# MAX bottom width for 60/40?



## Tbradley (Aug 10, 2016)

I'm back to looking at boats again and need some advice. Boat is definitely going to be an Alweld 16-17ft, 52"-60" wide, square nose flat bottom and pretty sure I can get it in .080" to save some weight. The motor is going to be a Merc 60/40 four stroke or Evinruede Etec 60/40, tiller steer. About 95% sure I'd like to get a jet tunnel and float pods also. I'm thinking I could get the boat to weight in around 325-375lbs by going with the .080" thick hull and need to be able to plane a max of 4 average people (estimate around 750lbs). I know wider is good for floating higher and running shallow, but only if you have the HP to get it on plane. I've also been told by a few dealers that 52" is a good size for the 60/40, but we didn't really talk about 56" or maybe stretching to 60", which 60" may be out of the question (too wide). 

So with this info what would be the MAX bottom width I could go with?

Thanks!

Tom


----------



## onthewater102 (Aug 10, 2016)

Don't jet boaters usually want the thickest hull they can find to take the most punishment sliding over rocks & debris imaginable?


----------



## redrum (Aug 10, 2016)

I don't think you have to worry about bottom width with either of those engines. They will be able to plane out anything from 48"-60." I wouldn't consider the two engines to be equal due to the difference in powerband and engine weight. Since you are going to be running tiller steer I would suggest going a bit wider than normal to help with the extra weight in the back. Usually you want a thicker hull but if you aren't in rocky rivers with logs and crap floating around then more power to you. I got really good and welding up holes in a lightweight riveted boat. Tunnels and flat bottoms seem to be very finicky.


----------



## Tbradley (Aug 10, 2016)

redrum said:


> I don't think you have to worry about bottom width with either of those engines. They will be able to plane out anything from 48"-60." I wouldn't consider the two engines to be equal due to the difference in powerband and engine weight. Since you are going to be running tiller steer I would suggest going a bit wider than normal to help with the extra weight in the back. Usually you want a thicker hull but if you aren't in rocky rivers with logs and crap floating around then more power to you. I got really good and welding up holes in a lightweight riveted boat. Tunnels and flat bottoms seem to be very finicky.



Yes I know Etec is a two stroke and should have a better powerband and weighting 247lbs with the factory installed jet compared to the Merc being at 267lbs. and a four stroke, but the Merc is a 4 cylinder at about 995cc and the Etec is about 850 and a 2 cylinder. Wouldn't that make the Merc the more powerful motor??

I ain't 100% on the tunnel, but I believe I am on the pods. Should help offset the weight of the motor very well. Just don't want to go too wide on the boat and then be under powered.


----------



## redrum (Aug 10, 2016)

I wouldn't want to get into the which engine is better debate. Just wanted to say I wouldn't consider them to be equal. Also, a 48-60 won't have any trouble floating either of those engines. You could shift weight around in the boat to get it to float level. That's kind of one of those things that you have to go one way or the other with a jet. They will run faster with all the weight in the back but me, like most jet boaters, need to be able to float shallow, so I trade off top speed for shallow draft. I can walk to the bow of my 1648 with my engine idling and raise the jet nozzle out of the water.


----------



## dhoganjr (Aug 10, 2016)

Here are my thoughts, everyone has different opinions, but here goes.

I'm a Mercury fan and around my area you don't see many 60/40 E-tecs. The Mercury Fourstroke is a solid, stout little engine. Not putting down the E-tecs in anyway, just never had experience with them.

I would not go with a tunnel on a flat bottom, it is not needed and you will lose draft and speed. Pods would be helpful, especially if going with a tiller. They will get you on plane faster.

Adding length will not hurt speed, adding width will affect speed. Adding width will increase weight carrying capacity, reduce draft, and plane quicker to a point.

Go with a 17, will give you more room in the boat without sacrificing speed. It will increase the surface area giving you better draft.

On a 52" bottom you should see speeds around 30-33 mph. Once loaded down it will run deeper in the water, so you will need a little more water under you.

A 56" bottom should get around 29-32 mph. If you are going to have 4 people most of the time, it is probably the best way to go. It will handle the weight better.

I prefer a 60" bottom, but I also run a 250. With a 60/40 it would probably run 27-30.

With any of them, when you load them down with the loads you are talking about, you are going to lose speed and take awhile to plane.

On thickness an .080 will save you weight over the .100, but over time I think the .100 would be better. I would think an .080 would tend to get more waves between the ribs (ribs are crossways inside of hull) over time from sliding over logs, rocks, etc. I think most shops around here do more repairs on .100 guage by a good margin, but only because when people get .100 they think they are indestructible. With either one, if you hit something just right, it is going to shred it. 

With all that said I would go .100, my preference, I think it makes for a sturdier boat. Mine is totaled right now. It held up to quite a few hits over 14 years. It still doesn't leak, but has some good dents from the last big hit, if you seen my videos. https://forum.tinboats.net/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=41300

If you are set on the 60/40, and haul that kind of weight frequently. I would get a 1756, .100 guage, pods, heavy gunnel rail, and an extra knee brace (if you think you will ever upgrade the engine).

*When I had the 115 on my 1860, it was underpowered for the places I run. When I take off I want to be on plane now, and not have to worry about what weight I have in the boat. I trade off draft for planing ability*


----------



## Tbradley (Aug 11, 2016)

Thanks dhoganjr! Your replies are what I was thinking on all the searching online and calls to the dealers. Yes the 60/40 is as big as I'd want to go with, it's a big jump from the Merc 25 hp 2 stroke (prop) I have now. I've read on your post that your thinking about pods on your next boat and would like to know how you like them when you get some time running them. Was thinking tunnel for the extra protection for the jet foot and the pods should help offset the loss of flotation of having the tunnel, but I've read that with just the addition of pods only the pods actually channel the water into kind of a tunnel like affect to allow the motor to be mounted a little higher anyway, not sure, but that would be great. I know there's a guy on the Outdoor Directory forum that has an Alweld 1752 flat bottom tunnel with pods that does great with a Tohatsu 50/35. He had the pods added aftermarket to help with stern squatting, probably due to the tunnel, but now it runs much better and he never hits his jet foot because of the tunnel.


----------



## Ozark River Runner (Aug 11, 2016)

well dhoganjr nailed everything that I could say but I'll go ahead and share what I have experienced. I have ran a 60/40 Merc for two years now coming from a 20hp 2 stroke Merc and I have loved it! Great motor. I don't have any experience with the E-Tech. I went from a 16' to a 17' and would defiantly recommend it. The reason I stayed with .080 and went with a 52" bottom is due to the small rivers I run to keep weight down. Would love a wider boat if the waters I fished could handle it. If you run places that allow for a wider boat I would recommend it as well if you are planning on loading it down with people and gear. Never a bad idea to build it strong enough for a larger motor just in case. I use to swear I would never go bigger than my 20hp. One thing I have learned through the years that with a jet a larger motor doesn't mean you have to go faster but it allows you haul more weight and be able to make quicker turns especially down stream. Would like to know how you guys like the pods if you get them. Have always wondered how they would work for someone who runs the same type of rivers and a similar set up.


----------



## Tbradley (Aug 11, 2016)

Ozark River Runner said:


> The reason I stayed with .080 and went with a 52" bottom is due to the small rivers I run to keep weight down. Would love a wider boat if the waters I fished could handle it. If you run places that allow for a wider boat I would recommend it as well if you are planning on loading it down with people and gear.



That's the same reason I want the .080". My Seaark 1448 is .072" riveted and is in good shape after 16 yrs, but not jet boating in it either.... The river I run is not big either so I'll have to check some of the riffles we cross to make sure that a 56" or 60" won't be too wide. Just this summer one of the riffles had a tree almost across it and we had to cut it out with a chain saw so we could pass. I'm a little nervous about pods, but everything I've read about them seems like their a no brainer.


