Association Forum - Fulton motor mount differences

Assn Members Area · Join

Home.

Association Forum

Ships Store

Cruising

Racing

Technical Tips

Photo Gallery - New

Boat Search - Updated

Manuals & Brochures

Swap Meet

Links

Officer Flag Line & Staff

Bylaws & Constitution

Members Area

Join the Association

Notice:
The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.

Association Forum

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

Catalina/Capri 25/250 Sailor's Forums

General Sailing Forum

Fulton motor mount differences

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Author

Topic

dmpilc
Master Marine Consultant

Member Avatar

USA
4593 Posts

Initially Posted - 10/17/2007 : 22:58:15

I'm getting ready to remove a Fulton model 1820 mount and replace it with a Fulton 1810 mount. The 1820 has a stated vertical lift of 9" while the 1810 has a stated vertical lift of 13". The two mounts feel like they are made out of the same materials, so what interests me is that the model 1820 (shorter lift) is rated for 4 strokes up to 9.9hp, but the 1810 is rated for 4 strokes only up to 6hp. Both are rated for 2 strokes up to 130 lbs. Perhaps you engineer types can jump on this. Why would the model 1810 have a more restrictive 4 stroke limit? Does it have something to do with the extra vertical lift and therefore the angle of the lift arms in the down position? Inquiring minds want to know.

DavidP
1975 C-22 SK #5459 "Shadowfax" Fleet 52
PO of 1984 C-25 SK/TR #4142 "Recess"
Percy Priest Yacht Club, Hamilton Creek Marina, Nashville, TN

Edited by - dmpilc on 10/18/2007 22:33:13

Dave Bristle
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Djibouti
10005 Posts

Response Posted - 10/17/2007 : 23:16:24

I can tell you this much... I personally asked Fulton about why the 1810 was rated for 2-strokes only (at that time), and was told it would work just fine for the 108# high-thrust 4-stroke Honda 8 I planned to put on it. As you observed, the only difference between the two is the addition of a couple of lower positions. It turns out the lowest one puts the pull-up handle so close to one of the main arms that it's hard to get a grip on the handle when it's all the way down. I almost never put it on the lowest position--usually the next to the lowest, which put my prop plenty deep for Long Island Sound. Also, I blocked it out from the transom using aluminum channels Fulton sold at the time but apparently no longer sells. Without them, as I recall, the handle would have rested against the transom when fully raised. You might want to block it out with a couple of inches of something like Starboard.

I could see no reason why the lower positions would make it any less strong--I too am puzzled by their new ratings...

Edited by - on

Frank Hopper
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

Pitcairn Island
6776 Posts

Response Posted - 10/18/2007 : 06:01:38

Maybe with the lever arm so vertical they feel you won't be able to "get it started" to come up with such a heavy load.

Edited by - on

Dave Bristle
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Djibouti
10005 Posts

Response Posted - 10/18/2007 : 07:50:21

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Frank Hopper
 Maybe with the lever arm so vertical they feel you won't be able to "get it started" to come up with such a heavy load.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">But they say 130# for 2-strokes... It isn't great when lowered to the last notch because it becomes hard to release. As for structural strength, the construction is just about identical to your Garelick, with thick cast aluminum box sections--much more rigid than stainless tubing. I dunno...

Edited by - on

dmpilc
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
4593 Posts

Response Posted - 10/18/2007 : 14:26:30

Without an angle-out in the handle at the top, and using 2 of the original mounting holes in the transom, I found that when I mounted the 1820 directly to the transom with a backing board on the inside, the top of the handle hits the rubrail, just barely, preventing the mount from locking in the up position. I was planning to block the 1810 mount out with 1/4" Starboard. Do you think I should use 1/2" instead - I do have some 1/2" Starboard? If I go with a 1/2" block-out, I doubt that the bolts will be long enough to use the backing board on the inside.

