Are twin diesels worth more than a single?

[catalinajack]

Several other issues including engine room space and layout to enable maintenance. While on that subject, the cost of maintenance is double with twins, and you can expect repair costs to be higher as well (2 of everything to break).
Also, there are some buyers who don't want twins (some don't want singles either) so maybe for an older boat there might not be that much of a price difference (would depend on the exact model I would think)??
To me, condition and maintenance records gain in importance the older the boat (unless of course you like the idea of a "project boat").

Yes, maintenance is double. But what is the likely maintenance? Oil change every 200 hours? Impeller at most annually? Heat exchanger every 10 to 20 years? Oil coolers every 2,500 hours? Packing gland every 5 - 10 years? Shaft anode once a year? Transmission oil change once in a while? I don't see these expenses as significant. Fuel costs are slightly more but, again, not very significant.

 

[catalinajack]

To me engine room access is the deciding factor. Any boat with twins that does not have at least decent access to the outside of each engine is off my list. I own a DeFever 44 with twins so I am spolied in that regard. As to engineering in general, in looking at a boat I would also be looking at ease of access to peripherals as Phyrcooler mentioned cuz, sure as the sun rises, something will break the next week after you close on the boat. I have found just one "damn those engineers" design faux pas so far in six years of ownership. Access to the forward bilge pump is very difficult. It is in a cubby with about an 18-inch square floor hatch. The pump started to trip the breaker a couple of years ago when I tested it with the manual switch. I am still trying to figure out how to replace it as it lives about four feet down. Fortunately this bilge section is always dry so, unless I hole the boat, it is not a problem.

Agreed. But often it’s just lazy, crappy design/engineering. The fact that some manufacturers are almost criminal in their laziness is frustrating. Such as installing fixtures, plumbing and electrical prior to deck install or other finishing close out - and providing zero access to stuff you KNOW WILL need access to someday!!

(It’s not just a Mainship thing! Many American manufacturers in the 90’s - 2000’s displayed a similar lack of give a sh!t)

 

[mvweebles]

I own a DeFever 44 with twins so I am spolied in that regard. As to engineering in general, in looking at a boat I would also be looking at ease of access to peripherals

The Engine Room on the Defever 44 is about as good as you can get on a boat with twins under 50-feet. Nice standing room in the center. I love the Sea Chest too - very nice setup.

Problem I have on my Willard 36 is lack of space for other stuff. It takes an amazing amount of planning to find a good place for pumps, chargers, valves, watermaker, hydraulic tank for stabilizers, etc. The Willard 40 is a much nicer setup. She has thwart tanks at the front of the engine room instead of saddle tanks. Very nice idea - separates the staterooms from noise, keeps the weight of fuel in the middle of the boat, and gives an amazing amount of room on outboard sides for all sorts of stuff, including a Splendide if desired.

Peter

 

[ljk]

Value of twin diesel v. single

Yes, maintenance is double. But what is the likely maintenance? Oil change every 200 hours? Impeller at most annually? Heat exchanger every 10 to 20 years? Oil coolers every 2,500 hours? Packing gland every 5 - 10 years? Shaft anode once a year? Transmission oil change once in a while? I don't see these expenses as significant. Fuel costs are slightly more but, again, not very significant.

OH, I wish you didn't post this!

In the real world, I do valuations of a lot of things, mainly businesses. Your reply, above, suggests to me that I could make a spreadsheet that takes the extra maintenance cost of twins over the period I would expect to own the boat, less the increased value, if any, of twins over a single engine when I sell the boat, times a "cost of money factor."

The above spreadsheet would give us a "theoretical" net difference in value, twins v. diesel.

If anyone would want to give me the inputs for annual maintenance costs, I would be happy to do the spreadsheet!

 

[Shrew]

IMHO some of the justifications for twins are somewhat misplaced:

1) Speed: Yes, you can have a higher cruise speed, but you're not outrunning storms with the extra 3-4 kts. Saving 1-2 hours in a long day is not statistically significant.

2) Redundancy: Yes, you can 'get home', but unless you're truly offshore a tow service will do the same. Most people never venture beyond nearshore cruising, regardless of distances traveled (e.g. ICW & Great Loop). Catalina, Martha's Vineyard, San Juan's are not 'Offshore'. Unless you're getting into the ferry business, the occasional trip to the Bahamas is not that big of a deal.

Also, bad fuel is going to more than likely impact both engines.