----------



## archery68 (Aug 11, 2016)

I have an 18/52 with 60/40 Mercury and love it. I run a tiller and .80 blazer ss. Have hit 34 one time downstream by myself no gear. No tunnel or pods. I personally don't think they are needed. Mine gets on plane quick and will run in the high 20's with my family , wife and two kids with lots of crap in the boat. I like the 18 better than the two 17 footers I have had. Have only run tillers and there more weight out front to get on plane quicker with the 18 ft. Mercury by far more popular than etec in my part of world, I a evinrude fan but they are to expensive. Almost 9 grand new compared to the Mercury little over 6 grand. That's a no brainier. Mercury is quiet and good on fuel.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tbradley (Aug 12, 2016)

archery68 said:


> I have an 18/52 with 60/40 Mercury and love it. I run a tiller and .80 blazer ss. Have hit 34 one time downstream by myself no gear. No tunnel or pods. I personally don't think they are needed. Mine gets on plane quick and will run in the high 20's with my family , wife and two kids with lots of crap in the boat. I like the 18 better than the two 17 footers I have had. Have only run tillers and there more weight out front to get on plane quicker with the 18 ft. Mercury by far more popular than etec in my part of world, I a evinrude fan but they are to expensive. Almost 9 grand new compared to the Mercury little over 6 grand. That's a no brainier. Mercury is quiet and good on fuel.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Very nice looking boat! I could see you probably not needing pods on an 18 footer because of the length. You said you had two 17 footers in the past, were they flat bottoms? How wide was the bottom on the 17 footers you had? I test drove a 1752 Blazer that a guy let Fred from Current River Marine borrow. It looked just like yours and ran real shallow with 3 of us in the boat. We ran it on Current river and the river I run has a lot of bigger rocks in it compared to the Current from what I can remember. These larger rocks are the reason I'm looking at a tunnel and the pods would offset the loss of floatation from the tunnel. About how much of the jet foot is below your hull (is the bottom inline with the first grate pin)?


----------



## archery68 (Aug 12, 2016)

Tbradley said:


> archery68 said:
> 
> 
> > I have an 18/52 with 60/40 Mercury and love it. I run a tiller and .80 blazer ss. Have hit 34 one time downstream by myself no gear. No tunnel or pods. I personally don't think they are needed. Mine gets on plane quick and will run in the high 20's with my family , wife and two kids with lots of crap in the boat. I like the 18 better than the two 17 footers I have had. Have only run tillers and there more weight out front to get on plane quicker with the 18 ft. Mercury by far more popular than etec in my part of world, I a evinrude fan but they are to expensive. Almost 9 grand new compared to the Mercury little over 6 grand. That's a no brainier. Mercury is quiet and good on fuel.
> ...


Yes both of my previous boats were flat bottom, square front 17/52's. To be honest, not sure on the grate pin question? However, the thing I like bout the Mercury motor big tiller is that the trim but is right there, easy to manipulate and when I up on plane and trimmed, the jet foot is not below the hull. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tbradley (Aug 12, 2016)

archery68 did you ever think about going with a wider hull or do you just prefer how the 52's" perform?


----------



## dhoganjr (Aug 12, 2016)

A straight edge off the bottom of the hull should line up with the front grate pin with the motor fully trimmed down. Every boat is different though, some will need to be a bit higher or lower. Mine is a bit higher and runs perfect there. The pic is where mine is set.


Where ever you buy it from, make sure they know and are knowledgeable about jets. There are dealers that sell only a few and just hang the motor and call it good. What area do you live in?


----------



## Tbradley (Aug 12, 2016)

I'm in central KY. No jets dealers near me that I've found. I mean they'll order you a jet, but like you said not knowledgeable on setting them up. All the info that I know is from here, Outdoordirectory.com and dealers mostly in MO that I've called.


----------



## archery68 (Aug 12, 2016)

Tbradley said:


> archery68 did you ever think about going with a wider hull or do you just prefer how the 52's" perform?


