transducer question

[rsmith]

""I'd rather have NOCAR than a MOPAR""

That's good, I had never heard that one!

Just kidding, when I was a kid I walked past the Plymouth dealer on my way to the slot car track and drooled over the AAR Cuda in the showroom.

[Avenger]

My old Z28 could separate your retinas, and I've scared myself silly more than once when I put the boot to it. Would I also have been fairly satisfied with a Boss 302 or a Hemi-Cuda? You bet. But I had a Z. Had it for 14 years. Wish I still had it.

I've got nothing against the venerable GM F-body. On occasion I've driven one myself:



And that actually is a Nova. I'm not knocking them, I just get a kick out of what most people think cars are made of.

[GJH]

Here we go again. Someone asked can they use a data marine transducer on a new garmin. Good answers were given, yet that's not enough now someone wants to turn it into an arguement for thru hull transducers. Enough already, it is technically almost inpossible to have a shoot through transducer match the performance of a through hull. Even if they make one that would match the performance, no one here would spend the money for it.

It's not a matter of ford vs chevy vs nopar or anything else it's all about technology, and physics.

Hearsay is worth what you pay for it. I don't think anyone in the ches bay area has been in 1000" of water to test one there, so how do you really know?

Actually I have conversion of my P79 to an M260 on The List. The 260 Gives excellent fish finding capability and bottom definition. I don't actually fish, so don't care if it tapers off earlier than its through hull counterpart by a few hundred feet. 500 ft is fine for me. I have a Furuno black box finder as part of my system, but seldom use the finder display unless we are in some sketchy territory where it is kind of nice to get the graph. I'd use it more if I had the 260; I think they fo for about $700 or so. I really don't want to drill any more holes in the boat. I have an unused DM transducer under the battery boxes on the starboard side (and one I do use for a unit up on the flying bridge, on the port side), so I read this thread with some interest. If there was an easy "drop" in / switch out, I'd go that route.

Regardless, it is way down The List. I just really want to know how shallow the water is where we've run aground ;o).

[saltshaker]

Mike how well does your depth finder work in shallow water and at planning speed? About 12 years ago my fish finder died mid-season. I installed a shoot through the hull depth finder until I got the boat hauled for the winter. That lasted one weekend and I decided to haul the boat and put a new Furuno bottom machine in. The shoot through unit was flaky, particularly at depths below 10ft, where I needed it most. The unit never worked well for me so it wasn't even good as a back-up. I don't fish but I prefer the accuracy and bottom graph of a fish finder. I've always used a high speed fairing block and through hull transducers. Gives a nice detailed reading at 24kts. I'm sure they perform nicely in the 30-40kt range but I haven't owned a big boat capable of those speeds.

I can't speak to the accuracy of other units, but the 2 shoot through the hull ducers I used didn't work out so good. Sounds like MikeP is getting good results and that may be fine for what you want to do. If you are already in the water, the shoot through may save you the time and expense of a haul out. If it doesn't work out all you wasted was the cost of the transducer. If I was out of the water now, I'd drill the hole and put in a through hull. Good luck and let us know what you do and what the results are.

[gbharrington]

I just want to jump in here as I am in need of a working DM transducer; the long threaded cylindrical type with an RCA type connector to the head unit which were (apparently) OE on late 70's Hatts. Shoot me a message if you have one.