Forums
NautiqueParts.comNautiqueSkins.com - Correct Craft Upholstery and Part
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - PCM Excalibur 330 in a Barefoot nautique
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

PCM Excalibur 330 in a Barefoot nautique

 Post Reply Post Reply Page    <1234>
Author
Ben#155 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: June-24-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 228
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ben#155 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-01-2011 at 2:58am
Originally posted by Tim D Tim D wrote:

The 330 might have good top end, but it doesn't pull out of the hole like a GT40.


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.
Back to Top
quinner View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: October-12-2005
Location: Unknown
Status: Offline
Points: 5828
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote quinner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-01-2011 at 9:40am
Originally posted by Tim D Tim D wrote:

The 330 might have good top end, but it doesn't pull out of the hole like a GT40.


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.
Back to Top
eric lavine View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah


Joined: August-13-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13413
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eric lavine Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-01-2011 at 10:07am
the only way your up this early is if you stayed up all night
"the things you own will start to own you"
Back to Top
TRBenj View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: June-29-2005
Location: NWCT
Status: Offline
Points: 21104
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TRBenj Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-01-2011 at 10:54am
Originally posted by quinner quinner wrote:

Originally posted by Tim D Tim D wrote:

The 330 might have good top end, but it doesn't pull out of the hole like a GT40.


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.

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.
Back to Top
Tim D View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah


Joined: August-23-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2635
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tim D Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-01-2011 at 11:03am
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
Back to Top
TRBenj View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: June-29-2005
Location: NWCT
Status: Offline
Points: 21104
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TRBenj Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-01-2011 at 11:13am
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.
Back to Top
Bri892001 View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: September-27-2008
Location: Boston MA
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bri892001 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-01-2011 at 12:13pm
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.
Back to Top
quinner View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: October-12-2005
Location: Unknown
Status: Offline
Points: 5828
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote quinner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-01-2011 at 12:25pm
Originally posted by TRBenj TRBenj wrote:

Theres definitely a difference, but its a lot more subtle than youre describing, Tim-


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.
Back to Top
TRBenj View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: June-29-2005
Location: NWCT
Status: Offline
Points: 21104
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TRBenj Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-01-2011 at 12:38pm
Originally posted by Bri892001 Bri892001 wrote:

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.

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!
Back to Top
Tim D View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah


Joined: August-23-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2635
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tim D Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-01-2011 at 1:20pm
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
Back to Top
TRBenj View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: June-29-2005
Location: NWCT
Status: Offline
Points: 21104
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TRBenj Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-01-2011 at 1:27pm
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.
Back to Top
TX Foilhead View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: February-01-2009
Location: Kingsland TX
Status: Offline
Points: 2076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TX Foilhead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December-01-2011 at 3:15pm
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.
Back to Top
Ben#155 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: June-24-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 228
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ben#155 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March-11-2012 at 11:43am
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.
Back to Top
Ben#155 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: June-24-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 228
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ben#155 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April-01-2012 at 9:05am
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?
Back to Top
BuffaloBFN View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: June-24-2007
Location: Gainesville,GA
Status: Offline
Points: 6094
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BuffaloBFN Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April-01-2012 at 9:35am
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?
1988 BFN-sold



"It's a Livin' Thing...What a Terrible Thing to Lose" ELO
Back to Top
Ben#155 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: June-24-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 228
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ben#155 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April-01-2012 at 1:54pm
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.
Back to Top
BuffaloBFN View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: June-24-2007
Location: Gainesville,GA
Status: Offline
Points: 6094
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BuffaloBFN Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April-01-2012 at 2:14pm
Originally posted by Ben#155 Ben#155 wrote:

Yes this helps, thank you!I cant get the bolt out of the lower mounting, so i have to remove the whole mounting first.


Most welcome. I had the aluminum and a stainless bolt; your pylon must be under tension for it to be stuck?

Originally posted by Ben#155 Ben#155 wrote:

I need about 4 inch extra.


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.



1988 BFN-sold



"It's a Livin' Thing...What a Terrible Thing to Lose" ELO
Back to Top
Ben#155 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: June-24-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 228
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ben#155 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April-01-2012 at 6:16pm


Originally posted by Ben#155 Ben#155 wrote:

I need about 4 inch extra.


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.
Back to Top
JoeinNY View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: October-19-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5693
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JoeinNY Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April-01-2012 at 9:09pm
Originally posted by Ben#155 Ben#155 wrote:





This barefoot was original delivered with ford 351. i'm sure that location of the ski pylon is different when a 454 is used.


I highly doubt it..

Exactly how did you locate the engine in the boat... 4 inches is a lot of movement forward?
1983 Ski Nautique 2001
1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy"
Holeshot Video
Back to Top
jskylark1969 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: January-31-2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jskylark1969 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April-01-2012 at 10:05pm
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.
Back to Top
uk1979 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: June-13-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1409
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote uk1979 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April-02-2012 at 9:00am
Originally posted by jskylark1969 jskylark1969 wrote:

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.


+1 if your using the 1.23 trans
Lets have a go
56 Starflite
77 SN
78 SN
80 BFN
Back to Top
Ben#155 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: June-24-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 228
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ben#155 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April-02-2012 at 3:51pm
tomorrow i will post some pictures
Back to Top
Ben#155 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: June-24-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 228
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ben#155 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April-03-2012 at 7:31pm
Back to Top
Ben#155 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: June-24-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 228
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ben#155 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April-03-2012 at 7:39pm
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
Back to Top
kapla View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: March-27-2008
Location: BA, Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 6148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kapla Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April-03-2012 at 7:50pm
is the picture, or thereĀ“s a big void there in the secondary stringer?
<a href="">1992 ski nautique
Back to Top
TRBenj View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: June-29-2005
Location: NWCT
Status: Offline
Points: 21104
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TRBenj Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April-03-2012 at 7:58pm
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.
Back to Top
Ben#155 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: June-24-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 228
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ben#155 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April-04-2012 at 5:11am
Yes the floor and stringers are bad, i have replace them next winter!
Back to Top
Ben#155 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: June-24-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 228
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ben#155 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April-04-2012 at 5:14am
What will be the minimum distance between the coupler and shaft seal?
Back to Top
uk1979 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: June-13-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1409
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote uk1979 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April-04-2012 at 7:22am
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
Back to Top
tullfooter View Drop Down
Grand Poobah
Grand Poobah
Avatar

Joined: March-02-2007
Location: White Lake, MI
Status: Offline
Points: 2225
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tullfooter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: April-04-2012 at 10:43am
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

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page    <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Copyright 2024 | Bagley Productions, LLC