Cladone

Look they all do the same thing end of the day... my personal preference is furuno. I love the dff3d it's depth penetration and image I find great. I love the UI too just all the small features functions shortcuts. It's a personal preference with most of these things because they all do charts Sonar Radar etc but one guy will swear by garmins charts others navionics. Some are used to something in particular and prefer that. This is my personal preference. I will not buy one cause they are too expensive for my needs. Some love garmin and iPhone some love simrad and Android. Some simrads are duds and replaced 5 times some haven't had am issue for years. I like flexibility of simrad with networking and chart options for example and don't like the kind of closed source eco system of garmin. Yet I really like garmin interface and other options. There is no one absolute answer its all coming down to preference intended use availability etc etc

I think it's 1280x800 but I've seen the tzt3 12 in action and I don't care what anybody says there isn't a better machine out there but you certainly pay for it. Probably more than I need and can't justify the cost for the whole set up with dff3d and all that... don't really like raymarine and don't want to wait till Feb to get a Garmin seems like I'm actually left with a choice of simrad. I'll ring around on Wknd see if anyone has garmin in stock but the four places I spoke to this week didn't

Thanks for that. Yeh heard many mixed reviews on quality of simrads but most people say when they work they are great. Garmin is out of stock until Feb 22 no way I can wait that long but it's tempting. Might pay double and go furuno lol.

Hi all, about to purchase mfd and transducer and have checked the forum for similar posts which have been helpful but don't entirely hit the mark that I've seen. If I won lotto I'd probably go furuno hands down, but am more realistically looking at garmin 8412xsv and simrad nss evo3s 12. First query is how to decide between them most suited to an intended use as in substance they do the same things, but appreciate garmin is newer and simrad may be ending the life cycle of current units, obviously UI differences and the like and they are subjective. However has anyone used the garmin g3 vision charts and are they good or do they compare to navionics. I know they bought them and incorporate their data but not sure. Also I hear garmin is like a closed eco system not sure of pros and cons of each unit. Secondly ... Transducers. I like the idea of structure scan or realview type scan just to add some context and perspective to what I am seeing. I also like the idea of panoptix in seeing how fish respond to and interact with lures. Nonetheless my fishing varies. Sometimes I'm in the harbour to say 50m but a lot of the time I. Coastal say to 200m depending what I'm chasing and all the rest. Infrequently I'll go further and deeper. Not sure what combination of Transducers in either mfd would cover me for this type of variety. Was looking at airmar lhw but was told hw was better resolution for up to 200m so that was preferred. Don't know what garmins and simrads own transducers. Just a little confused but if anybody could point me in the right direction based on their experience as to best value and most sensible set up to cover the shallower and mid columns with good resolution but also able to work on the infrequent more deeper depths that would be awesome

You wouldn't happen to have a direct email or contact for Mark Reid by any chance?

Thanks for this I will do that

Perhaps nobody is aware of where you can check them out. Let me ask whether anybody is familiar with furuno and whether to get proper sonar capability you need to buy that dff multibeam item? Otherwise simrad it is

G'day, I was just wondering where, if anywhere in NSW (as close to Sydney as possible) I might be able to find marine mfds on display. Was hoping to be able to check them out at Boat Show which has been cancelled, so really wanted to be able to check them out prior to making a purchase for new boat.

Hey all, I appreciate everybody's comments from earlier post when I was considering boats, but have finally placed deposit on boat and am tossing up (again) between engines but have no experience with these types. The boat is the quicksilver 805 pilothouse rebranded locally as arvor 805 sportfish. On my reviews a lot of people in Europe are using the 225 merc v6. Equally, by all reports the 350 merc v8 is said to be way to much power and overkill. So looking at the 250 or 300 v8 merc. Is there some rule of thumb or any guidance or recommendations between the two. Top end speed least of my priorities. Lower end torque and economy probably higher on list. Is it much of a muchness between the two, is one definitely better? While only about 5k difference or so, if not necessary can spend that 5k on radar or some electronics, as don't have a bottomless pit of funds. Happy to answer any specifics but that's the gist of it

You've got a knack for explaining things patiently and clearly

Yes I understand those rules and logic it was more directed to the manufacturers ratings. I spoke to at least 3 about their payloads and they had very little to say about how realistic they are. Was more a general observation. When batteries are 30kg a piece, there's always at least 200kg of fuel and about the same for engine, half your payload is a write off. Can be overlooked and misleading

Sorry haines 680 has 1300kg Max load but 9 people capacity at 720kg and 280kg Max for engine. That's 1t. Would that mean 300kgs for fuel, water, gear, batteries, accessories etc is that how it all works?

On the issue of weight, all boats typically have a Max payload. I've noticed these are usually unrealistic. Like the haines signature 680 if I'm not mistaken has 720kg or baysport 705 has 840kg. I assume that means everything like petrol engine people gear. How does that work. Like that baysport 840kg Max payload. It fits 7,theres about 600kg, after 200kg for a typical engine what's left? Or is that not how it's calculated? Otherwise I believe my load will be similar to yours most often. Me and two guys fishing, some gear and fuel wouldnt put us much over 2.1t. If family and guests might approach the 2.5t mark yes. Don't want to go silly and don't want to maintain 60k/h just cruise along at 20-22knts 90% of the time

Yes all of those I guess is what I'm saying. Less revs to get to a given speed. I assume these are connected to some extent, but ultimately what I'm trying to say is the first one

Why would I prop down to 15p?

