POD Conversion - what style is best?

Coastwise

Coastwise

New Member
I am going to pod my 25 ft eagle craft (currently I/o). I am getting mixed information on what style pod to have built.

A) stepped. Following the 1 inch up for every 1ft of pod length rule. Parallel with the keel but elevated a couple inches.

B) hull extension. Same length as the stepped but down flush with the keel. Most buoyancy, maybe too much?

C) hull extension but raked up on the bottom. Fwd end flush with the keel but aft side raked up a couple inches.

I am seeing boats and shops doing all of the above. Which one is most efficient? In my mind option C makes the most sense.

Thanks
 
I would reach out to Eagle Craft and ask them.
What are you putting on it for power, what is the weight? What is the weight of the power that is coming out of it? Lots to consider but they may be able to help you with that.
I went full extension as that is what the builder suggested for my hull and it has worked well for me, changed the ride considerably,
 
Thanks for the reply. Looking at a used Yamaha f350 which weighs around 850lbs. It will be replacing a Volvo Penta inboard that weighed a similar amount including the stern drive.
So yours is option B? Extension of the keel carrying back at the same angle as the bottom of the hull? You don't get too much lift from it on plane?
I'll try reaching out to Eagle craft but the boat was a one off built by old owners of the company. They don't have any records for my boat unfortunately. Im sure they'll have some good general knowledge on the subject though. I'll give them a call on Monday.
 
Last edited:
I have a VP 320 gxi 5.7l wiht a duoprop and I thought that was around 1100 lbs all in? So moving the 850 lbs a ways behind the transom, id likely aim for hull extension as most of those brave hourston souls before me. Seems like the tried and true path anyway.
 
Mines a VP d3-190, quite undersized for the boat and a fair bit lighter I think.
Do you see any reason to do the hull extension with an upward angle after the original stern? Would the 1” up for every 1’ of pod length only apply to a stepped up pod? Or is there benefit to the bottom angling up a couple inches? Flush at the front, up a couple inches at the back of the extension. Don’t know if I’m making sense there but anyways…
 
I think if you want a definitive answer for your best use case, spend the money with a naval architect to design the best pod for your application. I haven't heard of anyone who did not score a direct win with a hull extension and that's what has been recommended for mine. There definitely is a wealth of knowledge on sfbc as well including guys with a ton of experience building pods too.
 
A naval architect is overkill in my opinion. There isn't much engineering work to build one honestly. Many of them are made based on experience with the builder.

All you really need to do is take it too a good shop who knows what they are doing. There are lots of examples on here of good places posted.

I have a smaller boat but my hull extension was perfect when installed. There are a lot on here that were like that is well.

When it comes to pod you need to trust the person who is doing the work for you. You will need to trust them and review what size leg etc....

Every boat is different and pod is a custom install. Let them guide you.

I would also reach out to your boat manufacturer or even people with similar boats who have done same thing.
 
Hull extension! This will be the best option to ensure that the boat runs well without porpoising or engine mounting height issues.

For proper engine height you want the anti-ventilation plate just skimming the water surface at normal trim at normal cruising speeds. This is nearly impossible to achieve with a bracket or raised pod since the motor may be deeper or too high depending on boat speed. Also, the effective motor to water length will change as the boat pitches over waves.

You can tune the bouyancy of a hull extension pod by altering the width of the hull extension...a hull extension pod doesn't have to be full-width.
 

Interesting read / listen to Adventure Marine's process. The term "naval architect' does sound a bit over the top but its less about the design of the pod structurally and more about managing the change in buoyancy where you might want some paid design work involved. Smaller boats I don’t think are a big deal either and I would also default to the builder's expertise to deliver the goods.
 
Thanks for the reply. Yes I agree the flotation aspect is probably more important. If too buoyant I'll end up bow down and probably a bit more tippy at rest. Too small and it'll be popping a wheelie.
Pineapple Express, that's a great point regarding the cav plate and performance in waves. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Baxter
Hitch vs Tongue Extensions vs ?
Replies
24
Views
3K
macro
M
M
26' Osprey I/O Conversion Project
Replies
35
Views
6K
ship happens
ship happens
Sharphooks
The Luck of the Steelhead Draw
Replies
7
Views
3K
Loghauler
Loghauler
Olde School
SOLD 2006 Campion 622 sedan, Westcoast Edition. $54,999
Replies
2
Views
2K
Olde School
Olde School
Connor Ferguson
Pod/Extension engineering.
Replies
18
Views
7K
beemer
beemer
Back
Top