Posted: November 05 2009 at 12:36 | IP Logged

Hi Emory,

I did some checking on that 1987 Connie you said Soldboats had listed as sold in 2009.  I couldn’t understand why, if she has been sold, she is still on the market.  I checked the broker’s ads from February and November and this is definitely the same boat.  I have broker’s ads and price listings on her running back to December, 2000.  So she’s been continuously on the market for nearly nine years and interestingly has been priced at $279K since August, 2003.  And she may have been on the market for a long time before I spotted her.

In that time the engine hours have only increased by 50 hours so in addition to being for sale for nine years she’s also been unused and probably neglected for nine years.  She’s had a half dozen broker’s in that time. This is a time capsule that I wouldn’t want to open. 

She was out of documentation from 2006 to 2009 but changed her documentation, name and brokers in May of 2009.  She’s now owned by some sort of Trust.  I don’t know what games the brokers/owners are playing but in the real sense she hasn’t been sold.  Perhaps they just thought that by changing the name they would cover up the fact that she’s been on the market for nine years.

Anyway, it looks like only one Connie 500 (Rite Weigh) has been sold in the last 9 months.

Pete37

Posted: November 07 2009 at 11:47 | IP Logged

Hi All,

I think I may have solved the mystery of why some Connies have soot problems and why some don’t.  The answer is they are using different engines.  While nearly all the broker’s ads describe the Connie engines as 550 Hp. 6V92TIs, the reality is that most of them aren’t.  Brokers are very sloppy about specifying engine characteristics.

In 1985 most of the early engines were 500 hp. 6V92 TIs.  But there were also 575 Hp. 6V92 TIAs.  By 1986 Johnson and Towers (J&T) was making 530 Hp. 6V92 TIs, 565 Hp. 6V92 TIBs and 550 Hp. 6V92 TABs. 

Chris Craft wasn’t very helpful in describing their engines.  They called the engines for the Connie 500s 500 Hp. 6V92 TIs in all their literature from 1985 to 1987.  When the Connie 501s were introduced in 1987 the engines for these boats were described as 550 Hp 6V92 TAs.

So there were TI, TIA, TIB, TAB and TA versions of the basic 6V92 and each had a different horsepower; very confusing.

When I first saw a Connie with engines described as 575 Hp. 6V92 TIAs I thought it was a typo.  But I did some checking on the web and quickly found out the TIA was a legitimate 6V92 version.  And I also found out that all of the Connies that I could find (2) equipped with TIAs were produced in 1985.  One in particular is Delaware Jim’s 1985 Connie 500 “Still in the Mood”.  I found that out in an old 2004 broker’s ad for “Pan-A-Sea-A” (the name of boat before Jim bought it).  And Jim is one of the three 1985 Connie owners who claims he has no soot problems.

The other boat is located in Texas.  Initially, since the ad did not have the name of the boat, its identity was a mystery but I finally identified it as the old “Waterwalker” (Hull #111).

Anyway there are at least two 1985 Connies with the TIA engine configuration and there may be more.  If they all have TIAs, that would explain why they don’t smoke.  It would be interesting to know if “Five Star” and “The Good Life” also have TIA engines.

Pete37

Posted: November 07 2009 at 13:31 | IP Logged

Hi Pete, et al.,

You may be onto something here about the different configurations of the same basic engine.  My specifications page from my J&T Book includes a couple of interesting points:

DD Model ID - 8063-7300 [edit - the TIA engine with an aftercooler would be 8063-7400 per the DD shop manual]

J&T Model - JT6V-92TI  [NOT TIA]  The "A" indicates an aftercooler in addition to the intercooler.

Horsepower - 530  [However on another page the engines are listed at 500 BHP @ 2300rpm)

Injectors - 140   Timing Tool - 1.460

Cooling system "Normal Temperature range" = 160 - 185 degrees F   [note this is in contrast to the "conventional wisdom" of running at 170 degrees...]

