290 Chine Walk....again
 

I know this has been done to death but I am still looking around for answers on the 290 and the chine walk issue. I was wondering if maybe the twin big blocks were the problem but they sold later 290's with the LS package (correct?) and also made a few with a single engine so I'm thinking weight is not the issue?
I have been told that the turned down chine at the very rear was it however at WOT I don't think they are even in the water and beyond that I don't see how they "introduce" chine walk. If they do, then why did they keep on building the boat with them? I thought they were there to help an "underpowered" boat get on plane faster.
My latest thought was making the bottom most inner strakes reach farther back towards the transom. They terminate quite a ways up. I know it may take away from the rough water ride but in my mind it would give the boat more stability. You'd think there could be a balance in ride and stability. Maybe this idea doesn't work at all?
I was asking about props in a different post about switching to a 5 blade instead of 4 blade to help further reduce chine walk because going from the 3 blade to 4 blade made a huge difference. Someone that owned a 270 said he installed IMCO shorty drives that were 2" shorter and it took care of his problem.
Should I assume that PQ looked into all of the options to settle the boat before deciding on a new hull that is only 1 foot longer and cost twice as much? I don't plan on going 100 mph in mine but the low to mid 70's without fear of being thrown out of the boat doesn't seem like a lot to ask. I think the last time I saw them for sale the add was for 70 mph for 70k. Maybe that was with the 6.2's?
Anyway, still looking for answers and idea's. Thanks

Older bajas had similar chine walk, shorty lowers solved it on them also. The drives are too deep and have too much leverage over the hull is my thought.

The 70 for 70 promotion was with twin 7.4L's.

How did they get an extra 7-10 mph with the same engines I have (had)? They must have taken out a lot of weight.

Interesting that if that indeed is the problem why wouldn't PQ look into that? Actually could have been great marketing to offer a more "performance" drive. Also waaaaay cheaper than the direction they took killing the 290 altogether.

As I've stated in previous threads, I've got a buddy with a '97 290 that came with 7.4L's and the only mods to the boat are the truck cast iron intakes were replaced with RPM Air-Gaps with 4150 Holleys with the choke towers cut off (tuned by Nickerson) and the stock 25" Mirage Plus props were worked by BBlades. Runs right at 70 MPH with zero chine-walk. Another buddy had one of the 70 for 70 boats new and I think it was new enough to come with the 7.4MPI's (L-29's) and he never complained of the boat being ill-handling. Something is wrong with your hull and/or setup. I've ridden in my buddy's 290 many times both on our local pond and at LOTO. Boat simply does not chine walk. I'm sure you could induce it by over-trimming or if you were to toss more power at it at some point it would need full hydraulic steering and a set of 280's like many hulls. Those wedges in the hull at the stern between the chine and first strake really should be left alone and should not be the cause of your issue.

nope was with small bocks

I've owned 3 and I have quite a few hours of R/D in this issue (also discussed with numerous PQ employees )lol

and like I replied at all the other threads " it is what it is " you will not be able to get the chine walk out of that boat, at times you will think you fixed it and next time you drive it just right and it will chime walk,

of also owned a couple of 300s and it's a totally different boat/hull not just a foot longer

The best I ever ran with the 25" 3-blade props was 63 mph on GPS. So mine's a 95. I looked at a 99 down the street and noticed that PQ changed to a 3 stringer system instead of the 4 stringers mine has. Is it possible that they made other subtle changes to the hull? What are your thoughts on my idea of adding a foot or so to the bottom lifting strakes? Also, I don't plan on doing anything with the turned down chine at the rear. Was just pointing out that someone thought that was the reason for the chine walk. It rides great now but that is only at 60mph. I'll have to see how it handles this upcoming season with the new power and go from there. I already have the full hydraulic steering and not sure about the larger tabs. Maybe. There was a guy on here claiming wild speeds and no tabs at all. Thanks for all of your input.

So the 70 for 70 was the 6.2's

Yup, I understand the 300 is way different. Was just wondering if they exhausted ideas on how to make the 290 better. It really is a great boat. I've never been dissatisfied with its performance.

no change in the hull/mold , some of the changes had to do with cost cutting,
3 stringers versus 4,
cheaper hardware for bolster seats,
thinner windshield frame,
no side engine vents,
deck railing shorter
even the horn is cheaper,lol

I did notice he was missing the side engine vents. I'll be sure to post how well my handles the bigger power. If it doesn't turn into a sh!tshow, I'll video the speed and rpm. Lol, If it goes south, then the video will just show sky, water, sky water then just water

I'm trying to figure out... Does your boat currently chine walk? Or are you preparing for chine walk. Yes with 3 blades no with 4 blades?
I added 52" of lifting strake to the bottom of my Scarab Panther and completely changed the characteristics of the hull.

Hey Rookie, It used to chine walk, especially with the 3-blade props. I made changes to the steering and also went with the 4-blade and all is good at least up to 60mph. I hope to be running in the mid 70's this season and it may be good to go at those speeds too. I really don't know. I guess I am looking for solutions if it becomes necessary. You adding to the strakes is exactly what I was asking about. I wasn't even sure you could do that. In my mind that would cure the problem completely however may adversely affect the rough water ride. Did you do the work or have it done? Expensive? It sounds expensive... I had my transom replaced at Bowkers (expensive) and I did send him an email asking if he has ever done that type of work but he never got back to me. Thanks for your info.

I did the strakes myself. I'm 50/50 if I would do it again. The outcome was great, but the effort sucked. Many hours laying on my back cutting, grinding, sanding, glassing and gel-coating. I hate glass work. I had a new transom put in my Active Thunder 2 years ago and just paid a glass gut to do it. I pulled everything and all he did was the glass and sanding.

If the steering changes you made was adding hydraulic steering that is a step in the right direction. If you don't have full hydraulic steering I would do that next. The best thing that can be done to any boat is full hyd steering.

How did you come up with 52" of additional strake? I was just thinking a couple feet or so.
I too gutted my boat myself and Bowkers did the work and I put it all together again. I really enjoy that process. I don't think I'm good at it but I do enjoy it.
I have no desire however to add on to the strakes if I decided to go that route. Was hoping Bowkers would be interested.
I did put full hydraulic steering on it and it is great. This year I have the combining valve so both pumps will run the steering.

Not how I remember it. Not saying I'm right and you're wrong, but I had a buddy buy one and it came with big blocks. I vaguely remember the promotion ads and my memory is with 7.4's. Would love to see some of the old promotional ads.

knot 4 me, I too would like to see some of the old ads for PQ. I have done some searching but apparently either I'm not very good at it (probably the problem) or it doesn't exist in digital form. I also looked around for the "Unicorn Enticer running at Loto" and can't find that either.

70 for 70 was PQs way of getting rid of old stock because they were working on the 300 and they were facing the 290 out of their line,

the 70 for 70 promotion was at the end of 2001 going into 2002, was only offered with small blocks, merc had discontinued the 7.4s by then,

hate to admit it but I spend way too much time at the PQ factory back then lol

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.off...282289a4de.jpg
$hitty picture but my buddy owned this 2002 70 for 70 boat, his small blocks always ran just a bit faster than my big block 290s

20 years ago. Where does the time go? I like the graphics waaaay better than the 95.

Yes, if it started in '01 that is the year the 6.2 replaced the 7.4MPI and the 496 replaced the 502. I thought they had some old stock of the 7.4's in inventory that they were putting in the boats. Hence why I remember them coming with big blocks. I have a vague memory of a posting somewhere of a promotional ad for them that listed what options you got. I'll see if I can hunt that down.