Announcing a new project boat, a classic 23' Lancer Inboard

[Paul P]

Hi guys,

Well I'm adding another classic fiberglass Chris Craft to the fleet, it's on the way now from Maryland area without a motor or transmission, and seems to be generally "all there" but it will require stripping down to the bare insides and a total rebuild I'm sure.

Since I have two 427 fully marinized Ford motors in my shop now, I'm installing one of these in the 23. The iron intake on one of these big FE motors weighs 80 pounds, and by going to an aluminum 23 pounder, along with aluminum exhaust logs and risers, the final weight of the motor will be right on the same weight mark as the original SBC. I'll be asking you all for support, and I'll be sharing photo images of the work, which will undoubtedly take me at least a year the way I work and the way I'm pulled in every wihch way these days. One thing I could use now is a confirmation on the inboard transmission used on this particular model (is it direct drive or was it gear reduced in some form?) and also what prop was the standard size and pitch. This will give me a good starting point for my work.

Of the 2728 23' Lancer hulls produced(115 of these were badged as the 23' Commander) I see 643 of them were inboard models with the tunnel drive. All the rest of the boats had the full 24-degree deadrise at transom and used the outdrive or v-drive systems to work with that deep v. The inboard model, by virtue of where the shaft penetrated the hull, found it necessary to use a tunnel formed at the back section in order to avoid putting that prop way too low beneath the boat. As it was, the v-drive models with their prop down belwo the bottom of the boat, have a draft of 31", and a 31' Commander only has a draft of 28", so that tunnel kept draft down to a 28" dimension by eroding a portion of the final vee section of the hull. I don't think this would affect the overall handling of the boat, and I'm interested to learn more from anyone who has one of these.

Since my TrendMicro system is battling the CCABC site today I can not add an image, but I'm adding the link to the image here.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v472/ ... C01526.jpg

This is a similar boat I photographed a few years ago.

Onward and upward!

So many baots, so little time !!

[Paul P]

WARNING: If you are not a serious motor-head, you may want to avoid reading this post

Okay guys I have been researching the mild 427 build up for the 23' inboard project boat. Here are a few details. Realizing the 427 motor is already a fine marine design, I am not going to a crazy automotive stage here, as it would only toast the motor quickly and there is no point in doing that.

Therefore the build will be a mild tweak this first time around, thinking this is the safe thing to do and also thinking there is no need to go any further than 200 more horses than Chris Craft originally put into this hull. The original power for the 23' inboard Lancer was the 350Q which had a compression of 8.8:1, 235-hp at 4200 rpm, and weighed in at 964 pounds for the direct drive setup. The big dog weighs in at 1143 pounds with the same direct drive, but I am trimming off about 200 pounds so the balance and overall weight of the boat will be generally identical with NO weight premium for the big block.

The 23' inboard hull with 350Q weighs in at 3695 pounds, while the comparable 427 V-drive 23' Lancer Premiere/Custom Super Sport was 4200 and the 427 23 Commander V-drive was 4695. Therefore I am in the same league of 3695 pounds but with nearly twice the power of the original hull.

Compression will remain at 8.9:1, heads and rockers will remain stock, but the cam, intake, exhaust and carbs will be upgraded as the first step in speed for the 23 hull.

Limitations will be a 5000 rpm max engine speed. If the heads come off they will be re-used, perhaps in mildly ported form, as these are quite good Ford heads. Going to an aluminum Edelbrock would save weight, but would not appreciably gain all that much power. I like the iron heads. The intake alone will save half the weight of a small person (25 pounds versus 80 pounds for the iron manifold). Exhaust manifolds and risers will be all water jacketed cast aluminum racing NICSON type, which I already have. Therefore the overall weight of the motor with manifolds will be about 175 200 pounds lighter, perhaps a bit more due to the fact that those marine 427 iron exhaust manifolds and risers are VERY heavy.

Comp Cam grind 270S will be used, featuring an operating band of 1800 to 5500 RPM, part number 33-244-4, advertised duration 270 (actual 224 at .050) and lift .540, with 110 lobe separation angle.

This is getting somewhat close to the original PI (Police Interceptor) cam Ford used. It is noted that Holman Moody original c3az-aa at 228-228-114 was the original 427/410hp cam, so this Comp is a reasonable choice. Compression is not going to be altered so this will keep power (and related heat generated within the motor) within reason.