3) Maintenance: If an extra impeller or oil filter breaks the bank, you're not in the position to buy a boat. The smaller engines take less oil. While more oil overall than a single, it's not double. Also, you're changing the oil 1 -2 times a year. If 2 extra gallons of oil is breaking the bank, then again, boating is not for you.

You need to replace 2 shaft seals and cutlass bearings, but the maintenance schedule on those is many years.

4) Handling: No real difference if there is a bow thruster on the single. It does take adapting handling methods and techniques when going from one to the other. However, I wouldn't consider one better or worse than the other. I can spin my single in it's own boat length without the bow thruster.

 

[rslifkin]

On a couple of Shrew's points, I've got some additional input:

Speed: This one kinda depends. If the single can just barely get on plane at WOT, but can't plane with the engines at max continuous, yet the twin planes with the engines at or below max continuous, then in real-world use, the twin isn't just 3 - 4 kts faster (even if that's the difference in top speed). The practically usable cruise speed can be a much bigger difference, as you probably won't run the single above hull speed in the plowing range unless you really have to. So while you may be looking at a difference of 17 vs 21 kts at WOT, you could be looking at a difference of 8 vs 16 kts as a reasonable cruise.

Handling: I agree for the most part. A twin gives you more options for maneuvering, but it's not a simple case of "single bad, twin good". Some boats just handle better than others, so you can easily have a single that's very maneuverable (with a good helmsman) and a twin that struggles in certain situations. I watch my dock neighbor struggle a bit backing into his slip regularly. He's got twin engines, but it's a 40 footer with twin prop stern drives, so the props are all the way aft and he's got no prop walk. So even though it's a twin, it's not all that maneuverable.

 

[Codger2]

I can spin my single in it's own boat length without the bow thruster.

I've heard others make the same claim over the years but have never seen it done. After 8 years of owning a single with thruster, I was never able to "spin it in its own length" without a thruster. Please take a video the next time you go out to show us that it can be done! Remember, "in its own length with no thruster."

 

[rslifkin]

I've heard others make the same claim over the years but have never seen it done. After 8 years of owning a single with thruster, I was never able to "spin it in its own length" without a thruster. Please take a video the next time you go out to show us that it can be done! Remember, "in its own length with no thruster."

With careful use of a back and fill type technique, it can be done. But it requires minimal wind / current, as you can't spin it quickly. And some boats will do it more easily than others, depending on how much prop walk they've got, how much keel, etc. And it works fairly well in 1 direction where prop walk helps, but will be hard to do in the other direction.

The idea is to move the stern in the direction prop walk will take it in reverse. Rudder hard over to push the stern that direction in forward. Then alternate forward / reverse to get the boat rotating without inducing any significant forwards / backwards motion.

 

[Codger2]

With careful use of a back and fill type technique, it can be done.

I'm fully aware of the "back & fill' technique
and have practiced it over & over again. One year while in 10 feet of water I tied fishing line to a balloon with a heavy sinker on it and dropped it off the bow. Did the same off the stern at which point I started my back & fill maneuver. Dead calm, not a breath of wind and still couldn't spin the boat between the balloons.I must have resided in Missouri (the show me state) at one time because I have yet to see it done! keep in mind that I didn't say it can't be done, I said I have never seen it done!

 

[koliver]

Hard to stick with the rules set by the OP: "The twin version has, maybe, a third more horsepower, say 300hp for the single v. 400 hp total for the twins"

Most boats that come with the choice of a single or a pair, are simply adding a second, identical engine. so 120hp v 240hp. A few will offer a range of engines, so their own website will also show the range of prices.
If I were to seek out boats otherwise identical to my own, but with a single, I would likely find only boats offered with an in-line 6, either my same Volvo TAMD41 at 200 hp, or FL135, Cummins B series, etc, but no offerings in the same range of hp as I have, 400hp. To get into this range, a lot of changes would be necessary, maybe the cabin floor would need to go up, certainly the floor access hatches would need to be in a different position, and likely a few expensive other things would be different, so no opportunity would exist for a valid comparison.

Maintenance costs vary from mfg to mfg, but also with engine size. Try finding a decent oil filter for your 400 hp engine for the price of one for the same mfg's 200 hp engine. Same for impellers, look at sump size for oil change cost. I doubt the actual extra cost of maint for twins is significant over that for a 1/2 size single. It isn't much in total in any case. The most significant cost is at haulout time, when the lift charge makes no distinction between twins and singles.

YMMV, or as PSN usually says, "It Depends"

 

[Yankee1]

When you finish doing a seven gallon oil change and filter, Don't you just want to do it again !!

