Verado on Seacraft 20 Super Fisherman?
 

Anyone done it? What size did you go?
Looking at an SF and thinking of raising the transom to 25" then throwing a Verado 150 or bigger on it.

Thoughts?
Is this completely stupid?

Carl Moesly designed the 19/20' SeaCraft hulls in the mid-60's for the largest outboards of the time, the I-6 Merc and V-4 OMC's, which weighed 260-300 lbs. The result was an extremely strong but light, slender, and very efficient hull that would plane at ~ 10-12 mph with a heavy load, ride like a much bigger and heavier boat, run 10% faster than competitive deep-V hulls with the same weight & power, and perform extremely well with an 85 hp motor. That hull is a totally different animal than the modern fat 8-8.5' beam 20 footers designed for 500 lb 4-stroke motors that require at least 200 hp for decent performance!

If you can find a Verado within that weight range, by all means have at it. Otherwise be prepared for min planing speeds in the mid-20's and a serious disappointment in the ride quality compared to the OEM configuration, which allowed SeaCraft to not only dominate it's outboard class in the 1960's Offshore Power Boat races in very rough seas, but often beat much larger inboards running 2-3X more horsepower!

Thanks for the reality check. I appreciate it. :)

Interesting, so how and when did the hulls change up until they stopped making them?
For example is a 2005 designed for a heavier 4 stroke, does it get up on plane, does it bail?

Or something like this - 1986 with a 4 stroke 150 - how would this perform?
I'm just wondering if the 20 design ever evolved to accommodate the newer, bigger engines and how they achieved that.

http://tolimages1.traderonline.com/i....jpg?t=1226705

Here is a good comparison page of current 90-150 outboards: http://outboards.axlegeeks.com/

Not a whole lot of weight difference apple to apple. Pick your favorite flavor and enjoy. Not a bad pick in any of them in that HP range.

I have a 350 lb. Merc Black Max 175 on the back of my Seafari 20. With my wife and son in the transom seats (barely 200 lbs between them) it is nearly impossible to keep the bow down so the ride really suffers. Tabs I'm sure will help ride but obviously don't help when we're drifting around, eating lunch, etc. I would love a quiet 4 stroke but I can't see putting another 150 lbs of motor off the transom with the 7.5' beam.

Isn't the Seafari a bit heavier than the CCs?

Mecury SeaPro 115 is a 363lbs motor which isn't terrible, only motor lighter is the Mercury 115 at 359lbs.

A 86 with a 150 4 stroke you will still have wet feet..when they started building again in 98/99 the deck was raised a bit to accommodate a more modern engine from that time period as in a 2 stroke 150..I put a 200 hpdi on my 05 20 and it sat fine and no wet feet but it definitely needed the trim tabs to keep the bow down and from constantly slapping in any kind of chop..it was super quick on a calm day though:)

[QUOTE=TPG;246506]Isn't the Seafari a bit heavier than the CCs?

It certainly is. Not only that I'm guessing the cg is quite a bit further forward. Full disclosure, I have 2 batteries in the back as well. I will be looking to move one or both forward at some point.

Etec 115 is another good choice for the 20, 5-10 lbs heavier than merc 115.

Well respected Merc dealer about a 15 minute drive from me.

I see a ton of boats have DF140's on em.

Zuke DF140 is a fine motor, about 410 lbs. A little heavy for the 20 hull but workable. Possibly the best weight to hp ratio in the midrange classes.

Verado 150 is 100 lbs heavier - its application for a 20 Seafari makes no sense to me.

When you drop by to see your reputable Merc dealer, rather than the Verado consider, the 2L Merc 115. @ around 365 lbs., Merc is heading in the right direction with that one, especially for the Seafari 20. Optimax 115 is still a fine choice too.

Verado 150 is 150 lbs more than the 2L 115 and a poor choice in my mind.

If you just want to go fast with a modern motor, a first gen 2.6L Etec from 135 to 200 hp would smoke just about anything and come in around 420 lbs.

Thanks McGillicuddy, I came to my senses about the VRod and have been thinking Opti or the new Seapro. Need to have a chat with my buddy in Fon Du Lac about the Seapro.

Ask him about the difference between the Seapro and the CT. The Seapro may be tuned down like 500 rpm. I think it uses a different cam and other internals. Probably a little cheaper.

The CT may offer you a bit more performance. Quiz him a bit. Extra year of warranty my benefit you if your use isn't commercial.

Good luck with your choice.:cool:

I can only speak for the SeaCraft “20 ft” hull and I assume that’s what you’re referring to. The hulls DID NOT change significantly over the years from when Moesly made the first 19’ Bowrider in 1965 to whenever Tracker stopped making them! The changes made to that hull that I know of are as follows:

