Re: [PCW] I/O new vs. old Volvo

JG
Jim Garner
Tue, Apr 29, 2008 3:45 PM

Bob,

Thank you for your insights.

I am considering no larger than 27'. Probably, 22' to 25'.

Here is a rather broad list of elements my perceived next boat:

. Trailerable - less than 27 feet
. Less than 5000 lbs ready to go. This is not a show stopper. However,
larger        will require a larger tow vehicle, and larger boat. Both
will burn more fuel.
. Pilothouse
. Easy to launch
. Sleeping for two
. Shallow draft
. 250 mile range
. Direct Drive or Outboard
. Galley up
. Stove - Diesel or Propane
. Shower
. Toilet with overboard discharge
. Heater/Air conditioner
. Open fishing area
. Accommodate lobster/crab pots
. Accommodate downriggers
. Get home sail
. Single-hand able

I am all over the map with brands, and power options. At the larger end of
the spectrum, I like the C-Dory TomCat both 24 & 25. At the smaller end of
the spectrum, I am considering the C-Dory 22 - 25' Cruisers. I realize that
all these boats utilize outboard power. Again, I know that I am all over the
map. However, I greatly enjoy reading about options on this and other
boards.

Regards,
Jim Garner

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:56:05 -0800
From: Robert Deering deering@ak.net
Subject: Re: [PCW] Inboard Outboard never Volvo vs. Older Volvo
To: 'Power Catamaran List' power-catamaran@lists.samurai.com
Message-ID: 00c401c8a801$7910ffd0$1901a8c0@BobTablet
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Jim,

Some of the major disadvantages with outdrives are pretty much eliminated

by

trailering the boat.  Corrosion and marine growth due to the outdrives
remaining submerged are eliminated.  Maintenance of the lower unit is not
substantially greater than an outboard lower unit, and since you'll
routinely be trailering it you can perform that maintenance when & where

you

choose.

Outdrives do have one significant weakness the other drives don't have,

and

that's an extra change of direction for the power flow - it comes
horizontally out of the engine, makes a 90 to run vertical down the
outdrive, and then another 90 out the prop shaft.  That's one more corner
than outboards or shaft drives make, and hence more opportunity for gear
failures.  And to make it worse, one of those joints has to articulate for
steering and trim.

But they make up for that with several advantages.  One of them is the
option for a duoprop assembly.  I've heard of a few duoprop failures, but
I'm aware of many mariners running hundreds and thousands of hours with no
problems.  A 15-20% efficiency improvement at today's fuel prices is

pretty

significant.  At a 10 GPH burn rate with diesel at $4 per gallon (it's
nearly $5 per gallon here in Juneau, but some of that's due to our current
local power crisis - avalanche took out our hydroelectric and we're

powering

100% by diesel, 100,000 gallons per day - so demand is high right now...)
that's around $7-8 per hour, easily thousands of dollars per year.  And

just

as importantly, it increases your range.

Another advantage is the ability to dynamically trim the boat.  You can do
that with an outboard too.  Because cats are so much more susceptible to
fore-aft trim problems, being able to adjust trim while running is more

than

a luxury.

You can run diesel with its much better efficiency.  Modern gas outboards
with fuel injection and computer controls have really improved that
powerplant.  But diesel technology hasn't stood still either, and the new
common rail injection diesels are far quieter, more energy efficient, and
generally more refined than their predecessors.

Weight distribution is better than outboards with the engine sitting

forward

instead of hanging aft of the transom.  A large 4-stroke outboard, say a

200

hp unit, is mighty heavy way out there.

Lots of opinions and lots of opportunities for discussion on this subject,
and it's been pretty much beaten to death on other boating boards.

How big will your new boat be?

Bob Deering
Juneau, Alaska

-----Original Message-----
From: power-catamaran-bounces@lists.samurai.com
[mailto:power-catamaran-bounces@lists.samurai.com] On Behalf Of Jim Garner
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 5:26 AM
To: power-catamaran@lists.samurai.com
Subject: [PCW] Inboard Outboard never Volvo vs. Older Volvo

I would welcome this groups input on the advantages and disadvantages of

the

newer Volvo I/O's compared to the older models.

My first boat, 18' Owens, had a 1960 100 hp Volvo carbureted I/O. As I
recall it had wonderfully miserly fuel economy.

All this talk about DuoProps has me rethinking I/O's for my next as yet
un-finalized boat. It will be trailerable. Perhaps a Catamaran.

Some say:

More maintenance with I/O.

More complicated to get power to the prop.

More prone to sinking due to bellows.

Least expensive to replace engine alone.

