Welcome to the Hatteras Owners Forum & Gallery. Sign Up or Login

Enter partial or full part description to search the Hatteras/Cabo parts catalog (for example: breaker or gauge)
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
  1. #1

    58 vs 61 vs 63 fuel consmuption

    I've been on the hunt for a 53,then a 53 or a 58, but I am seeing a lot of 61's or 63's in the same price range. So I am wondering if there is big difference in fuel consumption in the 61's, and 63's versus the older 58's? I understand that at hull speed they might well all be very close but what about if all pushing 3/4 throttle or some nice cruise speed?

    Thanks!

  2. #2

    Re: 58 vs 61 vs 63 fuel consmuption

    Wider beam will burn more fuel.
    Sky Cheney
    1985 53EDMY, Hull #CN759, "Rebecca"
    ELYC on White Lake--Montague, MI

  3. #3

    Re: 58 vs 61 vs 63 fuel consmuption

    Hull speed on my 63 I get 0.8 mpg. If I go up to 3/4 throttle I get around 0.2 mpg
    Looking for a 80 plus foot yacht
    Hatteras of Cheoy Lee

  4. #4

    Re: 58 vs 61 vs 63 fuel consmuption

    Quote Originally Posted by RonNP View Post
    Hull speed on my 63 I get 0.8 mpg. If I go up to 3/4 throttle I get around 0.2 mpg
    Damn Ron. I’ll never be able to go out. LOL
    SEVEN
    1979 53' MY Hull #563
    Antioch, California

  5. #5

    Re: 58 vs 61 vs 63 fuel consmuption

    Negligible difference at hull speed with the same power. Definitely going to make at difference above that.
    Randy Register - Kingston, TN
    www.yachtrelocation.com
    www.Safes4Guns.com
    aka Freebird aka Sparky1
    1965 41DC #93

  6. #6

    Re: 58 vs 61 vs 63 fuel consmuption

    No way Randy. There's a huge difference of mpg at hull speed. Its based on the resistance with the wider boats and the type of water and its density.

    Why do you insist on repeating that same stuff all the time.


    And Happy Birthday
    Scott
    41C117 "Hattatude"
    Port Canaveral Florida.


    Marine Electronics and Electrical Products Distributor.

  7. #7

    Re: 58 vs 61 vs 63 fuel consmuption

    Disappointed Freebird. Not engaging tonight?
    Dave & Trina
    Benedetto
    1989 60MY HATDK310
    Sturgeon Bay/Ft. Lauderdale

  8. #8

    Re: 58 vs 61 vs 63 fuel consmuption

    Bob Quinn, it sounds like a big cliche but it is 100% true. The cost of the fuel is one of the lowest factors to consider. For range on a vessel, yes something that needs to be considered. But in overall cost yearly this is the least to consider. In fact IMO the cheapest way to maintain the boat is to burn fuel. Meaning use it to keep everything operational. No way the average guy will wear engines out. And if you could or actually do they would owe you nothing and you would be very happy to dive in and recondition.

    Again, just my experienced opinion. But the boat that fits your needs and wants. And then enjoy!
    1966 34c
    1982 46 HP

  9. #9

    Re: 58 vs 61 vs 63 fuel consmuption

    Quote Originally Posted by Boatsb View Post
    Why do you insist on repeating that same stuff all the time.


    And Happy Birthday
    Because now I’m even older, and I keep running boats that make me say the same stuff all the time.
    Randy Register - Kingston, TN
    www.yachtrelocation.com
    www.Safes4Guns.com
    aka Freebird aka Sparky1
    1965 41DC #93

  10. #10

    Re: 58 vs 61 vs 63 fuel consmuption

    Quote Originally Posted by Sadey View Post
    Disappointed Freebird. Not engaging tonight?
    Sorry to keep you waiting.

    Speaking of waiting, you haven’t replied to the text I sent the other day. I’m beginning to think you don’t love me anymore and may even be seeing other guys.
    Randy Register - Kingston, TN
    www.yachtrelocation.com
    www.Safes4Guns.com
    aka Freebird aka Sparky1
    1965 41DC #93

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts