Good notes and appreciate good debate. Misconception by people that have never owned twin engined boats are the initial costs. A 300 hp motor, no matter what flavor will have you looking at $16-20K retail. Two 150 hp motors will put you in the ball park at +/- a $2K difference if priced at $8-10K each minus rigging to make up a 2K difference. Last check on 150 hp motors in a 2 stroke Mercury Optimax or a Yamaha F150 put these motors at a dealer price of $7,900-$9K installed including dealer installed and rigged as an average. The twin v.s. single debate initial cost wise is really apples to apples. Buyers, if cost is an issue, will option normally for a lower horsepower motor or dealers will install or order a lower horsepower motor to reduce overall boat price to make the boat more attractive cost wise.
Debate has it that twins cost more operationally, and that is probably accurate. More maintenance. Single advantage is one lower unit in the water v.s. the drag created by 2 lowers in the water. Fuel consumption is extremely close and very good comparisons by many boat tests seem to validate it. To say a single 225, 250 or 300 would be cheaper than a twin 150 setup probably isnt that accurate. It would be the operational costs that make a twin setup costlier due to maintenance. Weight issue close to the same argument. Twin 150 ETEC's at 427 lbs dry weight each v.s. a single Yamaha 250 hp four stroke at 592 lbs is a 260 lbs difference, that would equate to one passenger and gear. For the sake of argument, I dont subscribe to the added weight issue makes it some huge difference. It may have been valid 5 or more years ago but not today in todays market.
Simple truth is that a SKA tournament fisherman with a possible winning fish wont wait for SeaTow or BoatUS if there is a motor malfunction. The captain would be hard pressed to even ask for a helping hand from another tournament competitor. Twin setup would get him to the scales.
Will be interesting to see the marketing angle, as you know Triumph builds fishing boats. Side bar note - agree on the head. Would definately increase dry storage area. Option for removable toilet would be optimal. Anyone that has ever messed with an installed system for waste can tell you it is not pleasent come maintenance time.
Like you, I prefer the 210/215 as the bow deck area is a smarter fishing setup v.s. raised boxes. To see a practicle and functional seating solution, take a look at the seating on a 236 Scout center console. Too bad Triumph didnt continue to use the inovation they used on the 191 utilizing conversion paradigms. Utilizing the stern of the boat for a seating solution is optimal as that normally is the most comfortable ride on any boat. Lastly, the L bracket look for the lean post seats simply is not appealing to the eye, form fit function? sure but semi-tubular polished aluminum would be a much nicer touch. Lose the Faria analog guages and install Yamaha digital, Mercury Smartguages and the like. If I were paying over $58K on a boat as this, that is what it would have to have.
Resources:
http://www.boating-industry.com/
http://bombardier.com/
http://www.yamaha-motor.com/outboard...me/1/home.aspx
http://www.e-tecinfonet.org/id3.html
To be fair to debate,
http://www.thelog.com/news/newsview.asp?c=158866 , though the author is comparing price of large 4 stroke to two smaller 4 strokes at California price, unlike my comparision of large 4 stroke to twin 2 stroke cost southeastern. Current reports dont tip the scale to the author's claim of double fuel consumption either. To many manufacturer service report comparisons out there to show the difference.