If you were gunna.....

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I picked up the Esquif Cargo this morning.

    The "resident expert" at the shop says it is a lot more boat than than the Missourian but they did not have a Missourinan to sell so I must wonder if that would have been the case if they were side by side. He made a few comments about the Osagian quality, mostly good, but he kinda hung his hat on the fact that the Canadians beat the hell out of the Cargo's and always seem to be happy with them.

    We discussed the motor size on the Cargo and he kept telling me it is rated for 3.5 hp and smiled. I asked if the 9.9 hp or 15 hp would be too much and he was very hesitant to say anything. After I looked at the boat some when I got it home, it does not look very stiff and with a good load I would bet a 7.5 hp would be all you would want. I have a 5 hp and a Merc 3.3 hp which I will try first without a load as soon as I can get it on the water.

    Anyway, the decision is behind me and we'll see how I like the Cargo. It is pretty wide and should be stable....we'll see how my wife does.
    Somewhere along the way I have lost the ability to act politically correct. If you should find it, please feel free to keep it.

    Comment


    • #17
      the transom will take a 9.8 Tohatsu I can assure you that. Anything below a 6hp will seem quite sluggish with any sort of weight in the boat. The tohatsu/nissan two stroke 9.9 would be an excellent motor for that canoe too. I'm going to do some reinforcements to my transom before hanging my surface drive mud motor off the stern.
      www.freightercanoes.com

      Comment


      • #18
        Good to know about the Tohatsu!

        Are you beefing the transom due to the weight of the mud motor or the high mount placing leverage on the plastic?

        I was thinking about adding a piece of 0.125" aluminum on the inside and outside of the transom just to give the back some rigidity that the plastic does not seem to provide. Not sure if it is necessary but the transom does look a little flimsy. Also, the plywood board with the multiple holes used as a lift would also be simple and handy.
        Somewhere along the way I have lost the ability to act politically correct. If you should find it, please feel free to keep it.

        Comment


        • #19
          I'm going to hang an 8hp Johnson 2 stroke (56lbs) on the Esquif (when it arrives) and see how it does... You can put extra thwarts on the Esquif to stiffen it up a bit....Don't forget the old trick(for your wife) of putting a paddle across both gunwales and pushing down to steady the boat as you get in....

          Comment


          • #20
            My 79 Johnson 6 hp is about the same weight. I was just looking at Tohatsu 9.8 hp 4 stroke at 81 lbs./ That seems like a good deal for the 4 stroke weight wise. I'll be interested in how your 8 hp pushes a load.

            I was just looking at the second seat back and thought an extra thwart behind the seat would add to the stiffness and also would be good for tie downs. Might take the seat out and open up the floor some. Another behind the rear seat would definitely make a difference.

            My wife's problem has been getting into the boat from a dock or from a larger boat. She seems to do OK off shore and she has used the paddle to steady things while getting into the seat but thanks for the thought.
            Somewhere along the way I have lost the ability to act politically correct. If you should find it, please feel free to keep it.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Lowrider View Post
              Good to know about the Tohatsu!

              Are you beefing the transom due to the weight of the mud motor or the high mount placing leverage on the plastic?

              I was thinking about adding a piece of 0.125" aluminum on the inside and outside of the transom just to give the back some rigidity that the plastic does not seem to provide. Not sure if it is necessary but the transom does look a little flimsy. Also, the plywood board with the multiple holes used as a lift would also be simple and handy.
              I'm going to reinforce the interior with a piece of aluminum plate that is glassed into the interior of the stern, the glass and epoxy will come about a foot forward to insure good coverage. I will then color match the interior color with a gel coat finnish and will be a batch I make myself. That worthless piece of plastic will get thrown in the trash and of course.......my lift transom will be installed.
              www.freightercanoes.com

              Comment


              • #22
                The esquif is a great canoe, stable enough to stand up and fish out of carefully ofcoarse.

                I've had great luck with the cargo canoe

                Comment


                • #23
                  Mainer,

                  I'd be real interested in seeing pix of the process and finished product. The more I look at the motor mount the more I want to beef it up some. I'm thinking aluminum on the back and sides up maybe 18" on each side with enough rivits to make sure the transom does not move under torque of the motor.

                  I'm leaning toward a Nissan 6 hp 4 stroke 15" mainly because of the 55 lbs vs 84 lbs for the 8 or 9.8 hp. The 6 hp should push the cargo just fine even loaded upstream as some reasonable rate. I'm also thinking of doing a "wide body" 12' jon boat so the 6 hp should work on that one too.
                  Somewhere along the way I have lost the ability to act politically correct. If you should find it, please feel free to keep it.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Here's a list of really nice motors used:

                    9.9 tohatsu nissan two stroke roughly 65 lbs
                    8 hp yammy two stroke roughly 65 lbs
                    6 hp twin cylinder suzuki two stroke 65 lbs

                    The suzuki twin cylinder two stroke is a torquey little motor

                    as far as four strokes are concerned the only two I would hang of the back is the suzuki 15 hp (lightest in it's class) 97 lbs
                    or the tohatsu 9.8 four stroke 81 lbs.

