|
|
Member
Posts: 2300
Location: Berlin | Ok all, lets get everyones opinion on this subject. You have to drive 40 miles in each of these conditions. Your gas tank is full when you leave and you will fill it up at the end of the 40 miles. Whoever burns the least amount of fuel wins. Your average speed must be over 10mph for you to qualify. Tell us which you picked and how you drove your boat. If you decide to quarter the waves instead of taking a straight line, you still will only have to drive 40 miles just to make it fair.
Edited by Rich S 2/26/2008 1:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | In 2 to 3's going into them I will have my engine at a steady rpm while out running my competition as my boat will eat waves like that for a snack with out slamming me to bits. I will be hearing a steady smacking from the other brands as they work to keep pace as there bows slice way to deep into the waves. It will cost them more gas to stay with the leader. I will not only use less fuel in my 2060 Tuffy with a merc 225 Opti-max, but I will get there first. The only other ones I see around me will be the 215 Tritons and you can bet they will have used more gas. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1382
| Nice one Stacker.
My vote is for NOAA 1'ers perpendicular wind, (but maybe should have voted flat calm) trim bow up 1/2 to 2/3rd's set the tach at 4100 rpm's, set a straight plot line on the gps kick back and enjoy a cup of coffee.
Zach |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | hahhaahaha the only problem is Zach, you will spill the coffee, cause most guys will drive as fast as they can and they will go by you causing wake which will awaken you when the hot coffee spashes the exposed skin on your legs. lol... |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| Strictly the least amount of fuel? I'd go flat calm and put the boat on plane at about 12.5-13 mph and enjoy a thermos of coffee. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1382
| Stacker, you are a prophet, can I change my answer to "drop the hammer"?
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1040
Location: Stevens Point, WI | It's been proven that you get your best fuel economy running between 2500-4500 rpm's. This article from Bass and Walleye Magazine proved it.
The HPDI ran at 3500 rpm's, 45 mph and a 5.8 gallon-per-hour recording and a resulting range of 156.8 miles from the 30-gallon tank mounted in the Bullet (leaving ten percent — three gallons — in reserve).
However, the Merc outperformed the rest. Not only did the Merc best the others by a minimum of 5.1 mph at the top end, it also won honors for best fuel economy by recording an incredible 6.2 gallons per hour at a best-cruise speed of 34.3 mph @ 2500 rpm. Averaging the entire fuel economy results, Merc won overall in this category too, with an average 4.6 miles per gallon.
So if your looking to conserve on gas, this shows that it's best running 2500-4500 rpm. Your midrange of course.
Here's the link to the article. One of the better articles.
http://www.bwbmag.com/output.cfm?ID=1059733
Edited by Merckid 2/26/2008 2:58 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1382
| Merckid
I would guess that in the bass boat the tests were performed on you would be able to acheive 34 mph at 2500 rpms but in a walleye boat you would most likely be on the higher end of the range. There is Optimax test data out there for some of the 20-21' Boston Whalers that show the optimum mileage speed at 33 mph with rpms around 4000, which should more closely approximate BIG walleye boats. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1040
Location: Stevens Point, WI | Yes, I agree Zach. I have an article at home that said 3500-4500 for Big walleye boats. I included 2500rpm because that was on a lightweight bass hull from what the article said. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1188
Location: Chicago IL. | Wow!!!! I hate to open a debate on going up or down stream. HEHEHE  |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1406
| 5 footers with the wind and the motor tilled up and turned off! My boats a sail so I won't use any gas! Man the water must still be hard! |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 340
Location: McFarland, WI | I would think it would vary between boats. How much of the hull is in the water determines the amount of friction and most walleye boats have more hull in the water. A slight ripple should reduce hull water contact and surface tension. Maybe I'm thinking too hard. Ask mythbusters. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| 2500 rpms, I don't think would hold a big "walleye" boat on plane. 3000 is probably closer to minimum.
I find this info confusing also,
The HPDI ran at 3500 rpm's, 45 mph and a 5.8 gallon-per-hour recording and a resulting range of 156.8 miles from the 30-gallon tank mounted in the Bullet (leaving ten percent — three gallons — in reserve).
Not only did the Merc best the others by a minimum of 5.1 mph at the top end, it also won honors for best fuel economy by recording an incredible 6.2 gallons per hour at a best-cruise speed of 34.3 mph @ 2500 rpm.
Correct me if I'm wrong isn't 5.8 gallons of fuel per hour less than 6.2 gallons per hour?
In my opinion I find B&W magazine to be very "pro" Merc. Then again, I wouldn't bite the hand that feeds me either. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1040
Location: Stevens Point, WI | Jayman,
I agree. I said 2500 rpm because that was on the Bullet bass hull. I mentioned the HPDI example because it ran it's best at 3500 rpm for it's best fuel economy.
I think the Merc did better because it's a Pro XS. With carbon fiber reeds and seeing that motor is hand built, not built on a stock factory line like a straight Optimax, that's why it does better for fuel economy from what I've found out from Merc techs. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 859
Location: Appleton wi | Is the question here 'the least amount of fuel used between each example"? |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1656
| "The HPDI ran at 3500 rpm's, 45 mph and a 5.8 gallon-per-hour recording and a resulting range of 156.8 miles from the 30-gallon tank mounted in the Bullet (leaving ten percent — three gallons — in reserve).
Not only did the Merc best the others by a minimum of 5.1 mph at the top end, it also won honors for best fuel economy by recording an incredible 6.2 gallons per hour at a best-cruise speed of 34.3 mph @ 2500 rpm.
Correct me if I'm wrong isn't 5.8 gallons of fuel per hour less than 6.2 gallons per hour?
"
What part of this don't I understand? I don't care about manufacture or if it's an XS. I'll gladly "cruise" at 45 and burn 5.8 gallons/hr vs "cruising" at 34 and using 6.2 gallons/hr. Then again as I stated before, I must live in Fantasy land because I'm the only one reading those numbers
edit: typo
Edited by Jayman 2/26/2008 4:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 3899
| The Pro XS motors are built on the same line as the regular Optimax motors are. They are not hand built, like the XS motors built by Mercury Racing.
My preference for conditions is the slight chop, WOT! |
|
| |
