[C320-list] New PSS vs original unvented model.

[Brad Kuether]

I once asked a pilot if he felt safe flying a "one engine" airplane.  He 
said yes, because if it had two engines, he had twice the amount of 
machanical "stuff" to worry about.

Traditional stuffing boxes usually don't just "burst" at the dock.  They 
fail over time.

(Exactly what happened to mine last year, telling me "time to re-pack".)

I have heard from many PYI owners of failure stories.  Not that they 
necessarily fail frequently, but when they do it can be deluge.

I am going to stick with the traditional packing for the time being.

-Brad, Mary, Monica, and Jarod
"Independence"
2004 Catalina 320 Hull 1006
Middle River, MD


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Hare" <catalina at thehares.com>
To: <C320-List at Catalina320.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 1:12 PM
Subject: [C320-list] New PSS vs original unvented model.


Dick,

You're in San Diego! What do you need a motor for out there! ;)

Unfortunately, the model you are basing your recommendation on is no longer 
available. I too liked the old version alot and had minimal trouble with it. 
Pretty solid and simple, but I'd have to admit it's not as simple/safe as 
GFO by comparison (having used both now). Never have to burp my GFO. ;)

The NEW version is a different beast altogether and requires plumbing that 
cannot be avoided without risking a crack in the carbon ring according to 
PYI.

Maybe this risk is low but the 320 does not lend itself to easily plumbing 
this model. You have to either plumb it into the exhaust system or lead it 
well above the waterline and provide a catch basin for overflow. In reverse, 
the prop can force water up the tube above the waterline, hence the need for 
a reservoir. Well, that's what other boat owners documented when installing 
it.

I also questioned to PYI whether a clog in this small vent fitting from 
marine life could result in it still needing to be burped like the old model 
to get cooling water to the ring.

PYI said you'd have to burp it to find out or blow into the end of the tube. 
Well whats the point of the venting if it's not reliable? All that added was 
to make the carbon ring more vulnerable to heat damage and introduce the 
need for a tiny plumbing run up above the engine compartment.

That is what sealed it for me, so my opinion:
Old model = thumbs up.
New model = thumbs down.

-jeff

PS: I have a used original model and an unused new vented carbon ring 
sitting in a box in great shape I'm never going to use.


Dick Walker <dickwalker at att.net> wrote:

I still find no problem with the PSS seal and highly recommend it.

A dry bilge since 1999 is a work of beauty.


Dick Walker
WindWalkerII #687
619.435.8986






-----Original Message-----
From: c320-list-bounces at lists.catalina320.com 
[mailto:c320-list-bounces at lists.catalina320.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Hare
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 8:24 AM
To: C320-List at Catalina320.com
Subject: Re: [C320-list] Wet Bilge due to packing gland. Normal?


Hello,

This is an opinion piece related to the shaft seal and dry bilge so 
obviously you're free to disagree.

I used to be a big believer in the PSS shaft seal. I still think its a good 
product. But the GFO product does just as good a job as the old model pss 
did (considering that burping the seal let in way more water than my GFO 
packing does today).

Now that only the vented version is available i'm not as sold since (for me) 
it adds additional points of failure that I'm not as comfortable with.

The likelihood of a GFO failure is minuscule compared to the likelihood of 
some part of the PSS system failing. And the results of a failure in the PSS 
would likely be a bigger problem than a GFO/stuffing box failure.

So, that's why I switched to GFO after 5 happy years without incident using 
the old model PSS even though the company sent me a free upgrade to the 
vented version and strongly urged me to use this instead.

-jeff