 

[slowgoesit]

I've heard others make the same claim over the years but have never seen it done. After 8 years of owning a single with thruster, I was never able to "spin it in its own length" without a thruster. Please take a video the next time you go out to show us that it can be done! Remember, "in its own length with no thruster."

, what HE said!


With our last boat, a GB36, single, no thrusters, I could turn on a dime, assuming no wind or current, using the "back and fill" method . . . . provided said "dime" was 60' in diameter!

Back and fill, by definition means going slightly forward, and slightly backward, so . . . just as soon as either "slightly" occurs, you have exceeded you boat length, even if only "slightly" . . .

 

[firehoser75]

As far as back and fill goes with a single. I agree, it would be the rare boater who could truly complete the maneuver in the boat's true length. My wife can do it with our boat in about 1 1/2 but less than 2 boat lengths with little wind or current (so for us 60 feet is about right).
Catalinajack,
I disagree about the maintenance costs being very little so not important, unless of course you have a vastly different idea of what constitutes very little money, or you don't count a lot of items in the "maintenance" category.

When we bought our new to us 15 plus year old boat, we had it surveyed and a mechanical done on the engine (and generator). The verdict was, that this boat was in the best condition of any boat that this surveryor had ever surveyed for that age of boat. Well maintained. Loved by previous owner. However, other than a few receipts, there was no maintenance log. Very hard to determine a starting point.
First issue, had an overheat of the exhaust hose that could have gone undetected. I was planning on replacing the exhaust elbow that fall (preventative) anyway. Cost to troubleshoot and repair at a transient marina over $7,000 and a month's moorage, new exhaust elbow (custom made and shipped to our location), and a complete off boat overhaul of the raw water cooling system. Next year preventive replacement of raw water pump that was just starting to leak ($2,000) and an insurance mandated replacement of the shaft seal (survey noted no age available) so I did cutlass bearings, rudder seal and prop truing. Another $3,000. My boat has an aftercooler that according to Tony Athens should be off engine serviced every 2-3 years (I do myself, but otherwise over $1,000) and heat exchanger, and other raw water components should be serviced off engine every 4-6 years (cleaned, inspected, and pressure tested) again at considerable cost unless DYI. I replaced the thermostat, air filter CCV system, rebuilt the alternator (preventative), replaced the serpentine belt and idler pulley. I probably am forgetting something (or two). Yes, there are the other lessor cost items like filters, oil, etc. that don't really add up to much
I would say that in the 3 seasons I have owned the boat, I have spent well over $15,000 total maintenance cost on the engine, double that for twins (I would suspect). Nothing really broke (except the exhaust elbow was corroded through on the inside even though it looked brand new on the exterior), therefore all was really (preventative) maintenance. I admit, I do maintain my boat to a high standard, as we often go out into areas where help is not readily available, but averaging over $5,000 per year so far on the engine is not "pocket change" to me, and having twins would be an issue under those conditions ($10,000 per year).
Just telling my experience on a well maintained (older) quality built boat. I am hopeful that my ongoing costs will turn out to be lower, as I will now do most of the maintenance myself (especially on the raw water components) and some of the items looked after should not need additional monetary attention for some time and I now have a good base and records to work from.
The OP asked are twins worth more when buying a boat, my point with the maintenance cost idea is that often there will be a lot of additional expenses, especially early in your ownership to "bring it up to speed" so to speak, and with twins a lot of those expenses are double. Just something to be aware of IMO.

 

[mvweebles]

I've heard others make the same claim over the years but have never seen it done. After 8 years of owning a single with thruster, I was never able to "spin it in its own length" without a thruster.

It can be mostly done with most single-engine boats, but only in one direction of rotation, and only in dead calm conditions.

I am a devout single-engine guy. I wish these maneuverability discussions would take more factors into consideration than just single vs twin. My full ballasted keel Willard 36 is very sticky on the water which makes her relatively easy to maneuver even in breezy conditions, but not equally in both directions (LH prop means she'll rotate better counterclockwise than clockwise). She's also more susceptible to effects of current. Many twin engine boats are fairly shallow draft and are Dixie Cups on water in any breeze and quite a handful (Bayliner 45/47 comes to mind) - the same thing that makes them fast is sometimes a disadvantage in close quarters with a decent wind blowing. My point being that not all singles are the same, and not all twins are the same.

