Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1998 Shamrock Mackinaw Literature

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tuloko77
    replied
    Thought that might be the case, no problem. I talked to a local boat yard that will throw it on the travelift for a quick weight. It might be a month or two, but I'll report back.

    Leave a comment:


  • My My Hey Hey
    commented on 's reply
    I always liked your Mack.

  • Quik Fix
    replied
    Originally posted by Tuloko77 View Post
    Quick Fix, are you indicating that there was a different layup between models built after 91/92, maybe due to different company ownership and builds? the 1991 shows 6,200 dry and the 1993 and 1998/1999 brochures show 5,600. Or besides the layup, what are some notable differences? I know the 270 Mack is a different beast, but I thought all 1990-1999 Macks were pretty much the same. Again, I just need to go weigh the damn thing.
    Sorry, not paying attention as I should. I was thinking 27 tunnels vs. standard 26 Macks.

    Leave a comment:


  • holty
    replied
    So I purchased my 99' Mack in the fall of 02' and found the SBC site. Right from the get go I got the feeling from some of the senior members (Lep, Billy No Tacks, ShamrockFreddie, etc) and others that if you didn't own a Boynton boat your rig was inferior. Hmmmm.........?? So while owning the rig for 14 years I kept waiting for something to crack, break, delaminate, fall off, etc etc. I had a hell of a great time with that boat. Summer AND Winter. Every winter I would shrink-wrap it in a way that would allow me to comfortably work on her. Lights, heat you name it. I had it. My wife called it my man cave. I upgraded systems, made many alterations ( some major) and had a blast doing it all. But I kept waiting for it to happen........When will this girl show me she was no good? I installed multiple thru hulls and a garboard drain always finding the hull much thinker than it needed to be. When I added a portlight to the port side cabin the glass was over 1/2 inch thick.I once installed a transom vent to air the bilge. That transom was two inches of glass and 3/4 plywood and I cursed it because it was so thick and hard to cut. I could go on and on with all my finding while owning her. I always called her my brick shit house because that's how tough she was. I remember also, the heavies on the site said the engine was no good if it wasn't a Ford 351 ??? Well, I kept waiting for my Sea Maxx 350 Cheby to fall apart. I changed the oil often. Tuned it up every spring. Replaced oil and heat exchangers, etc. Then I waited and waited for it to happen. It never did. My sister has owned the Mack for the past six years now and that Cheby has well over 2500 hours on her and purrs like a kitten. She has a mechanic take care of her now but the care below decks is not what it was when I owned her. Still, she purrs. The hull and topside glisten when she is given her spring treatment. I wish my 2003 Mainship Pilot II's dark blue hull would shine up like the Mack. I have owned many boats in my life and that rig was one of the best. If she did not need to be bigger I would still own her. I was told the dry weight was 5800 plus?

    regards Holty

    Leave a comment:


  • Tuloko77
    replied
    Quick Fix, are you indicating that there was a different layup between models built after 91/92, maybe due to different company ownership and builds? the 1991 shows 6,200 dry and the 1993 and 1998/1999 brochures show 5,600. Or besides the layup, what are some notable differences? I know the 270 Mack is a different beast, but I thought all 1990-1999 Macks were pretty much the same. Again, I just need to go weigh the damn thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • tuner
    replied
    Go here for the archived website data:

    http://web.archive.org/web/199812061...rockboats.com/

    Leave a comment:


  • tuner
    replied
    Attached is the 1998 brochure.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	1998 Mackinaw.png Views:	1 Size:	456.4 KB ID:	36298










    I have a 1998 Mackinaw that was completed in 1999 (98 hull ID, 99 Sea Maxx engine). The 6BT is about 300lbs heavier than the 350.

    FWIW, I cut a 2 3/8" hole in the hull just forward of the engine for a Airmar transducer and the solid lay up is nearly 1" thick.
    Last edited by tuner; 10-22-2022, 08:04 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quik Fix
    replied
    Different kinds of Mackinaws. Very different.

    Leave a comment:


  • 90BigMack
    replied
    Interesting to see that it came with a 210 or 300 Hp Cummins. I would be interested in making my motor 300hp.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tuloko77
    replied
    Thank you, just seeing this now. Now here is where things get confusing. I found another piece of literature for a 1991 Mack that specifies 6,200 lbs dry. The only real way to tell is to haul it out and weigh it…

    Leave a comment:


  • 90BigMack
    replied
    Here you go.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Tuloko77
    started a topic 1998 Shamrock Mackinaw Literature

    1998 Shamrock Mackinaw Literature

    Does anyone happen to have a link to some 1998 Shamrock Mackinaw literature? I'd like to know the specified dry weight with a 210 Cummins, and would also like to know the prop size that came from the factory. Currently I am running a 17 x 17, 4-blade, which I feel is overpropped (only achieving 2,500 RPMS and the rated WOT RPM is 2,600.) Any and all literature would be great! Thanks.
Working...
X