In article ,
says...

On 6/21/11 8:33 AM, Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:05:29 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"L G" wrote in message
...

Harryk wrote:
On 6/20/11 8:37 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jun 19, 11:46 pm, wrote:

My 300 HP
327 SS 1964 Impala got better than that, and would do 142 mph.

Bill, you could get good gas then...This crap won't hardly burn.


I've had no problems with "ethanolized" fuel in cars, trucks, four stroke
outboards, four stroke lawnmower and lawn tractor, two cycle chain saw or
grass trimmer. The vehicles, outboards and lawn tractor have
user-changeable fuel filters. Usually, I run the chain saw and trimmer
until they run dry.



Paper fuel filters do nothing for ethanol, expert.


Reply:
I know the old gas got about 10% more mileage than the new stuff. But,
damn, all that computerized fuel injection and separate coil for each
cylinder, should get a lot more mileage than a high performance 1964 carbed
engine.

The model T ford and renowned 409 both got about 15 MPH. So does our
Navigator, and the 94 F-150. The navigator has a four cam 32 valve 330
inch V-8, which seems a bit rich for a truck. Lincoln had to match the
Cadillac Northstar. Where the difference in mileage with the new cars
shows up is around town, the carbs would work well at the steady
cruise they were optimized for.

Casady


15 mpg?

Ouch.

Unless you regularly need its hauling abilities (people or a trailer),
why even own such a gas hog? I presume the Navigator is similar to the
Escalade, a recent version of which I had a chance to drive a couple of
months ago. It wasn't a pleasure to drive; it felt like I was driving an
aircraft carrier.

Different strokes for different folks, of course. But what's the
attraction of an SUV that's even more overstuffed, if you will, than the
average SUV?

Take your condescending bull**** over to your own group, asshat.

On 6/21/2011 8:42 AM, Harryk wrote:
On 6/21/11 8:33 AM, Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:05:29 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"L G" wrote in message
...

Harryk wrote:
On 6/20/11 8:37 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jun 19, 11:46 pm, wrote:

My 300 HP
327 SS 1964 Impala got better than that, and would do 142 mph.

Bill, you could get good gas then...This crap won't hardly burn.


I've had no problems with "ethanolized" fuel in cars, trucks, four
stroke
outboards, four stroke lawnmower and lawn tractor, two cycle chain
saw or
grass trimmer. The vehicles, outboards and lawn tractor have
user-changeable fuel filters. Usually, I run the chain saw and trimmer
until they run dry.



Paper fuel filters do nothing for ethanol, expert.


Reply:
I know the old gas got about 10% more mileage than the new stuff. But,
damn, all that computerized fuel injection and separate coil for each
cylinder, should get a lot more mileage than a high performance 1964
carbed
engine.

The model T ford and renowned 409 both got about 15 MPH. So does our
Navigator, and the 94 F-150. The navigator has a four cam 32 valve 330
inch V-8, which seems a bit rich for a truck. Lincoln had to match the
Cadillac Northstar. Where the difference in mileage with the new cars
shows up is around town, the carbs would work well at the steady
cruise they were optimized for.

Casady


15 mpg?

Ouch.

Unless you regularly need its hauling abilities (people or a trailer),
why even own such a gas hog? I presume the Navigator is similar to the
Escalade, a recent version of which I had a chance to drive a couple of
months ago. It wasn't a pleasure to drive; it felt like I was driving an
aircraft carrier.

Different strokes for different folks, of course. But what's the
attraction of an SUV that's even more overstuffed, if you will, than the
average SUV?






Same logic can be applied to your boat. Why carry all that baggage out
to the bay for a picnic lunch once or twice a week. Don't you think your
small Parker would fit your needs better?

In article , says...

On 6/21/2011 8:42 AM, Harryk wrote:
On 6/21/11 8:33 AM, Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:05:29 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"L G" wrote in message
...

Harryk wrote:
On 6/20/11 8:37 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jun 19, 11:46 pm, wrote:

My 300 HP
327 SS 1964 Impala got better than that, and would do 142 mph.

Bill, you could get good gas then...This crap won't hardly burn.


I've had no problems with "ethanolized" fuel in cars, trucks, four
stroke
outboards, four stroke lawnmower and lawn tractor, two cycle chain
saw or
grass trimmer. The vehicles, outboards and lawn tractor have
user-changeable fuel filters. Usually, I run the chain saw and trimmer
until they run dry.



Paper fuel filters do nothing for ethanol, expert.


Reply:
I know the old gas got about 10% more mileage than the new stuff. But,
damn, all that computerized fuel injection and separate coil for each
cylinder, should get a lot more mileage than a high performance 1964
carbed
engine.

The model T ford and renowned 409 both got about 15 MPH. So does our
Navigator, and the 94 F-150. The navigator has a four cam 32 valve 330
inch V-8, which seems a bit rich for a truck. Lincoln had to match the
Cadillac Northstar. Where the difference in mileage with the new cars
shows up is around town, the carbs would work well at the steady
cruise they were optimized for.

Casady


15 mpg?

Ouch.

Unless you regularly need its hauling abilities (people or a trailer),
why even own such a gas hog? I presume the Navigator is similar to the
Escalade, a recent version of which I had a chance to drive a couple of
months ago. It wasn't a pleasure to drive; it felt like I was driving an
aircraft carrier.

Different strokes for different folks, of course. But what's the
attraction of an SUV that's even more overstuffed, if you will, than the
average SUV?






Same logic can be applied to your boat. Why carry all that baggage out
to the bay for a picnic lunch once or twice a week. Don't you think your
small Parker would fit your needs better?

He doesn't have a boat.

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:37:52 -0400, iBoat wrote:

In article , says...

On 6/21/2011 8:42 AM, Harryk wrote:
On 6/21/11 8:33 AM, Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:05:29 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"L G" wrote in message
...

Harryk wrote:
On 6/20/11 8:37 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jun 19, 11:46 pm, wrote:

My 300 HP
327 SS 1964 Impala got better than that, and would do 142 mph.

Bill, you could get good gas then...This crap won't hardly burn.


I've had no problems with "ethanolized" fuel in cars, trucks, four
stroke
outboards, four stroke lawnmower and lawn tractor, two cycle chain
saw or
grass trimmer. The vehicles, outboards and lawn tractor have
user-changeable fuel filters. Usually, I run the chain saw and trimmer
until they run dry.



Paper fuel filters do nothing for ethanol, expert.


Reply:
I know the old gas got about 10% more mileage than the new stuff. But,
damn, all that computerized fuel injection and separate coil for each
cylinder, should get a lot more mileage than a high performance 1964
carbed
engine.

The model T ford and renowned 409 both got about 15 MPH. So does our
Navigator, and the 94 F-150. The navigator has a four cam 32 valve 330
inch V-8, which seems a bit rich for a truck. Lincoln had to match the
Cadillac Northstar. Where the difference in mileage with the new cars
shows up is around town, the carbs would work well at the steady
cruise they were optimized for.

Casady


15 mpg?

Ouch.

Unless you regularly need its hauling abilities (people or a trailer),
why even own such a gas hog? I presume the Navigator is similar to the
Escalade, a recent version of which I had a chance to drive a couple of
months ago. It wasn't a pleasure to drive; it felt like I was driving an
aircraft carrier.

When I was a car dealer I borrowed a GMC 3/4 T pickup off the lot. I
called it the Nimitz.

Different strokes for different folks, of course. But what's the
attraction of an SUV that's even more overstuffed, if you will, than the
average SUV?






Same logic can be applied to your boat. Why carry all that baggage out
to the bay for a picnic lunch once or twice a week. Don't you think your
small Parker would fit your needs better?

He doesn't have a boat.

A Parker wouldn't make that bad a coastal cruiser, especially if you
like marinas, motels, and restaurants, which we would prefer even we
had, say, a nice Grand Banks. Two small four stroke motors?

Casady

On 6/21/11 1:53 PM, Richard Casady wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:37:52 -0400, wrote:

In , says...

On 6/21/2011 8:42 AM, Harryk wrote:
On 6/21/11 8:33 AM, Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:05:29 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"L G" wrote in message
...

Harryk wrote:
On 6/20/11 8:37 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jun 19, 11:46 pm, wrote:

My 300 HP
327 SS 1964 Impala got better than that, and would do 142 mph.

Bill, you could get good gas then...This crap won't hardly burn.


I've had no problems with "ethanolized" fuel in cars, trucks, four
stroke
outboards, four stroke lawnmower and lawn tractor, two cycle chain
saw or
grass trimmer. The vehicles, outboards and lawn tractor have
user-changeable fuel filters. Usually, I run the chain saw and trimmer
until they run dry.



Paper fuel filters do nothing for ethanol, expert.


Reply:
I know the old gas got about 10% more mileage than the new stuff. But,
damn, all that computerized fuel injection and separate coil for each
cylinder, should get a lot more mileage than a high performance 1964
carbed
engine.

The model T ford and renowned 409 both got about 15 MPH. So does our
Navigator, and the 94 F-150. The navigator has a four cam 32 valve 330
inch V-8, which seems a bit rich for a truck. Lincoln had to match the
Cadillac Northstar. Where the difference in mileage with the new cars
shows up is around town, the carbs would work well at the steady
cruise they were optimized for.

Casady


15 mpg?

Ouch.

Unless you regularly need its hauling abilities (people or a trailer),
why even own such a gas hog? I presume the Navigator is similar to the
Escalade, a recent version of which I had a chance to drive a couple of
months ago. It wasn't a pleasure to drive; it felt like I was driving an
aircraft carrier.

When I was a car dealer I borrowed a GMC 3/4 T pickup off the lot. I
called it the Nimitz.

Different strokes for different folks, of course. But what's the
attraction of an SUV that's even more overstuffed, if you will, than the
average SUV?






