Brushless vs Brushed Trolling Motors: Real-World Efficiency Data
Manufacturer claims range from 20% to 60% more efficient. We used official amp draw specs, published test data, and forum-reported real-world results to find out what’s actually true — and when it matters.
📅 May 15, 2026🔬 Official Garmin amp draw tables used📊 Sources: Garmin, Minn Kota, Lowrance, Hull Truth, BBCBoards
30%
Longer runtime — Minn Kota Quest
vs 24V brushed at max speed (official claim)
45%
Longer runtime — Lowrance Ghost
vs comparable brushed motors (official claim)
37%
More efficient — Garmin Force Kraken
at 24V vs comparable brushed (Garmin test data)
54A
Garmin Force max draw at 36V / 100 lbs
Official owner’s manual, April 2025
The efficiency claim that nobody has independently verified
Manufacturers claim 20–60% efficiency gains for brushless motors. Here’s what the actual data shows — and the important caveats attached to every number.
Ask on any bass fishing forum whether brushless trolling motors are worth the $800–$1,500 premium over brushed, and you’ll get two camps: people who say “absolutely, I’m getting way more fishing time” and people who say “my Garmin wears down my batteries faster than my old Minn Kota.” Both are telling the truth. The efficiency claim is real — but it comes with conditions that manufacturers bury in fine print and forums never explain clearly.
This article does three things no existing article has done: collects every official manufacturer efficiency claim with its exact stated conditions, puts Garmin’s published amp draw data (from their official owner’s manual) next to Minn Kota’s published brushed specs for direct comparison, and explains why the efficiency gain is largest at mid-throttle speeds — which is exactly how most anglers fish.
Bottom line upfront: Brushless trolling motors genuinely are more efficient than brushed — but not uniformly. The real-world gain ranges from roughly 15–20% in typical fishing conditions (40–60% throttle, Spot-Lock active) to 30–37% at high throttle on matched systems. At low trolling speeds, the difference narrows significantly. Whether that efficiency gain justifies the price premium depends entirely on how you fish.
Brushed vs brushless: the actual mechanical difference
Understanding why brushless is more efficient requires a quick look inside the motor — this directly explains the numbers.
Brushed Motor
e.g. Minn Kota Terrova, MotorGuide Xi5
Traditional
CommutationMechanical brushes + copper plates
Energy lossFriction + electrical arcing at brush contacts
NoiseEMI interference on sonar screens
Wear partsBrushes degrade over time
Motor efficiency~70–80% typical
Price premium$800–$1,500 less than brushless
ReliabilityDecades of proven reliability
✅ Still the dominant technology. Minn Kota Terrova brushed remains the most popular high-end freshwater trolling motor sold. Reliable, proven, and significantly cheaper upfront.
Brushless Motor
e.g. Garmin Force, Lowrance Ghost, Minn Kota Quest
Modern
CommutationElectronic circuit — no mechanical contact
✅ Genuinely more efficient and quieter. Trade-off: higher cost and a new electronic failure point. The efficiency advantage is real — but only as large as manufacturers claim under specific conditions.
What every manufacturer claims — and what their fine print actually says
Every efficiency claim comes with conditions. Here they are, stated clearly for the first time in one place.
Minn Kota
Quest Series (Ultrex, Ulterra, Terrova)
30%
Longer runtime on a single charge vs brushed equivalent. Plus 50% greater torque for weed-cutting performance.
⚠️ Fine print: 30% runtime gain is compared to a 24V brushed motor at maximum speed setting. Not a general efficiency claim across all speeds.
Garmin
Force Kraken (brushless saltwater)
20–37%
More efficient than competitive 36V brushed motors (20–30%). Efficiency jumps to 37% at 24V vs comparable brushed motors.
⚠️ Fine print: Garmin’s own test data, not independently verified. The 37% figure applies specifically at 24V, not 36V operation.
Lowrance
Ghost (original brushless freshwater)
45%
Longer run time than comparable brushed trolling motors. Also claims 25% more thrust than competing models at same voltage.
⚠️ Fine print: No specific test methodology disclosed. “Comparable brushed motors” is undefined. The 45% figure is a marketing claim, not a controlled test result.
Power-Pole
Move / Move ZR (brushless)
30%
More thrust and 30% greater efficiency vs traditional trolling motors. Built for saltwater and freshwater, custom-engineered for low RPM power delivery.
⚠️ Fine print: Power-Pole comparison baseline (“traditional trolling motors”) is not specified. No independent data available to verify the 30% claim.
What these claims are NOT: None of these are independent, controlled efficiency tests. They are manufacturer-stated figures, each using a different baseline and different test conditions. The Minn Kota “30% longer runtime” compares a brushless motor at max speed against a brushed motor at max speed — which is the condition where the efficiency gap is largest. At slow trolling speeds, the gap shrinks considerably.
The only published amp draw table from a major brushless brand
Garmin publishes detailed current draw data in the Force Trolling Motor owner’s manual. This is the closest thing to transparent efficiency data available from any major brand.
Garmin Force — Official Amp Draw by Throttle Level (from owner’s manual, April 2025)
Throttle %
Thrust @ 24V
Amps @ 24V
Watts @ 24V
Thrust @ 36V
Amps @ 36V
Watts @ 36V
10%
6 lbs
2A
48W
5 lbs
1A
36W
20%
10 lbs
3A
72W
9 lbs
2A
72W
30%
16 lbs
6A
144W
16 lbs
4A
144W
40%
23 lbs
9A
216W
23 lbs
6A
216W
50% ← typical fishing
31 lbs
14A
336W
32 lbs
10A
360W
60%
41 lbs
21A
504W
43 lbs
15A
540W
70%
52 lbs
29A
696W
55 lbs
21A
756W
80%
65 lbs
40A
960W
69 lbs
29A
1,044W
90%
78 lbs
54A
1,296W
84 lbs
39A
1,404W
100% (max)
80 lbs
57A
1,368W
100 lbs
54A
1,944W
Source: Garmin Force Trolling Motor Owner’s Manual (GUID-9BEB843E, April 2025). Tolerances ±5 lbs thrust, ±5A. Measured with official Garmin high-efficiency propeller in calm water.
What this data reveals: At 36V, the Garmin Force draws only 10A at 50% throttle — delivering 32 lbs of thrust. At full throttle it draws 54A for 100 lbs of thrust. The 36V system draws significantly fewer amps than the 24V system at the same thrust output, which is the fundamental advantage of higher voltage systems regardless of brushless vs brushed technology.
Minn Kota Terrova 112 (brushed) — comparison reference points
Minn Kota does not publish a full throttle-by-throttle amp draw table for the Terrova. Published data points from TrollingMotors.net and the BBCBoards forum:
Condition
Amps (36V, 112 lb)
Runtime on 100Ah
Source
Slow trolling (5A or less)
≤5A
20+ hours
TrollingMotors.net product page
50% throttle ← typical fishing
~22–25A (est.)
~4.4 hours
TrollingMotors.net (4.4hr runtime ÷ 100Ah)
Full throttle (max)
52A (max rated)
~2.2 hours
TrollingMotors.net + TrollingMotorPro amp chart
Note: Minn Kota’s published max amp draw for 36V 112lb Terrova is 52A. Mid-throttle amp draw is not officially published — the 22–25A estimate is derived from the 4.4hr runtime figure divided by 100Ah battery capacity. Forum users on BBCBoards report the published 56A figure for the 80lb Terrova (24V) is often inaccurate when measured due to pulse-width modulation.
The data gap this article is filling: Minn Kota does not publish throttle-level amp draw data the way Garmin does. This makes a direct, apples-to-apples comparison at every throttle setting impossible using official data. The forum community on BBCBoards has noted this limitation for years — “The published draw of the 80lb Terrova per Minn Kota is 56 amps [but] the clamp on meter readings don’t match due to pulse-width modulation.” This is why the efficiency debate never gets resolved definitively.
What real-world fishing data shows
Forum reports, independent tests, and expert reviews — what actually happens on the water.
The “2024 Trolling Motor Shootout” YouTube data
The most-cited independent comparison in the forum community is a 2024 YouTube shootout referenced in multiple Hull Truth and BBCBoards threads. The key reported findings from anglers who watched and discussed it:
Motor
Type
Amps at ½ speed
Amps at full speed
Forum consensus verdict
Garmin Force Kraken
Brushless
Highest draw at ½ speed
Highest draw at full speed
Most thrust, but highest power consumption
Rhodan Gen5
Brushless
Lowest draw at ½ speed
Lowest draw at full speed
Most efficient in shootout — less thrust than Garmin
Minn Kota Quest
Brushless
Mid-range
Mid-range
Strong balanced performance
Source: Forum reports from The Hull Truth (thread 1346543) and BBCBoards citing the “2024 Trolling Motor Shootout” YouTube video. No controlled methodology — boats and conditions not standardised across motors. Results reflect amp draw, not efficiency per unit of thrust.
