Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Suzuki 250 Question

  1. #1
    Member tlingitwarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,258

    Default Suzuki 250 Question

    Any concerns with this engine pushing a 6,000 pound boat? Sold my last boat because it was slightly under powered. Thanks.
    In 1492 Native Americans discovered Columbus lost at sea
    _________________________________________________

    If I come across as an arrogant, know-it-all jerk, it's because I am

  2. #2
    Moderator Paul H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    5,594

    Default

    250hp should be perfect for a 6000# boat.
    Those that are successful in Alaska are those who are flexible, and allow the reality of life in Alaska to shape their dreams, vs. trying to force their dreams on the reality of Alaska.

    If you have a tenuous grasp of reality, Alaska is not for you.

  3. #3
    Member Gerberman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Soldotna AK, Eugene, OR
    Posts
    612

    Default

    I have twin 250's on my 17,500 pound boat, it pushes it at 42.7 MPH. So I think it would work just fine on a 6,000 pound boat.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    138

    Default

    I have a Suzuki 250 on a 26fter and it has all the power I ever need. Let me know if you need more detail. Prop-ing etc...

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    wasilla
    Posts
    538

    Default

    Got a 250 Tammy on my 25' Parker that weighs about 7000lbs. Cruises at 25 knots

  6. #6
    Member Cap'n Ron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Idaho/Valdez
    Posts
    980

    Default

    well....I am thinking that 250 hp would be minimal for that boat....depends a lot on how it is set up and under what conditions you would use it. Also, is the 6000# dry weight? If so, then I would say that 250hp is inadequate. My boat is 4000# dry weight, I have a 165g gas tank, that full could weigh about 1250#, with 600 lbs of passengers and maybe 1000# of other gear max, I am doing well with twin 135's (270hp) with a "wet" weight of 6850# max. So, that engine would be fine if that is your max wet weight, but if that is the dry weight of the boat alone, and you add another 3000# of fuel, passengers, and gear, I think that would be the same problem you had before = under-powered. A low-pitch prop can get you on step, especially a 4-blade, but you would lose a lot of high-end speed and have a lot lower fuel efficiency that going with a bigger engine or maybe dual 150's or larger....IMHO

  7. #7
    Moderator Paul H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    5,594

    Default

    The boat manufacturer's guideline is ideal power by gross weight is 25#/hp or 6250#'s for a 250hp. Max weight/hp is suggested to be 40#/hp or 10,000lb for a 25hp. If going with twins, 20#/hp per engine is a good number to use if you want one of the engines to be able to get the hull on plane.

    This assumes we are talking about a fairly typical planing hull design.
    Those that are successful in Alaska are those who are flexible, and allow the reality of life in Alaska to shape their dreams, vs. trying to force their dreams on the reality of Alaska.

    If you have a tenuous grasp of reality, Alaska is not for you.

  8. #8
    Member Cap'n Ron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Idaho/Valdez
    Posts
    980

    Default

    Hmmmm....was going more by my experiences with a 22' boat with 185hp and now a 26' boat with 270hp. Thinking about all those 26' Hewes like mine out there, but with twin 115's on them, and how no one can get on plane with one motor, according to most of the forum posts, although I can with one 135 with a light to medium load. But, Paul, wouldn't it still depend on whether he is thinking of 6000# dry weight boat or is that his wet (total)weight? I agree that 250hp is fine for a 6000# total weight boat, but still think it wouldn't be enough if he has say 8500# or more total weight...he would then have 34#/hp. Yep, max weight might be 40#/hp, but I don't think too many people are happy with that, and he said he ditched his last boat because of under-power. So, it all depends on how heavy he is "wet"...right?

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Sterling
    Posts
    154

    Default

    Find out what the boat's maximum rated for horsepower and put that on it.

  10. #10
    Moderator Paul H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    5,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cap'n Ron View Post
    Hmmmm....was going more by my experiences with a 22' boat with 185hp and now a 26' boat with 270hp. Thinking about all those 26' Hewes like mine out there, but with twin 115's on them, and how no one can get on plane with one motor, according to most of the forum posts, although I can with one 135 with a light to medium load. But, Paul, wouldn't it still depend on whether he is thinking of 6000# dry weight boat or is that his wet (total)weight? I agree that 250hp is fine for a 6000# total weight boat, but still think it wouldn't be enough if he has say 8500# or more total weight...he would then have 34#/hp. Yep, max weight might be 40#/hp, but I don't think too many people are happy with that, and he said he ditched his last boat because of under-power. So, it all depends on how heavy he is "wet"...right?

    Yup, which is why I said gross weight, hull, engine, fuel, safety equipment, passengers, gear, ice, fish, etc.

    I made an assumption when the op said 6000# boat he meant everything but passengers and then put some fudge factor of 2000-3000#'s for fuel and passengers and a 250 will certainly get that load up on plane. The key is choosing the right prop. Such a heavy boat is not going to be terrible fast with a 250 ,maybe cruise 22-24 knots, but I wouldn't think it would be underpowered per se. I know someone with a boat that is I believe similar weight with twin 225's. One engine grenaded on them last year and they were able to get on step and get back with just one 225.

    You can certaily put me in the camp that would rather have more power than not enough, and if I were powering a boat with a gross weight of ~9000# I'd want twin 225-250's.

    Comparing performance of twins to a single can be apples and oranges though. The twins have alot more weight on the transom so depending on how the boat is trimmed they don't quite match up. I'd venture to say if you replaced your twin 135's with a single 250 you'd have better performance and certainly better fuel economy.

    I've never understood going to the expense and trouble of running twins if they aren't sized for one of them to get the hull on plane.
    Those that are successful in Alaska are those who are flexible, and allow the reality of life in Alaska to shape their dreams, vs. trying to force their dreams on the reality of Alaska.

    If you have a tenuous grasp of reality, Alaska is not for you.

  11. #11
    Member tlingitwarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,258

    Default

    Thanks for all the responses. The boat is a 27 XLC Skagit Orca. The 6,000 is a dry weight. The boat has a 197 gallon tank, which I doubt I'd ever have more than 3/4 full. Sounds like my concerns are warrented. Question though, I've been looking at a lot of 27 foot SeaSports that have the KAD 43 and 44's. Aren't these roughly the same horse power?

    Found another 27 Skagit that has twin 225's. Now certainly no issue with under power there, I'd venture to say over powered and the additional weight is a real drag on performance?
    In 1492 Native Americans discovered Columbus lost at sea
    _________________________________________________

    If I come across as an arrogant, know-it-all jerk, it's because I am

  12. #12
    Member spoiled one's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    3,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tlingitwarrior View Post
    Thanks for all the responses. The boat is a 27 XLC Skagit Orca. The 6,000 is a dry weight. The boat has a 197 gallon tank, which I doubt I'd ever have more than 3/4 full. Sounds like my concerns are warrented. Question though, I've been looking at a lot of 27 foot SeaSports that have the KAD 43 and 44's. Aren't these roughly the same horse power?

    Found another 27 Skagit that has twin 225's. Now certainly no issue with under power there, I'd venture to say over powered and the additional weight is a real drag on performance?
    Those diesels put out a lot more torque than the DF 250. That boat paired with twin 225s would be a great match, IMO. You don't have to run them a WFO. What does a single diesel and outdrive weigh? Pretty close to a pair of 225s I bet.
    Spending my kids' inheritance with them, one adventure at a time.

  13. #13
    Moderator Paul H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    5,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tlingitwarrior View Post
    Thanks for all the responses. The boat is a 27 XLC Skagit Orca. The 6,000 is a dry weight. The boat has a 197 gallon tank, which I doubt I'd ever have more than 3/4 full. Sounds like my concerns are warrented. Question though, I've been looking at a lot of 27 foot SeaSports that have the KAD 43 and 44's. Aren't these roughly the same horse power?

    Found another 27 Skagit that has twin 225's. Now certainly no issue with under power there, I'd venture to say over powered and the additional weight is a real drag on performance?
    You need to figure out how you will use the boat, i.e. how much weight you will be carrying and how fast do you want to go? A 250 is likely going to give the performance I quoted, cruise of 22 knots and burning ~11 gph at cruise. 2 nmpg for a boat that size is not bad performance at all provided you won't be carrying 1000's of pounds of crew and gear.

    I wouldn't say twin 225's would be over powered at all, especially if you plan on longer trips with more people and gear. The advantage of the twin 225's is you can cruise at 30 knots and wfo of 40 knots (if someone else is paying for fuel). The downside of the twins is not a drag of performance, is feeding the hungry beasts. You'll be burning 20 gph at cruise, so 1.5 nmpg.

    If you want to stick with a single you'd probably be happier with a single 300 than a single 350. You'll pick up some speed, won't burn too much more fuel ~13 gph and will have some reserve power.
    Those that are successful in Alaska are those who are flexible, and allow the reality of life in Alaska to shape their dreams, vs. trying to force their dreams on the reality of Alaska.

    If you have a tenuous grasp of reality, Alaska is not for you.

  14. #14
    Member tlingitwarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,258

    Default

    thanks again guy. I"m flying down tomorrow to look at the Orca with twins. I'm happy as a clam doing 22 knots. I guess I'm far too cheap to go faster. Nice to know that you can. My 22 seasport was powered by a KAD32 170 horse diesel. Would cruise at 24 and burn around 6gph. I sure spoiled me on the consumption side. HOwever a couple guys and some fish and she was woefuly underpowered.
    In 1492 Native Americans discovered Columbus lost at sea
    _________________________________________________

    If I come across as an arrogant, know-it-all jerk, it's because I am

  15. #15
    Moderator Paul H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    5,594

    Default

    The thing to remember with the twins is you won't be more fuel efficient by running slower. Every engine has a sweet spot in the rpm curve where it is most fuel efficient and you prop the engine(s) to be properly loaded at that range. If you only want to run 22-24 knots, the twin setup will not be what you want.

    That's the tough part of moving up to a bigger boat, it's not just the bigger purchase price, it's the bigger fuel bill for every trip.
    Those that are successful in Alaska are those who are flexible, and allow the reality of life in Alaska to shape their dreams, vs. trying to force their dreams on the reality of Alaska.

    If you have a tenuous grasp of reality, Alaska is not for you.

  16. #16
    Member tlingitwarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,258

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul H View Post
    The thing to remember with the twins is you won't be more fuel efficient by running slower. Every engine has a sweet spot in the rpm curve where it is most fuel efficient and you prop the engine(s) to be properly loaded at that range. If you only want to run 22-24 knots, the twin setup will not be what you want.

    That's the tough part of moving up to a bigger boat, it's not just the bigger purchase price, it's the bigger fuel bill for every trip.
    I get it. Will do sea trial this weekend. Owner said he's burning around 6 gallons per engine in the low 20 knot speeds. Sound about right? I guess I'll find out soon enough.
    In 1492 Native Americans discovered Columbus lost at sea
    _________________________________________________

    If I come across as an arrogant, know-it-all jerk, it's because I am

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •