1969 San Juan has a new home

Well, I could drop it in the Mohawk... I did get the registration yesterday. Although it wouldn't move under its own power. Of course I'd be tackled by DEC if I let that thing near a waterway.

Wanted to make sure I didn't have any problems with the title from Mass. $57 later and I've got stickers.

Turning point - I am going to block it for now, but want to lift it soon. It is going to be fun trying to get those old rusted lifting rings out.

How soon do you need them? I'm going to part out my 1968-69 mustang, has nice healthy lifting eyes.

Surfing was actually the first thing I thought of when I saw this thing in person. There really isn't any way of getting back into the boat. I'm going to have to build a swim platform and get a ladder for it.

Also, I noticed that the giant bow railing isn't there, and a somewhat close inspection makes me think it never was.

There was/is foam in it. The PO Joe said everything is encased in foam. We know what that means. I've also noticed a lot of delamination that looks exactly like my 84 looked. With that said, the stringer system looks to be a bunch of 2xs with minimal (if any) notches. I sent a few PMs to some of the other SJ owners but haven't seen any responses yet.

I stopped over my parents' house a few hours ago to check it out. It has been raining all day so I wanted to see how my tarps held up. Some more of the mussels have fallen off. The bases that they use to stick to the surface have hardened and have to be scraped off. I'd say I have about 85% of the mussels off but the rest is going to be a pain. I need to get it off the trailer and get underneath it. I think one more trip to the power washer is in order first.

Jeff, do you plan to get the floor up this winter and take a look? We're these old SJ's foamed?

Im sure you're as fascinated as the rest of us to see what type of condition it's in....

Mark

JoeinNY wrote: TRBenj wrote: JoeinNY wrote: It is not like you are going to be pulling slalom skiers or footers with the thing Why not? With such a deep vee, I bet you could foot behind it in 3' seas! 5 bucks a gallon for gas on the water is why not, having a big water crusier that you can't afford to cruise in is just plain ol annoying, big waters mean big distances to cover. Fuel injected small block is the way to be! (Unless you got diesel power money burning a hole in your pocket).

If I had that boat it wouldn't exceed 1000 rpms on Sebago Lake.

The '68 brochure shows 5 different engine configs. WOW, 60 gallon tank! You sure don't want to guzzle the go-juice!

With a dry-weight of 4400 lbs, sure looks like the boat was a bit underpowered in all motors except the mercruiser...even the twins only combined to get you 250hp...

But then again, this was essentially just a party-barge, so the 250hp options were likely plenty...

Ultra

I'll volunteer to ski behind it, might get some good air over the wakes! Would be a challenge to get back into the boat. Maybe it will be the ultimate surf machine.

Joe, you're right of course, the real practical thing is to be able to cruise efficiently at 24 - 32 mph. I think it would be a blast as a coastal day cruiser, or big lake cruiser. If I had to repower it though I'd definitely go with a big block.

That thing is pretty cool, I would get the apex running as it should be great economical power for that boat. It is not like you are going to be pulling slalom skiers or footers with the thing, if you can get the thing to cruise 30 mph at 3800 you would be doing pretty darn well. Run it down the intercoastal to florida for the winter!

Tough to tell from the pics... might be a 13"? Doesnt look to have any extra clearance.

I think the 302's were the standard option for all the twins... probably because theyre the narrowest 8cyl. A single screw small block seems like it would be overworked in such a large boat... a buddy of mine had a 302 in a 20' Shamrock and it could be propped to come out of the hole nice, but topped out in the mid 30's. A big block would be a better option, I would think.

Still tuning props, etc on our BFN, but its running a consistent 61-62mph.

It's an Apex cool!! That motor screams around 5300 rpm. She been in the water for sommmeee time. Looks like you and I have the only free boats on the site!

63 Skier wrote: I get what you're saying about the v-hull, maybe instead of one person in the backseat it would need 3 people to get that bow up a bit.

Unlike the flat bottomed boats, I have not found the v-hull to respond to additional weight in the back. Ours runs just as fast with 2 in front as with a back seat full. Definitely different hull dynamics!

cant wait to see the SJ back on the water with a more hydrodynamically efficient hull

hotboat wrote: That barge would make a great home for a 572 crate motor

Yikes! I'm not so sure there has ever been a 50 mph San Juan, and not so sure how it would handle at high speed, but I guess anything is worth a try. Seems like a fairly bow heavy boat that might want to bow steer suddenly at higher speeds.

I'm thinking a Peninsular 6.5 diesel. Unfortunately they are very expensive.

That barge would make a great home for a 572 crate motor