PCM Excalibur 330 in a Barefoot nautique |
Post Reply | Page <1234> |
Author | ||
Ben#155
Senior Member Joined: June-24-2008 Status: Offline Points: 228 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I don,t have any experience with one of these engines (in ski boats), only with older non feul injected Ford and GM, these engines have almost the same performance. |
||
quinner
Grand Poobah Joined: October-12-2005 Location: Unknown Status: Offline Points: 5828 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Not sure I buy into that statement, have owned and skied/driven 100's of hrs with both an Excalibur and GT-40, both have very similar performance characteristics and either one is a more then capable power plant for any +/- 20 ft Inboard Boat. |
||
eric lavine
Grand Poobah Joined: August-13-2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13413 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
the only way your up this early is if you stayed up all night
|
||
"the things you own will start to own you"
|
||
TRBenj
Grand Poobah Joined: June-29-2005 Location: NWCT Status: Offline Points: 21135 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Nope, that statement is definitely true. All else being equal (hull, prop), the GT40 will put 1-2 boatlengths on the Excal out of the hole. The Excal will reel it back in at WOT... the Chevy has more lungs up top. I do agree that both are great motors. |
||
Tim D
Grand Poobah Joined: August-23-2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2636 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I'm glad I drove a friends 2003 Air Nautique with the 330 about 3 weeks before I got my Air Nautique. We were pulling 5 kids on wakeboards and wakeskates at one time. The 330 took a hair shy of wide open throttle to get them up. Then later the same day, me and three friends were behind another friends moomba with the 330, I didn't think it was going to get the four of us up. I couldn't believe the difference the GT40 has on the bottom end.
|
||
Tim D
|
||
TRBenj
Grand Poobah Joined: June-29-2005 Location: NWCT Status: Offline Points: 21135 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Theres definitely a difference, but its a lot more subtle than youre describing, Tim- until you line the boats up to measure the actual difference. It sounds like you may have been dealing with larger boats with unknown props. Tough to make an apples to apples comparison.
|
||
Bri892001
Grand Poobah Joined: September-27-2008 Location: Boston MA Status: Offline Points: 4947 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
The Excal 330 has made it's way into some pretty big/heavy V-Drive Wakeboard boats and still performed decently, right?
The Barefoot in question has got to be a lot lighter in comparison, plus it had the advantage of being direct drive. |
||
quinner
Grand Poobah Joined: October-12-2005 Location: Unknown Status: Offline Points: 5828 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Totally agree! Furthermore needing full throttle for 5 Wakeboarders, something is not right?? Regularly pulled multiple kids (4-6)on ski's/Boards/etc with an Excal which never really posed much of a challenge or required full throttle at the start. Ben - Most Excal equipped CC inboards came with 422's from the factory, what we had on ours and it was a very good all around prop. |
||
TRBenj
Grand Poobah Joined: June-29-2005 Location: NWCT Status: Offline Points: 21135 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Yes, thats true... but the heavier boats will be propped accordingly. You can put a pretty small engine in some of these boats and they'll still come out of the hole like crazy with the right prop. My buddy's 3000 lb Shamrock with a 302 comes to mind- that thing jumped out of the hole with a 13x10.5 on it. Most people using the boat that way are unconcerned if you run out of RPM (rev limiter) before you hit the 40mph mark. Propping for all around performance (holeshot+top end) is a bit trickier. As far as GT40 vs. Excal goes, the difference isnt huge, but its definitely measureable. Both are great motors though. CQ, I think you mean most direct drive CC's with the Excal got the 422, which is mostly true... I know that was the stock prop on the 196 and 206. Not sure if the 216 got a smaller wheel- and I know the 200 got a prop with less pitch when mated to that engine. I do think the 422 would be a good starting point for the relatively light BFN hull... but everyone's use varies! |
||
Tim D
Grand Poobah Joined: August-23-2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2636 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Well the 2003 I drove and my 2001 are exactly the same set up except for the motor as far as I can tell. The moomba was a v drive.
|
||
Tim D
|
||
TRBenj
Grand Poobah Joined: June-29-2005 Location: NWCT Status: Offline Points: 21135 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
The last year for the Sport hull was 2002. You were most likely in a 206 or 216 (the latter is a larger boat by 6" and 400 lbs). Unless you verified the prop, thats a question mark as well.
|
||
TX Foilhead
Grand Poobah Joined: February-01-2009 Location: Kingsland TX Status: Offline Points: 2076 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Tim it think that's probably a lot to do with the way the boats are propped and going from a DD to a Vdrive. Vdrives are slow out of the hole, they squat the back end and raise the bow before they start to move much. Having rear balast makes it even worse. I notice how long it takes me to get to the prop wash riding 85 ft of rope, Vdrive always looses that. From there they tend to accelerate more evenly, so the time to riding speed seems about the same if the boats are about the same size. I would even say that my Excel would out run my DD Centurion from mid 20's to low 40's according to my butt dyno, but that's probably due to the diferent hulls more than the engine placement.
|
||
Ben#155
Senior Member Joined: June-24-2008 Status: Offline Points: 228 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Little update;
Engine is rebuild now and has run. These engines has nice camshafts! They sounds very nice! I hope that i can swap the engine in a couple of weeks, I still need an other prop. I think it will be useless to try my currently 13x13 prop. |
||
Ben#155
Senior Member Joined: June-24-2008 Status: Offline Points: 228 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
yesterday i pulled out the current engine. I noticed that the i don't have enough space to install the excalibur. the excalibur is a bit longer, i need to move the engine crandle and skipole a bit forwards. can someone tell me how to remove the lower ski pole mount?
|
||
BuffaloBFN
Grand Poobah Joined: June-24-2007 Location: Gainesville,GA Status: Offline Points: 6094 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
The lower pylon mount should be an aluminum plate with a collar/socket welded to it for the pylon to fit in. The plate tabs are what's glassed in. I'll look for a pic.
This will help? FWIW-I did a good job with the pylon base, but don't follow what I did here with the bilge pump pad. My stupid human trick here was to put that plywood in upside down. I had to cut it out and re-fit to get it lower. How far forward does the excal need to go? Would it be possible to shorten the engine end of the shaft a little? |
||
Ben#155
Senior Member Joined: June-24-2008 Status: Offline Points: 228 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Yes this helps, thank you!I cant get the bolt out of the lower mounting, so i have to remove the whole mounting first.
I need about 4 inch extra. |
||
BuffaloBFN
Grand Poobah Joined: June-24-2007 Location: Gainesville,GA Status: Offline Points: 6094 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Most welcome. I had the aluminum and a stainless bolt; your pylon must be under tension for it to be stuck?
Leaving the obvious alone... Wow, that's almost a million! I went out for a look; you'll lose a little leg room for the observers and have a tighter passage between the doghouse and the captain's chair, but it looks doable. |
||
Ben#155
Senior Member Joined: June-24-2008 Status: Offline Points: 228 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Leaving the obvious alone... I'm glad you know what i mean. Wow, that's almost a million! I went out for a look; you'll lose a little leg room for the observers and have a tighter passage between the doghouse and the captain's chair, but it looks doable. [/QUOTE] This barefoot was original delivered with ford 351. i'm sure that location of the ski pylon is different when a 454 is used. |
||
JoeinNY
Grand Poobah Joined: October-19-2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5697 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I highly doubt it.. Exactly how did you locate the engine in the boat... 4 inches is a lot of movement forward? |
||
jskylark1969
Newbie Joined: January-31-2011 Location: Michigan Status: Offline Points: 3 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Did you shorten the shaft by 3 inches for the 1.23 trans. because that will push the engine forward and there is a mount kit for mounting the Chevrolet in the place of the Ford.
|
||
uk1979
Platinum Member Joined: June-13-2007 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1413 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
+1 if your using the 1.23 trans |
||
Lets have a go
56 Starflite 77 SN 78 SN 80 BFN |
||
Ben#155
Senior Member Joined: June-24-2008 Status: Offline Points: 228 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
tomorrow i will post some pictures
|
||
Ben#155
Senior Member Joined: June-24-2008 Status: Offline Points: 228 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
||
Ben#155
Senior Member Joined: June-24-2008 Status: Offline Points: 228 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Here some pictures,
The ford engine is about 103cm long the excal engine is about 113cm long the distance between the shaft coupler and ski pylon is 110 cm (when the shaft is in original place. my plan is to move the engine crandle 10cm forwards |
||
kapla
Grand Poobah Joined: March-27-2008 Location: BA, Argentina Status: Offline Points: 6148 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
is the picture, or thereĀ“s a big void there in the secondary stringer?
|
||
<a href="">1992 ski nautique
|
||
TRBenj
Grand Poobah Joined: June-29-2005 Location: NWCT Status: Offline Points: 21135 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I would NOT move the entire powertrain forward that much.
It looks like you are measuring the entire powertrain (engine + trans) and not just the engine. As stated above, the 1.23 trans is longer than the 1:1. The 1.23 boats used driveshafts that were 3" shorter than their 1:1 counterparts. You will need to get a new driveshaft, or have your original cut down the proper amount. You will likely have to remove the shaft collar... there is not much room for one on a BFN. You may also need special engine mounts that allow you to put the Chevy in the same place as the Ford. Otherwise, the notches cut in the stringers that allow you to access the underside of the motormounts will not be in the right place. |
||
Ben#155
Senior Member Joined: June-24-2008 Status: Offline Points: 228 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Yes the floor and stringers are bad, i have replace them next winter!
|
||
Ben#155
Senior Member Joined: June-24-2008 Status: Offline Points: 228 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
What will be the minimum distance between the coupler and shaft seal?
|
||
uk1979
Platinum Member Joined: June-13-2007 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1413 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Read my thread UK's 78 SN all the sizes you need to work with when changing to Chevy/1.23 combo may help on the BFN,the Key will be if the log angle is the same as a SN....
Moving the pylon/engine forward will make the engine sit high and a pain to do alignment and may find you have dog house issues. |
||
Lets have a go
56 Starflite 77 SN 78 SN 80 BFN |
||
tullfooter
Grand Poobah Joined: March-02-2007 Location: White Lake, MI Status: Offline Points: 2225 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
You better start over. Someone sold you a defective tape measure. They forgot the 11 and 12.
|
||
Play hard, life's not a trial run.
'85 BFN '90 BFN White Lake, Michigan |
||
Post Reply | Page <1234> |
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 |