I have a 1995 26 Islander and need to repower. I am planning on repowering with a Zuke 300hp (4-stroke). Any comments/opinions and general feelings would be greatly appreciated.......... good or bad! Thanks........
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
1995 26 Islander repower...........
- Thread starter captkfly
- Start date
chrisA.
GreatGrady Captain
We repowered our 1995 islander with a pair of 175 suzis and couldn't be happier,plenty of torque and power and while I havent measured,they definitely sip fuel,enough to notice over the old Johnsons.
chrisA.
GreatGrady Captain
Never having been aboard one with a single,I really can't comment however Grady was putting a single 250 on them and the general opinion was favorable with the people that owned them,I could only imagine a single 300 would work as well if not better with the extra ponies.It would be 200 pounds less(give or take) than my setup.
Chris A. How do you feel about Suzuki out board motors in general as compared with Yamaha. Is the Suzuki outboard motor division up to speed with company support in case of problems and general help if problems develope. Yamaha has a great reputation with on going support after purchase?? Thanks for you answers........
chrisA.
GreatGrady Captain
Without starting a brand A vs brand B war,I have never been a yamaha man,if I had an certified Evinrude dealer close by I would have gone with them,that being said,I think the Suzuki is as good as any yamaha.I hear people say the dealer network is weak,I have one 10 minutes from the house,and 1 hour in each direction so take that for what its worth.For all of the talk,you would think the yamaha is gold plated,in my book they are no better and I also do not like the fact that these dealers are forcing people to take the yamaha when maybe they don't want them,GW is a good example of this,that is why I would never buy a new GW,I want my choice of motors,not what they are telling me I have to take.So there you go,is yamaha a good motor?absolutely but my choice was suzuki and I would do it again in a minute.Just my opinion so take it for what its worth.Where are you located anyway?
Chris A. I thank you very much for your candid advice. That was exactly what I was lookinfg for....... your honest opinion. Beleive it or not, I tend to have the same feelings as you do. Again, I appreciate your honest opinion. I am tired of flavored ones....
Anyway, I live in the Tampa area with plenty of dealers. If I can ever help you please let me know.............. dave/tpa
Anyway, I live in the Tampa area with plenty of dealers. If I can ever help you please let me know.............. dave/tpa
chrisA.
GreatGrady Captain
Dave,hope it helps, as you said,if there is any thing I can help you with,let me know,shoot me a PM if you would like.If you ever get up this way,look me up! Chris
gradyfish22
GreatGrady Captain
A single 250 was sluggish, and many had issues with being under powered. A single 300 would be better suited, but I am not positive the engine will raise fully with the higher cowling cover, something to look into. The best option for this boat is twin 150's, very economical and added safety of 2 engines. If you never venture more then 5 miles offshore the added engine may not be necessary and sticking with a single might be better for your needs. I have heard good things about the 300 Zuke from owner's I know who have them on other boats, but they are far from speed demons, but they are powerful enough for your needs. Look into where you fish, do you ever venture offshore, do you ever need extra speed, do you fish in an area where bad weather pops up frequently and unannounced, these are all factors for decided between a single and twin. As for going with a twin, 300hp is as low as I would go. Most who own a islander with a single either sold it or repowered it, mostly with twins. My personal choice would be twin F150's for economy and weight, then Zuke 175's or verado 150's(as much as I'm not a merc fan, this engine would suit this boat well...especially the 4 cylinder model), or a single Zuke 300 if going weith singles.
ocnslr
GreatGrady Captain
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2005
- Messages
- 1,907
- Reaction score
- 43
- Points
- 48
- Location
- Fort Myers Beach, FL
- Model
- Islander
We purchased our Islander new in Feb 2002, with a single 250HP OX66 - 50% of rated power on our boat.
We used the boat a lot. Performance was adequate. WOT was about 30-5kts, and cruise was 22-24kts. Definitely could have used more blade area in the water in snotty seas.
Repowered in Oct-Nov 2005, with 465 hrs on the OX66. Considered 300HP HPDI, and 250HP Suzuki. The 300HP Suzuki was not distributed and available. Considered DF175 Suzuki, but not yet available.
