'82 Excalibur -38: What I/O engines came with it?
07-08-2014, 07:48 PM
#21
Registered
It's nothing as absurd as all that. No one tunes to 13 gph because the traditional method of fuel delivery doesn't allow for it.
And therein lies the crux of the matter. The only thing that keeps an engine from blowing is the addition of extra fuel for quenching. That extra fuel contributes nothing to the crank's mechanical effort, it just gets burned up by the catalytic converter, if there is one. You can only get about 10% of the potential energy in each power stroke when an engine is run on atomized liquid fuel.
A switch to metered, vaporized fuel and an alteration of valve timing yields remarkable results because total combustion is achieved, and nothing goes boom. No need for any emissions controls, either.
The history of our sacred 14.7:1 ratio is very fascinating. Its origins were in external combustion engines, to which it rightfully applies.
This postulate assumes that Big Oil would happily accept an inevitably diminshed demand for their product once heavy trucks get 45 MPG, with cars averaging 65-70 MPG, and large, heavy boats burning 13 GPH at cruise.
Not to mention the tax revenue, which would drop off markedly.
Willard Kendig was getting about 45 MPG back in the 70s.
http://www.tlawebstuff.com/kendig2.htm
A perusal through the many patents at the USPTO is mute testament that more than a few folks going back 100 years were thinking along the same lines, and many devised some darn clever solutions to the problem.
Certainly, engines as they are work well enough. They do cost us more than is physically necessary to operate them. That we so easily excuse (and vicously defend) this particular fact is one of the more peculiar wrinkles in our culture.
Why?
And don't hesitate to get specific or technical. What is it about all this that doesn't jibe with reality, in your opinion?
Like you, I was skeptical of this "theory" until I did my own research. I highly recommend reading Fuel Economy of the Gasoline Engine, as it was published by Shell Research Laboratories and makes for a fine introduction.
This is a fascinating subject. When appraised with objectivity and thoroughness, the facts speak for themselves, despite my best efforts to prove otherwise.
Bill, when you get 'er all back together, see if you can't duplicate that 13 GPH at criuse.
Last edited by JP-8; 07-08-2014 at 08:00 PM. Reason: Fixed broken link
07-09-2014, 11:47 AM
#22
Hopefully this weekend I'll be able to give it a shot. I doubt it for two reasons though.
1) every time I go to do something on this boat the weather gods are angered and send lightning bolts to the area
2) with some of the little things I've found going through this boat, I'm not sure how accurate the readings are or if the computers were reset to show this fuel consumption rate. Hell, the engines were installed in 95 and the hour meters show 95 and 98 hours of use for starboard and port respectively.
I'll have to get a small fortune together, burn through *literally* a boat load of gas, and then do the math. Hopefully this weekend......
1) every time I go to do something on this boat the weather gods are angered and send lightning bolts to the area
2) with some of the little things I've found going through this boat, I'm not sure how accurate the readings are or if the computers were reset to show this fuel consumption rate. Hell, the engines were installed in 95 and the hour meters show 95 and 98 hours of use for starboard and port respectively.
I'll have to get a small fortune together, burn through *literally* a boat load of gas, and then do the math. Hopefully this weekend......
07-24-2014, 08:53 PM
#23
Had one cylinder for the power steering blow it's seals and the port side stabilizer cylinder cracked down the length of it. I went to Hardin - Marine in Palm Coast FL and they had some nice equipment that would have easily replaced both stabilizer cylinders and both PS cylinders. Of course it was a bit over $3k. The parts looked nice but they looked much nicer on the show room floor for that price right now. I found other kits just as nice for about $2.5k and lower out of a performance shop in Ohio but I'm not looking to spend that much when I can find other alternatives. Maybe next year I'll replace all 8 cylinders on the aft. I got the PS cylinder fixed at a hydraulics shop this time (i didnt feel like fighting with it again) since they aren't available anymore and found the stabilizer cylinder in ebay (working properly) for $40.00. They are back on along with 16 new plugs, caps, rotors and the boat goes for a swim this weekend. Ive also cleaned up the excess sealant arount the starboard outboatd exhaust tip. It's been a long 8 weeks of one thing after another but I'm close. Let's all gather in a circle and pray that prick, Mr. Murphy, leaves me alone this weekend. 
Last edited by Barnacle Bill; 07-24-2014 at 09:32 PM.
07-27-2014, 10:30 AM
#25
Thanks. I'll get better pics but it is notched. And, per usual it's still on the trailer. Starboard trim cylinders, which were working, froze up. I rebuilt them last night. Now, the port stabilizer tab cylinder I put on works great. The hose pushing fluid to it to make it rise decided to blow fluid all over my port engine ..grrr!!!! Any more of
07-29-2014, 03:12 PM
#26
Well, it's the big fish in the pond, so to speak. The boat followed me home so I decided to keep it. It made it to it's new coral where it enjoys company from the rest of the herd. Saturday....again....hopefully Saturday.
07-29-2014, 04:30 PM
#27
I just picked up a nice 1982 Ex. 38 with triple axle trailer this week. Nothing is wrong with it except it needs a good bath. I know the engines in it aren't original and I'd like to know what I/O engines originally came with it. So far I've seen very little that seems consistent. Could you help please?
Thanks.
Barnacle Bill
Thanks.
Barnacle Bill
07-29-2014, 05:29 PM
#28
Registered
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
good for you !!! Trust me when I tell you I get it when you say you were off a little bit on it needing nothing !!! I said the same thing on my old girl. And I'm sure we both have plenty of company !!!! Lol. I hope you get it in on Saturday and enjoy the boat. It will be worth it when you are floatin on it
07-30-2014, 07:53 AM
#30
Gold Member
Gold Member
It's nothing as absurd as all that. No one tunes to 13 gph because the traditional method of fuel delivery doesn't allow for it.
And therein lies the crux of the matter. The only thing that keeps an engine from blowing is the addition of extra fuel for quenching. That extra fuel contributes nothing to the crank's mechanical effort, it just gets burned up by the catalytic converter, if there is one. You can only get about 10% of the potential energy in each power stroke when an engine is run on atomized liquid fuel.
A switch to metered, vaporized fuel and an alteration of valve timing yields remarkable results because total combustion is achieved, and nothing goes boom. No need for any emissions controls, either.
The history of our sacred 14.7:1 ratio is very fascinating. Its origins were in external combustion engines, to which it rightfully applies.
This postulate assumes that Big Oil would happily accept an inevitably diminshed demand for their product once heavy trucks get 45 MPG, with cars averaging 65-70 MPG, and large, heavy boats burning 13 GPH at cruise.
Not to mention the tax revenue, which would drop off markedly.
Willard Kendig was getting about 45 MPG back in the 70s.
http://www.tlawebstuff.com/kendig2.htm
A perusal through the many patents at the USPTO is mute testament that more than a few folks going back 100 years were thinking along the same lines, and many devised some darn clever solutions to the problem.
Certainly, engines as they are work well enough. They do cost us more than is physically necessary to operate them. That we so easily excuse (and vicously defend) this particular fact is one of the more peculiar wrinkles in our culture.
Why?
And don't hesitate to get specific or technical. What is it about all this that doesn't jibe with reality, in your opinion?
Like you, I was skeptical of this "theory" until I did my own research. I highly recommend reading Fuel Economy of the Gasoline Engine, as it was published by Shell Research Laboratories and makes for a fine introduction.
This is a fascinating subject. When appraised with objectivity and thoroughness, the facts speak for themselves, despite my best efforts to prove otherwise.
Bill, when you get 'er all back together, see if you can't duplicate that 13 GPH at criuse.
And therein lies the crux of the matter. The only thing that keeps an engine from blowing is the addition of extra fuel for quenching. That extra fuel contributes nothing to the crank's mechanical effort, it just gets burned up by the catalytic converter, if there is one. You can only get about 10% of the potential energy in each power stroke when an engine is run on atomized liquid fuel.
A switch to metered, vaporized fuel and an alteration of valve timing yields remarkable results because total combustion is achieved, and nothing goes boom. No need for any emissions controls, either.
The history of our sacred 14.7:1 ratio is very fascinating. Its origins were in external combustion engines, to which it rightfully applies.
This postulate assumes that Big Oil would happily accept an inevitably diminshed demand for their product once heavy trucks get 45 MPG, with cars averaging 65-70 MPG, and large, heavy boats burning 13 GPH at cruise.
Not to mention the tax revenue, which would drop off markedly.
Willard Kendig was getting about 45 MPG back in the 70s.
http://www.tlawebstuff.com/kendig2.htm
A perusal through the many patents at the USPTO is mute testament that more than a few folks going back 100 years were thinking along the same lines, and many devised some darn clever solutions to the problem.
Certainly, engines as they are work well enough. They do cost us more than is physically necessary to operate them. That we so easily excuse (and vicously defend) this particular fact is one of the more peculiar wrinkles in our culture.
Why?
And don't hesitate to get specific or technical. What is it about all this that doesn't jibe with reality, in your opinion?
Like you, I was skeptical of this "theory" until I did my own research. I highly recommend reading Fuel Economy of the Gasoline Engine, as it was published by Shell Research Laboratories and makes for a fine introduction.
This is a fascinating subject. When appraised with objectivity and thoroughness, the facts speak for themselves, despite my best efforts to prove otherwise.
Bill, when you get 'er all back together, see if you can't duplicate that 13 GPH at criuse.
