Pete,

i have a 34SF with (2) mercruiser 5.7's, zf 2.5:1 and 18x22 props...my
WOT is 4600prms at 23knts cruise is 3200rpms at 13knts...very good gas
efficiency with this set up...its for sale BTW...i need a smaller boat

On Aug 29, 1:17 am, john hamilton <[email protected]> wrote:
> I joinedwww.boatdiesel.comfor a year when I was rebuilding the engine my 27 
> Express Cruiser.  They have a couple of chat rooms that really sharp guys 
> weigh in on regularly and they have an excellent prop calculator that was 
> instrumental in my getting my prop perfect for my boat when I went from 260 
> hp to 410hp.
>  
> I agree with Victor's points.  If the maximum rpm is low you will generally 
> need to reduce the pitch and possibly even the diameter as well, although 
> that costs lift.  I'm gussing there won't be a ton of difference between 
> 18x17 and 17x18.  17x15 or 18x13 should make more of a difference.  You 
> didn't mention your top speed and rpm with the old engines.  Did the boat get 
> up onto full plane with the 270 horse motors?  How fast was it at top speed, 
> and at what rpm?  One of the things I read in my research before I 
> finished my job is that very shallow props are less efficient than steeper 
> props.  Beyond a certain point, the prop calculator recommended a lower 
> transmission ratio and steepr prop rather than a higher ratio and shallower 
> prop.
>  
> I spent hours on the calcultor plugging in different transmission ratios, 
> prop diameters, number of blades and pitch amounts.  The price for a year's 
> subscription was something like 25 or 50 bucks and more than worth it to me.  
> I found a great place for a new stuffing box on that site reading the chat 
> rooms.
>  
> Whatever calculator you use, it will need a displacement figure and a 
> waterline length and that particular one onwww.boatdiesel.com has a hull type 
> as well.
>  
> One place I disagree slightly with Victor on is rpm range.  I think most 
> stock marine engine camshafts have a designed top end around 4400 to 5000, 
> not the 5500 Victor mentioned.  A high performance version might go that high 
> but you probably wouldn't put high performance motors in a big cruiser unless 
> you are somebody that likes fiddling in your engine room a lot (like me).  
> You might decide to go with high performance small blocks instead of low 
> performance big blocks but most folks would probably go the other way, as you 
> did in this case.  If you can get your engines to at least 4400 rpm you 
> should be good.  In my case, I took a small block and made it big 
> displacement, sort of splitting the difference.  The cam I had specially 
> ground for my desired cruising rpm (3400) has a top end of 5000rpm.
>  
> It seems unusual to me that you could only get 4400 rpm out of your engines 
> when you had the 2.57/1 transmissions in it.  The engines might not be 
> putting out their full horsepower potential and if they aren't, you will 
> never be able to get the thing propped right.  I think I would do a 
> compression test and double check the basics like timing and carb 
> settings before I did any more work on the prop selection.  It's cheap, easy 
> and will give you more confidence when you do pick a prop combination that 
> you have it right.  I choked on the price of one new prop.  You're buying two.
>  
> You are increasing your horsepower by about 30%, which sounds like a lot but 
> might not give you as much of a performance imporvement as you think.  I 
> increased my horsepower by 60% and got 20% more cruising speed, 25% more top 
> speed and 28% more fuel economy.  Great results to be sure, but not as much 
> as one might think with that much extra power.  The one thing that 
> everybody who seems to know what they are talking about agree on is 
> this.  Whatever prop pitch, diameter and transmissionration ratio you settle 
> on, it's critical that your engines will reach the maximum rpm the 
> maunfacturer lists for that model with a full load in the boat.  Anthing less 
> will dramatically shorten the life of the engines and severely limit the fuel 
> efficiency you can obtain.  Good luck, and let us know how it comes out!
>
> John
>
> --- On Fri, 8/28/09, Love and Luck <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Love and Luck <[email protected]>
> Subject: [UnifliteWorld] 34ss with 454's
> To: "UnifliteWorld" <[email protected]>
> Date: Friday, August 28, 2009, 5:49 AM
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I posted a message last year but never got any responses.  I'm looking
> for information once again on my engine upgrade.  First a little
> background.... I have a 1982 Uniflite that used to have 270 hp
> crusaders, 1.91:1 Velvet drive Transmissions, and 18 x 17 inch props.
> My boat would only cruise between 12 and 15 knots.  I decided to
> upgrade my tired motors and put in a pair of used 350 hp crusaders.
> The motors I bought came with 2.57:1 Transmissions so I initially
> installed these into my boat.  I borrowed a pair of 18 x 22 inch props
> from a friend and the boat would cruise at 9 knots and top out at 4400
> rpm.  At this point I spoke with Sea-cure technologies to find out how
> 34 ss was set up from uniflite.  They told me those uniflites came
> with the 1.52:1 Transmissions and 17 x 18 props.  So, thanks to
> craigslist, I found a pair of 1.52:1 Velvet Drives and put them into
> my boat.  Took the boat out for a cruise with the 18 x 22 props,
> topped out at 2000 rpm and 10 knots.  Next I took off the 18 x 22's
> and put back on my original 18 x 17's.  Took her out for a run and she
> did 14 knots topped out at 3200 rpm.  So, my question, will going to
> the 17 x 18's bring my rpms up and my cruise speed up?  Is there
> anyone else out there with a 34 uniflite with 454's?
> Thanks
> Pete
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"UnifliteWorld" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/unifliteworld?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to