No announcement yet.

Inboard vs Outboard

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Inboard vs Outboard

    Just joined...not a fisherman but looking for a boat that can do everything that our 1959, 24'Mahogany Chris Craft Sportsman Twin can not - work boat, ski boat and handle 2 foot chop with no worries.

    The solution to this at the moment is a '23 Mako Inboard. As far as year I think we can afford up to the very early 90's.

    I like the inboard option but have the following reservations:

    1) All the '23 inboards only have 16" deg of deadrise and I feel I want 19" to help the ride in the junk. Is the 3 deg less of deadrise compensated for by having the motor in the middle giving better weight distribution?

    2) She (236) seems considerably slower in the inboard comfiguration even with the 16" deadrise when compared to a 231 even with a 225 hp outboard (5-10 mph). Is this real or am I just not seeing correct quotes on speeds on the I/B?

    But I like the inboard because

    1)ease of maintenance and better reliablity of the V8

    2) appear to get more real estate due to the clean stern, full transom and swim platform option

    Can anyone put my reservations to rest on the I/B and/or give me some other advantages of the I/B configuration.


    Ken Johnson

  • #2
    Talking from NO experience here, but yes, I do think the inboard is going to be slower.

    But having the weight of the engine up forward has to do alot for the ride. My buddy has a 24 Albie Jackshaft CC...much more V than the 23, but man that boat rides sweet and I think the engine under the console has alot to do with it.

    The other upside over an outboard is, when the crap really hits the fan, a repower is significantly cheaper. Probably 1/8th the cost of replacing a big HP outboard.
    1990 261 T/2001 200 HPDIs[br]Basking Ridge/Mantoloking NJ[br]


    • #3
      The inboard will be slower on a calm day, but on a choppy day it will ride much butter. You will need trim tabs, my friend has an older moldel without, it is a joke.

      I have a 1988 236. Love it. Great for diving and fishing. The 236 is great for drift fishing, the boat drifts sideways, allowing the entire side of the boat to be used. I fish 2 kites (2 baits a piece) on the one side and 3 surface baits and 2 deep baits on the other. You will need a sea anchor with an outboard.

      Re-powering is not as cheap as one would hope. I just put in a fuel injected 350ci, plus a tranny, plus motor mounts etc. And i am sure it had to be close to the price of a new outboard. You could always go cheap and do a rebuild or reconditoned. After going to fuel injection from a carb, I could never go back.

      Maintenance is pretty easy. Before the new engine,I did just about verything to the old one. Change exhaust manifolds, pulled the heads to have valve job, rebuilt the carb, alternators, and on and on. All this without pulling the center counsel. The old engine basically rusted to nothing.

      The only major issue I have against the inboard is keeping water out of the bildge. It will eventually cost massive corrosion to the engine if you can not keep it out. They make really good shaft and rudder seals. I put these in with the new engine and finally have a dry bildge. You will want to do the same.

      Never used mine to ski, it has a slow whole shot, but it would be very stable at speed.

      Go with a deep "v" inboard. Not sure when they switched, the older ones pound a lot more.
      Paul[br]Plantation, Fl [br]1988 Mako 236 Inboard


      • #4
        Yes, the inboard is slower. I bought one and was really suprised. We played with various props put could not get the performance I would have expected. Go here for more discussion.
        Ole Joe
        Just floundering around
        White Hall, Maryland
        1978 Mako 25


        • #5
          Just read all the prior stuff Flounder posted the link to.

          A few comments:

          The older ones pounded and were flat in the aft. Mine is an '88. It is a deep "v". It does not pound at all, it is amazing in the rough seas. You will get drenched, but not pounded.

          The original 260 hp 350 CI cruised at 24mph and had a top speed of 31 mph. That was after 15 years of use. I had it for the last 7 or so. The new 300 hp 350 CI fuel injected cruises at about 27 mph and I have had it going 35 mph. I have less than 20 hours on it, so it is not broken in, but I don't expect more than 35 mph. The new engiine has been getting a little better than 2 mpg. The old was closer to 1.5 or so, it had a ton of hours though. Note: all speeds are with 60 or so gallons of fuel and 3 people.

          I have a large T-top and bottom paint. Both effect top speed. I wouldn't trade the T-top for any amount of speed. I would consider repainting with a faster paint.

          As far as speed goes, there have been about 3-4 days on the water I wish it were faster. There have been about a 1000 other days on the water.
          Paul[br]Plantation, Fl [br]1988 Mako 236 Inboard


          • #6
            I have a 1979 236. Previously owned a Wellcraft V20. While the Wellcraft was a very fast boat, there is no comparison to the 236. The ride of the 236 is very comfortable. Rarely do I get wet. If speed is a concern, the 236 is definetely not the right boat. My boat has an engine from the mid-1980's...I've done the basics, manifolds, risers, carb cleaning and such. Don't forsee any major repairs in the immediate future (having said this, my fingers are now crossed). Getting the right prop on the boat is key...I'm not sure that I have found it yet. I have a 12R14 on there now and it takes a lot to get her on plane. I've come across some people locally who said that they once had a 236 and ran a 15R15. Haven't had the time to research it, but that's a huge change in prop from what I have. Also, I have a fresh bottom kote on her which I think helps substantially and the trim tabs are very effective. I don't fish, but I can see based on the layout why a fisherman would like the boat. Overall, I am very happy with my boat and would happy to tell you more if you're interested. Just drop me an email.
            Formerly: Mako 236[br]Currently: 35\' Viking[br]Greenwich, CT


            • #7
              I have a 236 with a 6cyl Perkins Diesel. It is 265 hp, and we see about 23 KTS in cruise and flat out maybe 28 if you mess with the tabs. It's economical to operate I figure it's about a 5 mi/gallon boat. With 85 gal of diesel, it has great range. The ride is good, I'm sure the big heavy diesel under the console helps. Biggest gripes are the deck hatches have no real gutters and gaskets, which let cockpit water into the bilge. Also when I got the boat it kept taking on water while anchored in a sea. Turns out the cockpit scuppers at the waterline were open to the bilge. Mako thought the water would nicely stay ina little tray molded in the deck..not so when the scupper submerged, water falls in the bilge. I glassed up some tubes, so if water comes back up the scupper, it flows on deck, and then back out. All in all I love the boat, although I keep it in the water, with our current trailer, it's a real bitch to get on and off.


              • #8
                QUOTE: Biggest gripes are the deck hatches have no real gutters and gaskets, which let cockpit water into the bilge.

                Here's the fix. Don't forget to buy the stainless T-wrench.

       Page 192


                • #9
                  Speaking from experience, there is no real comparison to an inboard and outboard powered boat in terms of performance. Pure physics will play a huge roll in that. The typical inboard engines cruises at 3000 rpms and if you are spinning a 15" pitched prop, it will only move the boat so fast. The typical outboard engine cruises at 4,000 rpms and will thus run faster. In the laet 80's the 240 hp inboard powered hull probably cruised about 24 mph burning 9-12 gallons per hour netting 2-2.5 miles per gallon. Put a 225 hp engine on the same boat and it will probably run about 27 mph and burn 18 gallons per hour for a net efficiency of 1.5 miles per gallon. For efficiency you could not beat the inboard, which will also plane the same boat at a slower speed thus making it more comfortable to run in sloppy seas. The advent of the efi adn 4-stroke outboards has really takena toll on the significant lead in efficiency that the inboard engines once had. I repowered a 26 Shamrock 2 years ago with an 5.7 liter 320 hp EFI Crusader with a new BW Velevet drive tranny. It cost me $8,300 for the engine and another grand for the tranny. Right now you can buy a new 200 Yamaha (2 stroke) for 10 grand and a 225 hp 4-stroke for 13-14K. The outboard powered boat will always run faster (in calm conditions) due to the higher operating rpms and the lack of drag generated by the shaft and rudder sticking out the bottom of the boat. I personally prefer the inboard setup and the clean transom that it provides. I recently bought a 24 Rampage and went with an inboard connected to an outdrive by a jackshaft. I may not be able to run faster than 22-24 knots when it is nice out, but I am realizing 1.7 to 2 miles per gallon in a big 24 footer (10' beam). MY neighbor had a 25 Mako CC with a pair of 140 Suzuki 4-strokes and gets about the same mileage, but only cruises at 22 knots turning 4500 rpms and when it is nasty out and the wind is blowing, he gets wet and can only run the boat about 14 knots while trying to keep the boat on plane, where as I can still run at 17 knots and have the weight of the engine in the middle of the boat to help keep the bow down. Although when it is nice, he can wind them up and run at 25-26 knots, which does make a big difference when you are traveling 60 miles ro so in from a day of fishing..

                  Chris Miller

                  Mystic Islands, NJ
                  Chris Miller[br]Mystic Islands, NJ[br]1974 17 Classic[br]1988 211 Classic (sold)[br]1990 Grady White 230 Gulfstream (sold)[br][img][br]