Jump to content

Quicksilver 640 ?


Afishionado
 Share

Recommended Posts

ohmy.gif I can't believe I am doing this but it looks like we have settled on the Quicksilver 640 coupled with a new Mercury/Mariner 100hp 4 stroke and a nice (expensive sad.gif ) berth at Cobbs.

 

I can't remember if anyone in the club owns a Quicksilver whether it's a 640 or not but I would welcome any comments on them. Also the same goes for the Mercury 100hp 4st as an engine, particularly any ideas of fuel consumption at normal cruising speeds.

 

Mark and I looked at all the 'Wheelhouse' type boats and felt that the Quicksilver was the one for us. We particularly liked the deck space which is up to twice that of similarly sized boats.

 

Mad Mike (certifiabley so now according to the dear lady wife! laugh.gif )

post-6-1167413141jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike

 

Is that the missus on the back ph34r.gif

 

Mark of nipper fame had a Quicksilver 640, I'm sure he will give you feedback

 

Martin

Message from my Carol...........

Tell them dirty minded bl00dy letchers that any comments about the bird in the back and her goodself would result in a blood fude that might take generations to resolve. And what's more she knows she could count on the support of the PBSBAC Wives to exact revenge!!! unsure.gif

 

I would particularly like any feedback about the Mercury 100hp 4 stroke and the 4 strokes of this size in general. I know they are quieter than 2stk any way but it the fuel consumption that interests me, just how much better is it?

 

Mad Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi mike just read your post and yes the quick silver is starting to become quite a popular boat. as myself and rich have the smaller 580. in the past i have owned just about most of the quicksilver range blink.gif and to look at they are a very good looking boat i started with the 500 which the fiberglass seemed to sink in to the boat, so it went back after a couple of months, then upgraded to the 560. owned that for about 8 months, went to boat show and fell in love with the 640 which i trailered, the engine i had on it was a 115 4 stroke. as i was advised the bigger engine isnt always being thrashed to get it on the plane. i owned the 640 a.k.a loyal royal for a year and oceanique had her for 6 months of that year mad.gif putting all the faults and problems right. as i said lovely looking boat it is just a shame that they are made out of chocolate. feel free to ring me mike if you have any queries 07966 198093

 

mark b

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that the 640 is rated for a 100hp for 2007, rather than the 115 hp they rated it in 2006...? In the loose term of 'average use' what was your fuel consumption in gallons per hour run?

 

Did you feel that you had an 'unlucky' 640 Mark ? What were tha problem areas on your boat?

 

Mad Mike

 

PS what goes around comes around... The life jackets I had off you will now end up back on a 640 smile.gif Small world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

 

I havent owned a quicksilver, but have read quite a bit about them / arvor's (same boat)

 

Great looking boat, well thought out in terms of features etc. Not made well unfortunatly, have a decent search through google - I have heard of many owners having problems like Mark - if it's a 2nd hander these may have already been put right by the previous owner...

 

http://www.worldseafishing.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7595

 

As for the engine - the 4 stk will be alot quieter than a 2 stk, better at low speeds (under 5 knots) as less lumpy and smoother and not smell / smoke. On the downside they can stuggle to plane a boat compared to a same sized 2 stk, so its better to aim slightly larger in the HP stakes. But I would have thought 100hp would be fine, it's the 90 that may be a little small.

 

Finally, it appears they spec the 640 in France with a 135hp engine...

 

Good luck!

Edited by Adam F
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Mike

 

Join the Etec club, a nice 115, a lot lighter and 3 years before your first service.

 

As Adam said, a little noisier on tick over but certainly a lot quieter than the traditional 2 stroke. But once it's under way I would say that they are no louder than the Mariner and with the extra exceleration from the 2 stroke it would get you on the plane quicker.

 

Decisions decisions.

 

What ever you choose, I am sure you will be in love with it like I am (Sorry Mrs Mike, I am certain he loves you more!)

 

 

Good Luck and look forward to seeing you out there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me too ( as in obsessed with the E-Tec ). Better acceleration, does NOT smoke / smell, fuel consumption is as good as if not better than an equivalent 4 stroke.

3 year service interval, less parts to go wrong, as quiet at speed, more responsive - can start without a battery.

 

Downside is it is noisier at slow speed and you have to fill it with oil once a year.

 

Actually, why am I telling you this Mike, it was you who stated sometime back that a 2 stroke was the way to go and you were correct IMHO, so I was suprised you were asking about a Mercury 4 stroke.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mike

 

I am sure you have thought long and hard about the boat and engine.

 

I am also sure that you will have a great deal of fun on her, with the additional space, greater comfort and a walk on pontoon all adding to the enjoyment. biggrin.gifbiggrin.gif

 

We have berth Holders at the Club whose boating is greatly enhanced by a Marina berth. From more use of the boat for its primary use, easy access for upkeep and maintenance to simply sundowners while in the berth. Some use the Boat twice as much as they used too biggrin.gif

 

I am sure you and the crew will have a great new toy for 2007 biggrin.gif . Tight Lines see you afloat.

 

Charlie biggrin.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mike i had lots of problems with the said boat and its not just mine they seem to have the same problems and so do the arvors as they are built in the same place if you send me a pm with your email address i will email you the letter that i sent marine power and that will explane all smile.gif .

 

mark b

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul D said........Actually, why am I telling you this Mike, it was you who stated sometime back that a 2 stroke was the way to go and you were correct IMHO, so I was suprised you were asking about a Mercury 4 stroke.

 

You're dead right Paul! The reason I am asking opin's on the 4 stroke Merc' is that it is the engine offered with the package. I do have resevations partic' over servicing and the costs involved. I was in fact hoping that there would be enthusiastic reports on the Mercury 4s to put my mind at rest.

I am now thinking seriously about getting back to Oceanique and asking them to quote on an Etec instead.

 

Mad Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mike i have sent you the letter that i sent marine power so what do you think now ? . it was not just my boat i think it was quicksilvers in genaral . there are some guys in the club that own some q/s ask them what they think one guy from essex has had his boat for a year and now they are replaceing it has he has had so many problems with it. spend the extra and speak to tom and buy a jeanneau for peace of mine and better bulid quality. if i could turn back time that is what i would do and i would still own the boat now as they are a lot better built from what i have seen of toms boat .

 

mark b

Link to comment
Share on other sites

re Mercs I have to agree that from discussions over the years it seems generally accepted that they (Merc) made great 2 strokes, then developed Optimax which is still one of the best esp in the big sizes, but that they just didn't get the 4 strokes right in the was that Honda did early, and now Suzuki in spades. And then there's ETECs

 

In the 100 hp range I would go for 115 ETEC or equivelent Suzuki 4st as engines of choice. Between them - a fag paper............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Engine aside the reason for the choice of the Quicksilver 640 was the vast deck space aft of the wheelhouse compared to other boats in it's class, the high level of 'standard' equipment, the interior finish (as seen on the various boats).

 

We would love to have put a Jeannau on our short list but the deck space Vs cabin space ratio is inverse that of the Quicksilver. ie Smaller deck bigger cabin.

unfortunately we have not been able to talk to Tom as a sign on his office says he is not back untill the 3rd Jan.

 

As for the engine,it depends on whether the dealers offer makes the Mercury the mandatory engine within the offer or not. I am VERY reluctant to go ahead with the Mercury 4 stroke. But how do you guys rate the Mercury Optimax range?

 

Mad Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin is well pleased with his Optimax. Can't comment on the engine itself as never had one myself.

 

What I do know though is that the Optimax depends upon having a battery in good condition ( ie. at least 10.8 volts ) or it will either fail to start or misfire.

 

The E-Tec on the other hand does not even need a battery.

 

Also I think the E-Tec will be quieter due to less moving parts ( ie. No belts ) - but I have no evidence of this.

 

Do I get my commission from Evinrude yet ? smile.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike

 

My Warrior 195 is about the same weight as the 640 @ 1040kg without anything on it. My Optimax is a 150hp and has no trouble (as you would expect) pushing us along a a rapid rate of knots 36 in fact. She consumes an average of 1 litre of fuel per mile, which is on a par with 4st engines. On trips out to the rips which are roughly 26miles each way plus all the up and down movements connected with drift fishing, we would typically cover 80+ miles in a day and consumed about 80 litres of fuel. Smaller boats ie 165 with 60hp 4st engines used around 70 litres for the same trip, considering the weight difference I don't think thats to bad. At tickover 4st engines are definitely quieter than my engine but when cruising I don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mike

 

if it's a brunswick motor then the Optimax is the one to go for.

 

personally it would be a no brainer for me - the 135 everytime. It's the start of the v6 range and has so much more smoothness (and redundancy in it's configeration) compared to the triples and 4 (125).

 

I ran a non optimax Merc on my 660 - 175......... rolleyes.gif ..........which gave me a nice 54knot top end - but burnt a lot of fuel at that ! However it was significantly more frugal at 20/30 knots than the 125 at the same speed because of the consumption/rev curve on these ob petrol engines

 

duncan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...