Konrad swaps
03-01-2007, 11:16 PM
#12
Registered
Another would be how much does this weigh compared to a #6 , it's box and tranny? I would assume much less. Wouldn't transoms have to be beefed up to convert to the 6?
03-02-2007, 06:41 AM
#13
Staggered installations are very simple as the forward mounted motor is already mounted fore and aft and is fitted with a bellhousing that can accept a transmission. As mentioned above, no modifications to the transom other than bolting on our stand-off box.
To answer your questions concerning weight, the Konrad Ace system is about 150 lbs heavier than a Bravo. (trans adds 100 lbs)
Feel free to call anytime to discuss further,
Kurt 715-410-0735
[email protected]
Last edited by Biggus; 03-02-2007 at 07:33 PM.
Platinum Member
03-02-2007, 09:00 PM
#15
Registered
This is how my merc driveshaft connects to my bellhousing and mounting plate. It is a unmodified ITS tailstock. Would your tranny just mount directly to this?
03-03-2007, 05:37 AM
#16
Kurt
Last edited by Biggus; 03-03-2007 at 05:42 AM.
03-03-2007, 12:20 PM
#17
Registered
Because in order to go between the bell and block would have required a too much material removal on the plate to clear the flywheel gear or a switch to steel (much thinner) instead of .500" aluminum. Everything is doweled, helicoiled and connected with ARP bolts. Although I have not run this exact set up before, I have run the mounting plate at the rear of the bell on two non staggered engines with no problems.
This picture was taken during mock up. I also had a major space issue finding the room to mount oil coolers and large heat exchangers for closed cooling. I though with staggered engines I was going to have tons of room to work with but in reality the stringer space was gobbled up very quickly with shifters, strainers, battery mounts, power steering coolers and prelubers etc. I don't want one extra inch of hose so getting the layout just right for all this to fit neatly would have clashed significantly with the plate being moved forward 5 inches.
The reason I am asking so many questions is because I am not confident my Merc ITS Sportmasters will hold up and I need to get prepared for what I may need to do about that.
For many many reasons, I would have gone side by sides if ordering the boat tomorrow. For one, Outdrive options would have included trannies in the bilge and Arneson drives. Both fo those options are off the table here.
This picture was taken during mock up. I also had a major space issue finding the room to mount oil coolers and large heat exchangers for closed cooling. I though with staggered engines I was going to have tons of room to work with but in reality the stringer space was gobbled up very quickly with shifters, strainers, battery mounts, power steering coolers and prelubers etc. I don't want one extra inch of hose so getting the layout just right for all this to fit neatly would have clashed significantly with the plate being moved forward 5 inches.
The reason I am asking so many questions is because I am not confident my Merc ITS Sportmasters will hold up and I need to get prepared for what I may need to do about that.
For many many reasons, I would have gone side by sides if ordering the boat tomorrow. For one, Outdrive options would have included trannies in the bilge and Arneson drives. Both fo those options are off the table here.
Last edited by 2112; 03-03-2007 at 12:30 PM.
03-03-2007, 03:09 PM
#18
I understand, space is limited. Are you going to run a custom coupler (deeper) to retain proper input shaft engagement?
Pretty cool project! I've been a big Ford fan for years
My high school car was a Pinto with a tunnel rammed, nitrous injected small block V-8 Ford, 9" 4:57 locker, Top Loader 4 speed 
How big are your mills?
Kurt
Pretty cool project! I've been a big Ford fan for years
My high school car was a Pinto with a tunnel rammed, nitrous injected small block V-8 Ford, 9" 4:57 locker, Top Loader 4 speed How big are your mills?
Kurt
03-03-2007, 06:15 PM
#19
Registered
Not sure what you mean by custom (deeper) coupler. at the transom, I use the Merc carrier assembly for the ITS input shaft.
They are 605 inch, ahem... "mild" 8.9 to 1 compression motors.
They are 605 inch, ahem
... "mild" 8.9 to 1 compression motors.
03-03-2007, 06:44 PM
#20
[QUOTE=2112;2045761]Not sure what you mean by custom (deeper) coupler. at the transom, I use the Merc carrier assembly for the ITS input shaft.
Just wondering because with that 1/2" aluminum plate between the carrier and flywheel housing, you will have 1/2" less engagement of the input shaft into the coupler, or drive plate if you were running transmissions.
About 20 years ago, I had a rotted transom rebuilt. Unknown to me at the time the glass guy thought he was doing me a favor by making it 1/2" thicker than what is was originally. During this process I built a pair of blower motors. After everything was together I was stripping out the TRS input shaft splines. We thought the bigger power was stripping the splines. It turned out with the 1/2" thicker transom, there was not enough spline engagement into the drive plate.
That's going to be one unique Ciggie! Big Fords Rule!
Kurt
Just wondering because with that 1/2" aluminum plate between the carrier and flywheel housing, you will have 1/2" less engagement of the input shaft into the coupler, or drive plate if you were running transmissions.
About 20 years ago, I had a rotted transom rebuilt. Unknown to me at the time the glass guy thought he was doing me a favor by making it 1/2" thicker than what is was originally. During this process I built a pair of blower motors. After everything was together I was stripping out the TRS input shaft splines. We thought the bigger power was stripping the splines. It turned out with the 1/2" thicker transom, there was not enough spline engagement into the drive plate.
That's going to be one unique Ciggie! Big Fords Rule!
Kurt
Last edited by Biggus; 03-03-2007 at 07:01 PM.
