Shearwater Cutter 6.8

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by jambo

Hi Dave could you break that down as I struggle to get that weight with my 585. Is it dive set up? Tx. B

Hi Billy, DF140, storage box with the usual "stuff" in it, 2 Ullmans, 180l fuel, large console with twin batteries, 2" HD "A"frame, anchor c/w 10m 8mm chain. The 545 is a heavy layup to start with, being a completely different construction to the rest of the range. It is 1900kg on the weighbridge in its trailer, trailer is 600kg or thereabouts. I think a lot of people would be surprised if they actually put their boats on a weighbridge rather than going by the manufacturer stated weights. The manufacturer weights are for bare hulls, as soon as you start adding a frames, fuel tanks, consoles, batteries etc, the weight soon racks up.

[jambo]

Originally Posted by Pikey Dave

Hi Billy, DF140, storage box with the usual "stuff" in it, 2 Ullmans, 180l fuel, large console with twin batteries, 2" HD "A"frame, anchor c/w 10m 8mm chain. The 545 is a heavy layup to start with, being a completely different construction to the rest of the range. It is 1900kg on the weighbridge in its trailer, trailer is 600kg or thereabouts. I think a lot of people would be surprised if they actually put their boats on a weighbridge rather than going by the manufacturer stated weights. The manufacturer weights are for bare hulls, as soon as you start adding a frames, fuel tanks, consoles, batteries etc, the weight soon racks up.

Hi Dave. Aye I forgot about the pods and what’s in them the bats A frame. Yea your right it soon mounts up. Cheers B

[Xk59D]

Originally Posted by Andy_Rs600

What prop are you running? Mine has come with a high-5 21P and a 3 blade 17P. Suspect I need to be somewhere in the middle now the engine has gone down a few inches.

Prop won't be comparable as Suzuki run massive props due to gearing but it is a 3 blade 16x20 for reference.

Just to clarify the weight of my Boat is from weight bridge and not guesstimate. It was over 1900kg with 2 wheel sbs under it. Haven't been back with the bigger trailer to confirm new weight. That weight is with zero extra gubbins on board, just ropes, anchor, chain and the twin batts in console.

[HUMBER P4VWL]

It’s mad what a difference a bit of length makes! Oo er

Seeing our 6.3 Humber OP next to a 6m Destroyer, they looked like an SR4 next to SR5.4. That extra length, when combined with beam and then depth of hull equate to a MUCH bigger boat.

[pow2gran]

Originally Posted by RMS

200 hp on 6.8 m won’t be at all slow even if she is solidly built Nick.

Should do well into the 40s, but like the rest of us you won’t be challenging Dean!

Too true Richard!

[pow2gran]

Originally Posted by Xk59D

My 6.8 ribcraft will do 52mph downhill with wind but will easily hit 48mph regularly with 220l of fuel and 2 up.

I doubt many hulls are heavier than my 6.8....proper tank stuff. It is about 1650kg sitting in water. Maybe give you some idea what to expect.

Xk59D for your interest I have weighed the hull without engine and it is 1240kg with 100l of fuel. I have gone for a F200 Yamaha with a weight of 230kg so you are weighing in 150kg heavier.

[Xk59D]

Nice one buddy, did you get a v6 or 4 pot yamaha?

I looked at a new engine about a month ago but Suzuki are pushing the 4 pot 200 now over my 2012 200 v6....I love the v6 torque though as the boat does use it.

[69cmw]

Originally Posted by Xk59D

I looked at a new engine about a month ago

250HP [emoji108][emoji41]

[Xk59D]

Not getting a new engine, was end of warranty whim. I only have 220 hours on the zuke so I'll just plod on with that.

Mercury are releasing a new 200 next week or so, with the success of the 150 I may go that road if and when I do change.

[pow2gran]

Originally Posted by Xk59D

Nice one buddy, did you get a v6 or 4 pot yamaha?

I looked at a new engine about a month ago but Suzuki are pushing the 4 pot 200 now over my 2012 200 v6....I love the v6 torque though as the boat does use it.

I went with a 4 pot and it was a choice between the yam and Suzi. The general opinion was that there was little to choose between the two although some thought the yam had the edge and it was 15kg lighter not that 15kg will make that much difference

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by pow2gran

I went with a 4 pot and it was a choice between the yam and Suzi. The general opinion was that there was little to choose between the two although some thought the yam had the edge and it was 15kg lighter not that 15kg will make that much difference

It worries me, this race for "lightness". You have to wonder where the metal is being taken from.

[Xk59D]

Easy....2 less cylinders!!

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by Xk59D

Easy....2 less cylinders!!

