1459Re:Has anyone ever actually built Restless?
- Feb 18, 2007John, 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>
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>