Merry Fisher 805

KINGFISHER 9

KINGFISHER 9

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 Mar 2007
Messages
4,745
Location
South of France.
Visit site
Going to buy one of these once I've sold the present boat .... I've been wondering about engine types ... I've seen boats advertised as 2002 with a Nanni and 2004 with a Volvo and wondered if they actually changed the fitting of Volvo in a particular year or quite what? All the later boats appear to have Nannis so I wondered if maybe one or two might have perhaps not been quite truthful about the year!
 
Last edited:
Hi Gala,

I'm interested in the 805 too. I've been talking to some owners and they tell me it has quite a hard ride in choppy conditions......translation: large volume cruiser hull.
I was looking at the Antares 760 as an alternative, seems to have a deeper v hull.
They both seem fantastic value at £35-40k.

The next size up, the 9mtr range is in a totally different price cat., and running costs of a 300hp engine would be ruinous @ £50 /hr.

What do you think?
 
Last edited:
We had an 805 and it rode rough seas really well for its size. Semi d hull tended to cut through and make it quite wet but this is not a problem in a cosy wheelhouse! There is at least one forumulite with one for sale. My brother in law has the Antares 760 and, as far as we can tell, they have the same hull but different superstructure - he takes his offshore in big seas to fish and it has always behaved. Most have Nannis but I believe that Volvo was an option.

Differences 805 has more volume inside but cockpit it smaller. Double in wheelhouse is slightly bigger on 805 but 760 has bigger head (I think!) Both are terrific boats. Enjoy the search.
 
Thanks for that ... I was wondering whether they changed the Volvo as standard fit to Nanni at some point (when?) or whether it was an option for a while ... and is the Nanni a better engine?
 
Hi the..,

What sort of fuel consumption did you get, and what was the comfortable cruise speed?
At displacement speeds of 7kts, did the 805 roll much?
Do you think the 805 would make a good choice for cruising around the med, have enough space for a couple?
 
The 805 and Antares 760 were the last two boats on our shortlist. We went for the 805 because it is a good bit bigger inside, notably wider. It's also a much more modern looking boat, IMO.

The 805 handles really well, even in a rough sea. I wouldn't say it's a hard ride, but there are times when you have to ease back a bit, but that must apply to most boats.

Lots of room for the size of boat, we've had weekends away with four adults. The front cabin is spacious, with plenty of storage, two singles or a good size double. The dinette makes into a large double. The heads isn't terribly big, but SWMBO says it's fine like that as you can't fall off the loo in a rough sea lol.

IMO, the Nanni is the better engine choice. More compact, so easy to work on and as simple to service as a car. It's also pretty quiet and economical. Cruising at 3,200 RPM it uses about 25-30 litres an hour. Depending on conditions, that works out to 1.5-2.0 litres per NM, that's fully loaded with 3 or 4 adults onboard.

As far as i can tell, the Nanni engine was used from 2003. There seem to be some 2003 boats with the Volvo too, but unless it was an old stock model, i don't think the Volvo was used after 2003.
 
rustybarge said:
Hi the..,

What sort of fuel consumption did you get, and what was the comfortable cruise speed?
At displacement speeds of 7kts, did the 805 roll much?
Do you think the 805 would make a good choice for cruising around the med, have enough space for a couple?
Click to expand...

Cruise speed, depending on conditions, 14-19 knots.

Very little roll, the 805 has a good beam to LOA ratio.

We'd be happy to spend a week or more onboard ours. Have done weekends and long weekends with 4 adults.
 
Last edited:
We had a family with two little ones (3 and 5 then.) Behaved very well in the lumpy and never frightened the kids or wife. I think would be ideal for a couple as using the wheelhouse double every night was a bit of a hassle. As for the med... I understand that Jeanneau sell lots in France so yes although it might get a bit warm?

We moved up to a Ocqueteau 900/975 (now owned by another on the forum) because we wanted two cabins. Both boats had Nannis which are simple and great.

Unbelievable fuel economy which I now miss!!
 
We have one to.
Very versatile boat handles very well turns on a sixpence & has a good turn of speed for a single shaft driven boat.
I would disagree about the nanni bit tho.
Ours is a 2004 with a Volvo. Loads of torque with it been a 6cyl no cambelt to worry about, and still loads of room to work on it. Nothing is hard to get to or a major strip down to access unlike the bigger prestige 32 !!!
Either way cracking all weather boat !
 
Difficult to say with out testing back to back. 6 more torque and prob lower reving so won't have to work has hard.
I guess a bit like a 1.4lt car sat on motorway at 80mph compared to a 2.0lt car sat on motorway at 80mph.
Ours is very good on juice.
 
Last edited:
Displacement 5-6knts it sniffs it ! about 1 gallon - 1.5 gallons an hour cruise 16-18 knots about 8 per hour hour wot 9.5 per hour.
A mixture of above on a full days motoring apart from 2 hours at anchor 7gph
The most efficient speed on a semi d hull is displacement which I can't fully remember the calculation, it's some thing like hull length divide by .....??
 
So the next model up, the 925 has 300hp, would presumably do about the same 2 mpg.
From memory Volvo d4 300hhp does 6-7 gal/hr at 2500 revs.
Bigger engine at slower revs= smaller engine higher revs.

I might be better looking at the 925, as marina charges work on 10, 12, 15 mtr bands?
It would mean more space.....same fuel consumption.
 
Racingfrank7 said:
Displacement 5-6knts it sniffs it ! about 1 gallon - 1.5 gallons an hour cruise 16-18 knots about 8 per hour hour wot 9.5 per hour.
A mixture of above on a full days motoring apart from 2 hours at anchor 7gph
The most efficient speed on a semi d hull is displacement which I can't fully remember the calculation, it's some thing like hull length divide by .....??
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is nothing like as economical as the Nanni. At cruise speed my Nanni only uses 25-30 litres per hour. The engine is smaller, lighter, cheaper to maintain and is only 600cc less capacity. It's based on the 3.0 litre Landcruiser engine. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the Volvo engine, as such, but the Nanni is more economical.
 
Last edited:
rustybarge said:
So the next model up, the 925 has 300hp, would presumably do about the same 2 mpg.
From memory Volvo d4 300hhp does 6-7 gal/hr at 2500 revs.
Bigger engine at slower revs= smaller engine higher revs.

I might be better looking at the 925, as marina charges work on 10, 12, 15 mtr bands?
It would mean more space.....same fuel consumption.
Click to expand...

I was given some figures by the owner of a 925 fitted with the KAMD300 and it was very, very close to the same consumption as an 805 with the Nanni engine and used less fuel than the Volvo equipped 805.

The 925 uses more fuel per hour, but cruises at a slightly higher speed, so MPH was very close (better then the 805 with the Volvo engine).
 
PaulGooch said:
Sorry, but that is nothing like as economical as the Nanni. At cruise speed my Nanni only uses 25-30 litres per hour. The engine is smaller, lighter, cheaper to maintain and is only 600cc less capacity. It's based on the 3.0 litre Landcruiser engine. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the Volvo engine, as such, but the Nanni is more economical.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was more economical & I can't see how a nanni is less maintance ??
I am suprised tho that u could bore a 3lt out to 3.5lt with out making each bore a lot weeker or very thin between cyls.
Like yourself I have nothing against either motor and wouldn't right off buying one just because it had one or the other, theres pros and cons to each. When we wanted one we said we are buying it for the full boat ( eg condition, extras, hours, price ect ) not for which motor is fitted. :)
 
It's hard to get an exact fuel consumption figure.Mbm were using erroneous figures for years.(manufactures perfect case scenarios).

They got a nasty shock when they did the ultimate engine test in Feb 2012.
170-200hp uses 4gal/hr, that was about right.
350 hp uses 8.5 @ 2500, not 7 gal.
Biggest underestimate is the 300hp which uses 7.gal/ hr , not 5gal.
Makes a massive difference to mpg figures!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top