The newer DuoProps are easily damaged by debris - even kelp.

Regards,

Jim Garner


Power-Catamaran Mailing List



Power-Catamaran Mailing List

End of Power-Catamaran Digest, Vol 38, Issue 21


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus

signature

database 3057 (20080426) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Bob, Thank you for your insights. I am considering no larger than 27'. Probably, 22' to 25'. Here is a rather broad list of elements my perceived next boat: . Trailerable - less than 27 feet . Less than 5000 lbs ready to go. This is not a show stopper. However, larger will require a larger tow vehicle, and larger boat. Both will burn more fuel. . Pilothouse . Easy to launch . Sleeping for two . Shallow draft . 250 mile range . Direct Drive or Outboard . Galley up . Stove - Diesel or Propane . Shower . Toilet with overboard discharge . Heater/Air conditioner . Open fishing area . Accommodate lobster/crab pots . Accommodate downriggers . Get home sail . Single-hand able I am all over the map with brands, and power options. At the larger end of the spectrum, I like the C-Dory TomCat both 24 & 25. At the smaller end of the spectrum, I am considering the C-Dory 22 - 25' Cruisers. I realize that all these boats utilize outboard power. Again, I know that I am all over the map. However, I greatly enjoy reading about options on this and other boards. Regards, Jim Garner > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:56:05 -0800 > From: Robert Deering <deering@ak.net> > Subject: Re: [PCW] Inboard Outboard never Volvo vs. Older Volvo > To: 'Power Catamaran List' <power-catamaran@lists.samurai.com> > Message-ID: <00c401c8a801$7910ffd0$1901a8c0@BobTablet> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Jim, > > Some of the major disadvantages with outdrives are pretty much eliminated by > trailering the boat. Corrosion and marine growth due to the outdrives > remaining submerged are eliminated. Maintenance of the lower unit is not > substantially greater than an outboard lower unit, and since you'll > routinely be trailering it you can perform that maintenance when & where you > choose. > > Outdrives do have one significant weakness the other drives don't have, and > that's an extra change of direction for the power flow - it comes > horizontally out of the engine, makes a 90 to run vertical down the > outdrive, and then another 90 out the prop shaft. That's one more corner > than outboards or shaft drives make, and hence more opportunity for gear > failures. And to make it worse, one of those joints has to articulate for > steering and trim. > > But they make up for that with several advantages. One of them is the > option for a duoprop assembly. I've heard of a few duoprop failures, but > I'm aware of many mariners running hundreds and thousands of hours with no > problems. A 15-20% efficiency improvement at today's fuel prices is pretty > significant. At a 10 GPH burn rate with diesel at $4 per gallon (it's > nearly $5 per gallon here in Juneau, but some of that's due to our current > local power crisis - avalanche took out our hydroelectric and we're powering > 100% by diesel, 100,000 gallons per day - so demand is high right now...) > that's around $7-8 per hour, easily thousands of dollars per year. And just > as importantly, it increases your range. > > Another advantage is the ability to dynamically trim the boat. You can do > that with an outboard too. Because cats are so much more susceptible to > fore-aft trim problems, being able to adjust trim while running is more than > a luxury. > > You can run diesel with its much better efficiency. Modern gas outboards > with fuel injection and computer controls have really improved that > powerplant. But diesel technology hasn't stood still either, and the new > common rail injection diesels are far quieter, more energy efficient, and > generally more refined than their predecessors. > > Weight distribution is better than outboards with the engine sitting forward > instead of hanging aft of the transom. A large 4-stroke outboard, say a 200 > hp unit, is mighty heavy way out there. > > Lots of opinions and lots of opportunities for discussion on this subject, > and it's been pretty much beaten to death on other boating boards. > > How big will your new boat be? > > Bob Deering > Juneau, Alaska > > -----Original Message----- > From: power-catamaran-bounces@lists.samurai.com > [mailto:power-catamaran-bounces@lists.samurai.com] On Behalf Of Jim Garner > Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 5:26 AM > To: power-catamaran@lists.samurai.com > Subject: [PCW] Inboard Outboard never Volvo vs. Older Volvo > > I would welcome this groups input on the advantages and disadvantages of the > newer Volvo I/O's compared to the older models. > > > > My first boat, 18' Owens, had a 1960 100 hp Volvo carbureted I/O. As I > recall it had wonderfully miserly fuel economy. > > > > All this talk about DuoProps has me rethinking I/O's for my next as yet > un-finalized boat. It will be trailerable. Perhaps a Catamaran. > > > > Some say: > > More maintenance with I/O. > > More complicated to get power to the prop. > > More prone to sinking due to bellows. > > Least expensive to replace engine alone. > > The newer DuoProps are easily damaged by debris - even kelp. > > > > Regards, > > Jim Garner > _______________________________________________ > Power-Catamaran Mailing List > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Power-Catamaran Mailing List > > End of Power-Catamaran Digest, Vol 38, Issue 21 > *********************************************** > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 3057 (20080426) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com
RD
Robert Deering
Tue, May 6, 2008 3:59 AM

Jim,

A few pieces of info might help you narrow things down.

