P.S. I would credit that Optimax more with the fuel economy than the hull.
The hull may be some help, but let me illustrate my point.

I've got two 2004 Mercury outboards. A 50HP carburated motor I run on my
little boat and a 225HP Optimax I run on the cat. In a WOT run (basically)
rom Squaw lake down to the dam, then up to Fisher's, into Martinez, and then
up past Island lake to the river island and then back to Squaw my 50HP burns
right at 11 gallons of gas and does about 32-33 mph turning 5600 RPM.

The same run with the Optimax running from 68-71 MPH (WOT all the way) burns
just under 12 gallons of gas.

A similar run with my tunnel hull would burn around 18 gallons of fuel.

Now don't go saying I can't compare a fuel injected motor with a carburated
motor. The Baker was running a 200HP fuel injected Mercury.

Those Optimax motors really get incredibly better fuel economy than any
older design out there. I have heard the E-Tecs by Evinrude get even better
fuel economy than the Optimax, but I have not run one so I can't honestly
compare.

Of course fuel economy also depends on how you run it. I compared WOT runs,
at comparable speeds the Optimax will get better fuel ecomony than the
little motor and absolutely shame older outboards. If I trim it just right
at 35 MPH the Optimax fuel ecomony nearly doubles. That's right. I use
less fuel than the jon boat with the 50 horse. Actually its most economical
speed is a little faster than that, but I have to compare apples to apples
right. LOL.

I'm not picking on your boat. Just pointing out that the Mercury Optimax
proably has a lot more to do with your imporved fuel economy than the hull
design.


--
Bob La Londe
Fishing Arizona & The Colorado River
Fishing Forums & Contests
http://www.YumaBassMan.com



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com