2400 Kevlacat New Motors

[Towie0]

Trying to use search function but not finding much.
Am looking into replacing the 2003 V4 130 2 strokes Yamaha's which i must say are running beautifully but we are looking to start travelling further and for longer out of Port Douglas exploring the Northern reefs, Linden Banks, up to Lizard Island etc etc

Thinking 130HP Yama 4 strokes that saves about 100 kilo on the butt end in weight over the 150HP which are heavy and probably over kill & over the weight limit.
The guys at Brisbane Yamaha state a 30 to 40% fuel saving and about 30K or so change over price.

Now currently getting 40lt per hour @ 25kn so in theory it should drop to 30 per hour.

Question - would love some feedback from 2400 KC Owners or those experienced in them as to fuel usage figures on new 4 stroke motors..

Cheers Towie

[myusernam]

the suzuki 140 with four blade solas counter rotating is the combo of choice for the 2400. plenty of fuel reoprts on here even and on the net.
reef marine in mackay do a fair few of them.

[Towie0]

Ye i can find some and a lot of old posts pre 2010 im not convinced the 4 pokers will be that much better but will keep looking into it.

[rosco1974]

140 Suzuki 2012 models on a 2005 2400 kevlacat got bout 1.1-1.2 k/ltr at cruise of bout 26 - 28knts...that was swinging 13x 21 4 blade props....I used to work on 1tr per k...not said outboards your thinking but that's what the suzukies get

[Moray]

2006 140 suzukis running 4 blade solas get around 0.9l/km at 50km/hr. I always budget on 1l/km for planning trips.The newer 4 strokes may get slightly better economy than this but it wont be massively better. Optimistically you might a 10% improvement but you really need to find someone with the new suzukis or ideally find someone with the 130 yammies.

[Camhawk88]

If you are getting 40l/h at 25kn then you are getting better than 1km/l -what the 140 suzies are getting. You sure those are your figures with th 2 bangers? If so then stick with them. 30 k buys a lot of 2stk oil.

[perko]

1L per klm with df140. 2009
Models. Does not vary much running from 40kph to 55kph.

[Kondo 1]

I don't have any experience with the 2400 - but I do have new Suzuki 200AP twins on a heavy mono. This is more just an advocation for the lean burn Suzi's as I am getting approx 1L/km at 25-28 knots on a heavy plate Mono (estimate 4t with blokes and gear) which I think is amazing economy.

Week before last trip was 197km for exactly 200L and 8.2 engine hours in mostly rubbish conditions - that was with allot of idling because my house batteries were low after the night moored at Cowan. 4 blokes, full ice, 500L fuel to start and with all my gear on board.

Personally I would be looking at the lean burn 140's, my understanding is that they are significantly better on fuel than the non lean burn models they replaced and everybody knows the 140 spook is a sweet motor and very well matched to the 2400 (I thought they were almost standard issue [emoji3])

A mate of mine has a brand new Lean Burn 140 on an old Sportfish and it is a lovely motor - no idea on fuel because he is a cheapskate and didn't option the GMI 20 or digital gauge, but to drive and live with it is lovely.

I can't quantify it personally, but I was told by someone I trust that tested fuel economy difference in the new lean burns was something like 17% at cruise on the 140's, I'd believe it based on the economy I am getting out of the twin 200's on this boat vs the single 300 yam on my old 685 HT. I reckon 5-10% better in the heavier platey with twins at similar cruise speeds, I really am surprised.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[SatNav]

Now currently getting 40lt per hour @ 25kn so in theory it should drop to 30 per hour.

1. All the theory sounds fine but reality is something quite different. Currently you are running less than 0.9 litres to the km, a "claimed" 30-40% reduction on this figure is a really big ask

2. 150's will blow your current economy totally out of the water with nothing more than additional weight and total waste of power v purchase price and not achieve your purpose, bad option

3. $30g is a lot of money for something that is not broken and which will not provide $30g's worth of improvement over the life of the motors

[Moray]

Towie,

Are you certain of your fuel consumption with the 130's? If the values you quoted are correct you would be getting 0.8l/km which is significantly better (>10%) than the 140 suzukis most people run. Assuming lean burn has a 10-15% improvement over the older Suzuki model you would only gain a marginal improvement in fuel economy i.e. 0-5%. On a full tank of 450l this would give you an additional range of 22km or 11km each way. Not a game changer for sure.

I previously owned a 6.2KC and changed from 90 two strokes to 115 four strokes. Change in fuel consumption was not earth shattering. However, no more two stroke smell and noticeably quieter. We all hated the two stroke stink but some people love it so its a personal choice. Biggest difference in fuel consumption was trolling, where the new motors were substantially better.

I've just checked the weight of the 130s vs the suzuki 140s and it is 6kg per motor. The suzukis are definitely a great match for the 2400 and have proven themselves for many years. If you decide to take the plunge and get new motors it might be worth getting some pricing for 140s so you can, if nothing else, bring some competition into the negotiations. There is a new Suzuki dealer in Cairns and they are pretty keen to make some sales.

New motors will also be slightly heavier - about 15kg per motor, than the existing two strokes. Google has your current motors at 169kg and the suzukis are 184.

As you would know Cats love speed so, within reason, the more speed the better. Fuel consumption on the 140s at 60km/hr is not that different to at 50km/hr but i'd guess this would not be the case for the two strokes. I'm sure you will love new 4 stroke engines but I'm just trying to highlight where the differences are and where they are not.

[Towie0]

Great feedback & info thanks fella's greatly appreciated.

I have been slack and only used the gauges for consumption so i best do an old fashioned fill and refill test as perhaps the gauges are not quite accurate.
They do show 40 per hour around 25kn but must check properly and have always assumed 1lt to 1klm as a rule but with some of the talk both people and salesmen i just couldn't believe the newer 4 strokes could reduce economy by 30% plus....... just seems too good to be true and we all know where that can lead us dont we.

I completely agree with 30K being a lot of fuel & 2 stroke oil thats for sure and probably should run em till they dead i bought the boat off an old fella & only 360 hours on these 130's and i know they are good for between 1000 and 2000 hours if looked after which i do.

[Cape Crusader]

G'day Towie
I think you need to get an accurate record of your current fuel consumption then ask the question
I reckon your quite a bit off currently
Cheers
Rod

[Towie0]

Yeh im thinking those gauges are well off given the replies so will fill it & take for a run


Sent from my iPad using Ausfish mobile app

[Flex]

It's not just the straight run offshore that chews fuel, it's the multiple drifts, putting around reef. Especially if your doing big over nighters to lizard there will be lots of exploring between reefs etc, This is where 4 strokes come into their own.
Running full noise doesn't save s huge deal over 4 stroke.
Having said that the lean burn on Suzuki is noticeable when comparing to straight yamaha 4 stroke.
My mate with 140 suzukis on his 6.2kc gets better economy than my 560 sharkcat with f115's


Sent from my iPhone using Ausfish mobile app