Attention: Have 2 pages to see today

Author Topic: 19-6 with Twins?  (Read 1362 times)

February 06, 2006, 05:03:28 PM
Read 1362 times

Mr. Osprey

  • Information Offline
  • Posts: 113
19-6 with Twins?
« on: February 06, 2006, 05:03:28 PM »
Just looked at the post below and the brochure gives info on the 19-6 with twin 50's? Has any ever/still run with twins on thier 19-6? What do you get for speed/power/fuel economy with this set-up?
Mr. Osprey

1971 Mako 17 Angler
1986 Evinrude 88 SPL

February 06, 2006, 06:09:33 PM
Reply #1

JimCt

  • Information Offline
  • Posts: 1848
(No subject)
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2006, 06:09:33 PM »
Although this is for a '66 22-2 flatback it may be of interest.  Seems back then the preference was for twins.  A lot of the early literature shows twin set-ups.  Now, most go for one big engine.  Pounds per horsepower are certainly a little greater with twins but the added weight is paid back in security.

Editorial opinion:   I believe some of these older AS's are horribly over powered nowadays.  There are lots of posts complaining about water coming in thru the scuppers at rest.  There is only one cause for that and it is weight.  Aside from soggy stringers, the main culprit is the big motor.  Will my 170 float with a 115+ hp motor on it?  Sure... but is it safe? No way.  Back then, forty years ago, I think they had the right idea.  Hell, the 22-2 in this article had twin 50's.  A hundred hp on a 22-2 today would be a joke.

Note the MPG curve change @4800 rpm in the article; may roughly apply to your boat as well.

JimCT
------
\'74 22-2 inboard
HIN:ASPL0953M74J
Chrysler 318
------
\'74 Marshall 22

February 06, 2006, 06:22:31 PM
Reply #2

billh1963

  • Information Offline
  • Posts: 139
(No subject)
« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2006, 06:22:31 PM »
I agree about the over horsepower trend of today. One of the reasons the 19-6 appeals to me is that with the classic lines I believe that the hull will perform great with a new 90 to 115 engine. That should deliver a cruising speed in the low to mid 30's...which is fine for what I do.

Fuel economy is important with the high cost of fuel and my fishing tends to be leisurely anyway!
2008 MayCraft 18

February 06, 2006, 06:29:21 PM
Reply #3

JimCt

  • Information Offline
  • Posts: 1848
(No subject)
« Reply #3 on: February 06, 2006, 06:29:21 PM »
Ditto's.
JimCT
------
\'74 22-2 inboard
HIN:ASPL0953M74J
Chrysler 318
------
\'74 Marshall 22

February 07, 2006, 07:48:05 AM
Reply #4

scott_gunn

  • Information Offline
  • Posts: 186
(No subject)
« Reply #4 on: February 07, 2006, 07:48:05 AM »
Ditto again.  I just read that scanned article and it said the 22-2 could get on plane with just one of it's 50hp motors.

I have a 150 Johnson on my 19-6 and when it comes time to repower (if ever) I would go smaller in a heartbeat.  If it has a 150 now, and I add a portabracket, I think going to a V4 would be the best thing to do for weight reasons.  The 115-130hp ETEC would be ideal!

February 09, 2006, 01:42:14 PM
Reply #5

Anonymous

  • Guest
(No subject)
« Reply #5 on: February 09, 2006, 01:42:14 PM »
Nice article. My 222 has a carbed 150 Yam and I struggled with putting
a 130 v-4 instead. I raised the floor a bit and don't really have a problem unless I have the baitwell full ( near the stern) and a couple of guys back there.  Only a couple of inches stays in. The twin setup would be sweet.  I gigure the weight of the twins is distributed better.

Jim, is that article uploaded to the forum?  I would like to read all of it.  Thanks,Ray
Rayos@Bellsouth.net

February 09, 2006, 01:44:03 PM
Reply #6

Rayos

  • Information Offline
  • Posts: 36
(No subject)
« Reply #6 on: February 09, 2006, 01:44:03 PM »
That last post is mine. Wasn't logged in.

February 09, 2006, 03:36:06 PM
Reply #7

JimCt

  • Information Offline
  • Posts: 1848
(No subject)
« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2006, 03:36:06 PM »
No prob.  Will get it posted to you in the next day or so.
JimCT
------
\'74 22-2 inboard
HIN:ASPL0953M74J
Chrysler 318
------
\'74 Marshall 22

 


SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal