280 DA performance

In a boat that size my opinion is that getting the twins is more about easier handling and the extra security of two motors than about speed.

My boat is older and smaller, but with small twins it still slower at WOT than you guys with the singe BB in the 280. I cruise about 25mph and max at about 33 - 35 depending on conditions. My engines are the same HP as the old carb. 4.3 V6's, but quite a bit lighter.
 
This exact topic has been discussed a number of times. It seems no matter which engine/drive combo is on this boat the owners seem happy with the perforance. I slip next to the exact same boat as mine except it has the 496 and the 2 brothers who own it love it. They used to use it for fishing on Lake Michigan. I love my 5.0s. I also wanted twins. A search should bring up the previous threads. Good luck.
 
Right on Bill!! I absolutely love our 280 with the single 496 Bravo III. Best decision ever was to buy this particular boat with the single motor. While I understand twins have their +'s, you just dont absolutely need them on this boat. It performs very well with the single. I have half the maintenance of twins and the motor is freshwater cooled (stock on this motor). I would still keep my single if I had the same boat in Florida. It is not a "offshore" boat to begin with. While I understand offshore cruising can be done safely with a 280, this boat is designed for coastal cruising and lakes. The fuel/water capacity is just not there for long offshore jaunts. My boat is extremely efficient (in a boat sense) and very comfortable. With the single engine, maintenace on our generator and the engine itself can be completed by something other than a spider monkey. My boat always comes on plain in under 7 seconds and I never use the tabs. Our boat always has atleast half fuel and full water and is loaded to the brim as we stay on it overnight. We routinely take 4-6 people on board and never have to adjust anything. Just food for thought, we average about 14-16GPH at 30mph +/- if I remember correctly...its been 5 months!!
 
prosedge29 said:
...we average about 14-16GPH at 30mph +/- if I remember correctly...its been 5 months!!
Click to expand...

Hi Dan,

30 MPG @ 14 GPH = 2.14 MPG

Dan, I think in the middle of the week when you are not around some criminals may be putting fuel in your boat. You may want to consider leaving your car parked there too.

I’m glad you are happy with your boat.
 
keokie said:
Run the boat with a 496 and one with twin 5.0's. Evaluate performance, ride, handling, noise, and fuel consumption. Then go for what you like best..
Click to expand...

I wish it was that easy. It was difficult getting sea trials from MM or brokers, and it was even more difficult to find one with a 496 or twin 5.0's. 95% of the ones I found were T4.3's

Surely there are two 280 owners on CSR who can get together and do some side-by-side comparisons!! That would make a great thread.
 
I thought it was already proven that the 4.3MPI A1's was the hands down winner.
 
I agree with pres. - over 2mpg would be amazing. Do you never get on plane??

Also, good point about the 4.3's - wouldn't that be about the best compromise?
 
Berth control,

My compromise is the biggest engine(s) I can get. Never met a boat owner that wanted less power, but I've met many who wanted more!
 
berth control said:
I agree with pres. - over 2mpg would be amazing. Do you never get on plane??

Also, good point about the 4.3's - wouldn't that be about the best compromise?
Click to expand...

The twin 4.3’s give you a triple whammy of benefits.

#1) You get the handling / close quarter maneuvering benefits of twins.

#2) You gain 6” of engine room space. Although this does not sound like much, when you have very little to start with it’s a big deal.

#3) You get the Alpha I drives, giving you the option of economical aluminum propellers, less expensive maintenance, and if you do wreck it the cost to replace is a fraction of the cost of a BIII drive.

So the 4.3’s with Alpha I drives are a popular choice.


Again, the only really bad alternative was the single 6.2L small block offered early in the run, around 2002 I think. It was simply under powered.

BTW – I once got my 280 Sundancer up to 62 MPH! Never mind that is was on a trailer being pulled down the highway at the time.
 
Presentation said:
Hi Dan,

30 MPG @ 14 GPH = 2.14 MPG

Dan, I think in the middle of the week when you are not around some criminals may be putting fuel in your boat. You may want to consider leaving your car parked there too.

I’m glad you are happy with your boat.
Click to expand...

I no longer have a horse in this race, but I can’t stand by and let a friend take any heat. Dan’s numbers are close, and I should know because I used to own that boat. My gas mileage was usually worse than that because I ran her faster. The OP of this post was not asking for a side by side comparison of twins’ verses singles. He was asking for information on the 496, and I believe some answers were given.

Pres, you write some great post here, but go back to your original answer here. I counted at least three “I guess” in there. To make matters worse someone else writes “walk away”, good lord I sure hope no one takes what they read here and go out and buys a 120K boat on this information.

To the original poster, the 496 is a great engine, and a very good fit for that boat, but do not take our word on it. Take her out for a cruise and put her to the test. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
 
hack4alivin said:
I no longer have a horse in this race, but I can’t stand by and let a friend take any heat. Dan’s numbers are close, and I should know because I used to own that boat. My gas mileage was usually worse than that because I ran her faster. The OP of this post was not asking for a side by side comparison of twins’ verses singles. He was asking for information on the 496, and I believe some answers were given.

Pres, you write some great post here, but go back to your original answer here. I counted at least three “I guess” in there. To make matters worse someone else writes “walk away”, good lord I sure hope no one takes what they read here and go out and buys a 120K boat on this information.

To the original poster, the 496 is a great engine, and a very good fit for that boat, but do not take our word on it. Take her out for a cruise and put her to the test. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
Click to expand...


+1 :thumbsup:
 
hack4alivin said:
I no longer have a horse in this race, but I can’t stand by and let a friend take any heat. Dan’s numbers are close, and I should know because I used to own that boat. My gas mileage was usually worse than that because I ran her faster. The OP of this post was not asking for a side by side comparison of twins’ verses singles. He was asking for information on the 496, and I believe some answers were given.

