Next Ranger to get Outboards?

[YukonRon]

... Unfortunately it is a simple fact of life that modern OB engines are less problematic than modern common rail, turbocharged, high efficiency(aka low emission) diesels. The OBs are simply produced in much higher numbers and are more mature designs...
...If we had to re-power our boat tomorrow I'd bolt a bracket on the transom and drop a couple of Suzukis on there.

Dan, that's an interesting notion. I would have thought just the opposite. Since the downfall of the 2-stroke outboards there have been huge technology changes and advancements in the 4-stroke outboards in recent years. Especially the large off-shore models. On the other hand, our Volvo and Yanmar (BMW-based) diesels have been in use in huge numbers in the automotive and industrial world for quite some time. And, yes, the diesels have also seen many technology advancements over the years as well. Makes me wonder which is really more "mature"? In this high tech world we live in now, nothing seems to get mature anymore; everything gets updated or replaced before it gets there. 🙁
I haven't had the boat long enough to pass judgement on engine reliability, but my diesel pickup has served me well for many years. I hope the boat does as well.
Now, if it came down to re-powering; adding outboards while keeping the semi-displacement hull might not be a bad idea.
Or drop in the Duramax from my pickup 😀 :shock:

 

[YukonRon]

...and just for the record, I am not, in any of my posts, meaning to imply that diesel is better than outboards; or that semi-displacement is better than planing. Not looking to start any "Us" vs "Them" arguments. Those are just my current personal preferences. Everyone has good reasons why they like THEIR boat the way it is, and that is great. I actually enjoy hearing everyone's different perspectives.
I am just providing RT with MY feedback on what I like to see in their lineup, and why.
And trying to understand the direction RT is taking with their lineup changes.
Happy tuggin'

 

[baz]

As an analogy to the inboard vs. outboard boat engine debate I'm drawn to and reminded about what happened in the commercial aircraft/airline business in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Many aerospace companies thought having the inboard engines in the wings was the proper thing to do to keep the wings aerodynamically clean vs. having them installed outboard and slung below the wings.

The inboard engines made for a much thicker wings to accommodate the engines and additional wing drag as a consequence and became a nightmare and costly for being serviced in the field.

The outboard engines slung under the wing were so much easier to service (and servicing cost to the airlines was a huge issue for their bottom lines) but was of concern about runway debris being ingested into the engines - especially for the military that used dirt runways in remote parts of the world.

The servicing aspect/comparison of both engine installations resulted in the outboard engines to be favored and they continue to be designed this way today.

Planes with inboard engines are so much more pleasing to look at being more aerodynamically clean vs. the ones with outboard engines hanging down like a birds feet getting ready to land. Aerodynamics is all about having 'smooth slender bodies' :lol:

There's a lot to say about having a boat's engine outside; more room inside the boat, a cleaner inside, no rudder assembly mechanism needed, much easier servicing options. The big negative is for many people not liking the engine on full view and sticking out of the stern... it's simply not traditional boat-like which is merely an esthetic/visual aspect much like for the non-aerodynamic look for aircraft having engines slung under their wings. We thus get to thinking and having to appreciate the facts of function trumping design... 😱

 

[dclagett]

:lol:

 

[johnniethek]

I think it will be the 21. Getting rid of the engine box in the cockpit will give you a ton of room. Popping at Yamaha 150 on the back will give you plenty of get-up-and-go if/when you need it.

 

[baz]

I think it will be the 21. Getting rid of the engine box in the cockpit will give you a ton of room. Popping at Yamaha 150 on the back will give you plenty of get-up-and-go if/when you need it.

Wouldn't RT have to redesign the R-21EC's hull to take advantage of the extra HP & thrust from the 150 HP Yamaha ? Also need hydraulic steering might be required. Cost surely would be higher for the boat as well. The R-23 with its 200 HP outboard is maybe a better option. 😱 🙂

 

[Seaquel]

Like YukonRon, some of the comments about inboard diesel suddenly falling out of favor strikes me as counter-intuitive. I too am not bashing one style vs. the other, but have stated under previous posts that all boats (sizes, power, hull design, etc.) represent a compromise in some manner. Finding the right boat ultimately is about finding the compromises that make most sense for the individual user.

