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?

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.


--
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.

"wf3h" wrote in message
...
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?

FWC is always a plus. The engine can be run at better operating temps,
giving better fuel consumption numbers. RWC engines, in salt have to run
below designed operation temps as salt will precipitate out at the higher
temps. Plus lots less corrosion problems and easier to winterize. I do
not drain my engine for cold weather, just check the antifreeze.

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?

Yes. Generally speaking. Also pay attention to everything about the
boat. Look for signs of neglect or shoddy maintenance. If everything
looks ship shape, chances are the running gear is well taken care of also.

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.

On Jul 31, 6:22*pm, J i m 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?

Yes. Generally speaking. Also pay attention to everything about the
boat. Look for signs of neglect or shoddy maintenance. If everything
looks ship shape, chances are the running gear is well taken care of also..

Thanks much...appreciate it.

On Jul 31, 4:23*pm, 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.

--

appreciate it harry...engineering wise it looks like a good idea to go
with FWC.

On Jul 31, 4:32*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message

...

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?

FWC is always a plus. *The engine can be run at better operating temps,
giving better fuel consumption numbers. *RWC engines, in salt have to run
below designed operation temps as salt will precipitate out at the higher
temps. * Plus lots less corrosion problems and easier to winterize. *I do
not drain my engine for cold weather, just check the antifreeze.

yeah that's what i thought...avoiding corrosion is a big deal for
engine life...

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:32:40 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"wf3h" wrote in message
...
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?

FWC is always a plus. The engine can be run at better operating temps,
giving better fuel consumption numbers. RWC engines, in salt have to run
below designed operation temps as salt will precipitate out at the higher
temps. Plus lots less corrosion problems and easier to winterize. I do
not drain my engine for cold weather, just check the antifreeze.

To nitpick just a little:
It isn't salt that precipitates out inside the cooling passages in the
block. It's carbonates, notably calcium. And it isn't really
antifreeze, its function in all cases is to raise the boiling point,
while freezing is often not an issue. I just call it glycol. A trivia
note: 90% glycol freezes at -90 F while the pure stuff freezes at 8
above. However it wouldn't matter if it did, it isn't water, and
doesn't expand when it freezes. 50/50 will get you all the boiling
point you need, while the pure stuff is a lofty 410. You can't get
away with pure water in a modern car, you would boil it all out in no
time. Coolant, not antifreeze. Not that it matters. You ask for
antifreeze when you need some glycol to raise the boiling point. At
one time they used methanol/water mix in the winter, and plain water
in the summer, when all the alcohol would boil away. You used to have
a 140 F thermostat for winter, 180 for summer.

Casady