Went with a pair of F150s. Now have 725 hrs on them. Fantastic on this boat. And it is a different boat with the twins.
As noted in posts above, a single can be a good match on this boat, if it meets your needs and use.
As to Yamaha vs. Suzuki, I believe it comes down to dealer support network in your area. I would not hesitate to put Suzuki engines on here, and the DF175s would be an outstanding match.
If a single meets your needs, then the DF300 Suzuki should give you a decent match. It uses a much lower gear ratio and spins a larger diameter prop.
Good Luck!
Brian
We used the boat a lot. Performance was adequate. WOT was about 30-5kts, and cruise was 22-24kts. Definitely could have used more blade area in the water in snotty seas.
Repowered in Oct-Nov 2005, with 465 hrs on the OX66. Considered 300HP HPDI, and 250HP Suzuki. The 300HP Suzuki was not distributed and available. Considered DF175 Suzuki, but not yet available.
Went with a pair of F150s. Now have 725 hrs on them. Fantastic on this boat. And it is a different boat with the twins.
As noted in posts above, a single can be a good match on this boat, if it meets your needs and use.
As to Yamaha vs. Suzuki, I believe it comes down to dealer support network in your area. I would not hesitate to put Suzuki engines on here, and the DF175s would be an outstanding match.
If a single meets your needs, then the DF300 Suzuki should give you a decent match. It uses a much lower gear ratio and spins a larger diameter prop.
Good Luck!
Brian
JUST-IN-TIME
Well-Known Member
only thing i have seen on the 300 is water in the oil from the oil pan gasket and pinched fuel lines in the cowling because some tech never checked his work out
they all make good motors now
they all make good motors now
jimfish
Well-Known Member
Twins, I know, are the preferred choice of many, and good arguments can be made for equipping your boat with two motors. However, MOST power failures are NOT due to engine problems at sea. They occur because of fuel issues - NO fuel, contaminated fuel, etc. Since twins are pulling from a common tank, a fuel problem that effects one will effect both engines.
Today's engines are vastly more dependable than those of even 10 years ago, and in single vs. twin tests - with comparable horsepower - the single is almost invariably the superior choice, with better mileage and performance. Just a few years ago you HAD to have twins to reach the power rating for the heavier hulls - even 300 hp ratings demanded twin power.
Last year one of the big magazines (Trailer Boats?) had a feature on the GW Advance 247 equipped with the Yamaha 350 vs. the same hull with twins. The single 350 won hands down. Much better mileage along with superior performance. Twins weighed around 550 lbs each - 1100 lbs - while the single 350 was 850lbs. Also, single engine power also brings one-half the maintenance costs of twin engine power. I think that twins are a fine choice, but the new engine technology and designs at least give you some strong arguments towards single engine power, arguments that were simply not part of the equation a few years ago.
Today's engines are vastly more dependable than those of even 10 years ago, and in single vs. twin tests - with comparable horsepower - the single is almost invariably the superior choice, with better mileage and performance. Just a few years ago you HAD to have twins to reach the power rating for the heavier hulls - even 300 hp ratings demanded twin power.
Last year one of the big magazines (Trailer Boats?) had a feature on the GW Advance 247 equipped with the Yamaha 350 vs. the same hull with twins. The single 350 won hands down. Much better mileage along with superior performance. Twins weighed around 550 lbs each - 1100 lbs - while the single 350 was 850lbs. Also, single engine power also brings one-half the maintenance costs of twin engine power. I think that twins are a fine choice, but the new engine technology and designs at least give you some strong arguments towards single engine power, arguments that were simply not part of the equation a few years ago.
jimfish
Well-Known Member
PS - Regarding twin vs. single docking, twins are far superior - but ONLY on wide beam hulls. The Islander has an 8'6" beam, meaning that twins are mounted so close as to almost be touching - very little separation. The "pivot" effect is so minimalized that it is negligible. In my own mind, an extra $15-20K in engine would give me very little for my money in terms of manueverability on a narrow beam hull. See Dave Pascoe's comments on this issue.
ocnslr
GreatGrady Captain
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2005
- Messages
- 1,907
- Reaction score
- 43
- Points
- 48
- Location
- Fort Myers Beach, FL
- Model
- Islander
jimfish said:PS - Regarding twin vs. single docking, twins are far superior - but ONLY on wide beam hulls. The Islander has an 8'6" beam, meaning that twins are mounted so close as to almost be touching - very little separation. The "pivot" effect is so minimalized that it is negligible. In my own mind, an extra $15-20K in engine would give me very little for my money in terms of manueverability on a narrow beam hull. See Dave Pascoe's comments on this issue.