Critical limitation of the shootout data: The forum debate around the Garmin Force drawing more amps than expected illustrates a key measurement problem. More amps at the same speed setting does not mean less efficient — Garmin may be producing significantly more thrust at that setting, making the power consumption entirely justified. Without measuring thrust output simultaneously with amp draw, you cannot calculate efficiency. This is exactly the methodological gap that makes the forum debate circular.
Efficiency by throttle position: where brushless wins most
Using Garmin’s official Force amp draw data (36V) as the brushless reference, the efficiency advantage of brushless is not uniform across all speeds. It is largest at mid-to-high throttle and smallest at very slow trolling speeds.
Estimated efficiency advantage of brushless vs brushed at each throttle range (derived from Garmin Force data vs Minn Kota Terrova published runtime figures)
Estimates derived from: Garmin Force owner’s manual amp draw tables; Minn Kota Terrova runtime figures from TrollingMotors.net; forum-reported real-world comparisons from Hull Truth thread 1346543 and BBCBoards. Not controlled measurements — ranges reflect the uncertainty in available data.
What this means for battery bank sizing
This is the practical question anglers actually care about. If you switch from a brushed to a brushless motor, can you downsize your battery bank?
Scenario
Brushed Motor Minn Kota Terrova 112 36V
Brushless Motor Garmin Force 100 36V
Battery saving
Full day fishing, avg 50% throttle (8hrs)
~176–200Ah needed
~80Ah needed (10A × 8hrs)
~50% less battery capacity needed
Half-day tournament (4hrs, 70% avg throttle)
~88–100Ah needed
~67Ah needed (21A × 4 × ~80% load)
~25–30% less capacity
Spot-lock fishing, light wind (6hrs)
~60–80Ah needed
~45–60Ah needed
~20–25% less capacity
Battery savings are estimates based on Garmin Force official amp draw at 50% throttle (10A at 36V) vs Minn Kota Terrova derived mid-throttle draw (~22–25A at 36V). Actual conditions will vary. At Garmin’s 36V 50% throttle spec, an 80Ah LiFePO4 battery would theoretically power 8 hours — a significant reduction from the 3× 100Ah setup many anglers currently run.
The practical implication: If the Garmin Force’s published specs (10A at 50% throttle, 36V) reflect real-world use, a single 100Ah LiFePO4 battery would theoretically power the motor for 10 hours at typical fishing speeds. Most Minn Kota Terrova users run three 100Ah batteries. That’s the scale of the potential difference — though real-world conditions (wind, current, Spot-Lock corrections) will meaningfully increase amp draw from the theoretical baseline.
When the efficiency gain actually matters — and when it doesn’t
Honest scenario-by-scenario breakdown based on all available data.
Matters Most
Tournament bass fishing — 8–10 hours on the water, aggressive boat control
Brushless wins clearly
Heavy use at 50–80% throttle is exactly the condition where brushless efficiency is 20–37% better. Over 8 hours, that’s 2–3 extra hours of battery life — a meaningful competitive advantage. Battery weight reduction also improves boat handling.
Matters a Lot
Multi-day fishing trips or remote lakes without easy charging
Brushless wins
When you can’t recharge between days, 20–30% more runtime per charge is genuinely transformative. Brushless also charges faster when you do get access to power.
Matters Moderately
Regular weekend angler, 4–6 hours per trip, mostly Spot-Lock fishing
Brushless is better — but brushed is fine
If you’re running three 100Ah batteries with a brushed motor and never running out of power, the efficiency gain improves your margin but doesn’t change the outcome. Consider the $1,000+ premium carefully against your actual usage pattern.
Matters Less
Reef fishing / spot-lock anchoring for a few hours, 10 days a year
Brushed is likely sufficient
At low throttle percentages (Spot-Lock hold in calm conditions), the efficiency gap narrows to 5–15%. If you’re not running out of power now and don’t fish often, the premium for brushless is hard to justify purely on efficiency grounds. A Hull Truth angler with a Minn Kota Riptide Terrova 112 on a Grady White confirmed this exact use case works “flawlessly.”
Non-Efficiency Benefits
Anglers using Lowrance, Garmin, or Simrad sonar who experience screen interference
Brushless wins — for sonar clarity alone
Brushed motors generate electromagnetic interference (EMI) that shows up as interference on sonar screens. Brushless motors eliminate this entirely. If you’ve ever watched your sonar go fuzzy when the trolling motor runs, this alone can justify the switch — regardless of efficiency gains.
Longevity
Anglers who expect to keep a motor for 10+ years
Brushless has theoretical edge — but unproven long-term
No brushes to wear out means a longer mechanical lifespan. Lowrance’s 3-year warranty on the Ghost reflects confidence. But brushless motors add an electronic controller that can fail due to moisture or vibration — a new failure mode that brushed motors don’t have. Long-term data doesn’t yet exist for motors under 10 years old.
Is brushless worth the premium for you?
Four questions. A data-based answer for your specific situation.
⚡ Brushless vs Brushed Decision Tool
Based on verified efficiency data and real-world use patterns.
Your recommendation
—
—
Frequently asked questions
The questions anglers keep asking in forums — answered with sourced data.
Is the 30% efficiency claim for brushless motors actually true? ▾
It’s partially true — but the conditions matter enormously. Minn Kota’s 30% longer runtime claim for the Quest series is explicitly measured at maximum speed, compared to a 24V brushed motor. At maximum throttle, this is plausible. At the 40–60% throttle range where most anglers actually fish, the efficiency advantage is more likely 15–25%. At very slow trolling speeds (under 20% throttle), the gap narrows to roughly 5–10%. The claim is real — but the headline number applies to a specific condition, not all conditions.
Why did the 2024 YouTube shootout show the Garmin Force using MORE amps than some competitors? ▾
This is a crucial distinction: more amps at the same speed setting doesn’t necessarily mean less efficient. Garmin’s Force is producing significantly more thrust per speed setting than the Rhodan, for example. If you compare amp draw per pound of thrust produced — which is the correct efficiency measure — the picture may look entirely different. The Hull Truth forum thread on this (Dec 2024) captures the same confusion: “Garmin pulled the most amps… also pulled harder and faster.” The shootout measured amps at matched speed dials, not amps at matched thrust output. Those are different things.
Can I downsize my battery bank if I switch to brushless? ▾
Potentially yes, but you should calculate carefully before doing so. Garmin’s Force at 36V draws only 10A at 50% throttle — which means a single 100Ah LiFePO4 battery would theoretically power 10 hours of fishing at that throttle. If you’re currently running 3× 100Ah batteries with a brushed motor, switching to brushless could allow you to run 2× 100Ah or even a single large battery. However: Spot-Lock in wind significantly increases amp draw from the theoretical baseline. Run the numbers for your worst-case scenario (heaviest wind, longest trip) before downsizing. Many tournament anglers who switched to brushless kept their battery bank the same and simply gained run time rather than reducing weight.
Is a brushless trolling motor more reliable than a brushed one? ▾
Mechanically, yes — no brushes to wear out or replace. Brushless motors also run cooler and quieter, which contributes to longevity. However, brushless motors introduce an electronic speed controller (ESC) that brushed motors don’t have — a circuit board that can fail due to moisture intrusion or vibration. The Hull Truth forum has documented ESC failures in some early brushless models. Brands like Lowrance (3-year warranty on Ghost) and Garmin back their brushless motors with industry-leading warranties, suggesting they’re confident in durability. The long-term reliability picture won’t be fully clear for another 5–10 years as the technology matures. Minn Kota’s brushed Terrova has a 30+ year track record; the Quest series does not yet.
Will a brushless motor fix my sonar interference? ▾
Almost certainly yes. Brushed trolling motors generate electromagnetic interference (EMI) that appears as lines, static, or noise on sonar screens — particularly at certain speed settings. Brushless motors use electronic commutation that produces far less EMI. Lowrance specifically markets the Ghost as “interference-free” and this claim is well-supported by user reports. Anglers who run Lowrance, Garmin, or Simrad sonar and experience interference at certain trolling motor speeds have reported the problem disappearing completely after switching to brushless. If sonar interference is your primary frustration, brushless is a clear solution regardless of the efficiency argument.
What’s the honest price premium for brushless and is it worth it? ▾
The brushless premium is roughly $800–$1,500 depending on brand and model. Minn Kota’s Ultrex Quest runs approximately $1,200 more than the brushed Ultrex. Garmin Force Kraken is priced at a premium tier. Lowrance Ghost is priced competitively. Whether it’s worth it depends entirely on your use pattern. For tournament anglers fishing 50+ days a year at high throttle, the efficiency gain translates to real competitive advantage — the premium is easily justified. For casual anglers fishing 10 days a year in calm conditions with plenty of battery capacity, the honest answer is that the efficiency gain is unlikely to change a single fishing day’s outcome, and the $1,000+ premium is hard to justify on efficiency grounds alone. The sonar interference fix, however, is a different — and potentially compelling — argument that doesn’t depend on usage frequency.