Cooling system pumps - fresh water - 165 gal/minute   raw water - 107 gal/minute

Antifreeze - "Use only "permanent" type antifreeze 30% [concentration]... DO NOIT EXCEED 4 GALLONS OF ANTIFREEZE"  My cooling system capacity is listed at 13 gallons.

Recommended cruising RPM - 2100 to 2150 - Max WOT - 2300 rpm

Exhaust temperature (exiting turbo, before shower) - 710 degrees

My engines have are one "dry" turbo and intercooled. 

Also in my book is a set of curves for fuel consumption (prop load fuel consumptions) with these selected data points:  1200RPM - 5GPH   1500 rpm - 9 GPH   1800 rpm - 14 GPH   2100 rpm - 22 GPH.  In my boat, 1800rpm is about 18 knots (on plane) and is where I am normally running when not "economizinbg.

Jim

Posted: November 07 2009 at 13:48 | IP Logged

Greetings Pete and everyone,

The Good Life, '85 500.  NO SOOT as I have said before.  We've had the numbers on the engines checked at least twice and verified we have 530 HP, TI's, not TIA's.  About 2/3 of the 3,300 Miles (3 one way trips between Bayport MN and Nashville) that we've put on the boat have been at 2100 RPM's.

Ken

Posted: November 07 2009 at 13:53 | IP Logged

Greetings Pete and everyone,

The Good Life, '85 500, like I've said before has no soot.  We've verified at least twice by checking the engine numbers that they are 530 HP, TI's, not TIA's.  About 2/3 of the 3300 miles (3 one way trips between Bayport, MN and Nashville) that we've put on the boat have been at 2100 RPM's.

Ken

Posted: November 07 2009 at 23:52 | IP Logged

Hi Tony & Vicki,

That's interesting.  Two out of the three Connies that say they aren't having soot problems aren't running TIs. 

Yes it's possible and even probable that the engines for your Connie were bought or at least contracted for before the Uniflite/Chris Craft transition occurred.  I really need the serial numbers of your engines in order to check out what's going on with J&T.

I think all of the 46' Uniflites used 71 series engines so there is no way of directly comparing their soot problems with the 50' Connies which used 6V92s.  But a lot of the 71 series engines also had soot problems.

Pete37

Posted: November 08 2009 at 12:14 | IP Logged

What is TIA?   TI = Turbo Intercooled.  (Cooler between turbo and blower) TA = Turbo Aftercooled (cooler located under blower).  Not sure what TIA is.  TA is consider more efficient but a nightmare to pull and clean.  You must remove the blower to pull the aftercooler.   The TI is much easier to maintain and keep clean but is not considered as efficient.  This is from mechanics I have talked with.  I pulled my blowers some years back and know what a terrible job this is. 

Emory

Posted: November 08 2009 at 13:21 | IP Logged

Pete and everyone,

A few times when I've tried to post, I got a message that because my post didn't have a subject entered, ?????, my entry would not post.  Again, ?????.  It seems to have worked this time.

Back to the subject at hand.  The Good Life, '85 500, has 530 HP, TI's, and no soot.  When I asked the question about TIA's of our mechanic who is a DD trained mechanic, he said...  "Ken they were 530hp. They had smaller injectors than th 550hp has. And they are TI.  Everyone refers to them as TA because they don't understand the difference TI's (turbocharge/intercooler) have the external air cooler that is before the blower or between the turbo and the blower and TA (turbocharge,/after cooler) refers to a cooler inside the engine under the blower or after the blower.  And being 530hp makes them a better engine, engines that put out more than 1 hp per cubic inch are usually time bombs a 6V92 is 552 cubic inches 550 hp is too close to the line. They did make a 625 hp version that was electronic however it was a very bad engine.  Everyone who had one was very disappointed."

Pete, you asked for our engine numbers.  I don't have them recorded so the next time I get to Nashville to use the boat, if I remember, I'll get them.

Ken

Posted: November 08 2009 at 14:24 | IP Logged

Hi All,

The TIA is a legitimate version of the 6V92 although perhaps not a very common or well understood one.  One interpretation might be tubocharged, intercooled and aftercooled but I'm not sure that's what it means.  J&T lists a 6V92 TIB in their Owners Manual.  Perhaps the TIA is just the first version of the TIB.  And of course we also have a TAB version too.  A major case of alphabet soup.  Only the actual serial numbers of the engines will straighten it out.