Can i just ask as an informal survey of sorts and just to get others' line of thinking, whether you would you personally find it justified or would you personally spend approx $8k more on a 175hp outboard brand other than Honda given the above quotes?

also just to clarify the honda 175 is also a v6 3.6L above contrary to what i have written

Sorry when i say " Dual Set Up" i dont mean engines, i mean i have two helms and therefore need to two throttle/binnacle set ups

At this stage, in ringing around a few places, the following prices have been quoted for an all inclusive price fitted. I note that in most cases the 200hp version is only marginally more expensive. Suzuki 175 4strk DBW Dual Set Up - $30,000 all inclusive of install/cables and incl ss propeller. Honda 175 4strk DBW Dual Set Up - $23,800 all inclusive of install/cables and incl ss propeller. Merc 175 V6 with DTS Dual Set Up - $32,000 all inclusive of install/cables etc and incl ss propeller. (Merc 150 4strk Proxs Dual Set up - $25,000 approx) Yamaha 175 4strk DBW Dual Set Up - $31,000 all inclusive Interestingly, inspired by some of the info obtained from this forum, when I was speaking to guy who sells the yamahas i asked, "given the 175 yamaha is 2.8L and for instance the mercury 150 is 3.0L wouldnt the mercury perform better at low to mid range and give a better acceleration than the 175 and the additional 25hp of the yamaha would just mean greater top end speed all things being equal?" he said "yes. if you are not interested in top end speed, the bigger displacement less hp alternative would be more suitable". This highlights the thing i have been trying to crystalise in my mind but im slower than most to grasp things like this. You have a heavy-ish boat. You want best fuel economy you can get at cruising speed. Your greatest interest is low to mid range acceleration, not necessarily top end speed, you want it to be responsive and quick off the mark if required and not sluggish. There is a 150HP with 3.0L displacement, there is a 175hp with 2.8L displacement. All things being equal and everything else aside, i assume the bigger displacement will achieve what i have said. However, then other things need to be considered. there is the gear ratio and prop factors. For instance, suzuki 175hp is 2.8L, but with gear ratio of 2.5:1, so assume a larger prop can be used pushing it through water easily. So given those additional considerations, do i assume the suzuki i mentioned would achieve the same or better performance in this low to mid range area than the mercury 150 mentioned above, as well as greater top end speed? I am not comparing to the merc as it is a v6 with 3.4L displacement. Just trying to get my bearings very clearly on this issue. In addition would a 175hp engine work "less hard" pushing a boat, or is the 175 component merely representing the top end speed and not much else? I know you have tried to explain this but i work better with applicable examples like this.

I've been looking at the dts / dbw assortment in the plus 150hp range. Yeah spot on... In my ongoing investigation over past few days, erring on the side of caution, I think I'll go with a v6 and prob the merc.. Was looking at the yamaha and Suzuki also... I'll ring a few places tomorrow and get some quotes.

And as for the 150 I guess if there's doubt then there is no doubt. The performance was fine... But just that. I figure add a few people cruising or have some heavier mates and add a bit more gear... Wasn't blown away so to speak but was satisfied. Thought playing it safe would be wiser... Although I'm not married to any option, that's half the problem. I guess I also like learning the theoretical stuff too it's interesting hence all the queries

Thanks for that response. I like the new merc v6s also. At this point, it may just be a price difference determining things given that by and large there is probably not a world of difference between the engines being discussed. I can get the new 175 Honda v6 with dbw fitted for like 23k and the Yamaha and merc v6 equivalent closer to 29k fitted.

Yeah I get your comments and appreciate their bases. In terms of personal preference I'd be looking perhaps 175 to 200 Honda, yammies or Suzuki. Or otherwise the proxs 150. I don't know all the theoretical or mathematical technicalities at all. I'm just assuming a v6 higher hp engine with suitable prop would push the same boat to the same speed at lower rpm. My terminology and conclusion could be very ignorant and wrong admittedly but I'm hoping you know what I'm trying to say, but just an assumption based on admittedly very limited understanding

And no doubt 200 would negate it but would be overkill for the boat, plus balancing budget, fuel efficiency and just wanting the right weight and most suitable engine that's all. Whether it's 150 through to 200 not fussed as such just trying to work out most suitable whatever it may be. The boat with the weight I stated above had the 150 merc 4 stroke and seemed to be fine. We discussed the proxs and I was sold it would be sweet, then started hearing need heavier engine to compensate for bow heaviness, v6 would be more fuel efficient and work less hard to achieve cruise etc so just started having more questions

Honda is also digital throttle drive by wire. I think the suggestion for Honda came for combination of weight and gear ratio to move the boat nicely and easily relative to the mercs. Yeah Honda is like 280kg or something if I recall. In terms of boat when tested three were on board, maybe 250kg between us, he had heaps of fishing and camera equipment and gear, 100l in tank, engine another 200kg or thereabouts so it was probably up there. I'm just being conservative allowing 2.5t once loaded with anchor and chain, fishing gear, refrigeration, 5 to 6 people, engine fuel and water... It wouldn't be that far off