Replacement Carburetor for 85 and 87 SN |
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Author | ||
Jonny Quest
Grand Poobah Joined: August-20-2013 Location: Utah--via Texas Status: Offline Points: 2858 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: November-06-2019 at 1:11am |
|
The red AN fittings on my highly questionable fuel line fill the same role as the red plastic piece in KENO's starter.
Hmmmm.....RED.....there's a pattern here. JQ |
||
Current
2003 Ski Nautique 206 Limited Previous 2001 Ski Nautique Open Bow 1994 Ski Nautique Open Bow Aqua skiing, ergo sum |
||
KENO
Grand Poobah Joined: June-06-2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 10667 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Just cuz you asked Tim
Here are a few pictures of an ARCO 70200 which I seem to have a liking for. The little red plastic piece fills in an air gap between the motor section and the nosepiece. That's the only difference as far as "ignition protection" that I see Stuff like the braided wire to the brushes from the solenoid and the solenoid terminals on the Arco are not copper or brass, not sure what they are besides "metal". but I've got marine starters with copper used in those same places. (might be tinned copper) I really would like for somebody to show me any other "ignition protection" differences but I've had enough auto and marine PMGR's apart and seen no other differences I've also had new "marine starters" that didn't have that hole plugged with anything which made it just like an auto starter. They got returned I took a plug from a dead marine starter and put it into an automotive one. Does that make it a "marine starter"? A GM marine PMGR type starter is a different story |
||
TRBenj
Grand Poobah Joined: June-29-2005 Location: NWCT Status: Offline Points: 21113 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I’d like to see those details Ken.
Backup engine Mark. Down about 400rpm and 5-6mph from the other engine but still good for 56 unloaded. Skis us faster than we’re capable of (for now) and still sounds pretty good. |
||
KENO
Grand Poobah Joined: June-06-2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 10667 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Jonny, Jonny I'm so proud and excited.
I made a marine PMGR starter for a normal rotation Ford today from an automotive PMGR Ford starter It was so easy a caveman could do it If somebody wants to do it though, they'll have to figure it out on their own by taking a marine and an automotive one apart and see what the difference is. I think it meets USCG regs as good as any "marine" version that's sold by a variety of companies for a huge variety of prices And not all starters sold as "marine" are the same either. A person might be surprised at the "differences" |
||
MrMcD
Grand Poobah Joined: January-28-2014 Location: Folsom, CA Status: Offline Points: 3594 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Keno, "Your memory is pretty good there McD. about being able to withstand the 2 1/2 minute open flame exposure"
I wish, I had to Google it, memory thought it was a 15 minute burn through but it is only 2 and 1/2 minute burn through. But I last worked there in 1990. Mark |
||
MrMcD
Grand Poobah Joined: January-28-2014 Location: Folsom, CA Status: Offline Points: 3594 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Only 5,200 now, What was the reason for the detune Tim. That boat sounded like a beast in the old video posted.
|
||
TRBenj
Grand Poobah Joined: June-29-2005 Location: NWCT Status: Offline Points: 21113 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Despite appearing to kink more easily than I’d like, I have not found the “POS” Sierra to actually restrict fuel flow. I’ve been running mine for years on the BFN that has spun 6k rpm on occasion. Currently working just fine on the 5200rpm detuned version. I’ll gladly take the 50% discount even if the kinking wasn’t mentioned beforehand.
For a cheap (and USCG approved) setup, there are dual taper to barb fittings available for $3 and a length of A1 hose is pretty economical. |
||
KENO
Grand Poobah Joined: June-06-2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 10667 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Your memory is pretty good there McD. about being able to withstand the 2 1/2 minute open flame exposure And that PCM braided stainless hose you mentioned earlier is USCG approved.
|
||
KENO
Grand Poobah Joined: June-06-2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 10667 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
OK, we'll have some good ol' fashioned fun I checked and I have some RED paint |
||
Jonny Quest
Grand Poobah Joined: August-20-2013 Location: Utah--via Texas Status: Offline Points: 2858 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Give me a call and I'll come help out. I've got some experience along those lines. I'll bring the AN fittings. JQ |
||
Current
2003 Ski Nautique 206 Limited Previous 2001 Ski Nautique Open Bow 1994 Ski Nautique Open Bow Aqua skiing, ergo sum |
||
MrMcD
Grand Poobah Joined: January-28-2014 Location: Folsom, CA Status: Offline Points: 3594 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
It has been years since I worked with a Rubber company that made USCG approved hose but what I remember is our hose had to meet an approved test and it had to do with exposure to fire. It had to contain the fuel under pressure while exposed to a fire for a certain number of minutes, sorry I do not remember the time frame. The idea was if your fuel hose did not burn through right away in a fire it would give the operator and guests time to leave the boat before pressurized fuel hit the fire.
I am thinking it was something like 2.5 minutes at a certain temperature or in open flame exposure. There is a reason this type hose is so danged expensive and it may save your life someday. Be careful, some of the stuff coming in from overseas is questionable. No Agency is actually stopping freight coming in to see if it actually meets the standard stamped on the hose. I would stick with one of the known vendors. In the old days that was Gates, Dayco and Goodyear, today there are a few more players. Or just install metal lines and forget about it. I did not think about it before now but PCM did use a flexible stainless hose on the return line on my GT40, no idea if it meets USCG approval. I would think so as PCM has been at this a long time. |
||
KENO
Grand Poobah Joined: June-06-2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 10667 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Most mornings Pete, I get to laugh about something you've said I guess I'll go out and starting with some automotive parts, make my own marine carburetor, marine starter, marine distributor and marine fuel line tomorrow since I now know it's OK to do that since I can determine that they meet or exceed USCG regs all by myself.. It shouldn't be very hard The next day I'll tackle an alternator. By the way, what kind of testing is done to determine whether a fuel line meets those regs? I just want to verify what I think I might know or not know Help me out here |
||
Gary S
Grand Poobah Joined: November-30-2006 Location: Illinois Status: Offline Points: 14096 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Bottom line is no one paid off a government entity to get it approved. AN hose is good enough for the FAA but not good enough for the Coast Guard- every boat must have a life vest, but aircraft are not required to have parachutes. On that note every fuel hose on a GT40 has a coast guard approval tag with the approval number on it except the crossover hose for the fuel rails but that's ok it's only at full rail pressure and mounted at the top front of the engine so it will only spray half the engine
|
||
8122pbrainard
Grand Poobah Joined: September-14-2006 Location: Three Lakes Wi. Status: Offline Points: 41040 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
JQ, Should be "most" mornings. |
||
Jonny Quest
Grand Poobah Joined: August-20-2013 Location: Utah--via Texas Status: Offline Points: 2858 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
DISCLAIMER (for KENO's blood pressure)
WARNING!! ONLY USE USCG APPROVED PARTS (your boat can burn to the waterline within seconds if you don't) I may or may not follow this advice on fuel lines. Yup...I sold the flexible Sierra fuel line. I also sold the metal pre-formed fuel line. And, no, my conversation with the buyer did not include my bias against Sierra products as this unit carries the USCG stamp of approval and any contrary opinion is clearly unfounded and therefore should be disregarded. And to put everyone's mind at ease, I did not attempt to convince the buyer to utilize illegal and dangerous non-USCG approved parts, saving himself from an imminent deflagration. In my opinion, the lack of a USCG approved "stamp" does not automatically mean that something does not meet the standards, it simply means that it has not been tested and approved by the USCG. ** NOTICE ** Parting out 1994 SNOB as it is too dangerous to operate in its current non-USCG state. |
||
Current
2003 Ski Nautique 206 Limited Previous 2001 Ski Nautique Open Bow 1994 Ski Nautique Open Bow Aqua skiing, ergo sum |
||
KENO
Grand Poobah Joined: June-06-2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 10667 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Nobody at all Just curious about why you think this fuel line is so superior while not meeting the standards I gotta go check my scrambled eggs and see if somebody crapped in em though BTW you didn't answer the questions |
||
Jonny Quest
Grand Poobah Joined: August-20-2013 Location: Utah--via Texas Status: Offline Points: 2858 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Geez KENO...who peed in your Cheerios this morning?
|
||
Current
2003 Ski Nautique 206 Limited Previous 2001 Ski Nautique Open Bow 1994 Ski Nautique Open Bow Aqua skiing, ergo sum |
||
KENO
Grand Poobah Joined: June-06-2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 10667 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
You forgot some words JQ, when you say it's far superior, It should be "far superior in my mind"
This is the same JQ that tells people to ensure they use a marine carburetor right? When you bought a fuel pump for your conversion, you bought a marine Carter. Why not buy an automotive Holley mechanical pump and add the leak off tube and call it far superior. It's chrome and you seem to like shiny stuff. Or in the case of your highly recommended RED DUI, you could have gotten an automotive distributor like many people seem to do, but chose the marine version. You probably get a marine starter too when you need one. Or would you put on a "better" alternator that's not marine approved? But the fuel line is different for some reason. Everything on the boat is per the regs except that fuel line it seems. it could very well be better in many ways but not all and probably is, but it doesn't have that pedigree. It's your choice in the end but maybe you should explain why it's "better" By the way, what did you do with the Sierra POS, return it with an explanation why or did you sell it here on CCF to some poor unsuspecting schmuck who knows nothing with no mention of it being a kinked POS "in your mind" ? Here's a link to your for sale posting in case your mind is a little cloudy about it. link |
||
Jonny Quest
Grand Poobah Joined: August-20-2013 Location: Utah--via Texas Status: Offline Points: 2858 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
From KENO:
I seem to think that JQ used some Sierra 18-8115 fuel line when he had the M-600. I bought the Sierra 18-8115 fuel against my better judgment -- I've not had good luck with the Sierra brand. The line was semi-flexible and kinked during installation. That's when I went to the local hydraulic / hose shop and started down the "dark side" path of braided stainless-steel high-pressure, non-USCG approved fuel lines. My braided stainless-steel line is far superior to the POS Sierra line that was USCG approved. I had 2 of the local "Fish Cops" on my boat this year and they had nothing but praises for the engine and condition of the boat. I guess the braided stainless-steel line must be OK. JQ |
||
Current
2003 Ski Nautique 206 Limited Previous 2001 Ski Nautique Open Bow 1994 Ski Nautique Open Bow Aqua skiing, ergo sum |
||
KENO
Grand Poobah Joined: June-06-2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 10667 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Different location on the port side of the carburetor on an M-600 compared to his list 50419 carburetor, a different line is needed Good thing it wasn't the New Jersey Zeppelin Spotting Club I guess the Hindenburg could have used some of that "spiffy looking fuel line" I seem to think that JQ used some Sierra 18-8115 fuel line when he had the M-600. I'll let you search here for people using that line on an M-600 if you think you might be interested It's not approved by the UZSC but the USCG approves it. |
||
Jonny Quest
Grand Poobah Joined: August-20-2013 Location: Utah--via Texas Status: Offline Points: 2858 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Trice:
My setup has no fuel filter between the mechanical fuel pump and carby inlet. I have a fuel filter / water separator between the fuel tank and the fuel pump. At the top right-hand of the photo, you can see the clear tubing attached to the spark arrestor. That is the visual safety tubing from the fuel pump. The original spark arrestor didn't quite fit on the original M-600 carb. My engine was originally the throttle-body fuel injection and the spark arrestor may have been a bit different than yours. As such, the original spark arrestor unit wouldn't lay flat on the carb flange -- due to the float adjustment hardware on the QF carb (not on the Holley). So, I went with the K&N unit shown in the photo. The K&N unit has options for a breather hose and fuel safety hose attachments. Another reason I went with the K&N spark arrestor is that it is larger in diameter and thinner than the stock unit. As mentioned above, this engine is sporting an Edelbrock Performer RPM manifold -- which is a bit taller than the stock cast iron unit. This whole unit fits under the engine cover with about 1 inch to spare. Fuel inlet. The M-600 is set up just like your 4160 (port side fuel inlet) so it should bolt right up to the existing fuel line. The M-650 has the fuel inlet on the starboard side of the carby and therefore required a new fuel line. The high-pressure, racing stainless steel braided fuel line shown may not be USCG rated, but it is approved by the Utah Zepplin Spotting Club. For a bonus point, some of the fittings are RED. JQ |
||
Current
2003 Ski Nautique 206 Limited Previous 2001 Ski Nautique Open Bow 1994 Ski Nautique Open Bow Aqua skiing, ergo sum |
||
trice
Groupie Joined: September-26-2016 Location: Columbus, Ohio Status: Offline Points: 87 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Thanks for explaining why you went with the 650 mechanical secondaries JQ. Sounds like the combination is quite a strong performer!
When the 600 was installed did you have a filter between the pump and inlet? Pictures of the QF 600 indicate that the stock Holley inlet filter (at the inlet) is no longer an option. Also, using the stock fuel pump leak tube and oil breather hose is an issue if the original spark arrester doesn’t sit on top of the QF 600. Holley has a tall arrester VERY similar to the original but I don’t see provisions to connect the tube and hose. As Keno suggested a fabricated spacer would be needed to use the original arrester and connect the tube and hose. Hopefully the new motor height will still fit under the motor cover... Thanks Keno and JQ for the advise. Ideally I would prefer to install the QF M600, a stainless steel line with inline filter and flared fittings, and reuse the fuel pump leak tube and breather hose with the stock arrestor. Sure is a lot of customizing to run the QF carb, but it should be worth it! |
||
87 SN
|
||
KENO
Grand Poobah Joined: June-06-2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 10667 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
KENO
Grand Poobah Joined: June-06-2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 10667 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Tom You should probably be interested in JQ's choice of fuel line and let him explain why he's using some Aeroquip style flexible line line there that might be approved by maybe some Coast Guard but not the USCG It's not even RED |
||
Jonny Quest
Grand Poobah Joined: August-20-2013 Location: Utah--via Texas Status: Offline Points: 2858 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
The 4160 Holley was OEM equipment on your 351W. As such, the QF M-600 is closer to the 4160 -- no doubt. However, I like the 4150 design a bit better than the 4160. As for mechanical vs. vacuum secondaries, I like the mechanical setup. The QF carb comes with several linkage options that will open the secondaries at different throttle positions. My M-650 is set up so that the secondaries kick in at about 1/3 throttle, which works for me and the group of skiers I pull. Hole-shot is very strong and midrange RPM (2,500 - 4,500) is REALLY strong. I replaced the stock cast iron intake with an Edelbrock Performer RPM and I felt that the M-650 was a better match. Based on performance, I feel that I made a good decision. I also love to work on engines, so sometimes "upgrades" may not be needed, but simply fun to do. Did the M-600 run well? Yes. Does the M-650 run better? I think so, but can't really prove it as it is based on a totally subjective "feel". The photo below shows my fuel delivery: JQ |
||
Current
2003 Ski Nautique 206 Limited Previous 2001 Ski Nautique Open Bow 1994 Ski Nautique Open Bow Aqua skiing, ergo sum |
||
MrMcD
Grand Poobah Joined: January-28-2014 Location: Folsom, CA Status: Offline Points: 3594 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I like mechanical secondaries normally but in a boat where the drivers vary and are expected to pull up skiers frequently the vacuum secondary works very well. They can hammer it without a bog or stalling, the vacuum secondary allows the extra 2 barrels to come on line when needed keep your engine running perfectly most times.
My 2 cents. |
||
trice
Groupie Joined: September-26-2016 Location: Columbus, Ohio Status: Offline Points: 87 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Thanks Keno. I’m interested to her why JQ went to a 650 mechanical. The 600 vacuum seems like the closer replacement for a stock 351W.
|
||
87 SN
|
||
KENO
Grand Poobah Joined: June-06-2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 10667 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Hi
I'm not JQ ( but I do like red) but I can tell you that most people on here get the 600 with vacuum secondaries. It can flow more air than the engine can use. The original Holley that you gave the list number for is a 600 You'll need a new fuel line with the M-600. USCG approved rubber line or metal line. It's actually a more convenient location on the M-600 than the location on your Holley. Your original spark arrestor may not seat properly on a M-600 because the external float adjusters stick up a little too high and you might need a thin spacer or you might need to do a little work with a ball pein hammer on the underside of the arrestor for clearance. JQ bought a 600 and then sold it and put a 650 on his engine for reasons that he'll have to be the one to tell you. |
||
trice
Groupie Joined: September-26-2016 Location: Columbus, Ohio Status: Offline Points: 87 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Great list of options JQ, thanks!!
I like the Quick Fuel option the best. I have one on my Road Runner and love it! The decision now is 600 vacuum or 650 mechanical. I’m not sure what CFM the original HOLLEY is? I think it’s a 600. I know it’s a vacuum secondary w/electric choke. Fuel line plumbing is another consideration. The 600 is a single inlet like the original and looks easier to connect. Also wondering if the original spark arrestor will fit the QF? |
||
87 SN
|
||
KENO
Grand Poobah Joined: June-06-2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 10667 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I.....I.....I.... just don't what to think about this Before this goes any farther I need to find out a little bit more about your preference in ................boats. Post a picture of your boat with no top on it to get started |
||
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 |