Very, very small 4-stroke engines
cblo...@usit.net
I am going to purchase the smallest (lightest) 4-stroke engine I can
for my canoe. I absolutely do not want an electric trolling motor: The
Fuel weight to energy ratio is excessively high!
I want a small 4-stroke motor just to supplement my puny arms when
paddling up wind. Tennessee Valley Lakes are unforgiving in that! I
mostly boat in mountain lakes, so I want the 4-stroke for
environmental reasons. Besides, I hear they are quieter. (Any truth to
that? Anyone hear of an actual dB test on them?)
The only one I have found so far is a Honda Marine 2 hp that weighs 27
lb. Even at 2 hp, that's more than my tired old arms can put out!
Who else makes these motors besides Honda Marine?
My main criteria are the weight and the 4-stroke engine. I don't
really care what the horse power is, but, of course the are directly
related.
Happy Boating
cblo...@usit.net
I hear there is a british made motor for small sailboats that might
fit the bill. Anyone know of a brand name?
Del Cecchi
Of course the actual amount of pollution from a 2-3 hp motor is
insignificant, given the very low fuel consumption of such a motor. 2
hp is .2 gallons per hour approximately, and will take you 5 or 6 miles
on that quart of gas. (liter of gas if you are in Canada, eh?) Only
urinate on shore and call it even. :-)
del cecchi
Lloyd Sumpter
You may be thinking of the Seagull - donno if they still make them...
Lloyd Sumpter
"Far Cove" Catalina 36
--
It's better to be at the dock, wishing you were at sea,
than at sea, wishing you were at the dock.
Lee
>Very, very small 4-stroke engines
>
>I am going to purchase the smallest (lightest) 4-stroke engine I can
>for my canoe. I absolutely do not want an electric trolling motor: The
>Fuel weight to energy ratio is excessively high!
>I want a small 4-stroke motor just to supplement my puny arms when
>paddling up wind. Tennessee Valley Lakes are unforgiving in that! I
>mostly boat in mountain lakes, so I want the 4-stroke for
>environmental reasons. Besides, I hear they are quieter. (Any truth to
>that? Anyone hear of an actual dB test on them?)
>The only one I have found so far is a Honda Marine 2 hp that weighs 27
>lb. Even at 2 hp, that's more than my tired old arms can put out!
>Who else makes these motors besides Honda Marine?
>
>My main criteria are the weight and the 4-stroke engine. I don't
>really care what the horse power is, but, of course the are directly
>related.
>
>Happy Boating
>
I think. I wouldn't count on it being quieter though just because it's
"4-stroke". It's still a 1 cylinder banger that's going to shake, rattle 'n
roll. But if you MUST have a 4-stroke, then that's probably your only option
if you are looking for the smallest one.
Larry W4CSC
mower I ever had! That 2hp outboard IS a fine machine.....lots around
the harbor on dingys in the salt water.
Larry....
Alexander Grant
O.S. Wankel .30 Rotary 49-PI w/Muffler
Output: 1.27 bhp at 17,000 rpm
Weight: 335g (11.8 oz)
http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p.pgm?Q=1&I=LXBY72&P=7
Good Luck Al
Not a joke... I think rotary will return to boating in a big way.
Better Weight to Power...
Great Size to power...
The technology is vastly improved...
Boats that are using rotary get up on plane much faster...
4 cycle so it won't be banned like 2 cycle...
Currently Rotary engines are being widely used for cogeneration power
and the results are yielding very high mpg...
Noise reduction... perfect to sneak up on those great fishing spots
Tim Butler wrote:
Del Cecchi <dce...@ibm.net> writes:
> > I am going to purchase the smallest (lightest) 4-stroke engine I can
> > for my canoe.
http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p.pgm?Q=1&I=LXBY56&P=0
tim
RBStern
>> > for my canoe.
>
>http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p.pgm?Q=1&I=LXBY56&P=0
>
>tim
>
That's a good one, Tim, but RJL Industries makes a .19 four stroke. I think it
weighs in at about 7 to 8 ounces. :)
-- Rich Stern
Thanatos
honda 2hp 4-cycle is a good choice.. Yamaha makes a 4hp 4-cycle 46 or 49 lbs.
In article <6b41iscbcdpg88d5p...@4ax.com>, cblo...@usit.net
says...
Dean
http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?Q=1&I=LE3218&P=1
K&B 3.5cc outboard
RPM: 25,000 Horsepower: 1.1
Weight: 18 oz
-Dean
On Tue, 16 May 2000 02:59:53 GMT, no...@nowhere.com (Lee) wrote:
>In article <dh31is4653j9u7qdu...@4ax.com>, cblo...@usit.net wrote:
>>Very, very small 4-stroke engines
>>
>>I am going to purchase the smallest (lightest) 4-stroke engine I can
>>for my canoe. I absolutely do not want an electric trolling motor: The
>>Fuel weight to energy ratio is excessively high!
>>I want a small 4-stroke motor just to supplement my puny arms when
>>paddling up wind. Tennessee Valley Lakes are unforgiving in that! I
>>mostly boat in mountain lakes, so I want the 4-stroke for
>>environmental reasons. Besides, I hear they are quieter. (Any truth to
>>that? Anyone hear of an actual dB test on them?)
>>The only one I have found so far is a Honda Marine 2 hp that weighs 27
>>lb. Even at 2 hp, that's more than my tired old arms can put out!
>>Who else makes these motors besides Honda Marine?
>>
>>My main criteria are the weight and the 4-stroke engine. I don't
>>really care what the horse power is, but, of course the are directly
>>related.
>>
>>Happy Boating
>>
>Honda is the only one so far that has a 4-stroke that small (2hp). Air cooled,
>I think. I wouldn't count on it being quieter though just because it's
>"4-stroke". It's still a 1 cylinder banger that's going to shake, rattle 'n
>roll. But if you MUST have a 4-stroke, then that's probably your only option
>if you are looking for the smallest one.
--
Dean
AIM:ripperd2
ripp...@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Code/7572 Man, I haven't touched that site in a long time. Don't even bother going there ;-)
Experience is something you don't get until just after you needed it.
I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory.
Marcus G Bell
> Heres another:
> http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?Q=1&I=LE3218&P=1
> K&B 3.5cc outboard RPM: 25,000 Horsepower: 1.1 Weight: 18 oz
Not a 4-stroke.
-- -- Marcus. ( be...@mail.med.upenn.edu )
hkr...@capu.net
>
> Lee <cana...@hothothotmail.comcomcom> writes:
>
> > Gee, that's a better power-to-weight ratio than Harry's optimax.
> > Which he told us was the best of any engine.
> >
> > It's ok. I didn't believe him. Then or now.
>
> Harry's boat doesn't burn a Nitromethane and mineral oil mix, either.
>
> tim
Gee, another post from Cess Pool Mouth Lee. Charming.
I don't recall claiming production opti's had great power to weight
ratio's...they're kinda heavy.
But Merc sure has some racing outboards with spectacular power to weight ratios.
I'm sure those are the ones to which I referred.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Any religion that rejects coffee worships a false god.
cblo...@usit.net
200 HP???
Nitro-Fuel???
RACING???
Remember, folks, this is supposed to go on the back of a canoe.
I've done lots of looking around, calling around, reading, and
thinking. I think that the Honda Marine 2 HP is still the best choice
I have. The only thing it doesn't have that I want is a charging
system for the night time marker lights. I can just use batteries, no
problem.
Cost: about $770 , or $870 for the long shaft.
Weight:27 lbs
Power to weight ratio of motor (for you bean counters):0.07 hp/lb.
Comparable to a 1964 Ford Mustang.
Power to weight ratio of the ridiculous load listed below (including
motor): 2.0 hp/ 887 lb = 0.00235 hp/lb
Believe it or not, that is comparable to a Chevy Suburban
(towing a fully loaded Quarry truck)
Top Speed: Who knows. I'll tell you when I find out
Load Statistics
Here's a rather heavy load for me and my 19.5' Marathon canoe:
Fully loaded for pig-dog camping:
1 canoe (114 lb), 2 people(360lb), 1 50-Qt cooler-full(60 lb), a food
bin (25 lb), 1 big tent + 3 tarps(30 lb), 2 huge packs (70lb), axes &
saws (9 lb), extra case of beer(20 lb), 9 gallons of water(72 lb), 1
Newfoundland dog (soaking wet, of course 100 lb), and who knows how
much knickknack (30 lb). And an umbrella (It makes a great sail, if
the wind is favorable, and you don't mind looking like Jiminy
Cricket).
With no wind, in a calm lake, I can make 5.0 feet per second (3.4
mph). That's top speed when I'm paddling alone. I can do that for
about 15-20 minutes (more if lightning is present).
Now, for a comparison, same load, same water/wind, but with a real
laid-back paddlin' style (four slow strokes, and a pause/sip...repeat
at leisure) that I can keep up all day.
Cruising speed: 3.5 feet per second(2.4 mph)
There are two conclusions I draw from this:
1) I am not in a hurry (unless lightning is present). If I get in a
hurry, the power requirement from my arms is going to have to increase
exponentially. The same thing is true for a motor. I can putter along
at a fast idle all day on a half gallon of fuel. How far will I get?
I'll tell you in a couple of weeks.
2) I am used to going slow. (I wish more people would too) The fastest
I ever go on the lake is about 6.5 feet per second (4.4 mph). That's
in a favorable breeze, with two people paddling for all they're worth,
one person holding the umbrella (try not to laugh), no dog, and no
cargo. If I put the maximum motor I could on the canoe (rated at 9.5
hp) I might go...well, I don't have any idea how fast I'd go. I'm sure
it would be over 12 ft/s (8 mph), and that's way too fast for me
(unless lightning is present)! I couldn't see the fish in the water,
nor the beasts on the shore.
I might even have to change my pants.
So I'll get this motor and post again in a couple of weeks. In the
mean time, has anyone out there used an out board ENGINE on the back
of a canoe?
Pray, enlighten us.
Happy floating...
Ian Malcolm
They still make them but you cant really tell them from a Selva. For a real
Seagull engine and/or a lot more info try
http://www3.bc.sympatico.ca/RonBattiston/BSS.html
I picked one up in the UK for £40
Odds and ends for it have been about same again and I have been getting it
running nice in a tank. Cant wait to get it on the water but the boatbuilder
has my boat!
N.B. they are TWOSTROKE so probably wont do for original postee and old ones
want 10:1 (Not blue haze, more blue fog) Just converted mine for 25:1.
With that much oil going in, they just go on for ever. Mine was made in '75
and I will probably still be using it as long as I can still buy gas (I seem
to remember being taught in school that North sea oil had an expeccted
reserves life to 2010 or 2015 !!)
More use for the original postee would be an article I read about 5 years
ago on converting a weedwhacker to an outboard. Still twostroke but very
easy to carry. Method was turn casing for flexable output shaft 180 deg so
shaft end is horisontal. remove guard and spool, fit a suitable prop. Fit
suitable peg to shaft casing near engine to fit vertical socket on transom
of small boat, Disable safety interlock that needs both hands if fitted and
replace with suitable kill cord hookup if possible (EASY if using points
ignition.) I havnt tried it myself as I have yet to come across a cheap
enough petrol weedwhacker.
Lloyd Sumpter wrote:
> cblo...@usit.net wrote:
> >
> > P.S.
> > I hear there is a british made motor for small sailboats that might
> > fit the bill. Anyone know of a brand name?
>
> You may be thinking of the Seagull - donno if they still make them...
>
> Lloyd Sumpter
> "Far Cove" Catalina 36
> --
> It's better to be at the dock, wishing you were at sea,
> than at sea, wishing you were at the dock.
--
Ian Malcolm. London, ENGLAND. (remove NOSPAM from email to reply)
hkr...@capu.net
>
> British Seagull of Poole, Dorset, England was taken over by Selva (I think)
> They still make them but you cant really tell them from a Selva. For a real
> Seagull engine and/or a lot more info try
>
> http://www3.bc.sympatico.ca/RonBattiston/BSS.html
>
> I picked one up in the UK for £40
>
If I recall, the original poster was looking for a small, quiet, "smoke-free"
four cycle engine to push a canoe.
He sure as heck would not want a Seagull.
Harry Krause
------------
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
hkr...@capu.net
> Harry, have you *EVER* used a Seagull that hasn't been used to mix fiberous cement
> first?
>
> They are not smoke free but are a LOT less trouble than most engines under 5 Hp.
My experience with engines under 5 hp goes back to 50 year old Evinrudes of
1-1/2 to 3 hp. I don't recall any of them being problematical, and they were
easy to fix. I encountered a few Seagulls, not many, in my father's boat shop.
In fact, I seem to recall some without a recoil starter. I recall them as
roughly made and understressed.
They probably were better than the plethora of British cars I owned in the
1960's and 1970's, though I do have a Brit car from the 1959-1960 model year
that is in close to perfect shape. It lives in a garage in Florida.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Just bring me my coffee, and s-l-o-w-l-y back away.
Ian Malcolm
hkr...@capu.net wrote:
Harry, calling your quoting 'selective' is like calling Genghis Khan 'a bit of a
lad'. My original post included the sentance
N.B. they are TWOSTROKE so probably wont do for original
postee and old ones
want 10:1 (Not blue haze, more blue fog) Just converted
mine for 25:1.
I did not introduce the Seagull as an option, that was cblo...@usit.net followed
by identification by Lloyd Sumpter.
Harry, have you *EVER* used a Seagull that hasn't been used to mix fiberous cement
first?
They are not smoke free but are a LOT less trouble than most engines under 5 Hp.
N.B. I Will NOT reply if this turns into the usual flame war between you, Canal
Boy and Skipper.
J R North
trimmer models from $50- $100 US.
JR
Ian Malcolm wrote:
>
> British Seagull of Poole, Dorset, England was taken over by Selva (I think)
> They still make them but you cant really tell them from a Selva. For a real
> Seagull engine and/or a lot more info try
>
> http://www3.bc.sympatico.ca/RonBattiston/BSS.html
>
> I picked one up in the UK for £40
>
> Odds and ends for it have been about same again and I have been getting it
> running nice in a tank. Cant wait to get it on the water but the boatbuilder
> has my boat!
>
> N.B. they are TWOSTROKE so probably wont do for original postee and old ones
> want 10:1 (Not blue haze, more blue fog) Just converted mine for 25:1.
>
> With that much oil going in, they just go on for ever. Mine was made in '75
> and I will probably still be using it as long as I can still buy gas (I seem
> to remember being taught in school that North sea oil had an expeccted
> reserves life to 2010 or 2015 !!)
>
> More use for the original postee would be an article I read about 5 years
> ago on converting a weedwhacker to an outboard. Still twostroke but very
> easy to carry. Method was turn casing for flexable output shaft 180 deg so
> shaft end is horisontal. remove guard and spool, fit a suitable prop. Fit
> suitable peg to shaft casing near engine to fit vertical socket on transom
> of small boat, Disable safety interlock that needs both hands if fitted and
> replace with suitable kill cord hookup if possible (EASY if using points
> ignition.) I havnt tried it myself as I have yet to come across a cheap
> enough petrol weedwhacker.
>
> Lloyd Sumpter wrote:
>
> > cblo...@usit.net wrote:
> > >
> > > P.S.
> > > I hear there is a british made motor for small sailboats that might
> > > fit the bill. Anyone know of a brand name?
> >
> > You may be thinking of the Seagull - donno if they still make them...
> >
> > Lloyd Sumpter
> > "Far Cove" Catalina 36
> > --
> > It's better to be at the dock, wishing you were at sea,
> > than at sea, wishing you were at the dock.
>
> --
> Ian Malcolm. London, ENGLAND. (remove NOSPAM from email to reply)
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Home Page: http://www.seanet.com/~jasonrnorth
If you're not the lead dog, the view never changes
Doubt yourself, and the real world will eat you alive
The world doesn't revolve around you, it revolves around me
No skeletons in the closet; just decomposing corpses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dependence is Vulnerability:
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Open the Pod Bay Doors please, Hal"
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.."
hkr...@capu.net
>
> hkr...@capu.net wrote:
>
> > Ian Malcolm wrote:
> >
> > > Harry, have you *EVER* used a Seagull that hasn't been used to mix fiberous cement
> > > first?
> > >
> > > They are not smoke free but are a LOT less trouble than most engines under 5 Hp.
> >
> > 1-1/2 to 3 hp. I don't recall any of them being problematical, and they were
> > easy to fix. I encountered a few Seagulls, not many, in my father's boat shop.
> > In fact, I seem to recall some without a recoil starter. I recall them as
> > roughly made and understressed.
> >
> > They probably were better than the plethora of British cars I owned in the
> > 1960's and 1970's, though I do have a Brit car from the 1959-1960 model year
> > that is in close to perfect shape. It lives in a garage in Florida.
> >
> > --
> > Harry Krause
> > ------------
> >
> > Just bring me my coffee, and s-l-o-w-l-y back away.
>
> water pump would probably be little bothered by the stuff, the smoke factor apparently
> puts most Greens off Seagulls when mixing render for rammed earth structures!). Over
> here, old seagulls that run are far more common than old evenrudes that run. I dont
> know what an evinrude would doo after 5-10 years in the garden or woodshead without
> draining and protective lube furst. Most seagulls survive that. The classic seagull
> is a wrap the cord and pull jobbie. Some later ones had a recoil start option on a frame
> fitted on top. I think you still got a bobbin for wind & pull though.
> The last series made had an enclosed flywheel and recoil start.
> A Seagull should start first pull when warm and in not more than two pulls cold. Most
> that have been given *ANY* care will do so. The rest reward their owner's indifference
> by a reluctance to wake up.
>
> How do those old Evinrudes start nowdays?
I'm sure the ones that were maintained properly do just fine.
>
> I was at a recent boat jumble and 8 out of 10 engines that *Could* be started by buyers
> were Seagulls.
>
> There is NO fine finish on any stationary part apart from mating or bearing surfaces and
> the electrical componants. And the strength of the parts, oversize bearings (plain
> sleave) and low compression ratio mean that they run fine on anything with more octane
> than camels piss. Not bad if you want to be able to fix it yourself without special
> tools. They apparently changed little from the early 50's to the late 70's
>
> As you may have guessed I am rather fond of them. I have encountered various small used
> outboards over the last 18 years and would not like to buy any second hand without
> knowing the seller and his boating history pretty well. The seagull is the only
> exception.
My father used to look at Seagull engines and giggle. He was an Evinrude dealer
in those days.
>
> And finally I agree that we made MANY really crappy cars in the 70's. Some of them even
> made the Italian ones that used the Russian low grade steel look good! Build quality
> was defined as actually having a wheel at each corner.
>
> --
> Ian Malcolm. London, ENGLAND. (remove NOSPAM from email to reply)
As I said, I owned a plethora of crappy cars from Great Britain, but I learned
my lesson before the 1970's.
The only decent ones in the bunch were a TR-4, which was tough and a lot of fun,
and the old Jag we own now but I couldn't afford back then. Among the crapola
Brit cars in my past: MGA (beautiful junk), Mini-Cooper S, Lotus Cortina, Lotus
Elan and one other that was soooooo bad I have no memory of it. And, of course,
I also had a single-cylinder BSA motorbike for a while. Another P.O.S. I bought
these vehicles mostly because I thought they looked great and when they ran,
they handled great, too.
A dealer offered me a brand new Jag for the old Jag, but there's no panache in
having a modern, mass-produced car. Wouldn't mind having a nice Morgan, but I
wouldn't trade the Jag for it, either.
--
Harry Krause
------------
If I were here more often, I wouldn't be gone so much.
Ian Malcolm
hkr...@capu.net wrote:
I was at a recent boat jumble and 8 out of 10 engines that *Could* be started by buyers
were Seagulls.
There is NO fine finish on any stationary part apart from mating or bearing surfaces and
the electrical componants. And the strength of the parts, oversize bearings (plain
sleave) and low compression ratio mean that they run fine on anything with more octane
than camels piss. Not bad if you want to be able to fix it yourself without special
tools. They apparently changed little from the early 50's to the late 70's
As you may have guessed I am rather fond of them. I have encountered various small used
outboards over the last 18 years and would not like to buy any second hand without
knowing the seller and his boating history pretty well. The seagull is the only
exception.
And finally I agree that we made MANY really crappy cars in the 70's. Some of them even
made the Italian ones that used the Russian low grade steel look good! Build quality
was defined as actually having a wheel at each corner.
--
Ian Malcolm. London, ENGLAND. (remove NOSPAM from email to reply)
Sleep is no substitute for lack of caffine.