Gene wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:23:09 -0400, H the K
wrote:

wf3h wrote:
Is FWC a significant advantage vs RWC? Seems to me it is...I remember
seeing the Chesapeake being sucked into my engine at low tide on the
Elk River. Although this would happen to a heat exchanger in a FWC
engine, the long term damage of corrosion, etc. seems much less.

Is it worth making a decision regarding 2 comparable boats if 1 is FWC
vs RWC?

I would go for the FWC, and inspect or have someone inspect theheat
exchanger and pipes very carefully. Some years ago, when I was looking
at a center console boat with a an FWC inboard, I noticed it was
equipped with a hose connection to flush the heat exchanger. I don't
remember the details, but it wasn't very complicated.

That may have been MST, but they went Tango Uniform.

Then, again....... maybe not.
http://www.mstguardian.com/


Maybe. I didn't look close enough to pick up the details. The salesman
pointed out the hose connection and said it was to fresh-water flush the
heat exchanger. If memory serves, it was on a Shamrock boat.


--
Whatever moral rules you have proposed, abide by them as they were laws,
and as if you would be guilty of impiety by violating any of them,
*unless* you are a conservative Republican office holder or minister. If
that is your position in life, then anything goes.