My new 2001 and my first!
Printed From: CorrectCraftFan.com
Category: General Correct Craft Discussion
Forum Name: General Discussion
Forum Discription: Anything Correct Craft
URL: http://www.CorrectCraftFan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12666
Printed Date: December-02-2024 at 12:19pm
Topic: My new 2001 and my first!
Posted By: akabulla
Subject: My new 2001 and my first!
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 1:03am
Well after a long trip back from Florida I have my first 2001 in the garage! Yes it is in 2001 pieces and needs to go back together but that just makes it all more exciting! I will take some pics and post them once I get all the stuff unloaded. Here is what I got for $3000!
The list just goes on and on. He had a lot of stuff. He pretty much had everything he could of salvaged from the 210 plus 100 times more stuff than I could ever use. I have pretty much everything to put the boat back together. Now I just need to figure it all out. It is like having a jig saw puzzle without the picture on the box! He also gave me two 5 gallons buckets of resin and a box of fiberglass mat and a bunch of rollers. I am also contemplating if I should do the stinger and floor work myself. I found a shop nearby that said they would do it for $2300. I figure if I spend $1500 on materials then that is only $800 for the actual work. Seems pretty good to me. I have a CCfan member who is going to come over and help me figure out my next step. I love doing the mechanical and upholstery work but fiberglass work is not appealing to me. Wish me luck and as I progress in the rebuild I will be sure to post some pics! Later! Aka |
Replies:
Posted By: Luchog
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 1:25am
|
congratulations!!! Did you get the whole transmision/v-drive unit from the 210 or just the inline transmision???
------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=2095" rel="nofollow - 1980 Ski Nautique Commander 351W |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 1:54am
|
Sweet deal! ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: critter
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 2:00am
|
Congratulations..
Is this the thread that you have chosen to post the pictures of your progress ? We like pictures  ------------- 1980 Ski Nautique 1966 Barracuda |
Posted By: WakeSlayer
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 2:12am
|
Wow. Screaming deal. You may just have 2 jigsaw puzzles to put together. The motor alone is worth that. ------------- Mike N 1968 Mustang |
Posted By: storm34
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 2:43am
|
Congrats!!
I'm with Critter! I want to see some pictures of this! Sounds like a dream come true! ------------- |
Posted By: nautiless
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 8:26am
|
Pics! You lucky fish......congrats on your find and purchase. ------------- 1982 SN 2001 RIP (Resto in Progress) http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=4400 - Don's Diary |
Posted By: eric lavine
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 9:36am
|
your lucky my flight was cancelled ...one of the members in Georgia is looking to do some stringer work...he does superb work and would be worth the trip for you.
congratulations on a nice purchase, did he ever say why he needed to sell the boat? ------------- "the things you own will start to own you" |
Posted By: akabulla
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 11:39am
|
I will get some pics today. The trans is an inline transmission so now that I think of it I guess it couldn't have come out of a 210 or it would be a VDrive huh?
He was a boat claims adjuster and was the first to see the 2001 and the Nautique the engine came out of after the storm. When they were both declared totaled he made an offer on both. He said he just ran out of time on trying to rebuild the 2001 and his wife wanted all the parts out of the garage. I will post pics soon. All the parts are still loaded in the boat. |
Posted By: Luchog
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 12:45pm
|
The 210 came with a PCM 1:1 and a Walter V-drive unit until they replaced with the whole PCM Power Vee package, so you could have a PCM 1:1 transmision.
If you have a Borgwarner 1:1 it came from the 2001. If you're planning a total rebuild on the boat and plan on using it for wakeboarding I'd recomend getting a PCM 1.23:1, the reduction allows the engine to rev higher at boarding speeds and it pulls much better. If you have the complete V-drive setup I'd be curious to see it on a 2001 hull as it's very similar to the old 210 hull. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=2095" rel="nofollow - 1980 Ski Nautique Commander 351W |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 12:55pm
I would be very concerned about the quality of the job that you would get for that amount of money. I sure as hell wouldnt touch a stringer/floor job for $800! I dont see how anyone could put in the time required for a quality job at that price. I guarantee that they'd be skimping on materials or cutting corners (or likely, both). Ive never priced a job myself, but the quotes Ive heard from others here have been at least twice that amount. Proceed with caution! Looks like you got a pretty good deal with all the parts thrown in.
Luciano, thats not exactly true. At running speeds, the reduction tranny will have the engine running similar RPM's as the 1:1 boats (30mph = 3,000 RPM) because you typically run a much larger prop on the 1.23 (14x16 is stock instead of the 13x13). The advantage you'll see with the reduction is at the holeshot- the initial prop slip will have the engine turning faster (which equals more power) than the 1:1. Stock vs. stock, I got an instant 3000-3200rpm out of the hole on my 240hp '90 with the 1.23, whereas my 1:1 302 (220hp) boats only get ~2400rpm. I do recommend finding a 1.23 tranny though- that will be the only way that you can run a RH prop with the LH 330excal. Its doubtful any of the props that the boat came with will be ideal, though- neither the 210 nor the stock '83 would have used the prop you'll want for that powertrain combo. ------------- |
akabulla wrote:Posted By: Hollywood
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 1:08pm
I've seen the pictures from the previous ad, a 210 didn't have a motorbox, so maybe it wasn't a 210 which might mean that trans is in fact a PowerPlus reduction. I would have thought he would have taken the v-drive unit too if there was one. Anywho, great find I've been watching that boat for a long time, glad to see it's on CCFan! ------------- |
Posted By: Luchog
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 1:42pm
|
Tr, I will explain you my point of view based on my own experience.
when you're wakeboarding and loading the boat you want more rpms to get a smoother pull and keeping speed better, from my experience this engines pull better between 2600-3200rpm. With my setup 1:1 gear, 240-255HP engine and Acme 542 I get 21mph at 2250rpm with not much load, I can feel the engine is not that strong there and it wants to go up, thing is I get 23mph at 2400rpm and it's just too much speed for wakeboarding. If I drop the throttle to 2600 the engine runs pretty strong and I see 25-26mph, it's ok for cruising but too much for boarding. Perhaps if I load the hell out of the boat numbers will come closer to what I expect. On the correctly propped 1.23:1 boats I've been on 3000rpms at 21mph is not an issue to accomplish, and the boat handled A LOT of weight at 3200 keeping the same speed. Perhaps not the fasters of boats but you could get a decent 40mph too. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=2095" rel="nofollow - 1980 Ski Nautique Commander 351W |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 1:51pm
I guess that depends what you consider "correctly propped" to be. No way is that 1.23 boat turning a factory 14x16 with those numbers. The Acme's are a touch smaller (~13x15) and Im still within 200rpm/2mph of holding the 1:1 for speed vs. rpm (3000 RPM = 28mph). It sounds like your buddy is running something closer to a 13x14. How many RPM's does he turn at 40mph? ------------- |
Posted By: Luchog
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 2:15pm
|
Tr, sorry but we no longer have that boat available, I remember we had the original OJ prop, I think it was the 422 and we rode at 3000rpm, when we switched to the 4 blade prop recommended for wakeboarding we saw 3200 and it spun like hell when coming out of the hole.
I'm going from memory but this boat (95' SN GT40 Pro Boss) topped at 4800rpm. Definitly it changes with what anyone call "correctly propped" but that again has to do with the use of the boat, dont you think? ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=2095" rel="nofollow - 1980 Ski Nautique Commander 351W |
Posted By: eric lavine
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 2:46pm
|
the 1.23 will also allow you to keep the engine parallel with the stringers, you may also have a zf45 inline on the back of the engine....I dont know for sure, but there are some out there, they use them in Masters and Maliboobs,
they did use zf45's coupled to walters v-drives also. and remember the 1.23 swaps your rotation.....is the engine a lefty or righty...it should say on the tag,,,,,,all things to consider before you dive into the project ------------- "the things you own will start to own you" |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 3:03pm
The Excal 330 is a lefty- so he wants to swap the direction of rotation to use a RH prop. Sorry Seb, unless youre running extreme amounts of ballast, I just dont see a 900-1100rpm difference between speed and rpm at normal cruising speeds. Even with an extraordinary amount of ballast that seems pretty far out of whack- I would have thought that a prop change would be in order to overturn by that much. Only getting 40mph at 4800 RPM would support that theory- that boat should have been good for 46-48mph at that RPM. ------------- |
Posted By: kapla
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 5:14pm
|
Lucho/Tim
I can through some numbers from my boat, which i think you know. No speed readings though. With the 14*16 I pulled the boarder +2200 lb ballast (sac and people) @ 2500-2600 rpm. It was hard to plane but it was not that i was killing it. With the new acme 1442 i´d say numbers went up +200 rpm compared to previous prop and some better holeshot. Still figuring why my wot is 4200 rpm, and was around 40 mph with the speedos with new pitots but not gps adjusted (just intuition adjusted). Still need to full test the new prop to reach to final results.... sorry aka for the highjack here!!! btw nice deal with that boat engine setup ------------- <a href="">1992 ski nautique |
Posted By: akabulla
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 5:47pm
No problem kapla 
I took a better look at all the parts and the dash, all the parts and the engine came out of a 2004 Super Air. Much like this one: http://boats.iboats/cgi-bin/marine_classifieds/view_photosad_id=408046&img=" border="0 - Super Air 2004 Here are some picks I have so far as I started to unload the boat today. 
Seats and Wakeboard Tower: 
Lots of parts still to unload 
Engine 
Seat and Engine Cover 
Repaired Section 
Dash, Speakers, Extra Bench and Engine Covers. There is also a keyless ignition system 
I will post some more pics as I get the rest of the stuff out! |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 5:49pm
|
Sebastian, those number sound closer. What speed do you ride at?
Get a timing light on that thing- 4200rpm is on the weak side. ------------- |
Posted By: akabulla
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 5:49pm
Eric do you know who in GA might be interested in doing my stringer repair? |
Posted By: bkhallpass
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 5:57pm
|
Parts did not come out of a Super Air as a Super Air is a V-Drive.
Quite a project there, but it will be interesting to see you mix the old with the new. There's a fellow on planetnautiuqe that put a GT 40 from a modern boat into his 2001. Also used the modern doghouse if I recall correctly. BKH ------------- Livin' the Dream |
Posted By: Hollywood
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 5:59pm
|
You must have parts from 3 boats to have that motorbox, 2 ignition switches, and 2 engine shrouds. ------------- |
Posted By: akabulla
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 6:20pm
Yea...I ment to say a sport Nautique. Not sure why I said air nautique. The dash says Sport SE. The engine is from 2004 according to the sticker on it. Here is the trans on it and the dash:
|
Posted By: eric lavine
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 6:56pm
|
yep call me and I'll give you his number 877-369-6693 eric ------------- "the things you own will start to own you" |
Posted By: storm34
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 6:57pm
|
Well I jealous! It looks like christmas came late for you! I've seen pics of the boat BKH referred to and it looked pretty sweet! I had pics of it on my old comp but cant seem to locate them. I'll look a little harder and see if I cant find them before someone else posts them! ------------- |
Posted By: akabulla
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 7:20pm
|
This is my favorite redone!
http://www.squaminboards.com/19842001.html - Sweet 84 I am going to base my seat off the design he has in it and probably do the dash the same way since he has the same white gauges! 
|
Posted By: Hollywood
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 7:35pm
I didn't notice this before but please tell me those are not exhaust hoses sticking out between the floor and motorbox.  ------------- |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 9:04pm
|
Luch,
I would guess that 99% of what your seeing has to do with speed of the boat and not the rpm of the engine. Those wakeboarding speeds are right in the area where the boat is just on plane a good pull can bring you off plane which dramatically brings down speed. Once your up to 25-26 even a hard pull is only going to slow you down a bit. Now with a lot of wieght certainly a prop with less pitch will help, but the only sure fire cure is a perfect pass with a paddle wheel. I had a little 302 in my 83 2001 and with a 1:1 transmission I had plenty of power to pull big boarders (a few of these guys met my friend dan at LG hes a pretty solid 270) at 20-21mph and 2000-2100 rpm rock steady with a perfect pass and 900lbs water and a few guys. I have a 1.26:1 trans in the 83 now and I wakeboard at about 2100 rpm and 23.7 mph well when the boat is running that is.. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: akabulla
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 9:41pm
|
Well the guy told me he winterized the engine. I just pulled the side plug and the plugs on the exhaust manifolds and collected about a gallon of water. There was also water in the U hose in the front.
One scary thing is the water from the drain plug in the side of the engine was a little dark. Looked like a little oil was in it. Probably not normal huh? |
Posted By: critter
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 10:36pm
|
This motor came from Fl so it has not been below freezing this year. How long has it been out the boat ?
Get as much water out as you can find and keeping it in the garage with doors closed should be ok for now. Might want to put a bit of anti-freeze in it for the rest of the winter. ------------- 1980 Ski Nautique 1966 Barracuda |
Posted By: storm34
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 11:34pm
|
Thats the boat I was talking about! I think I read that it was re-done by a guy who worked at correct craft for many years. I also saw pictures of it weighted down for surfing. It was so severely weighted it looked like the gas overfill was submerged. As I remember, it was a pretty controversial picture at the time.
Hollywood, I saw those exhaust hoses too! Would that be a safety issue? ------------- |
Posted By: Chopper
Date Posted: January-13-2009 at 11:42pm
This one
I'm going to guess at seven ballast bags in that pic. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1540&sort=&pagenum=2&yrstart=1996&yrend=2000 - 98 Ski |
Posted By: MaddMarxx
Date Posted: January-14-2009 at 12:38am
Heres another cool 82-83
 ------------- |
Posted By: storm34
Date Posted: January-14-2009 at 12:42am
|
Thats the one!
Is that a moomba decal on the back of that boat? Looks pretty close! ------------- |
Posted By: akabulla
Date Posted: January-14-2009 at 12:58am
I could only find one drain plug on the right side of the engine. This one:
Do I have to take out this sensor to drain the other side? There is no plug but this is in the same place as the plug on the other side? 
|
Posted By: critter
Date Posted: January-14-2009 at 1:06am
|
That is correct. Remove that sensor for draining that side of the block. I did not see that sensor earlier. duhhhh.
Try to catch that water to and let sit if it looks like it has oil in it. ------------- 1980 Ski Nautique 1966 Barracuda |
Posted By: SNobsessed
Date Posted: January-14-2009 at 1:34am
|
Akabulla - If your looking to see if the water is oily, put some salt in it, shake it up good, then let it set. The oil will separate out. ------------- “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” Ben Franklin |
Posted By: akabulla
Date Posted: January-14-2009 at 2:11am
|
I took it out and I am going to let the water sit overnight. The PO emailed me back and said that the engine was taken out of the other boat a few years back and he thinks it is just sediment in the water. We will find out tomorrow but it doesn't smell like oil and my hands cleaned off WAY to easy
|
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: January-14-2009 at 2:33am
|
Black disgusting water is actually the norm out of cast iron after sitting for a while, oil on the other hand is usually distinctive. So dark is not an issue, if its got real oil and its ever run before for a any amount of time thats an issue. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: nates78ski
Date Posted: January-14-2009 at 11:33am
|
Hollywood, I've seen that boat quite a few times & i have never noticed those exhaust hoses until you pointed it out. Wow! all that time into a custom 'resto' & decided to skip that part?
That's sweet you've gotten the hull & all those parts, should be able to make a pretty sweet combination 80's 2001 with modern touches. But just a hint... don't ever weigh your boat down like that guy in the picture... I remember seeing that a couple years back & he got flamed pretty hardcore...not smart. Best of Luck, Nate ------------- Nathan http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1463&sort=&pagenum=3&yrstart=1978&yrend=1978" rel="nofollow - My '78 Ski Nautique <a href="http://photobucket.com/Nates78ski" rel="nofoll |
Posted By: eric lavine
Date Posted: January-14-2009 at 11:39am
|
over here in the Brunstuck we would stick those pipes straight up and put som ran clappers on em ------------- "the things you own will start to own you" |
Posted By: Kristof
Date Posted: January-14-2009 at 1:24pm
|
Yeah Eric, and I'll bet they're chromed too LOL
Nice and shiny  ------------- - Gun control means: using BOTH hands! - Money doesn't make one happy, but when it rains cats and dogs, it's still better to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle... |
Posted By: kapla
Date Posted: January-14-2009 at 2:34pm
|
More than a ski nautique I would call that boat under that load an U-nautique!!!
sorry for the lame joke but it had to be said ahahaha ------------- <a href="">1992 ski nautique |
Posted By: eric lavine
Date Posted: January-14-2009 at 3:19pm
|
Unique Nautique? ------------- "the things you own will start to own you" |
Posted By: kapla
Date Posted: January-14-2009 at 3:53pm
|
"underwater-nautique" as german U boat designation U-1 etc.....
------------- <a href="">1992 ski nautique |
Posted By: Kristof
Date Posted: January-14-2009 at 5:16pm
|
You guys ever seen the movie "Das Boot"... If you'd seen it Eric, you would know a U-Boot...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Boot - Das Boot The correct term for U-Boot is "Unterwasser-Boot" in German ------------- - Gun control means: using BOTH hands! - Money doesn't make one happy, but when it rains cats and dogs, it's still better to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle... |
Posted By: kapla
Date Posted: January-14-2009 at 5:36pm
|
That´s right Kristof!!! excelent movie... ------------- <a href="">1992 ski nautique |
Posted By: kapla
Date Posted: January-14-2009 at 5:41pm
|
i think they are more familiar with the U-571 hollywood movie!!!
------------- <a href="">1992 ski nautique |
Posted By: akabulla
Date Posted: January-14-2009 at 7:34pm
|
You guys are a trip!
My windshield purchase from Florida fell through. Does anyone know about a one piece shield for sale? |
Posted By: akabulla
Date Posted: January-15-2009 at 10:55pm
|
Well I got all the parts out of the boat and sorted them all out. Not sure what I am going to do with 6 lift points but I am sure I can figure something out.
Ok, Here is my first question of my rebuild. The guy gave me the engine cradle for both the original 351 and the one that the PCM 330 was mounted in. The PCM 330 cradle as you can see in the picture is much wider than the old cradle. Question is: Should I use the original or should I make the new stringers wider and use the newer one? Seems to me the stringers would be to wide to fit the new cradle and might hurt the structural integrity of the 2001 Hull. It is almost as wide as the secondary stringers. 
|
Posted By: Chopper
Date Posted: January-15-2009 at 11:48pm
|
The 330 cradle looks exactly like the cradle in my 89 2001, and the 90 onwards 196's
I have asked the question to my comments below before, but not having had replace the floor in the 89 yet I cannot answer. The 89 stringers are wider spaced than the 82-88 2001's with the same hull. I would investigate how the 89's stringer system's are constructed and possibly recreate.? They may or may not have a secondary stringer system. I know the 90's 196's do, bot they are a wider boat. Only issue you will have is the lack of templates to use as your guide. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1540&sort=&pagenum=2&yrstart=1996&yrend=2000 - 98 Ski |
Posted By: akabulla
Date Posted: January-16-2009 at 12:11am
I think I could probably figure out a template to make it work. I don't have a clue what I am doing anyways so whats the worst that could happen 
That's what I have you guys for
If I make the stringers wider, I think my concern would be the height of the main stringers. The height of the secondary stringers towards the ski pole connection are not that tall so it seems if I make the main stringers wider they might not have enough height to include the needed strength for the hull. I posted something at the2001.com to see if anyone had a picture of the stringers in an 89. I couldn't find a pic of someone rebuilding their stringers of an 89 here but if anyone has the dimensions or the width then I could start to determine if I could go wider. Thanks! |
Posted By: SNobsessed
Date Posted: January-16-2009 at 12:48am
|
Aka - Can you get the 33's motor mounts to squeeze into your old cradle? Look for how much L-R adjustment you would have. I think this is why they coined to term 'shoehorn' for engine swaps. ------------- “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” Ben Franklin |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: January-16-2009 at 12:11pm
|
Aka, there was someone who rebuilt an '89 on here- though I dont think they shared any pictures. Check my partial stringer thread and see what their username is.
If youre going to use the newer motorbox, I would lean towards using the wider stringer set up, as you know it will be wide enough to cover the cradle. The advantage of the newer cradle is the the mounts arent lag bolted to the tops of the stringers- theyre through bolted to the angle brackets on the cradle. Not sure how you would go about lining up the exhaust holes, though- 89+ ran the exhaust between the main stringers instead of outside of them. Another concern is the shaft log angle- the newer boats (97+) use a shallower angle than the older ones. Make sure you adjust your stringer height as necessary to accomodate this. ------------- |
Posted By: akabulla
Date Posted: January-16-2009 at 2:29pm
|
It seems there would still need to be some sort of structure under the mounts of the new cradle. Looking at the picture below there are bolts that go through the top but there are also holes for bolts to go in side of the engine mounts. Wouldn't the mounts try to lean inward if it didn't have support on the sides like it does on this temporary stand?
|
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: January-16-2009 at 2:56pm
Nope- thats the factory set up, at least from '90 forward. Notice there are only vertical bolts on my tranny mount in this pic:  ------------- |
Posted By: critter
Date Posted: January-16-2009 at 3:11pm
That is kind of hard to see so I put arrows on it...
No bolt in the bottom hole by the lower arrow. ------------- 1980 Ski Nautique 1966 Barracuda |
Posted By: SNobsessed
Date Posted: January-16-2009 at 3:18pm
|
AKA - The twisting force you described is minimized because the downward forces are the same on both sides of the engine. My '89 has the newer cradle. ------------- “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” Ben Franklin |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: January-16-2009 at 3:27pm
I dont know about that. The torque of the motor is equal on both sides, but opposite. If youre just talking about the weight of the motor, then youre correct. Long story short, either cradle is more than strong enough to withstand both the weight and torque of these motors (probably by a multiple of 2 and then some). Either *might* work, though I would imagine the Excal mounts are a sure bet to line up to the Excal cradle. ------------- |
Posted By: akabulla
Date Posted: January-16-2009 at 5:44pm
|
Ok, Thanks for the pics. I guess the exhaust pipes are ran on the inside of the main stringers? I do know the 89 only has a single exhaust on it.
I lined the new cradle up in the back of the boat and it lines right up with the exhaust. So if I did use wider stingers then I would have to move the exhaust. Maybe I could convert it to a single exhaust like on the 89s. Not sure if the 2004 Sport SEs have a single exhaust or not. Another issue is the cradle for the 2001 is at 20" apart and the engine mounts are currently at 21". It looks like they might have some play to adjust the width but not sure if I can squeeze half an inch out of them. If anything I am having a good time trying to figure this all out! Here is a pick of it lined up with the exhaust: 
|
Posted By: Hollywood
Date Posted: January-16-2009 at 5:48pm
|
I suppose at this point you should try to dry fit the engine and trans in the boat with the original cradle. I would think moving the stringers and exhaust is going to be a lot more work than having to possibly drill new holes for the motor mounts on the old cradle. ------------- |
Posted By: akabulla
Date Posted: January-16-2009 at 5:55pm
I agree. I think I am going to go that route. It looks like this bolt comes loose and lets you adjust the engine mount width. There is about 1/2" of space left on the inside of the hole where you can see that shaft coming through so it looks like I can adjust it! I will jack up that side of the engine remove the mount and see if I can move it at all.
Critter when ever you can drop off that heater.. that would rock!! 8 degrees in the garage for me is a little to cold I don't mind comming to pick it up either!
|
Posted By: critter
Date Posted: January-16-2009 at 6:43pm
|
This weekend I will be using 5he heater while I put the 318 back together. Not much warmer over here. But I will bring it over when I come to check out the parts this weekend.
Not sure that you can use the older stringer location as the mounts for the new engine are a lot lower than with the 351. You have to make sure that you can line up the shaft and transmission correctly. You might end up doing something like this :  ------------- 1980 Ski Nautique 1966 Barracuda |
Posted By: Hollywood
Date Posted: January-16-2009 at 6:54pm
|
Even if the flange on the transmission ends up a bit higher than before, slide the whole engine forward and get a bit longer prop shaft. If you know this ahead of time though from a dryfit, just mount the cradle forward a bit so you don't run out of room behind the pylon.
Where is Joe? ------------- |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-16-2009 at 7:20pm
|
I bet the bigger boat had taller stringers or a deeper V hull thus the spacers having the motor mounts sitting below the stringers. the tranny mounts look identical to the ones on my 86 from what i can tell. I bet it will probably fit better than you think if you just throw it on the cradle to mock it up.
Worst case if it wont fit you could notch the holes wider in the cradle and and that would give you the extra inch you need or weld on a little material to make the cradle wider( just in the mount areas) because there is plenty of room from the notch in the factory stringers to clear the bolt heads a little wider. |
Posted By: akabulla
Date Posted: January-16-2009 at 7:42pm
|
SkiBum,
When you did your stringer rebuild do you ever consider cutting out the air box in the front and just make it level? The run some PVC for the vent lines, steering and electrical? The PVC would just end right above the floor height. Then fill the entire area under the bow with foam and fiberglass the entire floor. I noticed you used a piece of wood to the left of the air box. I don't have the battery box so I was thinking about cutting out the air box and then making the floor flat all the way from the bow to the divider right under the dash. Then don't sink the battery (cause I am going to have 2) amd then put them up under the bow as far to the nose as possible. 
Like this guy. He removed his air box. 
|
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: January-17-2009 at 5:10pm
Nope. Starting in '97, CC lowered the engine in the hull and ran a shallower shaft angle. Id tend to go with Roger's idea of 2 or 3 piecing the main stringers. Either run a wider section around the engine, or a narrower section at the rear to accomodate the exhaust. Moving or replacing those ports would be a major PITA. I also wouldnt try and adapt the wider Excal motor mounts onto the narrower Ford cradle. Even if you can adjust the mounts the 1/2" you need, you wont leave yourself much (if any) room for adjustment when it comes time to do the alignment. Thats going to be critical on this project- lots of variables to contend with. ------------- |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: January-17-2009 at 6:37pm
| Ahhh alright so the height of the engine in the cradle would be ok but I didnt think about alingment adjustment after it was in. |
Posted By: akabulla
Date Posted: January-18-2009 at 2:21am
|
I made a mock up of the engine and tried to get the height and angle of the shaft as close as possible. The engine will have to be lowered if I want to keep the engine in the same place as the last engine.
Also the shaft is more shallow like TR said so I it looks like the engine will have to be at a slight angle to have the shafts line up. If this was a regular stringer rebuild and I was using the same engine I think I would have no issue doing this myself but the more I look at it I think I might have someone else do the floor and stringers and get the engine in. Then I can do the engine hook ups, fuel tank install, electrical, Stereo, Tower, interior and maybe the painting. It will cost a lot to have someone else do the floor but I think it will be worth it. Then if they mess up the engine placement it will be on them. I found someone local that is expensive but he seems to do good work. I am going to try to get him to come over and take a look at everything and see what kind of cost he comes up with. Here are some pics of my mock up. 
|
Posted By: akabulla
Date Posted: January-18-2009 at 3:31pm
|
Tim, Can you tell me the distance between the ski pole and the front of the engine?
Also the length of your shaft (yes I know that sounds bad!!) from where it connects to the trans to where it enters the coupling on the floor? (Sorry I am still learning all the part names?) 
One last question. Are your stringers the same height at the trans mounts and the engien mounts? Is the engine at an angle? Thanks! |
Posted By: eric lavine
Date Posted: January-18-2009 at 4:29pm
|
the trans should be a 10 degree angle, you want to keep the engine on the mounts low but adjustable, because the higher you go the more the engine will become unstable. it looks as if the weight of the shaft is keeping it way low. you need to remove the shaft and install a 1" wood dowel and see where it winds up and work off of that. im sure the boat had a 1:1 which sat high in the front and i dont know the shaft angles with a 1:1, but I do know with the 1.23 the engine sits parallel in the stringers. i would also do some research to see if a different strut angle was used before you dive in ------------- "the things you own will start to own you" |
Posted By: eric lavine
Date Posted: January-18-2009 at 4:33pm
|
where you set the engine is also going to be critical because of balance, you need to research a later style hull that uses the 1.23 and work off of that, the shaft angle is also pretty crucial to the boats performance, if you use a 1:1 strut and requires a 1.23 strut you may throw the boat off....just some thoughts ------------- "the things you own will start to own you" |
Posted By: eric lavine
Date Posted: January-18-2009 at 4:37pm
|
plus the 1:1 was in line with the crank and the 1.23 is offset higher by about 3 inches ------------- "the things you own will start to own you" |
Posted By: akabulla
Date Posted: January-18-2009 at 4:52pm
|
Thanks Eric! That helps alot. I tried to call you to get the number of the guy for the stringer work in GA but they said you didn't work on Saturday.
What is the difference in a 1.23 strut and a 1:1 strut? I think I am going to do this myself. It will be a STEEP learning curve but I think it will be worth it in the end! Do you know the difference in weight from my engine to the orginal 351? Do you think it is about the same? Accordning to specs mine weights around 950 pounds. This is what I am going to do to start: 1. I am going to lower the boat in the front to raise the back. 2. Build some supports and put them under the back. 3. Then I am going to build something to hold the boat up in the garage off the floor so I can get the trailer out. The lifting point is gone so I will have to run a strap under the boat and raise it up. 5. Put some supports under the bow and lower it off the support. 6. Cut out the part of the main stringers where the cradle goes and mount the engine to the new cradle and lower it in the boat and line it up with the shaft. 7. Make some templates for the main stringers with the engine in the boat and do the split stringer configuration like critter talked about. 8. Mount the new main stringers and get them glassed in. 9. Now that I know the height of the main stringers I can make the secondary and get them in place. Then do a stringer config much like Critter suggested. Anyone see an issue with splitting the main stringers like this? 
|
Posted By: eric lavine
Date Posted: January-18-2009 at 5:06pm
|
I know the BW is 98 lbs and the 1.23 is 58lbs, there is 40 lbs already.
I dont know if there is a difference in the struts, i assumed there was because i thought the 1:1's sat at 12 degrees and the pcm sits at 10 degrees ------------- "the things you own will start to own you" |
Posted By: BuffaloBFN
Date Posted: January-18-2009 at 5:11pm
Eric was talking about me, but what you have is more than I'd want to get into unless I was doing it for myself. millman1@bellsouth.net if you like. I think a stringer gets a lot of strength down the length of the boat by being in 1 piece. However I do see what you're up against. As much work as it would be, you might be better off moving the exhaust ports in order to keep the stringers and associated glass straight and strong. Otherwise, you'd have to make the joints super strong so you'd keep from having hinges. ------------- http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=2331&sort=&pagenum=12&yrstart=1986&yrend=1990" rel="nofollow - 1988 BFN-sold "It's a Livin' Thing...What a Terrible Thing to Lose" ELO |
Posted By: SNobsessed
Date Posted: January-18-2009 at 6:05pm
|
Aka - I suggest making the overlap about twice as long as the diagram. Maybe the overlap can be pinned with dowels.
Also, reading your plan about the dryfit: please block the engine in well with 4x4's or similar (plus leaving some tension on the hoist) before getting your hands under it. I bet that was your plan but just wanted to make sure. You can't really trust those hoists! Last thought - I took my boat off the trailer last fall - Used my floor jack & jack stand with (again the 4x4s). Had to move the jack & stand several times but got it done safely. ------------- “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” Ben Franklin |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: January-18-2009 at 6:28pm
In an airport half way back from the keys where I left reid mojo and Paul waters , I can't really make out the details of the issues on my phone but I think this is all Doable with available parts on the old cradle. If you haven't already post a side view of your transmission mounts. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: January-18-2009 at 7:14pm
|
As mentioned before I would recommend the old cradle and the dual exhaust. Tim's not quite right about how the old one cradle works, the mounts do not lag into the stringers, they bolt on. There is an area scalloped out underneath the cradles where the mounts go that allows access to the underside of the cradle to put on the washer and nut using an open end wrench. Not the easiest to access and a bit of a pain to recreate when doing the stringer/floor job but functional. The only lags are the ones that hold the cradle to the stringers.
Putting the 1:23 trans into the older 2001s is a known quantity… The strut and log stay the same. The transmission is longer and requires a shorter prop shaft 51 vs 54 inches. The transmission mounts bolt to the same place on the cradle I don’t know if you have the right ones or not but it looks like you do Old left, new right. 
The attaching blocks are different, but old top, new bottom, but the new would work on the old, maybe vice versa as well. 
The main difference is the range of adjustment is centered much higher on the pcm style vs borg warner style new on top, old on bottom 
new left, old right 
The engine mounts I think will be the same mounts you have but you might need different attaching blocks, I believe they put 350’s into a few 82-88 2001’s so I don’t think its going to be anything major. Bolt the back mounts up and you might need to drill a couple holes in the cradle for the front mounts but it should all fit. Using the newer motor box maybe a little tricky, but not anywhere near the level of difficulty of trying to get everything else replaced and redesigned without a template to work off of. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: akabulla
Date Posted: January-18-2009 at 10:38pm
|
Joe, Where have you been man!!!! Now I know why they were asking for you!! I have been swimming in fear that this project is getting out of control but you have just given me hope!
Here are the pics of my mounts. The odd thing is one motor mount has a L shape to it and one doesn't. What's up with that? Here is one motor mount: 
The other one: 
Trans mount: 
Trans: 
The transmission actually says 1.26 not sure if that is different from a 1.23. 
Here is the engine tag: 
So you think I should just match the existing stringers and it should fit fine? I just put my mock up on it again and moved it forward and it actually looks like it will match up ok. I was thinking about buying one of these to help lift the boat and get the engine in and out. It is adjustable and will fit in my garage and holds 4000 lbs: http://catalog.storquip.com/products/hoists-equipment/ez-adjustsuptmsup/HEZ512-4000/ - overhead hoist I also have two shafts already. One is 54 and one is 51 like you said: 
|
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: January-19-2009 at 12:47am
|
Your gonna need two of http://www.skidim.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RK090022 - these if your using the old cradle old strut and 51" shaft. Its the right transmission I dont know why its referred to as a 1.23:1 and yet is a 1.26:1 one of lifes mysteries I guess. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: akabulla
Date Posted: January-19-2009 at 1:32am
| Ordered and Thanks alot!! Got any idea why one of my motor mounts has the L shape on it and the other one is flat? Did the PCM 330s all come like that? |
Posted By: akabulla
Date Posted: January-19-2009 at 1:39am
|
Also what block is in my engine? I can't find the specs online and the PCM service manual in the downloads section is to old and doesn't have my engine in it.