I’ve not run the new RT OB’s, but I’ve owned gas powered planing boats prior to my RT 27 Classic, and the benefits everyone is touting about the new breed of OB’s (easier to maintain, faster speed) do not compensate for what I like in a more traditional inboard diesel, semi-displacement boat. These are the attributes atop my priority list:
1. Greater safety with less combustible diesel vs. gas
2. More comfortable ride in variety of seas
3. Ease of stowing/deploying a dinghy off the stern

I understand there may be room for discussion on points #1 and #2, so I’m just speaking from my personal experience with over three decades of boating experience. For me, based on our style of boating, point #3 would be the show stopper, which renders the outboards unsuitable for my mission.

As to engine life/longevity, if my Volvo diesel powered Tug comes anywhere close to my Cummins diesel powered Dodge Ram tow vehicle with over 260,000 miles (and going strong), then I’ll be very happy. I have not owned a gas powered car or truck that could come close to pushing 200K miles, let alone 300K miles - and I’m hopeful I will get far more!

To each there own, but as has also been noted on this thread, the market is saturated with gas outboard planing boats. Until Ranger Tug cracked the code, there had never been a fully-cruisable inboard diesel semi-displacement boat that is easily TRAILERABLE. The inherent compromises to find this sweet spot fit our needs like nothing else I’ve ever seen, and I hope this choice does not disappear from the market. But if that happens, I guess I’ll just have to hold on to my “Classic” and test the longevity to see if it compares to my truck! 😀

 

[baz]

Mark:

I firmly believe the main reason why someone would choose the RT inboard diesel model at this time is for the opportunity to have a decent sized dinghy traditionally installed at the stern of the boat easily and without fuss.

However, if the solar panel on the RT outboard models is sacrificed, a well designed crane attached to side of the boat can be used to lift and retrieve the same size dinghy or maybe even larger (longer than the 8'-6"). This may be more expensive than for the dinghy being installed at the stern but offers the advantage of having a clear view aft.

With the above in mind, choosing between the inboard and outboard models reduces to just that; inboard diesel vs. outboard gasoline. Convenient access to an engine servicing shop for the diesel and outboard will then strongly influence the choice.

The boat with better handling in various sea conditions will be forever debated.

You surely would agree that the marine version of an auto diesel engine carries many differences and just because the auto version can be shown to last a long time the same cannot be assumed to be the same for the marine version of the engine.

I've owned Volvo diesel, Peugeot diesel, VW diesel and Citroën diesel powered autos and all have crapped out in the 100K to 200K driven miles. The Peugeot was the worst of them and the Volvo one had to be rebuilt at around 90K miles.

My thoughts are that if both the marine inboard diesel and outboard engines are cared for and serviced correctly they both will live a long life.

The big advantage for the outboard RT models is speed and if that's at the top of a buyer's list it will trump the RT inboard diesel models. For example - Leaving in mid to late afternoon from Roche Harbour and getting back to our home Port in Edmonds in 2.75 hours in our R-27/OB vs. the 7 hours it used to take in our R-25 (Classic) was something that pleased us immensely.

The visual looks of both inboard and outboard RT models is another debate and quite likely an emotional one for some people who cannot get beyond this aspect.

 

[Seaquel]

Baz,

You have proved my point: for your boating mission, replacing the solar panel up top and adding a crane negates the advantage of a stern-mount dinghy, leaving greater speed as the most important factor for you. (We are agreed that either engine will likely give long years if service if maintained properly, and living in Anacortes I have easy access to certified Volvo diesel service.)

