Message 40 of 41
Posted by member rogerfrench on Monday 17 October 2016

Good morning David Thanks for the above which was helpful. However while accepting my engine is indeed 10 years old and had been well used I have invested some funds in having it fully serviced by an engineer who from now on is the only person I will allow to work on my O/B units. It now does everything I expect from an engine of that capacity and weight and frankly I do not feel I would achieve any significant improvement by making the investment required for a new power source. Have a look at the web site of Winsor Marine Services Ltd. Having had some experience of so called marine engineers in the past I would without hesitation recommend Barry Winsor to anybody who wants work undertaken properly by an internationally qualified marine engine specialist. I notice you sold your auxiliary engine and can also recall from an earlier submission to the HOC Forum your intention to scull your way to a safe place should problems arise. Given the waters in and around the Solent I thought you were very brave and so I would be interested to learn if you have attempted the exercise and how your back stood up to the pressure!! Regards Roger

Add your comment | ^Top

Message 38 of 41
Posted by member roger french on Thursday 13 October 2016

I have a Fishing 20 with a 1996 Honda 90 power unit. As I have only had Allegro for just over a year having downsized from a larger craft I have retained the engine and despite some problems resulting from the lack of proper servicing in its past life these have now been resolved and the Honda does its job well. However, my concern is that when not in use the skeg and gearbox can only be maintained clear of the water by allowing the engine cover to deflect the inner transom of the outboard well. As this has the potential to damage both the transom and the engine lifting mechanism does anybody have experience of having this inner transom professionally modified to allow the power unit to achieve its maximum angle of "tilt".

Add your comment | ^Top

Message 36 of 41
Posted by member Simon Kidd on Wednesday 7 November 2012

Beejay. I beleive a few 24's were built after the introduction of the Recreational Craft Directive in 1998. Best thing is to drop a note to Hardy Marine and ask for the load capacity ratings. If they built a couple subject the the RCD they should have figures for you - IU've had a look on the brochures but sadly not included. Given them a try, they're really helpful - they have a passion for their product. Best Regards Simon.

Add your comment | ^Top

Message 34 of 41
Posted by member Steve Hook on Saturday 24 April 2010

Hi Brian & Sue. Kerb Weight refers to the vehicle only unladen & with no passangers....The Hardy 20 unladen weighs approx 950 Kg add to this a largish engine approx 250 kg......plus fuel/water/& all items on board you are looking at approx 1500kg or 1.5Tonnes If you search this site for Towing you should find some items of interest.....Ps I have a 20 for sale on this site (marine market) please have a look at "Johnnie Cake" (immaculate & almost new 80Hp) Steve Hook

Add your comment | ^Top

Message 32 of 41
Posted by member Andy Mcmullan on Thursday 13 March 2008

I think the idea around extra HP for the Pilot is to gain extra grunt to get the boat on the plane easily and keep it there with a full compliment of crew and gear. It's not for outright top speed. The consensus seems to be that the Pilot is happier sub 20 knots. The bigger engine would give a more relaxed cruise at lower revs and still have plenty in hand if required. As far as the insurance goes, I wonder how people are supposed to know that their Pilot is only rated to 75hp. I have a 1998 model (one of the last) and I do not see a CE plate or anything else to advise me. My Hardy Fishing 17 also does not have any indication. As these Hardy's are starter boats, people are buying them and using what engine is fitted and will not be inclined to consider if the engine is rated too high. If they ring an insurance company they will just be asked about their motor and will not be asked if it is above the maximum. I suppose it's a bit like car insurance where you are asked if the car has been modified. It's the same with trailers. I have looked at a few Pilots for sale and when the carrying capacity of the trailer is looked into, they prove to not be up to the job for boat plus engine plus cruising gear. Some Pilots are even on unbraked trailers. Looking at the comment that the transom will crack, I personally do not think that Hardy would have built their transom with such a fine failure margin. What happens if in time all manufacturers phase out 75hp and go with 80hp at that point in the range? There are now less manufacturers offering 75hp. I was suprised to see that Mariner do not have an 80hp 4-stroke. Yamaha choose to offer their engine at 80hp for this segment of the market. The actual output horse power is a bit less than 80hp. I personally prefer Yamaha so in theory would not be able to fit the 80hp and would be faced with the 60hp, which is less than ideal for my coastal cruising. The fishing 17 is rated for 2 x 25hp motors or 1x 40hp. If the twin 25 option is used that's 10hp more and additional weight. As far as I remember the Fishing 20 is also rated for twin 40hp's as well. Again more horse power and weight over the 75hp single maximum. These figures are from memory but I believe they are correct. I think there is also a historical element to the 75hp rating for the Pilot and Fishing 20 as the Honda 4 stroke motor was available at the time these boats appeared and was a very popular fitment. Historically the 75 was the common 2-stroke size at this HP band. Another point also is that the Pilot 20 was available with a stern drive option of up to 105hp. This Volvo TMD22, as well as being significantly more powerful than the outboard maximum of 75hp, also increased the Pilots basic weight to 1500kg. Compared to the outboard versions basic weight of 970kg + 160kg approximately for the 75hp (4-stroke) outboard. Maybe the stern drive version had a hull with additional reinforcement? I doubt it personally. I can see where Hardy and Insurance companies are coming from with all this. There obviously has to be a limit for safety reasons. Its just a pity the limit wasn't more scientific. Cheers Andy

Add your comment | ^Top

Message 30 of 41
Posted by member Chris Locke on Saturday 23 February 2008

We would all like to go that little faster and use less fuel. I own a hardy 20 fisher (1999) with a 75hp mariner. but sir has managed to gain insurance, but has sir yet to try and claim off this policy? I bet you my boat that if you go over the recommended hp your insurance would not pay out and would be totally void. All Hardy 20's were built around the 75hp 2 stroke engine(most if not all 4's weigh more) hence the transom will crack. When did you last have a survey? I would not buy any boat that has more than the recommended hp. If anybody is looking for a hardy 20 fisher e-mail me at lockey70@hotmail.com

Add your comment | ^Top

Message 28 of 41
Posted by member Noel on Monday 27 August 2007

The new Honda 90 just manages to tilt clear out of the water(so long as there is no exessive weight at stern of boat) with engine almost touching the

Add your comment | ^Top

Message 26 of 41
Posted by member Neil Gardner on Tuesday 14 August 2007

on the honda 90 question,I have been told by a honda agent that a honda 90 fitted to a hardy pilot 1989 would be too big for the engine well because you would not be able to tilt it out of the water before the engine touched the front wall of the well.He suggested fitting a suzuki 60/70 instead because of the shape of the engine cowling would suit the space available to it.Any experiences about this or comments as I was thinking of up grading from a honda 45 to the 90.

Add your comment | ^Top

Message 24 of 41
Posted by member Kevin Turner on Wednesday 11 July 2007

Hi, Could any one please tell me what sort of fuel consumption I would be looking at running a Honda 90 on a pilot at cruising speed and top speed. Many thanks Kevin

Add your comment | ^Top

Message 22 of 41
Posted by member Ron Tookey on Friday 5 January 2007

I run a Suzuki DF115 Four Stroke on my boat 6 years of superb service. I replaced a Johnson 150 two stroke with it.(Law here states engine has to be no more than the manufacurers plate spec, my plate is 120HP). Johnson was 377lbs Suzuki 417lbs, not a lot heavier than the Honda 90, 384lbs. I would do the math on the transom capabilities, as manufacturers tend to spec their boat transoms to a lot less than can actually be carried. Usual reasons are litigation, insurance, etc............ Fair seas and light winds. Ron. I think you might have a quieter, more powerfull and economical engine. 6 year warranty as well!

Add your comment | ^Top

Message 20 of 41
Posted by member Bazil on Tuesday 14 November 2006

hi we run a 19ft 6 hardy seawings. with a 60hp mariner four stroke bigfoot outboard. it can reach 28kts and is very good on fuel. nice boat for fishing from, lots of freeboard feels very safe.has 2 berths for weekend fishing trips or crusing.we were going for a bigger engine but hardy recomended 60hp at max for the boat which i feel is plenty.it was fitted with a 60hp mercury 2 stroke. what a differance with the new motor lots more power quicker pull out of the hole on running on 1/3 of the fuel a unreal differance very quite till it running flat out when it sounds like a sports car.

Add your comment | ^Top

Message 18 of 41
Posted by member Shane on Thursday 7 September 2006

To ALL I've had many boats over the years ! from ribs.sailers.cruiers and had some scarey moments to say the least!Ive done my day skipper /power boat 1&2 vhf radio and a few other odds and sods and would not give advice on any subject apart from my personel experience.One thing i can say for sure is that the new honda 90 that I've had fitted to my boat is the best thing since sliced bread !7.5 gallon from whitehaven to Douglas'48 mile!not bad Hay and you could not hear it run. best wishes to you all ps. I Would have a Hardy Seawing if i could aford it

Add your comment | ^Top

Message 16 of 41
Posted by member Mick Haslam on Monday 24 July 2006

Hi no problem with insurance I had 4 quotes all happy with the 90hp I chose Bishop Skinner. The prop is 3 blade 15 pitch 13.5 dia. hope this helps Mick

Add your comment | ^Top

Message 14 of 41
Posted by member Dominic And Nicola Gribbin on Sunday 23 July 2006

Hi Mick (ref last post) Impressive figures! What is the insurance situation for your Bosun with this hp as thats an area I know nothing about (We have a Honda 90hp) We presumed 90 would exceed manuf. recommendations etc, so opted for the 75 (back in 2003). Also what prop works best with your 90hp set up? Many thanks Dominic ann Nicola.

