Twin engines vs motor plus kicker

General boating discussion
Morning bite
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2019 10:17 am

Twin engines vs motor plus kicker

#1

Post by Morning bite »

Going to build a 26 Pacific sleeper. I will use the boat for everything including trolling for salmon. I am wondering about people’s thoughts on the pros and cons.
Thanks!

MacCTD
Posts: 547
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 2:53 pm
Location: MA

Re: Twin engines vs motor plus kicker

#2

Post by MacCTD »

IMO I think a single is better, so much easier to and cheaper to maintain, plus unless you are going to have two separate fuel systems I do not see twins as a huge safety advantage over a single, performance wise I believe on that hull single will be better as well.
'05 Pacific 1925
Mercury 150

Morning bite
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2019 10:17 am

Re: Twin engines vs motor plus kicker

#3

Post by Morning bite »

Thanks, I was leaning towards twin motors except I couldn't come up with a good reason.

dingahling
Donator ,15
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:41 pm

Re: Twin engines vs motor plus kicker

#4

Post by dingahling »

Capt Frank (Fish Miss Hayden) built a Pacific 26HT with twins that looked too stern heavy - can't find the thread on here but pic links don't seem to work on old threads anyway.
His website is https://www.fishmisshayden.com/our-boats.html, there are a couple of pics of the boat there but only underway, doesn't show the stern sink as much. His newer Bayweld build seems better suited for twins.
He also has a face book page that has some pics of the Pacific.

kmorin
Donator 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 15, 16 17, 18, 19, 20
Posts: 1530
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:37 am
Location: Kenai, Alaska

Re: Twin engines vs motor plus kicker

#5

Post by kmorin »

AM bite,
twins offer a smaller torque load on each crankshaft- relative to the entire load being moved. So a little longer service life is gained by twins- due to top speed/displacement loading per engine. Twins offer a natural offset between the two wheels so harbor steering in a breezy afternoon (we see those here in SC AK) is much easier to get into a slip or mooring if you can't just land to moor bow or stern-on.

Depending on your off shore plans there are some pretty exotic steering systems now available- they are digitally based on a two engine model- and allow the hull stay over a given GPS point or to dock using a joy-stick and gyro combined with GPS.

Dual fuel systems and for some dual tankage is considered normal here- but lots of the distances are somewhat longer range than in the Puget Sound. If you're going "off soundings" into the Pacific lots of boats of this class would have twins- along with dual fuel systems as a matter of course.

Added wt aft contributing to pitch by the bow- from the added wt aft- I think any builder should be able to address the fixed loading(s) to accommodate whatever wt you choose to put along the load waterline?

As to the single engine, less moving parts is less to go 'wrong'- simple math. However, single on centerline engine naturally lowers the leg many inches (depending on deadrise) to get the wheel in the (wake) water while running. Steering isn't quite as agile at very slow/harbor speeds as you have to use more helm and shift compared to the spread of thrust.

Adding a kicker/trolling engine is usually more work when you have twins- less when you have a centerline engine. However, as near as I've seen in the last few years of reading as a 'helper' on a build for a 34'er.... there's not that much real high quality remote gear for a kicker engine regardless of where it's located on your transom.

Overall, I see more twin installations, common along the Gulf Coast of Alaska, than I see larger singles, but again, that may be due to the probably longer distances run by these boats?

just a few points to consider, you probably already have gone around these considerations but figured it was best to mention them?

Cheers,
Kevin Morin
Kenai, AK
kmorin

J-GLOBAL
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 12:47 am

Re: Twin engines vs motor plus kicker

#6

Post by J-GLOBAL »

Twins + Kicker

If you're doing any traveling beyond 20 miles.

jj225
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 12:36 am

Re: Twin engines vs motor plus kicker

#7

Post by jj225 »

20 miles??? I typically go 40+ for rockfish lol! Oh and that's one way.

Never had twins. Only kicker I ever had I never took that boat saltwater fishing. Funny thing that boat was the only one that ever broke down but I was still able to fish because of the kicker and elec. trolling motor. And it was a lake.

Most people in So. Cal do not fish with twins. I guess most just have VA and call if they break down. Or not. Some stupid people on the water. I have a single and no kicker. I don't normally fish for salmon. If I did I'd get one. Although I've fished for kokanee a few times. I have VA. Don't know if it's available in the PNW. If it isn't......I'd want a kicker just in case. Bigger than a 9.9 too.

User avatar
gandrfab
Posts: 508
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:33 pm
Location: Edgewater Fl

Re: Twin engines vs motor plus kicker

#8

Post by gandrfab »

Arguing what is safe is more of an opinion that has exceptions.
Single engine an powerless boats have crossed oceans.
Sport fishers have gone down in inlets and within sight of land.

talltimber
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 10:27 am

Re: Twin engines vs motor plus kicker

#9

Post by talltimber »

If you spend a lot of time in the ocean I would have twins + kicker. reason 8 hr trip from Flat Island back to Homer when the main took a crap thank god it was not kicking up or we would have been on the beach somewhere

User avatar
gandrfab
Posts: 508
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:33 pm
Location: Edgewater Fl

Re: Twin engines vs motor plus kicker

#10

Post by gandrfab »

I was on a triple 250hp outboard boat, the planned trip of the day was yellowfin tuna fishing around 100 miles offshore.
About 15 miles out we spun a prop hub no one felt like swimming that early in the day so we made the call to swap props back at the boat ramp.
About 5 miles from the ramp on the way in to swap props and we had an ignition coil problem (we didn't know that's what was wrong when on the water) and back on the trailer we went, end of non fishing day.

kmorin
Donator 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 15, 16 17, 18, 19, 20
Posts: 1530
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:37 am
Location: Kenai, Alaska

Re: Twin engines vs motor plus kicker

#11

Post by kmorin »

G&R,
ok your experience was what it was. We haven't heard the hours on the units, brand or model but fully accepting that event came off as reported (and I do) what about the 1,000's of trips that day and week where the twins (triples or quads) all performed as advertised and went out a 100 miles, fished without any events and ran in to harbor and do it every single day of the year?

Anecdotal reports are fine, and they report events that happen - but overall your trip came back after one engine had problems - using another one! So, did your boat limp in once a single was gone on a 10hp kicker? Not that I can read?

Multiple large hp engines offer more overall "odds" of making it out or back; than singles. Period; and your own trip report simply reinforces that fact of life.

just reading the post from the point of view that your day might have been much longer without the other engine(s)?

cheers,
Kevin Morin
Kenai, AK
Last edited by kmorin on Sat Feb 01, 2020 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: typo "Even" was to intended "Event"
kmorin

User avatar
gandrfab
Posts: 508
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:33 pm
Location: Edgewater Fl

Re: Twin engines vs motor plus kicker

#12

Post by gandrfab »

Relativity new outboards approximately 700 hours, brand shouldn't matter for the point, you can have a bad day with 3 motors.
The owner bought and rigged that boat to fish the other side of the gulf stream out of Port Canaveral Fl. normal trips of 80 to 120 miles offshore. When he sold the boat it had 1700 to 1800 hours on the motors that I enjoyed roughly 1000 hours of time underway. I miss her.

No 10hp kicker. nothing to do with a kicker in that story to read about

That was part of my point. One could add, maintenance is less with a single than a twin, trip or quad.

The motors were Verado's.

THEMOORINGMAN
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:24 pm

Re: Twin engines vs motor plus kicker

#13

Post by THEMOORINGMAN »

100% buy twins so you always make it home. Priceless. A kicker wont do much in the ocean when u need it most.

After you own twins you wont go back.

jj225
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 12:36 am

Re: Twin engines vs motor plus kicker

#14

Post by jj225 »

"100% buy twins so you always make it home. Priceless. A kicker wont do much in the ocean when u need it most."

And if it's bad gas? Although I have to say I've never had bad gas (talking just the boat now) and I've got gas in Mexico many times. Soooo not
really sure how often that happens. Heck I don't think I've ever found water in my water/fuel separator either. But living in So. Cal. may help
to exclude a lot of that from happening too. Dunno.

THEMOORINGMAN
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:24 pm

Re: Twin engines vs motor plus kicker

#15

Post by THEMOORINGMAN »

If you're saying a single motor is better than twins for an offshore boat you're 100% thinking with your wallet.

User avatar
gandrfab
Posts: 508
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:33 pm
Location: Edgewater Fl

Re: Twin engines vs motor plus kicker

#16

Post by gandrfab »

Many commercial boats run singles.

THEMOORINGMAN
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:24 pm

Re: Twin engines vs motor plus kicker

#17

Post by THEMOORINGMAN »

16' bull raking boats, 50' single diesel lobster boats...sure there are a lot of them.

THEMOORINGMAN
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:24 pm

Re: Twin engines vs motor plus kicker

#18

Post by THEMOORINGMAN »

16' bull raking boats, 38' single diesel lobster boats...sure there are a lot of them.

Anyhow, twin outboards on a 26' boat is 100% my vote. Good luck.
Last edited by THEMOORINGMAN on Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
welder
Site Admin
Posts: 4589
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:51 pm
Location: Whitesboro, Texas
Contact:

Re: Twin engines vs motor plus kicker

#19

Post by welder »

2 is 1 and 1 is none.
and for the slow troll you may need to run a 10/15 HP kicker.
If I did the kicker it would run on it's own fuel tank with fuel bought at different station.
Lester,
PacificV2325, Honda BF225
2386

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic