Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1459Re:Has anyone ever actually built Restless?

Expand Messages
  • darrylhammonds
    Feb 18, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      John, thanks for the reply. That was good information. I asked Westerbeke if the W70GA
      could be used with a 1:1 transmission (since it comes bobtail) vice the 2.7:1 that it usually
      comes with. They said a ZF45C could easily be used. I sent some emails to a few dealers
      but no answer as of yet to the cost. Westerbeke wouldn't answer that question either. I
      can't "just call" as I am in Iraq right now. Do you know how much your friend paid?


      --- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "John Kohnen" <jkohnen@...> wrote:
      > I wonder where Wm. Atkin found a 133 cu. in. engine with reverse gear that
      > only weighed 350 lbs.? I don't have any data for engines in the thirties,
      > but a post 1939 Graymarine 140 cu. in. four weighs 510 lbs. with reverse
      > gear but no reduction and in the "high speed" model put out 62 hp. at
      > 3,600 rpm. <shrug> Atkin must have not been counting the reverse gear.
      > Westerbeke's 133 cu. in. diesel engine weighs 448 lbs. with reverse gear
      > and puts out 55 hp. at 3,000 rpm., and their 133 cu. in. gasoline engine
      > weighs 421 lbs. and puts out 66 hp. at 3,600 rpm. Either of those engines
      > would be a reasonable choice for Restless. The 44 hp. Westerbeke diesel
      > only weighs 416 lbs. with gear and would still make Restless scoot. I
      > don't know what Westerbeke bases their gas engine on (they're just
      > marinizers, not engine manufacturers) but I believe their diesels are
      > based on Kubota engines. Can't get much better than that... The Westerbeke
      > gas engine is ready to go into a boat and on the market today. A friend of
      > mine put one into a 22' Bartender and he was real impressed with the
      > performance and quality. The Westerbeke pushed the Bartender about 27 mph.
      > It's probably a bit much for Restless, but not crazy, and I think it's a
      > better choice than the Mercruiser (do you really want a GM motor?).
      > A reduction gear won't do anything to reduce horsepower (except the little
      > bit lost in the gears). You can reduce horsepower by overpropping the
      > engine so it doesn't spin up to where it makes peak horsepower, but you
      > can only do so much of that...
      > On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:55:15 -0800, darryl wrote:
      > > While I agree that modern diesels have more HP per LBS I do not see them
      > > as a better
      > > solution either. I went to Yanmar's and Westerbeke's website among
      > > others. Those 40hp
      > > engines weight over 500lbs with tranny. That will not work.
      > > Additionally the cost of a
      > > diesel is a deal breaker. While I agree (and knew all along) that 175hp
      > > is a lot of
      > > horsepower there are things to mitigate output RPMs such as reduction
      > > drives. HP is just
      > > one factor in a powertrain, as I know many of you know. However with
      > > Mercruiser putting
      > > out a new 1.6L I/O in a few months my dilema is solved providing I can
      > > hook a ZF tranny
      > > to it instead of the stern drive it comes with.
      > --
      > John <jkohnen@...>
      > There are two means of refuge from the misery of life - music
      > and cats. <Albert Schweitzer>
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic