mine wrote:.....Now the question is why would anyone in marketing not pick the highest numbers to use?......
mfine wrote:Chris Craft seems to have used a true net shaft hp rating. The 283 power curve I mentioned had a curve of gross (without accessories) and net (with accessories). The net rating for the 283 was 185 hp at 4000 rpm which is what CC referred to and labeled the engine with. The gross hp peak was about 209 hp. The foot notes mention net hp includes all accessories and attachments including the exhaust pipe.
Oberon01 wrote:Also, I was at dinner talking about the 430/31 CC/FEL engine tonight. We were discussing the potential of replacing a perfectly good 430/31 with a new Mercruiser SB - I thought it a waste of time. Merc probably has roughly similar net HP (275), less torque, but lighter weight and less fuel consumption, but at what cost? The 430/31 is physically a very large engine, to my eye anyway. I have had one rebuilt for my '61 21' CC Conti and I bet it will just fly.
Oberon01 wrote:Peter - I am with you on the engines. It is just my personal preference, but all my boats have original engines and in the case of the O/B's period correct engines. For me, the original engines are integral to the experience of running an older boat but I certainly understand why others would feel differently.
The rebuilder who has done my 430 (I believe the 431 was simply a thermostatically controlled 430)has been in business for decades and does all the exotic old Packards, for instance, in Portland. I am certain that this was well within their experience and capabilities. I had a Scripps 208 fully rebuilt last year and I figured this would be easy compared to parts challenges with that one. I also bought a complete 430 marine parts engine, so I am hopeful that it the job went okay. The builder wants to dyno it for me at a cost of about $1k. Not sold on the need for that, but given your remarks on pistons and compression ratios,, it might be worthwhile.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests