lss 2 transducer location help

I recently upgraded one of my older lowrance units to a hds 7 gen2 touch. I plan on adding the lss 2 transducer for di and structure scan. My ranger reata currently has a 83/200 ducer on the transom and I’m wondering where the best location would be for the lss? Attached is a picture of the 83/200. I’m thinking just to the left and slightly lower than the existing ducer. What do you think. Really don’t want to screw it up and have my transom looking like swiss cheese.

Attachments:

1. 

   20160314_193015.jpg
   

The biggest thing is that you have an area that is undisturbed by strakes etc in front of it. I would try to avoid areas with bends in the hill too. I know some guys with glass boats mount it right in front of the outboard. Not sure what that area looks like on your model though.
You definitely want the lss transducer below and left of the 83/200 otherwise it my pick it up on the si.

Thanks for the help. Anyone know if there is such thing as placing the transducers to close together? I know Lowrance suggests no more than 12 inches apart, but cannot find any information on how close they can be.

Matt

I’ve seen them pretty close; as long as the lss has a clear view to each side, you should be good.

IMO, the ideal setup for a reata would be a thru hull 83/200 with the lss mounted directly to the step for protection. I have a 83/200 thru hull centered in the step of my reata, it reads really well at any speed.

Does anyone know why lowrance doesn’t want them any more than 12″ apart?

biggill wrote:

Does anyone know why lowrance doesn’t want them any more than 12″ apart?

I would have to believe it’s because you could pick up one with the other. Mine are about 5″ apart.

I believe I read that it has to do with overlay data and that if the transducers were to far apart they would not be reading the same bottom.

Fish water- i do have a 83/200 glassed in but never use it because I have read that it is not as accurate or sensitive as ones hanging off the transom? I might have to give that some consideration.

Thanks, Matt