  1. How fast do you wish to run?  10 kts?  Or 30?
  2. How far would you typically tow?  If it's a long distance I'd opt for
    something lighter/smaller.  Maybe aluminum.
  3. What kind of waters?  Where are you?
  4. How long will you typically be out?
  5. Anchoring or marinas?
  6. Do you need a head/shower?  Or would a porta-potty do?
  7. What will you principally be doing?
  8. What else would you be carrying?  Dinghy?  Kayaks?

I'm not aware of any pilothouse models that small, and they'd be pretty top
heavy in ay event.

I like the C-dory.  The SeaSport 24 is another excellent option.  And lots
of aluminum boats to be had.  You might want to see if there are any
aluminum or stitch-n-glue builders in your area - then you can customize at
will.  You'll be surprised at how competitive their price will be.  I'd go
outboard for sure in that size range - something like a 115 - 150 hp.

My general advice would be to go with the smaller end of the spectrum and
get a sense of how it's working.  You can always upgrade, and smaller boats
are easier to sell than larger ones.  Maybe go smaller and basic at first,
then have a custom built for your next one.

Hope that helps.

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: power-catamaran-bounces@lists.samurai.com
[mailto:power-catamaran-bounces@lists.samurai.com] On Behalf Of Jim Garner
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 7:46 AM
To: power-catamaran@lists.samurai.com
Subject: Re: [PCW] I/O new vs. old Volvo

Bob,

Thank you for your insights.

I am considering no larger than 27'. Probably, 22' to 25'.

Here is a rather broad list of elements my perceived next boat:

. Trailerable - less than 27 feet
. Less than 5000 lbs ready to go. This is not a show stopper. However,
larger        will require a larger tow vehicle, and larger boat. Both
will burn more fuel.
. Pilothouse
. Easy to launch
. Sleeping for two
. Shallow draft
. 250 mile range
. Direct Drive or Outboard
. Galley up
. Stove - Diesel or Propane
. Shower
. Toilet with overboard discharge
. Heater/Air conditioner
. Open fishing area
. Accommodate lobster/crab pots
. Accommodate downriggers
. Get home sail
. Single-hand able

I am all over the map with brands, and power options. At the larger end of
the spectrum, I like the C-Dory TomCat both 24 & 25. At the smaller end of
the spectrum, I am considering the C-Dory 22 - 25' Cruisers. I realize that
all these boats utilize outboard power. Again, I know that I am all over the
map. However, I greatly enjoy reading about options on this and other
boards.

Regards,
Jim Garner

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:56:05 -0800
From: Robert Deering deering@ak.net
Subject: Re: [PCW] Inboard Outboard never Volvo vs. Older Volvo
To: 'Power Catamaran List' power-catamaran@lists.samurai.com
Message-ID: 00c401c8a801$7910ffd0$1901a8c0@BobTablet
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Jim,

Some of the major disadvantages with outdrives are pretty much eliminated

by

trailering the boat.  Corrosion and marine growth due to the outdrives
remaining submerged are eliminated.  Maintenance of the lower unit is not
substantially greater than an outboard lower unit, and since you'll
routinely be trailering it you can perform that maintenance when & where

you

choose.

Outdrives do have one significant weakness the other drives don't have,

and

that's an extra change of direction for the power flow - it comes
horizontally out of the engine, makes a 90 to run vertical down the
outdrive, and then another 90 out the prop shaft.  That's one more corner
than outboards or shaft drives make, and hence more opportunity for gear
failures.  And to make it worse, one of those joints has to articulate for
steering and trim.

But they make up for that with several advantages.  One of them is the
option for a duoprop assembly.  I've heard of a few duoprop failures, but
I'm aware of many mariners running hundreds and thousands of hours with no
problems.  A 15-20% efficiency improvement at today's fuel prices is

pretty

significant.  At a 10 GPH burn rate with diesel at $4 per gallon (it's
nearly $5 per gallon here in Juneau, but some of that's due to our current
local power crisis - avalanche took out our hydroelectric and we're

powering

100% by diesel, 100,000 gallons per day - so demand is high right now...)
that's around $7-8 per hour, easily thousands of dollars per year.  And

just

as importantly, it increases your range.

Another advantage is the ability to dynamically trim the boat.  You can do
that with an outboard too.  Because cats are so much more susceptible to
fore-aft trim problems, being able to adjust trim while running is more

than

a luxury.

You can run diesel with its much better efficiency.  Modern gas outboards
with fuel injection and computer controls have really improved that
powerplant.  But diesel technology hasn't stood still either, and the new
common rail injection diesels are far quieter, more energy efficient, and
generally more refined than their predecessors.

Weight distribution is better than outboards with the engine sitting

forward

instead of hanging aft of the transom.  A large 4-stroke outboard, say a

200

hp unit, is mighty heavy way out there.

Lots of opinions and lots of opportunities for discussion on this subject,
and it's been pretty much beaten to death on other boating boards.

How big will your new boat be?

Bob Deering
Juneau, Alaska

-----Original Message-----
From: power-catamaran-bounces@lists.samurai.com
[mailto:power-catamaran-bounces@lists.samurai.com] On Behalf Of Jim Garner
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 5:26 AM
To: power-catamaran@lists.samurai.com
Subject: [PCW] Inboard Outboard never Volvo vs. Older Volvo

I would welcome this groups input on the advantages and disadvantages of

the

newer Volvo I/O's compared to the older models.

My first boat, 18' Owens, had a 1960 100 hp Volvo carbureted I/O. As I
recall it had wonderfully miserly fuel economy.

All this talk about DuoProps has me rethinking I/O's for my next as yet
un-finalized boat. It will be trailerable. Perhaps a Catamaran.

Some say:

More maintenance with I/O.

More complicated to get power to the prop.

More prone to sinking due to bellows.

Least expensive to replace engine alone.

The newer DuoProps are easily damaged by debris - even kelp.

