On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:25:57 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:10:12 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:44:37 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:28:39 -0700, JR North
wrote:
|
|. Now I get to pull the heads......
|Oh well, the engine is 18 years old, has 495 Hrs on it, and with all
|that down time, a seized valve is not unusual.
|
|Triple ****.
|
|Oh - whoops. :)
|
|Well, hey, look at it this way - as long as you have the heads off,
|look around for cylinder scoring, slop, etc.
|
|Hell, might be time for a new engine. :)
|
|(At least that's what I'd be telling SWMBO) :)

Goal: Plausible Deniability.......

Damn straight.

That's how I got my ETEC. :)

A little fudging here, a little truth twisting there - bingo.

New engine. :)

I thought that eTec was fifth prize in a beauty contest. First prize was
a weekend in Philly.

Geese 'em pete Harry - that was your prize.

Remember? You won the Parker when you placed First in the "I am a
dork and look like one contest. You had to submit an essay on why you
would look like a dork in a Parker with no transom.

The way you told it, you also got second and third which managed to
get you the Yamaha - by default because nobody else wanted it. :)

Bingo. First prize to Jim. It's FWC, just salt water from the failed
manifold(s) in the exhaust ports. That was why I oiled it when I pulled
the manifolds. Didn't work....
JR





Salt water in the valve guides.
Rebuilders won't touch heads from sal****er boats.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Home Page: http://www.seanet.com/~jasonrnorth

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:25:57 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:10:12 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:44:37 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:28:39 -0700, JR North
wrote:
|
|. Now I get to pull the heads......
|Oh well, the engine is 18 years old, has 495 Hrs on it, and with all
|that down time, a seized valve is not unusual.
|
|Triple ****.
|
|Oh - whoops. :)
|
|Well, hey, look at it this way - as long as you have the heads off,
|look around for cylinder scoring, slop, etc.
|
|Hell, might be time for a new engine. :)
|
|(At least that's what I'd be telling SWMBO) :)

Goal: Plausible Deniability.......
Damn straight.

That's how I got my ETEC. :)

A little fudging here, a little truth twisting there - bingo.

New engine. :)
I thought that eTec was fifth prize in a beauty contest. First prize was
a weekend in Philly.

Geese 'em pete Harry - that was your prize.

Remember? You won the Parker when you placed First in the "I am a
dork and look like one contest. You had to submit an essay on why you
would look like a dork in a Parker with no transom.

The way you told it, you also got second and third which managed to
get you the Yamaha - by default because nobody else wanted it. :)

Dumbass Don was third prize. Nobody wanted him either.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Remember? You won the Parker when you placed First in the "I am a
dork and look like one contest. You had to submit an essay on why you
would look like a dork in a Parker with no transom.



Ahh, the transom routine again, considering:

A. The transom on my boat is 25" only where the engine is mounted, and
on either side of the motor cutout, the transom rapidly rises to about a
foot higher, while the transom on your boat is about 25" high across its
entire width.

B. Under certain circumstances, water may come aboard either of our
boats via the stern. In your case, a gallon or two of it will fill that
little motor well first, and then if there is a lot more, it will simply
cascade and flood over your back deck and into the cockpit, where it
will be momentarily trapped under the little scuppers let it out. If
that much water gets into my boat over the transom, it will flush itself
out almost immediately via four substantial scuppers and if necessary
over the bottom of the motor cutout.

C. Since my boat has so much more freeboard than yours in the bow and
from the bow to the stern, your boat is far more likely to take a
greenie over the bow than mine is. Again, though, if both boats took the
same wave over the bow, mine would drain faster because it can directly
reach the scuppers at the stern and the transom cutout if need be, while
in your boat the water would be trapped in your cockpit until the
scuppers could drain it.

D. Because your boat has substantially lower sides than mine, in
breaking seas, your boat is far more likely to take a greenie over the
side than mine is, especially if you find yourself traveling down a wave
trough.

And, as to design, while your boat is certainly more suited for shallow
water operation with its near flat bottom, it is less suitable than mine
to take on head seas without slowing waaaaay down. Both boats are
relatively small and will bounce; yours bounces more.

