Twin Engines?

M

markshoreline

New member
I just read an archived reply about purchasing a C-Dory 22 that said, "get twin engines if you can". Is this really the case? It seems that a single 75-90 would get better fuel economy and coupled with a 9.9 high thrust kicker would give good trolling plus be less expensive to purchase while giving an emergency ride home when needed.

So what's so hot about little twins?

Speaking strictly from ignorance, of course!

Thanks
Mark
 
There have been several threads on this topic. You might use the search feature to find them. The consensus is...no consensus, ford or chevy, etc.
 
The amazing thing is how many words have been written and how many factors found to favor one over the other. Still no conclusion.

Looking at the Marinaut 215 advertisement at the top of the page were I am composing this...I notice no capability for twins...hence... he...he.....

Ron
 
For me it's nothing more than having a second motor to come in on if I were to loose one, nothing more. Yes, you can come in on a kicker, but if you have ever done it for any distance in rough seas you know why there is another big motor on my boat. Single or double all work fine. It's a personal choice, nothing more.

H :wink:
 
This question comes to the forefront for us. I have been attempting to research the pros & cons of choices for the motor(s) on our new boat. (Currently we are leaning toward the V26.) The Kenneth Wayne will have as part of it's mission great lakes capability. I've read the arguement that most engine failures are due to fuel problems and would affect both motors. If the engines and tanks are new and care is taken in fuel selection, is this really a concern? Does anyone have any fuel burn numbers for single vs twin in the 200 total HP range? Decisions, decisions!
 
Twins are heavier ,more expensive to buy and rig. They are usually a little slower because of the added weight and drag. They offer the option of running on one to conserve fuel. If you boat can't plane on one of your twins why bother? I wanted a boat with twins I settled for a single and will add a kicker in the near future for fishing and using it to save fuel where the bigger motor is not needed. With todays additives that are commonly used and recommended along with 10 micron fuel filters bad fuel should be less of a problem.
DaveWilke1,
Check with Eric who owns a 25' cruiser Chack Chack. He has a 200 hp Suzuki and has completed the Great Loop. He raves about his boats performance. I would lean towards a 175 or 200 hp. Some have run twin 90's although most on this site have 135 or 150 hp Honda's.
The new lighter Yamaha 70's in a twin set up might be a consideration. The Venture's sharper v up front lets this boat cruise faster in a chop than the older mostly flat bottom 25' Cruisers. A Venture 26 is a little heavier than a 25' Cruiser so maybe the extra hp is not a bad idea. It all depends on what you are looking for, higher speeds, are you going to load the boat heavy? Maybe the big single 200 hp is for you. Or you are happy going slower, the boat won't be loaded that heavy, mostly just two people aboard and you adore saving fuel then maybe a set of 70 hp twins is in your future. Or a 135 or 150 hp single. But make no mistake an under powered boat is no fun. Loafing along a 30 mph sometimes is fun when you have boring miles you want to burn down.
D.D.
 
Just ask yourself. Assuming you are a typical airline passenger. Are you happier to see two engines on the airplane? Or would you be just as happy if there was only one engine on the airplane you are about to board? Seems like a simple choice to me.
 
I'll settle for 4 on airplanes, only because they don't make 'em with 5 :lol:
But then, I'm biased and the ticket price is the same. Not quite so with my boat but 2 works for me.

M
 
I suppose another question might be. If you want to board a plane with two engines how would you feel if one of them was only one tenth the power of the big one? :):):)
 
Yes there is lots of discussion on this one. Several threads. It also depends where you do your boating. In many places like the San Juan's we see twins predominantly. In BC single with a kicker many times. On the west coast of BC with first nations, usually singles only. Arctic waters of USA and Canada, singles only. I am a single only guy as I maintain the heck out of the engine. What the mechanic says that's what I do. In many cases we see twins or single and kicker boats as well as single only disabled due to bad fuel or electrical issues So if you get bad fuel, what kills the main in short order kills the kicker. In my area we even see triples with a kicker on 31 ft Boston whalers. The owners are worried alot it seems hard to pay for or maintain. A single is simple and easy to maintain. Therefore much discussion and no answer. Take your pick. Good luck and welcome aboard. George
 
It is mostly about money. Twins cost lots of $ to buy and keep up. There is an added degree of safety with twins, but a kicker will get you back too. I have twins and an 4 hp kicker I use primarily for trolling for kings and for tooling around in the dingy. It probably would eventually get a guy back to the dock too, but with a top speed of around 3.5-5 mph, the 4 hp would take forever....

Really, it is up to you and if you think twins are worth it or not. When I repower, hopefully a long time off, I will go with a single 90 of sorts as twin 50s are really outside of my budget.

As noted, there really is not going to ever be any consensus on this.
 
I think there's more than a few reasons to go with a single or twin, and they've all been explored on this site -- more than a few times!

1) It depends on how far offshore, how far away from a safe haven and how much inclimate weather can come up quickly in the area you typically boat in. For me, I go offshore 20-50 miles typically, that's a LONG way to come home on a kicker at 5-6 knots (or less if going into seas/wind).

