Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Fuel burn Hewescraft Alaskan 26

  1. #1

    Default Fuel burn Hewescraft Alaskan 26

    Hi guys, thinking of upgrading my 24' Hewes to a new 26' mid length cabin model with head.
    Specifically looking for fuel gph/mpg numbers with twin 150 Yamahas. Also considering twin 140 Suzuki's, heard they were outstanding on fuel but haven't seen or heard of any 26's with that power.
    Thanks!
    Check out Quickwater Adventure water taxi/transport services: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Quick...37553606260978

  2. #2
    Member Cap'n Ron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Idaho/Valdez
    Posts
    980

    Default

    Jim...my boat is identical to the one you are considering. I have twin Honda 135's. Identical to their 150's except the 150 has cvcc valving which kicks in at 4500rpm and has more torque at those higher rpm's. I've had my boat/engines for 6 going on 7 years and love them. I can squeeze 3mpg at 4100rpm, 24-26 mph out of them. You do the conversion to knots and gph When I push it to 4500 rpm I am going about 30mph and getting 2.5 mpg...those fuel figures are pretty impressive I think. I max out at 5850 rpm with a heavy load and very close to 6k rpm with a moderate load, which is perfect. I think my stainless props are 15p. Seems like a low pitch, but perfect match for these motors and this boat. Hope that helps. I would think Yamaha should be close to these numbers in a 150hp, but from people I talked to, twin 115's get poorer fuel numbers because they are undersized for a 26' HC Alaskan with mid cab etc. By the way, it takes me a max of 2 1/2 seconds to get on step, even with a big load!

  3. #3
    Member patrickL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    1,131

    Default

    I run twin 150hp Yamaha's on my 26 Pacific Cruiser and see around 2mpg-2.25mpg. Our boats about a 1000lbs heavier than the Alaskan so I'd bet Cap'n Ron's numbers would be close and maybe a little lower with twin 150hp Yamaha's on a 26ft Alaskan. In my limited experience, Honda's produce less power but get better mileage and both are great motors.

  4. #4
    Moderator Paul H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    5,594

    Default

    Twin 140 zukis should be burning 12 gph at cruise and 24 gph wot. No idea how fast they'll push the hull but would expect mileage in the ~2.5 mpg range, which is pretty good for a boat with nearly 300 hp.
    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.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Sterling
    Posts
    154

    Default

    Running twin yamaha f150's on a 24' Alaskan and get 2.5 mpg at 4000 rpm and 31 mph. Pull it back to 3800 rpm and can get 2.6 @ 29 mpg. This is with 14 1/4 x 17 SS Turbo props.

  6. #6
    Member Kay9Cop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasilla, AK
    Posts
    789

    Default

    I have the boat you are looking at with twin yamaha 200 inline fours. Fully loaded with fuel, water, two adults, and gear for a weekend I get 2.6 mpg at 28 mph at 3800 rpm.
    "Beware the man with only one gun; he may know how to use it."

  7. #7

    Default

    Those seem like pretty good numbers. I'd have to run aluminum props as there are lots of beach drop off's so I'd probably go to 19" props.
    I run 19's mostly on my 24 Alaskan with older f100's. They have 2000 hrs but run fantastic and get over 3 mpg doing 21-22 kts @ 4300. Generally half the time the boat is loaded.
    I have run 21" props and liked them as I got a slower hole shot but higher cruising speed.
    For me, absolute max economy is essential so I am considering twin 140 Suzuki's as well. I hear good fuel #'s and able to turn bigger props with those.
    Of course the twin 200's would be pretty sweet as the hp would be fun, but fun is $$.
    K9, what pitch props are you running? Forgot to check the last time I saw an Alaskan but do they make them now with the extended motor bracket bottom flush with the hull?? I've talked to Bayweld about making that modification and they said for the money spent it pays off in better fuel mpg.
    Check out Quickwater Adventure water taxi/transport services: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Quick...37553606260978

  8. #8
    Member patrickL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    1,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kay9Cop View Post
    I have the boat you are looking at with twin yamaha 200 inline fours. Fully loaded with fuel, water, two adults, and gear for a weekend I get 2.6 mpg at 28 mph at 3800 rpm.
    Those new 200s are pretty impressive. Ill be curious to see how they hold up but if they do as well as the 150s there going to be pretty awesome motors.

  9. #9

    Default

    Yeah 100 more hp overall and burning less fuel than the 150's is pretty hard to beat. throttle them back to a 22 kt cruise and they would hardly be working.
    Check out Quickwater Adventure water taxi/transport services: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Quick...37553606260978

  10. #10
    Member Cap'n Ron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Idaho/Valdez
    Posts
    980

    Default

    "I run 19's mostly on my 24 Alaskan with older f100's. They have 2000 hrs but run fantastic and get over 3 mpg doing 21-22 kts @ 4300. Generally half the time the boat is loaded.
    I have run 21" props and liked them as I got a slower hole shot but higher cruising speed. "


    Big Jim: I am confused how you can run 19" props at 4300rpm and only get 21-22 knots, I get more speed that that out of my 15" props at that rpm on the same hull but 2' longer. And, 21" on twin 100's? I would think you could get no where near your recommended WOT rpms (usually close to 6000) with 19" props on your boat/motor setup much less getting that with 21"??? But, can't argue with the mpg numbers you are getting, if you were overpropped, you wouldn't get that...maybe your f100's are two-stroke and there is a torque difference compared to 4-strokes?

  11. #11

    Default

    Ron, they're 4 strokes and that's an average speed. Also I run the boat often loaded with full fuel (160) and passengers/gear. Plus add in the tides we have and that right there makes a difference. Also we have to run aluminum props so giving up a bit of efficiency there. I have a set of stainless props and it's a world of difference. Yesterday ran with the tide and empty, 23 kts @ 4000. The 21" props are awesome if you run light. The boat is so easily fine tuned with motor trim and trim tabs it's simple to get her to run in the "sweetspot". I'll swap the props and let you know what I get wot with the 21's, think I remember 5700. With 2030 hrs they run great and with the mpg it doesn't get any better for a 24' boat w twins. I'm pretty religious when it comes to maintenance, oil/lower unit oil changes every 100 hrs, filters often drained or replaced, etc. I have a complete running spare as well so pretty set up. Put on 800 hrs or so last summer, hope this summer to do more! My pal Dave got about 5000 hrs on his last set of Honda 90's so thinking these should go the distance. You seem to be getting great mpg with your ride; a 26' with 200's and 2.5 or better is pulling hard on me. It only costs $$$
    Check out Quickwater Adventure water taxi/transport services: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Quick...37553606260978

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Jim View Post
    For me, absolute max economy is essential so I am considering twin 140 Suzuki's as well. I hear good fuel #'s and able to turn bigger props with those.
    Good engines. I was under the impression you had to go to the 150/175hp version to run the larger diameter props normally found on the 200hp and up Suzuki's

  13. #13

    Default

    Hmmm maybe I'm wrong but think that all of Suzuki's bigger motors run different gear ratios in their lower units, will check specs.
    Check out Quickwater Adventure water taxi/transport services: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Quick...37553606260978

  14. #14
    Moderator Paul H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    5,594

    Default

    Yes,

    Suzuki does run different gear ratios and the 140 swings a slightly larger diameter prop than other engines in it's class. That said while it might be most fuel efficient engine for your boat, I don't think you'll see huge gains over the various 130-150 hp o/b's from Yamaha and Honda. My 140 zuki is an 06 and the dealer said the newer engines have a different ratio and get better mileage than the earlier production 140's. It's a good engine and if I ever buy/build another o/b and need to power it, Suzuki would be my first choice.
    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.

  15. #15

    Default

    Heard the Suzuki's were great on fuel.
    Ron- ran today; 6000 rpm's (wot) yielded 35 knots with the 19" props. Light load; me and 120 gals fuel.
    Check out Quickwater Adventure water taxi/transport services: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Quick...37553606260978

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
  •