I liked my other 52 inch boats so when I started shopping I was going to get another 17/52. Well the boat place had a new 18/52 set up how I wanted it and he told me that the 1852 I would like just as well. Really didn't think bout a 56 bottom. I wanted a blazer ss and i could be wrong and I'm sure others will correct me if I'm wrong but I wanted .80 to keep it light. I think the the 56 only comes in .100 gage. So 52 it will be for me cause there are motor restrictions on current river so that why I have what I have. Went to current river all day today and really pleased with my setup. I have had it about a year now. If no restrictions on hp I would have liked an 1856 or 1860 with the Mercury 115/80 tiller steering, however they are lot of money and I might gain 7 mph is all. Mine fast enough and handles great. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## archery68 (Aug 12, 2016)

Tbradley said:


> I'm in central KY. No jets dealers near me that I've found. I mean they'll order you a jet, but like you said not knowledgeable on setting them up. All the info that I know is from here, Outdoordirectory.com and dealers mostly in MO that I've called.


There are lots of boat dealers around here that know their stuff about jets. Exactly where in Ky? I was stationed years ago at Ft. Campbell, it would be worth your time to head over and check some boats out and not that far. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Anonymous (Aug 12, 2016)

I recently played with a 1652 Alweld tunnel with pods powered by a 60/40 Merc 4 stroke and found it very underpowered. 

This is a heavier .100 hull with a full welded railing around the boat and a full floor, 12 gallon fuel tank, single battery. 

Boat would barely do 20 in deep water upriver and almost 25 downriver, would never fully plane out. Seemed very underpowered. Motor running 5200rpm, impeller like new. 

Compared to my rivited lowe 1648 50/35 Honda tiller this thing was a dog.


----------



## Tbradley (Aug 14, 2016)

archery68 said:


> Tbradley said:
> 
> 
> > I'm in central KY. No jets dealers near me that I've found. I mean they'll order you a jet, but like you said not knowledgeable on setting them up. All the info that I know is from here, Outdoordirectory.com and dealers mostly in MO that I've called.
> ...



About 50 miles east of Lexington.


----------



## archery68 (Aug 14, 2016)

Tbradley said:


> archery68 said:
> 
> 
> > Tbradley said:
> ...


Farther than I thought, that a ways over there. Still may be worth your time though. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tbradley (Aug 14, 2016)

kgrant said:


> I recently played with a 1652 Alweld tunnel with pods powered by a 60/40 Merc 4 stroke and found it very underpowered.
> 
> This is a heavier .100 hull with a full welded railing around the boat and a full floor, 12 gallon fuel tank, single battery.
> 
> ...



Could be motor mounted too low? There's a guy on Outdoordirectory.com that has a 1752 Alweld tunnel with pods that says runs very good with a Tohatsu 50/35 with him his wife and two kids. He added aftermarket pods though.


----------



## archery68 (Aug 14, 2016)

I know a guy with a 1652 with 60/40 Mercury tiller that does very well, no pods or tunnel and .80 but still think that something wasn't right if it wouldn't even get on plane. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Anonymous (Aug 14, 2016)

Motor is defiantly not too low, it has electric lift and you can raise till it sucks air then lower back down. I don't like how far the lift mounts the motor of the transom, but the lift is there so we can easily swap from jet to prop. 

It will get barely plane, just seems like it's plowing water. Triming the motor doesn't seem to make much difference. I've set up a few outboard jets, this boat just seems too heavy for the motor. 

From reading others experiences with this motor we were hoping for better performance.

We're not done playing with it yet, any ideas?


----------



## Tbradley (Aug 14, 2016)

Too much set back on the jack plate??? As far as the plowing water at the bow and the trim not having any effect sounds like the angle of the transom is not correct, but being an Alweld and so many being ran with outboard jets I'm sure that's not the problem, but could be a lot of weight up front?


