy boat.

Honestly, I can't imagine an actual need to have a 115.

 

[rogerbum]

I normally am the kind of guy that says the more power the better. However, I have twin 45s and never had an issue when load very heavy with getting on step of getting up to speed. Just to give you context, the heaviest my boat has ever been loaded was when I had 2 black bear tarped up in the back, an 120 quart cooler full of ice and other stuff, another 120 quart cooler with 4 limits of halibut, rock fish, a full tank of water, a ton of gas, a week's worth of camping stuff, the dingy, a small outboard, and it still operated just fine. The mpgs were less though, but not terribly. Of course, this was just 2 guys and I'm probably missing stuff. The point is it was a heavy boat.

Honestly, I can't imagine an actual need to have a 115.

Here's a guy who speaks Alaskan. Wow! That's a lot of stuff on a 22.

 

[T.R. Bauer]

I normally am the kind of guy that says the more power the better. However, I have twin 45s and never had an issue when load very heavy with getting on step of getting up to speed. Just to give you context, the heaviest my boat has ever been loaded was when I had 2 black bear tarped up in the back, an 120 quart cooler full of ice and other stuff, another 120 quart cooler with 4 limits of halibut, rock fish, a full tank of water, a ton of gas, a week's worth of camping stuff, the dingy, a small outboard, and it still operated just fine. The mpgs were less though, but not terribly. Of course, this was just 2 guys and I'm probably missing stuff. The point is it was a heavy boat.

Honestly, I can't imagine an actual need to have a 115.

Here's a guy who speaks Alaskan. Wow! That's a lot of stuff on a 22.

Well, that's what happens when plan for a week and both of you get bears the morning of 2nd day out, go fishing close by that day, and luck your way into another limit of fish on the way back. The bears in late May to mid June were literally within a 1/4 miles of the water (they almost are at that time of year as they no place to go thanks to the snow) and were pretty easy picking with the 300 winmag. The fun ended when it was time to gut them as there were a LOT of bears in the area. But it was the best hunting trip ever - it wasn't even raining, nor were there many biting buggies as it was early in the year....go figure.....awesome....I mean, we still had beer left.....lots of it!!! LOL.....

BTW, this was a much better experience than I have had with my small jet skiff chasing moose all over the river systems up here and not finding anything I could close enough to harvest.

 

[tbag]

TR Bauer yup that is a full AK boat. I am in SEAK and the most I every think I would have in my boat would be a 3 guys and gear, a raft, a moose and some halibut or crab. I would be so happy with that load that I would be fine going home at displacement speed.
TR what kind of MPGs do you get with your twins (light and loaded down)?
and with the twins what is your effective range?
If this deal with the 2005 OB goes through I might have a 90 in my future.

 

[Sunbeam]

TR what kind of MPGs do you get with your twins (light and loaded down)?
and with the twins what is your effective range?

The example I'm bringing up isn't your same engine(s), but I think it probably speaks to the fact that (once you are into a 4-stroke), the mileage is more about the boat/load/speed than about the specific engine. What I mean is that with a given boat/load, it will take "X" horsepower to go "X" speed, and I think that takes about the same amount of "oomph" and fuel whether you are getting it from twin 40's, twin 50's, a single 75, or a single 90.

There are two well-traveled C-Dory 22's whose owners are members here. They both have 4-stroke engines. One is Halcyon, which has two Honda 40's, and the other is Rana Verde which has a single Yamaha 75. One year they traveled in tandem up the Inside Passage to Alaska and back down -- many miles, loaded boats, and probably the whole gamut of conditions and speeds. They said that the fuel usage between the two boats was so close to the same that there wasn't even a difference worth mentioning. That tells me that a given 22, going a given speed with given conditions and load, just uses X horsepower from whatever engine, and so uses around the same amount of fuel (4-stroke or probably modern 2-stroke being a given).

Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that fuel-injected four-strokes are more fuel efficient than carbureted 4-strokes, and I can't speak to that as I hadn't heard it before (well, not any significant difference anyway). But you are probably going to be getting a fuel-injected 4-stroke anyway, so you won't even have that possible variable.

If this deal with the 2005 OB goes through I might have a 90 in my future.

If that engine is in good shape, it sounds like a real sweet deal.

 

[T.R. Bauer]

TR Bauer yup that is a full AK boat. I am in SEAK and the most I every think I would have in my boat would be a 3 guys and gear, a raft, a moose and some halibut or crab. I would be so happy with that load that I would be fine going home at displacement speed.
TR what kind of MPGs do you get with your twins (light and loaded down)?
and with the twins what is your effective range?
If this deal with the 2005 OB goes through I might have a 90 in my future.

Lightly loaded, I can make the trip to Little Johnstone Bay (70-80 miles) from Seward and back on around 15-17 gallons with 2-3 adult males and one ten year old kid with full gas and water when we depart. If we troll for salmon around the capes on the Gulf, I will switch tanks just to be on the safe sides (it always goes dry when pulling into the slip or around some navigation hazard) as I only have the 18 gallon tanks. I've done this trip a zillion times and the fuel burn is incredibly consistent. This is nearly 5 mpg. I say lightly loaded, but there are often times I leave lightly loaded and come back with 6-8 nice halibut, limits of rockfish, and limits of coho - so much for the light load.....My boat burn less fuel than many folks on here. But that is probably due to fact I almost always try to run neutral trim if at all possible as I have found that trimming everything down lowers my fuel economy considerably.

With a heavy load for camping, hunting, fishing, or a combination of the three, the boat gets less, but I don't know how much less as I have never measured it. And unless you are actually going somewhere, like from port to port, which I don't do when camping or hunting, it might be nearly impossible to measure without a fuel meter.

BTW, it is rare day the seas let me go faster than 20 mph......

And I would agree with the other posters that load and speed are probably bigger considerations than horses. I bet the 115 and 90 have nearly identical burn rates given the same conditions.

Good luck with your new motor - only 3-4 months till the kings return (god willing).......

 

[C-Nile]

Regarding the Honda 115 HP -- it is very quiet and fuel efficient. It is a low rpm high torque engine. We hardly ever go over 3500 rpm and the engine is so quiet my wife and I can have a normal, quiet conversation. However, I would take Les' advice about not getting a kicker if you go with this engine on a CD 22. ( Our Marinaut can handle more weight on her stern because of its weight distribution.) I had the personal experience of using a kicker with a heavy Suzuki O/B on my sold CD 16 and it had a measurable, negative impact on fuel economy. I'm talking about a 20 percent reduction in economy over a single engine. The other thing is that if a boat is too stern heavy, you'll have more drag, which means higher rpms to reach your desired speed making the engine louder then it would otherwise be under a more balanced load. So whatever engine combination you choose, my recommendation is keep the weight down.

 

[Jack in Alaska]

I had a 115 HP Johnson 2 stroke on my 1983 CD Angler for 17 yrs. It pushed the boat just fine except would roll to the port side from prop torque if pushed too hard.
In 1997 iI replaced it with a 90HP Honda 4 stroke, carbed model and it is still on the boat.
The 90hp handled the boat much better, easier to come up to speed, faster throttle response, extremely quite and economical.
No "to the tenths" numbers but I fished in the same way almost every time out. Run offshore to anchor up for halibut, run back in and troll for 4 hrs. for salmon. The 115 would almost always get into the 2nd 12 gal tank but the 90 would burn approx. 7 to 8 gals on the same trip. I cruised the 115 at 3500 rpm's and the 90 at 4000 rpms.
The 90 was a much superior set-up than the 115.
I hope this info helps.