Pres, you write some great post here, but go back to your original answer here. I counted at least three “I guess” in there. To make matters worse someone else writes “walk away”, good lord I sure hope no one takes what they read here and go out and buys a 120K boat on this information.
Click to expand...

Hi Bill,

The good thing is a forum like this allows multiple people to provide multiple opinions. The person seeking the information can read them all. Also, we can have back and forth discussions.

This is why I feel a forum so valuable.

Bill, lets discuss this and see why we have such different answers.


Walk away
I am not the one that posted “Walk away.” After that post I even followed up, questioning that post.

Time to plane
Regarding the performance, time to plane. I said it’s going to vary greatly and gave my explanation of load. Bill, I have been loaded and even with twin 5.0’s with BIII drives, I had time to plane issues that extended to the point that I was uncomfortable.

The worst time ever I had my wife, my Dad, his wife, my brothers and their wives, and the next day we were heading out for the weekend so we were loaded. 10 adults, and to answer the question “where did everyone sit” I was at the helm, 3 on the port lounge, 2 in the rear facing seat, 4 on the aft bench. Oh, freaking everyone moved around a lot. Much worse then kids! I’m 250 lbs, much bigger then my wife but the average weigh of that group I would estimate at 200lbs+ / person. So 2,000 to 2250 lbs of passenger weight pre-fuel, water, supplies, etc. We also have a generator and other options.

This is not typical for us but it did happen.

Its not unusual for us to have our family of 5 and another family of 5 with 6 of the 10 being kids. That lightens the load a lot.

About fuel mileage, how did you determine your mileage?

I had a friend use the below method. He came up with impressive economy numbers until I asked him to walk me thru his calculations. I’ll modify the number so they fit here.
Per the hour meter we put on 6.2 hours and I cruise at 30 MPH and when I filled up we put in 86.8 gallons of fuel, here is the receipt to prove it. I had written down the hours of the hour meter and here is my documentation. I have done this many times in a row to take out errors of being short filled at the fuel dock.

So, lets see, 86.8 gallons / 6.2 hours = 14 gallons per hour. Now, for fuel mileage, we cruise at 30 MPH so 30 miles per hour / 14 gallons per hour = 2.14 MPG. Hey, I get 2.14 MPG, who-hoo!

My friend did not like it when I calculated his MPG my way so he went back to the above method. Hey, at least it keeps him happy.

Again, how did you determin your miles per gallon when you had your 280?
 
Last edited:
Pres,
You missed my point. If I type in a question here, all I really need is an answer, and hopefully the correct one. Even at that I am not going to run off in a blind direction and not follow through to verify if the info is correct. I know you did not make the comment “to walk away”, that was the one the touched a nerve in the first place. But my point is the post seemed to turn into a battle between twins and singles when the original poster was asking users of the 496 for their thoughts on the boat.

All of the numbers in question, including gas usage will vary do too many different factors and I think we all know that. The point of the matter is the 496 is an excellent motor for that boat, and I think we are talking about an average of conditions. I usually will throw out worse case numbers, because I generally do not boat in those conditions. If I was going to take the kids wake boarding for example, I was not going to have ten people on board. But with four, a full tank of gas, and the water tank full of water I had no problems bringing the boat to plane quickly. In fact I had to ease her up or I would pull the kids out of the ski.

When I read the post telling the OP to walk away because it did not have twins I almost spit my coffee on the screen. No hard feelings.
 
Last edited:
Pres, the poster in question gave a fuel burn range...14-16gph for a specific speed... 30mph, that's all he said. I don't see where he claims that represents his all around average.
 
The data I provided before is from smart craft. It is pretty close as I obviously monitor how much fuel I put in the boat and how many nautical miles I travel. It is by no means my average, just what I burn at a typical cruise speed. Again, my cruise speed can fluctuate between 28-30MPH depending on water conditions. I don't know what is wrong with either my boat or other's, but I never have problems coming on plane. It is not even a thought of mine when I put the throttle down. The one and only time I noticed that it took a little while to come up on plane is when my boat was running on seven cylinders. I dislodged a plug wire climbing around the bilge and didn't realize it right away. I'm surprised more brackish/coastal people don't buy the 496 for its cooling system even if you do keep it on a lift (wish mine was). Gotta agree with the comments made about the Alpha drive. Man those things last forever and are practically bombproof. Look at a Bravo III wrong and some metal corrodes off.
 
I just sold my 03 208da w/the 496.

It is a great engine. Many of my fellow slip mates had the same engine and would agree with me. On an inland lake, a single engine never was an issue, nor was backing into my slip or performance even a bit of an issue. If I was buying another similar sized boat I would buy it again. As many have suggested, take both varieties out for a spin if possible, ultimately it is a personal decision. It most definately depends on what you want of course. The maintenance was a breeze having just one engine and the benefits of the quick winterization of the horizon engine was a plus. BTW, the buyer of my boat, (new owners) bought it because they wanted the 496 engine among other reasons.

..Steve..
 
stevena said:
i just sold my 03 208da w/the 496.

It is a great engine. Many of my fellow slip mates had the same engine and would agree with me. On an inland lake, a single engine never was an issue, nor was backing into my slip or performance even a bit of an issue. If i was buying another similar sized boat i would buy it again. As many have suggested, take both varieties out for a spin if possible, ultimately it is a personal decision. It most definately depends on what you want of course. The maintenance was a breeze having just one engine and the benefits of the quick winterization of the horizon engine was a plus. Btw, the buyer of my boat, (new owners) bought it because they wanted the 496 engine among other reasons.

..steve..
Click to expand...

bingo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,207
Messages
1,428,578
Members
61,109
Latest member
Minnervos
Back
Top