She’s ready!

79nautique wrote: rpm's depends on if it's a stock motor or not I ran mine all the way up to 6K but it wasn't stock, mid 4K for a stock motor

Based on what?

Its my theory that PCM's recommended max RPM is based on the powerband of the engine- not the strengh of its internal components. There is absolutely no difference that I am aware of between the bottom ends of the HO 351w (285+ hp) and the non-HO 351w (240-255 hp), yet the max recommended RPM varies by 400 RPM (4400 vs. 4800).

I can vouch for the fact that turning a non-HO 351w over 4400 RPM improves performance. I turned my 240hp motor over 4600 and gained holeshot AND top end with the Acme 470. Im not afraid of turning 5200+ on the same bottom end now that Im pushing more power.

Kristof, long story short, I would expect your WOT RPM's to be on the order of ~4700-4800. The 351w is plenty strong and will not be damaged by doing so. If youre happy with the all around performance, dont worry about a thing.

79nautique wrote: TRBenj wrote: 79nautique wrote: rpm's depends on if it's a stock motor or not I ran mine all the way up to 6K but it wasn't stock, mid 4K for a stock motor Based on what? yet the max recommended RPM varies by 400 RPM (4400 vs. 4800). well isn't that mid 4K's and isn't that right out of the manual Timmy?

Seriously, Chris- did you read any of my post?

Does his fuel system affect the equation?

Chris, from what I've read here from you and others, a lean condition is bad across the board...but I think he's on propane.

I'm enjoying yet another bashing LOL
I just went to the kitchen to get a beer and some chips... go on boys!!

I'm on propane. The installation is well tuned by a specialist and if there is still a loss in HP, it's minor (about 5 HP he says)...

Ah, OK Pete. Thanks. So in this case I would lose some 26 HP?
I'll let you all know how she runs. Can't wait to hear her roar on the water again! Come on spring!!!

Riley wrote: eastcoaster's?????

LOL

Kristof wrote: I'm enjoying yet another bashing LOL I just went to the kitchen to get a beer and some chips... go on boys!!

Chips just leave less room for beer.
No bashing in this thread,Kristof.Just two guys with their version of the facks.Love the boat,looks great!
What's an Eastcoaster?


     Mike

Eastcoaster would be a drink holder on your left, this of course does not play well with a right hand drive vessel.

Timmy, did you know 79' likes to be referred to as Chrissy?

On the horsepower loss issue I don't concur with Petey's (sorry just following the mood) logic, the less BTu's per gallon would surely lead to less mileage per gallon but not necessarily to less horsepower if the gallon consumption increased. That should be relatively easy to accomplish since the propane is already a gas and doesnt need to be atomized to burn effectively. On top of that propane is considerably higher octane and therefore more timing advance is going to be possible without detonation. I would say a good tuner would take care of both of those issues. If it were me I would also deck the heads a bit as well to bump up the compression and hopefully that would get me about equal to preconversion numbers.

So anyway IMHO, he could easily be down 10-15%, but not necessarily.

sorry you don't understand what all is in the induction sytem, so IMHO your in left field again and want to focus on a small section of the equation instead of the whole equation and when you do that you are not comparing apples to apples Timmy. That's why it always takes a ME to bail out a EE.

how well did the 540 work on who's boat, and then there are the exhaust that didn't deliver, so there are several things that have been done with diferent results, some good some not so good, so saying because it did this to mine it's going to do the same to yours is horse***************. In an Ideal world it should but we are not in an ideal world and they are not apples to apples so why do you keep trying to make them apples to apples when it's clearly apples to oranges to most here.

Hollywood wrote: two kiwis and a banana to two grapes and a string bean

So what you are saying is they are both a couple of fruits with string beans on the bottom end?

79nautique wrote: there are several things that have been done with diferent results, some good some not so good, so saying because it did this to mine it's going to do the same to yours is horse***************.

If youre trying to discredit me, those are some pretty weak examples- but I appreciate your attempt nonetheless.

Im not sure what youre getting at regarding the exhaust- the one person I know who lost hp with them was coming from a setup that was far from stock (and is NLA, by the way). Now thats what I call an apples to oranges comparison. Personally, I gained 400RPM in holeshot and 200 on the top over my stock manifolds, which I am very happy with considering I have a slow running hull.

Ive never claimed to be a 540 expert, as most of my experience is with the 1.23. I have only witnessed that prop run first hand once on a 1:1 2001, so clearly my word is not gospel with regards to that particular setup. How any of the older hulls will react are anyones guess- I can only point to the multiple testimonials given by the members here.

What I do know pretty well are the 1.23 props. Clearly, there will be variations in applications- no two hulls are exactly the same, nor is every single engine. Elevation, weight, water temps, application and other factors will all come into play. However, I have run more of these props than most, and am glad to share my experiences and opinions. Beyond that, Im not sure what else you expect to hear. Should I put a disclaimer in all of my posts?

Hollywood wrote: two kiwis and a banana to a twig and a two berries