Insane good tower of power fuel economy?

ryan 98

Petty Officer 3rd Class
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
80
So I just finished this boat up. 15 foot wildcat, but pretty light since it's all new core and transom without and old coast guard safety foam. Running a last year 115 tower and a 24 pitch laser 2. Runs 60 mph on the dot at about 5700 rpm even with a good cup in the rear of the hull. So it's on the money as far as I can tell. Here's the catch, it's good on gas.... too good. Loaded with 3 people and running in heavy chop with a pretty even mix of wot and crusing she burnt 7 gallons in 3 hours out. And ive had it out a bunch and it's repeatable. At full out beating on it I get close to an hour on a 6 gallon tank, well at least 40 mins wide open. It just seems too good. I figured on well north of 10 gph wot when I was building it. Any one else have a similar setup to compare? It's just somewhat mind boggling to me that it's getting that fuel economy with what it is and the rpm/speed it's running. And all the numbers I gave are true, aside from the possibility of an inaccurate tach, but she sounds right. Oh and I should add its set back 6 inches on a jacking plate, and running prop shaft 2 1/2 inches below the transom.IMG_20210617_205205_570.jpg20210613_183530.jpg20210609_204740.jpg
 

Chris1956

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
27,835
That is very good performance. I had a 1500 on my 16 foot Avenger and had the same top speed, but I do not think the fuel economy was as good.

I think you made a mistake by not reinstalling the foam floatation. It only weighs a few pounds, and could save your life.

That boat is very likely way overpowered. At some point in speed and trim setting she will likely become unstable and chine walk. Watch out for that, especially when crossing a wake at an angle.

Watch the transom corners for cracks, as the motor puts a lot of strain on the hull.

Best of luck
 

Scott Danforth

Grumpy Vintage Moderator still playing with boats
Staff member
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
49,511
I agree with Chris, I would also recommend the flotation foam. you literally are talking 2# per cubic foot, so the weight of an 12 pack of beer is all that you are talking.
 

ryan 98

Petty Officer 3rd Class
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
80
That is very good performance. I had a 1500 on my 16 foot Avenger and had the same top speed, but I do not think the fuel economy was as good.

I think you made a mistake by not reinstalling the foam floatation. It only weighs a few pounds, and could save your life.

That boat is very likely way overpowered. At some point in speed and trim setting she will likely become unstable and chine walk. Watch out for that, especially when crossing a wake at an angle.

Watch the transom corners for cracks, as the motor puts a lot of strain on the hull.

Best of luck
She would be technically over powerd but in practice it's about right for a fun boat to run about. It does get some chine walk with just me in it wide open, and has a some weird characteristics because of that cup in the hull in front of the transom, I think the trailer was not the place to leave it when replacing core. But I've had way sketchyer boats, this ones actually quite docile.


As far as strength goes there's plenty. Half inch core in the bottom, marine ply transom laminated out of 3 layers of half inch. Stringers are the same and I boxed the side... stringers? In. Then to top it off the entire rear section that's white (where I cut it in half to get in there) it's now solidly glassed to the bottom hull, I always do that and feel it really adds some strength. Not an ounce of give in it that I've been able to see, I went overboard on this one since I planed the jaking plate from the start.

As far as the safety foam goes, there just ain't much space at all under the floor. With that heavy motor on it it would still be straight to the bottom. What came out was waterlogged mush. Can't see any use in putting back in a substitute since it wouldn't help it anyway. And what came out must have had 300 pounds of water in it so it had to go.

Over all its working perfect. I'm just mind boggled that it can be so reasonable on fuel. It blows the 70 johnson I used to have on it out of the water. Maybe a bit more thirsty at wot but not double like it should be.

Speed sounds right too. Your old 1500 was only marginally more power on the top end (prop vs crank rated) so I can account for the same speed considering a bit less power on mine but a lighter hull. Thanks for the reply
 

ryan 98

Petty Officer 3rd Class
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
80
I agree with Chris, I would also recommend the flotation foam. you literally are talking 2# per cubic foot, so the weight of an 12 pack of beer is all that you are talking.
I get the foam and have nothing against it. It was just water logged and rotten when I ripped in to it. And I saw no point putting anything back since the space under the floor is so tiny there's no way it would float the weight with that motor.
 

jbcurt00

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
25,030
An overpowered motor is a bad excuse to skip flotation foam.

Weight of the hull plus motor, you could do the math and figure out how much was needed and find a place to put it. Not just under the deck/floor

Do you disclose an overpower motor and no safety flotation to everybody who goes out w you? Both are typical safety items and should be expected from a knowledgeable & responsible captain.

In the US, in some states, overpowering is considered reckless operation regardless of how you are operating the boat

Boat and boat rehab safely.
 

ryan 98

Petty Officer 3rd Class
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
80
An overpowered motor is a bad excuse to skip flotation foam.

Weight of the hull plus motor, you could do the math and figure out how much was needed and find a place to put it. Not just under the deck/floor

Do you disclose an overpower motor and no safety flotation to everybody who goes out w you? Both are typical safety items and should be expected from a knowledgeable & responsible captain.

In the US, in some states, overpowering is considered reckless operation regardless of how you are operating the boat

Boat and boat rehab safely.
As far as over power goes, I'd say she's quite the opposite. Just enough power. I've been around actual race boats my whole life and broke 100mph in stuff not much bigger. Legaly speaking it's registered as a home built, here you can register anything with 70% or more core replaced as a home built. So it has no hp restrictions on it. And the hull design was well known and copied back in the day and has been proven many times over to be stable in to the 80 mph range, I'm not anywhere near that. Shes built very sturdy and its not my first go at building boats, to top that off all the work was checked over and referenced with someone who has been a life long actual boat builder/racer. Being a boat from the 70s I belive the original rules were very slim on the floatation foam, I don't think from day one it would have saved it, maybe slowed the trip to the bottom a bit. The only place to actually put foam under the floor is about 4 feet by 2 feet. It's about 4 inches from the v to the bottom of the floor in the middle and tapers out to noting where the floor meets the sides of the hull. So just not enough space to make a difference. And actually thinking about it I sunk it at the dock once years ago with a 70hp on it and the foam still intact (stupid bilge pump hose fell out of the splash well and touched the water and started a syphon) and she went straight to the bottom then too. And by the time I had bailed it out to floating she was pretty empty of water, so even accounting for fresh foam and a small motor she's a brick just by design. There always a certain amount of risk with quick little boats, but I feel I've done my risk assessment quite well thought out with this one. Built over kill sturdy, the first time I took it out I did it alone and figured out the handling quirks. Yeh it would sink if flipped or in a bad situation, but short of filling the whole front and sides with foam and having no storage or place to put you legs there's no other option. And that's exactly the way it was the day it was made too. Maybe we can shift this all back to fuel economy on the old merk, I'm starting to regret pointing out the 3 cubic feet of foam I threw out of it when I built it...
 

Chris1956

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
27,835
My Avenger also has minimal foam under the deck, however, it has a chunk under the bow, and there is room for more under the splashwell. She does float when swamped, fortunately. Foam also is used to support the hull, so less stringers and frames are needed. Hopefully your hull didn't count on that.

What was the original max HP on that hull before you rebuilt her? Was her max power rating really capable of pushing her to 80MPH. I am not an expert, but doubt that.

She looks like a typical runabout hull with a fairly flat bottom in the rear. That flat bottom hull and her light weight and narrow beam give the good fuel economy you are seeing. In boats it costs fuel to carry weight.

Good luck with her. You cite yourself as an experienced driver. I would recommend you do not let any unexperienced drivers take the wheel as "fast boats get into trouble fast".
 

ryan 98

Petty Officer 3rd Class
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
80
My Avenger also has minimal foam under the deck, however, it has a chunk under the bow, and there is room for more under the splashwell. She does float when swamped, fortunately. Foam also is used to support the hull, so less stringers and frames are needed. Hopefully your hull didn't count on that.

What was the original max HP on that hull before you rebuilt her? Was her max power rating really capable of pushing her to 80MPH. I am not an expert, but doubt that.

She looks like a typical runabout hull with a fairly flat bottom in the rear. That flat bottom hull and her light weight and narrow beam give the good fuel economy you are seeing. In boats it costs fuel to carry weight.

Good luck with her. You cite yourself as an experienced driver. I would recommend you do not let any unexperienced drivers take the wheel as "fast boats get into trouble fast".
Don't exactly know the factory hp rating on it. I pulled it out of a farm field with no data plate on it. Not a good sign I know, but it was completely mush aside from the fiberglass and the guy said he had it for 20 years or so. I belive it had an old merc 650 on it originally tho. I'd figure it wasn't rated for more than 75 hp because the original transom and stringers would have not been to great, the transom wasn't even tabed in to the sides of the hull.

When I say they have been proven in to the 80s I mean after someone has gone in and done a bunch of custom work like I have. She would come apart for sure with the factory stuff, even in good shape. I just meant to say the basic hull design has been proven to not have any outstanding bad characteristics at speed like some hulls do. I can think of old sidewinder for sure, I've had some sketchy rides in those.

As far as strength lost to foam goes, well it really doesn't matter anymore. All the structure is of my own design and nothing like the original. Center stringer is a 2 inch laminate of marine ply, transom is the same. Both sides of the floor to hull are a 4x4 box of half inch marine ply, tabbed to the hull then the floor is tabbed in to them. And the hull is 1/2 inch balsa core from transom to near the dash. I'd hang a 175 on it as far as strength goes, but that would be too much for the style of boat.

As far as me saying I'm experienced driving boats, I mean I've always been around them and owned them. I've built 3 point hydro that are quicker than this. But I'm no professional or someone who could go out and enter in a race. I just mean ive had enough time driving them that I know when something bads about to happen. And of course I'm not going to let people drive it, I can tell you that it will act quite badly on turns at speed. Not a boat you can throw around, if you need to turn your probably not doing it over 30 in any stable way.

Anyway I've just been totally amazed by the power, weight, torqe, sound and most of all fuel economy on the old merc. I've been I die hard omc guy always. This blows any v4 I've driven out of the water. Definitely going to try more merc stuff. I have a nice 90 hp tower out back as parts, but it just might get a little 3 point hydro built for it before I savage it for parts.
 

Chris1956

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
27,835
Merc IL6 were very compact and light for their power. Even by today's standards. Most of their power was at mid RPM range however. Low power was less.

On my Avenger, I would use full throttle to get her to plane. At that point (3000RPM, about 30MPH), she would turn into a rocket and within a few seconds, be at 5000RPM, which was 50MPH. Many a skier was launched out of their skis if the driver didn't pull the throttle back as she passed 3000RPM.

I replaced my Merc 1500 with a Merc 135HPV6. The power is more uniform, and there is much more power at low end. The weight is about 50% more than the IL6. The 60* V6 motors are superior for most activities, heavy boats and predictable handling. Mush better for novice drivers as well.
 

ryan 98

Petty Officer 3rd Class
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
80
Merc IL6 were very compact and light for their power. Even by today's standards. Most of their power was at mid RPM range however. Low power was less.

On my Avenger, I would use full throttle to get her to plane. At that point (3000RPM, about 30MPH), she would turn into a rocket and within a few seconds, be at 5000RPM, which was 50MPH. Many a skier was launched out of their skis if the driver didn't pull the throttle back as she passed 3000RPM.

I replaced my Merc 1500 with a Merc 135HPV6. The power is more uniform, and there is much more power at low end. The weight is about 50% more than the IL6. The 60* V6 motors are superior for most activities, heavy boats and predictable handling. Mush better for novice drivers as well.
Pretty much on the money for my experience with it. The weight of it is pretty incredibly light for the power. Even the lower end is much slimmer than similar power motors I've owned. I think... well actually I know that mercury was aiming these motors to be good go fast motors for light boats back in the day. That 3 point that did over 100mph at their proving grounds was just beautiful. And they definitely down rated the actual power of them a bit at the sticker.

I think you would be impressed with the last generation of them. Altho from what I hear they fall short on the top end of the 150, they made up for it at the bottom. The hole shot on this thing is very good, even pushing a 24 pitch. You can also smoothly throttle in to plane with it and it doesn't seem tasked at all. Mind you it's a very light hull. But it definitely has plenty of tourqe at its disposal and the power is probably better than a v4 johnson of the same year on the bottom end. But that also seems to be the general consensus I've seen about them. The 70s ones screamed better on the top end and the newer ones had some bottom added to them.

The v6 mercs are a beautiful motor. Nice and smooth and they still sound great doing it. Someone I know has a 175? Or maybe 225 on a hydrostream not much bigger than my boat. She just about touches 100mph. Now that's a truly scary boat. But any good old bass boat I've been in with one on it has just been a treat. The weight on them is a lot more, actually that's the reason I picked up a tower instead... well that and the cool factor of 6 in a row. Altho in the 20 ish outboards I've owned there's not one I really disliked, well maybe an old Scott Atwater that never worked right.... oh and that 100 hp v4 with a car ignition on it and electric shift that got stuck. So I might not be the best judge since both the tower and black max stuff seems to get a bad wrap for reliability and such. But as of now I'd put them as my second and third favorite motors, only falling behind the omc 3 cylinders because I have spent most of my life in a boat with one of them behind it and their just a tank. At least in the two stroke days of motors, mercs go fast and omcs go forever.
 

racerone

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
37,795
There are some OMC V-4 that are very fast , and reliable once you put new pistons in them.----1975 / 1976 model 135 HP as an example.
 

ryan 98

Petty Officer 3rd Class
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
80
There are some OMC V-4 that are very fast , and reliable once you put new pistons in them.----1975 / 1976 model 135 HP as an example.
For sure. Ive seen a few boats with the special edition performance omcs and over 115 hp v4s. And they went great. I was just comparing power of a 1988 merc 115 standard edition vs a 1988 omc v4 115 standard motor. I found the merc to have a noticeable better punch behind it. But that in no way means omc v4 platform is worse.
 

ryan 98

Petty Officer 3rd Class
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
80
There are some OMC V-4 that are very fast , and reliable once you put new pistons in them.----1975 / 1976 model 135 HP as an example.
I can't remember exactly. But we had a 80's? Louper 140 v4. That thing was balsy on a 19 foot bow rider. But sweet Jesus could it drink with that setup. Like 200 bucks a boat ride in gas. by the way I'm Canadian so just triple your gas prices for reference.... well at least back then
 
Top