Same logic can be applied to your boat. Why carry all that baggage out
to the bay for a picnic lunch once or twice a week. Don't you think your
small Parker would fit your needs better?

He doesn't have a boat.

A Parker wouldn't make that bad a coastal cruiser, especially if you
like marinas, motels, and restaurants, which we would prefer even we
had, say, a nice Grand Banks. Two small four stroke motors?

Casady


We hada 25' Parker for a few years. Nice boat, but even with its cabin,
much more a fishing boat than any kind of comfortable cruiser.

--
Want to discuss recreational boating and fishing in a forum where
personal insults are not allowed?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec-boating-fishing

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:53:00 -0500, Richard Casady
wrote:

A Parker wouldn't make that bad a coastal cruiser, especially if you
like marinas, motels, and restaurants, which we would prefer even we
had, say, a nice Grand Banks. Two small four stroke motors?

Sounds like a plan. Why don't we meet up somewhere down in the
southern Caribbean next February. Your outboard Parker will be quite
a conversation piece down there.

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:17:48 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:53:00 -0500, Richard Casady
wrote:

A Parker wouldn't make that bad a coastal cruiser, especially if you
like marinas, motels, and restaurants, which we would prefer even we
had, say, a nice Grand Banks. Two small four stroke motors?

Sounds like a plan. Why don't we meet up somewhere down in the
southern Caribbean next February. Your outboard Parker will be quite
a conversation piece down there.

You miss the coastal part? I would cruise Iowa, which is between the
two biggest rivers in North America, first, then on to Halifax. You
can also trailer a Parker.

Casady

On 6/21/11 6:37 PM, Richard Casady wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:17:48 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:53:00 -0500, Richard Casady
wrote:

A Parker wouldn't make that bad a coastal cruiser, especially if you
like marinas, motels, and restaurants, which we would prefer even we
had, say, a nice Grand Banks. Two small four stroke motors?

Sounds like a plan. Why don't we meet up somewhere down in the
southern Caribbean next February. Your outboard Parker will be quite
a conversation piece down there.

You miss the coastal part? I would cruise Iowa, which is between the
two biggest rivers in North America, first, then on to Halifax. You
can also trailer a Parker.

Casady


Parker has a new 28-footer on the drawing board...one with a new, larger
cabin. Or so the rumors go. No one has seen it, but it is being
discussed. But you'd need some monster outboards. There's a 23-footer
that probably could work with two smaller outboards...150 hp each.

--
Want to discuss recreational boating and fishing in a forum where
personal insults are not allowed?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec-boating-fishing

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:05:29 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"L G" wrote in message
...

Harryk wrote:
On 6/20/11 8:37 AM, Tim wrote:
On Jun 19, 11:46 pm, wrote:

My 300 HP
327 SS 1964 Impala got better than that, and would do 142 mph.

Bill, you could get good gas then...This crap won't hardly burn.


I've had no problems with "ethanolized" fuel in cars, trucks, four stroke
outboards, four stroke lawnmower and lawn tractor, two cycle chain saw or
grass trimmer. The vehicles, outboards and lawn tractor have
user-changeable fuel filters. Usually, I run the chain saw and trimmer
until they run dry.



Paper fuel filters do nothing for ethanol, expert.


Reply:
I know the old gas got about 10% more mileage than the new stuff. But,
damn, all that computerized fuel injection and separate coil for each
cylinder, should get a lot more mileage than a high performance 1964 carbed
engine.

The model T ford and renowned 409 both got about 15 MPH. So does our
Navigator, and the 94 F-150. The navigator has a four cam 32 valve 330
inch V-8, which seems a bit rich for a truck. Lincoln had to match the
Cadillac Northstar. Where the difference in mileage with the new cars
shows up is around town, the carbs would work well at the steady
cruise they were optimized for.

My 2001 F-150 with the 5.4L V8 (330) gets about 13.5 MPG in the winter
when I have to use oxygenated gas and I get about 17 or 18 in the summer
when I get to put in 100% gasoline. The idiots who think I am saving the
planet in the winter by burning the oxygenated stuff are big idiots.

On the highway I get about 21 MPG.

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:37:24 -0500, Richard Casady
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:17:48 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:53:00 -0500, Richard Casady
wrote:

A Parker wouldn't make that bad a coastal cruiser, especially if you
like marinas, motels, and restaurants, which we would prefer even we
had, say, a nice Grand Banks. Two small four stroke motors?

Sounds like a plan. Why don't we meet up somewhere down in the
southern Caribbean next February. Your outboard Parker will be quite
a conversation piece down there.

You miss the coastal part? I would cruise Iowa, which is between the
two biggest rivers in North America, first, then on to Halifax. You
can also trailer a Parker.


Probably the best production boat in that size range for the type of
cruising you describe is the Rosborough RF-246 Sedan Cruiser.

http://www.rosboroughboats.com/sedan_cruiser.html

We've seen a bunch and people just love them, very neat little boats.
There are a number of different power options including an inboard
diesel if memory is correct.