Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: Need input on outboard jet for 16' SeaArk

  1. #1

    Default Need input on outboard jet for 16' SeaArk

    I’ve found a SeaArk 1652MVJT and am looking to power it. I am basically looking at 4 choices.

    Yamaha 60/40 factory jet—big and expensive
    Yamaha 40/30 factory jet-not enough power?
    Yamaha 50 converted to jet—expense to do so? Drawbacks
    Tohatsu 50/35—two stroke; lighter weight

    I’m leaning towards the conversion as it would be Kenai legal and some of the 4-stroke advantages as related to fuel; noise..) however I am new to jets and was wondering if this is feasible. Also don’t know how power vs. non-power trim and tilt play into the outboard jet world.

    Would like to hear from anyone with strong opinions.

    Thanks,

    Peter

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    2,127

    Default

    The 60/40 yamaha is an excellent motor, you will not be disappointed. 40/30 would be doggy with any kind of load, however if Kenai legal is a big deal to you, then go less. Purely from a performance standpoint, the 60 hp or even 70 hp yamaha powerheads would do great on that boat. I've had a 60/40 since 2006 and it is a stellar engine, much more torquey than you would expect and a world of difference between the it and the 40/30.

    That said, if you find a decent 2 stroke 50 for a decent price, that would get you going much cheaper for starters.

  3. #3

    Default

    Yamaha 40/30 is NOT a Dog! I have one on a 700# 1660 sled and it does very well with 3 people and gear. Good with more. It is NOT a MOOSE hauler, but it is a great affordable and competent jet motor for a fishing / camping machine. Been running one for ten years now and love it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch It View Post
    The 60/40 yamaha is an excellent motor, you will not be disappointed. 40/30 would be doggy with any kind of load, however if Kenai legal is a big deal to you, then go less. Purely from a performance standpoint, the 60 hp or even 70 hp yamaha powerheads would do great on that boat. I've had a 60/40 since 2006 and it is a stellar engine, much more torquey than you would expect and a world of difference between the it and the 40/30.

    That said, if you find a decent 2 stroke 50 for a decent price, that would get you going much cheaper for starters.

  4. #4
    Member DRIFTER_016's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Yellowknife, NWT
    Posts
    3,318

    Default

    If you want to be Kenai legal go for the 50.
    There is a little tweak you can do to those engines to turn them into a 60 with no $$$ to invest.
    If you don't tell anyone, no one will ever know.


  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    2,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cresent Hills View Post
    Yamaha 40/30 is NOT a Dog! I have one on a 700# 1660 sled and it does very well with 3 people and gear. Good with more. It is NOT a MOOSE hauler, but it is a great affordable and competent jet motor for a fishing / camping machine. Been running one for ten years now and love it.

    But my 60/40 IS a moose hauler. There is negligible increased fuel burn at WOT and it's a much better fit if one doesn't want to have power stress when they want to do something real with their boats. I run 40/30's with three people and gear all the time for work projects on G3's (1652's) and unless absolutely shimmed and sharpened perfectly, they leave me wishing for ten more hp. If one found a screaming deal on a 40 or twostroke 50, so goes, but if starting new......I'd go 60/40.

  6. #6

    Default

    Wow after ten years running this combo, I had no Idea I was not doing something real...


    Quote Originally Posted by Catch It View Post
    But my 60/40 IS a moose hauler. There is negligible increased fuel burn at WOT and it's a much better fit if one doesn't want to have power stress when they want to do something real with their boats. I run 40/30's with three people and gear all the time for work projects on G3's (1652's) and unless absolutely shimmed and sharpened perfectly, they leave me wishing for ten more hp. If one found a screaming deal on a 40 or twostroke 50, so goes, but if starting new......I'd go 60/40.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Juneau,AK
    Posts
    152

    Default

    I have the exact boat as you peter. I have a 55 Johnson on it and it is plenty of power.
    I have run in 1,5 inches last fall...pumped sand and ate the impeller.

    Does anyone know if Greg wooldridgge is making a stainless 6 5/8 c.b. Impeller.???
    A few years back he had not.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    2,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cresent Hills View Post
    Wow after ten years running this combo, I had no Idea I was not doing something real...
    Just imagine when you get a 60/40 how much you will do....

    I had underpowered stuff all my life until I avoided advice such as yours for my jetboat. Truck's, snogo's, boats, you name it, I felt I wanted a little extra push in all these machines. You will never hear someone complain of having too much horsepower on their rig as long as it fits the boat. As said, the 40/30 works, the 60/40 works better....hole shot, top end, carrying capacity, and it's an extremely strong running motor (40/30 is as well, just sayin you would not be walking into a finicky lemon if one got the 60/40).

