Trouble with SCX -4 on 27 Daytona
10-28-2015, 12:39 PM
#21
Registered
I have SCX UPPERS with 1400 lowers.
1) the helmet is longer, soooo the prop shaft is farther back. This changes setup
2)the front of part of my prop is blocked by the fat housing.
3)same gear from xr's to scx. I lost about 14 mph.
4)I went down in pitch to 33's but up one blade.
Lost 8 mph
I think no matter what it's going to take more hp to turn the scx.
1) the helmet is longer, soooo the prop shaft is farther back. This changes setup
2)the front of part of my prop is blocked by the fat housing.
3)same gear from xr's to scx. I lost about 14 mph.
4)I went down in pitch to 33's but up one blade.
Lost 8 mph
I think no matter what it's going to take more hp to turn the scx.
10-31-2015, 10:43 AM
#22
Registered
Hi Dirt173, did you ever get the set up right with the SCX-4 and gain any top end speed back?
The few guys I know with 26', & 27' Daytona's who went with the SCX-4 have all had difficulty getting top end speed back with the 1400 lower using bravo props.
I have not heard of anybody having great success surfacing the SCX-4 on a 27' Daytona bottom. If anybody has, please fill the rest of us in on the secret.
If you are still having trouble, I would ask IMCO to get you in touch with Brad at E-Ticket boats. From what I was told by Eliminator, he re-designed the 1400 lower for IMCO. I also heard he has blue printed some lowers for other people and it has helped re-gain some top end speed.
Hope this helps,
Bo
The few guys I know with 26', & 27' Daytona's who went with the SCX-4 have all had difficulty getting top end speed back with the 1400 lower using bravo props.
I have not heard of anybody having great success surfacing the SCX-4 on a 27' Daytona bottom. If anybody has, please fill the rest of us in on the secret.
If you are still having trouble, I would ask IMCO to get you in touch with Brad at E-Ticket boats. From what I was told by Eliminator, he re-designed the 1400 lower for IMCO. I also heard he has blue printed some lowers for other people and it has helped re-gain some top end speed.
Hope this helps,
Bo
10-31-2015, 05:08 PM
#23
Registered
My 1400's were blue printed from imco. The bullet will cut your finger. I think most of the speed loss is just the huge weight. I had to use a come along to lift them into place. I can pull a Xr/imco combo by myself.
10-31-2015, 05:54 PM
#24
Registered
CLA,
I am running what IMCO calls the SCX-3, I attached some photo's below. My drive looks identical to the SCX-4, but its not as short for lack of a better explanation. The standard SCX does not allow enough clearence to run a minus 3" lower unit, which I need. My new SCX-3 upper is way heavier than my old XR upper. I did not go with the 1400 lower for the exact reason of this thread, and I also wanted to keep my IMCO SC -3 short lowers due to X-deminsion/prop shaft height. The 1400 lower appears to have slowed most of the boats they have been placed on. I know the RPM boats really like the SCX-4 with 1400 lower in a surfacing application, but not 27' Eliminator Daytona's as far as I've heard. I have two -3 short SC lowers so I can switch in between rebuilds and incase one breaks. Sounds like you have done your research, and I agree with you that the 1400 lowers are just plane heavier. The gears in the upper of an SCX are massive compared to XR (bravo) style gears. I know the 1400 lower gears are the same way, massive in comparison. It only makes sense that it would take more HP to turn the bigger gears and drag a bigger lower unit along. I know E-ticket boats shaves down the cases and does some other stuff to create less drag, just like IMCO probably did to your lowers.
Cheers,
Bo
[ATTACH=CONFIG]547168[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]547169[/ATTACH]
I am running what IMCO calls the SCX-3, I attached some photo's below. My drive looks identical to the SCX-4, but its not as short for lack of a better explanation. The standard SCX does not allow enough clearence to run a minus 3" lower unit, which I need. My new SCX-3 upper is way heavier than my old XR upper. I did not go with the 1400 lower for the exact reason of this thread, and I also wanted to keep my IMCO SC -3 short lowers due to X-deminsion/prop shaft height. The 1400 lower appears to have slowed most of the boats they have been placed on. I know the RPM boats really like the SCX-4 with 1400 lower in a surfacing application, but not 27' Eliminator Daytona's as far as I've heard. I have two -3 short SC lowers so I can switch in between rebuilds and incase one breaks. Sounds like you have done your research, and I agree with you that the 1400 lowers are just plane heavier. The gears in the upper of an SCX are massive compared to XR (bravo) style gears. I know the 1400 lower gears are the same way, massive in comparison. It only makes sense that it would take more HP to turn the bigger gears and drag a bigger lower unit along. I know E-ticket boats shaves down the cases and does some other stuff to create less drag, just like IMCO probably did to your lowers.
Cheers,
Bo
[ATTACH=CONFIG]547168[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]547169[/ATTACH]
Last edited by EL Guapo; 10-31-2015 at 05:57 PM.
