|
|
| That's right Rude is back on top. The new 250 H.O. Rude is now pushing the ranger 620VS 70 plus MPH. This speed was reported GPS at bull shoals during the product tour. The boat was chine walking like the bass rockets! |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| 70??? seems like a big jump from just tickleing 60. Got some more data? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 80
Location: Lake Erie | This was covered on the "other" walleye site, Eric Olson was testing this motor. |
|
| |
|
|
4 gals of gas, no extra gear, no TM, no kicker, 1 battery. I could see it. Maybe. With a tail wind, and a sanded hull. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| I've been running the 250 for a couple years now and trust me I've blown away plenty of "60 mph boats" on tourney day doing 60.  |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | Jayman, yup! |
|
| |
|
| I don't know what 250 you have been running but it was not the 250 HO. This thing is going to make you merc guys cry in your soup! |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | I'm not too worried about +any+ motor making me cry in my soup...
I'm sure it's a nice motor
So is the Opti XS
And the Yammy
And the Suzi
And so on.
Fuel being what it is, my rig will have a buck and a half Opti on the transom this year. I need a motor that will get me there fast with low fuel consumption, so this year it's a 150. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 238
| Yeah I agree with Sworrall, with the fuel prices that are coming for the upcoming season I'll get there last with my 115 and save some money, at least for the waters and small tourneys that I fish. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| You're right that don't look anything like a 250 E-tec. I'd be real surprised that a tuned up 250 E-tec with an HO sticker is goning to get you 10MPH. But what do I know?
Attachments
----------------
 8[1].10.06_1.jpg (32KB - 166 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 56
| Really?
I saw this on the Bass Fishing Homepage...Jim Carroll NPAA #13
SUBJECT: # 93973: 250 E-Tec HO vs. 250 Opti Pro XS
Submitted by nanook (69.217.58.64) from ALABAMA on 1/13/2008 8:15:00 PM
The following data was gathered during the Ranger Dealer meeting this past summer...both Mercury and Evinrude personnel were on hand for rig set up purposes..
Engine: Evinrude 250 E-Tec HO (Evinrude guys were running the boat)
Ranger Boat: Z520
Prop: 26 Raker
Engine Height: 3rd hole
Misc: Full fuel load (40 gal) / empty live well / trolling motor, batteries
Top Speed w/ 2 persons: 72
Top Speed w/ 1 person: 74
Engine: Mercury 250 OptiMax Pro XS
Ranger Boat: Z520
Prop: 26 Tempest
Engine Height: 3rd hole
Misc.: Full fuel load (40 gal) / empty live well / trolling motor, batteries
Top Speed w/ 2 persons: 74
Top Speed w/ 1 person: 75.4
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 617
Location: Oshkosh, Wisconsin | Z520 is a bass hull, is it not? Could that be where the difference is coming from - that someone has the heavier 620 hull confused with the 520 bass hull?
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | Jayman, whos fish are you holding?
Wow, It is going to be quite the winter. 70 mph out of a WALLEYE BOAT, HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHA |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| Denny, Nevermind the fish. Look at the engine!
Steve, I agree, with fuel the way it's been, I do most of driving at a cruising speed usually around 4000 R's and 40mph. Saves on fuel and wear and tear. Most outboards do well in the 3500-4500 range for fuel economy.
Jim, like Brad said 520 vs the 620....the original post stated a 620VS. 72mph in a Bass boat ain't much to brag about there. The serious speed nuts in bass won't even mention Ranger in the same sentence.
Edited by Jayman 1/21/2008 12:37 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1991
| LOL
The 620 with 250 HO they are talking about Eric Olson and the Butter Boat,
stacker - 1/21/2008 12:08 PM
Jayman, whos fish are you holding?
Wow, It is going to be quite the winter. 70 mph out of a WALLEYE BOAT, HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHA |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | What engine, all I see is a refrigerator on the back of your boat. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 56
| My comments were in reply to the poster who said the new HO was going to eat Mercury's lunch.
I'm sure EO did get his 620 going fast, he spends a lot of time working on his setups. He also said on WC that the boat would be basically unusable for anything but going fast. It was overpropped, etc. Jim Carroll NPAA #13 |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1991
| I believe he was using lightly salted butter LOL |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| LOL Kirt, that's just plain funny. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin |
Jim, like Brad said 520 vs the 620....the original post stated a 620VS. 72mph in a Bass boat ain't much to brag about there. The serious speed nuts in bass won't even mention Ranger in the same sentence.
Jayman, you are correct, that speed in a bass boat is slow by most standards. Ranger is not the choice for most bass afficionado's as well. |
|
| |
|
| Wow,
had someone call me late last night while driving across the frozen WI tundra and said there has been some stuff for me to check out, yup, just wanted to clarify some of the "stuff"
-My boat is a 620 (most of you know that already) and yellow, unsalted, preferably light whip as it spreads easier when its cold!
-The set-up that was over 70 was done just for fun as I had a goal speed of 70 I wanted to hit
-34 gal of fuel
-full rod locker dbl up totol 24 (forgot to leave them at home)
-4 stainless props
-kicker
-3 batteries
-misc tackle (not tourney load) light
-minnkota pulled off
-Detweiler Hyd jackplate
-1 person
Condition were flat, no wind achieved in 2 directions and the hull was not modified
Remember, I did this just to see how fast I could get it to go.
-Raker II 22 69.6 6000rpm
-Raker II 24 71.24 5800rpm
-Raker II 25 72.34 5650rpm
comarison is this
-full fuel
-3 people
-bowmt on
-everything else the same
-Raker II 22 66.6
Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to run the 24 in this set-up but will as soon as the boat comes back from Ranger "de-Butterized" before I get it to it's happy new owner.
THe z-520 Ranger- the fastest Ranger to date, used the same prop (25 Raker II)with the production engines (My engine is a production engine as well, not modified in any way!) not prototype( the dealer meeting in summer was a prototype) ran 75.3 (ranger personell test result)
Anyway hope this clears some things up
Tight Lines
Eric Olson
NPAA #165
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1991
| I wonder if that spread would work on a TUFFY? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | Kirt, the Tuffy weighs in at well over 250# less than the 620. I would think that if that motor pushed the Ranger over 70, than it will darn sure push the "Thinner" Tuffy faster. This is amazing speeds to say the least, I would love to see one go that fast. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 538
| Eric,
What will you be running for tourneys. Lets use Erie as one example and Cass Lake as another. How fast per each and hole shot for each as wellwould you guess.
Thanks,
Jim O |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1991
|
stacker - 1/22/2008 12:46 PM
Kirt, the Tuffy weighs in at well over 250# less than the 620. I would think that if that motor pushed the Ranger over 70, than it will darn sure push the "Thinner" Tuffy faster. This is amazing speeds to say the least, I would love to see one go that fast.
So I should use this
Edited by moreyes 1/22/2008 3:54 PM
Attachments
----------------
15234.gif (7KB - 163 downloads)
|
|
| |