I also do not dismiss the redundancy of twin engines lightly. Yes, most common reason an engine shuts down is fuel contamination which might effect both engines. Or a fouled prop that might also effect both engines. But from time to time, something else gives way. For those who follow Jeff Merrill's Yacht Sales YouTube channel, he did an interview of a Diesel Duck owner who took his 46-footer from Seattle to Hawaii. Halfway there, the engine dies - it took a while to figure it out, but the vacuum gauge from Racor to remote gauge in PH had a small crack in it. I've also heard of the solid lines from Injection Pump to Injectors cracking. Watching Deadliest Catch, not unusual for an engine to die due to a cracked fitting or something. My point being that anyone who ignores the relative risk profile of a single vs a twin is myopic in my opinion.

I still prefer a single, but I am not ignorant of their short comings. Allows me to be prepared.

Peter

 

[Shrew]

OK guys, for the scientists measuring inches, I admit not exactly it is't own length. It might be 1-2 feet in either direction. The boat backs to Stbd. With the wheel hard over to port, using bump and fill, it's pretty close. 60 ft radius with a 39 foot boat? No. Maybe 1-2 feet back, 1-2 foot forward? absolutely. A lot of it is that the momentum forward is eaten when reversed, yet the stern still walks over. So you get a lot of walk with very little sternward motion. By the time the boat starts backing, the forward motion and prop wash over rudder kicks the stern further to starboard, but the reversing motion is countered by the forward momentum.

 

[Shrew]

Speed: This one kinda depends. If the single can just barely get on plane at WOT, but can't plane with the engines at max continuous, yet the twin planes with the engines at or below max continuous, then in real-world use, the twin isn't just 3 - 4 kts faster (even if that's the difference in top speed). The practically usable cruise speed can be a much bigger difference, as you probably won't run the single above hull speed in the plowing range unless you really have to. So while you may be looking at a difference of 17 vs 21 kts at WOT, you could be looking at a difference of 8 vs 16 kts as a reasonable cruise.

I'm not talking about planing hulls. I'm talking about semi-displacement hulls. Where a single might around 8-10 kts, and a twin might be 12+kts.

 

[mvweebles]

OK guys, for the scientists measuring inches, I admit not exactly it is't own length. It might be 1-2 feet in either direction. The boat backs to Stbd. With the wheel hard over to port, using bump and fill, it's pretty close. 60 ft radius with a 39 foot boat? No. Maybe 1-2 feet back, 1-2 foot forward? absolutely. A lot of it is that the momentum forward is eaten when reversed, yet the stern still walks over. So you get a lot of walk with very little sternward motion. By the time the boat starts backing, the forward motion and prop wash over rudder kicks the stern further to starboard, but the reversing motion is countered by the forward momentum.

I understand what you're saying and totally agree. Most single engine boats can be rotated in their own boat length. But one direction is assisted by prop walk, the other direction is hurt by prop walk and you have to try to counter with wash over the rudder while controlling use of reverse which will pull your stern the wrong direction. Adverse wind/current can make it impossible. A twin engine boat is ambidextrous.

Here's an example. Boat is a single with LH prop, meaning it turns more easily to port than starboard. You get a guest slip at a marina at end of long fairway with slip on starboard side. When you get there, the slip has someone in it so you have to turnaround. You've already committed to a starboard turn so making a U-turn to port - your preferred side - is not possible. Add in some wind from either your starboard side or astern and you find yourself getting pushed down the fairway or unable to get your bow through the eye of the wind (of course, backing out is an option). All scenarios including backing-out are more easily resolved with either a bow thruster or twin engines (or both).

As I said, I am a huge fan of singles. But I'm not blind to their challenges. Just have to work with them.

Peter

 

[firehoser75]

"60 ft radius with a 39 foot boat?"
I was talking a 60 foot diameter, not radius for a 40 foot boat (that's moving 10 feet forward and back), but under the right conditions it can be done in a tighter manner, especially by someone who is skilled. I was talking about my wife after all Kidding dear.

 

[mvweebles]

31-second video of a tour boat on an Amsterdam canal making a very tight turn. Single engine, no thruster. Looks like rudder swings through at least 120-degrees.

I fancy myself a decent close-quarter driver. This is away above my pay grade.

Peter

 

[slowgoesit]

Are Twin Diesels worth more than a single?

To answer the original question, I would say, If everything else is equal (which it normally isn't) I think a perusal of YW or actual sales will show that generally, the twin will COST more.

Whether it's WORTH more is purely subjective . . . as can be demonstrated by the 3 pages of response!