If the engines were really intercooled and aftercooled a mechanic could tell that they were intercooled by just taking a glance at them.  But to know whether they were also aftercooled he would have to take the engine apart. 

Jim: 

"Normal Operating Range" and "Recommended Operating Range" are two different things.  Normal means that the temperatures listed would occur in the normal operation of your engines.  When idling out of the marina, for example, you can't avoid periods when the engine is at 160 degrees.  "Recommended Operation Range" means that these are temperatures you should strive to achieve whenever possible to maximize the lifetime of the engine.

My engines (TIs) are listed by J&T as taking 15 gallons (5 in the engine and 10 in the heat exchanger reservoir).  But when I actually fill them I find that the reservoir only takes 8 gallons which would indicate a total of about 13 gallons (same as you quote).  Thirty percent of that would be 3.9 gallons (very close to what they recommend).  The trouble with this recommendation is that it only protects to about 3 F.  Great for the summer but not so good for the winter. I'd recommend at least 5 gallons (-9 F).

Pete37

Posted: November 08 2009 at 16:06 | IP Logged

If anyone is interested,Pete I know you're not the block heater I use is a Kim Hotstart Block heater. www.kimhotstart.com

Posted: November 08 2009 at 17:20 | IP Logged

Hi All,

Have any of you got a couple of these lurking in your engine room?

They are called "Crank Vents" and are the poor man's version of the "Airsep".  They were installed on a lot of Connies and have mostly been ignored by their owners.

There is one per engine and each has two large black hoses (seen at the top) which lead to the valve covers on one of your engines.  Their purpose is to capture and filter the blow by gasses from the engine. 

Oil vapors accumulate at the bottom of the unit and should be drained periodically (a couple times a year).  Otherwise there is no maintenance other than changing the filters every hundred hours (about every other year). 

The filters are accessed by popping off the two stainless steel clamps, removing the bottom of the unit and pulling the old filter out of the unit.  Have some paper spread out below the Crank Vent before removing the bottom.  It can be a messy job. The filter can be stuck in a bucket of water heavily loaded with detergent and washed out.  It takes a day or two for them to dry.

After several cleanings the filters begin to deteriorate and will have to be replaced.  They can be obtained from Mid Atlantic Engine Supply, 1-800-257-8133 for $79.43 each.  It's amazing that filters for 25 year old engines are still available.

Why bother?  Basically because if the filter becomes clogged the blow by gasses won't be able to get out through the filter and will work their way out through every crevice in the engine directly into the engine room without any filtering making for an oily, messy engine room.  It's the same argument that Airsep makes for their system.

Unlike the Airsep, the Crank Vent is not a closed crankcase ventillation system.  After going through the Crank Vent the filtered gasses are directly vented into the engine room and are not ducted back into the engine intake.  However, the exhaust pipe is only a couple inches from the engine air intake and effectively nearly all the gasses go back into the engine.

The Crank Vent isn't as good as the Airsep but it may already be on your boat and $80 for a filter is a lot cheaper than $800 for an Airsep.  If you really want closed crankcase ventillation but are a little reluctant to spring for $800 per engine look at the Racor Closed Crankcase Ventillation System which costs only $300 and provides all the benefits of closed crankcase ventillation.  It and the Airsep are also available from Mid Atlantic.

I want to thank Dave, of "Good Spirits"  for tipping me off to a source for the filters.  I knew what the Crank Vents were but I didn't know where to get new filters and doubted they were even still made.

Pete37

Posted: November 09 2009 at 13:37 | IP Logged

Hi Pete,

My engine serial #'s: Port: DDO-6VF 14397.  Starboard: DDO-6VF 14396. The surveyor noted the engine type/make as: "Twin Detroit Diesel Model 6V92TI "but I do not know how he came up with the TI designation.