Regards,

Jim Garner


Power-Catamaran Mailing List



Power-Catamaran Mailing List

End of Power-Catamaran Digest, Vol 38, Issue 21


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus

signature

database 3057 (20080426) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


Power-Catamaran Mailing List

Jim, A few pieces of info might help you narrow things down. 1. How fast do you wish to run? 10 kts? Or 30? 2. How far would you typically tow? If it's a long distance I'd opt for something lighter/smaller. Maybe aluminum. 3. What kind of waters? Where are you? 4. How long will you typically be out? 5. Anchoring or marinas? 6. Do you need a head/shower? Or would a porta-potty do? 7. What will you principally be doing? 8. What else would you be carrying? Dinghy? Kayaks? I'm not aware of any pilothouse models that small, and they'd be pretty top heavy in ay event. I like the C-dory. The SeaSport 24 is another excellent option. And lots of aluminum boats to be had. You might want to see if there are any aluminum or stitch-n-glue builders in your area - then you can customize at will. You'll be surprised at how competitive their price will be. I'd go outboard for sure in that size range - something like a 115 - 150 hp. My general advice would be to go with the smaller end of the spectrum and get a sense of how it's working. You can always upgrade, and smaller boats are easier to sell than larger ones. Maybe go smaller and basic at first, then have a custom built for your next one. Hope that helps. Bob -----Original Message----- From: power-catamaran-bounces@lists.samurai.com [mailto:power-catamaran-bounces@lists.samurai.com] On Behalf Of Jim Garner Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 7:46 AM To: power-catamaran@lists.samurai.com Subject: Re: [PCW] I/O new vs. old Volvo Bob, Thank you for your insights. I am considering no larger than 27'. Probably, 22' to 25'. Here is a rather broad list of elements my perceived next boat: . Trailerable - less than 27 feet . Less than 5000 lbs ready to go. This is not a show stopper. However, larger will require a larger tow vehicle, and larger boat. Both will burn more fuel. . Pilothouse . Easy to launch . Sleeping for two . Shallow draft . 250 mile range . Direct Drive or Outboard . Galley up . Stove - Diesel or Propane . Shower . Toilet with overboard discharge . Heater/Air conditioner . Open fishing area . Accommodate lobster/crab pots . Accommodate downriggers . Get home sail . Single-hand able I am all over the map with brands, and power options. At the larger end of the spectrum, I like the C-Dory TomCat both 24 & 25. At the smaller end of the spectrum, I am considering the C-Dory 22 - 25' Cruisers. I realize that all these boats utilize outboard power. Again, I know that I am all over the map. However, I greatly enjoy reading about options on this and other boards. Regards, Jim Garner > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:56:05 -0800 > From: Robert Deering <deering@ak.net> > Subject: Re: [PCW] Inboard Outboard never Volvo vs. Older Volvo > To: 'Power Catamaran List' <power-catamaran@lists.samurai.com> > Message-ID: <00c401c8a801$7910ffd0$1901a8c0@BobTablet> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Jim, > > Some of the major disadvantages with outdrives are pretty much eliminated by > trailering the boat. Corrosion and marine growth due to the outdrives > remaining submerged are eliminated. Maintenance of the lower unit is not > substantially greater than an outboard lower unit, and since you'll > routinely be trailering it you can perform that maintenance when & where you > choose. > > Outdrives do have one significant weakness the other drives don't have, and > that's an extra change of direction for the power flow - it comes > horizontally out of the engine, makes a 90 to run vertical down the > outdrive, and then another 90 out the prop shaft. That's one more corner > than outboards or shaft drives make, and hence more opportunity for gear > failures. And to make it worse, one of those joints has to articulate for > steering and trim. > > But they make up for that with several advantages. One of them is the > option for a duoprop assembly. I've heard of a few duoprop failures, but > I'm aware of many mariners running hundreds and thousands of hours with no > problems. A 15-20% efficiency improvement at today's fuel prices is pretty > significant. At a 10 GPH burn rate with diesel at $4 per gallon (it's > nearly $5 per gallon here in Juneau, but some of that's due to our current > local power crisis - avalanche took out our hydroelectric and we're powering > 100% by diesel, 100,000 gallons per day - so demand is high right now...) > that's around $7-8 per hour, easily thousands of dollars per year. And just > as importantly, it increases your range. > > Another advantage is the ability to dynamically trim the boat. You can do > that with an outboard too. Because cats are so much more susceptible to > fore-aft trim problems, being able to adjust trim while running is more than > a luxury. > > You can run diesel with its much better efficiency. Modern gas outboards > with fuel injection and computer controls have really improved that > powerplant. But diesel technology hasn't stood still either, and the new > common rail injection diesels are far quieter, more energy efficient, and > generally more refined than their predecessors. > > Weight distribution is better than outboards with the engine sitting forward > instead of hanging aft of the transom. A large 4-stroke outboard, say a 200 > hp unit, is mighty heavy way out there. > > Lots of opinions and lots of opportunities for discussion on this subject, > and it's been pretty much beaten to death on other boating boards. > > How big will your new boat be? > > Bob Deering > Juneau, Alaska > > -----Original Message----- > From: power-catamaran-bounces@lists.samurai.com > [mailto:power-catamaran-bounces@lists.samurai.com] On Behalf Of Jim Garner > Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 5:26 AM > To: power-catamaran@lists.samurai.com > Subject: [PCW] Inboard Outboard never Volvo vs. Older Volvo > > I would welcome this groups input on the advantages and disadvantages of the > newer Volvo I/O's compared to the older models. > > > > My first boat, 18' Owens, had a 1960 100 hp Volvo carbureted I/O. As I > recall it had wonderfully miserly fuel economy. > > > > All this talk about DuoProps has me rethinking I/O's for my next as yet > un-finalized boat. It will be trailerable. Perhaps a Catamaran. > > > > Some say: > > More maintenance with I/O. > > More complicated to get power to the prop. > > More prone to sinking due to bellows. > > Least expensive to replace engine alone. > > The newer DuoProps are easily damaged by debris - even kelp. > > > > Regards, > > Jim Garner > _______________________________________________ > Power-Catamaran Mailing List > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Power-Catamaran Mailing List > > End of Power-Catamaran Digest, Vol 38, Issue 21 > *********************************************** > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 3057 (20080426) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ Power-Catamaran Mailing List
GS
Greg Schoenberg
Tue, May 6, 2008 4:50 AM

We looked at some boats this weekend and were impressed by the Arime line,
which featured a very smart designed 22 footer pilothouse model.

Go to EQ Marine and e-mail Les Lampman.  He's terrific....knows boats and is
honest as the day is long.  The web page is full of very interesting articles
he's written.

-Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Deering
To: 'Power Catamaran List'
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: [PCW] I/O new vs. old Volvo

Jim,

A few pieces of info might help you narrow things down.

  1. How fast do you wish to run?  10 kts?  Or 30?
  2. How far would you typically tow?  If it's a long distance I'd opt for
    something lighter/smaller.  Maybe aluminum.
  3. What kind of waters?  Where are you?
  4. How long will you typically be out?
  5. Anchoring or marinas?
  6. Do you need a head/shower?  Or would a porta-potty do?
  7. What will you principally be doing?
  8. What else would you be carrying?  Dinghy?  Kayaks?

I'm not aware of any pilothouse models that small, and they'd be pretty top
heavy in ay event.