 

[ljk]

Value of twin diesel v. single

Are Twin Diesels worth more than a single?

To answer the original question, I would say, If everything else is equal (which it normally isn't) I think a perusal of YW or actual sales will show that generally, the twin will COST more.

Whether it's WORTH more is purely subjective . . . as can be demonstrated by the 3 pages of response!

The problem with Yacht World is that it only shows listing price, not the actual price the boat sold for. To get that data, you have to pay thousands for a subscription to soldboats.com (or something similar). Or do your own time consuming, independent research.

Nonetheless, the comment is interesting. Something similar exists in the business world, where the question is, Is the true value of a Company what the experts calculate it is, or is it what the market will pay? In my world of business valuation, that question is still unanswered!

 

[Codger2]

OK guys, for the scientists measuring inches, I admit not exactly it is't own length.

No scientist here, just a guy interpreting what was written!

 

[Codger2]

You get a guest slip at a marina at end of long fairway with slip on starboard side. When you get there, the slip has someone in it so you have to turnaround. You've already committed to a starboard turn so making a U-turn to port - your preferred side - is not possible. Add in some wind from either your starboard side or astern and you find yourself getting pushed down the fairway or unable to get your bow through the eye of the wind (of course, backing out is an option). All scenarios including backing-out are more easily resolved with either a bow thruster or twin engines (or both).

Absolutely correct!

 

[sunchaser]

Theoretical question. Let’s ay we have 2 identical boats, maybe 15 years old. The single diesel boat has a value of $100,000. The twin version has, maybe, a third more horsepower, say 300hp for the single v. 400 hp total for the twins.

How much would the twin diesel version of the same boat be worth?

What specific boat and on what mission?

 

[sunchaser]

Eight years ago we got build prices for a KK52, one with twin JD 4045s and the other with a single JD 6068 with a get home. Nearly identical in build cost.

At the same time we priced out a new build N52 with JD 6068 and get home. At that time the N52 was about 20% less.

Bottom line, a cost comparison on a new build trawler between single Vs twin is has the builder done both before so costs can be firmly quoted. Used, RT said it right - condition.

 

[Phyrcooler]

SNIP......
The OP asked are twins worth more when buying a boat, my point with the maintenance cost idea is that often there will be a lot of additional expenses, especially early in your ownership to "bring it up to speed" so to speak, and with twins a lot of those expenses are double. Just something to be aware of IMO.

To add to Firehoser’s comment and continue on my soapbox - if you’re paying someone to do maintenance and repairs - engine room and systems access is critical. The fight to deal with items on the outboard side of engines cost me additional hours of labor. Eg: an oil change wasn’t just double, but more like 2.5 times - due to the starboard engine filter only a Monkey could reach. The impellers were such a pain to access that it was easier to remove the pumps first. The port side water pump was probably a two hour R&R vs. about .45 to an hour for the starboard. Overall - 3 times the labor to do impellers on my boat vs one with a single. I had a Magnum inverter charger that I had in and out of the boat several times trying to trouble shoot a problem. In the end I spent way more in labor having that heavy beast R&R’d than the actual cost of a new one.

So - when you’re checking out a potential purchase, do more than look in the engine room. Physically try to reach those serviceable parts and imagine turning a wrench or pulling them out for repair, and factor that into your decision process.

 

[catalinajack]

Two days running after we bought our boat, a DeFever 44 with twins, we cracked an injector line. We had no choice but to shut down the engine. It was almost dark. The wind was blowing hard. We tried to anchor but the bottom would not hold our boat. We were definitely in peril. As an earlier poster opined, no problem, just call a tow boat. Nope. We would have been blown onto the nearby rocks in no more than 30 minutes. Instead, having luckily found a T-dock in the waning light about two miles off we motored there on one engine and tied off with great difficulty, without permission. So, you one-engine guys, go ahead and rationalize all you want about singles being good enough. Indeed they are until they are not and you become pretty much screwed as we would have been. And tow baots are no so available in Canada as they are here and no Seatow of BoatUS insurance either. By the way, we lost propulsion in the Ottawa locks and had to motor 18 miles down the Rideau Canal to a repair marina. I hate to think how much a tow would have cost. Still, I might consider a single in the future and take my chances knowing and accepting the risks.

It can be mostly done with most single-engine boats, but only in one direction of rotation, and only in dead calm conditions.

I am a devout single-engine guy. I wish these maneuverability discussions would take more factors into consideration than just single vs twin. My full ballasted keel Willard 36 is very sticky on the water which makes her relatively easy to maneuver even in breezy conditions, but not equally in both directions (LH prop means she'll rotate better counterclockwise than clockwise). She's also more susceptible to effects of current. Many twin engine boats are fairly shallow draft and are Dixie Cups on water in any breeze and quite a handful (Bayliner 45/47 comes to mind) - the same thing that makes them fast is sometimes a disadvantage in close quarters with a decent wind blowing. My point being that not all singles are the same, and not all twins are the same.

I also do not dismiss the redundancy of twin engines lightly. Yes, most common reason an engine shuts down is fuel contamination which might effect both engines. Or a fouled prop that might also effect both engines. But from time to time, something else gives way. For those who follow Jeff Merrill's Yacht Sales YouTube channel, he did an interview of a Diesel Duck owner who took his 46-footer from Seattle to Hawaii. Halfway there, the engine dies - it took a while to figure it out, but the vacuum gauge from Racor to remote gauge in PH had a small crack in it. I've also heard of the solid lines from Injection Pump to Injectors cracking. Watching Deadliest Catch, not unusual for an engine to die due to a cracked fitting or something. My point being that anyone who ignores the relative risk profile of a single vs a twin is myopic in my opinion.

I still prefer a single, but I am not ignorant of their short comings. Allows me to be prepared.

Peter

 

[rslifkin]

Two days running after we bought our boat, a DeFever 44 with twins, we cracked an injector line. We had no choice but to shut down the engine. It was almost dark. The wind was blowing hard. We tried to anchor but the bottom would not hold our boat. We were definitely in peril. As an earlier poster opined, no problem, just call a tow boat. Nope. We would have been blown onto the nearby rocks in no more than 30 minutes. Instead, having luckily found a T-dock in the waning light about two miles off we motored there on one engine and tied off with great difficulty, without permission. So, you one-engine guys, go ahead and rationalize all you want about singles being good enough. Indeed they are until they are not and you become pretty much screwed as we would have been. And tow baots are no so available in Canada as they are here and no Seatow of BoatUS insurance either. By the way, we lost propulsion in the Ottawa locks and had to motor 18 miles down the Rideau Canal to a repair marina. I hate to think how much a tow would have cost. Still, I might consider a single in the future and take my chances knowing and accepting the risks.

That kind of story is exactly why I'm more ok with a single out in the distant middle of nowhere (not near land or other boats), but want twins more for coastal work in more crowded or confined waters. The closer you are to other stuff, the more likely an engine issue is to be urgent. So it's good to be able to maintain propulsion while you get to a point that you can resolve the issue. When there's nothing around for 50 miles, having to sit for a little while while you sort things out is not nearly as bad.

 

[catalinajack]

That kind of story is exactly why I'm more ok with a single out in the distant middle of nowhere (not near land or other boats), but want twins more for coastal work in more crowded or confined waters. The closer you are to other stuff, the more likely an engine issue is to be urgent. So it's good to be able to maintain propulsion while you get to a point that you can resolve the issue. When there's nothing around for 50 miles, having to sit for a little while while you sort things out is not nearly as bad.

Agreed, rocks nearby present an imminent danger. On the other hand being offshore 40 miles in a rolling sea and having to replace an injector line, that's if one has a full set of spares, is indeed kinda bad. It's the same rationale many here use for having a dual Racor filter housing for changing a filter quickly and safely. Open a floor hatch, search for the injector line, find the correct tools, and, god forbid you don't have an electric fuel pump to bleed the lines. Bleeding a system with the manual lever on some pumps, well that's not something I would want to do even tied to a dock. Even tied to the dock swapping an injector line is a bit of work. All boating issues have a measure of risk and we each are our own risk managers but there is no question that twins add a significant margin of safety in any waters, in my opinion. But, as I said earlier, I would not rule out purchasing a boat with a single engine but I would do so in full recognition of the relative risk.

 

[SoWhat]

Yes, maintenance is double. But what is the likely maintenance? Oil change every 200 hours? Impeller at most annually? Heat exchanger every 10 to 20 years? Oil coolers every 2,500 hours? Packing gland every 5 - 10 years? Shaft anode once a year? Transmission oil change once in a while? I don't see these expenses as significant. Fuel costs are slightly more but, again, not very significant.

Agree. 2 oil changes, 2 impellers, 2 zincs, very minor cost compared to total ownership costs. Maintenance is not a significant issue on a well maintained engine.

Outboard access to engines is problematic for anyone over 12" wide but I manage. I'm not crawling over the engines every day.