Baitwell Pump Replacement

[daniel123]

The original FloJet baitwell pump under the console of my 1999 Osprey 200 seems to have quit. Do I want to replace it with the same thing or is there an upgrade that you guys recommend?

[Capt. Bob]

Well assuming it's bad (and not a failed connection) it did last for 16 years.

Did it do what you wanted it to do as far as a live well is concerned? If so, I'd be inclined to go with the same thing. There are a fair number out there to choose from. I'm using a Shurflow but it is a combo wash down and live well. Been working very well for my needs.

http://shurflo.com/marine-products/livewell-pumps/pro-baitmaster-heavy-duty-livewell-pumps/52-pro-baitmaster-12-vdc

Good luck.

[daniel123]

The (apparently) OEM pump is labeled: Bait Tank Pump Model 4305-144 with a 3.5 gpm flow rate. I can't find a web site for Flojet beyond it's purchase by ITT and subsequent resale. That's a moot point if there is a better pump for the purpose (fill small baitwell, use for washdown hose) out there these days. Let me know if anyone has suggestions -- and thanks!

[daniel123]

No complaints on that 16 years of service! I just figured in that time there may have been some improvements to the technology -- like the Shurflow you recommend, which I will look into. I did like the viewing glass/screen system offered by the Flojet. And I do have the attachment fitting in the baitwell that allows me to attach a hose for washdowns so it will serve double duty.   

[Capt. Bob]

Something like this.
http://www.xylemflowcontrol.com/files/4305_81000-267.pdf

Seems to work on the same principle as my Shurflow. It is less expensive in today's market.

http://205.134.250.31/flojet-12v-deck-wash-pump-4305-144.html

Good luck.

[daniel123]

That's the new company for which I couldn't seem to be able to get product info off their web site. Thanks!

[daniel123]

Bob,

The Shurflo Pro Baitmaster II weighs a couple more pounds than the Flojet, and offers 4.0 gpm instead of 3.5, but otherwise seems very similar and should make a good replacement. When removing the old Flojet I had to slice the hose ends that were compressed under the clamps to get them loose, and I figure this is a good time to replace those as well. Should I consider clear hoses for any reason - like being able to see if there is water in them? Do I need a strainer?   

I also have a related question: I have a NIB 1500 gph Rule bilge pump sitting around that I'd like to use in my bilge to replace the 350 gph pump in there now. The outlet on the Rule pump is for a larger (1" I believe) diameter hose, but Rule offers a funnel-like fitting to neck it down to accept the 3/4 inch hose to my overboard fitting. Will that restriction cause the pump to work harder/damage it? Are there any other factors I need to consider when changing to that powerful a pump? I always figured bigger is better when it comes to pumping excess water out of any boat...

[Capt. Bob]

Should I consider clear hoses for any reason - like being able to see if there is water in them? Do I need a strainer? 

In the photo below, I have a length of clear between the seacock and the strainer. The black hose beyond is OEM because I felt it still had some service life (after inspection) and it resist kinking. Still working fine.

I also have a related question: I have a NIB 1500 gph Rule bilge pump sitting around that I'd like to use in my bilge to replace the 350 gph pump in there now. The outlet on the Rule pump is for a larger (1" I believe) diameter hose, but Rule offers a funnel-like fitting to neck it down to accept the 3/4 inch hose to my overboard fitting. Will that restriction cause the pump to work harder/damage it? Are there any other factors I need to consider when changing to that powerful a pump? I always figured bigger is better when it comes to pumping excess water out of any boat...

You sound like my wife with the "bigger is better" comment but I digress.

Remember that the rated discharge of your standard bilge pump is based on no restrictions or head pressure i.e. the the discharge hose is level with the outlet so....
You will have a change in height of discharge hose anyway and now you are adding a restriction in the line so...
I can't say how much it will ultimately reduce the rated discharge to but I'd guess it will still be more than 350 gph. Still, if you are going to add a higher capacity pump, why not replace the discharge line with the proper size?
Well cost of hose and replacement of the thru hull to the correct size comes to mind. The reduction in the hose shouldn't damage the pump just make it a little less efficient. The motor size will have a higher amp draw so existing fusing size may need to be adjusted accordingly. I would think the wire gauge would stay the same but it never hurts to check.

Good luck and post up a few pics of your work.

Thanks.

[CLM65]

Personally I would use the proper size thru hull and hose to get the most benefit from the larger pump.  If you decide to keep the current thru hull, I would run the larger hose as close to the thru hull as possible to minimize the length of smaller hose, thereby minimizing friction loss in the hose.

[tyson87]

Personally I would use the proper size thru hull and hose to get the most benefit from the larger pump.  If you decide to keep the current thru hull, I would run the larger hose as close to the thru hull as possible to minimize the length of smaller hose, thereby minimizing friction loss in the hose.

Pretty sure the flow will be the same either way, no matter where the bottle neck is. Change it all the way through.

[CLM65]

Personally I would use the proper size thru hull and hose to get the most benefit from the larger pump.  If you decide to keep the current thru hull, I would run the larger hose as close to the thru hull as possible to minimize the length of smaller hose, thereby minimizing friction loss in the hose.

Pretty sure the flow will be the same either way, no matter where the bottle neck is. Change it all the way through.

Let's assume the new pump actually puts out about 1000 gph, or about 16 gpm.  The pressure drop in the existing 3/4" hose will be about 0.25 psi/ft.  Assuming the hose is about 6' long, that's about 1.5 psi.  The pressure drop for the same flow in a 1-1/8" hose (which corresponds to the outlet size of the Rule 1500) is about 0.04 psi/ft, or 0.24 psi for a 6 foot hose.  The difference of 1.5 psi - 0.24 psi = 1.26 psi, or nearly 3 feet of additional resistance.  From the spec sheet for the Rule 1500, that additional resistance will equate to between 300 and 400 less gph.  To me, that is more than insignificant.  But I do agree with your final assessment - best to replace it all with the proper size hose and fittings.

[tyson87]

A lot more math in there than I can explain.
I thought I remember something about if there is a restriction that the flow is the same as the restriction  until it exits.

But ur answer looks better than mine so I'll agree with u.

[RickK]

Wow Craig - makes me wonder if I have under undersized my 170 pump 

Hey, do you do taxes also 

[CLM65]

Wow Craig - makes me wonder if I have under undersized my 170 pump 

Hey, do you do taxes also 

Engineering is easy.  Taxes...that's another story.

[CLM65]

A lot more math in there than I can explain.
I thought I remember something about if there is a restriction that the flow is the same as the restriction  until it exits.

But ur answer looks better than mine so I'll agree with u.

If the hose was large enough that the friction losses were low, and there was a significant enough restriction (orifice/reducer/valve/etc), then changing the hose size a little would not make much difference.  But trying to force 16 gpm through a 3/4" hose results in quite a bit of pressure loss.