Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hey ob1jeeper

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hey ob1jeeper

    I read on earlier post you have twin 140 4 stokes on your 224. What year is 224? Is it not overpowered? I would love to hear about performance (speed, fuel durn, ride, weight at back, ect...)and see pics. Do you have a bracket? I would like to see 224 w/ bracket and know what effects it has on ride.
    \'93 241 https://forum.classicmako.com/forum/...etting-started
    \'82 224 - Mobile, AL Gone but NEVER Forgotten - https://forum.classicmako.com/forum/...indshield-tank


  • #2
    quote:


    Originally posted by ChuckB


    I read on earlier post you have twin 140 4 stokes on your 224. What year is 224? Is it not overpowered? I would love to hear about performance (speed, fuel durn, ride, weight at back, ect...)and see pics. Do you have a bracket? I would like to see 224 w/ bracket and know what effects it has on ride.



    Chuck,

    I do indeed have a 224 with twin Suzy 140's. And I am VERY pleased thus far. Let me see if I can answer some of your questions...
    Year? - 1983

    Ride? - I'm VERY pleased with the results thus far.

    Speed? - Max seen so far (at 4000 ft elevation) is 52 mph (*)

    Fuel burn? - Approx 3 MPG (at 4000 ft elev. & cruise speeds of 29-33 mph (*)

    Weight @ back? - Before I added the bracket, the rear floor was approx. "at or slightly below" waterline. Since adding the bracket, it is approx 3-4 " higher.

    (*) NOTEs; Because this is obviously not a "factory" set-up, I'm still "tuning" the set-up, and have yet to finalize the motor height settings. I am expecting it to perform a tad better (perhaps not measureable, but "smoother"), when I'm done with the "tuning".

    Now on to the tricky question regarding bing "OverPowered"...

    In a simple word, the answer is NO, and here is why...

    While the "rated-HP" issue is a topic that is a rather convoluted and confusing mess that NMMA created, I hope the following helps explain...

    HP ratings for hulls, in actuallity are nothing more than "safe weight" ratings, which were established in response to a number of drownings when boats sank to the bottom quickly.

    When these ratings were coming into being during the 70's, what the NMMA (National Marine Manufacturers Association) was attempting to do, was to provide an "easy to use" guideline for TOTAL hull weight capacities, so that users would NOT overload with more weight than that which would allow the craft to remain "at the surface", if totally swamped. UNFORTUNATELY... Like most bureucrats, they found a way to make it complex...

    First they devised a formula based on hull design, (which was WAY too confusing). Further attempts led to devising a chart based on engine HP, which they "advised" manufacturers to use in rating thier boats.

    The numbers on that chart, came from weighing a number of motors (which were then-available 2-stroke outboards). By weighing a number of the manufacturers offerings for each of the various HP's, and averaging the weights, they came up with HP numbers for use in the chart.

    THUS... The HP rating, is REALLY nothing more than an attempt to help rate the hull's "safe" weight carrying capacity.

    By-the-Way... The SAME methods were applied when they set ratings of the hull for the number of persons capacity.

    The number used by nearly ALL of transportaion industry in the 70's for a "person", was 150 lbs. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that MOST folks in the USA these days, average a "tad OVER" 150, and the transportaion industry as a whole has been trying to agree upon a new "standard person weight" for the past several years.

    So... These days, what MOST manufacturers are doing is listing the MAX Weight Capacity. Some may also still provide that in person & cargo capacity, but nearly all are now using total weight capacity, because that's what they are REALLY trying to inform the user about anyway.

    So, back to HP ratings.... Since my 224 is "rated" for a 250 HP, which from NMMA's charts weighed 470 lbs, and my twin 140's weigh approx 820, this results in my "persons & gear" capacity being reduced by;

    820-470 = 350 lbs...

    To help make up for that, I added a 30" offset bracket (Armstrong), with a SEALED flotation chamber. The sealed chamber has a bouancy capacity of 456 lbs. If you substract the weight of the bracket, the NET bouancy is 456-112 = 344 lbs.

    Thus; I now have a hull, that has the WEIGHT capacity, essentially UNCHANGED from the original Mako/NMMA recommendations, set using NMMA's "HP/Weight" chart.

