LWP OR transom mount PU?

[CKMATE225]

Just looking for opinions on this. Low water pick up or transom mount water pick up?

What are the advantages/disadvantags of using or installing one or the other.

[Mr. Demeanor]

This is something I have considered as I am borderline on losing water pressure with a Bobs LWP/nosecone. I have even filled the two upper/outer holes to regain some pressure and am only running three holes now.
If your going over 80mph you might as well do the LWP/nosecone since youll need the nosecone anyway so you dont blow out the gearcase. One of the advantages of the transom pickup is you take your motor as high as you want. You also dont have a nosecone added you dont have the constant maintenance of fixing blown out filler. Under 80mph, the smaller gearcase without a nosecone should be faster. I have seen some transom mounted pickups mounted slightly above the running surface with a little ramp notched into the trailing edge that just feeds water to the pickup.
I dont have a lot of experience with either but have been doing a lot of reading and this is what I have gathered.

[CKMATE225]

Thanks Mr., It would think that more of the bass boat guys would have transom mounts to keep there motors cleaner when they get in the skinny water stir up the muck or drag the lower through some of the weed beds and possible clog the pick ups.Where a setup like a BOB's transom mount wouldn't have that issue.
But I see what you are saying as they "might as well do the LWP with the nose cone". And its a few less holes to drill in the boat. With my perticular hull ,80mph would be a stretch so a transom mount may be a good alternitive to a cone/LWP.

[Gorilla0178]

I asked the same ? a few weeks ago. I was wondering how a high speed water pickup would work, the kind that is plumbed through the bottom of the hull, and looks like a small scoop. It could be plumbed like the transom mounted PU, and if it was put at the back of the pad it would always be in the water. Some one said something about disrupting the water going to the prop.

[noots]

I run one on mine and have had no issues at all. Water pressure is great. You'd just have a long hose to deal with.

[Gorilla0178]

When you plumb a transom mount pick up, does it have to be plumbed into the same place as a nose cone, or can it be plumbed into the pwrhead somewhere.

[Mr. Demeanor]

When you plumb a transom mount pick up, does it have to be plumbed into the same place as a nose cone, or can it be plumbed into the pwrhead somewhere.

You need to plumb it to the water pump or you wont have water pressure.

[transomstand]

Thanks Mr., It would think that more of the bass boat guys would have transom mounts to keep there motors cleaner when they get in the skinny water stir up the muck or drag the lower through some of the weed beds and possible clog the pick ups.Where a setup like a BOB's transom mount wouldn't have that issue.
But I see what you are saying as they "might as well do the LWP with the nose cone". And its a few less holes to drill in the boat. With my perticular hull ,80mph would be a stretch so a transom mount may be a good alternitive to a cone/LWP.

Go with the cone. The hull mount will present additional drag anyway. A coned lower has better resale value, and provides some additional lift.

Got any cake left???

[CKMATE225]

Got any cake left???[/QUOTE]

There's always cake left!!!

I've have had my eye out for a coned lower for a while, The money manager(wife) keeps me from just getting one. The 1.87 lower is have is way too rough and old to add one on.
I do have a perfect condition 2-1. do you think it would be worth sending out and having it coned and gears ration change or just keep an looking for one already complete? Or ?????

[transomstand]

There's always cake left!!!

I've have had my eye out for a coned lower for a while, The money manager(wife) keeps me from just getting one. The 1.87 lower is have is way too rough and old to add one on.
I do have a perfect condition 2-1. do you think it would be worth sending out and having it coned and gears ration change or just keep an looking for one already complete? Or ?????

Tough choice. Expensive to change gears and add cone, but you know what you have.

[CKMATE225]

I should get some pricing on getting it done and keep the old one for a back up. I need to do something before next season, although its nice and tight the old unit may not make it through another year of beating on it before it implodes and fills the lake with gear oil. :eek:.I will probabaly be on nice clean Lake Winnepasauki right in front of the EPA, DEM, Marine patrol and PETA (they get mad when you oil fish) when it happens. :o:o:leaving:

Any idea who does that kind of work on the board?

[transomstand]

Russ Johnson, I think we tried to hook you up with him last year, but maybe he didn't like your Rhode Island accent
860-345-8721

[CKMATE225]

Long story but I will condence it,and I'll try to type it so it doesnt have the R.I. twang to it. ;);)

I did talk too Russ last year on my 2.4, but after he gave me a price (which was definitly reasonable) I thought I should just bite the bullet and get a reman powerhead, and a local guy had one. But he looked at my 225 and offered to do all the machine work, carbs, tuning, and dyno it for little less and took the 2.0 L ph I had with a hole through it as partial trade, then put it on the boat for me and made sure I was good to go for the river run. He got it done, without issue. and its been great mechanicly.Just a few minor eletrical issues since. (Stator, rectifier) I do think he timed it a little on the conservitive side though.
He used to race 2.4s on allisons. Ted Correia, nice guy. he talked too damn fast for me to remember everything he did to it. But thats how that ended up there, anyway.

[40hpmariner]

This is something I have considered as I am borderline on losing water pressure with a Bobs LWP/nosecone. I have even filled the two upper/outer holes to regain some pressure and am only running three holes now.
If your going over 80mph you might as well do the LWP/nosecone since youll need the nosecone anyway so you dont blow out the gearcase. One of the advantages of the transom pickup is you take your motor as high as you want. You also dont have a nosecone added you dont have the constant maintenance of fixing blown out filler. Under 80mph, the smaller gearcase without a nosecone should be faster. I have seen some transom mounted pickups mounted slightly above the running surface with a little ramp notched into the trailing edge that just feeds water to the pickup.
I dont have a lot of experience with either but have been doing a lot of reading and this is what I have gathered.

sorry to disrupt the thread :p but my question is when does hydrodynamic drag come into play? you say a smaller gearcase would be faster (obviously less drag) but wouldnt a small gearcase with a nose cone be faster? or does the added area of the nosecone overcome that? :S

[Mr. Demeanor]

For me it doesnt matter because my gearcase is out of the water but, everyone says a stock gearcase is faster under 80mph. I dont think "pointy" always means less drag. Look at the front of a submarine or oil tanker. They are bulbous in shape like a stock gearcase.

[40hpmariner]

For me it doesnt matter because my gearcase is out of the water but, everyone says a stock gearcase is faster under 80mph. I dont think "pointy" always means less drag. Look at the front of a submarine or oil tanker. They are bulbous in shape like a stock gearcase.

submarines and oil tankers are slow moving :p (backs up your point)

[Mr. Demeanor]

submarines and oil tankers are slow moving :p (backs up your point)

I think below blowout speeds, a bulbous shape is more hydrodynamic. Maybe a better example is a torpedo which is fast moving but bulbous or almost blunt at the nose.
The other problem on a pad bottom boat is the transom pickup has to be right in front of the prop and may cause problems by disturbing the flow of water. Not an issue on a tunnel.

Here are some shapes with speeds:

[40hpmariner]

I think below blowout speeds, a bulbous shape is more hydrodynamic. Maybe a better example is a torpedo which is fast moving but bulbous or almost blunt at the nose.
The other problem on a pad bottom boat is the transom pickup has to be right in front of the prop and may cause problems by disturbing the flow of water. Not an issue on a tunnel.

Here are some shapes with speeds:

Makes sense...Thank you