----------



## JL8Jeff (Aug 14, 2016)

My Lowe 1652 tunnel has an older Mercury 60/45 short shaft jet and it gets up and goes pretty well. I moved the console forward and put the battery up under the console to move weight forward. I also had to put on transom wedges for the motor to keep the nose down and avoid porpoising. I'm wondering if the pods and the jackplate moving the motor too far back are causing your issues.


----------



## dhoganjr (Aug 14, 2016)

kgrant said:


> Motor is defiantly not too low, it has electric lift and you can raise till it sucks air then lower back down. I don't like how far the lift mounts the motor of the transom, but the lift is there so we can easily swap from jet to prop.
> 
> It will get barely plane, just seems like it's plowing water. Triming the motor doesn't seem to make much difference. I've set up a few outboard jets, this boat just seems too heavy for the motor.
> 
> ...


In the pic is the motor trimmed all the way down? If it is, it looks like it is about 1 to 1 1/2 inches too low. That top plate coming off of the tunnel should be where the column of water is. If so the shoe is going to be scooping water causing drag and forcing the bow down. The farther out you trim it the worse it will get.

I have never ran a tunnel or set one up, only going by what I have read about them. Setup should be generally the same though as finding where the water column exits and adjust accordingly.


----------



## Tbradley (Aug 17, 2016)

Hopefully he'll respond, I'm curious as well.


----------



## handyandy (Aug 17, 2016)

looks like the pods might be welded on straight rather than angled up some. Might be to back heavy but figured pods would counter that. My old 60/40 two stoke merc pushes my boat pretty well it's a 1554 and just as heavy as his boat I'm sure. Mine is a 1/8" hull with full floor, gun/rod box on each side tiller as well so it's a little back heavy. Mine takes a minute to plane out if it's loaded heavy with three guys and hunting gear but planes out and will still do 26-27mph with that load. Load doesn't seem to hurt my top speed much just my time to get up on plane. I'm guessing something is off wonder if he has the four stroke merc and might have one of the old style impellers that is better for the two strokes.


----------



## handyandy (Aug 17, 2016)

archery68 said:


> Tbradley said:
> 
> 
> > I'm in central KY. No jets dealers near me that I've found. I mean they'll order you a jet, but like you said not knowledgeable on setting them up. All the info that I know is from here, Outdoordirectory.com and dealers mostly in MO that I've called.
> ...




If you want to I'm north of louisville by about 45mins into indiana if you wanted to go for a ride in my boat you could, it's a 54" bottom 1/8" hull my 60/40 does pretty well I have it on a jack plate to switch to a prop for certain trips. my next boat which won't be for a while will probably be a 1854 1/8" hull with my 60/40. I'm next door to you but closer than MO


----------



## mphelle (Aug 17, 2016)

This is becoming a separate topic but handyandy brings up a good point.



kgrant said:


> I recently played with a 1652 Alweld tunnel with pods powered by a 60/40 Merc 4 stroke and found it very underpowered.
> 
> This is a heavier .100 hull with a full welded railing around the boat and a full floor, 12 gallon fuel tank, single battery.
> 
> ...



Post a side photo with a straightedge off the bottom extending to the end of the pod. The rear of the pod should be around 3/4in higher than the bottom of the boat. If not they could be acting as trim tabs causing drag, plowing, and slow planing.


----------



## Anonymous (Aug 18, 2016)

mphelle said:


> This is becoming a separate topic but handyandy brings up a good point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The pod are welded on around 1" above the bottom of the boat. They look square but I never did put a straight edge on them. 

I don't have access to the boat right now.


----------



## mphelle (Aug 18, 2016)

The bottom of the pod should be flush and smooth with the bottom of the boat or it will create drag, the rear of the pod should be around 3/4 inch higher than the bottom of the boat. Post a photo when you get a chance.


----------



## handyandy (Aug 19, 2016)

I don't think it's the jack plate I run a jack plate on mine and it planes out just fine with two guys and some gear and I know my boat is every bit as heavy as his. So I'm thinking something is wrong, either to much gap between impeller and liner, not trimmed right, pods aren't right, or something as stated more pictures would help a lot.


----------

