On Oct 4, 10:22 am, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:17:57 -0400, HK wrote:
To me, the real downside of an I/O is the drive and the drive's big
rubber boot. The drive, because it adds complexity, and the boot
because, well, use your imagination.

We have a lot of I/Os in our area of SW Florida, including about 80%
of my neighbors. Interestingly enough you don't hear about many boot
problems although one neighbor did succeed in ripping the I/O clean
off the transom creating a boot failure of sorts. :-)

Cooling issues, manifolds and risers are near the top of the list
based on what I've observed.


I was going to say,t hat if I had an I/O on salt, I'd want an enclosed
cooling system, but still pull the boat after every use, and flush the
lower end with fresh water.

"HK" wrote in message
. ..



I agree with that, even on smaller boats, so long as they have some sort
of keel/prop pocket underneath and fresh water cooling.


http://www.eisboch.com/rudder.jpg

Eisboch

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:35:42 -0700, Tim wrote:

On Oct 4, 10:22 am, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:17:57 -0400, HK wrote:
To me, the real downside of an I/O is the drive and the drive's big
rubber boot. The drive, because it adds complexity, and the boot
because, well, use your imagination.

We have a lot of I/Os in our area of SW Florida, including about 80%
of my neighbors. Interestingly enough you don't hear about many boot
problems although one neighbor did succeed in ripping the I/O clean
off the transom creating a boot failure of sorts. :-)

Cooling issues, manifolds and risers are near the top of the list
based on what I've observed.


I was going to say,t hat if I had an I/O on salt, I'd want an enclosed
cooling system, but still pull the boat after every use, and flush the
lower end with fresh water.



I googled marine cooling and this is one of my responses:

http://tinyurl.com/cqhmu

Some good info on cooling systems he

http://tinyurl.com/yozrfc

I wish I'd known about the fresh water systems when I bought the boat. I
don't know why they aren't the standard, although they may be the standard
now. I wonder how much more difficult changing the oil filter becomes with
all that extra piping and the exchanger mounted over the engine?

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 02:43:54 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...



I agree with that, even on smaller boats, so long as they have some sort
of keel/prop pocket underneath and fresh water cooling.


http://www.eisboch.com/rudder.jpg

Eisboch

That's without doubt the most beautiful rudder I've seen all morning. I
can't believe you pulled the boat out just to get a picture of the rudder
to respond to that post!

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:35:42 -0700, Tim wrote:

On Oct 4, 10:22 am, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:17:57 -0400, HK wrote:
To me, the real downside of an I/O is the drive and the drive's big
rubber boot. The drive, because it adds complexity, and the boot
because, well, use your imagination.

We have a lot of I/Os in our area of SW Florida, including about 80%
of my neighbors. Interestingly enough you don't hear about many boot
problems although one neighbor did succeed in ripping the I/O clean
off the transom creating a boot failure of sorts. :-)

Cooling issues, manifolds and risers are near the top of the list
based on what I've observed.


I was going to say,t hat if I had an I/O on salt, I'd want an enclosed
cooling system, but still pull the boat after every use, and flush the
lower end with fresh water.



I googled marine cooling and this is one of my responses:

http://tinyurl.com/cqhmu

Some good info on cooling systems he

http://tinyurl.com/yozrfc

I wish I'd known about the fresh water systems when I bought the boat. I
don't know why they aren't the standard, although they may be the standard
now. I wonder how much more difficult changing the oil filter becomes with
all that extra piping and the exchanger mounted over the engine?

My heat exchanger is on top of the motor, just inside the port riser.
Changing the oil filter is no more problem than a raw water cooled motor.
Major reason that freshwater cooling is not standard, is it adds about $1000
to the cost of the motor. The Exchanger itself is about $6-700.

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 23:35:23 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:35:42 -0700, Tim wrote:

On Oct 4, 10:22 am, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:17:57 -0400, HK wrote:
To me, the real downside of an I/O is the drive and the drive's big
rubber boot. The drive, because it adds complexity, and the boot
because, well, use your imagination.

We have a lot of I/Os in our area of SW Florida, including about 80%
of my neighbors. Interestingly enough you don't hear about many boot
problems although one neighbor did succeed in ripping the I/O clean
off the transom creating a boot failure of sorts. :-)

Cooling issues, manifolds and risers are near the top of the list
based on what I've observed.


I was going to say,t hat if I had an I/O on salt, I'd want an enclosed
cooling system, but still pull the boat after every use, and flush the
lower end with fresh water.



I googled marine cooling and this is one of my responses:

http://tinyurl.com/cqhmu

Some good info on cooling systems he

http://tinyurl.com/yozrfc

I wish I'd known about the fresh water systems when I bought the boat. I
don't know why they aren't the standard, although they may be the standard
now. I wonder how much more difficult changing the oil filter becomes with
all that extra piping and the exchanger mounted over the engine?

My heat exchanger is on top of the motor, just inside the port riser.
Changing the oil filter is no more problem than a raw water cooled motor.
Major reason that freshwater cooling is not standard, is it adds about $1000
to the cost of the motor. The Exchanger itself is about $6-700.


Looking back now, I'd gladly pay the extra $1000 if the benefits are as
described. New manifolds and risers run about $6-700 also.

John H

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 23:35:23 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:35:42 -0700, Tim wrote:

On Oct 4, 10:22 am, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:17:57 -0400, HK wrote:
To me, the real downside of an I/O is the drive and the drive's big
rubber boot. The drive, because it adds complexity, and the boot
because, well, use your imagination.

We have a lot of I/Os in our area of SW Florida, including about 80%
of my neighbors. Interestingly enough you don't hear about many boot
problems although one neighbor did succeed in ripping the I/O clean
off the transom creating a boot failure of sorts. :-)

Cooling issues, manifolds and risers are near the top of the list
based on what I've observed.


I was going to say,t hat if I had an I/O on salt, I'd want an enclosed
cooling system, but still pull the boat after every use, and flush the
lower end with fresh water.



I googled marine cooling and this is one of my responses:

http://tinyurl.com/cqhmu

Some good info on cooling systems he

http://tinyurl.com/yozrfc

I wish I'd known about the fresh water systems when I bought the boat. I
don't know why they aren't the standard, although they may be the standard
now. I wonder how much more difficult changing the oil filter becomes with
all that extra piping and the exchanger mounted over the engine?

My heat exchanger is on top of the motor, just inside the port riser.
Changing the oil filter is no more problem than a raw water cooled motor.
Major reason that freshwater cooling is not standard, is it adds about $1000
to the cost of the motor. The Exchanger itself is about $6-700.


Looking back now, I'd gladly pay the extra $1000 if the benefits are as
described. New manifolds and risers run about $6-700 also.

I sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but, IIRC, the fresh water
cools only the engine. Salt water is still used to cool the fresh
water (in the heat exchanger). It is pumped in from the sea with the
standard water pump in the lower unit and returns to the sea by way of
the exhaust manifold(s), just like standard cooling. So if you're
thinking you'd be saving the manifolds from seawater's rust and
corrosion, you'd be wrong (if I'm right in my recollection).

Rick

wrote in message
...
John H

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 23:35:23 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:35:42 -0700, Tim wrote:

On Oct 4, 10:22 am, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:17:57 -0400, HK
wrote:
To me, the real downside of an I/O is the drive and the drive's big
rubber boot. The drive, because it adds complexity, and the boot
because, well, use your imagination.

We have a lot of I/Os in our area of SW Florida, including about 80%
of my neighbors. Interestingly enough you don't hear about many boot
problems although one neighbor did succeed in ripping the I/O clean
off the transom creating a boot failure of sorts. :-)

Cooling issues, manifolds and risers are near the top of the list
based on what I've observed.


I was going to say,t hat if I had an I/O on salt, I'd want an enclosed
cooling system, but still pull the boat after every use, and flush the
lower end with fresh water.



I googled marine cooling and this is one of my responses:

http://tinyurl.com/cqhmu

Some good info on cooling systems he

http://tinyurl.com/yozrfc

I wish I'd known about the fresh water systems when I bought the boat.
I
don't know why they aren't the standard, although they may be the
standard
now. I wonder how much more difficult changing the oil filter becomes
with
all that extra piping and the exchanger mounted over the engine?

My heat exchanger is on top of the motor, just inside the port riser.
Changing the oil filter is no more problem than a raw water cooled motor.
Major reason that freshwater cooling is not standard, is it adds about
$1000
to the cost of the motor. The Exchanger itself is about $6-700.


Looking back now, I'd gladly pay the extra $1000 if the benefits are as
described. New manifolds and risers run about $6-700 also.

I sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but, IIRC, the fresh water
cools only the engine. Salt water is still used to cool the fresh
water (in the heat exchanger). It is pumped in from the sea with the
standard water pump in the lower unit and returns to the sea by way of
the exhaust manifold(s), just like standard cooling. So if you're
thinking you'd be saving the manifolds from seawater's rust and
corrosion, you'd be wrong (if I'm right in my recollection).

Rick

You can have freshwater cooled or raw water cooled manifolds. Mine are
freshwater cooled. On the freshwater, there is a plate blocking off the
risers and the raw water cools them. So just the risers have to be
replaced. Mine are aluminum, and the last ones lasted 14 years.

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 22:05:17 -0500, lid wrote:

Looking back now, I'd gladly pay the extra $1000 if the benefits are as
described. New manifolds and risers run about $6-700 also.

I sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but, IIRC, the fresh water
cools only the engine. Salt water is still used to cool the fresh
water (in the heat exchanger). It is pumped in from the sea with the
standard water pump in the lower unit and returns to the sea by way of
the exhaust manifold(s), just like standard cooling. So if you're
thinking you'd be saving the manifolds from seawater's rust and
corrosion, you'd be wrong (if I'm right in my recollection).

It depends. Some FWC systems cool the manifolds with coolant, others
with raw water. The risers/elbows still see raw water regardless.
Obviously if the manifolds are still being cooled with raw water their
life expectancy will not be increased by FWC, only the block and
heads.

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 20:39:05 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

On the freshwater, there is a plate blocking off the
risers and the raw water cools them. So just the risers have to be
replaced. Mine are aluminum, and the last ones lasted 14 years.

I assume that is in fresh water, not salt?