# Jet Lower on Yamaha Vmax



## Lennyg3 (Dec 3, 2011)

Does anyone run a jet lower on a Vmax like a 200-250? If so how does it perform, and what kind of boat are you running? how does it plane out, and what is your top end? Any other suggestions for an OB Jet in this HP range? thanks in advance,

Lenny


----------



## Lennyg3 (Dec 5, 2011)

Anyone?


----------



## bulldog (Dec 5, 2011)

You'd have to think that motor would be amazing with a jet. Depending on the size of the boat you could realistically push 50 mph. I think it would be a good idea, expensive but a good idea.


----------



## Lennyg3 (Dec 5, 2011)

bulldog said:


> You'd have to think that motor would be amazing with a jet. Depending on the size of the boat you could realistically push 50 mph. I think it would be a good idea, expensive but a good idea.



That was my thought. I was looking at the merc verado, but it weighs about 60lbs more than the vmax. That supercharged verado would be mean though...


----------



## bulldog (Dec 5, 2011)

I think anything over 150hp on a 17' extra wide flat bottom would be sick. It would be super fast and jump out of the hole very quickly. Either way you go would be amazing.


----------



## Lennyg3 (Dec 6, 2011)

bulldog said:


> I think anything over 150hp on a 17' extra wide flat bottom would be sick. It would be super fast and jump out of the hole very quickly. Either way you go would be amazing.



Maybe I'm just spoiled by having my other boat with a prop, but even with only a 75 on it, it gets up on plane so much faster than my 115/80 on the g3. When I do repower it is either going to be a 200 or a 225. Hearing myself say that sounds a little overkill, but I don't want to regret buying to small of a motor again. A little too much sounds like it will be just right. A 225 should give me 160 at the bottom, and move this heavy barge up on plane in very little distance. I just can't find a whole lot of info on big hp jets.


----------



## bulldog (Dec 6, 2011)

Problem with big jets is they are expensive to maintain and run. I'd love to have one but for my fishing and where I run it just does not make sense. A lot of people opt for a 50/35, 60/40 or 90/65 and keep the weight of the boat down. I'm going to be in the market for a new jet as soon as I get mine back together and get it sold. Could sell fast, could take months, who knows. I will be more than likely downsizing myself. I am definately getting something newer but possibly an inboard jet. People in general are selling their excess things and for cheap so there is no telling what kind of deals are out there. Just have to keep your eyes open.


----------



## fender66 (Dec 6, 2011)

> I think anything over 150hp on a 17' extra wide flat bottom would be sick. It would be super fast and jump out of the hole very quickly. Either way you go would be amazing.



+1 I used to live this life. I Can't begin to tell you how awesome it was.




bulldog said:


> Problem with big jets is they are expensive to maintain and run.



+ 1 again.......


----------



## Lennyg3 (Dec 6, 2011)

fender66 said:


> > I think anything over 150hp on a 17' extra wide flat bottom would be sick. It would be super fast and jump out of the hole very quickly. Either way you go would be amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Besides the obvious cost of fuel, am I missing something as far as maintainance? No more required than on a big outboard with a prop, correct?

I was quoted a price of just over 2k for either the Vmax or the opti lower. I figure that the prop lower could offset a portion of the cost, and the 115/80 merc that I have now should be a worthwhile upgrade for someone with a lighter boat.


----------



## fender66 (Dec 6, 2011)

> I was quoted a price of just over 2k for either the Vmax or the opti lower.



That sounds expensive to me. My lower unit, used, is worth just over $1000.....at least that's what the dealer offered me.


----------



## Lennyg3 (Dec 6, 2011)

fender66 said:


> > I was quoted a price of just over 2k for either the Vmax or the opti lower.
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds expensive to me. My lower unit, used, is worth just over $1000.....at least that's what the dealer offered me.



Fender, what kind of hammer are you running? It's an evinrude iirc, right? What hp and how does she run?

That price for the lower was for a brand new jet from jet outboards I believe...


----------



## fender66 (Dec 6, 2011)

I was running a 1756 Alweld with a 225 Merc ProMax. But it blew up last July. I still have plans to rebuild, but it will be a complete rebuild and will take a lot of time and $$. Right now I have neither. :?


----------



## Lennyg3 (Dec 7, 2011)

fender66 said:


> I was running a 1756 Alweld with a 225 Merc ProMax. But it blew up last July. I still have plans to rebuild, but it will be a complete rebuild and will take a lot of time and $$. Right now I have neither. :?



How did it run with that setup, and how heavy was the boat?


----------



## fender66 (Dec 7, 2011)

Lennyg3 said:


> fender66 said:
> 
> 
> > I was running a 1756 Alweld with a 225 Merc ProMax. But it blew up last July. I still have plans to rebuild, but it will be a complete rebuild and will take a lot of time and $$. Right now I have neither. :?
> ...



The boat weighed about 925lbs and the motor probably another 275-300 (guess). I kept this boat loaded with all my gear and on calm water could still hit 50mph with 2 people (another 450+ lbs). I LOVE that boat and can't wait to get it back on the water.


----------



## Lil' Blue Rude (Dec 7, 2011)

You might be better of getting rid of the g3. Stepped hulls aren't very good for an outboard jet, at least that's what I've read and heard. I guees it's hard for them to get up on step with a jet lower on them. You might sell the rig or just the motor and buy a diffrent boat.


----------



## Lennyg3 (Dec 7, 2011)

Lil' Blue Rude said:


> You might be better of getting rid of the g3. Stepped hulls aren't very good for an outboard jet, at least that's what I've read and heard. I guees it's hard for them to get up on step with a jet lower on them. You might sell the rig or just the motor and buy a diffrent boat.




I like the boat too much to give it up. Can you go into more detail on why stepped hulls aren't good for jets? My assumption on why it is hard to get on step is because of the additional weight over a traditional tin. perfect example is fender's boat. his is almost the same as mine length wise, but I outweigh him by a good 300lbs before gear, gas, ect.... I don't plan on running super skinny water, so the additional draft isn't a huge issue for me. I just need MORE POWER! LOL


----------



## Lil' Blue Rude (Dec 7, 2011)

Couldn't find the post I read a few months back but the guys were talking about the outboard jet wouldn't be able to get hte boat going fast enough to get the boat on to the steps. What I took from that was the stepped hulls are desined so that once the hull reachs a certain speed the outer steps raise out of the water and the boat is only plaining on the next step down. The boat will finally get to the last step and be running the most efficient because less boat is in the water and creating less drag. If you can't get the boat up on the steps that's just extra suface area creating drag and slowing you down.
The biggest diffrence between your boat and fenders is his is a flat bottom designed for a use with an outboard jet, your boat was designed for use with a prop. The hull has as much to do with perfomance as any thing.


----------



## Lennyg3 (Dec 8, 2011)

Lil' Blue Rude said:


> Couldn't find the post I read a few months back but the guys were talking about the outboard jet wouldn't be able to get hte boat going fast enough to get the boat on to the steps. What I took from that was the stepped hulls are desined so that once the hull reachs a certain speed the outer steps raise out of the water and the boat is only plaining on the next step down. The boat will finally get to the last step and be running the most efficient because less boat is in the water and creating less drag. If you can't get the boat up on the steps that's just extra suface area creating drag and slowing you down.
> The biggest diffrence between your boat and fenders is his is a flat bottom designed for a use with an outboard jet, your boat was designed for use with a prop. The hull has as much to do with perfomance as any thing.



I'm not saying that the info is incorrect as far as not being able to get the boat on the lowest step of the hull, because that makes sense. It just needs more motor than a traditional tin jet.

My boat has a plate on the back that states "JET ONLY", so I dont know. it's just a aluminum bass boat (heavy) that was designed for a jet as far as I know. It's just heavier than most of the CCJ's out there, and needs more motor. When I went to look at the boat originally it had a 90/65 on it, and they were switching motors to a 115 merc. The Merc at the time had a prop, but they stated that they could not sell it with the prop lower as per the regs. (which was fine with me as I wanted a Jet.) I waited for them to install the new jet lower, and took delivery.


----------



## Lil' Blue Rude (Dec 8, 2011)

If it was designed for use with a jet only the boat would have a 27" transom. I have my doubt that G3 makes a hp180 jetonly and a hp180 prop only. If there was that big of a diffrence that a prop couldn't be run on your hull G3 would have made the transom tall enough the jack plate wouldn't have been needed.
More motor will help the problem. There's as much if not more perfomance to be had from the boat and setup as there is to be had from the motor hanging on it.


----------



## bulldog (Dec 8, 2011)

Lil' Blue Rude said:


> If it was designed for use with a jet only the boat would have a 27" transom. I have my doubt that G3 makes a hp180 jetonly and a hp180 prop only. If there was that big of a diffrence that a prop couldn't be run on your hull G3 would have made the transom tall enough the jack plate wouldn't have been needed.



I have to agree with 'rude on this one. It is very wierd that boat is for jets only but does not have a 27" transom. Most larger if not all jets have to have a 27" transom. What is the hp rating on the boat? Did the boat come with an owners manual? Does it say "jet only" on the title? It is just odd. The shorter transoms are for smaller jets but if your is rated for a say 200, that is odd. Especially if they did not supply you with a jack plate or offer one as an option. This is turing in to a great thread. Now lets get to the bottom of this.


----------



## Lennyg3 (Dec 8, 2011)

Lil' Blue Rude said:


> If it was designed for use with a jet only the boat would have a 27" transom. I have my doubt that G3 makes a hp180 jetonly and a hp180 prop only. If there was that big of a diffrence that a prop couldn't be run on your hull G3 would have made the transom tall enough the jack plate wouldn't have been needed.
> More motor will help the problem. There's as much if not more perfomance to be had from the boat and setup as there is to be had from the motor hanging on it.



More power is always a solution. Haha.

I'm not entirely sure if that last statement is saying that it isn't worth the time to try and make this boat better, or you are saying there is potential. Lol

Because I've been told that there isn't a whole lot to be bad in the way of performance upgrades for this motor....


----------



## Lennyg3 (Dec 8, 2011)

bulldog said:


> Lil' Blue Rude said:
> 
> 
> > If it was designed for use with a jet only the boat would have a 27" transom. I have my doubt that G3 makes a hp180 jetonly and a hp180 prop only. If there was that big of a diffrence that a prop couldn't be run on your hull G3 would have made the transom tall enough the jack plate wouldn't have been needed.
> ...



The boat has a 140 max hp, as in a 200/140 jet. I'm not sure what it says on the title, as it's in my safe deposit box. There is a jack plate on the boat though. When I spoke with the guy that sets the jets up on the boats he had told me that there was something different in the hull design compared to the prop ready model.

Here is a thread I found with another owner that has a jet only model:

https://www.tidalfish.com/forums/showthread.php/231890-g3-hp180-weights-1200-pounds-without-motor


----------



## Lil' Blue Rude (Dec 8, 2011)

More power is always a solution. Haha :lol: That's a sayin I live by. :mrgreen: 
My bad, didn't finish that last sentence. Meant to say more motor would probably help the problem. The reason I'm saying a diffrent boat would be better is because your boat may be sevrely limit the kind of performance you can achieve.


----------



## Lennyg3 (Dec 8, 2011)

Lil' Blue Rude said:


> More power is always a solution. Haha :lol: That's a sayin I live by. :mrgreen:
> My bad, didn't finish that last sentence. Meant to say more motor would probably help the problem. The reason I'm saying a diffrent boat would be better is because your boat may be sevrely limit the kind of performance you can achieve.



If I could get the boat into the mid 40s top end with a 200/140, and get it to co
E out of the hole better I would be very satisfied. I'm not sure if that's reasonable or not, but that would be my end goal. I think the additional power would get it up on the. Ery bottom pad and really help. Thoughts?


----------



## Lil' Blue Rude (Dec 9, 2011)

mid 40's would probably be reasonable with a 200 on that boat. Hole shot would probably be alot better with that motor to.


----------



## Lennyg3 (Dec 9, 2011)

Lil' Blue Rude said:


> mid 40's would probably be reasonable with a 200 on that boat. Hole shot would probably be alot better with that motor to.



So the question is: what should I be looking for from a 200 outboard? I would think weight is my biggest concern. Does anyone have any suggestions on one over another?


----------



## Lennyg3 (Dec 15, 2011)

bump.... 175 opti vs. 200 opti.... 25hp (20hp at jet) worth the weight. looks like 431lbs for the 175hp and 505 lbs for the 200hp.

Thats an additional 75lbs hanging on the back of the boat for 20 jet hp.


----------

