Marinette Boat Forum

Barefoot99 is correct, we travel on our 1989 32 Sedan "Aquaholic". Our 1973 28 Express "Easy Does It" is our 'Home Boat'.
We Love both boats. I have never owned or even navigated a 37 M, but I will say that the few times we have been aboard them we drool a bit The 32 is wonderful for handling and roomy enough for us the way that we travel. However, the actual 'stateroom' with a walk around bed and also the shower on the 37's are awfully appealing!

Dream boat = 41' Marquis!
1990 model = dream come true
Winning lottery = dream realized


... and now I'll go back to watching the 10+" of snow build up on the deck I'm building. (Hey, wintertime is for non-boat stuff!)


Bill

Don't forget you can cruise on one engine. You don't go twice as fast on two, but you burn twice as much gas. I've been surprised how little speed you gain with the second engine. We do a lot of trolling on one and then use two when we're ready to go faster.

I have read several threads and debates on the merits of cruising slowly on one engine. I have never tried it. Think i might give that a try this coming season and experiment with results.

By the way, if interested in a 37 with 360 motors as Jim Elias suggested, there is one for sale. It is listed on the Marinette Facebook group. I think it is in Missouri.

Anyone have a clue as to what the fuel burn on that^^^ is at cruise (10-12mph)?

We have a 32' FB that we run like a "trawler" displacement speeds. With that being said we have played with RPM's versus speed versus fuel consumption for the last two years. Two years ago we traveled from Lk St. Claire to Cheboygan, MI at 2800 RPM's and a speed of about 11-12 mph. Running both motors we averaged 1 mile to the gallon, it was approx. 240 miles and we used 240 gallons of gas. At the end of the season we took it to Muskegon for winter storage and running the same RPM's we had the same results. Last year we ran from Muskegon (heated winter storage) back to Cheboygan at 1400 RPM which equated to 7mph. We filled up in Leland, MI and went to Beaver Island, left there in the morning (no fuel added) and went to Cheboygan, MI. In Cheboygan we added 80 gals. of gas (40 per side) and figured out the mileage. We averaged 3 mpg!!!! Love our Marinette. Giving up a few mph's for range is a no brainer for us. Two years ago we passed everything but a fuel stop, last year we found the sweet spot. Running 318's go mopar!!!!!

"... Last year we ran from Muskegon (heated winter storage) back to Cheboygan at 1400 RPM which equated to 7mph. ..."

A captain of infinite patience

We recently purchased and just finished commissioning a 32 FB. twin 318's. We have run it locally up the river and back around Demopolis, Al. Our intention is to cruise down the Tombigbee to our home port past Pensacola. It is 217 miles downriver, w/2 locks, to Mobile, Al. The fuel prospects on the route are poor, if any. With 2 -75 gallon tanks, it makes me nervous, hearing about 1 MPG. (that's 150 miles) We wouldn't make it. I was planning on carrying about 30 gallons in carry on containers, but still isn't enough . I suppose going downriver would help.

Only one responder (R Thing) said he could get 3MPG at 1400 RPM. Does anyone else verify that? That would make my day.

And I ask, when using 1 motor to save fuel, is it best for the non-running motor stay in gear to stop spinning the transmission, or is it better to leave it spin, with the motor off. I worry about transmission damage, and know a stopped prop will introduce drag.

We are not needing to fly down the river, but would rather not float down, out of gas, and get run over by barges.

CapnGary wrote: And I ask, when using 1 motor to save fuel, is it best for the non-running motor stay in gear to stop spinning the transmission, or is it better to leave it spin, with the motor off. I worry about transmission damage, and know a stopped prop will introduce drag.

Some opinions are to secure the shaft with a clamp and blocking so that the transmission is not left in gear so the prop does not exert pressure against the transmission. I'm not validating this but have read it.
I'm definitely looking for the best method to manage running on one engine also.

CapnGary wrote: We are not needing to fly down the river, but would rather not float down, out of gas, and get run over by barges.

Very, very important - IMHO LOL