Sundancer ACTUAL weights

[Joshieburger]

Hello, new member, trying hard not to act like one. I have been all over this forum since buying our boat 2 years ago, and with all the info, never had to post a question, but the time has come…

I am wondering if members could share what their sundancers actual weights are. I am specifically looking for examples of the 1996-1999 330DA. If memory serves, the factory net weight is listed as 11,700 on these, but when i went to haul mine out, they couldnt lift it with their 14k? fork truck. They had to sling it. Once it was up, they told me the scales said it was sitting at about 15k. This blew me away that mine would weigh an additional ≈3k lbs with empty water, 1/4 fuel in each tank (by gauge), and no comfort items on board. My configuration also had MOST of the port motor disassembled as i was hauling it to replace the motor and do a DIY bottom job…

Anyway, i normally wouldnt care about the weight difference, but when i had it out, i noticed the installed props were very undersized. Stamp said 12 15… im assuming 12 diameter 15 pitch and not a variable pitch prop (Im dumb because i didnt measure while it was out), either way, not a 17x17 like the factory calls for. I didnt KNOW these were the wrong props until after i put it back in… i ended up finding a set of props on the boat and i thought they were spares as they are 17x17s. i cant for the life of me understand why the previous owner would have thrown tiny props on, unless it had an issue getting on plane, and now putting 2 and 2 together my overweight issue makes me think thats why it was re-propped. Maybe he just threw random props on it while getting the other ones reconditioned or something?? Idk… I have been fixing this boat since owning it, and have not yet been able to get both motors to full throttle rpm together. The FI one on stbd side seems to work fine from what i can tell, but i am having issues getting to WOT on my port (carbureted side), but thats for a separate thread… i say all this because im wondering if i should prop back up, or am i truly overweight? I wont deny there is a possibility i have gained water weight, which is why I would like to know if anyone else KNOWS their actual weight and will share it here to help me with my prop decision. Guy is coming to swap the props today, so im hoping that a 17x17 should still be able to push 15k+.

sooooo… lots of issues going on, and lots to potentially talk about, but id like to start with weight. I appreciate everyones help and input they can give!

 

[Scott215]

Very. Small props. Can't wait for others opinions

 

[Golfman25]

Gas runs about 6 lbs/gallon. So you could have about 600-1000 lbs of gas.

What is the history of the boat? Did you have it surveyed? Moisture in the deck? How did it run? Why did you replace an MpI with carb?

 

[Joshieburger]

Gas runs about 6 lbs/gallon. So you could have about 600-1000 lbs of gas.

What is the history of the boat? Did you have it surveyed? Moisture in the deck? How did it run? Why did you replace an MpI with carb?

at 1/4 tanks i should have ≈350 lbs of fuel. No survey. History unknown besides ingesting water in port motor. Instead of a long block swap i found it quicker to get up and running doing a full motor swap. Thats why it is carbd on that side. I still have the components and may go back to FI eventually, but not my priority. Some soft spots by the hatches, and again, i admit probably some water weight there. Just want to compare to others to see maybe how much, if that even is the case.

Do you know the scaled weight of your boat?

 

[Joshieburger]

Side question: is Sea Ray’s NET WEIGHT without power? I can imagine there being big differences depending on what motors/drives are optioned.

 

[aerobat77]

I think searay gives the DRY weight without ANY fluids in engine / drive as well only the version with the smallest engine / drive as well no additional extras.

I know my previous 240 sundancer was in reality way heavier than claimed in the specs. I guess every manufacturer acts that way

 

[Yendor]

Quite the conundrum for sure.

In any case, it hardly seems likely that starboard engine could/would seem to be operating normally IF it where in fact only turning half the prop that it should be; it should/would readily over-rev.

Conversely, if the prop were a 12x15 and the engine IS operating normally, putting a 17x17 on there would choke it nearly to death and render regular operating rpm range, completely unattainable.
As such, there would seem to be a discrepancy here, above and beyond the weight of your boat.

I am admittedly ignorant about V-drives and their potential gearing, but can't imagine that potential difference to encompass such a radically large variance in prop pitch.

This would all imply to me that the numbers you got of the current prop(s) were not what you presumed them to be.
Whether you misread those numbers or they are something other than the diameter/pitch (model # ?), I don't know, but there is something here that doesn't jibe, and it looks to me like that doesn't involve the weight of the boat.

 

[Skybolt]

Side question: is Sea Ray’s NET WEIGHT without power? I can imagine there being big differences depending on what motors/drives are optioned.

Sea Ray does give dry weight, no fluids or anything on board. It is an unachievable light weight, one you will never get because of the weight of the added "options" like engines etc.

An example is my boat, stated dry weight is 27.5K lbs. add in the engines of close to 5K lbs and fuel and water and I am over 36K lbs. A far cry form the stated unladen weight. Then add in all of the things left on the boat or are needed to be there that are not in the weight calculation and you will never see anything close to the stated weight.

 

[Joshieburger]

Thanks for the replies. Again, I know there are performance issues, which I am OK with because I will eventually fix them, but I dont want to keep poking and prodding and "fixing" my motors to push the wrong prop, I would like to make sure, in the end, that they will both be able to turn a 17x17. But I want to make absolutely sure that a boat that potentially weighs 5k more than the factory spec'd a 17x17 on can still indeed be pushed by the same props. I know 5k is not an outrageous number, and actually seems to be GOOD if we go in line with your example SKY, but at some point there will be an effect of weight to performance. I just need to make sure im still below that threshold at 15k.

I also had a lightbulb moment about the stbd motor not being able to reach WOT and I will share to see others' opinions:

The FI motor will get up to about 33-3500 from what I recall. I believe I can safely assume I am down from the correct RPMs because of the uneven drag from the port side not climbing above 2300 (I believe this to be ignition related, and the timing not properly advancing, so replacing the ignition module will be my next troubleshooting step after the props are corrected). An example would be someone punching the throttle on their boat, the RPMs dont just reach top end, they slowly rise as the boat enters a plane, and then top out when the least resistance, as proper cruise speed somewhat correlates to rpm (minus sea conditions and wind).

A good test of this theory would be for someone to only advance either their port or starboard motor and see if they can reach top end on it with the drag of the other side holding it back.

 

[Espos4]

Also batteries and possibly the generator weight aren’t included in the “dry” weight.

 

[Golfman25]

I'd confirm the current prop size and maybe throw the stock 17 x 17 props on while you're out of the water. Then check you numbers and work on your engine issues from there. Sounds like you may have a long journey ahead.

And if I am not mistaken, the MPI and Carb versions of the 7.4 maybe make diff HP?

 

[Joshieburger]

I'd confirm the current prop size and maybe throw the stock 17 x 17 props on while you're out of the water. Then check you numbers and work on your engine issues from there. Sounds like you may have a long journey ahead.

And if I am not mistaken, the MPI and Carb versions of the 7.4 maybe make diff HP?

I am throwing the 17s on today. You are definitely correct on HP differences, but I am HOPING that the biggest issue I will have with that is a difference in throttle positions at cruise. I will never reach peak performance leaving the port motor in a carb configuration.

***EDIT*** I just looked at the specs, and both the FI and the Carb make the same HP. I did not expect that... I attribute that to the same heads used on both motors. Missed opportunity for them to use the good rectangle heads on these bluewater inboards.

 

[Skybolt]

I am throwing the 17s on today. You are definitely correct on HP differences, but I am HOPING that the biggest issue I will have with that is a difference in throttle positions at cruise. I will never reach peak performance leaving the port motor in a carb configuration.

***EDIT*** I just looked at the specs, and both the FI and the Carb make the same HP. I did not expect that... I attribute that to the same heads used on both motors. Missed opportunity for them to use the good rectangle heads on these bluewater inboards.

Wasn't going to comment on this, but ...

You are making a huge mistake by keeping the carb on that engine, just from a fuel burn perspective alone is enough to put the existing EFI back on the engine. But from a performance standing, the EFI will out perform the carb all day long. Not just at cruise but in maneuvering and getting on plane. If you have the EFI from the original and it is in working order, it's well worth the wrench time. JMO of course.

 

[Joshieburger]

Thanks SKY. Thats eventually the goal. Probably an off season project.

some data points for future reference if it may end up benefiting anyone:

cruising to the haul out on one motor (stbd FI): 7.8 mph @2400 rpm

Both engines at idle speed in fwd gear - 4 mph @ 800ish rpm
≈6mph @ 1200

i will get diameter measurement of the props when they come off

 

[Skybolt]

Thanks SKY. Thats eventually the goal. Probably an off season project.

some data points for future reference if it may end up benefiting anyone:

Both engines at idle speed in fwd gear - 4 mph
≈6mph @ 1200

i will get diameter measurement of the props when they come off

So your saying you idle @1200 in gear? What is it in neutral. Either way that is almost double of what it should be. Water speed is irrelevant, too many variables that change.

 

[Joshieburger]

So your saying you idle @1200 in gear? What is it in neutral. Either way that is almost double of what it should be. Water speed is irrelevant, too many variables that change.

no, per previous post “idle” in gear is roughly 800 rpm. Maybe i didnt put my spacing good enough to see the dofference. I then reference the 1200rpm speed.

i am using water speed in this scenario because i am trying to paint a picture of what this set of props look like at the lower rpms. No relevance to engine performance (again, fixing my engines is not my goal of this post).

i reference it because i would assume someone else possibly has data points for THEIR 330, and can tell me im off what I should be…. Like their fwd gear idle speed is actually 6mph, etc…

***Edit*** as I cant change the idle on the FI motor, im guessing it doesnt drop to the specified rpm because there is almost no load on the motor in fwd gear?

 

[Stee6043]

at 1/4 tanks i should have ≈350 lbs of fuel. No survey. History unknown besides ingesting water in port motor. Instead of a long block swap i found it quicker to get up and running doing a full motor swap. Thats why it is carbd on that side. I still have the components and may go back to FI eventually, but not my priority. Some soft spots by the hatches, and again, i admit probably some water weight there. Just want to compare to others to see maybe how much, if that even is the case.

Do you know the scaled weight of your boat?

You've got yourself quite a project! Wet deck, two different types of fuel delivery, two sets of wildly different props. Man alive...

I believe I idle right around 800rpm as well w/7.4's. And that would be in the ballpark of 4mph though I can't really drive at this speed (not particularly maneuverable for my rig).

Here's how mine looks at 1050/1100. I think you're running way too slow at 1200RPM if you're only at 6mph. But I assume you've already found the reason for that (the props)...

 

[Golfman25]

no, per previous post “idle” in gear is roughly 800 rpm. Maybe i didnt put my spacing good enough to see the dofference. I then reference the 1200rpm speed.

i am using water speed in this scenario because i am trying to paint a picture of what this set of props look like at the lower rpms. No relevance to engine performance (again, fixing my engines is not my goal of this post).

i reference it because i would assume someone else possibly has data points for THEIR 330, and can tell me im off what I should be…. Like their fwd gear idle speed is actually 6mph, etc…

Hit this thread. Should have a bunch of posts regarding performance at various RPMs.
http://www.clubsearay.com/index.php?threads/official-330-sundancer-thread.12648/

 

[Joshieburger]

You've got yourself quite a project! Wet deck, two different types of fuel delivery, two sets of wildly different props. Man alive...

I believe I idle right around 800rpm as well w/7.4's. And that would be in the ballpark of 4mph though I can't really drive at this speed (not particularly maneuverable for my rig).

Here's how mine looks at 1050/1100. I think you're running way too slow at 1200RPM if you're only at 6mph. But I assume you've already found the reason for that (the props)...

View attachment 148141

thanks for the reply and the info. Was that on your 340? Those are the numbers id like to see. I really dont mind just putting around “cocktail cruising”, but 5mph is a LIIIITTLE slow haha.

 

[Scott215]

How did you end up with EFI and a carb. Motors will not perform the same at all