6.2KC reviews??

[Lovey80]

Hello all, I was looking to read some reviews of the old 6.2Kevlacat. I can't seem to find any. Can those with experience give me any thoughts on these boats? Performance, problem area's, beam, things to look for when buying? Basically any info on them would be great.

Cheers

Chris

[Dean1]

Love cat talk ;D Cant comment too much coz ive only been in one up the river. Sure youll get some good comments on here. Cheers.

[screaming reels]

G'day mate, pretty sure theres a 2 page article in the trailer boat magazine,this months(thats the mag which has the boat adds) hope this helps cheers brent

[Lovey80]

Thanks Brent, ill pick it up when I get home. Anyone got any online stuff? Some experienced comments would be good too.

Cheers

Chris

[rodneyk]

hey buddy rod k here contact f&b magazine i think they would have archive
library or maybe some recent cat books also be aware if buying older cats (any )
tanks can be a problem because they are glassed in and problems may not be noticeable for some time as always look for the most immaculate one with lightest
and most late model motors possible they were designed originally for 2x90hp
2stroke yamahas 25inch shafts and for billy fishing inside barwon banks ;D

[Noelm]

been in various 6.2's a thousand times (well almost) pretty good Boat, they tend to be a tad on the pricey side still, reasonable finish, good to great standard accessories, depending on model, don't be fooled by the 90HP bit, they will be adequate with 90HP a side, but need 115's to get the best out of them, everyone who has one with 90's on one, do not throw rocks, you are entitled to your opinion as well!! 90OMC Motors were OK, the 90 Yamaha even though much lighter is no where near a 90HP V4 in torque, the Boats themselves perform OK, better than some, not quite as good as others, but more than capable for sure, they do not command the same fierce loyalty as the 5.2, don't know why, as I reckon they are a better Boat, but 5.2 owners are worse than any Etec owner when it comes to defending their choice of Boat! so there you go, if you can drege up a good Tornament model 6.2 at the right price with 115's or better, than you will not be disappointed.

[julian1]

been in various 6.2's a thousand times (well almost) pretty good Boat, they tend to be a tad on the pricey side still, reasonable finish, good to great standard accessories, depending on model, don't be fooled by the 90HP bit, they will be adequate with 90HP a side, but need 115's to get the best out of them, everyone who has one with 90's on one, do not throw rocks, you are entitled to your opinion as well!! 90OMC Motors were OK, the 90 Yamaha even though much lighter is no where near a 90HP V4 in torque, the Boats themselves perform OK, better than some, not quite as good as others, but more than capable for sure, they do not command the same fierce loyalty as the 5.2, don't know why, as I reckon they are a better Boat, but 5.2 owners are worse than any Etec owner when it comes to defending their choice of Boat! so there you go, if you can drege up a good Tornament model 6.2 at the right price with 115's or better, than you will not be disappointed.


Noel, do you think they would outperform a Noosacat 660 ?? i think they are a little longer 200mm ?

cheer's

Julian

[Noelm]

nup! I guess you mean the Boat sort of like a 23' Sharkcat? if that's the case, given adequate power, I reckon ride and "fishability" would be par (ish), but straight out "racing" the Noosa/Sharkcat are miles in front! would be hard to find a Boat that will be in the same league.

[finding_time]

To start with for the record i'm one of those rabid 5.2 kc owners( really noel get a grip mate) I have not been in a 6.2 but have fished and travelled along side one over 6 days earlier this year, so my comparison is a direct one in identical sea conditions!

As far as ride goes they appear to be far less trim sensitive and no where near as tippy as a 5.2 ( makes sense far longer) i dont think there ride is a great deal better as we were pretty much knot for knot in all but good conditions where the 6.2 had more top end ( twin 115's) the 6.2 didn't pitch as much ( again longer ) Over all there a great boat but substantialy bigger on the trailer and a fair bit heavier aswell. Would i personally own ? No only because of the trailer issues ( weight and of course fuel use)and the fact that i can do all a 6.2 can do ( re my style of fishing , trolling) it would be nice to have a little more cabin room though, but again for all the times i use my cabin not a nessessity!

