Boats For Sale:
351w Fresh Paint and Chrome Valve Covers! |
Post Reply 
|
Page <12 |
| Author | ||
81nautique 
Grand Poobah 
Joined: September-03-2005 Location: Big Rock, Il Status: Offline Points: 5776 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: April-16-2012 at 11:41am |
|
Interesting, it's certainly not wrong I just haven't seen it done that way before. Seems like a lot of unnecessary hose though. |
||
|
You can’t change the wind but you can adjust your sails
|
||
 |
||
|
TRBenj
Grand Poobah
Joined: June-29-2005 Location: NWCT Status: Offline Points: 21141 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April-16-2012 at 1:02pm |
|
Our OMC 454 was plumbed the same way. Conquerer/Crusader did it too. Very hose-intensive motors! I try and simplify the cooling system when I can, using PCM's routing as a guide. Much cleaner. |
||
|
||
|
JoeinNY
Grand Poobah
Joined: October-19-2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5697 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April-16-2012 at 1:18pm |
|
|
I probably wouldn't change the non-pcm motors to the pcm routing, most pumps are much better at pushing than pulling, and some are worse than others at self priming. While a much simpler routing and we all know that it is tried and true with thier pumps and their engines what PCM is doing would not be considered best practice.
|
||
|
||
|
8122pbrainard
Grand Poobah
Joined: September-14-2006 Location: Three Lakes Wi. Status: Offline Points: 41040 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April-16-2012 at 1:30pm |
|
|
All your older true marinized engines where always set up with the suction line directly to the RWP and then to the cooler. With the cooler up front, this meant long oil lines usually hard piped. I think the current method was a economy move.
|
||
|
||
|
TRBenj
Grand Poobah
Joined: June-29-2005 Location: NWCT Status: Offline Points: 21141 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April-16-2012 at 1:30pm |
|
|
Joe, I assume your concern would be any additional hose length between the pick up and RWP?
If so, most of the time you can make the change without adding any length- just putting the trans cooler in line rather than running additional lines back to it. Conq/Crus used the same Sherwood pump design (slightly different case) as PCM, fwiw. OMC did use some oddball stuff (ours cross referenced to a Mercruiser RWP). |
||
|
||
|
Bri892001
Grand Poobah
Joined: September-27-2008 Location: Boston MA Status: Offline Points: 4947 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April-16-2012 at 2:00pm |
|
|
One advantage of plumbing it direct from the hull pickup to the RWP:
If the tranny cooler happens to gum up with gunk (there is no clear bowl water strainer) at least it won't starve the impeller of water. With the tranny cooler first, if there's an obstruction, the RWP could pull air and get burned out. |
||
|
||
|
JoeinNY
Grand Poobah
Joined: October-19-2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5697 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April-16-2012 at 2:30pm |
|
I am thinking the concern would be the pressure drop of the trans cooler. As long as it was the same cooler and the same pump between the two engines you can assume that you will probably live though. The added joints on the suction side are also places to pull air and possibly cause trouble. You want your leaks on the pressurized side if at all possible that way they are easier to detect and less likely to be of a critical nature. None of it is likely anything to lose sleep about but I defintely see where the engineers were going when they were adding all that hose. |
||
|
||
|
MI-nick
Gold Member 
Joined: January-12-2009 Location: Ypsilanti, MI Status: Offline Points: 809 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April-16-2012 at 10:46pm |
|
|
my '99 SAN takes a lap around the v-drive before hitting the t-stat housing...14 extra feet of hose...yikes...
|
||
|
As far as I can tell, I'm not quite sure...
|
||
|
||
|
74Wind
Grand Poobah
Joined: August-02-2011 Location: Georgia Status: Offline Points: 2101 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April-17-2012 at 12:31am |
|
|
My understanding is that measuring across the intake manifold, a 302 should be 9" wide and a 351 10 3/4" wide.
|
||
|
||
|
DrCC
Grand Poobah
Joined: April-12-2004 Location: at home Status: Offline Points: 2867 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April-17-2012 at 12:44am |
|
|
I didn't think my hose was big enough.
So, I had my 1" hose removed and put in some 1 1/4" hose. |
||
|
||
|
Waterdog
Grand Poobah
Joined: April-27-2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2020 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April-17-2012 at 1:22am |
|
That hurts just thinkin' bout it 
|
||
|
||
|
gun-driver
Grand Poobah
Joined: July-18-2008 Location: Pittsburgh, Pa Status: Offline Points: 4117 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April-17-2012 at 3:12pm |
|
Was that considered cosmetic surgery and did your insurance cover it? |
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <12 |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
75 Tique wrote: