Single v/s Twins : Fuel consumption ?
11-07-2007, 08:23 PM
#1
Single v/s Twins : Fuel consumption ?
This similar situation has probably been covered here before but here it is :
I have heard a few differant ideas on this but lets see what you guys have seen from experiance :
I am woundering how these 2 setups would compare in fuel consumtion under normal cruising condions say ( 3,000-3,500 rpm's ) & yes I understand that there are several variables ect...
Twin 325-350 hp Small block's ( 650 cfm Holley's )
V/s : A single 750 hp (+ or - a few hp depending on boost #'s ) supercharged BBC ( Centrifical with single blowthrough 850 cfm carb )
Boat : True 28' conventional V
4800-5000 lbs. Single BBC
5800 lbs. orso Twin SBC's
Like I said I know that there are variables ect.. But I am just tossing around Ideas in my head B/C I am getting close to rigging my 28 Saber & I have both setups availible. This is not my sole deciding factor on how I will rig the boat but just trying to weigh it out from all directions... So lets hear it !! & Please only real world experiance here...
Thanks in advance , Scott
I have heard a few differant ideas on this but lets see what you guys have seen from experiance :
I am woundering how these 2 setups would compare in fuel consumtion under normal cruising condions say ( 3,000-3,500 rpm's ) & yes I understand that there are several variables ect...
Twin 325-350 hp Small block's ( 650 cfm Holley's )
V/s : A single 750 hp (+ or - a few hp depending on boost #'s ) supercharged BBC ( Centrifical with single blowthrough 850 cfm carb )
Boat : True 28' conventional V
4800-5000 lbs. Single BBC
5800 lbs. orso Twin SBC's
Like I said I know that there are variables ect.. But I am just tossing around Ideas in my head B/C I am getting close to rigging my 28 Saber & I have both setups availible. This is not my sole deciding factor on how I will rig the boat but just trying to weigh it out from all directions... So lets hear it !! & Please only real world experiance here...
Thanks in advance , Scott
Last edited by littledcsrodshop; 11-07-2007 at 08:33 PM.
11-07-2007, 08:50 PM
#2
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have had both but currently have twins and triples. Never really measured but figure the twins to be less fuel efficient. Your real question is which will you be more happy with. Spend the money on twins. Two mild engines should be less temperamental than one boosted motor. It will handle rough water alot better and be more maneuverable around the docks. When you break a shaft, prop, gimbal, etc. you can still limp home without a tow. You will pay more know but your resale will reflect this also.
11-07-2007, 08:51 PM
#3
Registered
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sunland, CA
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel consumption is directly related to work.
Moving more weight is more work. So if its heavier, it will burn more fuel. For planing boats, the function is related to the
Moving against more friction is more work. So if it has more wetted surface, it will burn more fuel: two lower units are more drag. More cylinders also means more friction, so two V8s are more drag. More drag burns more fuel.
Blower motors, however, take a lot of power to make power: just turning the blower might consume 250 HP, so to get 750HP to the drive shaft, you burn enough fuel to make 1000 HP. That is such a huge hit, that the twins might be more fuel efficient than the blower motor.
It looks like the BBS will be faster (85 mpg .vs. 76 mph) flat out,
but will burn more than a gallon per mile flat out, while the twin SBCs will get about 25 percent better mileage (1.2 mpg).
At 60, and at 20, both burn almost identical fuel, because the
weight at wetted surface advantage gets lost by the blower.
Go normally asperated but still very hot 700 HP BBC -- go the same speed because of the weight savings (blower, intercooler, plumbing, coolant, 1 mph slower), and the single BBC beats the twins
at all speeds by a bit more than 10 percent.
Moving more weight is more work. So if its heavier, it will burn more fuel. For planing boats, the function is related to the
Moving against more friction is more work. So if it has more wetted surface, it will burn more fuel: two lower units are more drag. More cylinders also means more friction, so two V8s are more drag. More drag burns more fuel.
Blower motors, however, take a lot of power to make power: just turning the blower might consume 250 HP, so to get 750HP to the drive shaft, you burn enough fuel to make 1000 HP. That is such a huge hit, that the twins might be more fuel efficient than the blower motor.
It looks like the BBS will be faster (85 mpg .vs. 76 mph) flat out,
but will burn more than a gallon per mile flat out, while the twin SBCs will get about 25 percent better mileage (1.2 mpg).
At 60, and at 20, both burn almost identical fuel, because the
weight at wetted surface advantage gets lost by the blower.
Go normally asperated but still very hot 700 HP BBC -- go the same speed because of the weight savings (blower, intercooler, plumbing, coolant, 1 mph slower), and the single BBC beats the twins
at all speeds by a bit more than 10 percent.
11-07-2007, 08:54 PM
#4
Registered
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Okanagan Falls BC. Canada
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I have twin small blocks [ 6.2 or 377 cu ] with ecm 555 and SmartCraft system . Between 3000-3200 rpm's I'm burning 7-8 gal/hr each . Total SAE HP is 700 . I assume a 700 HP
carbureted BB would burn similar or a little more with same rpm's .I like the twin setup for safety reasons going further from shore in the ocean .
carbureted BB would burn similar or a little more with same rpm's .I like the twin setup for safety reasons going further from shore in the ocean .
11-07-2007, 09:42 PM
#5
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel consumption is directly related to work.
Moving more weight is more work. So if its heavier, it will burn more fuel. For planing boats, the function is related to the
Moving against more friction is more work. So if it has more wetted surface, it will burn more fuel: two lower units are more drag. More cylinders also means more friction, so two V8s are more drag. More drag burns more fuel.
Blower motors, however, take a lot of power to make power: just turning the blower might consume 250 HP, so to get 750HP to the drive shaft, you burn enough fuel to make 1000 HP. That is such a huge hit, that the twins might be more fuel efficient than the blower motor.
It looks like the BBS will be faster (85 mpg .vs. 76 mph) flat out,
but will burn more than a gallon per mile flat out, while the twin SBCs will get about 25 percent better mileage (1.2 mpg).
At 60, and at 20, both burn almost identical fuel, because the
weight at wetted surface advantage gets lost by the blower.
Go normally asperated but still very hot 700 HP BBC -- go the same speed because of the weight savings (blower, intercooler, plumbing, coolant, 1 mph slower), and the single BBC beats the twins
at all speeds by a bit more than 10 percent.
Moving more weight is more work. So if its heavier, it will burn more fuel. For planing boats, the function is related to the
Moving against more friction is more work. So if it has more wetted surface, it will burn more fuel: two lower units are more drag. More cylinders also means more friction, so two V8s are more drag. More drag burns more fuel.
Blower motors, however, take a lot of power to make power: just turning the blower might consume 250 HP, so to get 750HP to the drive shaft, you burn enough fuel to make 1000 HP. That is such a huge hit, that the twins might be more fuel efficient than the blower motor.
It looks like the BBS will be faster (85 mpg .vs. 76 mph) flat out,
but will burn more than a gallon per mile flat out, while the twin SBCs will get about 25 percent better mileage (1.2 mpg).
At 60, and at 20, both burn almost identical fuel, because the
weight at wetted surface advantage gets lost by the blower.
Go normally asperated but still very hot 700 HP BBC -- go the same speed because of the weight savings (blower, intercooler, plumbing, coolant, 1 mph slower), and the single BBC beats the twins
at all speeds by a bit more than 10 percent.
11-08-2007, 01:35 AM
#6
Charter Member # 55
Charter Member
It will depend on the efficiency fo the engines and boat. I can tell you that My 32AT with twin 502mpi's gets about the same mileage as my 28 Pantera did with the hopped up 525SC. I think its a little better at cruise speeds and a little worse at WOT.
Racer
11-08-2007, 01:49 PM
#8
Registered
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Umatilla, FL
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A single fuel injected non-blower motor should get the best fuel consumption. My velocity with single modifed 500 EFI gets better than 2 mpg at almost any power setting.
11-08-2007, 02:52 PM
#9
Platinum Member
Charter MemberJoin Date: Jan 2001
Location: so. WI
Posts: 1,562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 28 AT is a true 28' hull and is the most similar to your Saber and Pantera, and if given the option, especially with our Great Lakes and occasional ocean boating, I'd opt for the twins EVERY time. I also ran many long trips on the Mississippi River with similar size boats equipped with single BBC packages, and they stopped for fuel; I didn't (admittedly partially due to the fact that boat mfg's put smaller fuel tanks in single-engine boats). OSO member Spilman has the same package in his 28 AT, and I know he is experiencing 2.5 mpg #'s at cruise as well. I love both the boats you have, and I wouldn't hesitate to own either with 350 MagMPI power. I know there have been a myriad of documented problems with the 6.2L, so I'd stick with the venerable 350 here. BTW, our insurance was only $750/year with the AT.
Jim
11-08-2007, 07:39 PM
#10
Registered
Nice numbers. I wonder what the 32 fountains got with twin 6.2's