However, for me, a roof-mount dinghy is not a solution at all. I would not sacrifice the solar panel, which is critical for my mission of anchoring off the grid and not relying on shore power at marinas. Also, I carry TWO roof-top kayaks (one kayak; one SUP board that converts to a kayak and/or slide-seat rowing shell). That our easily trailerable Tug can carry all of the above on top, plus ALSO carry a dinghy suits the mission I ask of my vessel. Additionally, I can deploy my stern-mount dinghy in less than a minute vs. a much more cumbersome system to launch/retrieve with a crane. The added height may also negate easy towing as it could exceed maximum threshold and require permits and signage that I don’t currently have to fuss with.

Faster speed is not on my wish list, and an easily deployable dinghy may not be on yours. Proving again that every boat is a compromise, and finding the one that fits your specific needs is the key to finding the best boating value.

 

[ixlr8]

When I ordered my 27OB I suggested to my dealer that the 21 would be an ideal candidate for an outboard. He explained that it would need a total hull redesign to take advantage of the outboard. Being a displacement hull, it didn't much matter if it was powered by 30 hp or 150 hp, top speed was going to be about the same and fuel consumption would be much higher. He also commented that with the boat being as narrow as it is, he felt it would feel a bit unstable at higher speeds.

 

[NorthernFocus]

...our Volvo and Yanmar (BMW-based) diesels have been in use in huge numbers in the automotive and industrial world for quite some time...

Exactly so. But a marinized version of an automotive or tractor engine is not the same engine. They are conversions and the converted models are not produced in large numbers. No doubt the engine cores are mature and reliable. But the vast majority of problems with engines are caused by auxiliary components such as turbochargers, injection system components, ECMs, electrical systems, etc. Many of which are involved in the marine conversion.

In addition, comparing automotive service with marine service is apples and oranges. The engines experience different load profiles. That's why many light weight marine diesels carry a 90 percent service factor(a fact often overlooked/ignored by boat owners).

On the other hand, most outboards are purpose built from top to bottom.

Regarding the topic of the shift in Ranger models, the choice of power isn't really the significant change. It's the move from heavy, semi-displacement hulls to just another planing boat that is the big change. Seemingly there is more market demand for faster boats. Little wonder considering how much discussion of top end speed there is in this forum 😀

 

[knotflying]

No one has mentioned that the outboard R-27 is considerably longer than the inboard. Since I tow a lot that added length means a lot to me. Hence a 29 may give you more room for the same towing length. Of course I am not considering cost or weight in the equation. :x

 

[dclagett]

:lol:

 

[NorthernFocus]

No one has mentioned that the outboard R-27 is considerably longer than the inboard. Since I tow a lot that added length means a lot to me. Hence a 29 may give you more room for the same towing length. Of course I am not considering cost or weight in the equation. :x

Not to mention the hassle and cost of getting a wide load permit every time you tow the 29.

... My 22 C-Dory was powered by a Honda 90 that comes from the Honda Fit Car. One of the main problems with this outboard has been having the crankshaft vertical instaead of horizontal which has caused bearing failures, destroying the entire engine...

Demonstrating the old saying that the exception proves the rule 😉

 

[Irish Mist]

I really do not know a lot about marine engines so bear with me here.
I do know that the more something is cycled the shorter the life span. Here is how I look at the engines. My Dodge diesel is usually running in the 1,000 to 1500 rpm range. The older marine engines where massive and lasted for years and years and again they where low rev engines developing their HP at lower RPM's. It only stands to reason in my mind that if you are spinning something , gas or diesel twice as fast when you use it ..or more ....it is going to last 1/2 as long or less. My engine makes 260 HP @ 4,000 RPM's the older diesels made it at around 1/2 the RPM's
Now the advantage with the higher top speed besides water skiing,in my mind, is hours. Everyone boat shopping wants to know how many hours on the boat. In Baz's example he went the same distance in less then 1/2 the time. Work that out over a few years and your trade in has a lot lower hours.. But really the engine has been spinning a lot faster so actually I feel it would not last any longer then the inboard going slower with more hours.. My opinion.. But the boat looks more appealing for resale with lower hours.
I really see the advantages to both. If doing a lot of large open water, being the fair weather boater I am... I would like to get across the open water fast in the weather window.. like to the Bahamas..I enjoy going fast . But I do like the large swim platform and the free heat I get from the diesel engine while underway.. Personally I think we are all lucky to be able to have this debate of how to spend our money better 🙂 Nice we have choices.

