[PCW] I/O new vs. old Volvo

[Jim Garner]

Bob,

Thank you for your insights.

I am considering no larger than 27'. Probably, 22' to 25'.

Here is a rather broad list of elements my perceived next boat:

.	Trailerable - less than 27 feet
.	Less than 5000 lbs ready to go. This is not a show stopper. However,
larger         	will require a larger tow vehicle, and larger boat. Both
will burn more fuel.
.	Pilothouse
.	Easy to launch
.	Sleeping for two
.	Shallow draft
.	250 mile range
.	Direct Drive or Outboard
.	Galley up
.	Stove - Diesel or Propane
.	Shower
.	Toilet with overboard discharge
.	Heater/Air conditioner
.	Open fishing area
.	Accommodate lobster/crab pots
.	Accommodate downriggers
.	Get home sail
.	Single-hand able

I am all over the map with brands, and power options. At the larger end of
the spectrum, I like the C-Dory TomCat both 24 & 25. At the smaller end of
the spectrum, I am considering the C-Dory 22 - 25' Cruisers. I realize that
all these boats utilize outboard power. Again, I know that I am all over the
map. However, I greatly enjoy reading about options on this and other
boards.

Regards,
Jim Garner

>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:56:05 -0800
> From: Robert Deering <deering at ak.net>
> Subject: Re: [PCW] Inboard Outboard never Volvo vs. Older Volvo
> To: 'Power Catamaran List' <power-catamaran at lists.samurai.com>
> Message-ID: <00c401c8a801$7910ffd0$1901a8c0 at BobTablet>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Jim,
>
> Some of the major disadvantages with outdrives are pretty much eliminated
by
> trailering the boat.  Corrosion and marine growth due to the outdrives
> remaining submerged are eliminated.  Maintenance of the lower unit is not
> substantially greater than an outboard lower unit, and since you'll
> routinely be trailering it you can perform that maintenance when & where
you
> choose.
>
> Outdrives do have one significant weakness the other drives don't have,
and
> that's an extra change of direction for the power flow - it comes
> horizontally out of the engine, makes a 90 to run vertical down the
> outdrive, and then another 90 out the prop shaft.  That's one more corner
> than outboards or shaft drives make, and hence more opportunity for gear
> failures.  And to make it worse, one of those joints has to articulate for
> steering and trim.
>
> But they make up for that with several advantages.  One of them is the
> option for a duoprop assembly.  I've heard of a few duoprop failures, but
> I'm aware of many mariners running hundreds and thousands of hours with no
> problems.  A 15-20% efficiency improvement at today's fuel prices is
pretty
> significant.  At a 10 GPH burn rate with diesel at $4 per gallon (it's
> nearly $5 per gallon here in Juneau, but some of that's due to our current
> local power crisis - avalanche took out our hydroelectric and we're
powering
> 100% by diesel, 100,000 gallons per day - so demand is high right now...)
> that's around $7-8 per hour, easily thousands of dollars per year.  And
just
> as importantly, it increases your range.
>
> Another advantage is the ability to dynamically trim the boat.  You can do
> that with an outboard too.  Because cats are so much more susceptible to
> fore-aft trim problems, being able to adjust trim while running is more
than
> a luxury.
>
> You can run diesel with its much better efficiency.  Modern gas outboards
> with fuel injection and computer controls have really improved that
> powerplant.  But diesel technology hasn't stood still either, and the new
> common rail injection diesels are far quieter, more energy efficient, and
> generally more refined than their predecessors.
>
> Weight distribution is better than outboards with the engine sitting
forward
> instead of hanging aft of the transom.  A large 4-stroke outboard, say a
200
> hp unit, is mighty heavy way out there.
>
> Lots of opinions and lots of opportunities for discussion on this subject,
> and it's been pretty much beaten to death on other boating boards.
>
> How big will your new boat be?
>
> Bob Deering
> Juneau, Alaska
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: power-catamaran-bounces at lists.samurai.com
> [mailto:power-catamaran-bounces at lists.samurai.com] On Behalf Of Jim Garner
> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 5:26 AM
> To: power-catamaran at lists.samurai.com
> Subject: [PCW] Inboard Outboard never Volvo vs. Older Volvo
>
> I would welcome this groups input on the advantages and disadvantages of
the
> newer Volvo I/O's compared to the older models.
>
>
>
> My first boat, 18' Owens, had a 1960 100 hp Volvo carbureted I/O. As I
> recall it had wonderfully miserly fuel economy.
>
>
>
> All this talk about DuoProps has me rethinking I/O's for my next as yet
> un-finalized boat. It will be trailerable. Perhaps a Catamaran.
>
>
>
> Some say:
>
> More maintenance with I/O.
>
> More complicated to get power to the prop.
>
> More prone to sinking due to bellows.
>
> Least expensive to replace engine alone.
>
> The newer DuoProps are easily damaged by debris - even kelp.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jim Garner
> _______________________________________________
> Power-Catamaran Mailing List
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Power-Catamaran Mailing List
>
> End of Power-Catamaran Digest, Vol 38, Issue 21
> ***********************************************
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature
> database 3057 (20080426) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com