Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1

    Kevlacat outboard pods

    Hi there all just wondering if any u guys can give me some information on the pros and cons of refitting bigger pods on my 6.2 KC . I replaced the old 115 2 stroke yammies with some 115 yammy 4 strokes and move some weight around to get it to sit the same but still not real keen on the wet feet in the middle of winter does bigger pods fix this ??

    Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

  2. #2

    Re: Kevlacat outboard pods

    1. What 115 Yammy 4 strokes? Something like LF115XB's with an extra 7kg each side are not going to affect that boat in any way. F130XA is still only an extra 9kg a side, should have absolutely affect on trim

  3. #3

    Re: Kevlacat outboard pods

    The 6.2 with 115s sits very low, and water on the deck is a standard "feature" added flotation might help a bit, I guess you could try getting a poly styrene float and attaching it (somehow) the the pod, so it was under water and see if it works, you would need to guess the approx size to relate to the new pod size, this would be a static test of course, not something to actually drive around.

  4. #4

    Re: Kevlacat outboard pods

    Gino, from my understanding the 6.2s were originally designed for 90hp 2 stroke as max power. I think the 115s would of been a repower, it that right?

    Kevlacat went from the square type pods on the 2400 to increase the volume for the larger 115/140 engines.

    I know that 6.2 hull and if it is in good condition I would put larger pods on, I would also consider moving your batteries to the 2 front battery boxes near the helm and port seats.

    Also agree with Noelm and do the static test, FYI i re-powered my 5.2 with 90;s and larger pod and its an AMAZING boat now.

  5. #5

    Re: Kevlacat outboard pods

    Quote Originally Posted by MadKat View Post
    Gino, from my understanding the 6.2s were originally designed for 90hp 2 stroke as max power. I think the 115s would of been a repower, it that right?
    1. That is not correct, Recommended power was 2 x 90 hp, Max power was 2 x 140 hp

  6. #6

    Kevlacat outboard pods

    I think what madcat meant was 90hp yammies were the preferred power option from factory?


    I'm about to put new set of kevlacat pods on my sharkcat.
    If your interested the volume of newer kc pods are approx 105litres each

    You could measure your current pods. Work out difference then stick some foam around edges below water line to give rough indication of floatations difference.

    (This is assuming majority of pod is underwater.)

    My sharkcat pods are approx 48l so I'm expecting a huge improvement.


    Sent from my iPhone using Ausfish mobile app

  7. #7

    Re: Kevlacat outboard pods

    Quote Originally Posted by Flex View Post
    I think what madcat meant was 90hp yammies were the preferred power option from factory?
    1. The 6.2 really only ever came from the factory complete or one could provide their own engines but they were fitted by KC before delivery, if there ever was a "preferred power option" then they were 115's but the buyer had the option of 70's, 90's, 115's and the 130/140's mainly in Yamaha colours.

  8. #8

    Re: Kevlacat outboard pods

    Just spoke to Fred the original owner from Kevlacat, he advised the following "the ideal motors power to weight ratio are 90hp the max rating back then was 2 x 115hp ". Personally I would check what was the original weight of the 90's and 115's 2 stroke in that generation and compare with what you now have. Then check the volume of your existing pods versus the new ones and see if that extra buoyancy would make a difference.

  9. #9

    Re: Kevlacat outboard pods

    1. Fred needs to review his own paper work

  10. #10

    Re: Kevlacat outboard pods

    The 90 Yamaha of the day was light as a feather compared to the big beast 115 Yamaha of the same era, most 6.2s had the 90s fitted, and at best, power was "sedate" but weight screwed up bigger HP, so most of them were just OK.

  11. #11

    Re: Kevlacat outboard pods

    1. Ok lets dissect this a little further, which "6.2" is being discussed here?

  12. #12

    Re: Kevlacat outboard pods

    Quote Originally Posted by SatNav View Post
    1. Ok lets dissect this a little further, which "6.2" is being discussed here?
    With the extreme subtleties within the 6.2 range, I hardly think it would make a difference to floatation depending on what model you have.

    -115 2 stroke is about 165kg compared to f115a at 190kg+. with blokes down the back it would be fairly wet. There is hardly any difference in the 6.2 models that would change how wet the decks get.

    Id say putting pods on would make a huge difference. Maybe talk to some 5.2 owners who have done it as its a more common upgrade.

  13. #13

    Re: Kevlacat outboard pods

    Quote Originally Posted by Flex View Post
    I think what madcat meant was 90hp yammies were the preferred power option from factory?


    I'm about to put new set of kevlacat pods on my sharkcat.
    If your interested the volume of newer kc pods are approx 105litres each

    You could measure your current pods. Work out difference then stick some foam around edges below water line to give rough indication of floatations difference.

    (This is assuming majority of pod is underwater.)

    My sharkcat pods are approx 48l so I'm expecting a huge improvement.


    Sent from my iPhone using Ausfish mobile app
    Any idea how much extra weight could be carried with the extra buoyancy?

  14. #14

    Kevlacat outboard pods

    Quote Originally Posted by Bremic View Post
    Any idea how much extra weight could be carried with the extra buoyancy?
    All depends how much of the 'larger pods' are below the waterline.

    Average density of seawater at the surface is 1.025kg/L. If the larger pods end up with say an additional 49L 'extra' each below the original waterline, the pods will be supporting an extra approx 49x1.025=50kg each of motor mass without the transom getting lower in the water.

    In reality there may be a slight compensation in the original 'waterline'/static float plane - because the CoG of the motors will most likely be behind the CoB of the pods, hence the extra motor weight may have a cantilever effect and submerge the pods/transom a little further. However, most likely we are only talking about a kilo or two each side.

    One very important point though, is the above is only in relation to the 'static balance'. If the pods don't provide dynamic lift, you could end up with a heavy ar$e boat 'underway' that you need to then find other fixes for.
    Cheers
    Brendon



    Sent from my iPad using Ausfish mobile app

  15. #15

    Re: Kevlacat outboard pods

    Thanks Brendon. Interesting, potentially a worthwhile improvement.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Join us