What I am interested in is why CC and other ski boat manufacturers back in the day routinely reversed engines in inboard ski boats. Apparently nowadays that isn't done.

From reading on this site years ago, I gleaned that one main reason is that the torque and thrust of a revving engine lift a boat on the right front side. Because every piloted boat has a driver, that thrust counters the weight of the driver. In a standard rotation setup, the weight of the driver adds to the torque of the engine, burying one side of the boat deeper in the water, as opposed to leveling it out.

Our boats run 1600-2500 lbs. I read about a big, porky ski boat the other day that was way over 4000 lbs. Whew! Yes, it has a much more powerful engine. But it also has a lot more mass to resist the engine's kick. So, (although I might be reigniting an old thread that's been beat to death), I wonder if that's the main reason why our ski boats had reverse rotation? The mass was less, and the torque of the engine produced a greater effect? Is that effect more exaggerated in a boat with significantly less mass, like a vintage CC? Will that reach objectionable levels if you add horsepower?

My questions are oriented toward putting an 18" 1968 Wildcat back together with a 440. That's a not very huge ski boat with a pretty aggressive power package, compared to today's rigs. Would it be a terrible idea to "reverse" this particular engine to standard rotation?

The other main topic I'd like to see addressed here is whether you can *easily* convert the boat to standard rotation. I've read enough to know there's lots of info here about the engine itself. It's not hard to reverse an engine if it's out of the boat. Cam, dizzy firing order, etc. What I'd really like to know is other more esoteric info, such as whether the prop and rudder are/were offset from each other to finesse the handling characteristics?

And, yes, I realize there's the obvious: the prop has to be changed. But do you have to also change anything else?

Most transmissions need to be indexed for the rotation. 

You'll have a rear main seal leak if you turn a reverse rotation crank in the normal direction and there are different opinions on piston orientation.

You already know you'd need a new cam and oil pump intermediate shaft with the right gear on it and a new starter 

Your distributor in the picture of the engine when you bought it is an automotive one, so replacement is up to you. It would work for normal rotation without the collar but there's that safety thing to worry about

The alternator won't care which way it's turning  and the engine circulating water pump might be directional and pump a lot better in one direction

Now as far as needing that new carburetor that 67 Ski Nat mentions, only he may know what he's thinking.........maybe 

67 ski nat wrote: Oh new carburetor the old one will blow air out, not suck in

It's been discussed plenty of times over the years, with no perfect answer.

I think I have the answer now, but if anybody has more info to add, they're still welcome to chime in.

I interpret the above as: you can do it, but the smaller and narrower the boat, the more detrimental the effect. I suppose I might add that any increase in horsepower would only exaggerate the effect.

I'll also add that I looked under my Wildcat and a couple other boats. I can't visually see an offset in the prop/rudder relationship, so if it's there, it's minimal. That's why I asked. My eye doesn't tell me definitively whether there is one or not.

JQ

I think I'm going to leave that alone now and go work on the gear reduction transmission idea…right after I finish swapping the controls to the other side, too. Back in five…

A 1:1 down angle trans would be a better choice over any reduction. Reductions typically swing larger diameter props and that would get you into hull/strut mods. A down angle would still reverse the rotation.