Now, which boat would I want on a typical bass lake? Yours. Except for
the engine, of course: too much horsepower, ungainly mount (30" lower
unit on a 25" transom that requires a bracket, right?)

I'll be glad to entertain any rebuttal of yours that does not ignore the
laws of physics. The usual idiotic comments from the Seven Dwarfs are
not relevant.

Let's see photos of your boat from the stern and from the cockpit
looking sternward, and with a yardstick up against the hullsides from
the deck and from the deck up against the transom.

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Remember? You won the Parker when you placed First in the "I am a
dork and look like one contest. You had to submit an essay on why you
would look like a dork in a Parker with no transom.



Ahh, the transom routine again, considering:

A. The transom on my boat is 25" only where the engine is mounted, and on
either side of the motor cutout, the transom rapidly rises to about a foot
higher, while the transom on your boat is about 25" high across its entire
width.

B. Under certain circumstances, water may come aboard either of our boats
via the stern. In your case, a gallon or two of it will fill that little
motor well first, and then if there is a lot more, it will simply cascade
and flood over your back deck and into the cockpit, where it will be
momentarily trapped under the little scuppers let it out. If that much
water gets into my boat over the transom, it will flush itself out almost
immediately via four substantial scuppers and if necessary over the bottom
of the motor cutout.

C. Since my boat has so much more freeboard than yours in the bow and from
the bow to the stern, your boat is far more likely to take a greenie over
the bow than mine is. Again, though, if both boats took the same wave over
the bow, mine would drain faster because it can directly reach the
scuppers at the stern and the transom cutout if need be, while in your
boat the water would be trapped in your cockpit until the scuppers could
drain it.

D. Because your boat has substantially lower sides than mine, in breaking
seas, your boat is far more likely to take a greenie over the side than
mine is, especially if you find yourself traveling down a wave trough.

And, as to design, while your boat is certainly more suited for shallow
water operation with its near flat bottom, it is less suitable than mine
to take on head seas without slowing waaaaay down. Both boats are
relatively small and will bounce; yours bounces more.

Now, which boat would I want on a typical bass lake? Yours. Except for the
engine, of course: too much horsepower, ungainly mount (30" lower unit on
a 25" transom that requires a bracket, right?)

I'll be glad to entertain any rebuttal of yours that does not ignore the
laws of physics. The usual idiotic comments from the Seven Dwarfs are not
relevant.

Let's see photos of your boat from the stern and from the cockpit looking
sternward, and with a yardstick up against the hullsides from the deck and
from the deck up against the transom.


Harry is not a boat designer but he plays one on Rec.Boats.
I would think that If Tom thought Parker was a worthy boat, he would own a
couple of them. Tom is a boatman and a pretty good fisherman. Harry is a
blow hard. I think that just about covers it.

Jim wrote:

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Remember? You won the Parker when you placed First in the "I am a
dork and look like one contest. You had to submit an essay on why you
would look like a dork in a Parker with no transom.



Ahh, the transom routine again, considering:

A. The transom on my boat is 25" only where the engine is mounted, and
on either side of the motor cutout, the transom rapidly rises to about
a foot higher, while the transom on your boat is about 25" high across
its entire width.

B. Under certain circumstances, water may come aboard either of our
boats via the stern. In your case, a gallon or two of it will fill
that little motor well first, and then if there is a lot more, it will
simply cascade and flood over your back deck and into the cockpit,
where it will be momentarily trapped under the little scuppers let it
out. If that much water gets into my boat over the transom, it will
flush itself out almost immediately via four substantial scuppers and
if necessary over the bottom of the motor cutout.

C. Since my boat has so much more freeboard than yours in the bow and
from the bow to the stern, your boat is far more likely to take a
greenie over the bow than mine is. Again, though, if both boats took
the same wave over the bow, mine would drain faster because it can
directly reach the scuppers at the stern and the transom cutout if
need be, while in your boat the water would be trapped in your cockpit
until the scuppers could drain it.

D. Because your boat has substantially lower sides than mine, in
breaking seas, your boat is far more likely to take a greenie over the
side than mine is, especially if you find yourself traveling down a
wave trough.

And, as to design, while your boat is certainly more suited for
shallow water operation with its near flat bottom, it is less suitable
than mine to take on head seas without slowing waaaaay down. Both
boats are relatively small and will bounce; yours bounces more.

Now, which boat would I want on a typical bass lake? Yours. Except for
the engine, of course: too much horsepower, ungainly mount (30" lower
unit on a 25" transom that requires a bracket, right?)

I'll be glad to entertain any rebuttal of yours that does not ignore
the laws of physics. The usual idiotic comments from the Seven Dwarfs
are not relevant.

Let's see photos of your boat from the stern and from the cockpit
looking sternward, and with a yardstick up against the hullsides from
the deck and from the deck up against the transom.


Harry is not a boat designer but he plays one on Rec.Boats.
I would think that If Tom thought Parker was a worthy boat, he would own
a couple of them. Tom is a boatman and a pretty good fisherman. Harry is
a blow hard. I think that just about covers it.


As I stated, the usual idiotic comments from the Seven Dwarfs (and
Florida Jim is a leading dwarf) are not relevant, expecially from the
dwarfs who apparently do not even own boats. (Florida Jim again).

"DK" wrote in message
news
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:25:57 -0400, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:10:12 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:44:37 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:28:39 -0700, JR North
wrote:
|
|. Now I get to pull the heads......
|Oh well, the engine is 18 years old, has 495 Hrs on it, and with all
|that down time, a seized valve is not unusual.
|
|Triple ****.
|
|Oh - whoops. :)
|
|Well, hey, look at it this way - as long as you have the heads off,
|look around for cylinder scoring, slop, etc.
|
|Hell, might be time for a new engine. :)
|
|(At least that's what I'd be telling SWMBO) :)

Goal: Plausible Deniability.......
Damn straight.

That's how I got my ETEC. :)

A little fudging here, a little truth twisting there - bingo.

New engine. :)
I thought that eTec was fifth prize in a beauty contest. First prize was
a weekend in Philly.

Geese 'em pete Harry - that was your prize.

Remember? You won the Parker when you placed First in the "I am a
dork and look like one contest. You had to submit an essay on why you
would look like a dork in a Parker with no transom.

The way you told it, you also got second and third which managed to
get you the Yamaha - by default because nobody else wanted it. :)

Dumbass Don was third prize. Nobody wanted him either.


You sure do like to sniff this unwanted butt.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:24:58 -0400, "Jim" wrote:

I would think that If Tom thought Parker was a worthy boat

If they changed the color from that monkey vomit beige to white, well
maybe I'd consider one. :)

It's just fun tweaking Harry about his boat - he gets so defensive
it's amusing.

My boat is what it is - never claimed it to be something different -
it's a great bay boat with decent range and a decent ride in heavier
weather. And it's pretty quick which is also a plus.

The fact that it's unique pleases me. My son mentioned something to
me the other day and he was right - this is the first boat I've ever
owned for longer than five years - I've had it for eight and I'm not
ever going to get rid of it.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 02:20:26 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

It's just fun tweaking Harry about his boat - he gets so defensive
it's amusing.

I had never noticed that.

:-))

On Jul 23, 5:56 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:46:59 -0400, "Jim" wrote:

Salt water in the valve guides.
Rebuilders won't touch heads from sal****er boats.

That sort of cuts down your options, don't it?
But why is that? I can see how the SW cooled heads might have
more of the passages eaten away, but they could grind, revalve,
respring, and reguide with no problem. Just make it clear future
cracks aren't warranteed, same as any head rebuild.
Anyway, I'm only batting .500 with shop work on heads.
I don't know anything about those boat engine manifolds, but I guess
that's how the salt got in the guides.
The other thing that doesn't make sense to me is how the piston hit
the valve, because I thought that engine was non-interference.
Couldn't find that's a fact anywhere though, so maybe I'm missing
something.
Seems like there's big differences between car and boat engines.
Think I'll get an O/B.

--Vic

Well, one thing is that engine heads are sort of a soft cast iron and
after years of salt water exposure, the minerals of said water
actually impregnate into the heads and cause the cast iron to break
down. just like an old rusty iron water pipe that's laid bare to the
elements over several years.

So quality machine work is next to impossible