2) Lots of people say fuel is the biggest killer of engines when least expected. I've owned my boat for 9 years, 1000's of miles, never had a failure due to fuel. But I have had an engine fail for the following reasons:
a) Regulator burned up (probably my fault for paralleling a dead battery months earlier while running).
b) Kelp or a plastic bag caught in the prop while running, docking or pulling up to a mooring. This is the most compelling reason for me to have twins, you're very near other boats, usually a wind blowing, you must maintain control. This has happened numerous times for me, Catalina seems to have an abundance of kelp in some of the closer to shore moorings.

So for me, with my type and distance of boating, twins work and the extra maintenance cost and effort is minimal, at least for me since I do most all on my own. The initial cost was more than a main and kicker, yes.

I also like the extra turning control when docking or maneuvering. I get on average about 2.75 nm/gal, not much different than a single from the comparisons I've read. Plus of course -- they're cool.... :lol:
 
We have twin 40's. If I were to repower I would go with twin 50's. I can just barely plane with one engine when heavily loaded. Twins IMHO allow me a greater safety margin, currents here, in my cruising area, often run well over 4kts. A kicker that gives me 4-5kts might not be enough for safety in bad weather and opposing currents. I can spin the boat in its own length, use opposing propulsion, one in forward one in reverse, to maneuver in tight spots, etc. I don't know the exact costs but two Honda 40's are about $10,200 not twice as costly as a single 90 which is about $9300. When you add in a 9.9hp kicker at about $2300 you actually spend more for the single and kicker. Maintenance cost differences are not as great as you might think. I have a total of six cylinders, a 90hp has a total of 6 cylinders, I think. Yes I have to buy two fuel filters, oil filters, impellers instead of just one but the bigger ones needed for a single cost more. And, don't forget the kicker has maintenance costs too. Yes there is some weight penalty but I'd check the actual figures. Modern engines are so reliable I'd be comfortable with either a single or twins but I am overall more comfortable with twins, I like redundancy in mechanical systems that can mean my safety. Example, I am going out Deception Pass against a strong 7kt flood and an engine dies. I push throttle forward on the other engine and proceed. With a single plus kicker, I leave the helm, go to the cockpit, put the kicker down, start it and....
 
My Chevy only has one engine. :roll: If your boat carried as many passengers as an airliner you would wouldn't need any engine your boat would be on the bottom. :twisted:
D.D.
 
I have a Suzuki 175(2010) on my V26. Real happy with that motor. Don't really think you would gain much with a 200 except extra weight and cost. Buena suerte!
 
Mark, I really encourage you to spend the time in this site's search engine and read the "reams" of comments on this subject that has previously been submitted. (This is probably the most "hashed" over subject on the site).
(A couple of years ago, I experienced overheating problems on one of my two 50 HP Johnsons). I merely turned off the offending engine when the alarm sounded, raised the engine and never stopped forward momentum in the currents as the other engine continued to "purr" me on my way. Could I have done the same with a single and kicker?...Yes providing any currents not lead me in to harm's way while I start a kicker.) (Problem was a thermostat, which I later replaced as well as the one on the non-offending engine just to "CYA". Now I carry a spare thermostat.)

The consensus you will obtain from this group is divided with good reasons for each choice. Just figure out what you think is best for you.

If you and your wife wish to see a 22' with twins, PM me. I live 3 miles North of Arlington. (About 22 minutes North of Localboy). (We don't fish, just cruise so I don't have any downriggers, flies, or lures to show you...nor dried fish blood on the deck..... :lol: )
 
I spent a lot of time researching twins v single prior to buying a boat. Very confusing to say the least. I came to the conclusion that if you are a fisherman, single & kicker makes sense. If you are a cruiser, then twins make sense. But like someone said in an earlier post, do not turn a good boat away because of its power configuration. So when I went shopping, that is what I had in my mind. When I find a great boat I will be happy with whatever is hanging off the stern. I ended up with twins and love 'em.
Of course the big decision is, if you buy a new boat (or repowering), what configuration to install? Luckily I never had to make that decision.
Martin.
 
davewilke1":1pgve1ev said:
...the arguement that most engine failures are due to fuel problems and would affect both motors...
Click to expand...

Good point. On our C-D 22 each engine (40 hp) has it's own fuel tank and spin on filter. The only time we experienced water in the fuel was apparently when spray entered the port fuel tank vent in lumpy seas. Due to the spin-on filter it didn't affect the engine. The stock engine mounted filter couldn't have captured that much water.
Spin-on filters are a must for any marine engine, the ones with the clear bowl will let you see any issues with the fuel before it causes problems. The valve in the bowl lets you drain any contaminants
.http://www.parker.com/portal/site/P...gnextcat=MARINE+GASOLINE+SPIN-ON+SERIES&Wtky=
Honda, OMC, Yamaha, ect, rebrand Parker filters. Elements are easy to find.
 
Back
Top