Kevlacat upgrade advice needed

[Maccas]

I am looking at either upgrading the motors on my 5.2 KC from Yammy 70hp two strokes to 90 hp 4 stroke Suzuki motors. As I have have the small pods and want to add jump seats as well as upgrade the electronics this will be a 20K to 25K upgrade.
Although the boat is fine I would like to be able to have a toilet in the cabin and would also like an ally trailer so am now thinking that maybe I should look at the KC 2400 or even the older 6.2 KC.

The question is it worth it to pay the extra 30 to 45k to get into the bigger boat seeing as it is going to be heavier to tow and run versus the benefits of better ride and more space especially as I rarely do overnighters. If I am going to do it the time to do it is now before I spend too much on my 5.2 KC.

BTW what is the BMT of a KC2400 and KC6.2 on an ally trailer?

[Noelm]

I guess you have to also consider if you moved to a bigger boat, will you be where you are now, but just have a bigger boat? meaning, unless you can find one that has new motors, alloy trailer and so on, you are not any better off.

[Maccas]

I probably didn't explain it properly above . If I was to upgrade my KC 5.2 it would cost up to 25k whilst if I bought a good used KC 2400 I would look to get one with 4 stroke motors with reasonable hours which would cost up to 45k to changeover after getting rid of my KC 5.2 . So I would get a bigger boat with 4 stroke motors for about 20k more than upgrading my KC 5.2.

My 5.2 does not have the range that I would like as the two strokes use around 2litres per nm and four strokes would use 30 to 40 percent less. My motors are fine they only have 240 hrs on them.I also would like add extra seating behind the helm and passenger seats which means some fibreglass work.

The question is.........is it worth it ?

[myusernam]

outside the square....

Get some bigger fuel tanks fitted. keep the two bangers. service them yourself to save money (easy). pay extra for the fuel. small price to pay considering you only have 240 hours, and you normally split with others.

[perko]

I have owned both a 5.2 and 2400. Go the 2400 and enjoy. Much faster, softer, and comfy. Nothing wrong with 5.2 but it's a huge upgrade.

[rodneyk]

Personly I would sell the 5.2 and look for a 2400 but you will be looking at minimum of 85k would think there a few around atm
Also if repowering are your old motors 25 inch legs if not you need to look at pod mods and larger p/head on 90 suzi although they have trim limit switch . Big decision to repower but not crazy if that boat suits your needs 25k will be eaten up pretty quick buys a lot of fuel but then again I like new motors . Difficult decision someone may want to swap with cash adjustment you can always ask Cheers Rod

[Maccas]

My motors are extra long so 25 inch but I was allowing to make the present pods bigger to compensate for the extra weight of the Suzuki 90 4 strokes in the price.

Another KC 2400 owner has told me that the 2400 built after 2004 don't have any wood in them, bigger pods and the hull shape is different which gives a better ride. Has anyone else ridden in an earlier 2400 and a later 2400 who could tell me how much difference there is in the ride. And are the earlier models heavier than the later models?

[mirage]

I have one of the early 2400's built in 1998. Yes it has the smaller pods on it but has no issue with the Suzuki DF140's on it. The later model pods are larger but I haven't been in one so don't know how much difference there is in ride, handling or performance.
To the best of my knowledge the hull shape is the same between late and early models, just the pods changed.
Scotty.

[Lovey80]

I have dean1's old 5.2 Black Marlin with Yam 60hp 4 strokes. Honestly, unless I was fishing 4 big blokes fully laden all the time. if I were you, I wouldn't look at the 90hp range if re-powering at this stage. That changes of course if one of the big players significantly reduced the weight of a 90hp four stroke.

I went out yesterday in pretty good conditions and sat on 24kts most of the time (for a fuel burn of 1.5km per litre combined) and opened her up for a short period which achieved 28kts (for a fuel burn of 1.3km per litre).

Do you cross a big or very dangerous bar most of the time?

If not I'd be working your costings on Yam F70's straight bolt on change over price versus the purchase of a 2400KC with 140hp four strokes. If the cost came under 10K more for the 2400KC I'd go for the 2400 hands down. Once that change over increase gets towards the 15k more, you really have to weigh up the pro's and cons of owning a bigger boat and what you are going to use it for.

Just my two cents.

[Stuart]

I think you have answered your own question. By thew time you spend all the $, and the stuffing around, you will still have a 5.2 meter boat. I wouldn't waste your time, go a 6.2KC, they are a much bigger boat plus they ride so much better than the 5.2.

[Maccas]

I think you have answered your own question. By thew time you spend all the $, and the stuffing around, you will still have a 5.2 meter boat. I wouldn't waste your time, go a 6.2KC, they are a much bigger boat plus they ride so much better than the 5.2.

So is the KC 2400 a lot more stable for drift fishing than a KC 5.2 or once at rest isn't there much difference ?

[Maccas]

I have owned both a 5.2 and 2400. Go the 2400 and enjoy. Much faster, softer, and comfy. Nothing wrong with 5.2 but it's a huge upgrade.

Perko,

Seeing as you have owned both could you give me a list of pros and cons for 2400 versus 5.2 and how much difference in fuel and maintenance costs.

Thanks,

Maccas

[perko]

Maccas, negatives of the 2400 was tow weight, bigger shed needed, gal trailer with sensa brake system that needs specific in car controller so using different tow rigs was not possible, no walk through transom (is available on some), water leaks where through hull fittings for toilet were, terribly small side pockets, inbuilt eskies were a pain to clean properly, eskies need to be moved up against the side of cab like the 2100 to make more room between the seats, seat posts were too high and need cutting down, motors stick out a long way and is hard to bottom bash with rods under 6ft6 (not a big problem with the walk through transom), motors cop heaps of spray. Pros were fast in average conditions, good on fuel with 140 zukes, great ride, enough room for 3-4 people to fish, easy to launch and retrieve, look good.
The 5.2 was our first cat and after coming out of 5.5 mono we thought we were made. It was a Tournament with 70 2 strokes. We fished spots that we previously wouldn't go to and caught heaps of fish, so have lots of fond memories of it. But I don't think I could handle how slow they go with the 60 four strokes. The 2400 spoilt me a bit. I am in the market for a boat again and am no closer to knowing what I want. One thing I do know it will be a cat.

[Maccas]

Maccas, negatives of the 2400 was tow weight, bigger shed needed, gal trailer with sensa brake system that needs specific in car controller so using different tow rigs was not possible, no walk through transom (is available on some), water leaks where through hull fittings for toilet were, terribly small side pockets, inbuilt eskies were a pain to clean properly, eskies need to be moved up against the side of cab like the 2100 to make more room between the seats, seat posts were too high and need cutting down, motors stick out a long way and is hard to bottom bash with rods under 6ft6 (not a big problem with the walk through transom), motors cop heaps of spray. Pros were fast in average conditions, good on fuel with 140 zukes, great ride, enough room for 3-4 people to fish, easy to launch and retrieve, look good.
The 5.2 was our first cat and after coming out of 5.5 mono we thought we were made. It was a Tournament with 70 2 strokes. We fished spots that we previously wouldn't go to and caught heaps of fish, so have lots of fond memories of it. But I don't think I could handle how slow they go with the 60 four strokes. The 2400 spoilt me a bit. I am in the market for a boat again and am no closer to knowing what I want. One thing I do know it will be a cat.

Ok so a few negatives there that I didn't think of before so have more questions. Is the spray problem worse in 2400 than 5.2 ? If the pods are the old pods then the wouldn't the motors stick out as much as on the 5.2 as the 2400 ? How much quicker/ better was the 5.2 with the 70 2 strokes vs a 5.2 with 60 four strokes ? How much heavier or harder to tow is the 2400 to tow than 5.2 ?

[perko]

I think the spray problem was worse in the 2400. The 5.2 had spray deflectors that the factory had put on. My 2400 had the later pods. Was a 2007 model. The 140's have a lot larger cowl than the 70 2 strokes, sat higher up on the transom, and the 5.2 had a walk through transom which helped. Never re powered the 5.2. Sat on 27 knots at 5000 revs everywhere we went unless it was too rough. From what figures I have read about 5.2 with 60's I think they would be too slow for me to tackle long distances with limited time. The 2400 opened up whole new areas for fishing with the larger tanks, better ride and 30 knot cruise speed.