Re: Over Powered?
I resent the implication that I may be too dense to fully realize the situation.<br /><br />I am an engineer, I'm not a moron, and the numbers don't make sense, which is why I'm on this forum seeking information and advise. Why can a 16ft I/O have a 240HP engine, while an outboard is only rated at 125?<br /><br />ob, you brought up a VERY good point about the rpm operating range of the engine, a factor I had not taken into account. Thank you, it is the little points of information such as these that I joined this forum. Being an avid motocross rider, I am very familiar with the powerband of two-stroke engines. If outboard engines behave in a similiar fashion, it may prove very difficult to keep this motor under control.<br /><br />I have seen many occasions where somebody has squeezed a big-block Chevy with a supercharger into a small, low-profile boat hull. Quite obviously this would exceed the HP rating of the hull. Why would such an act be acceptable with an I/O, but not an outboard?<br /><br />As for legal issues, I have already verified that there are no laws in the state of Nevada against exceeding the HP rating of the hull.<br /><br />If I had stated (before this all started) that I wished to put a 115hp four-stroke on my boat, I don't think anybody would object. They would tell me to make sure my transom is not rotted, but they would not be pointing at the added stress caused by bouncing off 3ft. waves at full speed, even though four-stroke weighs 10lbs. more than the 200hp two-stroke. The same dangers of hull damage are present in both situation, but its only with the 200hp that I'm "dense"!<br /><br />To clear up the issue of my thick skull, it's not that I am not listening, I am merely presenting the counter-argument. When somebody points out that the structural strength of the hull is not designed to handle more than the rated HP engine, I point out that the HP rating has NOTHING to do with the strength of the hull, it has to do with high-speed handling characteristics. Then, it is pointed out that the boat is not designed to handle the speeds that a 200HP can produce. I agree, which is why I don't plan in pushing my boat to those speeds. Then ob pointed out the rpm range, and that it may be harder to control the speed than I realize. Good, valid point, I concede, that is a very solid argument against this engine.<br /><br />Likewise, I don't have a "need for speed" I am looking to make one of my small dreams come true, to have my own skiing boat.<br /><br />To sum up, let me present the arguments from my point of view.<br /><br />Question: Can I use the motor I have?<br /><br />Argue: Structural strength of the hull isn't designed for anything beyond the rated HP.<br /><br />Response: The rating isn't based on strength and weight.<br /><br />Argue: The boat isn't designed to go that fast, you will endanger yourself and others.<br /><br />Response: I agree, I don't plan on going that fast.<br /><br />Argue: You may find controlling the speed difficult due to the charateristics of the engine (rpm range).<br /><br />Response: I agree. Solid arguement. Any other reasons?<br /><br />Argue: Legal issues.<br /><br />Response: I checked the laws already, no legal issues.<br /><br />As far as comparing the handling charateristics of a boat to that of a car, that is not the argument I was making. The hp rating of a boat is based on the ability to execute a sharp turn at max speed without loss of control, which I said was absurd because cars can't do it, yet they don't have the same restrictions on HP ratings. I was reffering to driver control. If I can be trusted not to execute a sharp turn at high speed in a car, I should be able to exercise the same level of control in a boat.
)<br /><br />I readily admit that buying the 200hp engine was a bad idea. Right now, I'm looking at whether I can use it until I get another engine, (as long as I'm very careful) or do I need to sell it right away and take a loss.