Thanks again guys! |
Posted By: eric lavine
Date Posted: January-19-2009 at 9:53am
|
on the trans ratio's, I never photo tached them, had no reason, it even holds true on the Borg Warner trans, reverse is a touch different on the ration because it goes through a planetary, and the same for the PCM, i dont know if they average the 2 and come up with a 1.23...like joe said, one of life's mystery's, aka, your in good hands, Joe went through the learning curve already ------------- "the things you own will start to own you" |
Posted By: Hollywood
Date Posted: January-19-2009 at 1:16pm
|
It doesn't matter if one is not an L since you only bolt down from the top anyway. So actually the "L" is a waste and the other one is perfect. ------------- |
Posted By: akabulla
Date Posted: January-19-2009 at 2:40pm
Is this part level in the back or does the fuel tank just sit on the main stringers? I assume it is level but I wanted to check as I map out my secondary. Remember they were already removed so I have no template to go by.
|
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: January-19-2009 at 2:48pm
Im almost positive that mine is stamped 1.23. I was surprised to see yours say 1.26- it must have changed during one of the minor updates over the last 20 years. Aka, sounds like youre in good hands with Joe! ------------- |
Posted By: eric lavine
Date Posted: January-19-2009 at 3:00pm
|
maybe stamped the tag wrong, never seen 1.26 stamped ------------- "the things you own will start to own you" |
Posted By: akabulla
Date Posted: January-19-2009 at 3:01pm
I agree. I was freaking out a little thinking I was in over my head but I think I can handle it now! I just ordered all my stuff from US Composites and I am about to go out side and remove the remaining floor and foam still in the boat! |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: January-19-2009 at 3:02pm
|
tim see if you can remember to check on that some time for historical purposes PCM still refers to it as a 1.23 but mine is also stamped 1.26
Aka Your block is a 5.7 chevy (350) and that area is not level a couple boards go across the mains then the tank mounts on top. You may want to go to the engine forum andlook at some of the pics on the 408w from scratch thread to see what the secondaries look like ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: January-19-2009 at 3:40pm
Just for you, Joe! Not the greatest pic, but still legible:  ------------- |
Posted By: uk1979
Date Posted: January-19-2009 at 4:00pm
My 1.23.1 now made in Italy read like this 
Reads 1.258  ------------- Lets have a go 56 Starflite 77 SN 78 SN 80 BFN |
Posted By: kapla
Date Posted: January-19-2009 at 4:29pm
|
Uk
if I´m not wrong all pcm tranny are made in italy, at least i remember my 1992 had the 1.23 tranny and was made in italy... ------------- <a href="">1992 ski nautique |
Posted By: uk1979
Date Posted: January-19-2009 at 6:02pm
|
Thanks Kapla thought the first ones where US made. ------------- Lets have a go 56 Starflite 77 SN 78 SN 80 BFN |
Posted By: Luchog
Date Posted: January-19-2009 at 10:02pm
|
Isnt the PCM a ZF-Hurth transmision? ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=2095" rel="nofollow - 1980 Ski Nautique Commander 351W |
Posted By: akabulla
Date Posted: January-20-2009 at 12:50am
Ok, will do! I still have the teak boards for under the fuel tank. I will try to find the post your talking about. Critter noticed tonight that the plastic cover for the engine had 5.7 350 written on it. Not sure how I missed that!! HEH! |
Posted By: eric lavine
Date Posted: January-20-2009 at 9:57am
|
they are a Hurth transmission, ZF purchased Hurth a few years back. I have no understanding why they are anything other than a 1.23, i started rebuilding them a good 10 years ago, and have been through at least 70 of them. the only difference I see now are the back ends. they do look as if ribbing was added...one good thing is one of the big aftermarket companies will start making seal and gasket kits and clutch kits all made here in the USA, and possibly the forward drum
also looking at the pic, they added a bearing cap to the top gear, maybe just maybe because i havnt busted into one of the newer ones, they may have re-designed the gears also and the ratio changed a touch, the older gears would lose thier hard facing and start to make noise ------------- "the things you own will start to own you" |
Posted By: eric lavine
Date Posted: January-20-2009 at 10:00am
|
they added ribbing because i have seen 3 or 4 of these tranny's with the back ends busted right off from hitting an object, now that its stronger where will the stress transfer too.
looking at it again, i would really say they did make a gear change, because of the back housing change, im sure we will find out eventually ------------- "the things you own will start to own you" |
Posted By: Luchog
Date Posted: January-20-2009 at 2:26pm
|
I must admit I'm a big fan of this trannies.
It seems they've been improving them all this years. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=2095" rel="nofollow - 1980 Ski Nautique Commander 351W |