Who says Force engines don't go?

Title says it all.

This engine hit 55 with no modifications other than a cleaver prop. Notice how much of the hull is on the water and how much is in the air? Notice the rooster-tail? Imagine if I had a set-back jackplate and maybe got inside and ported it. She'd ride on the cav plate alone.


Rig: 1990 90 HP that I bought for 100 bucks with no lower unit. 14 foot flat bottom boat was purchased for 75 bucks--with a junk trailer. She doesn't look like much, but she has been completely rebuilt and reinforced to accept the horsepower. When I retire this year, she will get a three color gel coat scheme.

Third photo is the starboard rear splashwell showing the aluminum plating covering the transom and tied into the side of the splashwell. You could smack a truck into this transom and it would not move.

Re: Who says Force engines don't go?

Nice work Frank. It certainally gets along for a boat that costs more to fill than it did to buy. Just needed to have the know how to get it going.

Should look good with the new pain job. Take special care when painting the last couple of inches of the hull infront of the transom. It looks to be the only part that will touch the water.



Looking forward to seing it finished.

Cheers

Re: Who says Force engines don't go?

frank,
are the corner reinforcement, through bolted to the sides of the transom?
really cool job! cant wait for the paint

Re: Who says Force engines don't go?

Lookin good! That thing looks like it flies

Re: Who says Force engines don't go?

Looks like ya got a sleeper there . You can have fun passin $30,000.00 boats that only go 50 mph Yee Ha !!!

Just curious- how did u determine 55 mph? GPS or ?

Re: Who says Force engines don't go?

1. Stainless steel corner gussets, through bolted at both the transom and splashwell. It originally had aluminum but they broke from fatigue.
2. 55 GPS. After these photos, I installed a 125 and she now does 60 GPS. Several modifications planned for the bottom to try and hit 65.
3. 15 gallon fuel tank 'cause at 5900 RPM, the 9 gallon one did not last long enough. So yes, it does cost more to fill than I paid for it.

Here she is sitting with the 125 (rebadged to read 85)

Wait 'till the little orange puppy gets the 140!

Re: Who says Force engines don't go?

NIIIIIIIIIIIce ! Might be a good idea to make sure your health/life insurance is paid up

Re: Who says Force engines don't go?

First, Frank I love that Glastron boat!! (CV15? CV16?)....Bond all over again!!
2nd, I love hearing about that 90hp moving that boat along at 55mph...particularly seeing as I have the same motor, albeit on a 90' Capri.
3rd...where and how did Force (Chrysler) get a reputation for being slow and/or underpowered?
Were they not prop rated too?
I know the Mercs typically underrated...but what about the Johnnyrudes, the Yammies, Suzuki's etc? Were they all faster than the ol' Forces?
BP

Re: Who says Force engines don't go?

NOPE! Its a GT 150 rated for 90 and the one in the jump had a Rude 135. I intent to put on my souped-up 140.

Force engines usually are not as fast as the other brands because of the lower unit gearing and also because the engine design is straight crossflow--a 50 year old design with not much power potential. So yes, on the top end they do suffer. If I had a 90 Merc on there she would probably do 60 or more. But, I LIKE Chryslers!

Case in point: My 15 foot glastron with with just me and a Chrysler 90--ported and carbed-- does 45. The same hull with a stock 105 does--you guessed it--45. But, the hole shot is better. A 16 footer with a Merc 90 stock and two people does 47--But the merc is much newer design and while still a crossflow engine, it also has a "Boost" port added to help scavenge gases. it also has a tuned exhaust leg as opposed to the Chrysler/Force with just an untuned exhaust downtube.

When Merc got their hands on Force, they redesigned the 70 and 75. These engines are surprising in their performance but I have no hard numbers to quote. However, between the two, if you had to pick, the 75 would be the one to choose. It has different rods and pistons.

Re: Who says Force engines don't go?

So Frank...have you modified that 90hp then to put out more power or?
Any advice for my 90hp?
Noting that right now, it is running great...compression is good (all 125-ish) and probably about 400 hrs on it.
Any tips? carb settings beyond what is there? Decarbing tricks?
Another question: would you rather your 90hp ran the Chrysler Presto-lite ignition or the (91-94ish) merc ignition? Power difference? Reliability? or other noticeable operating differences?
I've got a completely intact 2nd 'spare' motor (1991) to my 90hp Presto-lite force but with all the Merc stuff on it....sort of 'drop-in' spare in case of emergencies
All good
BP

Re: Who says Force engines don't go?

My Chrysler 90 is a mix of parts and I don't know the real year. I think I initially bought it in Atlantic City advertised as a running 1976 or 1978 85. It didn't!

Right now it is a Motorola distributor ignition engine. When I bought it I was really green and I melted the center piston three times before I learned why. Then, it was time to buy a new block. I lucked into a deal--350 for a brand new virgin block. While I had it apart, I ported the bypass and exhaust, opened up the reed stops, and changed the three carbs to those from a 100 HP engine (same venturi size but bigger jets, so they can deliver more fuel.) Then last year, I changed the midleg and lower unit from the pre-'79 two piece to the post '79 one piece and proved that the one piece lower unit is indeed 2-3 MPH faster. With this engine I also proved that the 2-1 ratio lower with a 19 pitch prop is 5-7 MPH faster than the 1.78-1 ratio lower unit with a 17 pitch prop.

As far as reliability--lets see: My son was 13 and now he is 31 so this engine and ignition has been running with no problems for 17 seasons. (first season was wasted on repairing it.) Now, I would trust this engine to take me anywhere. Someday I will mount it on the 14 footer to compare it to the stock Force 90.

Some day I might swap in a Prestolite distributorless ignition. I just think that it is more precise, has a lot less to adjust, and less chance of component failure than with the distributor. I don't have an opinion about the Merc ignition, but I do know that in the '70s, a lot of racers were swapping Merc ignitions onto their Chrysler engines. So, obviously they were superior.

The photo is the 90 on my 15 foot Glastron, the avatar is the 105 on the same hull. Someday I will mount the 140 on there just for Sh*ts and giggles. Yeah, I have a lot of boats and engines--and I change them as much as some guys change underwear! LOL!

Re: Who says Force engines don't go?

Frank, I think you misunderstood the statement. What the person probably
said was;

Emoney's 'Force" don't go!

Now that, at least for the moment, is a factual statement.

So, I'm just going to ship my motor to you, you fix it up real nice and
bring it back to me all brand newish....ok! Thanks.

Seriously, nice job and I bet she looks smooth running down the water with
about 1/2" of boat in the water!

Re: Who says Force engines don't go?

Brings back memories.

My first boat was a 15ft glastron, but one with a rounded windscreen.
The only engine i could get for a good price was an evinrude 135 and since i was into modification we did everything to that sucker. as far as fibre glass reed valves, porting, carbs upgrade, u name it.
never checked it with gps but it went over 55.
One day we came up to the boat and saw grand daddy doing something behind it with a piece of 1/2 inch rope. He was tying the engine to the cleats on the back of the boat for us so that we would have the engine when it broke off LOL.
your aluminum would hold yours together and from my experience the 140 will work, even modified.

Good luck, and post the painted pics

No Fuss.