Mounting motor to transom (No jackplate)

[86 inches]

I've always had a jackplate so please forgive my ignorance on this....
How is mounting a motor straight to the transom affected by the trim piece at the top. Won't the trim prevent the motor from mounting flat up against the transom. I'm sure no one cuts the trim to fit. Seems odd to me.

[bruce']

Motor should mount right up. Shouldn't have to cut anything.

[86 inches]

Motor should mount right up. Shouldn't have to cut anything.

That doesn't explain the step-off that the trim incurs.

[bruce']

I believe that the mounting brackets will sit just below the chrome trim on the to cap.

[86 inches]

Not if you use any hole other than the top ones

[MMosher]

Should be mounted second hole up.

[86 inches]

Looking at my old 94" Venom midsection it looks close.... the preferred second hole, that is. But its real close and it still looks like it would hit the trim. I would have to set it up there to be sure... but it would for sure hit if you went in #3 hole.

Here is why I ask...

As you know, the G2 has a built in setback of 6 inches. I don't 'think' the second hole will cut it. Maybe... I don't know, yet. The drilling diagram for the G2 shows the second hole 2" from top. The holes in the transom are 1 3/16" from the bottom of the trim. The G2 top hole is 1 1/4" from the top and it would hit, too.

Here is a pic of what I'm talking about. Its on a Stratos, I think. I don't like it... but maybe its OK... I don't know.

[Lea]

Never had a problem when I had my 176 with no JP.

[86 inches]

It just seems to me the proper mounting of a motor should be done so that the entire motor mount should be flat against the transom.

[86 inches]

You would think that if the motor mount crossed over the trim you would want to use a shim or spacer the same thickness as the trim.

[86 inches]

Here's the deal.... I'm still trying to decide about how to mount this G2. I worry that using my 5 1/2" CMC hydraulic Jackplate might be too much of a setback for my 201. I know I'm in uncharted waters here and that some of the more knowledge may be reluctant to offer suggestions. The best that I can tell is that the preferred setback for a 201 is around 8" and having read the comments of Pat and others, I understand that one should never setback the motor past the "hump" created by the hull moving through the water. This is very difficult to do with this motor and it's built-in setback of 6" while using any of the jackplates on the market today. Surely, using my CMC jackplate, the combined setback of nearly 12" will be behind that "hump". But I'm having trouble finding a jackplate that has a small enough setback to put me in the 6-8" range. The smallest I can find is a manual 3" Slidemaster... and I'm not sure they're still making it. That leaves me with the option of mounting the motor directly to the transom. But that will certainly put the motor deep... way more than an 'estimated' preferred prop to pad of 3.5". To even get close to that the motor would have to be mounted in one of the lower holes... #3, #4 or even #5. Any of these holes is going to put the motor mount ( or whatever you call it) well over the top trim piece... just as in the picture posted above. This placement over the trim separates the motor mount from the transom by the thickness of the trim piece at the top gradually getting closer to the transom until it touches near the lower bolt holes. This reduces the contact area between the motor and the transom and places some extra stress on the bolts that are now forced slightly out of perpendicular. It seems obvious that this is not ideal.
Am I making too much of this? I suspect I'll just go with plan A and use my CMC plate and see how it goes. But I'd like to get it the best as possible on the first shot. I know some people think nothing of pulling a motor and repositioning it on the transom, but its a big deal for me. A lot of work and more importantly, every time it's done it increases the chance of water intrusion into the transom.

[86 inches]

I could, of course, CNC a stainless spacer a little thicker than the trim and use that to counter the offset. Dang it, I'm not particularly thrilled with this part of the G2 design!

What do you G2 experts think? Eventually, everyone that buys a new Evinrude will be faced with the same dilemma. They're phasing out the G1 motors and I don't think they're going to get rid of the built in hydraulic steering of the G2. Somebody ought to start making thinner jackplates. It would probably require going back to an external non-integrated pump.

[Lea]

I seem to have a vague recollection of reading that a motor mounted without jackplate should be deeper in the water than one mounted on a jackplate....

Pat! Help!

[86 inches]

I seem to have a vague recollection of reading that a motor mounted without jackplate should be deeper in the water than one mounted on a jackplate....

Pat! Help!

Yes, but... that has to do with the setback and unlike previous motors, this motor has a built-in setback. Bolted straight to the transom its already 6" back. The negative angle of the transom will put the prop too deep. Plus, by all reports that I have seen, this motor likes to run high. So there's the problem. You have to use a plate to get the desired prop to pad which is going to be a minimum of 3.5" but all currently available plates have a minimum setback of 4". That puts the total minimum setback at 10".

Here's another odd thing. BRP is recommending a 4" setback/jackplate but we all know that the ideal setback is determined by the hull and the "hump" it creates behind it as it passes through the water. Its not the motor that determines the setback. By recommending a 4" plate, BRP is suggesting that all boats should have a setback of 10 inches. That's just not right.

Champ hulls, for instance, have different preferred setbacks. I have not experimented too much with my 201 but I have used 5 1/2" and 8 1/2". (A 5 1/2" CMC hydraulic and a 5 1/2" CMC hydraulic with a 3" spacer). It ran better at 5 1/2" (although the boat was new, then) than it did with the 8 1/2". I believe ChampionMan reduced his setback, too - although I don't recall his specific numbers. So, its hard for me to imagine that my 201 is going to like nearly 12 inches of setback with this new G2.

I'm also hearing that there are some grumblings from some other G2 owners over this very issue. BRP isn't going to change the design. Boat manufacturers aren't going to start making hulls specifically for the G2. So that leaves it up to the makers of jackplates to give us some more reduced setback options.

[Bruce2]

I had to notch my trim plate out when i installed my jackplate on my 176 and if i remember right my motor when mounted just to the transom just did clear the trim plate and it was on the second mounting hole on the motor.

[ChampioNman]

Looking at the G2 clamp bracket from what I can see it is the same smooth design as the older motors. I went out and looked at my motor (2001) and it is smooth all the way up to the curve. On the other hand I looked at my Rapid Jack and there is a notch in the top of it to accommodate for the cap trim piece. When I ordered mine the motor was mounted flat on the transom. When I repowered to the 200 I installed a 9.5" RJ plate. It didn't seem to perform like I thought it should so I changed the backing plates after talking to Chuck at RJ and went to a 7" overall when I installed the 2001 225HO. It seems to be happy there. Some of the old school 201's like ours like to be mounted right on the transom. With the weight of the G2 I'd either mount it flat on the transom or go with the 4 or 5.5" plate and not stick it out too far. Keep in mind, I have not rigged one nor been to G2 school. I would look at some of the performance reports on the Evinrude site and see where some of the R boats are rigged.

[86 inches]

I took a look at the performance reports. All the bassboats are rigged with jackplates but they don't report the amount of setback. Of course, they are all new bigger boats in the 21-22 ft range w/ transom heights of 20" and 96" beams... Rangers and Tritons. There was one multi-species boat w a 25" transom that ran w/o a jackplate. They had the G2 mounted way up in the 5th hole! But the kinda numbers they showed weren't interesting from my point of view. 50 MPH... yawn...

I posted over on the etec owners site, so maybe I'll get some help there. I also found that Bob's makes several different sized spacers the thinnest of which is 5/8". I suppose, if I decide to loose the jackplate, I could use a set of those to offset over the top trim. That would keep the setback close to 6. I would hate to loose the functionality of the hydraulic plate - I've always had one. Still, the question remains... what kinda prop to pad would I be able to get without the plate. I don't want to run it 5' deep!

In case anyone is wondering, the transom height on a 94' 201 is 22.5"

[ChampioNman]

Same as it is on a 1989. I didn't say you had to lose the plate just see if you can find one that keeps you closer to the transom. The Verado is similar in the mounting. A 4" with the built in set back that would put you at 10" a two inch gives you 8. Just trying to help you bud.

[86 inches]

I always appreciate your advice above all others.

My last post was poorly worded. I apologize. I strive to be precise and clear when I post but sometimes I fail. It was a good idea to check the performance reports.

[druthomas]

I thought about putting one of these set back plates on my 184 for the exact same reason. The model 220.

http://www.panthermarineproducts.com...ks-mount-plate