I/O versus Inboard

dogfish1

Cadet
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
23
Re: I/O versus Inboard

I was actually referring to boattest.com, and was not pointing at you. One of my biggest pet peeves is guys that claim good fuel economy from straight inboards. Done in this thread by multiple guys. It's simply not true. That does not mean I am anti-inboard. I am anti-inboard for speed maybe. But primarily I just want data, not conjecture stated as fact. Drives me nuts. Another example, where there is "data" is the claim of better shallow water attributes for an inboard. How? Maybe less draft at full speed, but I can bounce off stuff with an I/O at low speed with the drive up and not hurt anything. Try that with an inboard.

In the interest of full disclosure, there was another similar thread recently. A guy claimed that a tournament boat (IB) may deliver better fuel economy at the lowest planing speeds where he would be pulling a waker or tuber. That in fact might be true, so there are exceptions. But overall? No way. Not even flippin' close.

I think you answer some of your own questions though in the first post as there is kind of a horsepower limit. Almost all 25 - 35 ft planing hulls are twin I/O though. Start to run out of support by customers and builders above 40 ft. But there are exceptions for sure. Also, there seems to be less advantage with trim when you go this big. You could argue the fastest and largest ocean racers are almost all I/O.

Odd, but you go oven bigger and jets make a showing. I am not clear on when they crossover for efficiency and benefits, but there are many examples in the largest super yachts. Another interesting point is the largest ship in the world is indeed a single screw inboard. Uses the largest engine in the world which dispels some other myths as it is a two stroke and is the most efficient diesel engine I believe as well.

Sorry, I didn't mean to double post. I am actually on a ship right now and the internet is spotty so I got confused and sent out two replies.
 

dogfish1

Cadet
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
23
Re: I/O versus Inboard

"I am not a hater, and I will offer that I consider I/Os an engineering abortion, but they have seriously improved. I personally hate the idea of two 90 degree changes in power direction, but the facts are what they are: The damned things work."

I think you will see this discussion swing more in favor of I/O's over time. The design keeps getting better with more reliability. I wish they would get away from using the outdrive for water pick up, especially on the non alpha drive units where the outdrive doesn't have a water pump. One less hose going through the achielles heal would be nice. The fuel savings are real and over time as gas prices continue to rise this will become more of a factor for boaters, especially on larger boats, small ski boats not so much. Finally the increased cruise speeds that boaters want will also favor I/O's.
I would like to know from a design engineer why they chose to go with the new IPS system that can handle the high horsepower/high torque of a large diesel as opposed to a beefier out drive? Anybody remember the old TRS outdrives?
 

lakegeorge

Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Mar 19, 2002
Messages
660
Re: I/O versus Inboard

I/Os lose about 20 - 30 bhp flywheel to propshaft. IBs about 10. The difference is a double hit with most smaller IBs. The hull is designed to flatten, or maximize, a wake, and the prop pushes down some which pushes the bow down some. Basically you use horsepower to make your boat heavier. Very bad for fuel efficiency and speed (kind of the same thing). Go to boattest.com, and you can find probably 100 examples to pore over. It's like 2.5 mpg vs. 4 worst case; 3 - 3.5 best case. I/B to similar sized I/O. They are different boats, for different purposes, but the data is very clear. Very few production IBs exceed 45 MPH. almost all I/Os do. Many faster than 60 MPH with the same horsepower as a similarly sized IB with the same hp. I am not a hater, and I will offer that I consider I/Os an engineering abortion, but they have seriously improved. I personally hate the idea of two 90 degree changes in power direction, but the facts are what they are: The damned things work.


It's funny that you talk about speed because most drag boats and Hydroplanes that I see run Inboards, just sayin.
 

QC

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
22,783
Re: I/O versus Inboard

You have to compare equal horsepower for it to be valid. IB guys always mention drag boats and flat bottoms or hydros. Not really apples to apples ;)
 
Last edited:

dogfish1

Cadet
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
23
Re: I/O versus Inboard

It's funny that you talk about speed because most drag boats and Hydroplanes that I see run Inboards, just sayin.

Wow that's a practical comparison. How many of us drive top fuel dragsters to work, you know those cars with 6,000 hp that do a quarter mile in under 5 seconds and need a rebuild after a run or two. Let's try and keep this relavent for recreational boaters.
BTW offshore racers; yeah they use outdrives some surface piercing some not.
 

haulnazz15

Captain
Joined
Mar 9, 2009
Messages
3,720
Re: I/O versus Inboard

It's funny that you talk about speed because most drag boats and Hydroplanes that I see run Inboards, just sayin.

They are designed that way because they are single-purpose built. The only need to get the power to the water, no provision for cruising, watersports, water conditions, etc. Go look at the Offshore poweboats, almost all of them use an I/O design of one sort or another.
 

lakegeorge

Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Mar 19, 2002
Messages
660
Re: I/O versus Inboard

Wow that's a practical comparison. How many of us drive top fuel dragsters to work, you know those cars with 6,000 hp that do a quarter mile in under 5 seconds and need a rebuild after a run or two. Let's try and keep this relavent for recreational boaters.
BTW offshore racers; yeah they use outdrives some surface piercing some not.

I'm sorry, I didn't see where it said, ( in the original post ) that it was for practical boats. I thought it just said I/o vs Ib my reading skills need to be upgraded.
 

jbach

Seaman Apprentice
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
32
Re: I/O versus Inboard

I think you will see this discussion swing more in favor of I/O's over time. The design keeps getting better with more reliability.
maybe, maybe not. as long as people need a serous tow boat for watersports, there will be a place for inboards. there are no I/O's that can compete. for cruising, boozing and tubing, any old I/O runabout works the same, and the initial cost is comparably cheap to boot.
 

dogfish1

Cadet
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
23
Re: I/O versus Inboard

maybe, maybe not. as long as people need a serous tow boat for watersports, there will be a place for inboards. there are no I/O's that can compete. for cruising, boozing and tubing, any old I/O runabout works the same, and the initial cost is comparably cheap to boot.

I agree fully that IB's will always have a place, ski boats and displacement type hulls, i.e trawlers will most likely always be IB.
 

25thmustang

Lieutenant Commander
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
1,849
Re: I/O versus Inboard

I'm assuming we are calling pod or IPS type drives I/Os? Because I'd be hard pressed to believe the place for straight inboards is only in wake board boats and displacement hulls? The advent of new technology is welcoming, but I'm not convinced these drives will completely replace straight inboards on the larger boats.
 

dingbat

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Nov 20, 2001
Messages
16,325
Re: I/O versus Inboard

I've seen a few of the vids. This is an event I will attend in the future. I have a love for those nor'easters. Never been on one, but I have a plan to convert one of those lobster boats into something S.FL style.
Calling a "Chesapeake Dead Rise" a Nor'ester or a lobster boat wouldn't make you very popular around here.
;)
The "Deadrise" is the traditional workboat of the Chesapeake whose design is specific to the region.
 

Mischief Managed

Lieutenant Commander
Joined
Dec 6, 2005
Messages
1,928
Re: I/O versus Inboard

I'm assuming we are calling pod or IPS type drives I/Os? Because I'd be hard pressed to believe the place for straight inboards is only in wake board boats and displacement hulls? The advent of new technology is welcoming, but I'm not convinced these drives will completely replace straight inboards on the larger boats.

I think of them as pod drives, not I/Os, only because they cannot be trimmed.
 

smclear

Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
626
Re: I/O versus Inboard

How much does the hull design affect both efficiency and top end? Flat bottom, Deep Vee, Stepped hull etc. I would think that plays a very significant roll in both the metrics being discussed. And, unless you can compare Inboard vs I/O in the EXACT same hull, is there any real way to accurately compare? Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that's a valid question.
 

sasto

Captain
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
3,918
Re: I/O versus Inboard

won't go into gear, won't come out of gear.
tilt won't go up. tilt won't go down.
took three days to change a raw water impeller.
are my u-joints bad?
do I have an alignment problem?
is there water in my tranny oil?
how often should i change bellows?

i'd like to hear from folks that have moved from an I/O to inboard and would willingly go back? i know i certainly wouldn't
I'm with you on this!
Calling a "Chesapeake Dead Rise" a Nor'ester or a lobster boat wouldn't make you very popular around here.
;)
The "Deadrise" is the traditional workboat of the Chesapeake whose design is specific to the region.
Interesting, dingbat. I can see how I would get ran out of town.
I can say this about my inboard.......she sucks down the fuel. I wouldn't want to trade her for an I/O.
 

dogfish1

Cadet
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
23
Re: I/O versus Inboard

Most of the problems you imply only happen with I/O 's can happen with I/B's.
I had a tranny fill with water/bad cooler
I have had trouble with gear shift on all style of engines, usually it is just a cable kink
Allignment problems can be worse on an I/B, you have a very long shaft running under the boat hit something and it can bend, get a rope around it and it can torque.
Raw water pump really depends on the boat and the person doing the work, the newer drives have a raw water pump on the engine same as an inboard.
Instead of a bellows you have shaft seals that need maintenance. Most bellows do not suffer catastrophic failure without warning signs.

I think this thread is dead. People have their opinions on the subject, some are very hardenend.
In closing I would say despite what anyone of us may think the boating public has spoken and expressed those thoughts to boat manufacturers. The overwhelming request is for more boats with outdrives. Don't believe that? Look at the numbers, more boats are sold every year with outdrives than inboards and the trend is growing both in the number of boats sold with I/O as well as in the range of boats. IPS is moving into offshore fishing boats, an area that was almost exclusively I/B. The newer axius system will come down in cost as technology almost always does over time and gives underwhelming boat handlers overwhelming ability to maneuver their boats. Fuel costs will almost certainly rise as we get closer to peak oil again this favors I/O.
I personally have nothing against I/B boats and appreciate their simplicity. They will always have a place in the market, most likely just a smaller place. I am sure many people liked paddlewheelers as well.
 
Top