I like the C-dory.  The SeaSport 24 is another excellent option.  And lots
of aluminum boats to be had.  You might want to see if there are any
aluminum or stitch-n-glue builders in your area - then you can customize at
will.  You'll be surprised at how competitive their price will be.  I'd go
outboard for sure in that size range - something like a 115 - 150 hp.

My general advice would be to go with the smaller end of the spectrum and
get a sense of how it's working.  You can always upgrade, and smaller boats
are easier to sell than larger ones.  Maybe go smaller and basic at first,
then have a custom built for your next one.

Hope that helps.

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: power-catamaran-bounces@lists.samurai.com
[mailto:power-catamaran-bounces@lists.samurai.com] On Behalf Of Jim Garner
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 7:46 AM
To: power-catamaran@lists.samurai.com
Subject: Re: [PCW] I/O new vs. old Volvo

Bob,

Thank you for your insights.

I am considering no larger than 27'. Probably, 22' to 25'.

Here is a rather broad list of elements my perceived next boat:

. Trailerable - less than 27 feet
. Less than 5000 lbs ready to go. This is not a show stopper. However,
larger        will require a larger tow vehicle, and larger boat. Both
will burn more fuel.
. Pilothouse
. Easy to launch
. Sleeping for two
. Shallow draft
. 250 mile range
. Direct Drive or Outboard
. Galley up
. Stove - Diesel or Propane
. Shower
. Toilet with overboard discharge
. Heater/Air conditioner
. Open fishing area
. Accommodate lobster/crab pots
. Accommodate downriggers
. Get home sail
. Single-hand able

I am all over the map with brands, and power options. At the larger end of
the spectrum, I like the C-Dory TomCat both 24 & 25. At the smaller end of
the spectrum, I am considering the C-Dory 22 - 25' Cruisers. I realize that
all these boats utilize outboard power. Again, I know that I am all over
the
map. However, I greatly enjoy reading about options on this and other
boards.

Regards,
Jim Garner

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:56:05 -0800
From: Robert Deering deering@ak.net
Subject: Re: [PCW] Inboard Outboard never Volvo vs. Older Volvo
To: 'Power Catamaran List' power-catamaran@lists.samurai.com
Message-ID: 00c401c8a801$7910ffd0$1901a8c0@BobTablet
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Jim,

Some of the major disadvantages with outdrives are pretty much eliminated

by

trailering the boat.  Corrosion and marine growth due to the outdrives
remaining submerged are eliminated.  Maintenance of the lower unit is not
substantially greater than an outboard lower unit, and since you'll
routinely be trailering it you can perform that maintenance when & where

you

choose.

Outdrives do have one significant weakness the other drives don't have,

and

that's an extra change of direction for the power flow - it comes
horizontally out of the engine, makes a 90 to run vertical down the
outdrive, and then another 90 out the prop shaft.  That's one more corner
than outboards or shaft drives make, and hence more opportunity for gear
failures.  And to make it worse, one of those joints has to articulate

for

steering and trim.

But they make up for that with several advantages.  One of them is the
option for a duoprop assembly.  I've heard of a few duoprop failures, but
I'm aware of many mariners running hundreds and thousands of hours with

no

problems.  A 15-20% efficiency improvement at today's fuel prices is

pretty

significant.  At a 10 GPH burn rate with diesel at $4 per gallon (it's
nearly $5 per gallon here in Juneau, but some of that's due to our

current

local power crisis - avalanche took out our hydroelectric and we're

powering

100% by diesel, 100,000 gallons per day - so demand is high right now...)
that's around $7-8 per hour, easily thousands of dollars per year.  And

just

as importantly, it increases your range.

Another advantage is the ability to dynamically trim the boat.  You can

do

that with an outboard too.  Because cats are so much more susceptible to
fore-aft trim problems, being able to adjust trim while running is more

than

a luxury.

You can run diesel with its much better efficiency.  Modern gas outboards
with fuel injection and computer controls have really improved that
powerplant.  But diesel technology hasn't stood still either, and the new
common rail injection diesels are far quieter, more energy efficient, and
generally more refined than their predecessors.

Weight distribution is better than outboards with the engine sitting

forward

instead of hanging aft of the transom.  A large 4-stroke outboard, say a

200

hp unit, is mighty heavy way out there.

Lots of opinions and lots of opportunities for discussion on this

subject,

and it's been pretty much beaten to death on other boating boards.

How big will your new boat be?

