Crazy idea??? Or brilliant!!!! What's your opinions?
 

Well more disturbing news for the green monster, fiberglass guy hears moisture in the transom. I'm not real good with that stuff but I can definitely hear a muffled tap when he taps anywhere near the bottom motor bolts. Believes with the reinforcement plate on it I'll be fine this season. Still waiting on news for my motor decision but am I crazy to think that if I must do a total repower then now would be the time to take care of the transom leading me to my next crazy idea...twin 90's or 115's??? Has it been done? Love the idea of having a backup motor if we're in the middle of the bay fishing and something happened. Also from what I've seen, much easier to maneuver.

If it were me, (and I'm thankful that it hasn't been so far) I would go with twins. Since you're rebuilding the transom anyway you can widen it to accommodate twin engines and raise it up to use 25" instead of 20 shaft length units. I've often though that a pair of old 115 hp Merc Tower of Power inline 6 engines would go great on the stern of a V20. My thinking is that they are light compared to some engines, and just as importantly they are skinny compared to V4 and V6 Johnnyrudes of the same period. Oh, and they are substantially cheaper than a new engine. I had a 115 on one of my old boats a while back (18' Cruisers, Inc.) and I completely loved it. NOTHING else has the same growl when you're up on plane at WOT.

Understand this is purely dreaming, and I hope that I am never put into a position where it might become reality. Plus, finding a matched set of them in good condition might be a problem. But you asked for thoughts on the subject, and those are mine.

Twins are cool but not practical...

Of a given hp, twins will be heavier, slower, more expensive, and less efficient than a single... Your boat will be better balanced and all around better w a single engine.

You won't be able to plane on one of your twin engines unless you change the prop...

You would be far better off with a single and a kicker.

As for easier to maneuver, yes that's true but it's just a 20' boat... They do fine with singles.

I think a single 130 Johnson would be perfect back there. :haha::haha:

Two very opposite opinions. Exactly what I was looking for. I love hearing both sides of the case.

Destroyer, I love the idea of twin 115 Merc Tower O Powers and believe it or not they seem to be plentiful on Craig's. Of course even with finding 2 running ones I still believe I would freshen them both up (rings and bearings) to try and match their performance close as possible. I'm finding them in running condition anywhere from $850-$1500. Not bad in my opinion. Transom has already been built up to a 25" but not that any of that matters as she would have to be widened.

Smoke, I agree 100% of what you said is correct, but most importantly the first thing, twins are COOL, not practical. Although maneuverability on these boats isn't bad and having a kicker will suffice as a backup motor as well, how F-in cool would a V-20 be with twin Tower O Powers??? I mean the boat turns head already why not keep adding to the madness.

I'm sure you do. Trust me if you were closer that probably would of already happened.

I'm with Striper.

My primary concern would be weight and fuel efficiency.
Now that the engines are more fuel efficient they weigh more.

The 1975 V was indeed rated for twin 115's. Back then an Evinrude 115 weighed 267lbs.
The 135 weighed 298lbs, now a 130 weighs 405lbs.

Twin top's would be COOL... Would use 3 times as much fuel as a single modern engine tho

There's a guy in my marina with twin 9.9s on an aluminum boat. I guess so he can run on lakes with a 9.9 maximum, but it still looked odd to me.

Nope that would be 19.8 hp... He'd have to disable one... Tilt up, pull prop, etc depending on the state.

Well it seems so far the general consensus is that it would in fact be cool, just very inefficient. This is just something that popped in my head and there's probably a 1.7% chance it will actually happen. I used to have an Aquasport 240 and the Aquasport Forum guys with the 22-2 Flatbacks were all about strapping twin 75 four strokes on them and I thought it was pretty cool to see.

Still haven't gotten the verdict on if my motor will need a sleeve or not so I'm just tossing all sorts of things around in my head. I've favorited 4 running 115 TOP's on Craig's. None of them are over $1100. So tempting to go pick a couple of them up and just do it but gotta think about the big picture of what's best for the boat.

I had read somewhere that these boats were rated for twin 115's but I can't find anyone that's actually got one. I'd like to see one and get input from someone who has done it.

Hell for 1000 you can haul off my whole boat with running 115 top and a good spare powerhead.

I meant running on one engine. Why he wouldn't just have a kicker is beyond me.

Smoke, I agree with almost everything you said except... why can't you plane on just one engine? Tilt one up and you have 115 hp. More than enough to plane a V20. We know that V's will plane at 90 hp, so 25 more would seem more than enough. Just curious. (And I still like the thought of twin 115's. NOT practical, but oh so cool).

You CAN plane on one but it will need a 15" pitch prop instead of the 21 you'll have on it when running twins.

Twice the impellers, twice the rigging, new binnacle shifter, what are you gonna find when you drill the transom? If you had an old school 70's model that came like that, or were fishing off shore in very remote areas like the out islands of the bahamas, south pacific, central or south America etc I think it would be something to consider. To do it just because I honestly think will just end up costing you more out of pocket and head ache wise. You need to figure out what you want to do with your boat, if its just local fishing with family and friends with occasional runs offshore I think you'll be happier with a good dependable single.

What you already have; an old school 200 Merc on a V20 hull is already a cool boat in my opinion.

If you want a second hull to get crazy with I got an old 83 I'll give you.

I thought we used to have a member that had one with twin 75's instead of a 150. Came like that from the dealer.

I knew the chances of this actually happening were slim to none when I posted this, it was just a crazy idea that came to me in the middle of the night and I wanted to see if it'd be at all doable. Seems it's doable just not worth the trouble.

I got word today that it seems the block is ok. So looks like I'll be taking the powerhead to get rebuilt to hold me over until I get tired of smelling the 2-stroke and break down and buy a new motor. Just can't justify spending 12K on a motor right now. Maybe in the near (1-2 year) future.

Man if you were closer I'd come snag her up. I would love to cut mine up and do a few things I think would make her look better but I just can't do it. It's too nice. But to find a project hull would be fun. My buddy's got a V-21 he's gutted down to just the hull and abandoned it and I've often though it'd be an awesome blank slate to start with.

Actually just found this gem on CL. Twin 55's. Seems a bit underpowered to me but just shows they do exist.
http://jacksonville.craigslist.org/boa/5677291144.html

Also found locally a '73 center console with the 165hp IB/OB. I really wanted an IB/OB before I bought mine but couldn't pass up the deal I got on mine. However having a second V-20 can't be such a bad thing. :sly:
http://norfolk.craigslist.org/boa/5634075310.html

Either of these members boats?

Fishbone strikes again, been a while.

Yeah this 83 in a good candidate for someone who wants to go full bore and set it up the way they want. It's hard to tear into a boat that is still in good shape and start cutting her up while she is still usable.

Go get that 21 hull. You already have a few, mama won't notice it if you sneak it in.

This boat a scam?

The big issue with twins will be weight, V-20's are notorious for sitting low in the back with much weight on the transom.

How about twin 90 Yamaha 2 strokes? They are rather light.

I would chose a Johnson/Suzuki 4 stroke myself.......:fam:

I agree that twins are not in the wheelhouse for thus hull.

That said. If I had to do transom work and wanted twins I'd have to close the entire transom and add a stainless bracket on the rear. The extra flotation and plane able length you would get from it might actually behave on the water.

7th line down says Max hp Twin 115's


http://www.wellcraftv20.com/gallery/...t_1972/4_G.jpg

Thanks Joe. So now we know that our hulls, without engine, gas and such, weigh in at 1920 lbs. Useful info when trying to figure out trailer tongue weight. :head:

Welcome, but I have always none the weight. spec are always in the gallery sectiomn!

Remember, they also claimed the cabin slept two

It doesn't seem like there could be a practical reason for twins. The maneuverability argument doesn't seem to make sense: A V20 with a 150 on it maneuvers SO easily already. Has anyone ever had a problem putting a V20 where they want to? It's not like its a 40-foot beast that weighs 2 tons.

I feel like if you're really worried that your power is going to fail when you're out there, then go with a kicker. Cheaper - and you now have a trolling motor.

My 150 Merc Black Max weighs around 400 lbs. A pair of 75s, for instance weighs 265 each (according to NADA), so you're adding substantial weight for the same amount of power - and greatly INCREASING the probability that you're spending $ on maintenance (two old outboards instead of one).

Total personal thought here: I also think two "small" motors is a little goofy-looking. When I see some sweet boat roll out of the harbor with twin 300 Verados or something, I'm always kind of impressed. A pair of old 75s? Just doesn't seem to boost the "cool factor" if that's the motivation. (Just my opinion- might be on my own on that one.)

Regardless, I love this site. I check it multiple times a day and I honestly appreciate that you are always contributing to it, 3Squids. Ilook forward to more updates!

The guy that bought my Aquasport had an Aquasport 222 Flatback with twin 75 Mercs on it. I thought the same thing, weird looking with small engines. But it was different and what he wanted so rock on I guess.

Twins....
1. use more fuel
2. twice the maintenance
3. more stuff to break and go wrong
4. likely more weight.

Single bigger engine
Forget 1-4 above.
Want a good low cost motor ? Find a Bombardier 200 hp from 2002 - 2004 after they fixed all the OMC problems, and right before the Etec.

He has the best low cost motor on the planet. Nothing cheaper to rebuild than a old V-6 Merc. Those TOP are a complete PITA to reassemble, in perticular getting the rings to compress and fit into the bore while juggling 5 other rods, pistons and rings flopping around on the crankshaft... They all go in at once, special tools yada yada. They should be fattened up with todays fuel but screamers they were. IF I was going twins, it would be on a bracket, it would be Merc powered and they would be older V-6's. Hp from 150 to 225. Maybe a couple 2.4L mercs they were 389 lbs according to the sticker on the motor.

I won't get too technical, nor argue with anyone about it but the law states that any vessel 20' or more in length can have unlimited hp. That Coast Gaurd plate is officially in the garbage can. The man can't do a thing about it... USCG, Local LEO's, Dept of Homeland Security, NOBODY. Except for maybe a lawyer in court after the poop hits the fan and your overpowered vessel and operator are now to blame, irregaurdless of whose fault it was....

Destroyer, If you do the math and raise the transom up to 25", great idea. With twins you still would need 20" legs I think.. or the lowers would be buried in the water.

When I repowered with the new 4-stroke 115 Merc last year it had nearly the identical weight of the old 115 2-stroke Yamaha V-4. So they are more efficient motors and the weight is getting closer, in some cases.

Oh, it was just a simple survey... I say CRAZY! :oh:

Lol, People said trying to split the atom was crazy also... yet now we power our homes and ships with nuclear power.... :P

Yea was just a topic for discussion. It's out of my head now. Motors going to the rebuild guy this week. I know in the end that's the best, most economical thing for me to do right now. I've been talking with a few guys with Yamahas for sale as I've always liked them but nothing seems to be panning out so looks like she'll have the screaming 2.5 of the back of her for a while longer.

You got my point then?
My home is powered by Natural Gas and/or Coal BTW.
No Nuke Power Gen Stations for Florida anymore. They are doing the phase out thing... Where it cost a gagillion dollars to maintain the old plant even though it ain't making power anymore. Lookup- Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant. What a debacle.

Three Squid, there will be another with twins, one day..

Not so much your point as just a friendly jab at the thought of anything being crazy. My point was that almost everything we use, every day, at one time or another was thought to be crazy. Automobiles to replace horses? Crazy!! People flying? Crazy talk I say!!! Light from electricity and not Kerosene? Put that man in an asylum!!! People walking on the moon.... and us watching it live on something called TV as it happened??? Bah!!! Pipe Dreams!!

Everything IS possible if given enough time to figure it out and perfect it. I firmly believe that we will have a cure for cancer one day. We will walk on Mars. We will have intelligent, self thinking robots ... well, you get my drift. Nothing is really crazy... some things are, however, impractical from an efficiency standpoint. Twins on a V20 might fall into that category.

As to nuclear power, since I was Facilities Manager for one of the largest Power and Light producers in New Jersey I might have to disagree with you on that point. Look up the Forked River Nuclear power plant. It's the second oldest plant in the United States, is still running, is still producing cheap power safely and economically. I know, first hand, that nuclear power is safe and reliable. I also know that accidents can, and do happen. You only have to look at Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island or Fukushima Daiichi to see that. Of those mentioned, one (Chernobyl) was the result of a man made disaster and was the most damaging in terms of loss of life and property. One (3 mile Island) was due to a failure of equipment, and one (Fukushima) was the result of a natural disaster (a tsunami). So yes, accidents can and do happen, for a variety of reasons. But overall, nuclear power is safe, reliable and economical. For instance, France gets over half of all it's electric power from nuclear power stations, and has done so for decades, with zero accidents. Not crazy at all.