I am looking at 5.6m sharkcat with twin 1999 150 oil injected motors would like a ball park figure of lts/km at 22 to 25 knots compared to a 140 turbo diesel 5.6 m sharkcat. Thanks
I am looking at 5.6m sharkcat with twin 1999 150 oil injected motors would like a ball park figure of lts/km at 22 to 25 knots compared to a 140 turbo diesel 5.6 m sharkcat. Thanks
The best i can get out of my 200 carby yamaha is 1.7 km per litre. The worst around 1.2km per litre. You have two motors which basically use the same consumption maybe a bit less because they're twins. So at best you might get 0.9 km per litre. At worst around 0.6 km per litre. Probably a bit worse again if they're Johnson not Yammy. If trolling the economy is worse again.
Not exactly sure I would be too thrilled about a diesel in an 18' Sharkcat?
save a tad more and get a cat with 4strokes, the one your looking at would chew a sh@t load of fuel, the extra money spent on fuel after a few years you could buy four strokes.
That is great consumption for a carbed 2 strokeOriginally Posted by robothefisho
Shyte yeh, for a 200 espeically
Depending on the hull, I suspect a typo or a slight flaw in the calculation. Most 4 stroke 200's and DI 2 strokes only return around that sort of economy (or worse) at around 22-25 knots. A 200HO Etec on a Victory is 1-1.3 km/l at those sort of speeds depending on load and trim and from discussion with owners the 200 Suzuki is about the same. What sort of hull is it robothefisho and how is the calculation/measurement done - just interested as if those are accurate figures they are indeed exceptional for a carbed 2 stroke engine.
Hi all,
No mis calculation. I do it using the fuel into the tank from full (filled direct into an in floor tank I can see the level in) and distance travelled from the GPS. The 1.7km/l is more a figure from cruising on a calmish Moreton bay anywhere from 25 -40 knots with 4-6 people. The 1.2 is more my offshore running around 13-20 knots with 4 people and gear etc. On a 5.9m seafarer runabout. 23 pitch prop. Capable of around 50 knots. Its trolling and slow running which kills the consumption.
Like I said astonishing numbers for a carbed two stroke.
do you stop the gps every time you anchor drift or move ?
if not your figures cant be accurate those figures are 4 stroke territory
most gps dont differentiate when a motors running or not in the distance travel log i could go to the fads 40km trip but do 60-80 with the drifts included
Thanks for the info but probably right 4 s would be the go. So does anyone out there have a cat with twin 115 4 stroke. And can these 5.6 m cats hand,e the rough.
Ultimately 4 stroke or new gen 2 stroke (depending on your persuasion) is the go unless the purchase price reflects the fact the hull has old motors. If the price difference is the best part of a repower and is the difference between a boat now and having to wait while you save a considerable sum extra, I know what I would do. It depends on your use pattern as well. If range is important, then new engines are important and will pay for themselves with regular use over big distances. If you never intend running big distances they won't and if the other attributes of newer engines (less/no smoke, quieter, can troll all day without oiling up) aren't so important then the cost savings that should be reflected in the purchase price are something to consider.
Are you sure it's a 5.6 sharkcat? Not often you see them with anything above 115/130hp on them. 150's would be rather impressive. I have seen one with twin 200's but that was a rare boat.
i own a 560 sc with 115 yamahas. Goes great, fuel economy is roughly 0.7-0.8l per km. I sold my 5.2kc to buy this boat. It's a better riding boat than the KC.
Spoke with a mate who runs a 7m sharkcat cuddy cab with twin 150 fourstrokes. Cruising at 27 knots it gets around 1.1km per litre.
Steve,
No I don't stop the gps. However all of my fishing is done at anchor (where I have never seen distance travelled increase while there shortish periods) most of my bay running is to a beach. They're averages from the last 3 or so years. The only reason its economical is because of how fast it is. It still uses a heap of fuel per hour. Ie at 3000rpm its doing approximately 32 mph.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote