Notices

29 Savage

Old 04-07-2014 | 07:05 AM
  #111  
DRP
Registered
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Default

This was somewhat brought up very quickly before but how would the new 29 be with twins? I imagine BB would be way too tight, if possible at all, but what about some small twins? Is it better balanced with a single BB? Cost and space not worth it? Leaving it simple and having an entry market model (for a lack of better words)? I would much rather just step up to a 33 if going twins. The 33 is my favorite so it's hard to explain but just wondering?
DRP is offline  
Reply
Old 04-07-2014 | 08:49 AM
  #112  
Sydwayz's Avatar
Forum Regulator
20 Year Member
Super Moderators
VIP Member
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 24,210
Likes: 1,604
From: Worldwide
Default

Originally Posted by Bad-Influence
This was somewhat brought up very quickly before but how would the new 29 be with twins? I imagine BB would be way too tight, if possible at all, but what about some small twins? Is it better balanced with a single BB? Cost and space not worth it? Leaving it simple and having an entry market model (for a lack of better words)? I would much rather just step up to a 33 if going twins. The 33 is my favorite so it's hard to explain but just wondering?
Will do twin OBs, but not I/O.

Wiring, controls, gauges, pumps, batteries; all that adds up in weight and cost; no matter twin BBC or SBC. It prices itself out of reach to do so in a 29' package.

Single/Twin OB or Single BBC

Single 350HP Mercury outboard, light layup, light on options, DDC (added efficiency) hull--> that would be a unique boat.
Single 557HP SevenMarine outboard = ridiculous.
Sydwayz is offline  
Reply
Old 04-07-2014 | 09:02 AM
  #113  
DRP
Registered
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Default

Thanks Brian! I was just wondering since a couple/few 28's were made with twins. I wasn't sure how a twin I/o would be. I could be wrong, but I thought you or pat said that the 28 was more balanced with the single BB. I wasn't sure if the new changes would warrant twins or not and ride/fly better?
Thanks
DRP is offline  
Reply
Old 04-07-2014 | 01:24 PM
  #114  
Registered
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,214
Likes: 6
From: west palm beach FL,
Default

Originally Posted by Sydwayz
Will do twin OBs, but not I/O.

Wiring, controls, gauges, pumps, batteries; all that adds up in weight and cost; no matter twin BBC or SBC. It prices itself out of reach to do so in a 29' package.

Single/Twin OB or Single BBC

Single 350HP Mercury outboard, light layup, light on options, DDC (added efficiency) hull--> that would be a unique boat.
Single 557HP SevenMarine outboard = ridiculous.
700 -800 hp BBC it will be fast and a big plus it will sound great
mikebrls is offline  
Reply
Old 04-08-2014 | 09:21 AM
  #115  
sommerfliesby's Avatar
Registered
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,341
Likes: 10
From: Frankfort, IL
Default

I'm a little curious about why you would want to do this mikebrls? I mean, you are talking about essentially removing the technology that would make the boat fast AND reliable, in order to go slightly faster and likely spend time on the dock? What would be the perceived advantage of the straight hull, no pad or step?

What does a 28 currently run with a single 700? And, more importantly what drive is on it?

I wonder what a single 565/XR in the new 29 with the DDC hull would do in comparison?

Makes me wonder if the juice would be worth the squeeze, knowwhatimsayin?
sommerfliesby is offline  
Reply
Old 04-08-2014 | 10:50 AM
  #116  
Registered
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
From: RI
Default

I should be able to tell you what a single 28 with 700hp should do shortly. I'll be on the dyno friday, expecting between 670-690. I am running a Bravo XR and I have 28 #2 with a notched transom and high X.
drivrswntd is offline  
Reply
Old 04-08-2014 | 11:26 AM
  #117  
Registered
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,214
Likes: 6
From: west palm beach FL,
Default

Originally Posted by sommerfliesby
I'm a little curious about why you would want to do this mikebrls? I mean, you are talking about essentially removing the technology that would make the boat fast AND reliable, in order to go slightly faster and likely spend time on the dock? What would be the perceived advantage of the straight hull, no pad or step?

What does a 28 currently run with a single 700? And, more importantly what drive is on it?

I wonder what a single 565/XR in the new 29 with the DDC hull would do in comparison?

Makes me wonder if the juice would be worth the squeeze, knowwhatimsayin?
I love the A T boats but I hate the huge flat pad, to loose 7 or 8 mph and have a straight V bottom would be my choice . down here in the ocean your not going to run a 29 foot boat @ 100 mph anyway , A nice 80 to 85 mph boat that can cruise @ 60 mph in nice 3 to 4 footer's is what work's out in the ocean down here for that size boat " and you will be in the air half the time in real 3 to 4's. except for the 1 or 2 days in the summer when the the ocean is under 1 foot and that we would call lake water.

This is only my opinion of what I have been threw in my last 8 boats " 2- 38's 1-35 2- 28's 1-25 1-20 1-19 " down here in south Florida

mike
mikebrls is offline  
Reply
Old 04-08-2014 | 11:36 AM
  #118  
Registered
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,214
Likes: 6
From: west palm beach FL,
Default

Originally Posted by sommerfliesby
I'm a little curious about why you would want to do this mikebrls? I mean, you are talking about essentially removing the technology that would make the boat fast AND reliable, in order to go slightly faster and likely spend time on the dock? What would be the perceived advantage of the straight hull, no pad or step?

What does a 28 currently run with a single 700? And, more importantly what drive is on it?

I wonder what a single 565/XR in the new 29 with the DDC hull would do in comparison?

Makes me wonder if the juice would be worth the squeeze, knowwhatimsayin?
Also I can only compare from my 28 pantera and from I have herd the 28 A T is a bit faster and lighter with same power .
A nice 700 to 800 hp NA motor will last just as long as say a merc 525 .
with my old 28 I had a NA 750 and the best it ran with the moon aligned was 84 mph but I took that prop off and went 2 inches smaller so I would have the mid-range throttle response for jumping wave's with that prop top speed was around 76 mph anytime anywhere with any amount of weight on the boat .
I want a boat that has put you in your seat acceleration top end speed is overrated in the ocean . and a I also what to cruise @ 60 mph @ 3700 rpm to 4000 rpm for motor longevity

mike
mikebrls is offline  
Reply
Old 04-08-2014 | 03:44 PM
  #119  
Registered
20 Year Member
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 861
Likes: 89
From: JUPITER, FL
Default

Originally Posted by mikebrls
Also I can only compare from my 28 pantera and from I have herd the 28 A T is a bit faster and lighter with same power .
A nice 700 to 800 hp NA motor will last just as long as say a merc 525 .
with my old 28 I had a NA 750 and the best it ran with the moon aligned was 84 mph but I took that prop off and went 2 inches smaller so I would have the mid-range throttle response for jumping wave's with that prop top speed was around 76 mph anytime anywhere with any amount of weight on the boat .
I want a boat that has put you in your seat acceleration top end speed is overrated in the ocean . and a I also what to cruise @ 60 mph @ 3700 rpm to 4000 rpm for motor longevity

mike
Mike, if you like "put you in your seat accelleration" you should consider the 29 with twin outboard power. A couple of 300XS motors with the right amount of setback will make the AT 29 run like a raped ape and accelerate like a dragster...and still see some amazing top speed!!
JUPITER PULSARE is offline  
Reply
Old 04-08-2014 | 05:06 PM
  #120  
sommerfliesby's Avatar
Registered
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,341
Likes: 10
From: Frankfort, IL
Default

I'm not talking engine life...although I have my doubts that a 700 or 800 hp motor would be quite as reliable as a stock Merc 520, 525 or 565....I'm talking DRIVE life. What is going to live behind 700-800 hp? IMCO SCX? And if your stated goal is torque for "wave-jumping," I'd say that would be a major concern.

Basically, what you are saying is that you want MORE horsepower to make an antiquated hull design perform in approximately the same manner as milder horsepower with an advanced hull design. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me...but hey, everyone has an opinion.
sommerfliesby is offline  
Reply

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.