R23 Performance numbers from Yamaha

[ixlr8]

After a bunch of digging, and some guidance from the factory, I found the performance numbers that Yamaha did on the Ranger Tug R23 with the 200hp Yamaha engine. I hope this helps some folks.

http://yamahaoutboards.com/sites/defaul ... 14_OWA.pdf

I did not find any numbers for the 300hp R27.

Jim

 

[baz]

Jim: Awesome..... thanks for digging that info up. Very useful.

I'm wondering if the discontinuity at around 13 mph in the MPH vs. RPM graph indicates when the R-23 gets up onto plan ? My understanding was that it took some 17 mph to get the R-23 onto plan (hydrodynamic lift).

Hmmm.... with 3 people on board the R-23/OB one can travel some 80 miles up to Roche Harbour from Edmonds on a calm day in a little over 2 hrs at full speed using some 43 gallons. That's impressive and jibes with what Andrew told me a few weeks ago as he did the same going from Roche to the Lake Washington locks in just under 2 hrs in the R-23 running flat out. This boat trip (Roche <--> Edmonds) in the R-23 is both faster by a large margin and much less expensive than 3 people + car going via land up to Roche. 😀

The R-23 gives you the opportunity for going slow or much faster.

The R-23 appears to use 4x the fuel as the R-21EC at a speed of around 7 kts. That is, for my R-21EC at 7 kts its fuel rate is 0.5 gallons/hr vs. 2 gallons/hr for the R-23.

Now onto the new 2018 R-27 to find out what its performance numbers are. 😱

 

[Cutwater28GG]

that speed is appealing

I have a cutwater 28.
I am 3 hours door to door pretty consistently La conner to Elliot Bay. and 4:45 to Roche from Elliot bay.
2:30 La conner to Roche.

my biggest factor is number of people on board. these times are based on having 1 or 2 people only.
If I have 6 people onboard. its super hard to get the boat up on the plane and get the speed up. I get stuck at 14 knots which is not good for the fuel economy.

 

[S@LTD]

Hmm. The CW 28 is the boat we have our eye on although it's fast cruising speed is slower than we are used to. Since that was the only shortcoming for us we were considering pulling the pin (although dragging our feet to see if some other change comes out from a motor/speed perspective). Hearing about not being able to get on plane with six people on board is not something I would have expected. Thank you for sharing your insights.

 

[mcphersn]

The Yamaha numbers match my experience almost exactly. The only bit of information that I would add is that I have some trouble maintaining 22 mph. In any kind of choppy conditions, my R-23 slides back off plane instead of staying at 22. Not exactly a big deal, since best cruise mpg is up around 30 anyway, but occasionally I try to slow down in chop, and I have to choose between slogging along below 10, or beating everything up at 25. Running between 10 and 20 feels as though the boat is straining to get up, and just digging a hole. For my money, it's the best boat on the market.

 

[baz]

Maybe the R-23 would do a bit better with the Yamaha 250 HP.... 😉

 

[Andrew Custis]

Hmm. The CW 28 is the boat we have our eye on although it's fast cruising speed is slower than we are used to. Since that was the only shortcoming for us we were considering pulling the pin (although dragging our feet to see if some other change comes out from a motor/speed perspective). Hearing about not being able to get on plane with six people on board is not something I would have expected. Thank you for sharing your insights.

What Kind of maximum RPM are you getting at WOT under normal load with two people? Just so you are aware, this is a semi displacement hull and really never on a full plane. This typically happens around 25 MPH. 14 knots seems like something is not right. Maybe a smaller prop or less pitch to help get some more RPM's?

 

[mcphersn]

The R-23 has plenty of power. I suspect that a bigger engine would just add weight and fuel burn. After the first few dozen hours in the boat, I tend to run at 30 or less most of the time. This thing is not a center console runabout--objects in the water and curves in the river are coming along plenty fast at 30.

 

[Jake]

Compare those numbers to the C-24 with 300hp. The C-24 at 5000rpm is 42.4mph and 2.20mpg and a WOT of 5800rpm and 50.2mph. The C-24 has best cruise of 37.1mph at 4500rpm getting 2.32mpg.

I'm surprised at the high best cruise speed of both boats.

 

[baz]

The R-23 has plenty of power. I suspect that a bigger engine would just add weight and fuel burn. After the first few dozen hours in the boat, I tend to run at 30 or less most of the time. This thing is not a center console runabout--objects in the water and curves in the river are coming along plenty fast at 30.

I tend to agree and especially the aspect of the boat approaching hidden dead-heads in the water. Just a small tree branch can bring on disaster. :cry: We need some form of technology that can allow the boat to negotiate around these floating nightmares much like for seeing potholes in the road surface. Just how does the autonomous auto act/steer as it approaches a hole in the road, and one large enough to swallow the car. :?:

 

[Cutwater28GG]

its odd but I need some more testing

last summer running around 3000 RPM I would happily be at 18 knots. this spring 3000 RPM 14! I have had the diver out and cleaned the boat and checked the running gear anodes. all good but same issue.

I have never taken the boat to WOT. I was planning well before that last summer!

water tank was full last summer, now empty. not sure what else is different; could the water ballast when full help getting onto the plane??? seems weird!

@S@LTD you should still definitely consider the 28 though. the comfort level of the semi displacement and fuel economy options are really great. Don't take my experience as the norm with the 28.

 

[baz]

Cutwater28GG:

Same number of people onboard for each of the 18 and 14 kts speeds ?

Wind, current same for both 18 and 14 kts speeds ?

 

[R Baker]

Those performance numbers don't grab me at all ! My 29 is far more efficient. Last year I burned an average 8.3 litres per hour - that is just over 2 gal per hour. I don't want to go more than 10 knots. I simply do not understand the need to blast around at the speeds advertised for these boats. The design parameters for a boat to fish from is very different from a cruising boat. I wonder we're all this need for speed ends up, especially when one considers the environmental impact of fossil fuel consumption. Not impressed !
PS. The boats are neat; but Ranger should offer engine options for those that are happy at semi displacement speeds.

 

[ixlr8]

Those performance numbers don't grab me at all ! My 29 is far more efficient. Last year I burned an average 8.3 litres per hour - that is just over 2 gal per hour. I don't want to go more than 10 knots. I simply do not understand the need to blast around at the speeds advertised for these boats.

My last boat maxed out at 10 knots, the river I live on has currents about 6 knots.... makes for a SLOW trip from the ocean back upstream to my place!! My next boat will do a minimum of 20 knots.

Jim

 

[baz]

...snip...I simply do not understand the need to blast around at the speeds advertised for these boats.

Ranger Tugs is now in a position to meet the requirements of a far wider range of peoples' requirements and ones beyond the traditional go-slow trawler crowd. No offense intended.

I wonder we're all this need for speed ends up, especially when one considers the environmental impact of fossil fuel consumption. Not impressed !

Burning diesel is actually more polluting than for gasoline. My wife and daughter-in-law get nauseous at the slightest smell of diesel fumes.

On my R-25 (Classic) the diesel fumes were able to penetrate the V-berth and left nasty black-like smudges on the monkey fur.

PS. The boats are neat; but Ranger should offer engine options for those that are happy at semi displacement speeds.

Today Ranger Tugs offers diesel versions of the R-21EC, R-25SC, R-27, R29 and R31 that meet many of the traditional go-slow trawler crowd. No offense intended.

 

[jld]

Performance numbers, when you can find them, are always an interesting read. :geek:

Some folks assume that a smaller boat is more fuel efficient than a larger boat, but that is only sometimes true. If you look at the published fuel burn on a R29, it actually is more efficient than the numbers shown in the Yamaha performance bulletin for the R23. 😉 On the other hand, you won't get a top speed on 38 mph on the R29! :lol:

Looking at the Yamaha data, at 12.7 mph (11 knots) the R23 gets 1.44 mpg. If one normally cruises at this speed, then maybe there are better boating choices that the R23. However, if one likes to cruise at 30 mph, the R23 gets a very respectable 2.58 mpg.

Boating is a very personal thing. Some folks like to go slow, some folks like to go fast. My ideal boat is one that I can cruise slow, yet have the ability (when needed) to go fast (or at least faster).

So many considerations when buying a new boat!

Jim