Jump to content

Indmar unveil today


swc5150
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Baller
Since diesel, hybrid and full electric have already been incorporated into boats, I'm lost on what it could be? Small displacement V6 with variable transmission? Whatever it is, I'm sure it'll be expensive, unless that's the groundbreaking part.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller_
To me the guy kinda dissed 3 event by implying that it's out of style. And FAT boats with FAT motors are the in thing. "We need more power". Not impressed. And it was such a tiny fraction of the whole Ford display. Enjoyed Jean Simons of Kiss during his presentation more then Indmar.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
@bracemaker - Yes they are phasing out the 5.7, I like the 351W motors also, but I think ford quit making them as well. I'm assuming the new indmars will be the New generations ford motors which I don't like working on. Ecoboost V6 maybe?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller_
Yes, the iron SBC (5.7) is being phased out, the replacement will be the LS series of engines for GM. The big challenge is cost, the iron small block is very cheap to the marinizer's, so expect to see a bump in prices based on the engine change.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@brewski

the mileage of the vette is more an effect of weight and gearing, not so much the engine.

Four valve DOHC engines are typically quite a bit more volume efficient compared to pushrod engines.

They usually have a flatter torque curve as well, the only drawback is the cost of the four valves engines.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
Unless I'm mistaken a turbo'ed engine adds HP mostly at the top end (high rpms), not the low end where you really need it in a boat motor. If you want low end grunt a small displacement non-V8 ain't gonna be the ticket in a 2600 lb+ ski boat, turbo or not. Seeing a lot of published info about how much issue Ford has with their ecoboost engines, particularly the V-6 they claim is the equal to a GM V-8.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

@ToddF - not so much... Volumetric efficiency and the resulting torque curves have more to do with port design and valve events (cam timing), which can go either way, regardless of where the camshaft is physically installed in the engine. I've seen great pushrod engines with broad torque curves and crappy DOHC engines that were really peaky.

 

@Ed Obermeier - the turbo can be size matched to provide better torque at the low end (at the expense of top end power). If you look at the size of turbos being used on a lot of today's engines, they're relatively small compared to what you saw in the 80's or 90's. They are sized now to deliver full boost as early as 1500rpm on many applications today, which gives them a very flat torque curve with almost zero lag. Another HUGE potential benefit for marine turbos is that you are floating on an infinitely large liquid intercooler supply, so heat control should not be a problem. Cost and complexity are really just the major barriers to adoption here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller_
To add to previous post, don't forget the engines in these boats run at incredibly slow engine speeds compared to what is possible. The need for high revving technology (small mass valves or multi-valves per cylinder, overhead cams, lightweight valve springs, etc.) does not really exist for the tourney boat application. What is wanted is an efficient engine with a broad torque curve, can run on crappy gas and has a low cost, a small block pushrod V8, particularly one that incurs no development or tooling charges, fits that to a tee. Also, the SBC provides a pretty decent fit within the engine box constraints (certainly there are options that would be better, but not a DOHC V8 configuration). Don't get me wrong, I love developing cool technology but the reality is the market is price sensitive & technology for technology's sake may not be a winning approach.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ed, Turbo's are driven from exhaust, not belt driven which would make a RPM dependent power range. Turbo's are load dependent, sized properly, can make full boost (power) at very early rpm. Example, the 6.6 Duramax makes peak torque at 1,600 and peak horsepower at 3,200. The Ecoboost peak hp is at 5000 and peak trq (420SAE) is at 2,000 if I recall correctly.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most trucks today are being built with DOHC engines except a couple manufacturers and if you look at their torque specs they typically will develop more torque at a significantly lower rpm than pushrod engines.

 

In the last few years this has become the preferred motor in gas trucks because it can produce high torque at lower rpms.

 

@eficalibrator I agree with you about the earlier four valve motors, but technology has come a long way in the last few years. And bolt for bolt a four valve head is going to out perform a two valve head

 

@jayski a diesel boat would make gassing up a lot easier I could stay in the same gas lane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fords 6.2 mod motor is 430 at 4500rpm. I wouldn't call that lower rpm then pushrods. That's a typical rpm range for torque across the platforms(typically 4000-4800). I also do not agree with four valve making more power. Again, it all comes down to valve events, shape and design of runners, combustion chambers, valve sizes, etc. example, the new L86 makes 460 trq at 4100rpm. Its just a combo of valve events (VVT) and DI.

Having built, tuned, dyno'ed and raced a few GM LS platforms as well as building a buddies Ford 4 valve, I will stick with the pushrods for reliability, simplicity, fuel efficiency and power

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed with everything said regarding shape, design, runner length, and ease of working with.

 

Hopefully the four valve you are talking about isn't the terminator motor, that wouldn't be the best example of current four valve technology.

both the Nissan and Toyota motors make max torque at 3400-3500 rpm, and like you said the ecoboost makes max torque at 2500

 

personally I would like to have the 5.8 Shelby motor in a tournament boat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

One of these days, when I get some free time and resources, I'm just going to have to build a demo boat using a boosted 4 or 6 cylinder engine and give some of the skeptics a pull BEFORE showing them what's under the box and see what they think.

