Motor size selection for Lund

[kkallo]

Hello all.<br /><br />New to site, so please bear with me.<br />I am about to purchase a new non-current 2002 Lund MR.Pike 16. The boat is rated for 100 HP. I was looking at a 2002 80 HP 4 stroke Yamaha. My question is will I regret or not be satisfied with the 80 as oppose to the 100 HP. The boat weighs aproximatelly 2400 Lbs and the motor is about 250 Lbs. The two motors are identical in every way. Also what about the 2003 90 HP. Anyone with some experience and/or oppinion please reply. This is pretty urgent as I am buying by the end of the week. <br /><br />Thanks everyone in advance<br /><br />Keep your stick on the ice and line in the water!!!

 

[JB]

Re: Motor size selection for Lund

You need to verify your guess on the boat weight, KKallo. 2400lb is much too heavy for a 16' aluminum boat, dry and without engine. Fully rigged and ready to launch it shouldn't weigh that much.<br /><br />That engine weighs more like 380lb.<br /><br />If you want a 4 stroke, I strongly suggest that you look at an EFI, computer managed engine. I would expect anything over 60hp to handle the Mr. Pike well. I know that Mercury, Johnson and Suzuki all offer EFI 4 strokes in that range.<br /><br />I use a Suzuki DF70 on my 17' Boston Whaler and am happy with the performance. The Mr. Pike should be faster.<br /><br />Good luck.

 

[kkallo]

Re: Motor size selection for Lund

Thanks for pinting that out for me JB. After serching through some sites I found a Mr. Lund with an 80 HP Yamaha and it was noted as 2050LBS as tested. You are absolutelly right the motor is 356LBS. <br /><br />Any more input ?

 

[roscoe]

Re: Motor size selection for Lund

Hull weight is 1070#.

 

[airman]

Re: Motor size selection for Lund

What about a test ride? There have been a couple of posts from people who would have been much happier if they had insisted on a test ride before handing over the $. They've obviously been carrying the boat for a long time and if you offered a few bucks to cover their costs (towards the boat if you still like it) they might take you for a ride with the smaller engine to see if it's enough for you.

 

[manitoba1]

Re: Motor size selection for Lund

I have a friend with the 80 hp 4 stroke Yamaha on a lund 16.5 Sendero. I think the Sendero is a heavier boat than the Mr.Pike (check at the lund website). My friends boat performs pretty well with this engine. The yamaha starts and runs excellent. The accelleration is not as smooth and fast nor is the engine is as quiet as my 70hp Suzuki EFI 4 stroke mounted on an Alumacraft classic 16. The only drawback of the Yamaha is that it is carburated.

 

[TELMANMN]

Re: Motor size selection for Lund

First boat ever bought the salesmen said go with the 2/3rd rule. Never get less than 2/3 the rated hp of the boat. in your case the 80 would fall into that category. If you can afford to put something bigger on you can always throttle down and probobly get better mpg(went from old 40 to new 50 and run less than 2/3rd throttle to keep on plane) Love it.

 

[DJ]

Re: Motor size selection for Lund

kk,<br /><br />The 2/3 rule is a good one. However, I tend to use the 75% plus rule.<br /><br />The resale will be MUCH higher with more ponies.

 

[MajBach]

Re: Motor size selection for Lund

I have a 16 1/2 'Sylvan DC with a Honda 90 on the rear. Can't say what it would run like with a lighter 70 on the back but the 90 feels about right. Hull weight is 950# but I have TONS of extras on board (full top, 50 # electric, standard safety stuff, 2 spotlights, swim platform, 2 batteries, toolbox, airmatress, inflater, sleeping bag, butane stove, coffee maker, 5" TV, GPS, pots and dishware and my own fat *** - OK stop laughing now), so she's about as heavy as your boat - no way this thing os 2000#, even with motor and fuel. My boat weighs 2300 # with EVERYTHING removed except the outboard - which weighs 360# - but that also includes the trailer. Methinks this is where the number came from in your 'price as tested'.<br /><br />I'm looking at my old speed tests:<br />With the 90 and a 15" Michigan Whell prop, I get neck snapping acceleration and am planing in half a boat length. WOT throttle is 36.6 mph @ 6200.<br />17" Michigan wheel prop = 38.3 mph @ 5500<br />17" Merc cupped prop = 38.3 @ 5400 <br />19" Michigan Wheel prop = 39 mph @ 5400.<br /><br />These were without a hydrofoil and taken from GPS and with two people on board. I use the 19" regularly now and also use a hydrofoil as it will sometimes struggle to plane with 4 people aboard. WOT range is 5000-6000 and redline is 6500. One more point, this boat is I believe the widest on the market in is size class at 92" and has 5 keels. This certainly must make a performance impact.<br /><br />Take everything JB said and read it again.<br />I would recommend getting at least a 90 and get fuel injected if possible.

 

[Jdeagro]

Re: Motor size selection for Lund

kkallo<br /><br />You got some good advise here, but I would like to add my 2Cents worth anyway. We have a lot of customers in Europe where gas is over $2.00 per Ltr. or about $7.00 per gallon. They can not afford bigger engines. Therefore the boats are designed differently (narrower, deeper V, less weight) so that they can use smaller engines and get more performance. In short they do a lot with hull design including trim tabs. It is surprising how much they achieve with a more balanced boat and so little HP. Where am I going with this?<br /><br />WE tend to overpower boats in this country, primarily because we are fixed on using the propution system (Props) to fix handling problems that are hull issues. <br /><br />Deside on the boat design that suites your need, think about how much weight you will be carrying, then look at the probable and usefull opperating speed range. Although, MajBach can reach WOT speeds of 38 MPH, my guess is that he does not run WOT very often and the most comfortable speed is likely to be 27MPH to 30MPH at best. <br /><br />Trim tabs change the hull design to compensate for load, speed, and water conditions, and are far more effective than adding an extra 25 HP. Not to mention they are alot cheaper. Every one of our tests and that of every magazine editorial (Boating, Boating World, Boating Life, Trailer Boats, DIY Boating, Dockside) have shown that the boats are more efficient and run better with the trim tabs ( Smart Tabs). Bow attitude is better, ability to plane is better, ability to manage loads is better, accelleration is better, minimum planing speed is lower, porpoising is eliminated, and top end speed is better. In Fact, MajBach boat would go even faster with Smart Tabs.<br /><br />Hull design is everything when is comes to performance. As an example a 100 hp motor might get you 38 or 39 (with or with out a hydrofoil) MPH without Trim Tabs, where an 80 will run out at 37 to 38 with the Smart Tabs, and the hole shot will be better. How much more is the extra 20 to 25 HP going to cost.<br /><br />Also, look at where the motor develops its' torque and what your likely opperating range will be. HP is not always the best measuring stick.

 

[MajBach]

Re: Motor size selection for Lund

Although, MajBach can reach WOT speeds of 38 MPH, my guess is that he does not run WOT very often and the most comfortable speed is likely to be 27MPH to 30MPH at best