Bob Deering
Juneau, Alaska

-----Original Message-----
From: power-catamaran-bounces@lists.samurai.com
[mailto:power-catamaran-bounces@lists.samurai.com] On Behalf Of Jim

Garner

Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 5:26 AM
To: power-catamaran@lists.samurai.com
Subject: [PCW] Inboard Outboard never Volvo vs. Older Volvo

I would welcome this groups input on the advantages and disadvantages of

the

newer Volvo I/O's compared to the older models.

My first boat, 18' Owens, had a 1960 100 hp Volvo carbureted I/O. As I
recall it had wonderfully miserly fuel economy.

All this talk about DuoProps has me rethinking I/O's for my next as yet
un-finalized boat. It will be trailerable. Perhaps a Catamaran.

Some say:

More maintenance with I/O.

More complicated to get power to the prop.

More prone to sinking due to bellows.

Least expensive to replace engine alone.

The newer DuoProps are easily damaged by debris - even kelp.

Regards,

Jim Garner


Power-Catamaran Mailing List



Power-Catamaran Mailing List

End of Power-Catamaran Digest, Vol 38, Issue 21


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus

signature

database 3057 (20080426) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


Power-Catamaran Mailing List


Power-Catamaran Mailing List

We looked at some boats this weekend and were impressed by the Arime line, which featured a very smart designed 22 footer pilothouse model. Go to EQ Marine and e-mail Les Lampman. He's terrific....knows boats and is honest as the day is long. The web page is full of very interesting articles he's written. -Greg ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Deering To: 'Power Catamaran List' Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 8:59 PM Subject: Re: [PCW] I/O new vs. old Volvo Jim, A few pieces of info might help you narrow things down. 1. How fast do you wish to run? 10 kts? Or 30? 2. How far would you typically tow? If it's a long distance I'd opt for something lighter/smaller. Maybe aluminum. 3. What kind of waters? Where are you? 4. How long will you typically be out? 5. Anchoring or marinas? 6. Do you need a head/shower? Or would a porta-potty do? 7. What will you principally be doing? 8. What else would you be carrying? Dinghy? Kayaks? I'm not aware of any pilothouse models that small, and they'd be pretty top heavy in ay event. I like the C-dory. The SeaSport 24 is another excellent option. And lots of aluminum boats to be had. You might want to see if there are any aluminum or stitch-n-glue builders in your area - then you can customize at will. You'll be surprised at how competitive their price will be. I'd go outboard for sure in that size range - something like a 115 - 150 hp. My general advice would be to go with the smaller end of the spectrum and get a sense of how it's working. You can always upgrade, and smaller boats are easier to sell than larger ones. Maybe go smaller and basic at first, then have a custom built for your next one. Hope that helps. Bob -----Original Message----- From: power-catamaran-bounces@lists.samurai.com [mailto:power-catamaran-bounces@lists.samurai.com] On Behalf Of Jim Garner Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 7:46 AM To: power-catamaran@lists.samurai.com Subject: Re: [PCW] I/O new vs. old Volvo Bob, Thank you for your insights. I am considering no larger than 27'. Probably, 22' to 25'. Here is a rather broad list of elements my perceived next boat: . Trailerable - less than 27 feet . Less than 5000 lbs ready to go. This is not a show stopper. However, larger will require a larger tow vehicle, and larger boat. Both will burn more fuel. . Pilothouse . Easy to launch . Sleeping for two . Shallow draft . 250 mile range . Direct Drive or Outboard . Galley up . Stove - Diesel or Propane . Shower . Toilet with overboard discharge . Heater/Air conditioner . Open fishing area . Accommodate lobster/crab pots . Accommodate downriggers . Get home sail . Single-hand able I am all over the map with brands, and power options. At the larger end of the spectrum, I like the C-Dory TomCat both 24 & 25. At the smaller end of the spectrum, I am considering the C-Dory 22 - 25' Cruisers. I realize that all these boats utilize outboard power. Again, I know that I am all over the map. However, I greatly enjoy reading about options on this and other boards. Regards, Jim Garner > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:56:05 -0800 > From: Robert Deering <deering@ak.net> > Subject: Re: [PCW] Inboard Outboard never Volvo vs. Older Volvo > To: 'Power Catamaran List' <power-catamaran@lists.samurai.com> > Message-ID: <00c401c8a801$7910ffd0$1901a8c0@BobTablet> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Jim, > > Some of the major disadvantages with outdrives are pretty much eliminated by > trailering the boat. Corrosion and marine growth due to the outdrives > remaining submerged are eliminated. Maintenance of the lower unit is not > substantially greater than an outboard lower unit, and since you'll > routinely be trailering it you can perform that maintenance when & where you > choose. > > Outdrives do have one significant weakness the other drives don't have, and > that's an extra change of direction for the power flow - it comes > horizontally out of the engine, makes a 90 to run vertical down the > outdrive, and then another 90 out the prop shaft. That's one more corner > than outboards or shaft drives make, and hence more opportunity for gear > failures. And to make it worse, one of those joints has to articulate for > steering and trim. > > But they make up for that with several advantages. One of them is the > option for a duoprop assembly. I've heard of a few duoprop failures, but > I'm aware of many mariners running hundreds and thousands of hours with no > problems. A 15-20% efficiency improvement at today's fuel prices is pretty > significant. At a 10 GPH burn rate with diesel at $4 per gallon (it's > nearly $5 per gallon here in Juneau, but some of that's due to our current > local power crisis - avalanche took out our hydroelectric and we're powering > 100% by diesel, 100,000 gallons per day - so demand is high right now...) > that's around $7-8 per hour, easily thousands of dollars per year. And just > as importantly, it increases your range. > > Another advantage is the ability to dynamically trim the boat. You can do > that with an outboard too. Because cats are so much more susceptible to > fore-aft trim problems, being able to adjust trim while running is more than > a luxury. > > You can run diesel with its much better efficiency. Modern gas outboards > with fuel injection and computer controls have really improved that > powerplant. But diesel technology hasn't stood still either, and the new > common rail injection diesels are far quieter, more energy efficient, and > generally more refined than their predecessors. > > Weight distribution is better than outboards with the engine sitting forward > instead of hanging aft of the transom. A large 4-stroke outboard, say a 200 > hp unit, is mighty heavy way out there. > > Lots of opinions and lots of opportunities for discussion on this subject, > and it's been pretty much beaten to death on other boating boards. > > How big will your new boat be? > > Bob Deering > Juneau, Alaska > > -----Original Message----- > From: power-catamaran-bounces@lists.samurai.com > [mailto:power-catamaran-bounces@lists.samurai.com] On Behalf Of Jim Garner > Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 5:26 AM > To: power-catamaran@lists.samurai.com > Subject: [PCW] Inboard Outboard never Volvo vs. Older Volvo > > I would welcome this groups input on the advantages and disadvantages of the > newer Volvo I/O's compared to the older models. > > > > My first boat, 18' Owens, had a 1960 100 hp Volvo carbureted I/O. As I > recall it had wonderfully miserly fuel economy. > > > > All this talk about DuoProps has me rethinking I/O's for my next as yet > un-finalized boat. It will be trailerable. Perhaps a Catamaran. > > > > Some say: > > More maintenance with I/O. > > More complicated to get power to the prop. > > More prone to sinking due to bellows. > > Least expensive to replace engine alone. > > The newer DuoProps are easily damaged by debris - even kelp. > > > > Regards, > > Jim Garner > _______________________________________________ > Power-Catamaran Mailing List > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Power-Catamaran Mailing List > > End of Power-Catamaran Digest, Vol 38, Issue 21 > *********************************************** > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 3057 (20080426) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ Power-Catamaran Mailing List _______________________________________________ Power-Catamaran Mailing List
DC
D C *Mac* Macdonald
Tue, May 6, 2008 2:55 PM

