Who's running a #6 in a single engine application
09-01-2009 | 05:59 PM
#41
Thread Starter
Registered
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 600
Likes: 0
From: Denham Springs La.
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...
09-01-2009 | 07:47 PM
#42
Registered
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 444
Likes: 1
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.
Last edited by Bryan Rose; 09-01-2009 at 07:49 PM.
09-01-2009 | 07:53 PM
#43
Thread Starter
Registered
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 600
Likes: 0
From: Denham Springs La.
09-01-2009 | 08:15 PM
#44
Registered
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 444
Likes: 1
09-01-2009 | 08:19 PM
#45
Thread Starter
Registered
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 600
Likes: 0
From: Denham Springs La.
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...
09-01-2009 | 09:48 PM
#46
Registered
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
From: DES MOINES IA. / LOTO
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.
09-01-2009 | 09:52 PM
#47
Registered
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 967
Likes: 1
From: Newark, DE
09-01-2009 | 10:03 PM
#49
Registered
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 967
Likes: 1
From: Newark, DE
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
09-01-2009 | 10:06 PM
#50
Registered
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
From: Harpersville, AL
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
