2001 2760 Regal Commodore - Under powered??

[wakerider09]

Afternoon all,

Is a 2001 2760 Regal Commodore under powered with twin 4.3l Volvo duo props? I don't know the weight, or LOA of the vessel, and I know you all could throw many different situations, but i'm looking for a basic idea of whether this boat will have trouble planning w/ say 6 adults on board.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[tpenfield]

Re: 2001 2760 Regal Commodore - Under powered??

I see one listed on YW, with twin 4.3's . . . spec's say top speed is mid 30's mph. That seems a bit slow . . .

Weight is around 8500 lbs . . . I would be thinking 5.0's or 5.7's . . .

 

[Slip Away]

Re: 2001 2760 Regal Commodore - Under powered??

I see one listed on YW, with twin 4.3's . . . spec's say top speed is mid 30's mph. That seems a bit slow . . .

Weight is around 8500 lbs . . . I would be thinking 5.0's or 5.7's . . .

Mid 30's is cruise speed, not top speed. The 2760 has a full stepped hull, and is an awesome performer with the twin V6's.Enough power to get on
plane with 6 people and tabs deployed.

Here is an excerpt from a boat test of a 2001 2760.

All 2760 and 2860′s where built using twin 4.3L Mercruiser or Volvo engines. Some 2760′s were built with Alpha I single prop outdrives with some reports of difficulty planing. Most where built with either the Volvo Duo-prop or Mercruiser Bravo III twin-prop outdrives. Our Mercruiser powered 2760 planes in 7-10 seconds with no tabs and a nominal load of 1/3 fuel, full water, 2 adults and 3 minor children, plus 24qt cooler, and supplies for an overnight. She will plane as slow as 25mph / 3100 RPM with tabs but prefers to run without tabs at 3400 ? 3600 yielding 29-33 mph. Maximum speed is about 44mph at 4700RPM. Fuel consumption at cruise is ~16gph so we figure just under 2mpg for normal operations. Performance is excellent for a cruiser this size (we have the 190HP Merc 4.3L?s with Bravo III outdrives). We love the twin engines for great low-speed manuevering and find the boat planes easily with up to 4 adults and 6 children. With 6 or more adults, it does require tabs and/or moving people forward to get up on plane. Full gas and water improve shift the CG forward and make planing easier when loaded. Once on plane, weight distribution seems less sensitive and cruise speeds don?t seem to vary much on weight.

 

[Slip Away]

Re: 2001 2760 Regal Commodore - Under powered??

Take a ride on one in this video. Only one smaltzy salesman on board , and single prop SX drives, but you get the idea.

2000 Regal 2760 Commodore Cruiser by Marine Connection Boat Sales, WE EXPORT! - YouTube

 

[JoLin]

Re: 2001 2760 Regal Commodore - Under powered??

I see one listed on YW, with twin 4.3's . . . spec's say top speed is mid 30's mph. That seems a bit slow . . .

Weight is around 8500 lbs . . . I would be thinking 5.0's or 5.7's . . .

8500 seems awfully heavy. Mine weighs in at 7400, and something closer to 8500 fully loaded. As for a mid-30's cruise speed (according to the test) it ran 33 mph at 3600 rpm (that's high) with a light fuel load (1/3 tank). Speaking from personal experience, bump the tank to 2/3 full and add a couple more adults... and you'll wish you had V-8's.

Mine is perfectly fine with just Linda and I aboard, but a total of 5-6 passengers (us included) makes the boat tough to keep on plane without pushing speed up to the point that it can be pretty uncomfortable in chop. I'll point to the test again where they state it'll plane as low as 25 mph @ 3100 rpm. 25 mph is a lot faster than my minimum planing speed (20-21 @ 3050), and another indication that the Regal is underpowered with V-6's.

My .02

 

[QC]

Re: 2001 2760 Regal Commodore - Under powered??

Big difference in planing ability between your SX's and DPX's Jo... What does minimum planing speed have to do with power? It will go up with more weight

 

[Mischief Managed]

Re: 2001 2760 Regal Commodore - Under powered??

