tsunami 800 v. 1200

[scott_fx]

I was all set on going with 1200's to fill and 800's to drain but while figuring out all of the odds and ends... it seems that every one caters to the 3/4" tubing (thru hulls, check valves, anti -siphon, ball valves, etc..).. has anyone that has gone with the 800's regretted their choice?

it seems that i'm looking at about a 6-7 min fill time with the 1200's and a 10 min with the 800's. i guess that isn't a huge difference... opinions?

[radioman]

I was all set on going with 1200's to fill and 800's to drain but while figuring out all of the odds and ends... it seems that every one caters to the 3/4" tubing (thru hulls, check valves, anti -siphon, ball valves, etc..).. has anyone that has gone with the 800's regretted their choice?

it seems that i'm looking at about a 6-7 min fill time with the 1200's and a 10 min with the 800's. i guess that isn't a huge difference... opinions?

I tested the 1200 and the 800 with the same plumbing, no difference. If you change all your hoses and fittings with the 1200 over to 1 1/8 we only picked up 21 seconds of time on our center tank.

[Chia]

waste of time going with the bigger hoses etc. until ballast bag manufacturers provide another (larger) fill hole on their bags.

[Tao of Wake]

waste of time going with the bigger hoses etc. until ballast bag manufacturers provide another (larger) fill hole on their bags.

I have been thinking about replacing the Piranha 800 fill pumps with Shurflo 2000 GPH pumps and splitting the output to go to the hard tank (w/ the stock 3/4" tubing) and to the fat sac (with 1" tubing). I would use 1-1/8" hose from the pump to a 1-1/4" PVC wye. I called Shurflo to ask what flow degradation I would see by NOT expanding the thru-hull (currently 3/4" & the 2000GPH has a 1" inlet). I was told that there would be minimal to no degradation.

I know what you are saying about the input ports on the bag, but that would be the only 3/4" in this design. Do you think it would still restrict so much that it wouldn't be worth upgrading the pumps? Have you tried something like this?

It seems that it wouldn't be a huge factor since all of the manual pumps have 1-1/8" tubing and ports though the bag only has a 3/4" connection. How long does it take to fill or empty a 750# bag with the 1200 GPH tsunami manual pump? The best test would be on filling as the draining should not be affected by the 3/4" port (see the info above from Shurflo regarding the inlet side). I couldn't find any info on flow rates with different head space for the Tsunami pumps, but Shurflo has this info on their products. So if we use their data (assuming the 1200 GPH pumps from both manufacturers are very close in performance), the flow at 4ft of head (not many bends in the hose and having to draw from lake up over rail of boat), the flow should be 780 GPH, or 13 GPM. That means it should take approximately 8 minutes to fill a 750# sac (100 gallons). If that is actually what it takes, then the 3/4" port is having minimal effect. If it takes significantly longer than 8 minutes, then we can assume the port restriction is having an effect.

Has anyone actually tested fill/drain of a sac using 800 GPH manual pump vs. 1200 GPH manual pump? Was there no difference (=3/4" port restricts flow) or a significant difference (=3/4" port minimally restricts flow)?

[scott_fx]

waste of time going with the bigger hoses etc. until ballast bag manufacturers provide another (larger) fill hole on their bags.

I have been thinking about replacing the Piranha 800 fill pumps with Shurflo 2000 GPH pumps and splitting the output to go to the hard tank (w/ the stock 3/4" tubing) and to the fat sac (with 1" tubing). I would use 1-1/8" hose from the pump to a 1-1/4" PVC wye. I called Shurflo to ask what flow degradation I would see by NOT expanding the thru-hull (currently 3/4" & the 2000GPH has a 1" inlet). I was told that there would be minimal to no degradation.

I know what you are saying about the input ports on the bag, but that would be the only 3/4" in this design. Do you think it would still restrict so much that it wouldn't be worth upgrading the pumps? Have you tried something like this?

It seems that it wouldn't be a huge factor since all of the manual pumps have 1-1/8" tubing and ports though the bag only has a 3/4" connection. How long does it take to fill or empty a 750# bag with the 1200 GPH tsunami manual pump? The best test would be on filling as the draining should not be affected by the 3/4" port (see the info above from Shurflo regarding the inlet side). I couldn't find any info on flow rates with different head space for the Tsunami pumps, but Shurflo has this info on their products. So if we use their data (assuming the 1200 GPH pumps from both manufacturers are very close in performance), the flow at 4ft of head (not many bends in the hose and having to draw from lake up over rail of boat), the flow should be 780 GPH, or 13 GPM. That means it should take approximately 8 minutes to fill a 750# sac (100 gallons). If that is actually what it takes, then the 3/4" port is having minimal effect. If it takes significantly longer than 8 minutes, then we can assume the port restriction is having an effect.

Has anyone actually tested fill/drain of a sac using 800 GPH manual pump vs. 1200 GPH manual pump? Was there no difference (=3/4" port restricts flow) or a significant difference (=3/4" port minimally restricts flow)?

thanks guys for that valuable feedback. i'm glad i can stick with the 1200's now.

[scott_fx]

found this in my searches

http://www.themalibucrew.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9145