Edited by - dmpilc on 10/18/2007 14:27:23

Dave Bristle
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Djibouti
10005 Posts

Response Posted - 10/18/2007 : 17:31:00

That's exactly what I found with the 1810... It was apparently designed for the handle to be over the top of a transom. I'd use at least the half-inch, if not two pieces stacked. A "fronting" board on the transom is a good idea in any event. I made mine extend several inches below the bracket, since inward force will be at the bottom (and outward at the top). I guess you'll need four new bolts. BTW, I used carriage bolts (domed head with a square section under), and filed the holes in the bracket into squares so I could do the job single-handed. I suggested square holes to Fulton--did they use the suggestion?

Edited by - Dave Bristle on 10/18/2007 17:34:34

dmpilc
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
4593 Posts

Response Posted - 10/18/2007 : 22:31:04

Yes, Dave, both mounts have square holes in the mounting plates and came supplied with a kit of carriage bolts about 2-2.5" long, washers, and self-locking nuts. I went to the boat this afternoon with the 1/4" board I made. It looks like that would allow raising the motor to the next to the top notch, but not all the way up. I guess I'll start prepping the 1/2" piece of Starboard I bought and use that with the 1/4" piece I've already cut.
I'll keep you posted as it progresses. Would have been a lot simpler to have just bought the Garhauer mount from CD in the first place!

Edited by - on

Dave Bristle
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Djibouti
10005 Posts

Response Posted - 10/18/2007 : 22:50:31

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dmpilc
 ...Would have been a lot simpler to have just bought the Garhauer mount from CD in the first place!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Mmmmmmm-hmmmmmmm.

Edited by - on

dmpilc
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
4593 Posts

Response Posted - 10/19/2007 : 21:19:05

Dave, do you know if there are supposed to be more stopping points or notches on the arms of the 1810 as opposed to the 1820 mount. From your comments above, I assumed there would be 1 or 2 additional stops on the 1810. I took the new purchase out to the lake today, and the mount labeled model 1810 looks identical to the one on my boat labeled model 1820. Both mounts have 5 stop positions on the handle arms, and the dimensions of each structural piece appear to be the same length. To further muddy the water, the mount labeled 1810 had obviously been repackaged. I've already sent an email to the vendor who sold me the motor mount. Any additional light you could shed on this (design differences) would be appreciated.

Edited by - dmpilc on 10/19/2007 23:29:00

dmpilc
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
4593 Posts

Response Posted - 10/21/2007 : 17:37:34

Dave, Please help. See above. Thanks!

Edited by - on

Dave Bristle
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Djibouti
10005 Posts

Response Posted - 10/22/2007 : 11:17:14

Sorry, David--out of pocket for a bit... I've never seen an 1820, but my understanding at the time was it was the same except for one or two additional notches (stops) on the handle. So I've now told you more than I know... Are the stops the same distance from each other?

Edited by - on

dmpilc
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
4593 Posts

Response Posted - 10/22/2007 : 15:26:58

Thanks Dave. Sorry, I thought you had worked with both models. I was able to get through to the mfgr. cust. support today. A guy there told me that the two models have the same number of stops {haven't checked distance between them} and are identical, except that the model 1820 will not lock into the final stop, i.e. the bottom one on the bars, in the full up position. I'll check the new one I received and see if it is locked in that slot. This is an engineering puzzle to me. Stay tuned for the next installment.

Ok, I checked the new mount and it does lock in the full up slot. We finally are getting some rain to provide some drought relief, so it will be later this week before I can take the incorrect mount off the boat. Next step is to make a 1/2" starboard cut-out to go between the mount and the boat and get some longer lag bolts.

Edited by - dmpilc on 10/22/2007 20:27:55

Dave Bristle
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Djibouti
10005 Posts

Response Posted - 10/22/2007 : 20:47:05

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dmpilc
 ...and get some longer lag bolts.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Carriage bolts--don't get lags.

Edited by - on

dmpilc
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
4593 Posts

Response Posted - 10/22/2007 : 22:43:35

right, I used the wrong term. Carriage bolts have the domed head with the square sides underneath to match the square holes on the mounting bracket. I've got the parts bag of bolts that came with the mount.

Edited by - on

dmpilc
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
4593 Posts

Response Posted - 11/01/2007 : 20:49:38

Here's my next to the final update: I have finished swapping out the two Fulton motor mounts. The model 1810 is now on the boat. Fortunately the mounting holes on both do line up. Taking a hint from the photos on the other thread, I blocked it out using 1/2" Starboard and also used 1/4" Starboard as a backing plate on the inside of the transom. So far - so good. The installation looks neat and orderly. I was going to try to use 2 pieces of 1/2" board to block it out but couldn't find 11/32" carriage bolts, so I stayed with a single board. Most likely what I will do is leave the motor in the next to top position. I called this my next to final update because I was going to test it out with a Merc 5hp 4 stroke long shaft I have here at home, but it won't start. I can get it started with Pyrol spray, but it won't stay running. Oh well, when it rains, it pours! I was really interested to see if it would work with the C-25. Something is still strange with the elec start 9.9, so it looks like I'm hauling the back-up 9.9 back out there.
The other thing is that, in the full down position and with no one on board and no motor, the top of the mount is 22" above the water. I may be buying a 25" shaft motor after all.

Edited by - on

Dave Bristle
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Djibouti
10005 Posts

Response Posted - 11/01/2007 : 22:02:09

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dmpilc
 ...in the full down position and with no one on board and no motor, the top of the mount is 22" above the water. I may be buying a 25" shaft motor after all.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">That's similar to my installation--the plate on my Honda XLS (27.75") sat about 5" below the surface. That's a good number--it almost never cavitated in the significant chop of Long Island Sound. The long shaft (22") Honda that came from the P.O. had the plate at the waterline, and would suck air if I went to the bow with the engine running. That was on a Garelick stainless steel bracket that was inadequate for the newer, heavier Honda.

Edited by - Dave Bristle on 11/01/2007 22:06:25

dmpilc
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
4593 Posts

Response Posted - 11/02/2007 : 14:24:06

Final update, I hope!
Got the Merc fixed this morning, it had oil in the carb., I think it was laid down wrong at the shop back in Aug. when I had the impeller changed. When I got home that evening, there was oil in my van under the motor and I know I laid it down in the van correctly. Let it drip onto newspaper for several weeks which turned into months while I was dealing with the motor mount issues. Didn't try to start it until last night, and of course, it wouldn't cooperate. Anyway, it's now on the boat on the new mount, and the cav plate is sitting about 1" under the surface with nobody on the boat and the mount in the lowest position. Because of the screw clamps, it just barely went into the last slot. The admiral may decide to leave it there and let me deal with it. We're going out for a test drive this evening after work.
In the final analysis, I'm certain that I would have been better off all around if I had bought the Garhauer mount from Catalina Direct instead of trying to save a buck on the first Fulton mount. I would have spent the same or maybe even less, and it would have taken less time and a lot less trouble. BUY GARHAUER!!!

Edited by - on

dmpilc
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
4593 Posts

Response Posted - 11/02/2007 : 22:39:42

Final update to the final update (can I do that?):
Went out for a sail this evening after work. The outboard bracket and the outboard both worked very nicely. A word of note, at the dock, the outboard cav plate was about 1" deep. However, out on the water, the bottom part of the motor mount board was about 2" above the water and the motor cav plate was plenty deep. Granted it was a fairly calm evening, blowing about 5 mph, but the Merc 5hp 4 stroke pushed the C-25 along very nicely.

I'm taking pics of the motor mount setup this weekend and I'll find out how to upload them.

Edited by - dmpilc on 11/03/2007 11:25:15

Topic

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Jump To:

Association Forum

Notice: The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.