It is currently 27 May 2018, 17:27
Join the free forum or login with your account and the annoying banner goes away

Xtremeboats

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




 Page 1 of 3 [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 10 Aug 2016, 14:04 

Joined: 29 Aug 2012, 20:56
Posts: 68
I'm back to looking at boats again and need some advice. Boat is definitely going to be an Alweld 16-17ft, 52"-60" wide, square nose flat bottom and pretty sure I can get it in .080" to save some weight. The motor is going to be a Merc 60/40 four stroke or Evinruede Etec 60/40, tiller steer. About 95% sure I'd like to get a jet tunnel and float pods also. I'm thinking I could get the boat to weight in around 325-375lbs by going with the .080" thick hull and need to be able to plane a max of 4 average people (estimate around 750lbs). I know wider is good for floating higher and running shallow, but only if you have the HP to get it on plane. I've also been told by a few dealers that 52" is a good size for the 60/40, but we didn't really talk about 56" or maybe stretching to 60", which 60" may be out of the question (too wide).

So with this info what would be the MAX bottom width I could go with?

Thanks!

Tom


Offline
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Aug 2016, 15:12 
User avatar

Joined: 15 Mar 2014, 16:57
Posts: 1697
Location: CT
Don't jet boaters usually want the thickest hull they can find to take the most punishment sliding over rocks & debris imaginable?



_________________
For Sale - Custom Hand Tied Jigs, Bladed Jigs, Custom Rods

2002 Alumacraft 1436LT w/ 1984 Mariner Tiller Converted to Remote & 55# Minn Kota Terrova 12v (removable)

1985 Bass Tracker III - restoration posting coming soon w/ 1988 Mercury 60hp 2-Stroke & 55# Minn Kota Terrova 12v shared w/ my 14'


The way people should be
Offline
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Aug 2016, 16:17 
User avatar

Joined: 06 Jul 2014, 09:31
Posts: 143
I don't think you have to worry about bottom width with either of those engines. They will be able to plane out anything from 48"-60." I wouldn't consider the two engines to be equal due to the difference in powerband and engine weight. Since you are going to be running tiller steer I would suggest going a bit wider than normal to help with the extra weight in the back. Usually you want a thicker hull but if you aren't in rocky rivers with logs and crap floating around then more power to you. I got really good and welding up holes in a lightweight riveted boat. Tunnels and flat bottoms seem to be very finicky.



_________________
1648 Tracker Grizzly Mercury 60/45 Jet
1648 MonArk 50/35 Evinrude Jet
1444 Polarkraft 50/35 Evinrude Jet (Stick Steer)
Offline
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Aug 2016, 17:07 

Joined: 29 Aug 2012, 20:56
Posts: 68
redrum wrote:
I don't think you have to worry about bottom width with either of those engines. They will be able to plane out anything from 48"-60." I wouldn't consider the two engines to be equal due to the difference in powerband and engine weight. Since you are going to be running tiller steer I would suggest going a bit wider than normal to help with the extra weight in the back. Usually you want a thicker hull but if you aren't in rocky rivers with logs and crap floating around then more power to you. I got really good and welding up holes in a lightweight riveted boat. Tunnels and flat bottoms seem to be very finicky.


Yes I know Etec is a two stroke and should have a better powerband and weighting 247lbs with the factory installed jet compared to the Merc being at 267lbs. and a four stroke, but the Merc is a 4 cylinder at about 995cc and the Etec is about 850 and a 2 cylinder. Wouldn't that make the Merc the more powerful motor??

I ain't 100% on the tunnel, but I believe I am on the pods. Should help offset the weight of the motor very well. Just don't want to go too wide on the boat and then be under powered.


Offline
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Aug 2016, 20:55 
User avatar

Joined: 06 Jul 2014, 09:31
Posts: 143
I wouldn't want to get into the which engine is better debate. Just wanted to say I wouldn't consider them to be equal. Also, a 48-60 won't have any trouble floating either of those engines. You could shift weight around in the boat to get it to float level. That's kind of one of those things that you have to go one way or the other with a jet. They will run faster with all the weight in the back but me, like most jet boaters, need to be able to float shallow, so I trade off top speed for shallow draft. I can walk to the bow of my 1648 with my engine idling and raise the jet nozzle out of the water.



_________________
1648 Tracker Grizzly Mercury 60/45 Jet
1648 MonArk 50/35 Evinrude Jet
1444 Polarkraft 50/35 Evinrude Jet (Stick Steer)
Offline
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Aug 2016, 22:56 
User avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2013, 04:35
Posts: 328
Location: Arcadia, MO
Here are my thoughts, everyone has different opinions, but here goes.

I'm a Mercury fan and around my area you don't see many 60/40 E-tecs. The Mercury Fourstroke is a solid, stout little engine. Not putting down the E-tecs in anyway, just never had experience with them.

I would not go with a tunnel on a flat bottom, it is not needed and you will lose draft and speed. Pods would be helpful, especially if going with a tiller. They will get you on plane faster.

