Johnyrude trivia

When did the 183 cube looper go 60 degree? Early 90s? Did they change the displacement also? Didn't it change again in the late 90's for the Ficht motors?

Hey Racemore, that sounded like one mean 2.5 you had that Rabco. :)

-bll

[racer]

60 degree looper is 158 inches and came out in 91.
90 degree looper is 165 inches from 86 thru 87
183 inches from 88 thru 00
90 degree ficht is 183 from 99 to 00
200 starting 2001

[Nosubforcid]

183 cid looper is not 60 degree vee! The entire looper family from the original 1986 2.7 through the 2001 3.3 'rude ram are 90 degree. A rough chronology of the V6 looper would be:
1986: Introduction of the 2.7 loopcharged V6 as part of a modular engine family with the 1.8 V4 and 3.6 V8. 2.7 has bridged exhaust no fingerports or bosses for them XP/GT had biggest carb Venturis ever offered.
1988: First year of the 3.685 bore 3.0 liter oval exhaust port, fingerport bosses, but no fingerports, smaller carb venturis, lower port timing
1993: Closed deck block, fingerports, even lower smaller exhaust port, supposed to have light rods but didn't until 1994 really poor intake in these years, new geacase without internal snap ring.
1997: 225/250 HO type block comes out basically closed deck fingerport motor with the old 3.0 liter's exhaust port and a reworked version of its intake.
1999: ficht versions come out and really set the world on fire! Sorry I couldn't resist, probably not as funny if it happened to you though. Bombardier finishes the recall to solve these engine fires.
2001: 'rude ram comes out 3.3 liters fingerports old second effort high perf case sounds good but the shape of the case is all screwed up still has 1.86 gear ratio and the motor has about a 6000rpm limiter. a holy terror on the bottom but no big end.
Sad truth is to this day the very best looper combination for maximum output is one of the old 2.7 liter bridgeport blocks with fingerport bosses, yes they do exist, coverted to 3.0 liters with the fingerports added, a complete port job, big rods and wisecos if revved over 7200 small rods and cast pistons are okay below, big venturi carbs and either the early intake or the 1997 and up unit. When done right this combination makes a fairly reliable 290-310 pump gas horsepower depending upon exact setup used.

[racer]

Recently ran one of the new units, very critical on hight but actually ran over 90 without any blowout. Some of the first 183`s did not have the fingerport bosses, I think the factory could not make up their mind. Those 86 big bore carbs help top end power but a little more difficult to jet wouldn`t you agree.

Somebody needs to compile all this and maybe even the graphics used throughout the years so they can be indentified into a manual or book. All I have is the Seloc manual and its a complete joke. I use it when all other sources have been exhausted and even then I have to be careful.

Whats the story on the V-8s? What was the first and last year? When did they go to 4.0? Why were they dicontinued? It seems like the trend is bigger and badder. Especially wit da' folks makin those black mota's. ;)

-bll

[Nosubforcid]

Having tried all the goofy aftermarket induction systems except Taylor's X style EFI. I would have to say that the big venturi minlon carburetors are a tuning cinch compared to say a Gibbs 6 two barrel setup, a Wright device, or Gerhardts FMS throttle body injection.

[Instigator]

Hypothetical question??
Lets jusy say someone decided to build that 2.7 based motor.
What would the limitations be on fuel requirements and needed changes to go from say 93 octane pump to 100+ octane race fuel???
Differences in HP's etc???
Could that hypothetical person build the motor the same and have two sets of heads for both fuels??
I understand that you would give up some of the potential on the race gas side but, if you could switch back and forth???
I'd think maybe a change in timing but what else???
Thanx guys!!
P.S. B.Leonard how about a book on the different models of each, what parts to use, modifications to make etc???
Maybe, just maybe even porting specs?????
I think it would bring a lot of business to the parts makers and the "Tuner" (not every one is at the same skill level) shops as well.
You can buy 50 different books on the small block Chevy and how to make 500 HP's why not on O/B's??? I think it would make our sport a lot bigger and stronger.
A lot of the I/O guys don't mess with the O/B's because they don't know anything about them and don't know anybody to help them.
But if they found out they could get 300+ HP's out of a 450 lb motor and it would be at least as reliable as their 1000 lb. 500 HP I/O?????

[Nosubforcid]

I have run a few motors like you are describing. I like the old Second Effort/Mach removable chamber heads with an o-ringed block instead of a head gasket. I like 44-50cc chambers depending on deck height and pistons used, shooting for a 10.5-1 static compression ratio, for pump gas . I have tried as small as 30cc on a race motor, 16.5-1 static compression ratio, but 32-34cc give almost the same low end torque and rev substanially better but the reliability with this much compression is not real great. Contrary to popular opinion the looper will rev to 9000 rpm and beyond but they require careful setup and lots of expensive maintainance to do so. Keep the compression moderate and the max rpm under 8000 and your lake boat motor will last real well. As for hard numbers swapping stock 3.0 heads for an offset design like the RCH with a 50cc chamber is worth maybe 20-30 hp depending on the exact motor in question. The change to big compression is more difficult to quantify given that a lake boat ported motor won't rev too good with 34cc heads while a full on race ported motor probably won't get on plane on a 2000 lb lake boat with 50cc heads. Ultimately though increased port timing, increased induction capacity and big compression is worth about another 50-70 hp over a reliable lake boat setup.

[bw1969]

Nosubforcid,
Could you please elaborate on what a Gibbs 6 two barrel setup and a Wright's device are?
Thanks.

And maybe an idea of what they and those exotic 2.6 parts (ccc intake, even crank etc.) cost.

-bll

[Nosubforcid]

Gibbs two barrel intake was a sand cast intake manifold that mounted stock looper reedcages to 6 crossflow two barrel carbs. "Gibbs" was/is Gibbs propeller service of Lake Havasu City, I heard that Al Stoker had a hand in some part of the development of this piece, since he is skulking about on this board maybe he would like to shed some more light on this:) I spent alot of time trying to get one of these units to work I started with 2.6XP carbs because I had them but they were too big resulting in such slow velocity at low rpm that I could never completely get rid of the lean bog when the throttle was cracked wide open from an idle. However they pulled like crazy from 4500-8000rpm. I then scrounged up some 1 1/4" 150 carbs which solved the lean bog but they went crazy lean when you chopped the power at high rpm resulting in a lot of stuck pistons. The best combination I ever found was modified 34mm yamaha carburetors they hit hard down low and pulled good on top. The only drawbacks were, ProCarb didn't exist yet so this combination would not have been legal in any drag racing class, and Yamaha doesn't sell most of the tuning components for these carbs you have to make/modify them. If somebody on here is more in touch with the exact Procarb rules interpretation I would be interested to know if this combination would be legal now.
The Wright device was/is? a mechanical fuel injection patterned after the Bendix aircraft system. The brainchild of one Jon Wright, who I believe is also skulking around here somewhere:), an Unlimited outboard hydro racer who was/is a member of Earl Moorman's posse. There used to be a number of them on Mercs, OMCs and Yamahas running around the southern organizations but I haven't seen any in a few years. They were time consuming to setup and tempermental requiring constant babysitting after. I believe rule changes prompted their extinction because a few people had them running pretty well at one time.

[Edited by Nosubforcid on 07-18-2001 at 07:59 PM]

[bw1969]

Sounds really cool. Any ideas where to find a Gibbs setup, and what is the approximate value? Sounds similar to my CCC.
On another note, how can I identify the large bore carbs on a 2.7 liter?

[racer]

Had a couple of the Gibbs intakes the best carbs were the 1 and 5/16 version or the old v8 race motor carbs. Both hard to jet but when right look out. The 1 and 3/8 were about a hundred rpm better but not nearly as quick.

Nosubforcid, I will agree on what rpm the looper is capable of.

The big bore carbs are off of 86 v6 and 86,87 v8

Also the gibbs intake bolts to a stock front half and is not x`d like a ccc.

[Instigator]

Just wanted to cut in and say thanks for participating, it is nice to have someone speak from experience and be willing to share some of their knowledge.
Thank you and please continue to do so!!!
Gary

Thanks guys...

(Although we all know racer has 135 Honda on the back of his boat) hehehehe ;)

-bll

[racer]

Actually its a 632 blown chevy on end HaHaHaHa I just cant understand why my v4 lower keeps blowing up.

[WillyT]

I think this engine was never very popular for several reasons. One reason was that, while certainly powerful, it was too heavy for the horsepower it produced. It also had some reliability problems (or a reputation for such problems, at least) that got it off to a bad start. In addition, manufacturers never made many boats intended for this engine (unlike what OMC had hoped). This is also applicable to the Merc 3.4 liter "300" (later renamed a "275"). The weight of these engine relegated them to mainly offshore-type boats, and many of those guys felt more comfortable with good ol' reliable 4 cycle car engines and outdrives(remember, outboard bass boats and "runabouts" in those days were mainly 18 footers and smaller). Their expense was also a factor. Both the OMC and the Merc weighed around 550+ pounds. Compare that to 467 or so for the current Merc 300 ProMax. As stated in another post that I saw, the OMC, in particular, was a gas guzzler unlike any outboard that preceeded it. Stoker made his 22' tunnel specifically for the OMC V-8. Unfortunately, few other "hot boat" manufacturers followed suit. It is somewhat sad that, with the EPA leading the way, such mega-motors may never be seen again (not in two-cycle form, anyway). Maybe Bombardier will bring back the 300+ horsepower OMC rotary engines (yeah, right)! Looks like technology, not raw cubic inches, is the hope of the future. Time will tell if that is good or bad.

[Sleekster]

Speaking of the V8, what years did OMC add the steel rods? I heard they did that to keep the blocks from twisting. Is that right?

Are there particular years to avoid? Or is that too simplistic?

What was the poop on those motors anyway? Bad rep for overheating? Cracking the blocks? Tough to get a clean idle?

Are the big carbs only on the 300's or did the 275 have 'em too?

I know Monty has had his V8 at 8,500 r's, if I remember right. Got to give the man props for spinning that. Esp. when most people have said to keep them at 5500.

Imagine that on the end of a 10" plate in rough chop! Geez!

I dropped anchor next to some Superboat like rig that had twin 3.6s on the back at the last offshore power boat race here on Tampa bay. Didn't see much of the race :) I couldn't stop staring at that those massive engines. That was one crowded transom!

-bll

[Sleekster]

Sure looks like your new transom could hold 550 and change. If we can get a set of twins, wanna go in w/ me?

[racer]

only steel rods are the connecting rods, the blocks did not have any twisting problems. Big carbs on the 86,87, 300 only. The big problem was proper boats to put them on. The 4.0 was much more durable. Week link is the lower unit.

[Racemore]

Jack at Full Throttle owns Monty's old V8 race motor was turning a 28" Performance prop 9600 on the telltale tach.The motor was tired but still pushing his T1 close to 130mph.He will start on his new boat in a couple of weeks(a hydro?)and the big 8 will get a fresh bore to get the compession back up 40more#s to 180.Adding a little more nitros with the big valves,you just might see a V8 be the fastest outboard dragboat in the world.Thats his intention anyway and he's one to put in the time to make it happen.

[Sleekster]

Sure are high numbers. AND sure speaks to someone who knows his poop for it to get tired instead of broken. I guess when I talked w/ Monty, he was being modest.

racer, as always, you are a typing emcyclopedia on OMC. Thanks, had a chance to get a 275 and passed.

The problem w/ the lowers, was that race motors or harry homeowner fishing motors that went bad? I heard people putting the V6 lowers on them and having to do it again, and again.....

To change gears here, no pun intended, should I be looking for a V4 case to put the V6 prop shaft in and put it on my V6? Is there a down side to down sizing?

[BarryStrawn]

Sleekster,

I run V4 cases on my 235 occasionally. Good parts are they are only 4 1/8" diameter. Also 7/8" shorter so that lowers your powerhead a little. Other than that is all bad. Strength would be the main concern.

The 7/8" comes from between the cavitation plate and prop shaft so a 14" prop is about all that will fit. If you remove the trim tab and grind the plate, you can get a 14 1/2" to swing with maybe 1/8" of clearance. This has got to cause some drag.

Biggest problem for me is gear ratio. Most are 2:1 although there were a few 1.92:1 made in the early years. Some of the later models may also be 2.2:1 but I 'm not certain about that. If you run a looper that really winds up, that might be good.

Exhaust is also more restricted so it will need to be relieved.

With the 235/XR2002, I always run out of revs. Little case worked OK for drags. Slower on top end for me. Biggest prop I have is 14 1/2 x 32.

Barry

[Sleekster]

Which gearing ratio is better for a looper doing about 7k rpm? I sometimes turn the order of stuff around back asswards.

Thanks Barry for the info. Sure seems like some work for less reliability. NOT a big difference in size, but small helps add togrhter for large gains.

[Bill Gohr]

I have a complete Gibbs set-up I ran on a 2.7. The 1 3/8 didn't calibrate well so we used 1 1/4 carbs. Seemed to work good for what we were doing. I have the hole kit in a box if someone is interested. By the way Cid, your history was pretty good, Couple corrections. The gearcase changed in 90, the 93's had light rods but then we went back to heavy rod till they could figure out what was breaking and the new intakes came out in 95 to get rid of those wonderful (cheap) 2 piece castings that came out in 92. By the way I think Stoker doesn't go on this page He's retired in sunny Cal. (land of Fruits and nuts).

[Sleekster]

Yeah, I don't think Stoker or Monty listen in here. Or are you just trying to stir up stuff?

Thanks for chipping in here Bill.

[racer]

Mr Gohr,

A minor correction on your history, That junk manifold came out in mid 90, took apart one of those pieces today. I agree when the new one was released however some early 95s still had the bad one. Are you talking about the prop shaft change/carrier retention method on the lower unit, if so that was 91.

[Edited by racer on 07-23-2001 at 10:36 PM]

[Racemore]

Maybe you need to talk to Monty again.His old woreout motor loaded him up in Palaka.Monty ran lean burn for 3sec's ,Jack ran it for 10 sec's or until he backed off,he also has a telltale.I saw the motor be disasembled,already run a couple sets of pistons on this bore and was going to put another new set in but decided to bore and put the 40's in.Could be wrong but I think Monty ran 133 with the big 8 on his Mirage.I know big #s are going to get bigger.

[Sleekster]

So I guess that is what was meant by expensive maintenance, replacing pistons...and re-boring. Yup that qualifies for me. So far I'm happy w/ the performance of this looper. Now that break-in is complete and I've got some hours on it, I want to maximize what I have before I add more. Keeping it on the water and out of the garage is a priority.

[Bill Gohr]

That Cid guy said the tab retention gearcase came out whenever, and now that I think about it we were all wrong. the tab retention came out in 88 withthe first C/R. The propshaft got bigger in 91 ( 2 Piece) and the manifold was definetly 92 cause I had to change some of the ones in the field because the junks were down on power. I remember stealing everything we could find out back (old stuff)and sending it down to Duke. As we all know though nothing in those years were cast in stone. If there was a basket of old parts laying somewhere near an assembly line someone would use them. The best one was when I saw our powerhead stripper in the back pull down a 94 3.0 that had 4 heavy and 2 light rods in it. Gotta love Q/C......

[racer]

Agree on the unit if we include c/r but the manifold was withouy a doubt mid 90 have have several customers with UNTOUCHED 90 models with the junk manifold. I know to many years behind the desk instead of turning wrenches.