HP of 94 5.8 HO, carb?

[brodie]

Does anyone know what the HP was for the 5.8 HO Carb (Non Pro-Boss) in 94?

[bkhallpass]

The standard, 351 c.i. carburated engine for 94 was 240 hp.

BKH

[brodie]

Is there any difference between the 5.8, and 5.8 HO? I have seen it both ways on the shrowd that covers the carb.

[brodie]

Here is a picture of the Engine in question. I haven't seen it in person.

[Jesse1]

I had a '94 with the HO 351 carb engine. Dealer told me it was 300 hp. Fastest Nautique I've ever owned!

[bkhallpass]

Brodie, you've got me there. Not sure if there is a difference.
If you go to the PCM website, I'm sure those guys will answer
your question.

BKH

[mazur0007]

If you really want to find out the HP. Call Discount Inboard Marine. I don't have the number but the website is www.skidim.com. There are numbers and letters on the top of the engine. Tell them you are looking for a manual and they will look it up and tell you the factory HP.

Mazur0007

[bkhallpass]

Brodie,

There is a difference. The HO has more horespower. Haven't
been able to nail down how much. I've seen claims of 265-300HP
for a carburated PCM 5.8L HO. Entirely possible they're all right.
May have varied in different years.

BKH

[Timcallaghan]

I have a 94 with the HO engine I also had the same question how many HP does it have so I emailed PCM with the details of the engine model number year ect and they told me that it was around the 285HP when the engine was new.

Tim

[Mikeski]

I vote 285... but it looks like it has the smaller single feed carb? I think that the difference between the 260 and 285? You also need to determine if has the GT-40 head castings.

[jhiestand]

I had a 94 with the carb'd ProBoss, which I believe had GT40 heads? It was strong as all get-out and I seem to recall it was rated at 300hp. Not sure how it would differ from the HO.

[Daryl]

totally un-related but is it ok to run the strainer in the position shown in the photo above (ie with the bowl pointing up?)???

isn't it designed so the debris falls to the bottom of the strainer bowl?

[east tx skier]

I've got a 93 MC with a 351 HO (carb'd) engine. It's rated at 285 hp. Like many of the nautiques, MC was using a Holley 4010 dual feed carb stock on the 351 HO. Fortunately for the Nautique folks, PCM recalled this carb, which may be why you've got a single feed (guess 4160). For those of us "other boat" owners with Indmar stock, if we wanted a carb that worked, we had to retrofit the 4160 ourselves.

The 351 HO had (in my case) the GT-40 heads. Figure it's the same on Nautiques.

[darrel409]

Something doesnt seem right on that engine, by 93 they had the pro tec w/ coil packs on the back of the engine above tranny. In the picture the coil is right on top, wires to dist. no engine management system...I think that the motor is a standard carbed engine 240 Hp with a HO decal. Correct Craft advertised 300+ hp in the 94 Pro boss but i think 285 "at the prop" is accurate (295 @ crank). You can check if your engine has the GT40 heads...they are identified by 3 raised slash marks on the front (short) sides of the heads. The standard heads have 2 slash marks. In 94 there were multiple engine choices and the beginning of injection (TBI no multi port til 95?) I like the pro boss carbed motors, to me they have even quicker response than the multi port GT40, just as fast maybe faster and simpler. I have yet to adjust my carb and i have a 93 Pro Boss in a 95 SN, ive owned the motor for 10 years.