Fountain 29Fever -Goods & Bads
07-29-2012, 02:42 PM
#51
Registered
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Thousand Islands area
Posts: 2,349
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Actually I said the 27 has a 50 gallon tank and I was off by 10 gallons. That still quite small for a "27". I knew it had a pretty small tank.
My question was what does the 29 have?
Curious
When you say you can go 100+ miles
Is that in the Ocean against waves and currents or on a lake?
Ok 140 is more like it.
Question was answered after I posted- thanks RW
Lavey 29 hold 150.
UD
My question was what does the 29 have?
Curious
When you say you can go 100+ miles
Is that in the Ocean against waves and currents or on a lake?
Ok 140 is more like it.
Question was answered after I posted- thanks RW
Lavey 29 hold 150.
UD
That was one of the draw backs of the 27 was its smaller fuel tank, really the boat should have had a 90 gallon and that would have been sufficient.
07-29-2012, 02:43 PM
#52
Registered
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Thousand Islands area
Posts: 2,349
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
mine sits just below the rub rail on the swim platform. But I agree just meausure the boat from the transom to the point, beak, bow. Whatever you have for a swim platform is kind of a wash anyways.
07-29-2012, 03:16 PM
#53
Registered
Did you say your fountain 29 ran 70 with twin 385's? you mean the 385 measured at the prop- the way merc used to do it right? (385's put out about 500 at the crank)
If so thats astonishingly slow for that many ponies in that small of a boat.
UD
07-29-2012, 03:28 PM
#54
Registered
Just my opinion having owned a 2000 - 29' with twin 350 mags it was a very good lake boat for us and I never had any problems with it besides having to replace a couple of water pumps which happens to any boat. As for the length discussion, really who cares if its the boat you like and want to buy go for it. You won't find another boat in that size and price range with the fit and finish of a Fountain. I know while I had mine I always got compliments on it and it ran good in everything except the really big water like after the Shootout when everyone leaves at once. in the end there are people that like Fountains and the ones who don't which seem to be the vocal majority around here, but to each thier own. Just my $.02
Uncle Dave
Platinum Member
07-30-2012, 07:17 AM
#56
Registered
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Thousand Islands area
Posts: 2,349
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
I could work with 90, but 60 isn't workable for any kind of island running for me, or even on a big lake. Id be heading for fuel at every single available stop. Total pain in the A adding hours of fueling time to certain runs I make frequently.
Did you say your fountain 29 ran 70 with twin 385's? you mean the 385 measured at the prop- the way merc used to do it right? (385's put out about 500 at the crank)
If so thats astonishingly slow for that many ponies in that small of a boat.
UD
Did you say your fountain 29 ran 70 with twin 385's? you mean the 385 measured at the prop- the way merc used to do it right? (385's put out about 500 at the crank)
If so thats astonishingly slow for that many ponies in that small of a boat.
UD
As far as speed witht he right props I think I could see 73-75, but I think for twin naturally aspirated engines on a 7k lb boat dry thats about what you'll see in any make or model of similar size and length.
07-30-2012, 07:47 AM
#57
Registered
29 runs 70. According to MERC they are 454 MAGs which push out 385hp is that a that crank I dont know. I cant imagine a 454 MAG is pushing 500hp at the crank as my 6.2L camaro only pushes 426 at the crank.
As far as speed witht he right props I think I could see 73-75, but I think for twin naturally aspirated engines on a 7k lb boat dry thats about what you'll see in any make or model of similar size and length.
As far as speed witht he right props I think I could see 73-75, but I think for twin naturally aspirated engines on a 7k lb boat dry thats about what you'll see in any make or model of similar size and length.
Yours is a straight bottom right? I know the steps were faster then 70.
UD
You are saying that there is a 115hp loss through a Bravo? Wow. To bad anersons are so expensive.
So when MR says HP500 or HP 525, where is that measured? I know there have been a ton of threads and if I remember the black motors are different then the blue? I may be confused,,,,,, need more coffee.
07-30-2012, 07:49 AM
#58
Registered
You are correct. The 454 Mag was rated at 385hp at the crank and merc deducted 30hp (they rated the HP500 at 470 pshp) for pshp figures, which would put them at 415hp at the crank. However, they usually dynoed around the 400hp mark.
07-30-2012, 07:51 AM
#59
Registered
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Thousand Islands area
Posts: 2,349
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Soldier,
Yours is a straight bottom right? I know the steps were faster then 70.
UD
You are saying that there is a 115hp loss through a Bravo? Wow. To bad anersons are so expensive.
So when MR says HP500 or HP 525, where is that measured? I know there have been a ton of threads and if I remember the black motors are different then the blue? I may be confused,,,,,, need more coffee.
Yours is a straight bottom right? I know the steps were faster then 70.
UD
You are saying that there is a 115hp loss through a Bravo? Wow. To bad anersons are so expensive.
So when MR says HP500 or HP 525, where is that measured? I know there have been a ton of threads and if I remember the black motors are different then the blue? I may be confused,,,,,, need more coffee.
07-30-2012, 10:27 AM
#60
Registered
Mercruiser engine(aka black engines) were rated at the prop. 502 mag - 415pshp, 454 mag - 385pshp, 496HO - 425pshp, etc.
Mercury racing engines(aka blue engines) were rated at the crank. HP500/500EFI - 500 cshp, 525 - 525 cshp, etc.
It's confusing because the black engines were always over-rated and the blue engines were under-rated. A 502 Mag was suppose to be 415pshp but was usually around 390hp at the prop and 425 at the crank. A 500EFI was usually 510hp at the crank. And we all know the 525s are stronger and I've heard 540hp to 560hp. Which led people to believe they were rated at the prop.
Mercury racing engines(aka blue engines) were rated at the crank. HP500/500EFI - 500 cshp, 525 - 525 cshp, etc.
It's confusing because the black engines were always over-rated and the blue engines were under-rated. A 502 Mag was suppose to be 415pshp but was usually around 390hp at the prop and 425 at the crank. A 500EFI was usually 510hp at the crank. And we all know the 525s are stronger and I've heard 540hp to 560hp. Which led people to believe they were rated at the prop.
