1963? Hydrodyne custome deluxe 1700 restoration thread

so tomorrow I am going to pick up a AQ130C with 270 outdrive. Motor rebuilt and drive go through at the same time. I am wondering if the six transom bolts at the same for both the 270 and 100 drives? If so, my question: What drive do I go with? Do I just go with the more modern 270 outdrive? I have two of the 100 series drives, a perfect zeppa joint and another that had some exposure. But I will need the drive boot for it.

The 270 comes with a prop, whole thing is complete from the prop to the carb flange. (I just ordered two carbs for the AQ130C). Seems a shame to go back to a 100 series drive when I have a perfect 270 model to use....

What do others think? The boat will not be restored to original, not worried about that. It will look mostly original, but the side benches I want to put in the back will not be correct to what came from the factory, so a true restoration is out. It will look good, but not a show piece.

brian

 

The 270 has a good reputation. The only down side I see is weight. I think i would try the 270.

jim

 

Think I am going with the 270. Bellows are new, nice and flexible. Has the electric tilt or trim? Not sure, need to dig into it but it does have the pump that goes on the top of the inside transom. Engine is really nice. Really NICE!!! Brand new cap and rotor to install. New plugs. Everything. Fresh rebuild, never fired. Only thing I think I will look at replacing or taking out is the water pump. Been sitting too long.

My carbs shipped today, so next week this thing should fire up on the stand I have. This project just got a boost!

 

Rubber impellers will go bad from sitting. They take a set and will not cool right at idle and slow speed. Mine sits a lot and only last 2 years.

jim

 

So I have been unsuccessful at finding a template for a 270 transom assembly, so I grabbed some cardboard and started tracing. As feared, the transom assembly is going to hit the curved section on the upper part of the hull. Starred at it for awhile and I think I know my answer.... I am going to cut the hull. The 270 drive is bigger and heavier, but parts are available and the one I have needs nothing. not even the bellows, they are both new. The black line show where the 270 transom assembly will sit. centerlines are placed the same for both drives where the line is drawn.

So I am thinking the curved portion of the hull will be cut out allowing me to make a quicker transition to the flat transom section. I do not need much space, so this should give me enough and allow me to still blend it in. The inside transom piece goes higher, which is what the plywood is attached to. So structurally this will not matter. I just have to make it strong enough that it does not get stress fractures.

I am not sure, but the drive will probably sit deeper in the water, but I am unable to adjust the X dimension since raising the drive will raise the motor and cause fit issues for the motor. not an option. Who knows, maybe not. The 270 drive was available with the B20 motor which is the same as the B18 dimensionally.

Any thoughts.....

 

I think you are going to have to go for the bigger and newer drive and engineer it to make it happen

 

I agree, and the drive deeper will make the boat roll more in a turn. This is a problem with I/O's. My cavitation plate is about even with the bottom, and the boat likes it. I think it could go higher.

 

More roll = more cavitation.

 

Too bad there is'n't a jack-plate option for an outdrive. Keeping it watertight would be the challenge but it would be sweet for the issues you are dealing with, and the added performance would be a plus.

Kevin-

 

Also, I always liked the engineering/artistic ability to create monolithic curved shapes with resin and mat when placed in a mold (soft chines and bubble top of the Hydrodyne 18 look iconic and the chines great in the turns. However, it appears that the various elevations on your transom are going to present a problem as currently depicted or if you raise it up without alot of modification, correct?