As far as a equal of the 23 foot shark cat well i would go with the sharkcat ever day , much bigger boat with much bigger hp , no contest!

Hope that helps

Ian

Ps. off to wash the foam from my mouth!

[Noelm]

HHMM Isn't that what I said??? almost to the word!

[finding_time]

HHMM Isn't that what I said??? almost to the word!

Just backing you up!;)

[Noelm]

OH, OK, and don't be too concerned about my comments on 5.2 owners, it is not meant to be bashing them or their Boats in any way, it is just an observation (but it still seems to be true!)

[Lovey80]

Thanks boys keep em comming

Cheers

Chris

[julian1]

i was not trying to compare to the 23 SC more comparing to my 660 Noosacat, which is basically a 20' SC shape with pods, also built lighter due to no timber used in the construction. the 6.2 KC would be more in line with this as would the newer KC2400. So how would my 660 Noosacat compare to the KC 2400 ?

[Noelm]

never spent a lot of time on your model, although a mate of mine had one for a while,(I only fished in it once) I would be thinking both Boats would be very similar in performance given equal power, for some reason Kevlacats are almost always powered at the low end of HP range, not too sure if was just a sales gimmick to get the package priced right or what, a good mate of mine had a 6.2 with 70's on it, it was just barely adequate, sort of like the 90HP Yamaha's they fitted up to nearly every one you see, getting onto the minimum power requirement, my Mates Boat the same as yours, was powered by 140HP Yamahas, he had it for about 2 years and used it for Shark Fishing, and went onto a 34 Blackwatch, so it was not as though he ditched it for something similar.

[John Buoy]

nup! I guess you mean the Boat sort of like a 23' Sharkcat? if that's the case, given adequate power, I reckon ride and "fishability" would be par (ish), but straight out "racing" the Noosa/Sharkcat are miles in front! would be hard to find a Boat that will be in the same league.

Gday Noel in the 5.2 mt range pre 2000 models what's your preference the Noosa Cat or KC ?
Regards frank

[Noelm]

kevlacat every time, I reckon the 5.2. Noosa is about as ugly as you could make a Boat (my opinion here) regardless of how good they went, it would be hard to look at the Boat in the driveway and get inspired I reckon.

[Noelm]

just as a side note, has anyone ever been in a 6.2 that had good power and speed, and tried it on smooth water (as in a glassed out lake) I am not too sure why, or if it was just a one off, but at high speed, they sort of get a "wobble" (sort of like a Motor bike death wobble) and feel downright dangerous, now unless you had a glassy lake, had big HP and tried it, you would never in a million years experience that on the Ocean, even just a bit of chop on the Lake and the whole experience does not occur, now before anyone starts throwing rocks and stuff, as I said, the likelyhood of ever coming across those conditions in a certain type of Boat with big power is remote, I have only ever seen it once, but it did happen.

[Lovey80]

It doesnt matter to me mate. If its glassed out that much i'll be in the Webster 4.3 ;) I still can't believe I have managed to engineer having two boats. Well I haven't yet but will do, the missus just doesnt know it yet ;)

Cheers

Chris

P.S. Keep em comming

[julian1]

what was the horsepower on the 6.2 KC ?

in regard to the 5.2m Noosacat i think he was meaning the newer shape that looks like the current 1850

[Noelm]

yep, that's the one, eeyeeww I reckon they look sad! and the 6.2 had 140HP Yamaha's, not miles of power, but plenty on one of them, it was interseting to say the least!

[julian1]

i take it there were not counter rotator's ?

i reckon the 1850 NC's look ok, i don't think they build that many though

[John Buoy]

i take it there were not counter rotator's ?

i reckon the 1850 NC's look ok, i don't think they build that many though
Im with you Jules on the looks.
I dont mind the nose up attitude;D

member crray here has one for sale

http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/showthread.php?t=114565&highlight=noosa+cat

regards Frank

[Dean1]

Yeah i dont mind the look of those noosacats ive always liked them. I know for a fact that the 5.2kc's perform better tho otherwise id have a noosacat. Ive never been in a 6.2kc offshore but ive heard they feel like an old statesman with clagged suspension ;D

[insideout]

Havin owned a 2400 kc ,i find it "cuts" through the water better than a sharkcat, because of its fine entry, but on the flip side to that,it "walks" alot more from hull to hull, which can upset alot of people. Nothing wrong with it, but a strange sensation all the same.The sharkcats i have been on are good old tubs, but bang alot underway and at troll. Trolling will almost make any cat bang, but some more than others.You can see from the hull config that they (sharkcats)were built for carrying weight ( divers, punters, ect)and are extremely good at it as time has told, whereas the new fine entry hulls are not as much in my opinion. Plus, have you ever put a sharkcat vs kc into a hard turn? The sharkcat, leans out allitle, but the kc ,alot. This can be counteracted by trim obviously, but for newbes,can also unsettle them. In the end i guess it comes down to knowing your boat and its ways.I am currently looking at another breed of cat in development that actually turns flat at speed, and at a true 24 foot , runs on a pair of 90s, and has lost close to 700kg , as compared to other cats of its size, without skimping on the mods and cons, and was developed by an international navel architect. Will update as i find out more...

[Kerry]

Isn't it sad to see so much rubbish written by so few about something they generally know absolutely knowing about.

So much banter so little fact. Some obviously don't know fact from fiction but hey they obviously don't let that get in the way of all the BS.

This will obviously excite the bitch brigade? Really a good laugh at some of the ridiculous comments and stupid comparisons.

There's not a lot of real experience here on this subject is there?

[Dean1]

Goodness me it this what it took too rise Kerry from the dead?? I made a negative remark about a 6.2! Good to see you could make it mate ;D

[insideout]

livebaiting again eh kerry?

[Dean1]

Havin owned a 2400 kc ,i find it "cuts" through the water better than a sharkcat, because of its fine entry, but on the flip side to that,it "walks" alot more from hull to hull, which can upset alot of people. Nothing wrong with it, but a strange sensation all the same.The sharkcats i have been on are good old tubs, but bang alot underway and at troll. Trolling will almost make any cat bang, but some more than others.You can see from the hull config that they (sharkcats)were built for carrying weight ( divers, punters, ect)and are extremely good at it as time has told, whereas the new fine entry hulls are not as much in my opinion. Plus, have you ever put a sharkcat vs kc into a hard turn? The sharkcat, leans out allitle, but the kc ,alot. This can be counteracted by trim obviously, but for newbes,can also unsettle them. In the end i guess it comes down to knowing your boat and its ways.I am currently looking at another breed of cat in development that actually turns flat at speed, and at a true 24 foot , runs on a pair of 90s, and has lost close to 700kg , as compared to other cats of its size, without skimping on the mods and cons, and was developed by an international navel architect. Will update as i find out more... Yeah i went in a 2400 the other week very nice ride ;)

[finding_time]

I thought i would post an example of Kerry being useful, a very rare event nowdays

Trim, Well if you leave out Incat http://www.sportsfish.com.au/forum/images/icon_smile_blush.gif then what probably stands out above all the rest is the 23 foot Kevlacat. The 7m KC is something totally different to anything else foot for foot that have been built in this country. Here is a 23 foot cat that is actually designed as a cat without towing/trailering restrictions. This is where the yanks are still desiging to this day cats over 30 feet with a beam that suits the highway not the seaway.

And yes $$$$'s is always the question but on a foot for foot basis the 7m KC will leave them all for dead. Mind you the 5.s KC is not all that far behind, just in a lower bracket.