Dead on!<br /> <br />I never realized this until you mentioned it though. This is a VERY IMPORTANT point for you to consider kkallo. My old rig - a much smaller boat - was moderatley powered and I ran it WOT all the time. It was an old 14' with and 18hp 2-stroke but it weighed about 1/4 of my current outfit yet still drank the same amount of fuel. Okay, apples to oranges but my point is, had I outfitted my current boat with say a 75 or maybe even a 60,like the way it came brand new, I probably WOULD drive WOT more frequently just to achieve the same cruise speed I do now with my 90 running at 70% throttle. <br />The larger the displacement a combustin chamber, the more fuel efficient it is when producing a fixed hp - especially for 4-stroke. In other words, if I run my 90 such that my boat does say 25mph, it will consume less fuel than say a 50 hp motor producing the same amount of power to drive the same boat the same speed. Don't forget, you only achieve rated hp at WOT, so when I'm running my motor at say 50% throttle, I may only be cranking out 50 or 60 hp. Of course, the extra engine weight offsets the efficiency of a bigger motor but not that signifcantly.<br />It is true that adding more substantially larger motor to a boat only marginally increases it's top end, you must consider how much work you will be asking of your motor to do the majority of the time. I agree with John that boat set-up is as important as anything else and that I rarely run top-end or am concerned with how fast I can go. Since I am rather cheap and not into wind burn while boating, when we orginally purchased this boat, I figured the 60 hp would be adequate. I even considered going to a 50 hp 4-stroke ( I wanted a four). I rec'd a lot of advice stating that 60 was barely adeqaute (guess I was deceived abit too as Legend outfits the same boat with a 40 - LOL). We only purchased the 90 because we got a really good deal on it and there was no other four available around 60hp.<br />Now that I have it, I am really glad too. I know that if I had a 60 on it, I would be working that motor to the bone to achieve the same performance that I currently use my 90 at.<br /><br />PS. Majbach still wants to go faster!!

 

[kkallo]

Re: Motor size selection for Lund

Hello again.<br /><br />Thanks for the great feed-back everyone. With your help I finnalized my decission. 90HP is. For the extra $500 (Canadian) I am sure it was worht it. Resale, economy, and getting out of those unconfortably rough waters should be the plus here. Although one thing I am still confused about: The 2002 80 & 100 and the 2003 75 & 90 HP motors are exactly the same. Displacement, size, weight, gear ratio etc. all the same. So what makes them different in HP.<br /> I am picking up the boat on Tuesday the 16th. Needless to say I will try to break it in ASAP and do some quality fishing, before freeze-up. I will post a feedback on my experience. <br /><br />Thanks again.<br />KKALLO

 

[Link]

Re: Motor size selection for Lund

Been following this but didn't have anything<br />to add.. But like learning and this is like<br />being in school on fun stuff! <br /><br />Have fun with her... ah a new boat and motor..

 

[MajBach]

Re: Motor size selection for Lund

kkallo:<br />I don't know about the 80 and 100 hp (are they Honda??) but the 75hp and 90 are basically the same motors. The big difference comes in the carb's - it's referred to as de-tuned. I spoke with a mechanic years ago about the possibilty of converting a 75 to a 90 but he said it is not worth it since the price for parts would offset the new price difference. He also stated that it IS NOT just the carb's that throw less gas in but also the lower unit is differnebt and are electronics. Not sure if I believe that since the weight and final drive ratio are the same. <br />It's obviously a marketing strategy/production efficiency reason for doing this. In order to offer a larger selection of motors and remain competitive but keep mfg costs low, Honda 'doubles' their available line with every motor they produce by building them with tow power outputs. Makes you wonder if there are any advantages (like longevity) of buying a de-tuned motor other than to save a few bucks. I remember reading a Merc brochurer eyears ago and they had 6 different HP motors ranging from 100 hp to 200 hp (if memory serves)all from the same engine.<br /><br />By the way, where are you from?

 

[Forktail]

Re: Motor size selection for Lund

"Although one thing I am still confused about: The 2002 80 & 100 and the 2003 75 & 90 HP motors are exactly the same. Displacement, size, weight, gear ratio etc. all the same. So what makes them different in HP."<br /><br />Yes same engine, but....Yamaha lowered the compression on the 2003 75/90 to 8.9:1. The 2002 80/100's were 9.6:1. Compression is power, so lowering compression lowered the power. They did this because now the 75/90 get the three-star CARB emission rating.<br /><br />Either the 75, 80, 90, or 100 hp would've been fine for that boat. You could've saved the $500 and bought the 80 hp, propped it perfectly and not noticed a difference between it and the 90. Oh, well. It is a great outboard.