Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: Single vs. Twin Setup on 26' Aluminum Boat

  1. #1

    Default Single vs. Twin Setup on 26' Aluminum Boat

    Any thoughts on preference as to a single 225 hp vs. twin 115's on a Kingfisher 2525 (or Hewes, Boulton, or other aluminum boat of this size)? Anyone that can share experience with fuel consumption on a twin setup would be appreciated.

    The way I see it, the single provides less weight and possibly less fuel. The twin setup is better for reliability and manuverability, but a single (w/kicker) is very reliable at today's standards.

    Thanks.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    137

    Default

    Good question. I have always wanted to know more about this.

  3. #3

    Default

    Twin: better low speed maneuverability/docking; no steering torque if properly counterotated

    Single w/ kicker: "generally" less fuel consumption; won't lose all power if a log takes out your main motor -- drop the kicker and go home (in a few days

    single no kicker: don't do it.

  4. #4

    Default Enjoyable choices.....

    I can only speak to the kingfisher hull from the ones you mentioned. I went with twin 130's on a 450hp rated hull and have not been disappointed.

    I was thinking that the twins would enable great tight quarter maneuvering as my Tolly hull and others in the past did, but that has not worked out to be the case with my kingfisher. If there is any wind at all, I am a leaf on the surface and end up using both motors in tandem to turn into the wind. Happens trolling at times if I am in a wind chute. If it is calm, I can spin on a dime of course. Larger motors spinning larger wheels would help some here but the hull gets no side "bite" on the water and I think it would still slip sideways. Someone may chime in with the larger set up for you. Whittier makes this the most apparent with the constant down sloping winds.

    Some believe that twins are an extra expense but you still have to change fluids/filters in a kicker so I think the cost is negated there somewhat. You also still need two separate fuel/water separators. My 130's came close on the overall cost as I bought some of the last of them. For me it was darn close between the 225/kicker or twin 130's. Now, a single 350 is available, hmmmmm...... Efficiency at cruise will improve when you come closer to the hp the hull is rated for than what I did. I average out to 2mpg @ 30 m.p.h. loaded heavy for a family of four. I am propped for full RPM and can knock you off your feet with the hole shot but suffer some at cruise. At 30m.p.h., I don't cruise for very long and I can kick it up faster and the mileage suffers only a minor amount in the overall picture of things.

    I have had too come home a looooong ways on a "kicker" style setup, older motors - not the newer high thrust, and it got it done but at times you are going nowhere in a hurry. I prefer to have a larger motor for back up and 130hp moves me along just fine into any weather I care to cross. Folks have asked if my single 130 will get me up on plane and I confess to not understand the comparison as the 130 left the high thrust behind just off idle. I have never personally lost both motors at once either but it could happen. Then I would be wishing I had the twins with the kicker option (not sure this works on an 8'-6" hull). For me at that point it will be time to drop the hook, call a friend over and let the ribbing begin, particularly good if they have a single with the kicker tipped up. If you do go with a kicker, tie it in to run from your helm where your plotter/sounder/radar screens are. You can verify your getting somewhere and not being pushed off track. This happened on a boat I took a ride on and we had to steer over the transom. Worked fine for trolling, lame on the long run home between the weather kicking up and the person steering could barley see where we were steering too. Long trip that has stuck with me.

    I troll a lot and was planning on doing that just off idle and it has worked out great and my fuel meter barely ticks over. Not sure how much a high thrust would burn idled up.....someone may be able to post that info for you.

    Search "Got Toys". He has the boat you are looking at with a single and has posted his numbers....solid info for you on that particular hull. There is also a newer 27' - single set up in the group and he may have his numbers also.

    Enjoy the build..............It must be winter out, extra coffee and posting instead of work!!

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,568

    Default

    If you get twins and one motor can not get you on step all you bought is a very expensive kicker.
    My personal choice is for one big motor and a nice 8 or 10 HT kicker.

  6. #6

    Default

    Beetle Builder - what size is your kingfisher and how far can you travel on a tank of gas. Overall, how do you like your boat. I am seriously considering the Kingfisher 2525 pilothouse - they look very comforable and seem to be very well built.

  7. #7
    Member Alaska Gray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    4,925

    Default

    I find have twins is better maneuverability at low speeds. Have twin 115 I enjoy though some days I wish I had more to go faster. One 115 won't get my 26 hewes on step. I like the fact knowing I have two 115 just in case one goes out on me like it did last year. One 115 got me back quicker then a kicker would of. It comes down to money and what you feel is better suited for you.
    Living the Alaskan Dream
    Gary Keller
    Anchorage, AK

  8. #8

    Default

    I honestly think this one is just a matter of personal preference. Get what you want. Twins are great, a single can be great. I have twins and like them on my CD22. They do cost twice as much to maintain and I have never had any trouble with the hondas on the water. Where I go I can't imagine trying to come back with a 10 hp kicker if the main dies. But, once again, I wouldn't lose much sleep over a single and used to go out all the time with only one engine in my old boat and always made it back.

  9. #9

    Default

    I have twin Yamaha 100 hp 4-strokes on a 25' BayWeld.

    Manuverability: Great. I always leverage the twin motor setup for operating in tight situations. I can pivot the Bayweld in a circle around its central axis utilizing both motors. I had a 21' Tolman wide body with twin 50 hp motors and it did not have this level of manuverablilty though. So I think the placement of the motors on the transom, distance separating the motors, has a big effect on manuverablilty.

    Fuel Consumtion: I think this is a valid argument, one motor equals less weight which equal less fuel consumption. I did a few trips this summer where we did not have our normal trip load weight: 2 adults, 2 kids, 2 dogs, extra fuel, food, water and camping gear. I monitored the fuel consumption via a new fuel management system I installed for the heavily loaded trips with the entire family versus half the load with just one adult and one kid. The miles per gallon went from 2.3 mpg up to 3.0 mpg. My BayWeld has an 18 degree deadrise deep-v hull. So from my experience the deep-v hull efficiency in the water is greatly affected by weight. As a comparison, our Tolman with an 8 degree deadrise at the stern, would stay dead spot on 3 mpg even if I doubled our load in the skiff.

    My final opinion on twin motors is traveling on one 100 hp motor will still allow me to travel faster than a 10 hp kicker, even if the boat is not up on step. I would not like to try and get back to Whittier fron Green Island on a 10 hp kicker. Twin motors does add to your safety margin, IMHO, which is the deciding factor for me.

  10. #10
    xtrareliable
    Guest

    Default

    I have a 2725 and decided on a single (250 Verado) with kicker (9.9) configuration. Granted, I don't go far from shore and avoid the weather but this config has been good for me. The key for me was the correct prop. 17P Enertia has been awesome.

    If you do go with the single, I would suggest going with the 250. I always run pretty light, but I know most of you guys up north run fully loaded so the extra hp wouldn't hurt.

  11. #11
    Moderator Paul H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    5,594

    Default

    I'd only go with twins if one of them could get the hull on plane, and I think you'd need to go to at least twin 175's if not twin 225's for that.

    If you plan to be out in conditions where engine failure would be more than a nuisance, then gives twins a serious consideration. But make sure it's truly a twin installation, independent fuel systems and power to each engine, and enough power for one to get you on plane. It'll be more expensive than a big single.

  12. #12
    Member Wallbanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Valley
    Posts
    19

    Default

    I stressed over the same question when I bought my 26' boat last month. It really does come down to personal preference and your gut feelings. I found that everyone I talked to had great advice but it almost made me more confused about which to buy. A few of my considerations... I found that most twins were mounted too close together to provide the torque necessary for "bow thruster" type handling near the docks. Bad gas or hitting a submerged object are the most likely issues you'll face, both of which could take out both motors anyway. With two main motors, you're statistically twice as likely to experience a trip ending breakdown... if either fails you're heading home. They're heavier, less economical and typically slower than similarly powered singles. Trolling around on a kicker saves fuel and more importantly to me, keeps hours off my main power. Lower hours may make a difference in selling price when you suffer the effects of 2 foot-itis. Then again, the old school crowd seems to prefer twin setups, remembering the two stroke days when the cowling was off more than it was on and your fishing buddy had to be a mechanic. Boat motor technology and reliability has come a long way. The airplanes I've flown and the cars I drive only have one motor and I haven't had too many problems. Are you a big risk taker, finding yourself living on the edge or on the more conservative side? Anything can happen but If you're well prepared, watching the weather and ready to wait out a storm you'll be fine with either decision. You could just spend the big bucks and get twins and a kicker! I went for a single 300 and a 9.9. Hopefully it was the right decision. Good luck!

  13. #13
    Charterboat Operator
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Anchorage AK.
    Posts
    1,057

    Default twins

    i agree with PaulH, go with the twins if you can afford it,
    I have twin 150 yamys (2stroke) on my 28' Alumaweld. One motor, although extremly slow to plane, will push the boat @ 24-26 mph, loaded with 8 people ad gear. It is real comfortable to know as i never worry too much about what would happen if one were to go down.
    I lost a motor this summer, actually just the fuel system to it, and went out and fished the whole day, seas were calm and had friends in radio contact just in case. No worries!

    on the fuel consumption, i think that you will be running the motors at a lesser rpm and not as hard as you would a single, which equals much less fuel usage. not saying that you will get better mileage with the twins but i dont think it will be a whole lot worse. same boat as mine running a 250 yammy single, is only burning about 1-2 GPH less than i at same speed.

  14. #14

    Default

    I disagree with the person above stating that if you get dual motors and one fails, it wont get you on step. On a 27 foot aurora with 130's, one of them would get us on step just fine. And we had a lot of junk on board(WAY too much.) I wouldnt want to run it like that all the time, as the fuel economy was horrible, but it got on plane easier then expected.

  15. #15

    Default 2825

    AK Buck........I have the 28' with 125 gallon tank. The 2525 has the same volume I believe but your economy should be closer to 3 mpg if I remember correctly, which will give you plenty of range to enjoy our areas. I believe there is another poster "Sancho" who also has the boat you are looking at. I would search these folks out and talk with them about their experiences.



    Here is another link if you don't already have it...........http://www.myboatforum.com/Forum/
    Last edited by Beetle Builder; 10-28-2008 at 10:00. Reason: link

  16. #16

    Default

    Many thanks for all the input - very much appreciated. All great points. I'm leaning towards the large single - slightly better fuel economy, about 100# less weight (including kicker) - need to decide soon. Have purchased the Kingfisher 2525 boat.

  17. #17
    Member Alaska Gray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    4,925

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by griff View Post
    I disagree with the person above stating that if you get dual motors and one fails, it wont get you on step. On a 27 foot aurora with 130's, one of them would get us on step just fine. And we had a lot of junk on board(WAY too much.) I wouldnt want to run it like that all the time, as the fuel economy was horrible, but it got on plane easier then expected.
    Griff, I have twins and one of my 115 won't get me on step. Another reason is the manufacture says not to go over 23 or 28 RPM while running one engine. I don't know about your boat, but with my 26 hewes,gear, people and 160 gal gas. 23-28 RPM is not going to do it.


    I'm sure if I had 150 on that might get me on step.
    Living the Alaskan Dream
    Gary Keller
    Anchorage, AK

  18. #18
    Charterboat Operator
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Anchorage AK.
    Posts
    1,057

    Default

    [quote=Alaska Gray;357831]Griff, . Another reason is the manufacture says not to go over 23 or 28 RPM while running one engine.

    with that note, mine would not get up on step even with the 150, i am pushing it 45-4600 rpm,
    often thought it strange that it will turn 5200 while runnig as a twin but only 46 max running single. sure it has more to do with how it is propped and the weight it is pushing than anything.

  19. #19

    Default

    Just a thought for owners of twin powered boats, just get a low pitch aluminum prop and keep it as a spare. If a motor goes down, jump in the raft, change props and cruise back on plane. It doesn't take all that much power to plane a boat, it's just the twin setups are usually way over propped for single applications. For instance, if you have twin 115's with 17 pitch props, get an 11 or 13 pitch for a spare when you only run on one motor.

    I can't imagine why the mfr. recommends only using 2300-2800 RPM's unless it's due to the over pitched props.

    I considered the single vs. twin application and decided to go for the twins, mainly because I was looking at the F350, which apparently costs quite a bit more in rigging. If I was getting a Kingfisher 2525, I personally would get a single F250 and a 20hp kicker.

  20. #20
    Member Alaska Gray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    4,925

    Default

    I read it in Yamaha instruction book.
    Living the Alaskan Dream
    Gary Keller
    Anchorage, AK

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
  •