I can do the #6 without moving the engine...:coolcowboy: With the Arneson I would have to build up the center pod of the boat, trust me the arneson is bad a$$ but sounds like alot of work, but whatever I do will be alot of work...we will see...:ernaehrung004:

You can do a #6 without moving the engine? Where are you going to put the tranny. It would be pretty hard to stuff a SuperCyborg between the engine and drive without moving anything.

According to Steve @ RPM I have enough room to do the swap, and being that he rigged the boat, I am going on his word:kiss:

Oky dockey

Why the center pod if an Arneson is used? Do you have to lower the engine for that?

Back in June I looked into doing the Arneson, Steve called Rik @ Arneson and gave him the specks of the boat, that is what Rik said would have to be done to use the Arneson, I have no idea why the center pod would need to be built up, no idea at all...

Redline, send me a P.M. Mark Kinser's Eliminator was a 25' or a 26' that boat ran 144 mph several years in the shootout and the water was rough enough he could not stay in it. The boat would have run mid 150's on flat water. As I stated in a earlier post I have spent a lot of time in that boat as well as helping Mark put the project together it handles excellent and was a baby around the dock due to the unique transmission setup. If I were going to build a cat in that size range I would duplicate that boat exactly.

+1!!!!!!!The Facts are the Facts

OK who is running a single engine cat with the Arneson...:coolcowboy:

Not sure.. My .02 is to talk to Rik yourself. I was really into the box that you could put the trannie in and the fact that you use less HP to run and it is a lot lighter of a unit...

I have read alot about the Arneson especially since my cat had them when I got it.. They have a set up for everyone and it seems to make sense..

My .02 is that a # 6 is a lot of weight and uses a lot of HP to run..

Just do your research! I see other boats converting over and getting GREAT results.. You may be right, but I never take the one mans opinion.

Good luck

Bryan,

The center pod has to be modified because it has a notch in it and that has to be filled in order for the arneson box to mount low enough to get the prop shaft where Arneson suggests. Basically the box needs to be as low as you can get it to the running surface without interupting the water flow.

On the #6, the engine does not have to come up because the propshaft height on a 6 is 1.14" above the 2" shorty and we have a .5" spacer in Jeff's drive. Basically we are going up 1.64" without changing the engine height. As far as forward movement, that is not an issue (see the attached pic). The bulkhead in front of the engine compartment is 57.5" from the transom along the tunnel roof. The pics were before the blower upgrade but you get the idea. Hope this answers your questions.

Steve

Do you have the bravo on a box?

A couple questions.....

What ratio and prop are you running now?
What rpm are you going to run with the new blower?
What are you looking for speed, reliability, handling,??????
Why did you change the blower???
How much power?

A photo of the transom would help.

pat W

The engine will have to be moved forward in order to accommodate the transmission for the #6. Don't quote me, but I believe it's 18".




Darrell.

Pat,

I will call you later today about this project.
The Max Machine drive is on an IMCO box.
1.35 ratio 34 pitch custom lab Bravo.
The new blower has been on for approx 75 hours already and is running as high as 6500.
Speed, handling and reliability would be nice :drink: but reliability and maintain the current handling is really most important to Jeff.

Steve

Yep. Unless you have one of those 572's that is really a 540! Just because he told you that there is room that does not mean you don't have to move it.

what are you talking about? unless you go to a 5" bore spacing the length from front to back is the same on a bbc.

I know. I was just joking about the time Redline here went around saying he had a 572 and found out it was really a 540.

The thread is abut drives, not what I am running, what are you running besides your mouth...:angry-smiley-038:

Did you lengthen the skeg?

What is the distance from the notch to the end of the prop?

pat W

Hey Pat,

Steve is supposed to be calling to discuss everything with my current setup, I appreciate the help.

Jeff

The #Six will weigh more that would be my biggest concern on a 26 boat.

The old wet sump sixes eat up power as they hold about 5 gals of oil. The dry sumps will use the same or less power than a bravo drive.

I am using a #6 in a single v-bottom. We did not move the engine but instead put the transmission in a standoff box. I wouldn't change a thing.

Thanks for the good news, I am glad that it is working out for you so well, that is where the transmission is going to go in the standoff box...:evilb:

Very cool. I didn't even know anyone was offering a standoff box to hold a trans for a six. Is the box an off the shelf part, or did you custom make it? This seems like a great idea for the smaller boats, with less engine compartment space to work with.


Darrell.

Redline, you stated that the Xpower wasn't going to work. I'm just curious to what were the problems they had with the single engine cat set up? Was it stability, getting on plane or?????? It seems like a great drive, but I simply do not know anything about it.




Darrell.

PS: sorry for the bold type. Not sure what the hell I did there.

Weight shouldnt be an issue but it may make the boat handle a bit differently. JC went from a bravo to a 6 and mine always had a 6. He can comment on differences. Just add some more power so compensate for the 200 pound increase. No biggie. I will never own a go fast bravo boat.

My only issue was drive height and I tried a bunch of diffreent spacers and should have left it alone. Was tinkering with trying to make my 6 a true surface drive and it didnt work. Went back to original set up when I bought it. Props are way more expensive and I would ONLY go with a right hand rotation.

There is a cat guy here from out West running a 26 or 29 DCB with about 1400 hp I bought a propfrom that has done a ton of R&D.

Plus the cool factor is major

Well a friend of mine bought 1 and spent about 2 solid weeks trying to dial it in, plus Xpower want be the ones to do everything, they don't want you to fool with it, IMO that is BS I am not going to move to Ca just so everytime I want to change a spacer they have to do it, dont get me wrong the drive is bad azz but I don't see 35,000 worth there, and you still have the weak link of the gimble ring. He finaly put his MMW drive back on the boat for LOTO, there just are not enough of the Xpower drives out there I think just 3 or 4 boats are running them, and none of them are on a single engine setup:Whatever:

I here ya dude, I just wish I would have done it right the first time but you know haw it is, "OUR DRIVE WILL HANDLE IT...NO PROBLEM" Just a bunch of BS...:angry-smiley-038:

Quote:
Originally Posted by check300
I am using a #6 in a single v-bottom. We did not move the engine but instead put the transmission in a standoff box. I wouldn't change a thing.



Here is Check300's set up, runs triple digits too

As for the box it was Designed by Tom Earhart, and he had BAM build it, BAM, had Stellings Marine build it now we have have Stellings Marine Extension boxes.

Now you know the rest of the story :drink:

So if your order your Stellings Stand off Box you will have to make a few adjustments to the flange for clearance.

The early boxes like this one pictured were all hand fabricated
Now they are all cast.


Jon

I will disagree on the weight not being a problem. I have owned a few cats 24 and 25' They were very sensitive to extra weight hanging off the back. I was running twin 2.5's that only weigh 350 lbs each. Adding setback changes the center of gravity a lot. Adding just a few inches of setback on a outboard boats makes big chenges. You are adding about 12 inches with a box. You will also have a 100 lb transmission and a 350 lb drive to the back of the boat. I have noticed the difference in how a 40' cat will ride with the engines mounted on the transom or moved forward. Big differences. The tail heavy boat will pop the nose up every time you hit a wave. Can be very scary.
Is there no way to move the engine forward?

Already have alot hanging off of the back, the MMW drive weighs in @ 200lbs then heavy duty gimble and standoff box I should be a little over 300lbs now...plus this boat acts the same with or without the standoff box.:drink:

Jon thanks for posting the info, and the pics. It's a great solution for a lot of smaller boats out there.


Darrell.

I fully agree with you that weight can make a significant difference in how the boat handles and "flies". Yes we have room to move the engine forward which we will already be doing by adding the tranny. We could use a 9" shaft but that actually may be too far forward when you add the trans length to it. We have the room to do it but I think that it is too much. We should be adding around 250 lb over what he has now but moving the engine forward will offset most of that. If we did the trans in the standoff box, I think that we would notice a huge diff in CG but otherwise the boat should not react adversely to the additional weight. The hull has been tested with more tail weight then we are talking here and still flies very flat in the rough stuff. Plus we have the ability to move the fuel tanks forward if needed.

Steve

Sounds like no matter which way you go, lots of testing will be needed. I believe the Weismann and Arneson shaft drives will cause the least amount of CG issues and thus the least amount of testing which as we all know burns precious fuel not to mention time.

Have you ever checked the cg of the boat the way it is?

The weight of a #6 with gimbal 501.

Stand off box 65 to 80 lbs

Velvet drive 140 lbs

We are the only ones that have checked the 6 that I know of and there is a lot of hear say out there to what the efficiencies are of a bravo. I did not bother with the bravo. It needs a shower to cool it, that should tell you something. Anything over 500hp and you should forget that drive anyway.

Some day I will check a "targeted Oil #6 drive" that merc makes vs our dry-sump #6 just to set the record straight.

Do not be shocked when the boat does not hit 132 again.

pat W

Not to threadjack, but I have to ask. What does a stand off box do for you?

adds to leverage on the transom and shifts cg aft and extends the overall length to add stability at speed.

pat W

No Problem Check300 is a great guy and went through great efforts with Tom Earhart to get this boat dialed in.
Lot's of nay sayer's for a few years when they designed and started the project. Bill & Tom were told repeatedly it would never work.

End product is a very stable, very well mannered sleeper.
Around here the boat is very well known, by some frusted boaters :drink:

Jon

Didn't check300 end up not surfacing the prop like Masher did on his activator?

Correct, she is below hull,.......can't remember how deep though.

Maybe Bill / Check300 will chime in again ?

I need to send you and your dad an email with the latest pictures / upgrades I think you will be pleased ;-)

Lots of home work over the winter:drink:

Jon

Does anyone know the weight of an Arneson with a box and tranny to a #6 with that same setup? I think that weight and balance will be a huge factor in this project. Filling in the notch and moving the engine for the Arneson may very well be easier than dealing with the weight and balance issues of a #6.

Either way the project will be costly and difficult. I would like to see it pulled off successfully though.