Data sources and methodology
Garmin Force amp draw data: Sourced directly from the Garmin Force Trolling Motor Owner’s Manual (GUID-9BEB843E-2C2B-450E-B9B2-F4C9F29D0C2E, updated April 2025). This is the only major brushless trolling motor brand to publish a complete throttle-by-throttle amp draw table in their official documentation. Data is used verbatim — no modification.
Minn Kota efficiency claims: From the official Minn Kota Quest technology page and the Bassmaster press release (June 28, 2023). The “30% longer runtime” and “50% more torque” figures are confirmed across multiple manufacturer sources. The fine print (“compared to 24V brushed motor at maximum speed setting”) appears in the Major League Fishing press release and Minn Kota’s official announcement.
Garmin Force Kraken efficiency claims: “20–30% more efficient than competitive 36-volt brushed motors” and “37% more efficient at 24V” from Salt Water Sportsman (Dec 2024) and Boating Magazine (Oct 2023), both citing Garmin test data.
Lowrance Ghost claims: “45% longer run time” and “25% more thrust” from multiple trade publications including Game & Fish Magazine (Feb 2024) and Trade Only Today (Jun 2020), all citing Lowrance official figures.
Power-Pole Move claims: “30% more thrust and 30% greater efficiency” from Salt Water Sportsman (Dec 2024) and Outdoor Life (Feb 2025), citing Power-Pole official figures.
Forum data: The Hull Truth thread 1346543 (Dec 2024) — “Brushless vs Brushed Trolling Motor.” BBCBoards thread 1282745 — “Anyone have amp draw info for the Lowrance Ghost.” BBCBoards thread 1009302 — “Trolling Motor Amp Draw.” These threads are used for real-world user experience data, not as primary technical sources.
Minn Kota Terrova runtime figures: TrollingMotors.net product page for Terrova 112 — “4.4 hours at 50% throttle, 2.2 hours at full throttle” on 100Ah battery. Used to derive estimated mid-throttle amp draw.
Claims excluded: The forum claim that “brushless is 20–25% more efficient” (Hull Truth, Dec 2024) is user-stated without sourcing — used as directional corroboration only, not as a primary data point. The “2024 Trolling Motor Shootout” YouTube data is reported secondhand via forum discussion — not independently verified as the video could not be located for direct analysis.
Garmin. “Force Trolling Motor Owner’s Manual — Motor Thrust and Current-Draw Information.” Updated April 2025. garmin.com
Bassmaster. “Introducing the new Minn Kota Ultrex QUEST.” June 28, 2023. bassmaster.com
Salt Water Sportsman. “The Benefits of Brushless Saltwater Trolling Motors.” December 2024. saltwatersportsman.com
Boating Magazine. “New Bow-Mount Brushless Trolling Motors.” October 2023. boatingmag.com
Outdoor Life. “The Best Saltwater Trolling Motors, Tested and Reviewed.” February 2025. outdoorlife.com
Game & Fish Magazine. “New Brushless Trolling Motors.” February 2024. gameandfishmag.com
Wired2Fish. “New Minn Kota Ultrex QUEST Trolling Motor Overview.” wired2fish.com
TrollingMotors.net. “Minn Kota Terrova 112 — runtime data.” trollingmotors.net
TrollingMotorPro. “Trolling Motor Amp Draw Chart (All Models).” Updated December 2023. trollingmotorpro.com
The Hull Truth. “Brushless vs Brushed Trolling Motor.” Thread 1346543. December 2024. thehulltruth.com
BBCBoards. “Anyone have amp draw info for the Lowrance Ghost.” Thread 1282745. bbcboards.net
Methodology note: This article draws a clear distinction between manufacturer claims (flagged with fine-print conditions) and independently verifiable data (Garmin’s published amp draw tables, forum-aggregated real-world reports). No controlled, independent test of brushless vs brushed efficiency exists as of May 2026 — the data gap this article was created to address. Efficiency advantage ranges (15–37%) are derived estimates based on available data, not measured results. This article contains no affiliate links and was produced independently.