ClassicMako Owners Club, Inc.
ClassicMako Owners Club, Inc.
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 ClassicMako.com Forums
 Mako Discussion
 140s on 261
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author  Topic Next Topic  

ssrjt
New Member

10 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2018 :  03:51:00  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
does anyone have twin 140 Suzuki on a 261 if so can you give me some fuel mileage and what props you have.

flounder
Member

USA
386 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2018 :  08:26:04  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Here is some data on a pair of DF140s on my 78 model 25'. The wheels are SS 3 blade, 14" X 20".



We get 1.8 to 2.0 NM per gallon per trip. I do not have flow scan so can't give you that data. Our per trip burn represents 4 hrs running and 6 hours fishing. Less run time with more fish time will increase the MPG figure.

The old 25 hull runs deeper in the water than the 254 and 251. I believe the 261 runs higher also, so your performance should be better. My engines are 2003s. I understand the newer Suzukis are more fuel efficient.

I'm curious about your engine choice. I would think the 261 is able to handle heavier and more powerful engines. What has sparked your interest in 140's as opposed to larger engines?



Ole Joe
Just floundering around

White Hall & Ocean City, Maryland
1978 25' Mako


Edited by - flounder on 07/12/2018 22:12:07
Go to Top of Page

Sailor
Moderator

USA
10547 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2018 :  08:59:13  Show Profile  Visit Sailor's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by ssrjt

does anyone have twin 140 Suzuki on a 261 if so can you give me some fuel mileage and what props you have.



I"m quite certain it would be a VERY slow boat with 140's. Not sure I've seen one with anything less then twin 175's. The 261 is a very heavy boat and VERY different from the 25.

1978 Mako 25 - Blind Hog
1985 Mako 20c - sold
Mary Esther, FL
http://www.classicmako.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=42841

Go to Top of Page

DirtyOar
Member

177 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2018 :  10:33:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
the 241 is 2 ft shorter and 2-300 pounds less so very comparable, there is a charter guy in NC, lucky13 sportfishing, who runs his with twin 140 zukes and seems to like them. You could ask him about specifics if you want he's a great guy and answered my random messages

John
1989 Mako 210 (Sold and Missed)
Go to Top of Page

ssrjt
New Member

10 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2018 :  17:55:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I bought the boat with these motors on it.
Go to Top of Page

DirtyOar
Member

177 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2018 :  18:01:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Well best way to answer your questions is to get some useage data and some of the guys here will be able to help calculate what prop you need. Ken over at prop gods can also do that

John
1989 Mako 210 (Sold and Missed)
Go to Top of Page

ddd222
Member

1158 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2018 :  23:39:50  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
the 261 is a big, heavy boat, the twin 140's, same block as the 115's, would work if propped right? But not ideal, those motors are gonna work pretty hard to get that boat up on plane and cruising
Go to Top of Page

ssrjt
New Member

10 Posts

Posted - 07/13/2018 :  04:26:38  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I have to run it about 5200 to make 24 or 25 knts. Thats loaded pretty good 4 people and 100 gallons of gas or more ice and gear.i checked the mileage one day just by filling up running and filling up again and got like 1.3 mpg that's with the motors idling most of the day and running out 35 miles and back in.i would really like to see 2 mpg and I would be happy with it.i am ok running that speed if I could get a little better mpg.
Go to Top of Page

bighamlin
Member

USA
175 Posts

Posted - 07/13/2018 :  06:57:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
It sounds like your motors are having to work very hard. I used to have twin 150's on a heavily loaded 241, now have 200's. the 150's were barely adequate and now with the 200's its great. When the boat is not too heavy, have everyone go up front to start, I can get up and maintain a 19 KT plane on one 200 motor.



Mako 241
Winter Garden, FL
Go to Top of Page

flounder
Member

USA
386 Posts

Posted - 07/13/2018 :  07:07:47  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Did a rough calc on our wieght: hull 2,800#; fuel 750#; motors 840#; T-top & elec 350#; and gear 200#; say 5,000#. Your hull is 800# heavier and you carry 380# more fuel, say 6,200# assuming the other features are similar.

Add Capt, crew, rods, and ice.

We are spinning 14X20 3 blade props.

I notice a big difference in balance and performance when I carry half my fuel capacity. Don't have comparative data with light loading to share. Maybe run some short trips with lighter fuel loads and see what effect that has on your MPG.

In the end though, I should think more power would give you what you want to achieve.





Ole Joe
Just floundering around

White Hall & Ocean City, Maryland
1978 25' Mako

Go to Top of Page

Sailor
Moderator

USA
10547 Posts

Posted - 07/13/2018 :  09:29:47  Show Profile  Visit Sailor's Homepage  Reply with Quote
The 261 is a completly different hull and I don't think you can make an apple to apple comparison. Check out member Dodge - he has a 261 with twin 200 Suzuiki's and loves it.

quote:
Originally posted by flounder

Did a rough calc on our wieght: hull 2,800#; fuel 750#; motors 840#; T-top & elec 350#; and gear 200#; say 5,000#. Your hull is 800# heavier and you carry 380# more fuel, say 6,200# assuming the other features are similar.

Add Capt, crew, rods, and ice.

We are spinning 14X20 3 blade props.

I notice a big difference in balance and performance when I carry half my fuel capacity. Don't have comparative data with light loading to share. Maybe run some short trips with lighter fuel loads and see what effect that has on your MPG.

In the end though, I should think more power would give you what you want to achieve.







1978 Mako 25 - Blind Hog
1985 Mako 20c - sold
Mary Esther, FL
http://www.classicmako.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=42841

Go to Top of Page

ddd222
Member

1158 Posts

Posted - 07/13/2018 :  16:20:39  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
that 1.3 mpg is disappointing,i would have thought more with 4 strokes. I was getting 1.6-2.2 with my 150 ox66 pair on my 241.You could try propping better but would try to get to 175-200 hp if possible
Go to Top of Page

Stroken
Mississippi Mayhem

USA
7820 Posts

Posted - 07/14/2018 :  03:46:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Those motors are so underpowered they are loaded down the entire run, Expecting a 4 stroke in any situation to get good fuel mileage is like hoping your F350 dually with a Explorer engine will get good fuel mileage, just wont Happen.

FYI The 225 OX66 on my 261 got 1.4-1.6 depending on seas at 40mph

Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him had better take a closer look at the American Indian. -Henry Ford

1988 Mako 261 "Stroken" Project Thread: http://classicmako.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=26203

1992 Mako221B project thread: http://classicmako.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=48747

1992 Mako 261B "Reel Impressive" project thread: http://www.classicmako.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=56286

Go to Top of Page

ssrjt
New Member

10 Posts

Posted - 07/16/2018 :  23:10:17  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I know the boat is underpowered I bought it very cheap and if I decide for sure that I will keep it I plan to repower. I am wondering if I put some 4 blade props on it will allow me to throttle back to say 4500 rpms instead of 5000 or 5200 that I am turning now and gain some mpg.it has 17 pitch 3 blade power tech props now I believe. Also I have seen some people put 175s on these boats and some with 200s, what gets better fuel mileage?
Go to Top of Page

Sailor
Moderator

USA
10547 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2018 :  08:43:48  Show Profile  Visit Sailor's Homepage  Reply with Quote
A larger engine will not need to work as hard at the same speed as a smaller engine, so you are more efficient with a larger engine.

I would sell the 140's, which have a good market, and look for bigger motors. Changing to a four blade would probably make things worse and work the motors even harder IMO.

quote:
Originally posted by ssrjt

I know the boat is underpowered I bought it very cheap and if I decide for sure that I will keep it I plan to repower. I am wondering if I put some 4 blade props on it will allow me to throttle back to say 4500 rpms instead of 5000 or 5200 that I am turning now and gain some mpg.it has 17 pitch 3 blade power tech props now I believe. Also I have seen some people put 175s on these boats and some with 200s, what gets better fuel mileage?


1978 Mako 25 - Blind Hog
1985 Mako 20c - sold
Mary Esther, FL
http://www.classicmako.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=42841

Go to Top of Page
   Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ClassicMako Owners Club, Inc. © Louisiana Web Host, LLC. Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.72 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.07