2003 XB w/ Yamaha 150
- Thread starter fastguy
- Start date
fastguy
Active Member
I believe the set back is 9 inches, I have the motor mounted in the third hole but that means nothing as the height is adjusted up.
I will try to pull the boat out tomorrow for the 10 hour service and take some measurements to get an accurate baseline. I still think the motor is setting to low just from seeing it on the lift.
George
I will try to pull the boat out tomorrow for the 10 hour service and take some measurements to get an accurate baseline. I still think the motor is setting to low just from seeing it on the lift.
George
fastguy
Active Member
Badbait, I have reread all of the posts and noticed you said that the 2003 doesn't like a lot of set-back with a heavy motor. Are you running something similar in weight?
I could move it in closer to the transom but the hydraulic lines to the steering would need to be moved.
Someone asked about the E-tec, I bought the Yamaha for less money than I was quoted for an E-tec, a lot less.
George
I could move it in closer to the transom but the hydraulic lines to the steering would need to be moved.
Someone asked about the E-tec, I bought the Yamaha for less money than I was quoted for an E-tec, a lot less.
George
badbait
Well-Known Member
George, yes I running a 3 liter Merc. 250XS. I spent all last winter testing and changing until I finally got it right. I started with 12" of setback and it was like the tale waging the dog. It just didn't like that 3 liter with that much setback, so I started coming in. everytime I came in a inch or two I could see a noticable difference for the better. After five changes 3 of them done by redrilling and cutting setback brackets and 2 new plates I am very satisfied with the setup. I'm also running Hydraulic Steering. I am currently running without a skid plate or foil and I could still use one of those. I personally don't like the Allison Foils so I'm going to build a skid plate similar to the one that Darris uses on the 21 but I want to hang it from the manual plate that I'm running.
fastguy
Active Member
Bad, I really liked the Allison plate on the Pro Max, it held the rear end up and I didn't have to trim in as far for the hole shot. Downside on the plate,you will stuff it in a wave every now and then, lost 4 Loomis rods that way. Explain that to the wife...............
You should post some pictures of your set-up as I'm sure there are a lot of guys interested.
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll give it a try.
George
You should post some pictures of your set-up as I'm sure there are a lot of guys interested.
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll give it a try.
George
badbait
Well-Known Member
George, I've seen some pictures on the board of my setup but I don't seem to be able to find them now. Sorry, I've not taken the time to learn to post pictures myself. Maybe one of the California guys can put these up. I'm running a 3" manual plate with a 6 degree wedge that allows the motor to tuck in a little further. So the total setback is 3.5". It comes out of the hole just fine with through hub Trophy props since they don't spool up as fast as over the hub props. If I didn't run anything but these props I probably could get by without any type of plate. In my quest to get the maximum mph out of this setup I ended up with a 32 Hoss and a plate is needed for any over the hub props because of the extra torque these 3 liter motors have right off the bottom end. If your motor is close to the weight of mine you will have some of these issues to deal with. I can guarantee you that much. The good news is that with the right setup your boat will work great. If you think I can be of help my home number in the evening is 530 345-2891. The other person that might help you is Froggy. He and I together got my setup figured out.
fastguy
Active Member
Thanks for the response, I raised the engine .5" this morning after I changed the oil. A quart of oil goes a long way on the driveway, and you will soon find out if you are using the right towel to clean it up.
Haven't ran it yet, by the way the set-back is 13" so I know that is going to have to be changed. I will also have to change the hydraulic hoses for the steering.
George
Haven't ran it yet, by the way the set-back is 13" so I know that is going to have to be changed. I will also have to change the hydraulic hoses for the steering.
George
fastguy
Active Member
An oil change is $33.60 including filter, good for 100 hours.jimmyb said:what is an oil change????fastguy said:
i also agree with the less setback is good... i am running 5.5" on my xb2003 with a 250xs
8 gph average, 60/1 ratio: 800/60=13.33 gallonsX ____= kaching :shock:
Unless you are buying the oil for <$2.52 per gallon you are on the wrong side of this argument.
Thanks for the advice on the set-back. I'm going to have to figure something out on the steering though.
5600 rpm 65mph full fuel, 2 guys, tackle, dry, 90 and humid.
The half inch raise really settled it down, I know 65 ain't no biggy but it was ugly, one great thing about a Mercury is the racheting lower unit, when you pull back on this thing it stops. Insert your anchor joke here, and yes I know it doesn't take as long to stop from 60 as 90. :wink: :wink:
Fastguy it sounds like you're getting what you expected so thats good. You knew this motor wouldn't blow the doors off of anything but, to be truthful you're 20' boat will run with, if not outrun the majority of 18' boats rigged with 2 and/or 4 stroke 150's. I know it would've given my 18' blazer a run for its money.
catfish123
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2005
- Messages
- 1,938
- Points
- 38
Jimmyb............
For Jimmyb...................Would you please post all your set-up information? Props used, rpm's, speeds, anything you can think of.........And in your opinion, does the boat handle as well as it does with a 225 Promax? Thanks, Bob
For Jimmyb...................Would you please post all your set-up information? Props used, rpm's, speeds, anything you can think of.........And in your opinion, does the boat handle as well as it does with a 225 Promax? Thanks, Bob
to clarify (for those that havent read the article) the 250XS had the best acceleration (0-30 and 30-50), the best top speed (beat the nearest non-merc 4 strokes by 4.5 mph), and the BEST average fuel economy. Yes, it was the loudest, but guys dont buy a 250XS because they are quietdspencer said:
catfish:
so i dont hijack this thread any further, i will start a new thread about the setup
froggy
Active Member
FastGuy,
What is the weight of your engine? The answer to this question will help answer best setback distance.
For example, badbait's engine and Jimmy B's engine weigh 530#. Badbait runs past 100 mph w/3.5" of setback.
froggy
What is the weight of your engine? The answer to this question will help answer best setback distance.
For example, badbait's engine and Jimmy B's engine weigh 530#. Badbait runs past 100 mph w/3.5" of setback.
froggy
fastguy
Active Member
The advertised weight is 466 pounds dry, no oil,no prop.
Jimmyb stay right in there, you have a great engine, one of the best of its type. You don't have to back away from any debate, this is an apples to oranges comparison if there has ever been one.
In my opinion a BWB article/test is truly worthless, if you have the best set-up guy for each brand it would be different but they don't. By the way I bought my Allison with the 225 ProMax SS because of the article in BWB, find me another 2003 that runs 101.3 with a stock 225 and a 28" prop. I also remember the test for the reeds and other mods for the Yamaha that had the boat running faster at a lower rpm. Ozark water seems to get faster later in the day.
George
Jimmyb stay right in there, you have a great engine, one of the best of its type. You don't have to back away from any debate, this is an apples to oranges comparison if there has ever been one.
In my opinion a BWB article/test is truly worthless, if you have the best set-up guy for each brand it would be different but they don't. By the way I bought my Allison with the 225 ProMax SS because of the article in BWB, find me another 2003 that runs 101.3 with a stock 225 and a 28" prop. I also remember the test for the reeds and other mods for the Yamaha that had the boat running faster at a lower rpm. Ozark water seems to get faster later in the day.
George
fastguy
Active Member
Okayyyyyyyyyy. I read the article on line, so just a few casual observations:
1: Ranger boats must vary in weight, they added 100 pounds to the Yamaha, 17 to the 250XS, you would think Ranger quality would be better.
IT IS.
2: Mercury spent $100,000,000 to develop and build an engine that has less power, burns more fuel and weighs more than thier 2 stroke.
3:There is a 12.5% difference in the fuel economy of the Yamaha vs the Verado. The percentage is greater comparing the 250XS.
4: Jimmyb, badbait and froggy made great decisions.
I think they should weigh the boats right after the tests.
That Verado would lighten that Ranger up real fast.
George
1: Ranger boats must vary in weight, they added 100 pounds to the Yamaha, 17 to the 250XS, you would think Ranger quality would be better.
IT IS.
2: Mercury spent $100,000,000 to develop and build an engine that has less power, burns more fuel and weighs more than thier 2 stroke.
3:There is a 12.5% difference in the fuel economy of the Yamaha vs the Verado. The percentage is greater comparing the 250XS.
4: Jimmyb, badbait and froggy made great decisions.
I think they should weigh the boats right after the tests.
That Verado would lighten that Ranger up real fast.
George
ranger build quality = chopper gun = inconsistent weight. what is even more of an eye opener is when you weight boats from stern to bow to find the balance point. Some mainstream boats are pretty bow heavy. This explains why one guy might have a "fast" ranger, while another guy might have a slower one of the same hull with the same motor and setup. Of course, the motor always gets the blame
mercury's investment into the verado goes beyond just performance. It deals with the COMPLETE motor package... from steering, to shifting, to throttle, to gauges and beyond. The fact that the verado performed as well as it did with 2.6 liters and the most weight (but the BEST NVH) is a sort of testament to the engineering that went into. I dont think anyone can acuse the verado of lacking power for a 250 it thoroughly beat the other 4-strokers... except maybe those etec "info" mercials... of course those same etec boys wouldnt bring their product to the shoot out
mercury's investment into the verado goes beyond just performance. It deals with the COMPLETE motor package... from steering, to shifting, to throttle, to gauges and beyond. The fact that the verado performed as well as it did with 2.6 liters and the most weight (but the BEST NVH) is a sort of testament to the engineering that went into. I dont think anyone can acuse the verado of lacking power for a 250 it thoroughly beat the other 4-strokers... except maybe those etec "info" mercials... of course those same etec boys wouldnt bring their product to the shoot out
GPI Racing
Active Member
Hey Jimmy,
What's up with the Verado's fuel appetite? The thing seems excessive when you run the numbers. Being a 4 stroke I wouldn't expect it to need fuel for anything except to be burned.
Any feedback.....
Randy
What's up with the Verado's fuel appetite? The thing seems excessive when you run the numbers. Being a 4 stroke I wouldn't expect it to need fuel for anything except to be burned.
Any feedback.....
Randy
fastguy
Active Member
Jimmy, that has got to be the first time the term "fast Ranger" has been used on this board.
I think BWB tries to be fair, but I don't think they are unbiased. I read the article on line, the Verado was whisper quiet, the 250XS had a throaty growl, the Yamaha sounded like a diesel? I would think that a magazine like BWB could get 4 identical bass-boat type hulls to test, then you could really see the pros and cons of each engine, they may as well test a barge next.
The Etec is quite a marketing exercise, no cams, no valves, more weight, more money. NASA developed something for the space program that is used.
The company went tits-up before, don't bet it can't happen again.
George
I think BWB tries to be fair, but I don't think they are unbiased. I read the article on line, the Verado was whisper quiet, the 250XS had a throaty growl, the Yamaha sounded like a diesel? I would think that a magazine like BWB could get 4 identical bass-boat type hulls to test, then you could really see the pros and cons of each engine, they may as well test a barge next.
The Etec is quite a marketing exercise, no cams, no valves, more weight, more money. NASA developed something for the space program that is used.
The company went tits-up before, don't bet it can't happen again.
George
gpi: pressure charged motors burn more fuel... especially when emissions are involved. Plus it is a very conservative calibration...
fastguy: the exhaust tunning on the 250 yammie gives it a different sound. B&WB has done many tests on bass boats that were identically rigged and they have all had controversy...
http://www.bassandwalleyeboats.com/output.cfm?id=1059733
http://www.bassandwalleyeboats.com/output.cfm?id=1059625
fastguy: the exhaust tunning on the 250 yammie gives it a different sound. B&WB has done many tests on bass boats that were identically rigged and they have all had controversy...
http://www.bassandwalleyeboats.com/output.cfm?id=1059733
http://www.bassandwalleyeboats.com/output.cfm?id=1059625
GPI Racing
Active Member
Jimmy,
What kind of boost numbers are the engines running model to model.
Randy
What kind of boost numbers are the engines running model to model.
Randy