 

If you plan a powertrain system (engine, trans, prop) as a whole properly, the available thrust at the prop really behaves similar to tractive force at the tire of a car, just with more available slip. One can freely trade prop pitch and rev range to deliver an identical thrust with different engine torques. Also, making ~300ft-lbs of torque like many of the dinosaur SBC's that are common in ski boats isn't rocket science today. Given the relatively light weight of three event boats, it just about begs for another powertrain solution. I have every confidence that I could make that happen with less cylinders and still have a reliable engine that drinks less fuel.

 

The elephant in the room that nobody seems to discuss is the rumor that GM wants to eliminate the 350 small blocks. Period. If the supply of those goes away, boat makers will be forced into finding another solution. Indmar seems to be planning ahead by trying a new option proactively. Hopefully, the 6.2L Raptor engine isn't the only one they've been looking into...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
With a boat you that infinite cooling reservoir below you (lake). Water to air intercoolers might solve some of those ecoboost issues. I agree with the above as far as being a hole system. Engine, Transmission gearing, prop it would need to be a package.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller_
@efical: the GM iron small block is going away, no question. Certainly, the marinizers will need to find another solution when the supply dries up. My point is just that the SBC that is available at a much lower price point compared to other options to the industry offers in today's environment (price, fuel cost, reliability, power curve, size, etc) a great solution for the need.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if they stop production in Mexico, we have the latest LS platforms. You have the 6.0 and 6.2 LS platform that will still go strong forever. We have so many options in the GM LS family, it's silly not to use them. We already have the LS based 6.0, 6.2 and the LSA supercharged from the V available. If you want smaller displacement, I think a supercharged 5.3 would be a nice addition. Think the Joe Gibbs Chevy's that were sold through GM.

But with any FI application in a towboat that is constantly under load, long term reliability IMO would be an issue. With the NA engines, with regular maintenance can go hundreds and hundreds of hours with no issues. In a FI application where the boat would be under load for a large majority of the time, I see issues down the road...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Word on the street is that GM was looking at just about forcing the marine guys into the GenV (direct injection LT1) engines instead of continuing to support the GenIII/IV LS-based engines. The added cost and complexity of the DI system isn't necessary a great benefit for the marine market, especially considering how price conscious they/we are. Even the 6.0l LS engine currently available in marine format is a ~$5000 premium over and above the base 350. This is where I start to see the potential benefit for paying for a boosting system (either turbo or Eaton TVS compressor, both of which have demonstrated long term durability) added to an otherwise cheaper (than a 6.0l LSx, 6.2l LTx, or 6.2l Raptor) base V6 or I4 engine.

 

By pairing the V6/I4 with boost to fill in the low end torque, and picking a trans/prop ratio that exchanges a little bit of RPM for torque, one can make the necessary thrust to satisfy a 3 event buyer. The upshot is that fuel economy could likely get significantly better, weight would go down, package space would be smaller (more interior room in the boat), and catalyst size/cost would also go down. Heck, if you could make an I4 work, you literally cut the exhaust system cost in half and open up a ton of clearance around hot things under the box. I have already given this serious engineering thought, since this is pretty much what I do for a living. It's very likely that I may attack this in the future. With a light enough engine, it starts to make hull choice very forgiving...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
Big News? They're changing to Ford engines. They should be smarter than that. The 6.2 Liter engines is based on the 5.4 Liter where all truck owners couldn't do a tune up because the spark plugs would break off in the head. If you are considering buying make sure the warranty is good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller_

@bogboy: the interesting part of the discussion is not what engine is better than the ubiquitous 350 cid SBC (small block chevy), which has been around for decades. The question becomes what engine that is available will be a suitable replacement for what has been used for a long time. The iron block GM engine is being phased out, it just happens to be an ideal powerplant for a tournament ski boat (one key reason is very low price even though it carries a weight penalty to the aluminum version that is more costly along with great torque curve and reliability). Contrary to most comments, when the checkbook comes out, the lowest cost engine option is picked frequently, just look at how many boats have the base engine in them.

 

So, to your question, yes, it could but with more offerings in the market, I think the marinizers are going to shop around for different base engines in the short term until the "best" solution establishes itself in the market. Bottom line, displacement = torque, so smaller engines (unless boosted) will not deliver the same level of bottom end grunt. That is actually a bit of an issue these days, think the need for a 409 in the higher elevation or short setup courses for the CC200 as an example, there are several threads on this site detailing that. Also, a smaller engine will have to spin faster, so it will be louder than a slow spinning 5.7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller_

@oldjeep: I would think the chances are pretty good, the volume of them in the market is huge, I would think the drag race community would want to keep them around. If not exact, I envision someone like Dart doing a knock off similar to the big block (which Mercruiser is doing).

 

No question the LS series small blocks are more advanced and offer (for the slalom set) a lighter weight package, but the price is a key detractor for them when the iron engine is dirt cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...