Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Kenai power and jet motors...

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    120

    Default Kenai power and jet motors...

    If the Kenai is going to 50 hp how come I can't get a 60 hp have a jet unit installed. I will only put 40 out the pump, 10 under the legal limt. The regs as written do not include a provision for jets...anyone know why?

  2. #2
    Member aces-n-eights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    189

    Default

    Simplicity of writing and enforcing the law, would be my guess.

  3. #3
    Member alaskanmoosehunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Next to my trashy neighbor
    Posts
    362

    Default Kenai rules, laws, bi-laws are out of control....

    and that is all I have to say about that! (Forrest Gump)

  4. #4
    Moderator stid2677's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks Area
    Posts
    7,272

    Default

    My understanding is it is considered a pollution problem. So it is about how much florocarbons a 50hp spits out. Or POLITICS.

    Steve

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    120

    Default 50hp versus 60hp

    When you look at companies like evinrude, the 40hp 50hp and 60hp are all the same motor just detuned versions from the factory. Minus the sticker and the vin# you would not be able to tell the differance. Same size and weight....anyone know if the 60hp Etech puts out more pollution than the 50hp?

  6. #6

    Default 50 hp

    50 hp is the limit. The only difference in the reg is 50 hp instead of 35. There is no consideration given for jets. If you put a jet on a 60 you will be viewed as in violation of the law regardless of hp at the jet. It has more to do with the pollution/hydrocarbons I would guess. A 60 with a jet still puts out the emissions of a 60 even though you only get 40 hp out of it.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    120

    Default wait a sec....

    By that logic...bigger the motor the more it pollutes..than places like the deshka will be a fuel dump. For that matter, going from 35 to 50hp would seem to only add to the problem. I would love to see where they are getting the numbers (not that I disagree, it just seems hipocritical)

  8. #8
    Moderator stid2677's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks Area
    Posts
    7,272

    Default

    A 35hp on a boat that is under powered will spit out more fumes then a 50hp on the same boat with the same weight operating at a reduced engine load. It is all about pollution.

    Steve

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    124

    Cool Bank Erosion, too

    While pollution -- both hydorcarbons exhausted into the air , but primarily the qty of unburned gasoline & oil spilled into the river thru our exhuast ports is certainly a major part of the total equasion of the 4-stroke/50hp issue, I think you guys are getting a little too far down the pollution trail here.
    Originally, many years ago when restrictions first began on the river it was about reducing wake size that was eroding the banks, which was a potential threat to not only land owners along the river, but what it also did to smother the gravelly ( is that a word? ) salmon hatching areas along the shores with mud and silt. People WERE roaring up and down the crowded river at dangerous speeds in a confined invironment, and the Feds set a HP restriction as a convenient way to stop both excessive speed and bank erosion.
    As years went along, it became very obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that the 35HP thresh-hold was too low-- bigger underpowered boats were plowing up and down the river creating the very wakes the Feds had hoped to prevent.
    As most everyone on this forum is knowledgeable enough to understand, wake size has more to do with boat/motor/speed combinations than any specially selected HP rating. However, regulatiors must set a limit somewhere, and acknowledging the former error of thier ways, have now inched the max rating up to 50HP, and hoped to slow the rising qty of unburned gas & oil with a 4-stroke limit.
    Is this the end-all solution to solve the problems on the river? I think not. My 2-cents on this is it's still too simplified.
    But-at least they've finally shown a willingness to change. And for the Feds, THAT'S really saying something...
    Sorry for the long speech, but thought it worth for those that may not have been up here through all the conflicts and tribulations.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    120

    Default I agree...

    A properly powered boat will throw less wake and the move to 50hp is a step in the right direction. To be fair I have a 50/35 jet, it is a 2 stroke so I will not be able to use it on the Kenai for much longer. I need a new motor and yes I'm selfish, but how hard could it be to write in a provision for jets? If this was the Little Sue, you better believe that it would be in there! People like me who run jets on the Kenai are in the minority, I just feel like we are being over looked. Remeber a 60hp motor will put out 40hp with a jet. The yamaha motor that you see on the Kenai and the back of all those guide boats are basically factory detuned 60hp motors....anyrate my, 16ft jon boat will never over take the 20 ft willie regardless of what I have on the back.

  11. #11

    Default Cause and effect

    The 50 hp increase is due to the size of boat being used, and a desire (mainly by guides) to push their bigger loads faster. It's a cause and effect. If boat size was restricted to 18' Jon's (for example), we would have no need to increase horsepower. Bigger motors burn more fuel and produce more hydrocarbons. The whole 50 hp thing is a joke. More is not better for the Kenai river.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    124

    Default a legitimate beef

    SockeyOrange:
    I think you bring up a valid point of contention. It's obvious that the Regulator's point of reference was taken from a "prop" point of view. In a perfect world, we would verify the performance of our motor at the point of thrust with the water. To further muddy the issue, the older 2-stroke HP motors were rated at " the head", as of 5-7 years ago all motors are now rated at the prop or jet. Thus an older 35HP motor actually gave a prop runner something like 27-29hp at the actual prop; newer units ( 2 or 4-stroke ) gave you the 35HP at the prop, which essencially created a regulation-approved subtle increase in the power available. As I understand it, any new 50HP jet motor is actually a 60HP ( or maybe even a 75HP?) head. Anyone out there who can weigh in on this with more knowledge would be appreciated. So- we now also have this absurd situation whereby someone could purchase a new "50hp jet" motor and be legal; then change to lower unit to a prop and have perhaps 75hp available?
    BUT- you can't do it the other way around- You cannot start with a 60-75HP prop motor, changeout to a lower jet unit, and ever be legal, which I believe is you main gripe about all this, am I correct?

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    120

    Default

    My gripe is the motors actual output...so is this a issue of errosion or pollution? Will a 50hp pollute more than a 35, will the 50hp cause more errosion? The issue of 50hp power head is more of an ease of enforcement than anything, IMO, unless there is a tool that can be used in the field how can they really tell if a 60hp has been detuned...other than the big fat jet unit bolted to the bottom?

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
  •