Mike,

This page:

[url]http://www.westerbeke.com/products/OldModelLiterature.aspx?LandingType=D...

Lists the specs for all the obsolete Universal engines, there are two M25s in there not sure which you have. Those PDFs include the hp, torque and fuel consumption graphs. That will give you a starting point.

I figure one half gal/hour is conservative and has worked well for me.I dont use the fuel guage,simply watch the hour counter for fuel consumption.Easy

Fuel log

[url]http://c34.org/bbs/index.php/topic,3841.0.html[/url]

15 years should be enough data. :D:D:D

Motoring reasonably gently we use between 1.3 and 1.5 litres per hour.

I got the same number as Greig: 1/2 gallon per hour. This gives me about 5 knots at about 2000 rpm.

While it is true that one would expect better (lower) fuel consumption at lower rpms, and many discussions of this nature seem to ask: "What's the difference in fuel consumption between 2000 rpm and 2600 rpm?" I have found it simply doesn't make a difference in real life. Why? Because almost none of us operates our boats in that manner. Sure, if you're running out of fuel, you'd most likely lower the revs, but then you'd also reduce your speed and unless you did the math you may NOT increase your range. That's why the only meaningful measurement is overall average. We leave our slip at low rpm for a few minutes, motor 40-45 minutes at 2650 to where we raise our sails, start the engine and run at 1100 rpm to drop the sails, motor into an anchorage, back down on the anchor, etc., etc. That's why overall average works, because real life use is what sucks the fuel out, regardless of the actual different consumption at different rpms. How many GPH do I get at 1100 rpm? I don't really care, because I'm not using the engine very much at that speed, but it does contribute to the overall average which is the "guesstimate" I use when I refill.

I have been keeping a record of fuel used vs engine hours for the last two years. It averages a low of .5 to .7 gph. That includes a mixture of slow speed in our canal system, cruising at 2500 rpm in open water with the current and against the current and power sailing. In calculating the amount of fuel I need to have on board for a trip I use the worst case scenario of .5 gph then I am delighted when I don't use that much.

Uh, Mike, I think your worst-case would be 0.7 gph, not 0.5.

I re-read my last message and it appears, yes, your right Duane.

Stu you are right that there's no point going too slow to save fuel, in normal circumstances. I forgot to mention we were getting such low consumption figures because we were running at around 1700 RPM and a bit under 5 knots. Our engine was clapped and over heated at 2200. In terms of Miles per litre / gallon there's not much advantage in the low revs.

We now have a new engine :-)

Rob, thanks. What engine did you use to repower?

Hi Stu
We had a Universal 23HP that had done 5000 hard sea miles. Things were corroding through, and we overheated often sio ran the engine gently, as I mentioned. I considered getting a 30 HP, but decided on the 25 HO Beta...
[url]http://www.betamarine.co.uk/seagoing/beta25/beta25he.html[/url]

1) The price was pretty good
2) It has it's own oil pump and all the filters are accessible
3) Very tidy, not many external pipes
4) Kept the existing engine bed, just cleaned it and packed the new engine mounts
5) Only 25 HP, but we had been managing with about 15 HP anyway
6) No mods to the engine cover
7) Waterproof panel option, neew harness (Our oldie had never had a new harness...)

We got the 75 Amp alternator, but if doing it again would stick with the factory 45 (?) amp as it rarely puts more than this in for more than a minute or two anyway.

She's a beauty, and now the 'marine engineers' have got it properly aligned things will be sweet :-)

Beta seems to have well engineered their products and I like that they use Kubotas as a foundation, I've had good luck with Kubotas for a lot of years in several different applications and I think they are a very good base to build on.

But it seems to me that, like all marine engine makers they missed the most fundamental problem. Move the bloody oil drain plug to the back of the sump, not the front!! That is so obvious. Nothing like leaving a bunch of dirty oil in the engine. I change oil, start it up and the new oil is black instantly. Just stupid. If I ever have to pull my engine I'll have that done while it's out, it's not that hard to do. Jeez.

I'm with you on that one Bud, doesn't make sense that you can't pull out that last bit of ail because the lowest spot is in the back. Not sure it is the engine manufacturers fault but Catalina's and the exit of the prop shaft.

Rob, good choice. Two of our skippers are repowering with Beta.

Gary, I can't blame that one on Catalina. Every conventional inboard (ie straight shaft, not V-drive or saildrive) I've ever seen has a fairly steep angle to the entire drivetrain. It the nature of the beast, so why not do something about it when you're marinizing the engine? But that would be counter-productive to selling massively overpriced replacement parts now wouldn't it? Thankfully we have Kubota tractor dealers to help manage that problem to some extent.

Yep, the slope aft is a problem, but I've figured a couple of fixes. One is to upgrade our 20kg anchor to a heavier model so that the boat tilts forward and levels the sump. This would be a bit expensive, however. The second is that the Beta manual seems to recommend oil changes at a much greater interval (250 hours? - not sure from memory) and if I change the oil at a more frequent interval then it should dilute the sludge and counteract the fact it's not all sucked out by the pump! ;-)

Hi Bud,

I've been looking at the Beta as a possible powerplant and from what I can tell, if you get the shallow sump oil pan option, the drain is at the back where it would make sense.

[QUOTE=bstreet;19504]Beta seems to have well engineered their products and I like that they use Kubotas as a foundation, I've had good luck with Kubotas for a lot of years in several different applications and I think they are a very good base to build on.

But it seems to me that, like all marine engine makers they missed the most fundamental problem. Move the bloody oil drain plug to the back of the sump, not the front!! That is so obvious. Nothing like leaving a bunch of dirty oil in the engine. I change oil, start it up and the new oil is black instantly. Just stupid. If I ever have to pull my engine I'll have that done while it's out, it's not that hard to do. Jeez.[/QUOTE]