I was speaking generally, manufacturers are constantly shaving weight off here & there, but at what cost to strength & durability of the engines, particularly with regard to 4 strokes.

[Chris Caton]

Originally Posted by RMS

.................. but like the rest of us you won’t be challenging Dean!

Originally Posted by pow2gran

Too true Richard!

I wouldn't worry too much about Dean, he'll be far too busy polishing his toooobs

[Xk59D]

Originally Posted by Pikey Dave

I was speaking generally, manufacturers are constantly shaving weight off here & there, but at what cost to strength & durability of the engines, particularly with regard to 4 strokes.

Without turning this into a 2 v 4 stroke debate, there is no way even modern 2 strokes can be considered low tech anymore with self trim, steering, injectors, high pressure pumps etc

Round about the clyde there are mercury and mariner outboards from the 70s and 80s still in use. I just can't see any modern outboard 2 or 4 stroke lasting that long anymore, just too much to break now that gets expensive quickly.

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by Xk59D

Without turning this into a 2 v 4 stroke debate, there is no way even modern 2 strokes can be considered low tech anymore with self trim, steering, injectors, high pressure pumps etc

Round about the clyde there are mercury and mariner outboards from the 70s and 80s still in use. I just can't see any modern outboard 2 or 4 stroke lasting that long anymore, just too much to break now that gets expensive quickly.

I agree, the only reason I singled out 4 strokes was due to the mechanical complexity compared to 2 strokes. My DF140 is similar in weight to a comparable Etec, so I have to wonder how Suzuki have achieved that. Given that the 4 stroke has valves/cams/timing chain etc. All manufacturers are trying to reduce the weight of their engines, be they 2 or 4 strokes & this is being driven by us, the consumer. At what point do we turn around & say "actually, I'd rather have that 10kg of metal, back where it belongs, in the block/gearbox/mid-section please? It reminds me of the cycling world, where some mid life crisis bloke spends an extra grand on some carbon fibre bike because it weighs 1kg less than the alloy equivalent, he then plonks his big fat 17stone arse on the saddle & puff & pants his way up the first hill. If he lost a stone in the first place, he'd shave 6kg off the weight of the outfit & save a grand[emoji848] If we are so obsessed with saving weight here & there, there are cheaper ways of doing it than taking it out of the engine.
Just my rambling Thursday morning thoughts.

[pow2gran]

Originally Posted by Pikey Dave

I agree, the only reason I singled out 4 strokes was due to the mechanical complexity compared to 2 strokes. My DF140 is similar in weight to a comparable Etec, so I have to wonder how Suzuki have achieved that. Given that the 4 stroke has valves/cams/timing chain etc. All manufacturers are trying to reduce the weight of their engines, be they 2 or 4 strokes & this is being driven by us, the consumer. At what point do we turn around & say "actually, I'd rather have that 10kg of metal, back where it belongs, in the block/gearbox/mid-section please? It reminds me of the cycling world, where some mid life crisis bloke spends an extra grand on some carbon fibre bike because it weighs 1kg less than the alloy equivalent, he then plonks his big fat 17stone arse on the saddle & puff & pants his way up the first hill. If he lost a stone in the first place, he'd shave 6kg off the weight of the outfit & save a grand[emoji848] If we are so obsessed with saving weight here & there, there are cheaper ways of doing it than taking it out of the engine.
Just my rambling Thursday morning thoughts.

Dave I think it is probably true what you say. It wasn't the weight that really persuaded me it was a choice between the Suzuki and the Yamaha and the Yam seamed to have the edge when you spoke to the dealers. I thought about the new Evinrude but the recent recall and supposedly lack of UK support put me off. I'm hoping to get 5 years of trouble free boating out of the Yam engine and you will be pleased to know I have just gone on a diet to see If I can drop a stone!

Nick

PS Haven't reached 17 stone yet!

[Xk59D]

I'm sure it will serve you well, be interested to see how you find the 4 pot setup.

[rocknrolla]

Originally Posted by Chris Caton

I wouldn't worry too much about Dean, he'll be far too busy polishing his toooobs

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by pow2gran

Dave I think it is probably true what you say. It wasn't the weight that really persuaded me it was a choice between the Suzuki and the Yamaha and the Yam seamed to have the edge when you spoke to the dealers. I thought about the new Evinrude but the recent recall and supposedly lack of UK support put me off. I'm hoping to get 5 years of trouble free boating out of the Yam engine and you will be pleased to know I have just gone on a diet to see If I can drop a stone!



Nick



PS Haven't reached 17 stone yet!

You've never seen 17 stone[emoji6]

Ps what was the recall on the evinrudes? I didn't know about it.