Suzuki DF140BG fuel burn figures

[Dignity]

And to simplify my post - 140s will perform differently on each cat hull….

I think the solution is simple, tell Helliduck what boat you had and what your fuel burn was. May not apply to his rig but you'll have answered his post.

Edit: you did exactly that in a previous post, my sincere apoligies.

[NAGG]

And to simplify my post - 140s will perform differently on each cat hull….

It wouldn't be wrong to say every motor performs differently on every boat

Even things like the chosen propeller will make a difference

Chris

[baitable]

I have in-depth real world figures for kevlacat, noosa cat, sailfish, glacier bay with 140s. Each boat varies differently due to hull weight, shape, displacement vs non displacement, load etc hence why I was asking about the hull but since old mate was frank I’ll just move onto the next post as suggested and not post the data- good luck with getting real world figures. 2 Noosacats can vary greatly with the same donk and different props and different configs.

[Moray]

Hi,

I've got a KC 2400 2006 model and upgraded from 2006 Suzuki 140s to the 140BGs in Nov 2021. I've put about 80 hrs on them and the fuel burn is quite variable, highly dependent on the sea conditions. My boat is certainly not lightly loaded. Weekend trip I just did 237km and used 187l. Had two on board, 320l of fuel, 100kg of ice, 15kg of bait, lots of rods, probably 20+ kg of sinkers, motor guide electric motor on the bow, 70kg of batteries for it, gear, etc. I'm running 3 blade 21 inch suzuki ss props. If the sea is flat calm the most economical rpm is around 4150 to 4250 at which the speed is 42 km/h and fuel burn 1.3km/l. You can go a little slower and it will touch on 1.4 km/l but not consistently with the boat fully loaded. A lighter load and it will stay on 1.4 km/l. If you speed up it doesn't seem to matter if you go from 42 to 55 km/h and the fuel burn is constant at 1.2 km/l. Again this is in calm to relatively calm conditions. I was getting about 52km/h on 4950 rpm with 1.2 km/l.

But if the sea is a little rough say around 10 knots the fuel economy drops back to 1.1 km/l. If its over 10 knots with whitecaps it will drop to 1.0 or even 0.9 km/l. I'm guessing this is because the engines are labouring a lot more and the rpms are not held as easily as in calm weather so the lean burn doesn't get a decent run. Or its just a function of push much harder through the swell.

The digital aspect is truly fantastic especially in a twin setup. Push a button and you can use a single lever and both engines will sing at the same rpm. Turn the key and both engines will start. Trying to exactly match rpm with dual controls is a pain in the neck so I really like the one lever option.

What I am very disappointed with are the engine cowls. There is a lot of BS marketing spin about the new and improved cowl design but salt water comes in much worse than on the old motors. I understand that a cat gives engines a very hard life (i've had them for 20 years) so I was expecting the new and improved cowls to be an improvement. Not so. Lots of salt water comes in and drips down over the engine in line with the scalloped sections on both sides of the cowl. After a single trip there were big dried salt crystals all over the electronics (lhs) and on the cables (rhs). I have coated the engines to deal with this issue and am currently trying a few options to stop the flow of water. I queried Suzuki about the problem.....of course no response.

[Heliduck]

Excellent info, thanks Moray.

[Danf]

"If the sea is flat calm the most economical rpm is around 2150 to 2250 at which the speed is 42 km/h and fuel burn 1.3km/l."
Is that a typing error?

[Moray]

Sorry typo. 4150 to 4250 rpm.