|
1967 16 and 130 Yamaha combo
|
| Montaukman |
Posted on 01/21/09 - 11:40 PM
|
Member
Posts: 9
Comments:
0
Joined: 01/11/09
|
I just bought a 1967 BW with no engine. I have found a 1991 Yamaha 130 for $1800 in great shape. I'm buying it from the second owner who bought it from the original dealer who had serviced it for the original owner who had it serviced every six months religiously.I have found out that it weighs #357, the same as a 115 Yamaha. I see a lot of people run the Yamaha 90 on their classic 16's and that motor weighs only #267.
So here are my questions, is the $1800 a good price without controls, but with steering rack and with a speed and tach gauge. Is it safe? Is it too much HP? What kind of speed should I expect from this combo? Is it too much weight? What prop should I consider?
I'm a newbie power boater, coming from a sailor background, Any insights/opinions would be much appreciated. Thanks!
|
| |
|
|
| drandlett |
Posted on 01/22/09 - 5:33 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 146
Comments:
0
Joined: 03/01/06
|
I have a '68 16' Whaler with a Yamaha 2stroke 90hp, it will move me an another person around about +-35kts easily. Sometimes I wish I had a little more, but only when I'm running nearby another boat and want to make a point...ego!
I've never heard speed numbers from owners with larger engines, nor do I know how weight/HP would play in.
|
| |
|
|
| Phil T |
Posted on 01/22/09 - 6:05 AM
|
Administrator
Personal Page
Personal Album
Project Albums
Posts: 7043
Comments:
6
Joined: 03/26/05
|
While it is your boat, keep in mind:
The transom is 43 years old.
The max hp was 100 hp based on designs of the day.
To see how the hull will sit, launch the boat and use bags of sand, buckets of water et al to see where she sits. I think it is way too much.
Your boat, your call.
|
| |
|
|
| TexasOutrage |
Posted on 01/22/09 - 6:44 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 246
Comments:
1
Joined: 02/16/08
|
I would not put more than a 90hp on it.
|
| |
|
|
| Martman |
Posted on 01/22/09 - 8:18 AM
|
Member
Posts: 4
Comments:
0
Joined: 01/09/06
|
Montaukman,
I guess I'm in the minority on this but here's what I've done. I had a 1963 Nausett, it came with the standard 90hp Evinrude. I repowered with a newer 90hp, then a 115hp FITCH. I ran the 115hp on a 6" setback manual jack plate. The hull did great with this power as well. I think the 115hp was only slightly heavier than the 90hp. I've since sold that boat and found a Newport without a motor. This hull is a little heavier than yours with the bow wrap. The only motor I had laying around was a 150hp Evinrude, so I hung it on the back. The boat handled the weight and hp fine. It sat good in the water (not too stern heavy). The extra hp is fun, but you don't have to use it all the time. I wouldn't let just anyone drive the boat but it worked for me. 
Martman
|
| |
|
|
| Tom W Clark |
Posted on 01/22/09 - 8:48 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 4280
Comments:
7
Joined: 09/30/05
|
$1,800 for an 18 year old Yamaha 130 seems a little high.
That motor will work on that boat but it is the very limit of weight for the transom. It is also far more powerful than necessary.
I guess it depends on how you will use the boat. If you live where the water is protected and flat, like to go fast in a straight line, it would be great.
|
| |
|
|
| Montaukman |
Posted on 01/22/09 - 2:42 PM
|
Member
Posts: 9
Comments:
0
Joined: 01/11/09
|
Thanks for all the input. I know its more HP than the hull is designed for, but I'll be running on Puget Sound and Inland lakes in Washington 99% of the time. Am I missing something her or wouldn't the fact that I could run at 70% power be easier than 90% power on the engine and better MPG? I've looked at the internet for the Digital gauges and they seem to be running $300 each, I'm getting two with the engine, if I'm comparing apples to apples. My mechanic just sold a comparable year Yamaha 115 for $4000 in the same Seattle market, so I think $1800 seems like a good price to me, but what do I know. The only other engine I have ever bought above 10 Hp, is a 30 HP Yamaha and it went for $1150 with 703 controls. I've seen pictures of the 16 hulls with 115's on them on this site and others and the 130 weighs the same. Ok, Ok maybe I'm prejudiced to this motor cause it matches my kicker motor's year and color!! I really will be using this 10% of the time for fishing and 90% for bombing around/waterskiing and want to have plenty of poop to get around without having to run WOT to do it. Any thoughts on what prop to run? Thanks for all the help!
|
| |
|
|
| mikejana |
Posted on 01/22/09 - 3:36 PM
|
Member
Posts: 14
Comments:
0
Joined: 10/03/05
|
I have a 1961 Eastport 16'7. I put a new 115 Yamaha on it in 1989. The dealer tried to push the 130 on me, same engine, same price new from him and same weight. The only difference, I was told, was caburation. I had the same fears as you and wished I would have put the 130 on it. caveat- keep reading:
In the mid 90's I replaced the carbs on the 115 with those off of a same year 130. There was a difference but not a really significant one. In my opinion only, that setup was perfect in the days of cheap gas. My Yamaha still runs flawlessly after 20 years and the only work ever done on it other that normal maintenance is cables, prop and the carb swap. The motor only produces max hp at max throttle.
The boat is really versatile, pulls up a big slalom skier with a full load. Great range with 2x 12 gallon tanks and to my liking is exceedingly fast, When I did the Yamaha install, my boat was in really great shape and I had the utmost confidence in it's ability to hold the engine. I have used it in all kinds of conditions and seas.
At full throttle it can be a handful. I still have the boat and do not let my teenagers take it solo. I had a lot of boating experience when I did this engine upgrade and had 5+ years with the same boat powered by Johnson & Evinrude 85-115s.
I would recommend that setup for an experienced installer and operator.
I would not want anyone to operate it lacking a lot of boating experience, it requires an experienced hand.
Mike
Edited by mikejana on 01/22/09 - 3:39 PM |
| |
|
|
| Jeff |
Posted on 01/22/09 - 5:35 PM
|
Member
Posts: 1987
Comments:
34
Joined: 04/02/05
|
Wohh! Mike where have you been hiding? I was just wonder what ever happened with you 22? Shoot me an email when you can.
Sorry to go off topic.
|
| |
|
|
| Tom W Clark |
Posted on 01/22/09 - 5:53 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 4280
Comments:
7
Joined: 09/30/05
|
Michael,
You are correct, running that motor at 70 percent power will offer better fuel economy than running a smaller motor at 90 percent power.
However, it does not follow that running the Yamaha 130 at 40 percent power will offer better fuel economy that a smaller motor running at 60 percent power. It will not.
Regardless of what throttle setting you use, the motor still weighs 357 pounds which is at the upper end of what that hull can handle.
Now you mention a Yamaha kicker. If you put a kicker on that transom, you will have more weight than your boat can handle. You will end up with a wet boat and sloppy handling. I recommend against it.
|
| |
|
|
| Bob Kemmler JR |
Posted on 01/22/09 - 6:51 PM
|
Member
Project Albums
Posts: 269
Comments:
7
Joined: 10/10/05
|
I have seen and been on the older 16/17 hulls with 150-225 hp big V6 engines, weight was never a big issue regardless of what that plate says. You don't have to drive like a wildman 24/7 and that motor sure does seem to have it easy back there over the 60-90 hp powered 16/17 hulls I have been on. If the transoms bad a 50 hp willo be too much, so as long as it's solid, let her eat!!!
|
| |
|
|
| Montaukman |
Posted on 01/29/09 - 10:19 PM
|
Member
Posts: 9
Comments:
0
Joined: 01/11/09
|
Well, I went ahead and bought the motor, 135-140 compression, ran great. It included an external oil tank, two digital gauges and was in very good shape. I had my 20 year OB mechanic check it out for me, money well spent, he had a new ignition switch and more gauges and wires to hook it all up. I'll let you know how it all works out!
|
| |
|
|
| luckydog |
Posted on 01/30/09 - 5:07 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 82
Comments:
0
Joined: 03/01/06
|
Just curious, What kind of speed can you get out of a 130 at wot? Martman what was your top speed with that 150?
|
| |
|
|
| Josey Whaler |
Posted on 01/31/09 - 6:14 AM
|
Member
Posts: 77
Comments:
1
Joined: 05/28/08
|
I would guess mid 50's with a 130; upper 50's, perhaps 60 with a 150, unless it gets airborne
|
| |
|
|
| mikejana |
Posted on 02/05/09 - 3:37 PM
|
Member
Posts: 14
Comments:
0
Joined: 10/03/05
|
I haven't run it hard with a GPS.
The hydraulic speedo used to read mid 50s. I always tried to top 60 without success.
My wife got it over 60 once but it was empty, low fuel and 115 lbs of driver in perfect glassy conditions.
Mike
|
| |
|
