Notices

Considering Arneson

Thread Tools
 
Old 08-01-2014, 12:02 PM
  #11  
Registered
 
Frequency's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Peoria, IL & FMB, FL
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by green lightning
What drive were you trying to make work and in the end you did not like them?
I had a Pulsedrive. The company is no longer in business. It had it's pluses and minuses. Prop shafts were mounted to the underside of a platform. The whole platform was trimmable - great for swimming off the back of the boat. The rooster tail was different than that produced by the Arneson. The Pulsedrive threw the water high. Each chunk of water carved up by the blades tended to stay together so you had spirals getting thrown up instead of a solid spray. My passengers were usually facing backwards underway just mesmerized. Those features could not offset the impractical application on a boat with a ton of natural stern lift. It was enjoyable up to 65 mph. Not pleasant over 70 mph or in rough water. If I had the right hull for the Pulsedrive I would have kept it.
Frequency is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 12:26 PM
  #12  
Registered
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: syracuse ny
Posts: 592
Received 115 Likes on 75 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Frequency
I had a Pulsedrive. The company is no longer in business. It had it's pluses and minuses. Prop shafts were mounted to the underside of a platform. The whole platform was trimmable - great for swimming off the back of the boat. The rooster tail was different than that produced by the Arneson. The Pulsedrive threw the water high. Each chunk of water carved up by the blades tended to stay together so you had spirals getting thrown up instead of a solid spray. My passengers were usually facing backwards underway just mesmerized. Those features could not offset the impractical application on a boat with a ton of natural stern lift. It was enjoyable up to 65 mph. Not pleasant over 70 mph or in rough water. If I had the right hull for the Pulsedrive I would have kept it.
Thank you for all the info, nobody likes to be a test mule when things don't work out right and you still have to pay big money .
green lightning is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 02:30 PM
  #13  
Rik
arneson-industries.com
Offshoreonly Advertiser
 
Rik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: California
Posts: 2,782
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Frequency
I had a Pulsedrive. The company is no longer in business. It had it's pluses and minuses. Prop shafts were mounted to the underside of a platform. The whole platform was trimmable - great for swimming off the back of the boat. The rooster tail was different than that produced by the Arneson. The Pulsedrive threw the water high. Each chunk of water carved up by the blades tended to stay together so you had spirals getting thrown up instead of a solid spray. My passengers were usually facing backwards underway just mesmerized. Those features could not offset the impractical application on a boat with a ton of natural stern lift. It was enjoyable up to 65 mph. Not pleasant over 70 mph or in rough water. If I had the right hull for the Pulsedrive I would have kept it.
Sorry but to bring you negative experience with something like a Pulse Drive onto an Arneson thread is nothing but pure idiocy. There are no comparisons to the two most evident by which one is out of business. The Pulse shares nothing in relation with an Arneson at all. I fell that most people that have had a Pulse drive regretted it yet like yourself they try to lump it with an Arneson which is totally unfair and off base to say the least. When one reads your original post they could defer that you had Arneson experience and that is certainly not the case.
__________________
Arneson Surface Drives www.arneson-industries.com
Rik is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 02:58 PM
  #14  
SORE MEMBER
Platinum Member
 
Wobble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: 29°50'49.74"N 95° 5'17.55"W.......TEXAS
Posts: 6,989
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

I think Arneson's are awesome except for around raft ups.
Wobble is offline  
Old 08-01-2014, 04:18 PM
  #15  
Registered
 
Frequency's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Peoria, IL & FMB, FL
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Rik
Sorry but to bring you negative experience with something like a Pulse Drive onto an Arneson thread is nothing but pure idiocy. There are no comparisons to the two most evident by which one is out of business. The Pulse shares nothing in relation with an Arneson at all. I fell that most people that have had a Pulse drive regretted it yet like yourself they try to lump it with an Arneson which is totally unfair and off base to say the least. When one reads your original post they could defer that you had Arneson experience and that is certainly not the case.
Easy there Rik. The original poster made this a general surface drive thread in his second post when he mentioned #6 drives. If he had not posted that I would not have made any comments. I also did not lump the Pulsedrive in with an Arneson. Please read my post again. The Arneson is a well engineered system, far superior to the Pulsedrive. If I were building big power in a cat or stepped vee hull I would take the Arneson over anything else out there. Arneson would also be my choice it I were putting on new drives and wanted to gain top end - in a hull that would respond well to surfacing props.

We good?
Frequency is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.