1. The 19 & 20 hulls are identical below the waterline. Moesly made the 20 from a 19 mold by literally taking a chainsaw to the mold! The 19 is a wet riding boat, and Carl Kiekehaefer wanted a slightly longer boat to enter in a 20’ racing class, so Moesly simply cut the mold down the stem to the chine and then back along the chine to amidships. He then moved the hull sides outboard about an inch, creating the spray deflecting flat you’ll see at the chine on the front half of all the 20’s, which disappears about 10’ fwd of transom. He also rolled the hull sides outward to create more flare, and added the clipper bow to tie them together. The resulting hull measured 19’8” on the centerline, which was was evidently close enough to be considered 20’ for the racing class! This became the hull which was the basis for all Moesly and Potter “20 foot” models, including the SF, Seafari, Sceptre and Master Angler. The Seafari is the heaviest of the bunch at 1800 lbs for the outboard bare hull, with most of the weight of the cabin top and raised coaming, windshield, bunks, head, bulkheads and cabin door being forward of the fuel tank, so it’s a bit less stern heavy than the CC models and therefore able to handle a heavy motor better than the other models.
2. Potter raised the cockpit sole a couple inches in about 1973-74 when he changed from the 4 narrow stringers to 2 wide box stringers, but this basic hull continued in production until Potter went bankrupt and sold the molds to SeaCraft Industries about 1980. The ~350-375 lb V-6 motors (Merc Black Max and OMC 90 degree cross-flow motors) came out in the late 70’s, and Potter started offering the full height splash well tub as an accessory and included a full height design on the MA, so he was obviously aware of the reduced transom freeboard due to the extra weight.
3. I have a SeaCraft Industries brochure from 1982 which indicates the transom height was raised to 25” on all models, and centerline length had been increased 8” to 20’4”, but beam remained unchanged at 7’6”. They only made CC models which all had full height splash wells, with a revised transom containing storage boxes/bait wells similar to the Potter MA models.

Other than a length increase of a little over 3%, raising the transom from 20 to 25”, and moving the scuppers to drain out the transom, NOTHING has been done to the basic hull design on the later Tracker models to allow them to support the weight of a much heavier 4-stroke motor! This is why, after personally discovering the negative impacts of the “Aft CG shift” on my Seafari after adding a 30” setback bracket and a much heavier motor, that I have continued to emphasize for the last 10 years that “Light is Right” on the 20’ hull, especially when adding a bracket!

On CC models, you do have the option of moving the batteries into the console and moving the console forward to minimize the CG shift caused by a heavier motor. Depending on it's size, you may also be able to move the fuel tank forward. How far to move the console can be determined by doing a simple moment balance if you know the weight of all the components being moved. It's safe to assume that the CG was at the center of the fuel tank with a 300 lb motor on the transom and a single battery at the transom in the original design.

Bottom line: the design was NEVER “evolved” (some would say screwed up!) to accommodate newer, heavier engines, so if you’re contemplating any motor over about 400 lbs, think it through very carefully! Any naval architect will tell you that one of the most important parameters of any boat design is the location of the CG, in both fore & aft and vertical dimensions. So if you’re thinking of installing a 4-stroke motor and/or a bracket, where motor weight is even more critical, be prepared for min planning speeds in the low-mid 20’s instead of about 12 mph that all the Moesly designs would do with original power! And don’t expect the amazingly soft ride and efficient performance that these boats quickly became famous for with the relatively small motors available back in the 1960’s and 70’s!

Nice reply Denny!! :)

Has there been any documentation done on how far to move and what to move depending on weight of motor?

Throttle benders
 

Some days I long for the "ClassicCheckmate" site.

Check out this thread, posts no. 15 & 16. Based on the successful experience both Connor Davis and I have had with cramming the Seafari's large cabin full of gear and dive tanks, I believe it's very difficult to get too much weight forward in the 20' hull! It seems to have plenty of lift and buoyancy up front. I've run with 4 dive tanks plus a bunch of gear in the cabin, resulting in a great ride in very rough seas and Connor has run with 6 tanks in the cabin with similar results. I also concur with Connor on power . . . my "150" E-TEC (actually 165 hp at the prop) has so much mid-range torque that I've never used more than 50% throttle when getting on plane, and I typically cruise at about 25 kts/3700-3800 rpm and about 35% throttle. I hardly ever use all the power available.

If you stay with a ~400 lb motor, keep the casting deck, and move the console, batteries and gas tank as far forward as possible, I think you'd have good results. You might ask No Bones how far he moved his console, as his rig seems to be well balanced. If you add a bracket, you'll also want to add some large trim tabs, a 4B stern lifting prop, and maybe a fin on the AV plate.

So, it was `82 when the transom went to 25" and the scuppers out back?
Always wondered when SCI did those mods.

Did they raise the deck again?

As far as moving the console forward...
The distance from the console seat to the casting platform is close
to a size 13 shoe.

I am now 10 1/2 so I moved it 1 1/2" forward to allow for others to put
their feet down without quacking.

Sandy, all I know is that the SeaCraft Industries catalog is dated 1982, and I also have a March 1982 article from Trailer Boats magazine by a writer that toured the new plant in Tampa. It was obviously written at least a couple months earlier, and said that "the new models were to be unveiled at the Miami Boat Show, which is always in mid February, so the longer models evidently began production early in 1982. They probably built new molds to increase the length to 20'4", so my guess is that the 25" transom was incorporated at the same time. Potter had already raised the deck once but maybe they raised it again when they raised the transom. Do you get wet feet with your 375 lb motor if you leave the plugs out?! Denny

Nope, no bracket. Everything I've read and seen says no bracket, just raise the transom and keep the motor light. :)