Lund vs. smoker craft

[Jim]

We're looking at Lund Pro sport vs. Stealth Smoker craft both 17 ft. Has anyone had any experience with either? Is a 50 4 stoke big enough to power these boats? Does anyone have any opinion on the pinpoint fishing system?

Thanks for your help.

Jim

[Floater (MN)-Kev]

Jim,

Sorry, I have little information on the two boats you listed. However, I have a bit of info on the motor. You asked about the 50-four stroke. Be assured that you'll be disappointed with the 4's if you are going for power and speed. They seem to be a bit under rated as far as the horses. That is, they don't performe as well as the 50 two stroke. They also tend to be heavier, depending on the brand, than their two stroke counterparts.

I know of a fellow in our area that has a 20' boat with a 125 four stroke on it. He said "It gets up on plane fine with one person in the boat but put two or three of us in there and it never does get up."

Four Stroke: quite, smooth, environmentally sound (according to proponents)

Two Stroke: Quick, more power per hp rating, lighter weigh....

This is what I have heard from others...

[rocky]

I use to fish out of a lund boat like the one you are talking about. It was a good fishing boat and also pulled skiers if you are interseted in that. But I think the 50 horse four-stroke will be under powered. We had a 115 2-stroke and it went 35-38 miles an hour. You will not bet 30 miles an hour out of that thing with a 50 horse four-stroke. I know that. Fish hard.

[C-RAY]

MAX OUT YOUR NEW BOAT WITH HP. YOU WILL BE DISAPPOINTED IF YOU DON'T...

[Smitty]

If you're looking for a Pro Sport check out mine in the classifieds. Extremely clean boat w/90HP runs 38-40.. While I don't have any personal experience with the Smoker, I know someone that has a 17' Smoker and he thought it was an alright rig but thought the Lund was nicer. Just a matter of what works for you.

I would say that a 50HP would be EXTREMELY underpowered in my opinion on either of those rigs.

[CI_Guy]

Jim, I have a 1600 Pro Sport with a 75hp Mariner. I wouldn't go smaller than a 90 on the 17 footer. Plus the 4 stroke will add more weight. Pat K

[Renbe4]

I have a 1700 ProSport with a 115 hp mercury. It will do about 38 mph on the speedometer with 4 people. I would also max out the hp if you can.

[WestCoaster]

Hmmmm......just wondering if you speak from experience or not. I replaced my Merc 700 two stroke with a 50hp 4-stroke this year. The 50 gets out of the hole better, is quieter, gets three to four times the gas economy, but is only three miles per hour slower than the two stroke. The cost is outlandish, as are all new motors, but I'm handcuffed by two stroke closures on lakes that I fish. Rest assured, my Merc 700 was in tip top condition and running like a raped ape. I'm very impressed with four stroke engines, at least from Mercury. Size and weight are an issue.....but my 50 is sized about what the 70 was anyhow. Just my observation.....Good luck!

[mlc]

Hi WestCoaster. You said that you get 3 to 4 times the mileage from your 4 stroke when compared to a 2 stroke. I have never heard anyone make this claim before. Do you mean at trolling or cruise speed.

If you are certain that your mileage figures are correct I would call Merc and let them know so that they can come down and see what is different about this engine and patent it.

Keep us posted!
mlc

[WestCoaster]

Let's qualify my claim a bit. I have a 50hp 4 stroke with power trim vs the old 70hp no trim two stroke I used to run. The boat is a Crestliner with 12 gallons of gas onboard. At 25mph, my routine downstream and return trip of 122 miles used up to 20.5 gallons with the 70hp two stroke and only 6 gallons with the new 50hp 4 stroke. I make no claim that the 70hp engine was properly trimmed out during the normal run, but with power trim on the new 50hp fourstroke, I'm sure it helps. Need more info?....I'll gladly supply it. Hope that satisfies your curiosity a bit.

[mlc]

Thanks! No more info needed. I did not notice that you were not comparing the same horsepower engines. No doubt you will see some fuel efficiency increases between a 50 and 70 hp motor.

A friend of mine used to run a Yamaha 115 2 stroke on his boat and just put one of the new 115 4 strokes that hit the Seattle area in January. Loves the quietness of the motor but does not see much increase in fuel economy. He uses this engine for cruising only and a kicker for trolling. His experience seems typical--4 strokes do not offer much difference in fuel economy at cruise speed. However, his 9.9 hp kicker is amazing when compared to another 2 stroke at trolling speeds.

Good fishin'
mlc

[chadk66]

in regards to the boats, lund is the chairman of the board in aluminum boats. My dad bought a new smokercraft a year ago and it took us about 2 days to destroy the inside of that thing in big rough water. they look fancy but beauty is only skin deep. The lund is far superior and will always be worth much more in the end.

[Bill]

I haved owned both brand of boats. The smoker was an OK outfit with many nice features for a reasonable cost. It was a 161 ProMag with a 75 Merc. 2 cycle. It did about 36mph with two of us and our equipment, however this boat was too small for my needs. I looked to replace it with a 1700 Pro Sport, after doing some shopping I purchased a 1800 Fisherman with a 150hp.-this is my second Lund. I am very happy with my choice. I would recommend the Lund product. It is more money, but well worth it. One thing I have learned after owning 7 boats is to outfit them with a motor at the max. Hp. rating, no matter if you purchase a 2 or 4 stroke.

[FJH1]

I owned a Sylvan Pro Select 16 (Sylvan/Smoker Craft are the same) and now I have an 1800 Pro V SE. Granted, I am comparing apples to oranges, but the Lund blows the Sylvan away. My experience with the Sylvan was marginal - blew out one rivot and collapsed a hull section. I had a 75 on the Sylvan and it would have been better with a 115 - won't make that mistake again! As another post said, if you can afford to max the hp, do it. Personally, I would go with the Lund.

Best Regards,

FJH

[River_eye]

A 50 on those boats is extremely underpowered. I don't think you'd even be happy with a 70 on the back. Max hp rating of the Lund is 115, I wouldn't go any lower than 90. Many people buying new boats are shocked by the prices nowadays, so they always wonder about the smallest outboard they can get away with.

If you underpower it now, you will just be looking to upgrade in a few years when the outboards are even more expensive.

River eye

[Lawrence]

Good Comment River Eye.
I just have a quick comment on the 4-strokes. For years I ran an alumacraft 170 competitor (16'6") with a Yamaha 70 hp. 2-stroke. Now I have an alumacraft pro-turnament 175 (17'11") with a Yamaha 100 4-stroke. The 100 is approximately 1/3 better on fuel that my 70 was. The 170 topped out at 36 and the 175 tops out at 41. The 175 is quicker out of the hole than the 170 was. When I fish I run wide open to a spot and let the motor idle. Both of my motors were properly set up. The F100 was trickier to prop. It has to rev up to 6000 (operating range is 5000-6000). All in All, in my opinion, If the 4-stroke is as bullet proof as the 70 was.....the 4-stroke is a TERRIFIC engine

Lawrence

[SdDoc]

So your saying you are getting 20 plus miles to the gallon? Something smells fishy here...

[John in MN]

Can you let me know what prop you ended up with. I have a Yamaha F100 on a 1999 Lund 1700 Angler SS and the 17 inch factory prop only gives me 5300 rpm. I am going to try a 15 inch pitch this spring. Any other ideas? I don't want to go stainless.

[Flip South Dakota]

Check out the 1700 Fisherman. More boat for only $800.00 additional money. 50 horse is not enough 2 or 4 stroke. 100 horse at least, that puts you into the higher end of the 4 strokers and theres a whole bunch of 2 strokers out there to chose from.

The Fisherman has the IPS hull the Pro Sport does not.

GOOD LUCK