The 23 foot Sharkcat is good can not match a 7m KC, the 7m KC is simply a much bigger and better boat all round. The real issue with the 7m SC is there have been quite a few different versions/models and some of the newer models are certainly no macth for some of the older 23 foot SC's. The 23 foot SC is in many ways better than the 28 SC especially in rough conditions as what the 28 applies in length it looses in weight, a 28 can come down awfully hard in a reasonable sea.

In the Kevlacat field there is not a lot any 6.2/6.5 can do better than a 5.2. The 6.2/6.5 is simply no match for a 7.2KC, not even close.

As for some of the smaller single engine alloy/glass "type" cats? Well they have their purpose, just depends what your purpose is with wanting/requiring a cat?

Regards, Kerry.

[trueblue]

he's back..................

[Lovey80]

Welcome back Kerry, another usefull and informative post:-/ . What took you so long mate? Ah well it doesn't matter if you don't want to say it's not important because your banter will light the pages up once again ;) .

Do you have any direct observations on the 6.2KC? What sort of performance do they have(or can you assume) to get with 4 big blokes,400l of fuel all the gear running say 115 Suzuki's. Range, ride, weaknesses, cronic problem area's?

Cheers

Chris

[GBC]

There's a larger K.C. for sale at Cunninghams at the moment with twin etecs. Looks about the 6.2 size but not being a psycho-phant I can't tell. I'ts been anti fouled and knocked a bit so the price might be O.K. if you're in the market.

[Dean1]

There's a larger K.C. for sale at Cunninghams at the moment with twin etecs. Looks about the 6.2 size but not being a psycho-phant I can't tell. I'ts been anti fouled and knocked a bit so the price might be O.K. if you're in the market. The Kc mentioned here has a few issues. All im saying is buyer beware!!! And is this all the progress this thread has undertaken. I thought after a week away it would be alive and well with Kerry back on board!! ;D :P

[julian1]

The Kc mentioned here has a few issues. All im saying is buyer beware!!! And is this all the progress this thread has undertaken. I thought after a week away it would be alive and well with Kerry back on board!! ;D :P

it looks like one of the American built composite Kevlacats, notice the different top deck/windscreen. can't compare to Aussie Kevlacats im told :-X

[Dean1]

it looks like one of the American built composite Kevlacats, notice the different top deck/windscreen. can't compare to Aussie Kevlacats im told :-X Yes Julian thats right mate ;) This particular boat has another problem with it tho so im lead to believe.

[legsy11]

Welcome back Kerry, another usefull and informative post:-/ . What took you so long mate? Ah well it doesn't matter if you don't want to say it's not important because your banter will light the pages up once again ;) .

Do you have any direct observations on the 6.2KC? What sort of performance do they have(or can you assume) to get with 4 big blokes,400l of fuel all the gear running say 115 Suzuki's. Range, ride, weaknesses, cronic problem area's?

Cheers

Chris

i think you can fit the 140s as they weigh the same if not lighter then the 115s.it would certainly be one of the better fitted out cats on the market with these on jimo.mate has 130 yamaha 2 strokes on his and he puts out around the 100km mark.no idea on fuel figures but the 140 suzi s would certainly be better.

[finding_time]

i think you can fit the 140s as they weigh the same if not lighter then the 115s.it would certainly be one of the better fitted out cats on the market with these on jimo.mate has 130 yamaha 2 strokes on his and he puts out around the 100km mark.no idea on fuel figures but the 140 suzi s would certainly be better.

There might be a complience issue legsy! Kevlacat may give you an upgrade complience plate for the 140's but otherwis you have insurance issues! I was always under the impression that 115;s was the upper limit for the 6.2's ., probably wrong though! But a 6.2 would be wicked!!!8-) The one i know with 115's whilst alitte quicker did sag in the bum and i dont know what you would do about pods as it had custom ones that were hull shape anyway!

Ian