Add your comment | ^Top

Message 12 of 41
Posted by member Peter Allen on Monday 17 July 2006

Stephen Many thanks for your welcome comments and apologies for my late reply (been working away from home).Took the opportunity while on the south coast to go and look at a Pilot, solid little so and sos aren't they. The one I looked at was a bit scruffy but sortable but only had a 50 horse 2 stroke. I must admit to be taken by them but would prefer when I buy, to ''GIRFT'' and not have to learn by my own mistakes, found it much easier on the bank account to learn by the mistakes of others hence my attempt to ''grill'' the members of the HOC. I'm fairly sold on a Hardy and feel sure that by the start of next season will have one. My main outstanding area of doubt is their ability to handle a bit of weather.I would never knowingly put out when things are likely to blow up but the vagaries of the British weather are well known and documented so would appreciate any anecdotal evidence as to the sea keeping qualities of the marque. My thanks to all who take the time to read my requests and to John Watson for ''putting them on the board''. regards Peter Allen

Add your comment | ^Top

Message 10 of 41
Posted by member Peter on Thursday 29 June 2006

Hi to you Angus (Geddes No.2235) Many thanks for your comments they are mainly positive,as for a bigger boat that I think I'll defer as the ability to trail to various waters inland or at sea seems to be the priority at present so we can still get usage even when the sea near us is ''bumpy''. Do you or any other members have any other thoughts and is there a ''quiet'' outboard other than electric as the memsahib is not a great lover of noise and before some well meaning person suggests a motor sailor she doesn't go a lot on ''rag and Stick'' either.You just can't please some people can you. regards. Peter

Add your comment | ^Top

Message 8 of 41
Posted by member Peter Allen on Tuesday 27 June 2006

Hello Not so much a comment, more a black hole needing all or any information about Hardys up to 20 ft. I am really keen to buy a boat that I can drag around behind our old Disco. My needs are to be able to go out a couple of miles to fish, to be able to get home again in a hurry, to overnight in relative comfort if we can't make our home port, to explore rivers and creeks, to be able to rustle up good basic grub and to be self sufficient for a week-end, or to generally laze around on and in the water. Despite all the boats I've been going through I keep coming back to the Hardys, they seem to fit the bill with out breaking the bank ( yes I have checked the fuel consumption of a 75 horse 2 stroke at full blat, sobering figures). So please if any Hardy owner reads this and can confirm that a 20 ft Hardy will fit the bill as described or indeed of any snags you know of, what are they like in a sea, do they really go as fast as people say as in over 20 kts with 75 hp on the stern, can you really get them with sea toilets not just a porta-potti, is there room to fit up a shower somewhere, is there room for my Wiemeraner Bitch and the wife Any flippin thing you can think of good and bad will be appreciated. I do hope most of it will be good because this little cruiser is beginning to get under my skin. All e-mails will be replied to. Thank you for the time you spent reading this Peter

Add your comment | ^Top

Message 6 of 41
Posted by member Tony Anderson on Monday 16 January 2006

My 1999 Pilot, which I bought in 2002, has had a Honda 90 fitted from new. They fitted a 13'' X 17'' prop to limit the top speed to 24Kts at 5000 RPM (1000 RPM down). This also has the effect of reducing the RPM at lower speeds, (1800 at 6 Kts and 4000 at 17 Kts) with a reduction in noise level as a result. This set-up requires about 100 lbs for additional weight in the bow for the correct trim, but I am very happy with the performance. 24 Kts is only attainable in flat calm conditions and 17Kts is a good cruising speed. Tony

Add your comment | ^Top

Message 4 of 41
Posted by member Dominic And Nicola Gribbin on Sunday 1 January 2006

The 90 is almost exactly the same weight as the 75 Honda it merely has a beefier carb/fuel delivery set up. I would imagine it is a stresses and strains issue as well as sheer performance safety of the Pilot at speeds potentially in the mid 20 knots upwards. Dominic.

Add your comment | ^Top

Message 2 of 41
Posted by member Angus Geddes on Saturday 31 December 2005

In my humble opinion you would need to consider the physical weight of the engine in comparision to the Suzuki. The boat would clearly squat more with the extra weight and need more HP to get on the plane. Once on the plane you ought to be able to use less revs to hold it there than on a 70? Do Hardy suggest a weight limit to the transom capacity? Modern engines tend to be lighter per HP than they were 15 years ago, so this could have a bearing on the reason they limited to 75 HP? If you do it it will be very interesting to see what the performance results are in due course. And a happy new year to all.

Add your comment | ^Top