Haven't-a-Clue
New member
Re noise with the doors closed, so true. The moment we go to planing speed we shut the doors, it really does make quite a difference to whit conversation is quite possible.
Inboard Diesel or petrol outboard??
- Thread starter sshakespeare
- Start date
Csail
N/A
What is the tuning chip all about? Where do you get them?
MVP
New member
We have a QS640 Weekender with 115hp OB
We went for outboard as much faster, quieter, more deck space and better if on a drying mooring
I think it unlikely you will ever recover the extra cost of the diesel in saved fuel.
MVP
We went for outboard as much faster, quieter, more deck space and better if on a drying mooring
I think it unlikely you will ever recover the extra cost of the diesel in saved fuel.
MVP
Canopy Locked
Well-known member
Unless you are a mechanic, consider who your nearest servicing agents are. Some of the modern outboards are cocked full of electronics and require a computer plug in - pain if your nearest dealer is 50+ miles away!!
neale
Active member
I guess it also very much depends on what you plan to use the boat for. Short blast out to your favourite fishing ground and then all day on anchor makes fuel much less of an issue. Serious passage-making means Diesel makes a lot more sense. Other issue mentioned also worth throwing into the mix.
I must declare my hand before answering this question.
1) I am a boat dealer
2) I was a Jeanneau dealer for 6.5 years and have owned both outboard versions and an inboard Merry Fisher (now a MF695).
3) Now I am an Arvor dealer (possibly biased?)
but
4) I happen to have a brand new Quicksilver 640 PH in stock that has been bought from the bank as a repo after a dealer went bust. This is for sale at a very keen price so I have no cause to give biased info for either boat.
OK, I guess you meant a Quicksilver 640 rather than a 540?
Assuming that is correct the front bits of both boats are remarkably similar... same factory even.
It's the offset wheelhouse on the Arvor 215AS, the hull around the skeg of the same is changed from planing to semi displacement for the shaft and of course the transom area is different on both.
The Arvor will handle the chop far better than the Quicksilver. This is simply the semi displacement hull shape and the weight being in the middle low down. She won't be a speed boat, but she'll keep ploughing through most weather when the Quicksilver is running in the opposite direction.
Top speed will be +/- 21 knots with the VW100Hp.
This is perfect for this hull shape. Push it much more and you can get handling issues.
At WOT expect to burn about 25 to 28 litres per hour.
Bring the throttle back to cruise at about 15 or 16 knots and the fuel consumption will drop to around 14 to 15 litres per hour.
The VW engine did have some early teething problems which were well publicised on many of the web forums, however I am of the impression that these have all been ironed out. In fairness, what new marine diesel doesn't?
It is remarkably smooth and not noisey for a small diesel pilot house at all.
Yes it does have a small raised engine box at the forward end of the cockpit, but I actually find it useful to store tackle boxes or it can make a comfy seat.
The remainder of the cockpit is vast and nothing at all can come close if the boat is to be used for angling.
So, it's economical and sea worthy with a vast deck. The downside is it is no speed boat. Maintenance will be very simple and inexpensive.
The Quicksilver 640 Pilot House.
Firstly, drop the 100Hp engine. It seriously struggles with a load. The inboard 100Hp diesel is fine as it has all the torque required, but an outboard on what is now a planing or semi planing hull shape finds any load too much and she struggle to get on the plane, falling off regularly in a seaway.
The effect of this is that you'll work her very hard and as such, use much more fuel.
If you go for the Quicksilver, go for the maximum 115Hp engine. It will have a top speed of about 30 knots, but more importantly it will plane easily and be economical up to about 20 knots.
At 30 knots expect to use about 45 litres per hour. The reality is you'll very rarely have the chance to run at that speed. These pilot house styles are about volume. This means she's a fat old girl and high speed in any chop will see your chiropractor a very happy man, your dentist too.
Back the speed off to 20knots in calm weather and you'll find a fuel consumption of about 20 to 24 litres per hour.
But for a comfortable ride, run at the same 15 knots as the Arvor and you'll be fine except in a biggish head sea when you'll back down to 7 or knots. At 15 knots, you'll use a very frugal +/-15 litres per hour.
The downside to the outboard is that it does actually become just as noisey as a diesel once at cruising speeds. It will be marginally smoother than the diesel, but with all the weight hanging off the back it will translate to a much more skittish ride in any form of chop. The boat is still very capable, but you will notice quite a difference between the two.
So, you have no engine box in the way in the cockpit, but you will have a far smaller cockpit as the engine well eats into the transom area hugely.
The 640 will be more suitable to regular trailering as the engine can be lifted, but it is possible with the Arvor. Just choose a nice steep slipway.
Oh, if the Arvor you go for is the "AS" version, you have a fabulous side deck. The boat looks a little coming towards you, but you won't see that. Instead you'll be strolling up and down to the bow rather than clinging on by your toenails.
Both boats, are excellent, value for money pilot house vessels. They are designed to give the maximum boat for your buck and both fulfill that requirement very well.
The Quicksilver will give nippy performance (if fitted with a 115!) and a fractionally more cruiser feel, but the Arvor will handle like a small ship and you'll feel safe in all sensible conditions. The Arvor has become the iconic smallish sports fisher of the 2000's. If it's angling you want to do then this is the kiddy.
By all means PM me if you want to know more particulars on both boats (or our stock), but the above will give plenty to be thinking about.
Tom
1) I am a boat dealer
2) I was a Jeanneau dealer for 6.5 years and have owned both outboard versions and an inboard Merry Fisher (now a MF695).
3) Now I am an Arvor dealer (possibly biased?)
but
4) I happen to have a brand new Quicksilver 640 PH in stock that has been bought from the bank as a repo after a dealer went bust. This is for sale at a very keen price so I have no cause to give biased info for either boat.
OK, I guess you meant a Quicksilver 640 rather than a 540?
Assuming that is correct the front bits of both boats are remarkably similar... same factory even.
It's the offset wheelhouse on the Arvor 215AS, the hull around the skeg of the same is changed from planing to semi displacement for the shaft and of course the transom area is different on both.
The Arvor will handle the chop far better than the Quicksilver. This is simply the semi displacement hull shape and the weight being in the middle low down. She won't be a speed boat, but she'll keep ploughing through most weather when the Quicksilver is running in the opposite direction.
Top speed will be +/- 21 knots with the VW100Hp.
This is perfect for this hull shape. Push it much more and you can get handling issues.
At WOT expect to burn about 25 to 28 litres per hour.
Bring the throttle back to cruise at about 15 or 16 knots and the fuel consumption will drop to around 14 to 15 litres per hour.
The VW engine did have some early teething problems which were well publicised on many of the web forums, however I am of the impression that these have all been ironed out. In fairness, what new marine diesel doesn't?
It is remarkably smooth and not noisey for a small diesel pilot house at all.
Yes it does have a small raised engine box at the forward end of the cockpit, but I actually find it useful to store tackle boxes or it can make a comfy seat.
The remainder of the cockpit is vast and nothing at all can come close if the boat is to be used for angling.
So, it's economical and sea worthy with a vast deck. The downside is it is no speed boat. Maintenance will be very simple and inexpensive.
The Quicksilver 640 Pilot House.
Firstly, drop the 100Hp engine. It seriously struggles with a load. The inboard 100Hp diesel is fine as it has all the torque required, but an outboard on what is now a planing or semi planing hull shape finds any load too much and she struggle to get on the plane, falling off regularly in a seaway.
The effect of this is that you'll work her very hard and as such, use much more fuel.
If you go for the Quicksilver, go for the maximum 115Hp engine. It will have a top speed of about 30 knots, but more importantly it will plane easily and be economical up to about 20 knots.
At 30 knots expect to use about 45 litres per hour. The reality is you'll very rarely have the chance to run at that speed. These pilot house styles are about volume. This means she's a fat old girl and high speed in any chop will see your chiropractor a very happy man, your dentist too.
Back the speed off to 20knots in calm weather and you'll find a fuel consumption of about 20 to 24 litres per hour.
But for a comfortable ride, run at the same 15 knots as the Arvor and you'll be fine except in a biggish head sea when you'll back down to 7 or knots. At 15 knots, you'll use a very frugal +/-15 litres per hour.
The downside to the outboard is that it does actually become just as noisey as a diesel once at cruising speeds. It will be marginally smoother than the diesel, but with all the weight hanging off the back it will translate to a much more skittish ride in any form of chop. The boat is still very capable, but you will notice quite a difference between the two.
So, you have no engine box in the way in the cockpit, but you will have a far smaller cockpit as the engine well eats into the transom area hugely.
The 640 will be more suitable to regular trailering as the engine can be lifted, but it is possible with the Arvor. Just choose a nice steep slipway.
Oh, if the Arvor you go for is the "AS" version, you have a fabulous side deck. The boat looks a little coming towards you, but you won't see that. Instead you'll be strolling up and down to the bow rather than clinging on by your toenails.
Both boats, are excellent, value for money pilot house vessels. They are designed to give the maximum boat for your buck and both fulfill that requirement very well.
The Quicksilver will give nippy performance (if fitted with a 115!) and a fractionally more cruiser feel, but the Arvor will handle like a small ship and you'll feel safe in all sensible conditions. The Arvor has become the iconic smallish sports fisher of the 2000's. If it's angling you want to do then this is the kiddy.
By all means PM me if you want to know more particulars on both boats (or our stock), but the above will give plenty to be thinking about.
Tom
gjgm
Active member
Stern drives come in two parts, so there's scope for installation problems, and they're notriously unreliable
*******
Eh ? Stern drives are notoriously unreliable?
Not at all ...
*******
Eh ? Stern drives are notoriously unreliable?
Not at all ...
Nick_H
Active member
Yes, i'd stand by that comment, in comparison to both shafts and outboards, although I think a lot of the reliability issue is down to having a complex set of mechanics permanently immersed in water, which wouldn't be the case here as the owner plans to trailer it. (edit: in fact he wasn't considering a strendrive anyway, but I didn't know that at the time)
In my experience outboards and shafts go on forever if you don't abuse them, whereas not abusing sterndrives isn't really enough, you have to carefully service and maintain them. Maybe I should have said they're less robust, rather than less reliable, though I kind of think both terms apply.
In my experience outboards and shafts go on forever if you don't abuse them, whereas not abusing sterndrives isn't really enough, you have to carefully service and maintain them. Maybe I should have said they're less robust, rather than less reliable, though I kind of think both terms apply.