Philm

It could certainly have contributed, but only if the engine wasnt setup right to begin with. The increased drag of the lower could have scrubbed enough speed that trying to spin the same prop lugged the engine at WOT, causing detonation and engine failure.

Blaming it on the drive is a builders way of trying to get out of his responsibility. Had the setup been better from the start, it shouldnt have happened regardless of the drive that was used.

4bus

iTrader: (4)

Was it mated to a Mercruiser 130HP 4Cyl with a 5 blade 32 pitch prop? If so.......maybe.

Total bs!

1 MAIDEN AMERICA

Kinda my thoughts.
A boat is like a motor home always going up hill. Always under load.
I took a friend out for a ride and he said, "we just did a full throttle dyno pull for 30 minutes".
Set up error!!!

charliem

That would be like saying that because you took that fat chick for a boat ride the increased load blew your engine.

dereknkathy

but was that all the fat chick blew?

mike tkach

iTrader: (3)

i guess fat chicks need a boat ride too

CB-BLR

Here is my take...
Since the new SCX lower was designed from scratch on a hydrodynamic cad simulation program...I do not think that the lower being bigger is causing massive amounts of drag as compared to a SC...thus slowing boats down ...I think that it is much more efficient at getting water to the prop...therefore loading the prop harder...with more and cleaner water...ie less cavitated water at the prop...and more of it.

This makes spinning the same prop as before...much harder to spin.

I am not sure that this increased water flow to the prop is a good thing or not.

High speed naval torpedoes actually inject air out the nose of the round tipped torp.... in order to let the torpedo travel in a cavitating mode...and go faster.

Chris

FIXX

iTrader: (2)

theirs only one way a engine will blow because of the drive and thats if the drive broke and the engine over reved..........

mike tkach

iTrader: (3)

yep