techman

Yes, HO's in my lightning...anything less is an act of Fountain heresy.

253

with same power, props, etc, how much faster is the newer step 35 lightning compared to a 1990 smooth bottom 35 lightning.

bob_t

I test drove a 1997 35 Lightning on the Ohio River several years ago that I was thinking about buying. It had HP500's, one engine was missing really bad and the other one had a blown manifold/riser gasket on one of the Gil's. 4 people and almost full fuel it still ran just over 76 mph on GPS. Didn't buy that boat, but a year later bought a late 2000 35 twin step with 500EFI's. That boat consistently ran 84-85 mph on GPS on a local lake in 95 degree heat in NC. I really liked the 35 twin step!

Wildman_grafix

Did anybody get the 2001 twin step that was at Shogren's?
It had HP500 EFI, blueprinted bottom, and XR drives with shortie's.

Didn't last long, I think it was only on their site for a couple of weeks, nice looking boat.

sommerfliesby

Mine runs 75 on her BEST day...about half-full on fuel, 4 people on board. Most days, she is 70-72...if I stay in it, it'll climb a LITTLE. My motors are bone stock 502s with almost 700(!) hours on them. Start and run perfectly every time, use no oil, and very little smoke. I do have a blueprinted hull and IMCO boxes, though. Spinning 26 pitch 4 blade Hydros...but I can only get up to about 4800 rpm.

Rebel_Heart

My single step 2001 35' only ran 74-75 with 502 efis. That's with a light load. Like someone else said, it's a shame to run a Fountain that slow.

Wildman_grafix

You need to find one with blue motors.

tim brown

ragged , did the 26 hydro work the same as the 28 bravo 1's ?

RaggedEdge

Here's my experience with my '99 single step w/500's.

26" Hydro's box stock .... worked well, on plane well - would break just a little comming over - but not a problem at all, ran 80+ most any day, best was 82+, handling at speed and in rougher water was really good.


28" Bravos labbed by Merc Racing .... all around real good props, came on plane better than the Hydros, would stay hooked up and cruise at a lower speed than the Hydros, cruise speed at a given RPM was faster than the Hydros, top speed was essentially the same numbers as the Hydros. Boat was not as hooked up at speed in rough water as it was with the Hydros, just my opinion here.


My conclusion ...... Merc Labbed Bravos for day to day use were hard to beat, used them a lot. Hydromotive Q4's were my choice when running the chit out of the thing. The Hydros had 1 MPH advantage on the Bravos most days. I just liked the way the boat would run thru chit water with the Hydros.

One more thing here, before I got the labed 28 Bravos I did run a set of non-labbed 28's and they were down 300 r's so but did run up to 80 or so. The lab versions are just way better working props.

bob_t

My experience with the Hydro QIV's was that at the higher X dimensions they were harder to get on plane without blowing out, and they would blow out in corners a lot faster than the B1's. On my 575 boat, and also my friend's 525 EFI boat, neither of us could get on plane with the hydro QIV's. Just as the boat would start to break over getting on plane, they would blow out and the transom would just squat back down into the water. My boat was a 2002 29 with 19.5" X dim and his boat was a 2004 35 twin step - not sure what the X dim was on his. Fountain lowered the X back to 19" on the later 29's with 525 EFI's. My 2000 29 with a 500 EFI had a 17.5" X dim and a Hydro QIV worked great on that boat, just for reference. I ran labbed 30 P B1's on my 35 twin step (500EFI's) and they worked great, never tried Hydro QIV's on that boat. X dim wasn't listed on the performance report for that boat.