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

[Jane & Ken]

It is amazing, the OLD vs NEW vs GFO vs XYZ has actually created more response than the Catalina 320 list.  I thought that was impossible----but this shows the advantage of the 320 organization---there is a lot of experience and more opinions than one can understand, but you will have a better understanding and more information than before----never use the engine and you can tighten the gland to no drips EVER---grin.  Ken OBUOY, #219

--- On Thu, 6/23/11, Donald Lawson <dnclaws at aol.com> wrote:


From: Donald Lawson <dnclaws at aol.com>
Subject: Re: [C320-list] New PSS vs original unvented model.
To: C320-List at Catalina320.com
Date: Thursday, June 23, 2011, 4:25 PM


I had the original PSS on my Santana 3030. After 5 years I was told I should replace the bellows, meaning pull the shaft etc. A friend of mine almost lost his Wilderness 40 do to a failed bellows. I also had to burp it every time the bottom was cleaned or had a rough crossing to Santa Cruz Island. Better the drip you know than the one you don't. I will  stick with the traditional stuffing box and use the bilge sponge after every trip.
Don 
Mandolin Wind #1005
On Jun 23, 2011, at 10:41 AM, Brad Kuether wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> 
>