![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
SeaVee 39’ count them yes 4 on the back.
![]() FellowShip _______________________________________________ My motto: Just for the Grins ![]() |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I'd need a bigger truck......
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Is this done just because you can't get the total HP that they want with 2 or 3 engines. Correct me if I'm wrong but as you divide the total HP among additional engines the total package becomes less and less efficient, both economy and speed wise right (ie twin 300s would be much better than quadruple 150s)
__________________
1973 23' Tsunami, 300hp Etec Norwalk, CT |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Probably quad 275's for bad azz effect......
![]() |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tsunami you are correct I can’t remember how much additional power it will generate but not that much. I think their approach is more like if one or two motors go down they still can do their think on the water that day.
But for me if two outboards can’t do it than it’s time for inboard turbo dieses. FellowShip _______________________________________________ My motto: Just for the Grins ![]() |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Are they still rigged with seperate shifters and throttles the way a twin setup is?
__________________
1973 23' Tsunami, 300hp Etec Norwalk, CT |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ha Tsunami I really couldn’t answer that one. But the CC control panel would probably look like a 747 cock pit.
FellowShip _______________________________________________ My motto: Just for the Grins ![]() |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Good drug running boat I guess.....for the SKA off-season of course.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ya I could really wreck credit not paying that fuel bill!!!!!
|
![]() |
|
|