Well, having had this Islander with both single and twins, I have to say that you are just wrong.
I can rotate the boat in it's own length, and twist it however I want it. Even in some close, snotty conditions.
Yes, I was surprised at just how much of a "twisting couple" is developed by those twins.
I do have a LOT of experience driving vessels, some really big, some mid size (e.g. dinner cruise vessels), and some small.
Brian
Master, Oceans, Steam, Motor & Sail, 1600-Tons
Chief Mate, Oceans, Unlimited.
jimfish
Well-Known Member
twins...
Well, Mr. O., I take your experiences to heart, as obviously your feelings are heartfelt and your experience wide. I have not found the twin experience to be so pronouncedly effective on narrow beam hulls, certainly not to the point of laying down $15-20K to have it, so I guess that is what is termed as difference of opinion among reasonable people. I am sure that you would agree that twins on wide beam hulls have a MUCH more pronounced effect due to the spacing, which was my point. BTW - On your Islander with twins, did you find the handling at all squirly (sp.) under any conditions? GW folks have made this observations a number of times to me. What do you think? Any significant differences between the larger single and twins, IYO?.
Well, Mr. O., I take your experiences to heart, as obviously your feelings are heartfelt and your experience wide. I have not found the twin experience to be so pronouncedly effective on narrow beam hulls, certainly not to the point of laying down $15-20K to have it, so I guess that is what is termed as difference of opinion among reasonable people. I am sure that you would agree that twins on wide beam hulls have a MUCH more pronounced effect due to the spacing, which was my point. BTW - On your Islander with twins, did you find the handling at all squirly (sp.) under any conditions? GW folks have made this observations a number of times to me. What do you think? Any significant differences between the larger single and twins, IYO?.
ocnslr
GreatGrady Captain
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2005
- Messages
- 1,907
- Reaction score
- 43
- Points
- 48
- Location
- Fort Myers Beach, FL
- Model
- Islander
Re: twins...
By "squirelly", I assume you refer to chine walking?
If so, I experienced it far more often with the single than with the twins. Particularly if the fuel was down 25% or so.
I personally think the 270 hull is too light in the stern with most single engines, and the hull doesn't sit properly on her lines. Just a bit bow heavy.
With the twins, the chine walking has been rare, and only when the fuel is well below 50%.
Brian
jimfish said:BTW - On your Islander with twins, did you find the handling at all squirly (sp.) under any conditions? GW folks have made this observations a number of times to me. What do you think? Any significant differences between the larger single and twins, IYO?.
By "squirelly", I assume you refer to chine walking?
If so, I experienced it far more often with the single than with the twins. Particularly if the fuel was down 25% or so.
I personally think the 270 hull is too light in the stern with most single engines, and the hull doesn't sit properly on her lines. Just a bit bow heavy.
With the twins, the chine walking has been rare, and only when the fuel is well below 50%.
Brian
ocnslr
GreatGrady Captain
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2005
- Messages
- 1,907
- Reaction score
- 43
- Points
- 48
- Location
- Fort Myers Beach, FL
- Model
- Islander
Re: twins...
I didn't make my comments about twin manueverability to justify the additional expense, and agree that it would be a very unusual situation where improved maneuverability was acceptable as the sole reason for twins.
We converted from single to twins for the improved fuel efficiency (2S OX66 to F150s). We get 35%-40% better mileage, at higher cruising speeds. The greatly improved maneuverabilty was just a side benefit.
I did not address the difference in blade area and prop position. Despite some extensive prop evaluation with the single OX66, we were never able to get slip down to an acceptable level (hence some of the fuel inefficiency). My opinion is that the two scoop injectors, mounted six inches either side of the centerline and about two feet forward of the transom, have a marked adverse effect on water flow. I have discussed this with the GW engineers, but they say "no problem". The twin engines have very low prop slip.
Brian
jimfish said:I have not found the twin experience to be so pronouncedly effective on narrow beam hulls, certainly not to the point of laying down $15-20K to have it, so I guess that is what is termed as difference of opinion among reasonable people.
I didn't make my comments about twin manueverability to justify the additional expense, and agree that it would be a very unusual situation where improved maneuverability was acceptable as the sole reason for twins.
We converted from single to twins for the improved fuel efficiency (2S OX66 to F150s). We get 35%-40% better mileage, at higher cruising speeds. The greatly improved maneuverabilty was just a side benefit.
I did not address the difference in blade area and prop position. Despite some extensive prop evaluation with the single OX66, we were never able to get slip down to an acceptable level (hence some of the fuel inefficiency). My opinion is that the two scoop injectors, mounted six inches either side of the centerline and about two feet forward of the transom, have a marked adverse effect on water flow. I have discussed this with the GW engineers, but they say "no problem". The twin engines have very low prop slip.
Brian
BobP
GreatGrady Captain
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2005
- Messages
- 4,744
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Long Island, NY
- Model
- Sailfish
JimF,
Grady mounted twin V6 motors on 26 inch centerlines on all models irrrespective of beam, which went to 29 inch for the V6 4 strokes, only until recently spread them out - when the 330 was introduced, then I believe in the Marlin also.
The 330 looked baren at the stern with the tiny motors, so spreading the V6s filled out the beam better. That wasn't Grady's story though.
No longer looks that way with the F350s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are/were a few models that could be equipped with twins OR singles, singles were sold most often on those models because they are the economical choice in any way one wants to look at it. The Islander is a similar length and style hull as the Sailfish, but the Sailfish being heavier and beamy couldn't make it out the gate on a single, driving up the price further over the Islander.
Brian changed technology on the conversion, I bet a 300 HP HPDI or Suzie 300 or Verado 300 etc, would save even more gas over his twin F150s.
All of these motors have modern efficient burns, not so with the 250 OX66s. I bet a pair of 200 HPDIs of the same weight would beat his F150s on performance at no greater fuel usage. (I wouldn't bet much though!)
Having the props so far back past the hull vs. an inboard twin, the turning action of twin outboards is little league on any beam hull. A retrofit bow thruster for docking would be more usefull IMHO and cheaper than a $17K motor.
The other thing with cabin boats, they tend to be bow heavy relative to a CC model, so having more weight back seems to help the balance favorably.
The gas tanks are rear oriented so keeping them mostly full helps too.
Grady mounted twin V6 motors on 26 inch centerlines on all models irrrespective of beam, which went to 29 inch for the V6 4 strokes, only until recently spread them out - when the 330 was introduced, then I believe in the Marlin also.
The 330 looked baren at the stern with the tiny motors, so spreading the V6s filled out the beam better. That wasn't Grady's story though.
No longer looks that way with the F350s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are/were a few models that could be equipped with twins OR singles, singles were sold most often on those models because they are the economical choice in any way one wants to look at it. The Islander is a similar length and style hull as the Sailfish, but the Sailfish being heavier and beamy couldn't make it out the gate on a single, driving up the price further over the Islander.
Brian changed technology on the conversion, I bet a 300 HP HPDI or Suzie 300 or Verado 300 etc, would save even more gas over his twin F150s.
All of these motors have modern efficient burns, not so with the 250 OX66s. I bet a pair of 200 HPDIs of the same weight would beat his F150s on performance at no greater fuel usage. (I wouldn't bet much though!)
Having the props so far back past the hull vs. an inboard twin, the turning action of twin outboards is little league on any beam hull. A retrofit bow thruster for docking would be more usefull IMHO and cheaper than a $17K motor.
The other thing with cabin boats, they tend to be bow heavy relative to a CC model, so having more weight back seems to help the balance favorably.
The gas tanks are rear oriented so keeping them mostly full helps too.