Fuel burn 45’ vs 53’

[Hookedup2407]

Re: Fuel burn 45’ vs 53’

For me it wouldn't matter if it was 1 or 70 miles there wouldn't be any 92 series engines involved, been there done that.

Lots of boats in my fleet are powered with 92s.. haven’t really heard anything horrible other than overheating and blowing the seals

 

[Hookedup2407]

Re: Fuel burn 45’ vs 53’

In the real world with actual documented numbers anyone who’s honest will admit increases in efficiency are very small. In the end it takes X amount of energy to move a hull through the water.

21 gross tons vs 41gross tons.. this 53 is a complete pig and one of the scariest boats I’ve taken through the inlet. Other than that it’s a great platform

 

[madhatter1]

Re: Fuel burn 45’ vs 53’

Lots of boats in my fleet are powered with 92s.. haven’t really heard anything horrible other than overheating and blowing the seals

Since you have real firsthand experience with the seals, what is involved in the repair? Please include the "while we're in there stuff". My engines are sound and I right on top of the cooling system but as Robert points out, the seals aren't going to last forever. Also is the fist sign coolant loss not ending up in the oil but going out exhaust? No glycol in my December oil samples.

 

[SKYCHENEY]

Re: Fuel burn 45’ vs 53’

Since you have real firsthand experience with the seals, what is involved in the repair? Please include the "while we're in there stuff". My engines are sound and I right on top of the cooling system but as Robert points out, the seals aren't going to last forever. Also is the fist sign coolant loss not ending up in the oil but going out exhaust? No glycol in my December oil samples.

Dave overhauled those just a few years ago. You have nothing to worry about. You've got 20-30 years on those.

 

[madhatter1]

Re: Fuel burn 45’ vs 53’

Ha! Hope so. Lifetime durability for me if so. Fingers crossed 

 

[rsmith]

Re: Fuel burn 45’ vs 53’

21 gross tons vs 41gross tons.. this 53 is a complete pig and one of the scariest boats I’ve taken through the inlet. Other than that it’s a great platform

I’ve fished mine out of Oregon inlet and run some bad inlets in all kinds of weather. Nothing scary about it. Boat has a full keel and tracks like it’s on rails.

 

[cww]

Re: Fuel burn 45’ vs 53’

21 gross tons vs 41gross tons.. this 53 is a complete pig and one of the scariest boats I’ve taken through the inlet. Other than that it’s a great platform

Something must have been wrong with the one you were on, I have the MY version and courtesy of the large keel she tracks straight even in really rough stuff. I don't know anybody who owns one of these who would agree with the statement that they're pigs and can't hold a course in rough water. That's news to me.

 

[bostonhatteras]

Re: Fuel burn 45’ vs 53’

Something must have been wrong with the one you were on, I have the MY version and courtesy of the large keel she tracks straight even in really rough stuff. I don't know anybody who owns one of these who would agree with the statement that they're pigs and can't hold a course in rough water. That's news to me.

Maybe he means with a following sea? My 45 is pretty much the junior version of the 53 hull and in a sizable following sea the bow can dig in. a handful even for the AP. Waves on bow or off beam is never an issue and she shines

 

[Cricket]

Re: Fuel burn 45’ vs 53’

We changed out our rudders decades ago for larger ones after a rudder shaft broke. Had the larger rudders before adding power steering and they worked much better than the originals, the addition of power steering just took boat control to another level.

 

[Hookedup2407]

Re: Fuel burn 45’ vs 53’

Something must have been wrong with the one you were on, I have the MY version and courtesy of the large keel she tracks straight even in really rough stuff. I don't know anybody who owns one of these who would agree with the statement that they're pigs and can't hold a course in rough water. That's news to me.

Sorry i should clarify.. coming into the inlet with a following sea on a hard out-going tide.. once the keel grabs, she will track wherever she gets pointed (i have a narrow inlet to pass with a shallow reef on one side).. and the naturals don’t exactly have the power to push through fast enough on a hard out going.. other than that she is a great sea boat no complaints..

 

[Hookedup2407]

Re: Fuel burn 45’ vs 53’

Maybe he means with a following sea? My 45 is pretty much the junior version of the 53 hull and in a sizable following sea the bow can dig in. a handful even for the AP. Waves on bow or off beam is never an issue and she shines

Yes, in a following sea returning into the inlet on a hard outgoing tide. The keel will grab and it doesn’t matter where i point the rudders or compensate with throttles she goes where she’s pointed..

 

[Hookedup2407]

Re: Fuel burn 45’ vs 53’

In a 53 a QSM is minimum. That's a heavy boat for a c series.

The C series were in my 46 and it saw 22kts WOT

 

[rsmith]

Re: Fuel burn 45’ vs 53’

21 gross tons vs 41gross tons.. this 53 is a complete pig and one of the scariest boats I’ve taken through the inlet. Other than that it’s a great platform

That’s BS you need some inlet running lessons. And the 50/53 is 50,000 lb not 82,000

 

[Bob Bradley]

Re: Fuel burn 45’ vs 53’

In a 53 a QSM is minimum. That's a heavy boat for a c series.

I have the QSM11s in my 45. Mine are 535hp and are a good match for the boat. I'm not sure I would recommend the engines for a much bigger boat. Yes, I realize they are available in 635 and I believe even over 700. The problem is that if you use all those hp, the dry exhaust and turbo will get too hot and either cook the gaskets or crack the exhaust manifold. You shouldn't exceed 20gph per engine or you risk cooking things. That is less than 535hp. On the pins I'm burning 25 - 26gph per engine. At 20gph, I'm turning somewhere around 2100rpm and making 23-24kts. Configuring these engines with higher HP just means you have more HP that you shouldn't be using unless you want to be swapping exhaust components regularly.


Don't get me wrong. I love my engines, by I understand their limitations. I do not think I would want them in a much bigger boat.

 

[jim rosenthal]

Re: Fuel burn 45’ vs 53’

They have been put in bigger boats, but I don't know how good an idea it was. Sky pointed out recently that they have issues with exhaust manifolds cracking, I think it was. I don't know which rating that was. It
s too bad Cummins Marine doesn't make a larger diesel than the M11 in a pleasure craft rating. Must not be enough market for it.

 

[rsmith]

Re: Fuel burn 45’ vs 53’

I was on a 45 Rybovitch yesterday at the Stuart boat show. They pulled out QSM11’s after 10 years of manifold and head problems. They repowered with smaller Cummins and get the same speed and better economy since they couldn’t push the throttles up on the old engines without problems.

 

[SKYCHENEY]

Re: Fuel burn 45’ vs 53’

I was on a 45 Rybovitch yesterday at the Stuart boat show. They pulled out QSM11’s after 10 years of manifold and head problems. They repowered with smaller Cummins and get the same speed and better economy since they couldn’t push the throttles up on the old engines without problems.

Probably C-series at 600hp

 

[rsmith]

Re: Fuel burn 45’ vs 53’

probably c-series at 600hp

qsb6.7