  9. #9
    Member Sobie2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    1,039

    Default

    Pedro,

    I used to own the 1652 MVJT with a Tohatsu 50/35. With the pump on it, it was good for about 21mph top speed. IT was good for 2 people, it could run rivers with 3 and no gear. It went everywhere in only a trickle of water. When I ran it with the prop it was a whole other boat, fast and powerful. I had a manual CMC lift on it. For the Kenai I'd suggest running with the prop setup. You could fish with four people on the prop setup.
    The Tohatsu ran a medium sized pump. I'd check around to see if you could find a jet that used a large size pump and go with that.

    As far as power tilt and trim it isn't a big deal when running a boat with a jet tunnel. I wouldn't run a boat with power tilt/trim if it didn't have a tunnel.

    I now have a 1860 MVJT with a Honda BF90.

    Sobie2

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    2,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sobie2 View Post
    Pedro,

    I used to own the 1652 MVJT with a Tohatsu 50/35. With the pump on it, it was good for about 21mph top speed. IT was good for 2 people, it could run rivers with 3 and no gear. It went everywhere in only a trickle of water. When I ran it with the prop it was a whole other boat, fast and powerful. I had a manual CMC lift on it. For the Kenai I'd suggest running with the prop setup. You could fish with four people on the prop setup.
    The Tohatsu ran a medium sized pump. I'd check around to see if you could find a jet that used a large size pump and go with that.

    As far as power tilt and trim it isn't a big deal when running a boat with a jet tunnel. I wouldn't run a boat with power tilt/trim if it didn't have a tunnel.

    I now have a 1860 MVJT with a Honda BF90.

    Sobie2
    There is a way around the trim/tilt. I'm sure most folks know there is a release valve on the port side of the motor, simply make a cross bar (which the bigger motors don't come with despite having the array of holes) out of aluminum rod, punch a hole in each end and put in cotter key. I run mine in a mix of lakes and rivers out in DLG and if water is skinny I take two minutes to release the trim, and slap in the rod at my preferred height. May need a rat tail file to take out the casting marks inside of the holes. Works great and allows me to enjoy the trim for smooth running when I am in a lake or a river that doesn't pucker me up.

    But indeed, with a tunnel, the trim is completely no big whoop.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    A-town
    Posts
    153

    Default

    I run a G3 1652 and I'm happy w/ my choice to buy a 2 stroke Tohatsu 50 TLDI and added a pump. 20-23 mph w/ pump and 30+ on the prop w/ two souls aboard and little gear. I wanted to fish the Kenai so I opted for the 50, if I had not been interested in the Kenai I would have bought a bigger motor.

  12. #12
    Member Akgramps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Last civilized place on the planet
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    Assume a 60/40 factory jet is badged as a 40, is this then Kenai legal or is F&G onto that?
    “Nothing worth doing is easy”
    TR

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    A-town
    Posts
    153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akgramps View Post
    Assume a 60/40 factory jet is badged as a 40, is this then Kenai legal or is F&G onto that?
    Yeah, they are on to that. a factory 60/40 will be labeled 40 jet. I'm sure there are a few jets out there that are over hp @ the head.

  14. #14

    Default

    I run an 18' SeaArk with a Yamaha 40/30 2-stroke. It is the best creek boat I've ever run, and can handle incredibly shallow waters. With three men and a moose, it can get on step only in shallow water. Like everything, it depends what your priorities are. Adding a bigger engine to the boat I have would make it harder to get into some of the places I can get to. But when you put 5 people or throw in a heavy camp or a moose, the bigger engine makes a huge difference. For me, I just work around the limitations and I prefer it that way because of the places I can get into. But if you aren't trying to get the absolute minimum draft light craft, I don't see an advantage to underpowering the vessel.
    14 Days to Alaska
    Also available on Kindle and Nook

  15. #15
    Member Akgramps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Last civilized place on the planet
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Troy Hamon View Post
    I run an 18' SeaArk with a Yamaha 40/30 2-stroke. It is the best creek boat I've ever run, and can handle incredibly shallow waters. With three men and a moose, it can get on step only in shallow water. Like everything, it depends what your priorities are. Adding a bigger engine to the boat I have would make it harder to get into some of the places I can get to. But when you put 5 people or throw in a heavy camp or a moose, the bigger engine makes a huge difference. For me, I just work around the limitations and I prefer it that way because of the places I can get into. But if you aren't trying to get the absolute minimum draft light craft, I don't see an advantage to underpowering the vessel.
    Troy, how wide is the bottom of your ark
    “Nothing worth doing is easy”
    TR

  16. #16

    Default

    Not sure...it is sort of the long skinny...but not too skinny. If I can round up a tape, I'll post the measure.
    14 Days to Alaska
    Also available on Kindle and Nook

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    A-town
    Posts
    153

    Default

    This does not add up for me. I'd love to hear more about this setup of yours Troy. Three men (~500lbs+), a boned out moose (~300lb+?), (SeaArk 1860, ~500lbs), motor (~200lbs.), fuel, gear,etc (???lbs) that is moving 1500+lbs w/ 30hp @ the jet? Absolutely awesome! If you got a picture or a few so I can see the set up, cause I am clearly not doing something right with how I run.
    Matt

  18. #18

    Default

    On the trip where we had three men and a moose, there was minimal gear other than knives and bags, as we were just out for a day hunt. But yes, it was very heavy. And we couldn't get on step in deep water, and we couldn't stay on step in deep water. But in the shallow creek, we had enough power to tip over on step barely. The boat is on step at 8 mph, so that isn't saying much. When we got out of Big Creek into the Naknek River, and the water was deeper, we immediately came off step and plowed our way home.

    For the men, definitely 550 lbs or a bit more. The moose was in quarters, probably more than 500 lbs as well, perhaps more than 600, we don't bone in the field except the ribs. We had less than 20 gallons of fuel, and probably less than 50 lbs of other gear. I'll grab a photo when I get home. It is not anything particularly special. Top speed even when light is 22 mph.
    14 Days to Alaska
    Also available on Kindle and Nook

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    2,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Troy Hamon View Post
    On the trip where we had three men and a moose, there was minimal gear other than knives and bags, as we were just out for a day hunt. But yes, it was very heavy. And we couldn't get on step in deep water, and we couldn't stay on step in deep water. But in the shallow creek, we had enough power to tip over on step barely. The boat is on step at 8 mph, so that isn't saying much. When we got out of Big Creek into the Naknek River, and the water was deeper, we immediately came off step and plowed our way home.

    For the men, definitely 550 lbs or a bit more. The moose was in quarters, probably more than 500 lbs as well, perhaps more than 600, we don't bone in the field except the ribs. We had less than 20 gallons of fuel, and probably less than 50 lbs of other gear. I'll grab a photo when I get home. It is not anything particularly special. Top speed even when light is 22 mph.
    Okay, so this is where I'm coming from. My 60/40 is on an 18 ft lund (old style with flat bottom in the back, not the SSV). I have hauled (repeatedly = 3 times) a moose (600 + lbs) two guys (400 lbs) and camp stuff plus fuel (300 lbs, we don't go light) and motor (250 lbs) and it gets on step and does 22 mph with this load on a deep lake, and ran the Agulawok River (not shallow slide style running but not prop country either). That extra ten hp is the extra bump you need to not only get on step, but move out as well. SO, if one were to go new, price difference is negligible compared to what this bigger motor will do for you. Obviously as Troy said, the 40/30 will get you out, but there is little to no extra hp for when a real load is involved. Also, there is negligible difference in weight in a four stroke 40/30 and 60/40....they both weigh a ton. A two stroke would help in weight and torque but also would suck as much gas (plus oil) as a 60/40.

    To me it's a no brainer, if what you have is a 40/30....it will get the job done but it's gonna take awhile and there are limitations. With a 60/40 you can haul major amounts....at speed....and I have yet to put enough stuff in that boat that it won't get on step and do 20 mph. Top speed light is 29 mph. The 50's will obviously be somewhere in the middle but you can't ask a 40/30 to push a boat of any size PLUS a legitimate load and expect to skip along. In case you can't tell I am in love with my boat set up, it has done amazing things for me all over the DLG area, the boat is beat, leaks a little but the motor is cherry and does a stellar job. It's called the millennium falcon cuz in the words of Han Solo "It might not look like much kid, but it's got it where it counts."

    I'll own this boat til I die, or my wife forces me to sell it because I only sit in it once a year when I go back to DLG from JNU to moose hunt. You can feel the same way about your rig if you power it up.

  20. #20

    Default

    Just ran out to look at my boat and get a couple photos...first of all it is not a SeaArk, it is a SeaNymph. Shows what I know. The model is 1852. It is a wonderful little craft for what I do. But if you can install the 60 without feeling you are too stern heavy, you should do it. I have a friend with an old Mon-Ark boat, 16' long and pretty wide, and he has a 4-stroke 50 hp engine. The boat is heavy enough in the stern that it makes it a challenge to operate in shallow waters unless you are going full speed. If your shallow trips are going to be in go-fast scenarios like glacial braided channels, then fine. But if you are dealing with shallow and rocky where you are picking your way at minimum planing speed, then it can be a problem. Other than that, I really don't see a downside to the 60...

    Catch It...I've run those DLG rivers...I know what you mean about them. Your boat sounds like a perfect solution.

    A couple shots of mine:


    14 Days to Alaska
    Also available on Kindle and Nook

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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
  •