Hey Scott, Thanks for your in depth answers regarding Honda 2 utilization on the M17 and Zodiac 260. Our local dealer is sponsoring a marine swap meet this next weekend and I may try to unload some stuff. Still have not decided how best to consolidate motors.
Steve Shenkel M17 # 263 _/) <>< Arizona -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] .com] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 10:53 PM To: [email protected] Subject: M_Boats: Re: Outboard Motor selection Steve, My responses to your two Honda Queries interspersed below: In a message dated 9/15/05 1:08:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Of those using the 2 HP Honda's kicker for M17 how well do they work out >as >a kicker for a dingy? I have used my Honda 2hp long shaft on both my West/Zodiac 260 (identical to Zodiac 260) and West/Zodiac 200 (identical to Zodiac 200) dinghies with no problems whatsoever. >Are there any mounting modifications necessary to >utilize the long shaft feature on a dingy motor mount? None. The only difference between the short and long shaft models is the actual length of the drive tube/shaft below the engine mount, not the relationship of power head to the mount/clamp. My Honda manual only stipulates that the cavitation plate must be a minimum distance below the water. There is no maximum distance stated or required. Of course, you do need to be more cautious of shallow water/underwater obstructions with the long shaft, but we are only talking a few inches here. >What is the average >time or distance you can get from a tank full of gas? Mine is the earlier (pre-1998/99) model that is slightly less efficient than the newer/current models. I average just about 55 minutes/liter when using on the M15 (loaded for cruising), and slightly more (perhaps 70 minutes) when using on the 260 Dinghy. >Are there any >significant differences over the years of the various models of 2 HP >Honda's? Yes, very significant. The earlier (pre 1998 or 1999--can't remember exactly when the design changed) models such as my 1997 were very different. The older models were an 'L' head design, while the newer models are overhead valve. The latter yields increased efficiency and easier valve adjusts. The older models had air-cooled power heads/engines, *BUT* the exhaust (from just below head to outlet near prop) were *WATER COOLED* via an impeller pump in the lower end (a pain to change) and a tube traveling up the inside of shaft that injected cooling water just below the exhaust elbow exiting the head. The newer/newest models have apparently done away with the water-cooled exhaust altogether (the exact point at which Honda abandoned this feature is not clear to me). This is a good thing, as my older model is now in a few hundred pieces on my work bench as a result of water getting past the vertical crankshaft seal and into the crankcase (seal failed). I wouldn't miss the post saltwater use flushing required with my model either. The newer models also incorporate a plastic shroud covering the bottom 1/2 of the engine (in other words, the entire engine portion is now enclosed). Earlier models (including my '97 model) leave the lower portion of crankcase and exhaust exposed, and mine tends to accumulate considerable salt buildup from splash (in saltwater only, obviously). The newer models were/are available in four variants--short/long shaft, and standard/deluxe. The standard version is fixed drive (always in gear), and has slide lever throttle on front of engine. The deluxe utilizes a clutch drive that is in 'neutral' at idle, and engages forward drive as engine RPM is increased. It also employs a twist grip throttle on the steering tiller/handle. >Is the air-cooled Honda 2HP as quiet as the other Honda outboards are know >to be? The reason I ask is that I have a 2 HP Johnson air cooled motor >that I have used on our Zodiac. If I did not know any better, I would >have thought its means of propulsion was noise. I have traveled in tandem with a friend with a 3.3hp two-stroke Johnson, and I believe my Honda is quieter. At a minimum, it is lower in tone than the buzzy-sounding two-stroke. Perhaps it is better to say that it sounds different, even if not actually quieter, and to my ear, more tolerable. There is, however, more vibration than with a two-stroke (especially at certain RPM's). >The issue about the >dingy motor mount modification stemmed from a conversation I had with the dealer >from whom I bought our Zodiac. He indicated that with a long shaft >outboard, I would need to space up the longer shaft so that the motor would >work correctly (possibly a water intake issue as I remember). Over the >years it never made sense to me. It doesn't make sense to me either--again, because the upper end/mount of the short and long shafts are identical, and because the only requirement per Honda is that the cavitation plate (just above prop) is the minimum distance below the waterline. As for water intake concerns, the only requirement is that the intake (located near cavitation plate) be below the waterline (and then only in earlier models with water-cooled exhaust). >The only thing I could possibly come >up with was that the longer shaft would have more overturning torque if it >was cranked up when turned at 90 degrees to the centerline of the dingy. Does >anyone know if this long shaft issue with a dingy mount is fact, myth, >or personal misunderstanding? While I won't dismiss the physics of the argument, I think you will find that the flat bottom of the dinghy in question will just transfer lateral thrust to sideways motion, and again, there is only a small difference in shaft length here. I think you would require a tremendous amount of power to even notice such nuances. I certainly have not been able to induce any such overturn, and I have even played with grossly oversized engines on my 260 dinghy with the only result a sideways skid. >My Zodiac 260 is supposed to support a 4 HP motor, but the existing exchange >of the 2 HP motor from the stern rail of a bigger boat to the dingy mount >was always a defining moment for how the day would go! The extra mass >of a 4 HP motor is just that much more to deal with. I think I would first consider which motor is most appropriate to the mother ship (M17) and your intended use. Truthfully, your Zodiac 260 is not going to plane with a 4hp (Honda does not make a 4hp, but rather a 5hp), and I have found the 2hp more than adequate for typical dinghy use. >With a Honda 7.5, Johnson 4.5, and a Johnson 2 >in my quiver of possibilities, I would like to consolidate motors and come >up with one to accommodate the M17 and Zodiac. At first glance the Honda >2 would seem a little underpowered, but it might make a great compromise. There are times when my Honda 2hp seems just barely adequate for my M15 (SF Bay, Pacific Northwest tidal currents). If at all possible, try and borrow a Honda 2 for trial use on your M17 in your typical conditions. Best, Scott M15 #478 'bebe' PSC Flicka _______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats _______________________________________________ http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/montgomery_boats