The 2760 was never offered with more power than twin 4.3s. With fuel injected VP 4.3s and DP it'll do 50 MPH, with carbs, 46 MPH. They are fairly fast for a 27 foot cruiser. I don't think you'd find it under-powered at all.

Here's a brochure:

Regal Luxury Performance Boats

Regal Luxury Performance Boats

 

[JoLin]

Re: 2001 2760 Regal Commodore - Under powered??

Big difference in planing ability between your SX's and DPX's Jo... What does minimum planing speed have to do with power? It will go up with more weight

Yes, it will. Read my comment that a full load of passengers pushes my minimum speed up to a point that's uncomfortable. With more torque I could afford to keep speed down a bit, without every wind and wave change knocking me off plane. And, yes, DP's will help get it out of the water but don't make a big difference once it's on plane.

I've stated in numerous threads and posts that my V-6's are fine with a light load- they work great. The OP asked about a half dozen adults. The boat's underpowered for that load, IMO.

My .02

 

[JoLin]

Re: 2001 2760 Regal Commodore - Under powered??

The 2760 was never offered with more power than twin 4.3s. With fuel injected VP 4.3s and DP it'll do 50 MPH, with carbs, 46 MPH. They are fairly fast for a 27 foot cruiser. I don't think you'd find it under-powered at all.

Here's a brochure:

Regal Luxury Performance Boats

Regal Luxury Performance Boats

Four Winns claims my boat will do 44 mph with my engines and drives. It won't- not with a real-world load and bottom paint, in a coastal (choppy) environment.

 

[QC]

Re: 2001 2760 Regal Commodore - Under powered??

No personal boat will meet original test specs.

Explain to me how more torque helps keep you on plane. The props either twist, or they don't. If they do, you have enough torque (power). I am not trying to be argumentative. If she can plane with an SX, then a DP will always be better. And I for the life of me can't see how more power decreases minimum planing speed. Particularly if swinging the exact same wheels. Maybe a larger blade surface decreases it some, but not gonna be more than 1 or 2 mph. They plane due to water speed across the hull. More power doesn't change the speed that supports the hull.

I do understand how more power gives you the ability to plane heavier loads. And I can see how more power gives you more flexibility to maintain planing speed if she is about to drop off, but that's solved by moving your right arm quicker, right?. That seems completely reasonable, I just don't believe that more power decreases minimum planing speed. Quicker time to plane? For sure. Higher top speed? Of course.

 

[JoLin]

Re: 2001 2760 Regal Commodore - Under powered??

I do understand how more power gives you the ability to plane heavier loads. And I can see how more power gives you more flexibility to maintain planing speed if she is about to drop off, but that's solved by moving your right arm quicker, right?. That seems completely reasonable, I just don't believe that more power decreases minimum planing speed. Quicker time to plane? For sure. Higher top speed? Of course.

You hit on it- the key is flexibility, and not having to continually massage the throttles, resync the engines and play with trim and tabs to TRY and keep everybody from getting beaten up.

I'm not trying to start an argument- I'm giving the OP the benefit of 4 seasons' experience in a 27' express cruiser equipped with fuel injected Volvo-Penta V-6's. IMO, the OP will not enjoy an 8500 lb boat, with a regular load of 6 adult passengers, powered that way. That's all.

 

[QC]

Re: 2001 2760 Regal Commodore - Under powered??

And my experience, while limited, is that the DPs will take up the slack. All good

 

[wakerider09]

Re: 2001 2760 Regal Commodore - Under powered??

Thanks for the input all... I'd feel more comfortable if this boat had 5.0l's... however this boat does come with a generator which is a priority for me, but another priority of mine is having ample power when needed - there's nothing I dislike more then having to relocate people around the boat to plane.

 

[tpenfield]

Re: 2001 2760 Regal Commodore - Under powered??

I think you are doing the right thing. Regals are fine boats, but this one seems under powered by design . . . lots of discussion on the Regal owner's forum

Check out the Formula 280SS with 5.7's or the Formula 27 PC with 454's.

 

[MarkSee]

Re: 2001 2760 Regal Commodore - Under powered??

I'm going to throw my 2 cents in also having a 9,000 pound boat with a B3 and single 7.4 along with some dealer/broker knowledge shared with me from someone with 25+ years in the SoCal boating business and a guru in the 27-29 foot range.

As QC indicated the dual-prop drives can help getting a heavy boat going that single prop boats just may not be able to do. I'm a believer in that. With dual engines I'm thinking those 4 props and 380 hp will do pretty well getting out of the hole.

Now what was shared with me is that dual v6 packages mated to single prop drives in the 27-29 foot range is a combo many new owners are disappointed with the performance in short order and unless it's a very specific boat model and design you just absolutely are in love with and don't want anything else, don't buy that dual v6/single prop combination. With single prop drives the 5.7 engine is what is desired. That's the market here in SoCal and may not be in all parts of the country.

Any chance you can take a sea trial of the boat in question even you need to pay the cost?

Mark

 

[smokeonthewater]

Re: 2001 2760 Regal Commodore - Under powered??

I have twin 5.7 liter 260's in my 28'er and I think I'd be happier with 4.3's
Shaving several hundred lbs off the stern would reduce planing speed and I don't need my current 48mph top speed. I'd bet it would still hit 40 w the v6's and I suspect I'd probably save some fuel w a lower cruising speed.

 

[frantically relaxing]

Re: 2001 2760 Regal Commodore - Under powered??

How about a real-world photo montage of a pair of V6's in action?

We met these folks that day, they'd just bought this boat, it was their maiden voyage-- it's a 1992 Sea Ray 290, and it's running a pair of V6 Mercruisers. We checked it out because we were ready to move up. I took several pictures of it for them, including they're getaway...

Note the date and the time on each pic from the camera, and the last pic they're very much on plane with the drives clearly visible. Granted, it's not a rocket by any means, but it's substantially larger than a Regal 2750 (I assume), and nobody had to move forward to get on plane. And oh yeah, we're at 4400' altitude here--

We run into these folks every year, they still have this boat, and have had no issues with it. They love the thing!

 

[Mischief Managed]

Re: 2001 2760 Regal Commodore - Under powered??

Four Winns claims my boat will do 44 mph with my engines and drives. It won't- not with a real-world load and bottom paint, in a coastal (choppy) environment.

Regal claims my boat will go 50 with a 7.4 Bravo 3. It does. I've had it up to 53 GPS on a cool day with a light load, no current, light breeze. I have no bottom paint.

Regal Luxury Performance Boats

 

[JoLin]

Re: 2001 2760 Regal Commodore - Under powered??

It's all good, guys, but I chuckle at the fact that everyone who's convinced that V-6's are a good all-around powerplant for that boat and a regular passenger load of 6 adults, doesn't own one.

The 'pictorial proof' is of a boat with 4 passengers, no bottom paint, no bottom growth (that boat doesn't even have a scum line) and smooth as glass water of the type I NEVER experience on the coast. Mine'll plane out with 7 adult passengers. That wasn't the point.

Smoke, your fuel consumption would improve if you went from your carbed V-8's to injected V-6's. Apples to apples, it'd be about the same. I thought I'd save fuel, too- I don't compared to my friends.

Mischief Managed's boat will hit advertised spec with a light load, cool weather, smooth water and no bottom paint. It's likely that mine would too, if I ever ran it that way. I'm coastal- I don't boat with 1/4 tank of fuel and a 'clean' hull. The water's never calm.

My .02

 

[smokeonthewater]

Re: 2001 2760 Regal Commodore - Under powered??

dirty bottom and big water would be different... for me my bottom is never dirty and I'm always inland....My thoughts on fuel savings is that my boat IMHO is a bi stern heavy with the v-8's..... My boat 26' Carver with a single inline 6 would plane and cruise nicely at IIRC 17 mph.. this one is mid 20's and isn't really a comfortable cruise till near 30

Of course you're right I've not HAD a twin v6 setup... I just feel like I have way more power than I need (tho I don't mind it at all!) but could stand to shed some weight.

I once had a 580 lb jetski strapped to and mostly off the back of the swim platform and 3 people (all over 180 lbs) on the stern and was still able to get on plane but it took a while