Pete on your posted picture of the crank vent I noticed two smaller hoses coming out of the top of the unit. What are they for and what do they connect to? I have two smaller fittings there but the is a connection between them that looks like it came that way. My fittings are dark that match the units other fittings and yours look like they are white and may have been added.

Posted: November 09 2009 at 17:24 | IP Logged

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the serial numbers.  I'm making up a list with the soot/no soot conditions for each set of engines.  I believe your situarion is "soot".  When I get enough data I'll send it to J&T and see what they say.  I believe your mechanic would say that they are intercooled because he can see the intercooler.  But the aftercooler (if present) would be buried in the guts of the engine.

The answer to your question about the Crank Vent is "I don't know".  Based on their size I assume they are for transfering liquids (probably oil) and they lead to the engine somewhere near the oil filter.  The original fittings on my Crank Vent were dark too but they cracked so I replaced them with the only plastic fittings which I could find that matched the dimensions and they happened to be white.  They seem to working OK.  At least they haven't cracked.

Pete37

Posted: November 10 2009 at 13:44 | IP Logged

Pete et al,

The serial numbers on my engines are:

Port - 6VF-121327  8063-7300

Starboard - 6VF-121364  8063-7300

Engine Antifreeze concentration - In the "don't try to outsmart the engineers" mode, the 30% AF recommendation comes from the J&T Spec sheet.  In the DD shop manual (Section 13.3), it specifies "no less than" 30% concentration provides suitable corrosion protection, and the normal factory fill is 50% (that is normal for freeze protection).  Now I just wonder why J&T said what they did...

Operating Temps - Again, the J&T guys seem to be inconsistent with the DD shop manual, which specifies a 170* thermostat and 170* to (MAX) 210* coolant temp.  I am kinda like you that I prefer 170-190* and routinely see that when cxruising above idle.  I winder if J&T possibly replaced the 170* standard t'stat with a 160*??

Jim

Posted: November 10 2009 at 15:06 | IP Logged

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the serial numbers.  If I remember correctly you should be in the "Non Smokers" column.

Re Antifreeze Mix:

I was recommending slightly more than a 30% mix.  More toward the factory installed 50/50 mix.  A 30% mix just doesn't give enough freeze protection for this area.  I agree with J&T and DD that 30% mix is the minimal.  But more than 50/50 is overkill and straight AF is a no no.

Re J&T vs DD:

I don't think J&T is inconsistant with DD.  J&T tells you that 160 F is a temperature that you would normally encounter during engine operation.  But DD says that you should try to keep your engines above 170 F for maximum lifetime.  These are not inconsistant statements.  Normal and recommended are not the same thing.

Posted: November 10 2009 at 18:01 | IP Logged

Pete,

Somehow, I think we are not communicating clearly...  On aht AF question, my question is "Wh would J&T specify a MAXIUM of 30% concentration (4 gallons in a 13 gallon system) when DD specified a MINIMUM of 30% and routinely uses a 50/50 mix?  BTW, I use a 50/50 mix for appropraite freeze protection, too... Pure ethylene glycol freezes at +9*F, while a 50/50 mix freezes at -27*F.

On the temps question - I said the J&T documentation specified "Normal operating temperatures" while you bring up the term "recommended operating temperature". I do not find the term "recommended" anywhgere in DD or J&T docs. I personally agree with you that 170* is a better operating temp; however I asked the question to ascertain if J&T may have specified a 160* thermostat in their engine conversions opposite the DD standard 170* stat?  [e.g., Crusader gas marine engines use a 170* stat while GM usually specifies 192* stats for general use].

On the crankcase breather, I found a flyer in my papers that visually appears to be the same breather system you have (same label as well). It was offerred by J&T as an option, along with chrome valve covers and other stuff.

Could be your system is more "mainstream" than originally thought.

Jim

Posted: November 10 2009 at 20:53 | IP Logged

Hi Jim,

This J&T  Breather Collector Unit looks very similar to my Crank Vents but it's narrower and longer than the ones I have.  And there's no indication of a means for removing the bottom to replace filters.  But the idea is the same and the manufacturer is the same.  This could be the 6" diameter model.

My J&T Owner's Operator Manual doesn't say anything about 4 gallons.  It just says:

"Use antifreeze only when operating in freezing conditions.  When antifreeze has to be used, use a 30/70% mixture."

That would be about right for 5 F but if temps drop below zero you will need more.  Follow the directions on the antifreeze container and don't worry about what J&T or DD says. Neither one of them is going to replace your engines if you freeze up the blocks. 

I checked with Andy Gorman of J&T on 9/06/00 and he said 170 F themostats were standard on J&T 6V92s. These 170 F thermostats have an operating range of 170 F to 187 F.  The DD 92 Series Service Manual (Page 6, Section 5) says these engines are designed to operate with 170 F thermostats which "regulate coolant temperature within a range of 170 F to 187 F".   If you want to run them continuosly for long periods above or below that range you do so at your own risk.  

Pete37

Posted: November 10 2009 at 22:55 | IP Logged

Hi Pete,

I'll close this out by showing the portion of the J&T Spec sheet I have on AF and temps (see third block):

We do NOT disagree about using a 50/50 AF mix and I appreciate your notes from the J&T guy on the stat temps, which agree with our thinking, but not not with this spec sheet.  What else can be said?

Jim

Posted: November 10 2009 at 23:00 | IP Logged

Emory,

Do I remember correctly that you have Covington 6-92's and NOT J&T's?  If so this is another variable in the equasion of soot vs no soot.

Jim

Posted: November 11 2009 at 01:05 | IP Logged

Hi Jim,

Now I see why we are having these differences in interpretation of what J&T says.  You have an entirely different spec sheet.  My data comes from the J&T Owner's Operator Manual.  There are two spec sheets in this document.  The first is on pages 7 & 8 of Section 1 and is in tabular form.  It says nothing about antifreeze and there are no dates on the manual. The second spec sheet which is attached to the back of the manual is marked as revised on 7/10/86 and therefore would apply to most 1987 Connies.

Your 1985 Connie would have a spec sheet dated sometime in 1984.  I suspect this sheet was made up by Uniflite.  Most of the data seems fairly close but the formatting and order of the data is entirely different.  Also the data in the 1986 specs is far more complete giving a lot of extra data not shown in your data sheet.

The note on antifreeze in the second 1986 spec sheet says:

"NOTE: WHERE TEMPERATURES PERMIT, USE ONY 30% ANTIFREEZE SOLUTION IN COOLANT SYSTEM TO PREVENT POSSIBLE OVERHEATING.  

IN AREAS WHERE TEMPERATURES ARE ABOVE FREEZING USE WATER AND A COOLING SYSTEM CONDITIONER SUCH AS "NALCOOL" IN SYSTEM."

This is not the same quote I gave before which came from page 3-13 of the manual.

What they are trying to say is that antifreeze solutions with concentrations higher than 30% don't work well at high temps.  A Nalcool mixture is preferable for temps above freezing but if an antifreeze solution is used keep the strength at 30% (not higher).  That would give corrosion protection and protect against freezing down to about 5 F.  They don't say anything about lower temps.  I think they believe that most owners will read the antifreeze container and protect their engines accordingly against freezing.

So a 30% antifreeze solution would be OK for summer and for temps down to 5 F. Below that you need more antifreeze.

Pete37 

Posted: November 11 2009 at 18:15 | IP Logged

Yes Jim, I have Covington's and I have soot!  But I do not believe that it has anything to do with who makes the engines.  As I have expressed before, there are many factors regarding whether or not a DD soots or not.  How the boat is operated, how often the boat is operated, how well the engines are maintained, how clean is the fuel, and on and on.

As an example,  Ken (The Good Life) says he doen't have soot.  However, look at how he runs the boat!   3300 mile trip, 2/3's of which was run at 2100!  I say, 2100 rpms!  How many of us run our boats at that rpm?  Before I started slowing down, I routinely ran my boat at 2000 rpms and did not have to worry too much about soot either.  Why?  Because the engines burn the fuel more efficiently at 2000 to 2100 rpms than it does at 1700 or 1800 rpms.  And certainly burns more efficiently than at 1400 rpms.  But fuel prices two seasons ago got us all turning to more fuel economy.  That is to say, burning and buying less fuel and burning more fuel, albeit, more efficiently.

I have followed the posts regarding the "sooters" vs the "no sooters".  I still feel that there are way too many variables relating to this issue than simply who built these engines and whether or not TI's don't soot and TA's do, or visa versa.

Wouldn't it have been nice to have been around when these old girls were delivered, and see how much of a soot issue was present? 

Posted: November 11 2009 at 22:46 | IP Logged

Emory, Pete, everyone,

Just to clarify, I was in a hurry when I posted about 2/3 of the 3300 miles at 2100 RPM's.  Let me add that we have put MANY hours/miles on the boat in the 1400-1600 or 1800 RPM range and still had no soot.  I along with everyone else would love to see this issue resolved.  It's one of those things about our boats and engines that bugs the heck out of me not knowing what is going on!  This is the one topic that I have followed most intently throughout the forum.  Our boats/engines are too similar to have such significant differences in soot generation.

Ken

Posted: November 18 2009 at 12:39 | IP Logged

Hi All,

Well, it’s done!  The job I hate to do more than any other, changing the oil, is over.  And I did it in less than four hours.   A few days earlier I had gone to my local auto supply and bought two 5 gallon drums of oil and two oil filters.  Here on Kent Island auto suppliers also carry marine stuff.   That took about a half hour and cost about $221.

This Tuesday, November 17^th, I loaded the stuff in my car, went to the boat and loaded it onto the boat. Then I started the engines to warm the oil up.  That took about another half hour.

While the engines were warming up, I set up an empty 5 gallon drum to take the oil pumped out of the starboard engine.  Fortunately my boat has a permanently installed Groco oil change system so setting up the system merely involved putting the drum in place, sticking the hose in the drum and switching a couple valves.  After 45 minutes were up I shut the engines down.  Then I started to pump out the old oil.  I pumped out the starboard tank replaced the oil drum with a second empty oil drum and pumped out the port engine.  The whole operation took only 25 minutes.  Then I loaded the oil drums in the car and disposed of the old oil at the marina’s oil disposal facility.  That took about 15 minutes.

The next step (and the messiest) was removing the old oil filters.  I loosened the filters with a special oil filter wrench, placed a plastic bucket under the filter and punctured the bottom of the filter with a hammer and large Philips screwdriver.  After the oil had drained out I finished removing the filter and replaced it with a new one.  This only took about 15 minutes but was the messiest part of the whole operation.  I invariably get some of the oil on me and the boat.

Finishing up, involved simply hooking up the drums of new oil to the Groco system and pumping the new oil into the engines.  I monitored the refill with the dipstick to make sure the engines weren’t overfilled.  And finally I started the engines to make sure everything was OK.  This took another 25 minutes.

The time involved was about an hour to buy the oil and filters and get them aboard the boat and 45 minutes to warm up the engines.  Once the engines were warmed up the actual oil change took only about 80 minutes.  Of course I spent about another half hour cleaning up the mess and putting tools away.  The total time involved was about 3 hours and 35 minutes.  Of course then I had to sit back and spend a half hour sipping wine and admiring my work.

I don’t know why I hate this job so much but I do.  Hope you guys have all finished this PITA job on your Connies.

Pete37

Posted: November 18 2009 at 15:01 | IP Logged

Pete et al,

Couple of thoughts... I looked at the pix I posted of the DRI crank vent system sold by J&T... the pix is NOT to scale - compressed in width and possibly enlongated.  Yours MAY be the same one, but cannot tell for sure.

On oil Filters - where are your filters located?  On my boat the remote filters are bolted to the inboard stringers just behind the batteries.  This location only allows a few inches between the deck and the bottom of the filters.It does not  allow much in the way of pans or buckets underneath.  Naybe I need to do some shopping for an appropriate pan...  Previously, I have loosened the filters with a strap wrench and encased the filter inside two plastic trash bags to catch all the drips.  Once loose, I can unscrew the filters from the top and allow the filter to simply drop into the bags, along with the oil.  Once off the boat, I drain the oil in the bags to the 5 gallon pail for disposal.  Last time I did it, I had no oil on me or the boat (only on gloved hands).  My recycle center here in Delaware also has a recycle operation to capture the oil filters and all oil contaminated rags or bags as well)

Jim

Posted: November 18 2009 at 20:51 | IP Logged

Hi all,

It has been a hectic couple weeks with the cars, boat, the house, finalizing all the details for a commodores ball for this Saturday and waiting for our latest grandchild to arrive!! He did arrive, Eli and mother are doing fine (and so are Grandpa and Grandma)!

Drove to New York to be there for the birth and two days later drove from there to Maryland and spendt a couple days winterizing the boat (glad that chore is done). Back to New York tomorrow and than to the commodores ball Saturday, another grandson's birthday party Sunday and then Thanksgiving time will be near.

Hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving.

Proud Grandpa Dave

Posted: November 18 2009 at 21:05 | IP Logged

Congrats to Dave.  Nothing like grandkids, I know, I have five.  Sounds like you are having a very hectic November.

Emory

Posted: November 18 2009 at 23:50 | IP Logged

Hi Dave,

Congratulations on your new grandson. Grandsons take precedence over boats anyday.  This must be you second grandson.

Pete37

Posted: November 19 2009 at 00:17 | IP Logged

Hi Jim,

My filters are mounted the same way yours are.  I use a 2.5 gallon plastic bucket and slide it under the filter and then up between the filter and stringer.  On the starboard engine there are some battery cables which make it a little snug.  But on the port engine it goes in real easy.

I use a metal filter wrench specifically made for removing filters and loosen the filter before I install the bucket.  But once the filter is fully unscrewed it's heavy, hot and slippery so it usually drops to the bottom of the bucket and makes a big thud splattering some oil in the process. 

So I puncture the bottom of the filter with a screwdriver and let the contents drain into the bucket before I finish unscrewing the filter.  Then I take the bucket with the filter still in it to the oil disposal facility and dispose of both the oil and filter.  But this still leaves me with an oily bucket which must be cleaned. 

I guess I could line the bucket with a plastic bag.  However, fighting with a bag filled with a half gallon of oil and an old filter has always seemed like a tricky operation.

Pete37

Posted: November 19 2009 at 08:19 | IP Logged

David:

Congrats to the healthy arrival of the grandson!  I have one that is now 4 and he loves the boat (my daughter, on the other hand, served on aircraft carriers for 4+ years and doesn't want to even THINK about boats).  Accordingly, we take him some every summer aboard and let him have his fun.

Pete,

Thanks for the info on your filter arrangement.  A plastic bag in the bucket would eliminate the "plop-splash" you described and if could also keep the bucket clean as well.  I clip a corner of the bag when I can drain it into the disposal pail which is easy and works well.

Jim

Posted: November 19 2009 at 16:21 | IP Logged

Hi Jim,

I could probably line the bucket with a plastic bag and then clamp the top of the bag to the rim of the bucket with three binder clips (large paper clips).  I could still take the bucket/bag/oil/oil filter assembly to the oil disposal facility remove and dispose of the filter and then pour out the oil. 

Then I could detach the plastic bag from the bucket and dispose of the bag leaving me with nothing but a clean bucket.  Sounds feasible.  Maybe I'll do it that way next year.  I'll add it to my notes on oil changes. 

Perhaps next year I'll be able to change the oil in my dress whites rather than my grungy bilge blues.  I think I'll make a party of it.  I'll lay out a white table cloth in the bilge, invite all my friends and we can have wine and finger food to celebrate the occasion.

Pete37

Posted: November 19 2009 at 16:35 | IP Logged

Emory,Pete and Jim,

Thanks for the congrats. As you know being a Grandpa is sure enjoyable. Eli is our 4th. All boys; the others are age 8,6, and two. One more boy and I'll have a basketball team or if it is a girl a very happy Grandma.