                    I'm not at all worried about my mud motor because it's weight is precisely balanced right over the top of the transom and if you did go this route.....copperheads all the way.

                    The zuk 6 hp was a suprising little motor because of it's twin cylinder design, only down side was it was a shear pin which is no good for my application. I cannot tell you how many times I chose not to run up a section of river for fear that I'd loose power and get blown back into a cut bank in a fast shoot of water. Your needs may be different though. Please do take into consideration that the smaller single cylinder motors really loose torque quickly with any weight added to the boat. If you can run a twin cylinder, they seem to run smoother too. if you are trying to keep weight down, try to find the lightest twin cylinder fourstroke made......you'll be happy you did. If you don't have a motor that will grow with you, there may be a time where you'll get the itch to have more load hauling torque. As far as a twin cylinder is concerned, I think the Tohatsu 8-9.8hp. is the lightest one. The next lightest motor after that is the Suzuki 15 hp. Motor weight matters big time with a 17 footer. I've gone enough places with a 17.5 footer to know what the 9.8 will do, and it's a very vesatile skinny water motor for this size of canoe.
                    www.freightercanoes.com

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      So I guess the Nissan 9.8 4 stroke is the right answer. Same weight as the 8 hp and 2 cyl....it will be smoother for sure. I know the extra power is worth having but it is about 30 lbs heavier than the Tohatsu/Nissan 6 hp and uses 3x the fuel at full tilt according to their chart. Hmmmm.....I like the power but not the weight...shucks...nothing is ever easy!!

                      I carry Glocks because they are light, simple and they work. I'm betting I will have 2 people and less than 300 pounds 95 percent of the time and I bet the 6 hp will do all I need 95 percent of the time....I can always trade up if I need more balls.
                      Somewhere along the way I have lost the ability to act politically correct. If you should find it, please feel free to keep it.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Grit, did you ever hang a bigger motor on your esquif?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Fuel usage of the 9.8 is a pointless issue. The motor will go over a hundred miles on 5 gallons of gas if you do flat water. Wide open throttle against the Yukon for about 100 miles (according to my GPS)..........7 gallons of gas at wide open throttle. No need to over-think pointless and theoretical worries. If you are only going to be a casual recreationist with no demanding current or load....than I think you've made a good choice with the tohatsu 6.
                          www.freightercanoes.com

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Shear pin downside

                            Originally posted by mainer_in_ak View Post
                            Here's a list of really nice motors used:

                            9.9 tohatsu nissan two stroke roughly 65 lbs
                            8 hp yammy two stroke roughly 65 lbs
                            6 hp twin cylinder suzuki two stroke 65 lbs

                            The suzuki twin cylinder two stroke is a torquey little motor

                            as far as four strokes are concerned the only two I would hang of the back is the suzuki 15 hp (lightest in it's class) 97 lbs
                            or the tohatsu 9.8 four stroke 81 lbs.

                            I'm not at all worried about my mud motor because it's weight is precisely balanced right over the top of the transom and if you did go this route.....copperheads all the way.

                            The zuk 6 hp was a suprising little motor because of it's twin cylinder design, only down side was it was a shear pin which is no good for my application. I cannot tell you how many times I chose not to run up a section of river for fear that I'd loose power and get blown back into a cut bank in a fast shoot of water. Your needs may be different though. Please do take into consideration that the smaller single cylinder motors really loose torque quickly with any weight added to the boat. If you can run a twin cylinder, they seem to run smoother too. if you are trying to keep weight down, try to find the lightest twin cylinder fourstroke made......you'll be happy you did. If you don't have a motor that will grow with you, there may be a time where you'll get the itch to have more load hauling torque. As far as a twin cylinder is concerned, I think the Tohatsu 8-9.8hp. is the lightest one. The next lightest motor after that is the Suzuki 15 hp. Motor weight matters big time with a 17 footer. I've gone enough places with a 17.5 footer to know what the 9.8 will do, and it's a very vesatile skinny water motor for this size of canoe.
                            Mainer-in -ak: Could you describe the shear pin consideration with the Suzuki 6 hp motor? I have a Tohatsu 9.8. Does it also have a shear pin/key problem to be aware of? I'm trying to weigh the advantages of a small jet boat v. a canoe in skinny water, and your remark about not wanting to lose power abruptly in a fast chute of water caught my attention.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I spent some time on several review boards including Cabela's and while everyone is generally favorable about the tohatsu 6hp 4 stroke the primary complaint was the vibration. Several folks spoke of numb hand from holding the tiller. The difference between the 6 hp and the 9.8 hp 4 strokes is 30 lbs and $600 setting the fuel consumption aside, the reviews on the 9.8 were very favorable and no mention of vibration.

                              The choice may be coming more clear, but the transom definitely needs to be beefed up before using a 9.8 hp 85 lb motor on the Cargo....back to the drawing board and use the 3.3 hp Merc in the mean time...at least for the maiden voyage.
                              Somewhere along the way I have lost the ability to act politically correct. If you should find it, please feel free to keep it.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                There is a Tohatsu review circulating the web, the results are the little four strokes weren't reaching rated RPM......Thus HP.....aren't they also making the little Mercs? I'll see if I can find it again......

                                Comment

                                Footer Adsense

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X