 

[NorthernFocus]

... I do know that the more something is cycled the shorter the life span...

Assuming by "cycled" you mean how many times it goes round and round, well, it seems logical but not so. It depends on the design.

... Here is how I look at the engines. My Dodge diesel is usually running in the 1,000 to 1500 rpm range...

Have you ever looked at a performance curve for your engine? If you do so you may be surprised to learn that by your definition it is a high rev design. You're simply running it at half(or less) rated speed and load. Automotive diesels are very lightly loaded relative to boat engines. Which is why they make a poor comparison though the one most commonly used.

Ironically if you run your boat engine in the same regime as your truck engine(i.e.lightly loaded) people will tell you that you're killing it. That "diesels love to run loaded" or something to that effect.

 

[baz]

No one has mentioned that the outboard R-27 is considerably longer than the inboard. Since I tow a lot that added length means a lot to me. Hence a 29 may give you more room for the same towing length. Of course I am not considering cost or weight in the equation. :x

Yes, this is true to some extent and can add extra annual storage cost and in-water slip cost. I'm in a 30-foot covered slip and am bow in with starboard tie. With outboard raised it sticks out into the fairway by a good 18".

With my R-25 (Classic) I was also in a 30-foot covered slip at the same Marina I'm in today with my R-27/OB. I had a bulbous Portland Pudgy sitting up vertically on the swim step's aft edge which also meant I needed a slip beyond 25-feet. However, even with the Pudgy at the stern I was able to fit into the 30 feet without my bow stem sticking out to much into the fairway.

Considering both boats, I have found a 30-foot slip accommodates either.

Now I have a RT R-25SC just two boats down from my slip, is bow in with port tie and it's also in a 30-foot slip. It has a dinghy on its swim step and with the dinghy aligned with the outside it has some 2-feet between its bow stem and the dock lip. This R-25SC could easily fit into a 28-foot slip and save some monthly slip cost.

 

[YukonRon]

... Personally I think we are all lucky to be able to have this debate of how to spend our money better 🙂 Nice we have choices.

Which brings me full circle right back to where I started...why would RT limit our choices by taking away the diesel/semi-displacement option for the smaller trailerable boats? It costs big-time to re-make the molds for the different hull design, and they already have planing hulls on the Cutwater line. Why not keep each line separate and cover both market segments? Would that not be win-win for both the buyers (more choices) and the seller (wider customer base)?
Maybe I'm just over-simplifying it. I'm sure the bean-counters at RT must have their reasons, but I don't understand it.

 

[baz]

Ron:

I have no clue about the business relationship or the synergy aspects between RT and CW. Are they separate business entities ? Do they compete with each other ? Do they share a common accounting system for reporting revenue/profits ? I just dunno.

If they are separate business and compete with each other then I can understand RT's strategy of moving to a boat design that is and seems to be selling very well.

As Andrew has mentioned.... RT is on the fence about the continuation of the sub 29-foot inboard diesel models at this time and for them to bring them back into production will be determined by customer demand. This strategy may however already be failing as RT's web site no longer offers the sub 29 foot inboard diesel models; the R-23 stern drive if still being offered could be the single exception. Without any mention of RT offering sub 29 foot inboard diesel boats on their web site or in their sales literature then any new customer will likely be unaware of RT having made such boats and be steered toward the R-23 and R-27/OB from a pricing standpoint. The R-23 is priced very competitively and the previous R-21EC is the only RT designed boat that falls below the R-23 price point. So if money is the primary basis for a purchase decision the R-23 is likely to be a good choice.

When I was looking for a new boat I did start with the R-23, then the R-27 (Classic) and then eventually the R-27/OB. All three met my requirements to a large degree. After my review for each of these models and then finding out that the R-27 (Classic) maybe discontinued and seeing the new R-27/OB taking shape at a good introduction price I had a very hard time ignoring the new R-27/OB. The R-27 (Classic) was at the time priced exactly the same as the new R-27/OB. I was in no way wanting to buy the last R-27 (Classic) and the new R-27/OB offered so much more IMO. When I owned the R-25 (Classic) and after 5 yrs was looking at the R-27 (Classic) I was quite interested to selling the R-25 for the R-27 (Classic) but the extra expense for the extra 2 feet could not be justified in my mind so I gave it R-27 (Classic) a pass at the time. The differences between the R-27 (Classic) and the new R-27/OB are many and some are very significant, yet the interior styling of the new R-27/OB followed the same traditional lines as for the previous RT inboard diesel boats.... even the outside visual appeal (neglecting the outboard of the new R-27) was still there but with a more modern look to it.

Given the time I had spent messing with the inboard diesel as I had to do with my R-25 (Classic) and comparing that with what I expected the to be minimum hassle with the well trusted Yamaha F300 by the Alaska fishing industries and that had its starting roots back in 2009, I was sold quickly to the benefits of the F300 vs. the Volvo inboard diesel. For $180 I can have my local (is within 500 feet of my Marina) Yamaha dealer/shop pickup my boat from my slip and haul my boat out of the water and perform maintenance and return it the next day to my slip. All I have to do is setup a maintenance schedule with the shop for annual maintenance in September and give them the boat keys to do their work when the time arrives. Absolutely no hassle for me at all. This opportunity was far too much to ignore.

I've now put since Aug 16, 2017 at least 400 miles on our R-27/OB and have loved every mile. For the R-25 (Classic) we owned it took 6 years to get to around 2,500 cruising miles. This translates to some 420 cruising miles per year for the R-25 vs. some likely 1200 miles per year for our R-27/OB. For me this already proves our R-27/OB is more useful to us than our previous R-25 and hope this continues for us.

 

[Chimo]

Ron:
I've now put since Aug 16, 2017 at least 400 miles on our R-27/OB and have loved every mile. For the R-25 (Classic) we owned it took 6 years to get to around 2,500 cruising miles. This translates to some 420 cruising miles per year for the R-25 vs. some likely 1200 miles per year for our R-27/OB. For me this already proves our R-27/OB is more useful to us than our previous R-25 and hope this continues for us.

Your numbers are certainly food for thought. Please allow me a couple of questions as your experience with the whole design intrigues me.

We moved from a Venture 23 to an R25SC for reasons other than speed. We have owned deep V boats in the past, some of them faster than others, but as I have got older I no longer needed the 50 mile-per-hour boat. the Venture would touch 30 mph with its twin 60 hp Yamahas at WOT but I really enjoyed cruising at 14 to 15 mph and that was a reason to buy it. That allowed me to get somewhere in a reasonable time and in reasonable comfort in most conditions and to be able to see "stuff" floating around that I didn't want to hit. From 14 to pretty much 27 mile-per-hour I would get something like 3 miles per gallon. When we changed to the tug I'm still able to get my nice cruise at 14 to 15 mph and about 3 miles per gallon depending on conditions. Top speed is only 20 mph. How do these numbers compare with your Classic? Were you cruising much slower? You have mentioned previously that you were able to get home from Roche in 2.75 hours instead of 7. If you were cruising previously at 8 mph and are now at 22 mph, what are your fuel numbers like? At what speed does the boat fall off plane? In other words, is she really efficient in the 14 to 15 mile-per-hour range? Indeed, have you generated a speed/fuel consumption curve? I'm actually not so interested in your fuel costs [fuel is the cheapest thing about running a boat] but it gives in an impression about the hull compromise.

My questions are simply academic since I'm not looking to change again for a little while but any information you may have would be really interesting.

Thanks