    Hope this wasn't TOO confusing...

    OB1
    Working for a livin\' is HIGHLY Over-Rated...[][br]

    Comment


    • #3
      I throught you did Outstanding in your explaination.[)][)]

      Comment


      • #4
        quote:


        Originally posted by warthog5


        I throught you did Outstanding in your explaination.[)][)]



        Thanx for the props... Hope most of the readers can get useful info from it as well...
        Working for a livin\' is HIGHLY Over-Rated...[][br]

        Comment


        • #5
          Thanks for the reply - excellent job explaining. A few years back, here in Alabama, they made numerous changes to laws for boaters including requiring Driver License. If I understand correctly (again here in AL) it is now against the law to exceed HP limits on boats, and I have also been told you can't insure if you exceed HP limits. Your explaination makes perfect since, however if what I have heard is true (law & insurance) I wonder how that would work. The capacity plate had been removed from my boat before purchase and I got link to Coast Guard boat builders guide to figure limits - I wonder if formula is the same today as in early 80's - I will eventually do exercise and let you know.

          Have you had the boat (w/bracket) in rough water or heavy chop? Really curiuos about rough water performance.

          Can we see some pics?
          \'93 241 https://forum.classicmako.com/forum/...etting-started
          \'82 224 - Mobile, AL Gone but NEVER Forgotten - https://forum.classicmako.com/forum/...indshield-tank

          Comment


          • #6
            quote:


            Originally posted by ChuckB


            Thanks for the reply - excellent job explaining. A few years back, here in Alabama, they made numerous changes to laws for boaters including requiring Driver License. If I understand correctly (again here in AL) it is now against the law to exceed HP limits on boats, and I have also been told you can't insure if you exceed HP limits. Your explaination makes perfect since, however if what I have heard is true (law & insurance) I wonder how that would work. The capacity plate had been removed from my boat before purchase and I got link to Coast Guard boat builders guide to figure limits - I wonder if formula is the same today as in early 80's - I will eventually do exercise and let you know.


            Have you had the boat (w/bracket) in rough water or heavy chop? Really curiuos about rough water performance.

            Can we see some pics?


            First the law ... It is NOT illegal to surpass the HP RECOMMENDATIONS... Because they are legally just that... recommendations. Before I made my deciion, I looked up the NMMA, recommendations, and even called the NMMA, the NUMA, AND the Coast Guard to obttain clarification on who is the RULIONG body on this matter. What I discovered, is that NONE of them currently have legal obligation or rights to set down any legally BINDING rules, regarding boat HP ratings
            That said... I agree, and fully understand how difficult it may be to get the "attention" of some of the folks (both insurance agents and local "constables", who likely MAY NOT fully understand the facts on this topic.

            In any event, you are within your legal rights to put ANY motor on your boat you want to, as far as HP is concerned. I kept all of my correspondence's, AND the print outs I got off thier websites, just in case I ran into an issue in the future.

            In chop (of approx 1.5-2.5 ft, which is the worst I've encountered since adding the bracket...), it performs GREAT.

            I don't have pics with me, as I am visiting my folks in Missouri at the moment, because of a family illness. When I get home to Arizona, I'll post some more pic's.

            You can also find some "almost finished" photo's under my original post "transom materials", which went into a LOT of the repower & rebuild details.

            Hope this helps...
            Working for a livin\' is HIGHLY Over-Rated...[][br]

            Comment


            • #7
              Thanks for all the info - I look forward to pics in the future
              \'93 241 https://forum.classicmako.com/forum/...etting-started
              \'82 224 - Mobile, AL Gone but NEVER Forgotten - https://forum.classicmako.com/forum/...indshield-tank

              Comment


              • #8
                ChuckB, It might be worth your wild to give the CG a call and tell them your situation. There are laws, but there is also leniancy. They may shut you down quick, but they may give you the answer your looking for. With the closewd in transom and the addition of the bracket, they were very reasonable with me. The 224 begs for twin 140hp Suxzy's... that's a great setup.

                Great explination ob1... [)]
                Artie Sutherland[br]Rude Attitude -\'76 Mako 25 CC. - SOLD[br]1976 Mako 21[br]2002 Yellowfin 31 - 300 hp Suzukis[br]Gulf Coast, Mississippi[br]

                Comment


                • #9
                  I have talked with CG and got pushed from one person to another, and noboby seemed to be able to help. I am not ready to move now - hopefully within a year. I have heard lots of good things about Suzy's, but my initial though was yamaha 115 4 strokes - then horsepower not an issue. I owned a yamaha for 12 years and loved, plus the mechanic I have delt with for years only works on Yamaha and Johnson/Evinrude. I really want a bracket with platform and a pair of 4 strokes - we will see what the future holds.
                  \'93 241 https://forum.classicmako.com/forum/...etting-started
                  \'82 224 - Mobile, AL Gone but NEVER Forgotten - https://forum.classicmako.com/forum/...indshield-tank

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    quote:


                    Originally posted by ChuckB


                    I have talked with CG and got pushed from one person to another, and noboby seemed to be able to help. I am not ready to move now - hopefully within a year. I have heard lots of good things about Suzy's, but my initial though was yamaha 115 4 strokes - then horsepower not an issue. I owned a yamaha for 12 years and loved, plus the mechanic I have delt with for years only works on Yamaha and Johnson/Evinrude. I really want a bracket with platform and a pair of 4 strokes - we will see what the future holds.



                    Chuck,

                    Just my $0.02, but it doesn't matter whether you're in the market for a car, an appliance, or boat motors. The service after the sale is a big item to consider. If you're super comfortable with your Yami guy, then go Yami's. In my experience (albeit with Yami m/cycles only so far...) they build quality products also.
                    I choose Suzi's because;

                    A- I had read SO much good press about them

                    B- They were less $$ and weight than BOTH the Yami's & Honda's

                    C- I had no service center on which I was leaning all that hard on to do right by me. I found the Suzy dealer I used on the West coast (Allisons Marine in Newport Beach, CA), and drove/towed nearly 850 mile round trip, to buy from Bill Allison. I am VERY happy with his low $$ prices's, and the quality of service/support to-date.

                    I believe you will be pleased with EITHER the Suzi 115's or 140's, AND/OR the Yami 115's or 150's.

                    Good Luck, OB1
                    Working for a livin\' is HIGHLY Over-Rated...[][br]

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Paradise Marine Center

                      6940 A Hwy 59 North

                      Gulf Shores, AL 36547-2439

                      251/968-2628

                      is going to be the closest Suzzy dealer for you.

                      Remember the Suzzy swing's a bigger prop, has a lower gear ratio and run's a timing chain unstead of a belt.

                      In the past I've seen complaint's about holeshot with 4 stroke's. When you finally get the detail's, you find that it's a Yamaha 4 stroke.

                      Just the oppisite with the Suzuki's. The bigger prop grab's a hold of more water.

                      Trevor Hicks
                      quote:


                      In conclusion, the new 250 four stroke is much faster and fuel efficient than the 225 two stroke. To give you an idea, top speed with the 225 two stroke was 34.7 knots compared to 40.2 knots with the 250 four stroke. Oh yeah, hole shot is ten times better. That sucker has soooo much torque to go along with the 16X20 prop. Only good things to say about this new motor.



                      Here's some reading you may want to do.

                      http://forum.classicseacraft.com/sho...b=5&o=&fpart=1

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Wart... Good Point about the lower gearing for grunt & the timing chain for durability.

                        The grunt of these Suzy's is nothing short of amazing. They pull WAY hard from a stop. I've pulled up 3 slalom skiers, weighing an average of about 170, with no problem.

                        It also goes on plane quickly. Only one of my friends, who run everything from a 21 ft Tahoe 310 HP I/O, to a 21 ft SeaRay 285 HP I/O, go on plane any quicker. That exception is a 21 ft Nitro bass boat with a Mariner 200. Should NOT be a big surprise, as it weighs almost 1/2 what my 224 does.

                        Good Luck Chuck....
                        Working for a livin\' is HIGHLY Over-Rated...[][br]

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X