11-01-2015, 09:26 AM
#25
Registered
El Guapo, Love your boat,.. Just so I understand your current SCX setup, you have a regular SCX-4 Upper so to speak and are using a -3 SC imco lower making it a SCX-3? If so how much higher is your lower now verses your old setup with the B1XR and SC-3. And how does you boat perform with the new setup verses the old. I have a DCB M26 and I am just curious.
Thank you for the info you have aready posted.
Thank you for the info you have aready posted.
11-01-2015, 05:03 PM
#26
Registered
Hi J.P.
Yes, my upper has a curved cavitation plate like the SCX4, only I am not sure mine curves up as much in a vertical direction as the SCX4. I need to ask IMCO.
I would have purchased the SCX4, but the SCX4 bolt pattern only allows for the 1400 lower, as far as I was told by IMCO.
I was using an XR upper with a -3SC lower and had to add a 1/2" spacer to get boat to plane out. With this set up, my prop shaft height was about level with the bottom of the out side sponsons. After installing the SCX3 with the -3 lower, I am 1/2" above the bottom of the outside sponsons. I think I can explain why I am able to plane out with a 1/2" higher x-demension now, as opposed to before.
The prop shaft is now further back when compared to the XR with SC Lower by about 3/4", this puts the prop deeper in the water during take off. The SCX upper weighs more than my XR upper too. With the extra weight, and prop further back, I am deeper in the water than before and I don't need a spacer.
The boat really likes the new drive. It actually handles better, and more of the boat is out of the water at higher speeds then compmared to the XR. This may be due to the 1/2" rise in prop shaft height, but I think the curved cavatation plate has helped too, feels like it carries the nose of the boat better. The boat seems to pack air quicker, and feels more responsive to trim. Handeling in turns did not chage at all, boat turns awesome.
The boat now takes more RPM's to plane out. With the XR/SC set-up, the boat would roll over at 2,800 RPM. With the new SCX3/SC set up, the boat will not roll over unless you hit 3,800 RPM. The prop never blows out, it just is not slipping untill you reach enough RPM's to create slip and get on plane. I am not sure if I lost any top end speed. We sold the motor that was in the boat after the Monster Bash poker run. We orderd a Teague Custom Marine 1025 last week. Unfortunatly, I will never know if I lost any top end speed, or maybe gained speed with the new SCX3.
Hope some of this informatin answered your questions.
Cheers,
Bo
Yes, my upper has a curved cavitation plate like the SCX4, only I am not sure mine curves up as much in a vertical direction as the SCX4. I need to ask IMCO.
I would have purchased the SCX4, but the SCX4 bolt pattern only allows for the 1400 lower, as far as I was told by IMCO.
I was using an XR upper with a -3SC lower and had to add a 1/2" spacer to get boat to plane out. With this set up, my prop shaft height was about level with the bottom of the out side sponsons. After installing the SCX3 with the -3 lower, I am 1/2" above the bottom of the outside sponsons. I think I can explain why I am able to plane out with a 1/2" higher x-demension now, as opposed to before.
The prop shaft is now further back when compared to the XR with SC Lower by about 3/4", this puts the prop deeper in the water during take off. The SCX upper weighs more than my XR upper too. With the extra weight, and prop further back, I am deeper in the water than before and I don't need a spacer.
The boat really likes the new drive. It actually handles better, and more of the boat is out of the water at higher speeds then compmared to the XR. This may be due to the 1/2" rise in prop shaft height, but I think the curved cavatation plate has helped too, feels like it carries the nose of the boat better. The boat seems to pack air quicker, and feels more responsive to trim. Handeling in turns did not chage at all, boat turns awesome.
The boat now takes more RPM's to plane out. With the XR/SC set-up, the boat would roll over at 2,800 RPM. With the new SCX3/SC set up, the boat will not roll over unless you hit 3,800 RPM. The prop never blows out, it just is not slipping untill you reach enough RPM's to create slip and get on plane. I am not sure if I lost any top end speed. We sold the motor that was in the boat after the Monster Bash poker run. We orderd a Teague Custom Marine 1025 last week. Unfortunatly, I will never know if I lost any top end speed, or maybe gained speed with the new SCX3.
Hope some of this informatin answered your questions.
Cheers,
Bo
Last edited by EL Guapo; 11-02-2015 at 06:49 PM.
11-03-2015, 10:27 AM
#27
Registered
El Guapo,
That is good info that with the drive 3/4" further back due to the helmet length you are able to run the lower higher due to the boat setting lower in the water at take off. That little bit makes difference I guess. Thanks for the clarification on the SCX-3 and good luck with your new motor.
Joel
That is good info that with the drive 3/4" further back due to the helmet length you are able to run the lower higher due to the boat setting lower in the water at take off. That little bit makes difference I guess. Thanks for the clarification on the SCX-3 and good luck with your new motor.
Joel
VIP Member
11-14-2015, 08:10 AM
#30
Registered
Yes that is my boat, thanks for posting picks Gary :-) I love your boat, simply bad ass. I think we spoke in passing in the cove. I bet you were glad to have that cock pit cover when it was raining on us during the poker run. Hope to see you guys at D.S.
Cheers,
Bo
Cheers,
Bo