For the record, the Ford 270/290 duration, .481 lift cam, was the stock police interceptor grind, and this was tweaked a bit to Cobrajet specs ie.279/290 duration and .481 lift.

It has been recommended to go with a (205-215) with at least.500 lift and 110-112 degree lobe centers as an improvement to the so-called old tech CJ/GT/PI cams, so this is yet another reason I settled on the Comp 270S. Comp has a good reputation, and everyone I checked with said to avoid the next step up, which would be the 282S, as it was more cam than the motor would be able to use (236 at .050 and .571 lift).

Spring load with the Comp solid 270s is just under 300 pounds, and the unsupported end rockers on the Ford rocker shaft are supposed to be able to handle this. After all, Ford was selling this same rocker assembly on engines rated for 6,000 rpm. To be safe however, I am adding a set of aluminum rocker shaft end supports from Precision Oil Pumps, as a 100% assurance to any thought of failure here. These are quite affordable and would be easy to install.

I have the full closed cooling system, but am thinking that this one will be raw water cooled, primarily for weight control, and the fact that the closed systems seem to run a bit on the hot side. This decision has not been made yet, but will be soon.

I am not intending to build this as a "go fast boat", just a very nicely done classic Lancer 23 but with lots of power. The 427-powered 23' Commander and the similar 23' Lancer Premier/Custom Super Sport, as well as numerous Monte Carlo models sold in Italy by Herb Pocklington, all had the same general level of power so I don't think I'll be over-powering the hull. Power expectation from the mods noted will be under 400, probably in the 350 range realistically.

As this project unfolds over the next 12 months (or so) I'll be posting engine info and test run data, etc. Stay tuned.

regards,

Paul

[rgmxk22]

Hi Paul,

Sounds like a cool project! I've never really thought about a big block in a 23' Lancer. I know the 23" Commanders came from CC that way, but your plan is interesting.

I've ran across 23' inboards a few times and maybe would have do something with them if I had the plan you're working on AND the engine.

Funny thing is I've wondered what big block power would do to my XK 22, but two things stop me. I don't want to realy change it much from the original set up from CC. Then I wonder what the extra weight would do to her since all the engine weight is right on the transom with the Volvo outdrive set up.

Anyway, I'll be looking forward to seeing updates on this project. Good Luck!!

Ron Michael
CC XK22
Akron, OH

[Paul P]

Thanks for the note. Two things come to mind.

Firstly the 427 Ford FE motor is actually a very light casting by comparison to others it competed against, such as the 426 boat anchor. Ford's thinwall casting techniques helped this, and they used a special kiln to help cool things down slowly in order to control core shift (shift in the fresh cast cylinder walls). This is one reason the motor was so successful in NASCAR, Cobra road racing, and LeMans, it was powerful and light.

In racing form they used aluminum heads and intake, and this makes the big block as light as a small block iron motor. My inboard application is exchanging enough iron for aluminum so as to achieve a no penalty weight issue.

Secondly, the power of a 427 big block is measured in horses and torque, and the original CC version at 300 hp is rated at 438 footpounds of torque. In other words, I think the torque would destroy the outdrive unless it was seriously upgraded.

I am planning on using a spare 1-3/8" shaft from a 38 Express on this 23, cut down to length of course, and a cruiser transmssion as well, re geared to whatever I must. Therefore the equipment will be VERY stout for this motor upgrade, as a part of the plan.

A boy has to have a hobby!

Regards, best,

Paul

[Wood Commander]

Paul, before I bought my 23' Lancer offshore, I turned down a 23' Commander with a 427 and V- drive because it was just too rough for me. But it would have been a cool boat fixed up!

They made 23' Lancer/Sport/Commanders with the Volvo outdrives, the inboard tunnel drive, and the inboard V- drive with all of the underwater gear totally beneath the bottom of the hull.

After hearing about a couple of people playing with the tunnel drive hulls, I think a little more speed is possible out of an I/O or V-drive.

My plan is to build a 400, .030 over, cu. in. small block Chevy with Vortec heads, reconfiguring from a 200 hp 307 "Q"/Volvo 250 powertrain to a 406 "F" type setup with a volvo 280 outdrive (23' Lancers were built with both Q's and F's with without any apparent rhyme or reason, they may have just wanted to use up an over stock supply of Q engines).
I've been gathering parts for some time now. Hopefully I'll be able to get started on it one of these days!
I've had a little concern about whether I'd be able to get enough prop under the outdrive for the new power combo, but I've been told I can.
And, I've been told the Volvo outdrives are over- engineered so I'm hoping that it can handle some more power.

Keep us up to date with the new project, sounds way cool!

[Paul P]

Well speed is not really my overall objective here, and if it was I would be using a faster hull. The deep v has more wetted area and more friction, obviously faster in rough water than a flat bottom, but in any case I like classic fiberglass Chris Craft boats and the size of this one. It is big enough for one of my spare motors too. The objective is a fast and comfortable cruising speed, not necessarily top speed.

I think you are right about more ultimate top speed with the outdrive, and I think the outdrive trumps the v-drive as well due to the efficiency of the prop angle and equally or less friction in the water. If you look at the outdrive and realize just what is in the water at speed, it's almost a surface prop, with very little else in the water to slow it down. On the v-drive you have a rather inefficient shaft angle, the shaft itself, and a rudder. I know the rear engine V-drive Casale front mounted v-drive type racing boats like the F Service runabouts (DANCING BEAR) strive for the most shallow shaft angle possible to get the best efficiency, and the v-drive system used by CC with the drive and motor bolted together is a far cry from the stand alone forward mounted and driveshaft connected Casale type, the CC version is more space efficient than power efficient.

Having said that, I'd be quite happy with any of them because the real differences will probably only manifest themselves in racing conditions. The Volvo outdrive has a good reputation and that model is clearly the one with the most versatility and interior space, as well as the ultimate Jim Wynne style of boat he originally wanted.

A good friend of mine, Bill Policastro, has GHOST RIDER, a 23 v-drive Commander with a tweaked SBC and it runs very strong. With the hotted up small block he is using a 14 x 11 cupped prop (original was 13 x 13 cupped spinning at slower top rpm). The bigger diameter gets the boat out of the water faster, and seems to work best in real world testing.

My project will take me some time, as the boat is not even here yet and I am searching for a suitable trailer so I can move it around as it goes through the restoration process. The 23 is a nice big and comfortable hull with the nice CLEAN Dick Avery lines. Like I said, a boy needs a hobby.

Funny thing one day I was at a boat show aboard a 47 Commander talking with the owner, who turned out to be a psychiatrist. I told him I thought the Nashville Metro Police department should actually be buying my boat parts for me, just to keep me off the streets. I explained, that for the mere price of an alternator, for instance, they could deep me off the streets for a half a day, and that would be a win/win situation. He then commented, "I would be willing to write you a letter right now". Ha!


Regards, sounds like we have a couple good Lancer projects on the way. Here is Bill's 23 SBC powered Commander, I can send you the motor specs if you want them for reference. He's putting out just a bit more than 300 hp with this setup, 327Q stock compression.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05C7N6_t ... r_embedded

[Paul P]

Just in case anyone thought I was going to booger up a good boat with an engine transplant, here is what I am starting with. First thing that will be done is to strip EVERYTHING out, including all the wiring. Floor structure, all vinyl, all seating, instruments, all woodwork, and of course the engine will have to be added. The boat presently has no engine, I think there was a duck living in the bilge. This boat will live to see another day, in about a year from now. Fiberglass hulls like this one used the same resin and glass construction methods as the Commander line of yachts. Granted, the workmanship on the small boats that were turned out in a volume sometimes did not match the high priced yachts, but the materials were the same. My 44-year old fiberglass Sea Skiff has no blisters and the bottom has never been painted, it's just bare gelcoat. They got it right.

These hulls are durable, and unless they have been broken in half or something catastrophic, they can be recycled. Stay tuned, this one will be receiving a lot of attention, and soon ! Don't hold your breath for the final photos, it will take me a while.



Regards,

Paul

[Paul P]

Bill (Basler), misery loves company, this should make you feel better about your Blue Bomb project, eh, knowing there is a nut-case like me out there about to endure this kind of pain (and fun) ?

Regards, best,

Paul