Adding length will not hurt speed, adding width will affect speed. Adding width will increase weight carrying capacity, reduce draft, and plane quicker to a point.

Go with a 17, will give you more room in the boat without sacrificing speed. It will increase the surface area giving you better draft.

On a 52" bottom you should see speeds around 30-33 mph. Once loaded down it will run deeper in the water, so you will need a little more water under you.

A 56" bottom should get around 29-32 mph. If you are going to have 4 people most of the time, it is probably the best way to go. It will handle the weight better.

I prefer a 60" bottom, but I also run a 250. With a 60/40 it would probably run 27-30.

With any of them, when you load them down with the loads you are talking about, you are going to lose speed and take awhile to plane.

On thickness an .080 will save you weight over the .100, but over time I think the .100 would be better. I would think an .080 would tend to get more waves between the ribs (ribs are crossways inside of hull) over time from sliding over logs, rocks, etc. I think most shops around here do more repairs on .100 guage by a good margin, but only because when people get .100 they think they are indestructible. With either one, if you hit something just right, it is going to shred it.

With all that said I would go .100, my preference, I think it makes for a sturdier boat. Mine is totaled right now. It held up to quite a few hits over 14 years. It still doesn't leak, but has some good dents from the last big hit, if you seen my videos. viewtopic.php?f=85&t=41300

If you are set on the 60/40, and haul that kind of weight frequently. I would get a 1756, .100 guage, pods, heavy gunnel rail, and an extra knee brace (if you think you will ever upgrade the engine).

When I had the 115 on my 1860, it was underpowered for the places I run. When I take off I want to be on plane now, and not have to worry about what weight I have in the boat. I trade off draft for planing ability



_________________
Dan
2003 1860 Alweld Flat Bottom
2014 Mercury 250 Pro XS Jet
2003 RiverCraft trailer
Retired from Riverlife-2002 Mercury 115 Fourstroke Jet
Offline
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Aug 2016, 07:02 

Joined: 29 Aug 2012, 20:56
Posts: 68
Thanks dhoganjr! Your replies are what I was thinking on all the searching online and calls to the dealers. Yes the 60/40 is as big as I'd want to go with, it's a big jump from the Merc 25 hp 2 stroke (prop) I have now. I've read on your post that your thinking about pods on your next boat and would like to know how you like them when you get some time running them. Was thinking tunnel for the extra protection for the jet foot and the pods should help offset the loss of flotation of having the tunnel, but I've read that with just the addition of pods only the pods actually channel the water into kind of a tunnel like affect to allow the motor to be mounted a little higher anyway, not sure, but that would be great. I know there's a guy on the Outdoor Directory forum that has an Alweld 1752 flat bottom tunnel with pods that does great with a Tohatsu 50/35. He had the pods added aftermarket to help with stern squatting, probably due to the tunnel, but now it runs much better and he never hits his jet foot because of the tunnel.


Offline
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Aug 2016, 11:15 

Joined: 01 Mar 2016, 14:57
Posts: 41
Location: Lebanon MO
well dhoganjr nailed everything that I could say but I'll go ahead and share what I have experienced. I have ran a 60/40 Merc for two years now coming from a 20hp 2 stroke Merc and I have loved it! Great motor. I don't have any experience with the E-Tech. I went from a 16' to a 17' and would defiantly recommend it. The reason I stayed with .080 and went with a 52" bottom is due to the small rivers I run to keep weight down. Would love a wider boat if the waters I fished could handle it. If you run places that allow for a wider boat I would recommend it as well if you are planning on loading it down with people and gear. Never a bad idea to build it strong enough for a larger motor just in case. I use to swear I would never go bigger than my 20hp. One thing I have learned through the years that with a jet a larger motor doesn't mean you have to go faster but it allows you haul more weight and be able to make quicker turns especially down stream. Would like to know how you guys like the pods if you get them. Have always wondered how they would work for someone who runs the same type of rivers and a similar set up.



_________________
2016 1752 Alweld flat bottom sport jet
2015 60/40 Mercury 4-Stroke Jet
2004 1644 Alweld flat bottom - TRADED
Offline
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Aug 2016, 12:06 

Joined: 29 Aug 2012, 20:56
Posts: 68
Ozark River Runner wrote:
The reason I stayed with .080 and went with a 52" bottom is due to the small rivers I run to keep weight down. Would love a wider boat if the waters I fished could handle it. If you run places that allow for a wider boat I would recommend it as well if you are planning on loading it down with people and gear.


That's the same reason I want the .080". My Seaark 1448 is .072" riveted and is in good shape after 16 yrs, but not jet boating in it either.... The river I run is not big either so I'll have to check some of the riffles we cross to make sure that a 56" or 60" won't be too wide. Just this summer one of the riffles had a tree almost across it and we had to cut it out with a chain saw so we could pass. I'm a little nervous about pods, but everything I've read about them seems like their a no brainer.


Offline
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Aug 2016, 23:27 

Joined: 14 Sep 2015, 21:02
Posts: 150
I have an 18/52 with 60/40 Mercury and love it. I run a tiller and .80 blazer ss. Have hit 34 one time downstream by myself no gear. No tunnel or pods. I personally don't think they are needed. Mine gets on plane quick and will run in the high 20's with my family , wife and two kids with lots of crap in the boat. I like the 18 better than the two 17 footers I have had. Have only run tillers and there more weight out front to get on plane quicker with the 18 ft. Mercury by far more popular than etec in my part of world, I a evinrude fan but they are to expensive. Almost 9 grand new compared to the Mercury little over 6 grand. That's a no brainier. Mercury is quiet and good on fuel. Image


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Offline
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Aug 2016, 07:02 

Joined: 29 Aug 2012, 20:56
Posts: 68
archery68 wrote:
I have an 18/52 with 60/40 Mercury and love it. I run a tiller and .80 blazer ss. Have hit 34 one time downstream by myself no gear. No tunnel or pods. I personally don't think they are needed. Mine gets on plane quick and will run in the high 20's with my family , wife and two kids with lots of crap in the boat. I like the 18 better than the two 17 footers I have had. Have only run tillers and there more weight out front to get on plane quicker with the 18 ft. Mercury by far more popular than etec in my part of world, I a evinrude fan but they are to expensive. Almost 9 grand new compared to the Mercury little over 6 grand. That's a no brainier. Mercury is quiet and good on fuel. Image


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Very nice looking boat! I could see you probably not needing pods on an 18 footer because of the length. You said you had two 17 footers in the past, were they flat bottoms? How wide was the bottom on the 17 footers you had? I test drove a 1752 Blazer that a guy let Fred from Current River Marine borrow. It looked just like yours and ran real shallow with 3 of us in the boat. We ran it on Current river and the river I run has a lot of bigger rocks in it compared to the Current from what I can remember. These larger rocks are the reason I'm looking at a tunnel and the pods would offset the loss of floatation from the tunnel. About how much of the jet foot is below your hull (is the bottom inline with the first grate pin)?


Offline
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Aug 2016, 07:32 

Joined: 14 Sep 2015, 21:02
Posts: 150
Tbradley wrote:
archery68 wrote:
I have an 18/52 with 60/40 Mercury and love it. I run a tiller and .80 blazer ss. Have hit 34 one time downstream by myself no gear. No tunnel or pods. I personally don't think they are needed. Mine gets on plane quick and will run in the high 20's with my family , wife and two kids with lots of crap in the boat. I like the 18 better than the two 17 footers I have had. Have only run tillers and there more weight out front to get on plane quicker with the 18 ft. Mercury by far more popular than etec in my part of world, I a evinrude fan but they are to expensive. Almost 9 grand new compared to the Mercury little over 6 grand. That's a no brainier. Mercury is quiet and good on fuel. Image


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Very nice looking boat! I could see you probably not needing pods on an 18 footer because of the length. You said you had two 17 footers in the past, were they flat bottoms? How wide was the bottom on the 17 footers you had? I test drove a 1752 Blazer that a guy let Fred from Current River Marine borrow. It looked just like yours and ran real shallow with 3 of us in the boat. We ran it on Current river and the river I run has a lot of bigger rocks in it compared to the Current from what I can remember. These larger rocks are the reason I'm looking at a tunnel and the pods would offset the loss of floatation from the tunnel. About how much of the jet foot is below your hull (is the bottom inline with the first grate pin)?
Yes both of my previous boats were flat bottom, square front 17/52's. To be honest, not sure on the grate pin question? However, the thing I like bout the Mercury motor big tiller is that the trim but is right there, easy to manipulate and when I up on plane and trimmed, the jet foot is not below the hull.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Offline
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Aug 2016, 13:02 

Joined: 29 Aug 2012, 20:56
Posts: 68
archery68 did you ever think about going with a wider hull or do you just prefer how the 52's" perform?


Offline
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Aug 2016, 14:37 
User avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2013, 04:35
Posts: 328
Location: Arcadia, MO
A straight edge off the bottom of the hull should line up with the front grate pin with the motor fully trimmed down. Every boat is different though, some will need to be a bit higher or lower. Mine is a bit higher and runs perfect there. The pic is where mine is set.


Where ever you buy it from, make sure they know and are knowledgeable about jets. There are dealers that sell only a few and just hang the motor and call it good. What area do you live in?


20140902_193011.jpg

_________________
Dan
2003 1860 Alweld Flat Bottom
2014 Mercury 250 Pro XS Jet
2003 RiverCraft trailer
Retired from Riverlife-2002 Mercury 115 Fourstroke Jet
Offline
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Aug 2016, 20:30 

Joined: 29 Aug 2012, 20:56
Posts: 68
I'm in central KY. No jets dealers near me that I've found. I mean they'll order you a jet, but like you said not knowledgeable on setting them up. All the info that I know is from here, Outdoordirectory.com and dealers mostly in MO that I've called.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 3 [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Join the free forum or login with your account and the annoying banner goes away

FishonFabrications