small blocks or big blocks?
12-19-2009 | 11:44 AM
#131
Registered
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,442
Likes: 19
From: Washington, MO
Sooo....
new to the site and I think its great. I started a new project its a 30 panther and I am completely restoring it. I am considering some 383 small blocks because of building costs and fuel consumption. I would like to see speeds in the mid to high 70's with bravo 1's. or should I just go with the big blocks? Do you think the small blocks would hold up? I have never owned a boat with small blocks but I like the weight and the hp and tq ratings using smaller carbs not to mention the room to work on them. What do you think? good or bad idea?
Something that has not been covered much is the potential weight savings. Comparing the published weight of a MerCruiser 496 and 6.2 (twins) you save 412 lbs. Nothing to sneeze at when you are considering fuel consumption and performance. Although this weight comparison is closed cooling (496) to fresh water cooled (6.2). Now all aluminum LS packages would be even lighter! (so will your wallet.
)If I did my math correctly you can expect around 7.6 cubic feet of additional room in the engine compartment with small blocks.
The lighter weight out back definitely effects the CG of the boat. A boat that size should like reduced tail weight when considering rough water handling. It would be interesting to know if a 30 Panther has been built with twin small blocks.
12-19-2009 | 01:22 PM
#132
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
From: Lake County. Ohio
did you decide on what engines to go with?
Something that has not been covered much is the potential weight savings. Comparing the published weight of a MerCruiser 496 and 6.2 (twins) you save 412 lbs. Nothing to sneeze at when you are considering fuel consumption and performance. Although this weight comparison is closed cooling (496) to fresh water cooled (6.2). Now all aluminum LS packages would be even lighter! (so will your wallet.)
If I did my math correctly you can expect around 7.6 cubic feet of additional room in the engine compartment with small blocks.
The lighter weight out back definitely effects the CG of the boat. A boat that size should like reduced tail weight when considering rough water handling. It would be interesting to know if a 30 Panther has been built with twin small blocks.
Something that has not been covered much is the potential weight savings. Comparing the published weight of a MerCruiser 496 and 6.2 (twins) you save 412 lbs. Nothing to sneeze at when you are considering fuel consumption and performance. Although this weight comparison is closed cooling (496) to fresh water cooled (6.2). Now all aluminum LS packages would be even lighter! (so will your wallet.
)If I did my math correctly you can expect around 7.6 cubic feet of additional room in the engine compartment with small blocks.
The lighter weight out back definitely effects the CG of the boat. A boat that size should like reduced tail weight when considering rough water handling. It would be interesting to know if a 30 Panther has been built with twin small blocks.
I wish I knew what my boat weighes .
I realy could use the room. The transom only measures 7'3" wide.
You could take off another 50#plus using aluminum heads and Intakes.
The reason I'm thinking bb is I have distributors all the brackets,pulleys and motor mounts. (but I think they fit both). It seems most like the bb's and think I won't have enough tourqe or dependability with sbc's.
Im' not sold that the bb's are cheaper. every time I price parts to do a build the sbc seem to win every time.
But I did find a great price on some all forged 434 cid sb's. Good stuf too Eagle crank, h-beam rods, Clevite bearings. In Dart blocks for about what stock 454 short blocks would cost.
I have some time to think about it.
12-19-2009 | 10:34 PM
#136
Registered
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,480
Likes: 43
From: Tennessee
Eddie
12-19-2009 | 10:41 PM
#137
Registered
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
From: Chatham.Ontario
Personally I favour the scat parts over eagle
12-19-2009 | 10:48 PM
#139
Registered
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,480
Likes: 43
From: Tennessee
I've been meaning to change that. I used to use them a few years ago and their quality control went in the crapper. I use Scat cranks in that engine now and it is a much nicer piece. I typed that spec sheet up about 5 years ago and just keep forgetting to change it.
12-19-2009 | 10:52 PM
#140
Registered
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,480
Likes: 43
From: Tennessee
I got tired of having to grind the bearing clearance into the crank for both the rods and mains. The journals would vary almost .001 from one to the next. It would take me days to set up the bearings. I have spent as much as 3 days to set rod and main bearing clearances. I can't afford to do that....and I shouldn't have to. Up until about 3 years ago the Eagle stuff wasn't that bad. It was decent for the money. But not now. It's not worth it to me if they were free.
Eddie
Eddie