Here's the URL for E Q Marine.

http://www.eqmarine.com/

** D C "Mac" Macdonald **

  • m/v Another Adventure *
    ** '95 Carver 355 ACMY **
  • Grand Lake - Oklahoma *
    ** AGLCA (#217) & USPS **
    ** K2GKK, USAF-Retired **

From: dene@ipns.com
To: power-catamaran@lists.samurai.com
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 21:50:08 -0700
Subject: Re: [PCW] I/O new vs. old Volvo

We looked at some boats this weekend and were impressed by the Arime line,
which featured a very smart designed 22 footer pilothouse model.

Go to EQ Marine and e-mail Les Lampman. He's terrific....knows boats and is
honest as the day is long. The web page is full of very interesting

articles

he's written.

-Greg

Here's the URL for E Q Marine. http://www.eqmarine.com/ ** D C "Mac" Macdonald ** * m/v Another Adventure * ** '95 Carver 355 ACMY ** * Grand Lake - Oklahoma * ** AGLCA (#217) & USPS ** ** K2GKK, USAF-Retired ** > From: dene@ipns.com > To: power-catamaran@lists.samurai.com > Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 21:50:08 -0700 > Subject: Re: [PCW] I/O new vs. old Volvo > > We looked at some boats this weekend and were impressed by the Arime line, > which featured a very smart designed 22 footer pilothouse model. > > Go to EQ Marine and e-mail Les Lampman. He's terrific....knows boats and is > honest as the day is long. The web page is full of very interesting articles > he's written. > > -Greg