Home Forums Fishing Saltwater When are 2 outboards better than one?

I got into an arguement with some of the folks at the rod and gun today about when it's better to have two outboards. Guy was talking about a 26' regulator with a 250. I've seen them with twin 200's. I've got a 21' sailfish with a 150. The 23 has a wider transom because they offer the twins as an option. I'd imagine anything bigger, especially going out to sea would be better off with two outboards. When do you make the decision to go with two?

When you grow up. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Just kidding.

I've never owned a twin engine boat, but my next one will have twins.

I've gone over 250 miles (one way) with a single engine boat, but not straight out into the ocean. There's a lot to be said for a good single engine boat. It's easier to maintain, cheaper, lighter, fewer things to break, etc. However, both my single engine boats have had 9.9hp kickers too. Besides providing a slow ride home, a kicker can try and keep your bow into the seas if things get really bad with no main engine.

I guess the obvious answer for when to get twin outboards is when you need more than 300hp. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I got spoiled last summer, driving twin engine boats at work. These were not outboards, but inboard diesels. Now that I've experienced the convience of twins while manuevering in tight quarters, I don't want to go back to a single engine boat. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Of course that doesn't apply to a small skiff, say 20-22ft. A single is still going to be the best bet in that case.

Since bad fuel is often a cause of engine problems, you really need to maintain the fuel system in order to enjoy the benefit of redundancy offered by twins.

Twin outboards mounted close together won't offer much help in the way of manuevering as compared to a single engine, or so I've been told. But, that's the way they have to be mounted on most 'vee' hull boats.

Just my thoughts, probably didn't answer your question.

The short answer is when you can write the check. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Ask the Single guys if they have ever had an engine failure 25 miles off shore. IMO two is almost always better on anything over 25'. I can't imagine that once you have counter rotating twins you would ever think that they don't offer more manuverability. I can think of a few examples I would rather have a single but mostly on smaller applications with HP and weight restrictions. Many 200's and 225's run at a higher rpm so a single 250 might be preferable for a lot of guys. Fuel capacity and expense are likely contributing factors. If fuel capacity and cost are out of the equation I would certainly take twin 150's over a single 250.

the marina where I keep my boat is the countries largest dealer of Reglators , they regularly rig the 23 single for guys that never more than 10 miles for land or stay inside the bay and fish for stripers. I have never laid eyes on a 26 with a single . Even a 250 the thing would be a pig in the water. They rig nearly everyone that leaves with twin 200 yammy's mostly 4 strokes these days. If you plan on being out in the deep blue 20+ miles off shore you would be better served with twins. Last thing you want is a big wave crashing over the stern because you couln't power your way over the one in front of you. I fish a 26 and could not imagine it with just one motor.

You will also see Proline running one motor, for me i want 2, but for some guys 1 is all thats needed, heck saturday we were out 100 nautical miles and saw a parker running 1 single yamaha 4 stroke.

If the twins are sized so that a single engine can still get the hull up on step when fully loaded, then they have an advantage should one engine go south. You also have to look at having a truly redundant installation which is to say sepperate fuel systems for each engine and seperate isolated battery/electrical systems for each engine. You'd also be well advised to fuel up each tank in different locations, as fuel contamination is the #1 fouler of boat engines.

Many twin installations don't have engines that can plane the hull should one quit, so you just have something that makes alot of noise and sucks alot of fuel, and doesn't get you in any faster than if you ran a kicker as your emergency means of return. I'd say the power of a single of the twin needs to be about 70% that of the single mill, provided the single isn't already too small so that one of your twins has enough power to bring you in at planing speeds.

On the boat I'm building I gave serious consideration to twins, and decided on a large main and kicker for backup. Here is my reasoning for going for the single. Lower initial cost, lower opperating costs (both fuel consumption and maintenance/repairs), reliability of modern o/b's, smaller splashwell so more fishing space, and simpler installation. I also figured if there were any cases where I fealt that I'd only be comfortable on the water if I had twin power, then my 23' boat was too small to go that far out or under whatever conditions I'd need to hall but to port even should 1 engine go out.

With the cost of doing a twin installation right, I'd rather have a slightly bigger boat with a good single and a kicker. I can only see twins in instances where time is more important than money, ie commercial ventures, or rescue work, where you really shouldn't be out in the conditions anyway, and need every break you can get.

FYI my 26 will do 23 knts with 1 of 2 200 yammys not working!

Not saying you Alaska guys are wrong, but Rhode Island where this guy is from is a far cry from where you guys operate. Its a lot more populated Tow boat US is a phone call away and most Helo's are withing 30 minutes. Correct me if I'm wrong but your circumstances may differ slightly.

Rob , what is this guy looking to do with the boat ? Is he gonna fish for stripers or is he gonna run to Georges Bank ,Cape cod and Nantucket?

That's the way it should work! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I'm also a fan of making sure that one engine will get the boat on plane by itself. Otherwise it's just a big kicker.

The 26 regulator will handle 500 hp and 176 gallons of fuel. For me thats an easy choice to make. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

All I'm saying is, if you're going for a twin installation so that you can bring yourself back under power should one fail, make sure the twin installation is done right with regards to redundancy and eliminating as many single points of failure as possible. Just because you have two mills on the transom doesn't mean you necessarily have more reliable power.

Yes, Alaskans have to be more reliant, and that is a good thing. Going out on the salt thinking someone will bail you out should you pull a bonehead move is a bad thing.

P,

You forgot to add that one in the water is less likely to hit things than are two. Less to snag on or hit drift with when you come down the river. Not much in the way of sand bars 'til Holy Cross though. Are you still considering a trip on the big river BTW?

I like your comments on fuel by the way. I grew up driving Farmall tractors on the farm. One thing about that that sticks in my head was the fact that the fule tank covers were stamped with the words, "Buy Clean Fuel - Keep it Clean.) I never saw it as much of a problem there - I guess we were pretty careful. Those words would be very appropriate if they were emblazoned as a reminder around boat fuel systems though. I'd say at least 95% of my problems, when I have them, are fuel related this in spite of a reasonable effort to avoid fuel issues. (Did you know mosquitoes will go into the darkness of the tank fill hole if you leave it open for a few minutes? Of course they die and can plug up fuel lines very quickly! )

Mark,

I'd still like to do the Yukon trip, but it'll be a few years out, thanks for reminding me as I'd put it out of my mind, my whole project has been delayed as of late. I'd just like to get the boat finished, and burn a bunch of fuel in Prince William Sound for the first few years.

If money were no object, then I'd say a proper twin installation would be the way to go, especially on larger boats, say 28' and above, but I'd want diesel inboards. I deal a fair bit with maintenance and reliablility issues, and know the benefits and pitfuls of redundant installations. Done right there are some benefits, done wrong there are simply increased costs and headaches. I did my own cost/benefit analysis and for my application, a good single came out on top of twins.

Simply put, twins are not twice as reliable as a single, and the benefits over a single with a kicker that has little time on it are even less.

trouble with that line of thought is in order to get both motors isloated on their own fuel sytems you would have to build a custom boat . I don't know of any production boats powered with twins that have seperate fuel tanks for each motor. And that Includes the Yards of Rybovich , Merit and the like and they are custom builders. Bertram , Viking , Cabo , Regularor , Intrepid , Seavea all have 1 tank and fuel supply split to feed each motor individually. Others may be out there that do this but I have never heard of or layed eyes on any and I've run a lot of diffent boats from 17' to 125'.

BW that FYI was for Rob it was not directed at you . Sorry for any confusion.

No problem, it's been a good discussion. I simply wanted to point out that twins don't necessarily mean more reliability, and can be less reliable. I can't imagine having twin tanks on a custom boat would be that much of a problem, there are many tank solutions out there. I could live with a single tank if the fuel pickup, filter/seperator et all to each engine was independant.

The only time having twins is an advantage is if either one by its self can get you up on step. Otherwise all you have is one very expensive kicker.
Wildone, Sea Sports have a tank on each side. If you wanted to equip a Sea Sport with twin outboards you could plumb each one into a different tank.

Snowwolfe,

I'd agree, except in circumstances were you need more than 300hp from a single outboard.

I'm no expert, just going from memory, but only Yamaha offers a 300hp HPDI and Mercury offers a 300hp Verado.

The Yamies have some issues at the level, and the Mercs still need some time to be proven.

Could be wrong!

When I sell my fishing boat, I'm looking to have a 36-40ish foot aluminum drop bow built. I like diesels, but would prefer outboards for ease of maintenance, and the ability to raise them up for shallow water use.



If you need more than 300 ponies, and want outboards, you gotta go twins.

Or trips. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Okay, I'm not a saltwater guy so I might be out to lunch here, but why would you want two different fuel tanks? Aren't most of the fuel issues going to come from where you buy the gas from? And wouldn't you fill both tanks from the same place? I'm just thinking that if there is a problem with the gas in one tank it's likely going to be in the other as well.

SS

Sam, Although rare, you could get a kinked/plugged vent line.

My main point is that for duals to be more reliable, they need to as close to totally independant from eachother as possible. And as I noted, ideally fueled up at different locations, but that isn't really practical.