2.3L EcoBoost Released by Indmar

[dvskier]

@Zman I got 36.5 mpg going 80 mph in my 2015 Acura TLX V 6 coming back from CO last year. It does have a 9 speed transmission and cylinder deactivation. I was shocked. It does better than my 2016 Subaru Outback. Never get more than 30 mph withe Subaru.

[RAWSki]

@dvskier you nailed it, we don't get the benefits of 9 speed transmissions, 'displacement on demand' or even over-drive in our craft. The Outback is a great car (had two) but the engine-transmission and the AWD limit the MPG.

[ToddF]

Boosted applications have a higher/greater BSFC Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption

meaning to make the same horsepower as a natural engine they require more fuel, (bigger injectors or more fuel pressure) but the smaller engine not under boost will be more fuel efficient

 

also 2.3 ecoboost torque curve is very impressive, equal to or better than most N/A engines the focus rs hits max torque around 2000 rpm

 

so if a small turbo engine has nearly identical characteristics as a natural engine but is lighter and real world more efficient than its n\a counterpart why wouldn't you want it.

 

Plus, with an unlimited source of cool water I think they could make these engines even more potent and efficient.

 

And cheaper.

[sixball]

I just can't see cooling any part of a turbo package is an issue with all the cooling available. My need to do some engineering to use it but just not a stopper.

[ForrestGump]

@jmoski I'm pretty sure that 1879 horsepower from my little 310ci race engine was not an illusion of power. While you are correct in that there are parasitic losses from the drive mechanism of a supercharger, there are also real world pumping losses inherent in even the best turbo system. There is no free power.

[ToddF]

The impeller of a supercharger is limited to the drive mechanism.

a 10lbs of boost supercharger at sea level will only make 6+- lbs at 5000 feet because there is less air. The only way to change that is to speed up the supercharger ie; change the drive mechanism.

 

The impeller of a turbo is free spinning and limited by air pressure, 10 lbs at sea level means it is spinning at X rpm, move it to 5000 feet and there is less air pressure so it will spin faster to still make 10lbs of boost, way more efficient for all those high altitude boats.

 

 

[DW]

If the heat rejection increases (adding a turbo tends to do that) a key factor will be to increase the underhood airflow and particularly evacuating the hot air at the upper portion of the engine box. Cars do a much better job based on underhood configurations compared to the dog house configuration of a typical ski boat. Water availability is not the cooling issue. Simply compare the air volume through a modern car grill and those used for a ski boat (which can be smaller due to lower air temp since cars use post radiator airflow but not the ratio now used).

[Zman]

I'm betting that Indmar, working with Ford engineers has most all the challenges noted in this conversation pretty well worked out. There may be a learning curve yet, but I'm optimistic we will be seeing turbocharged engines in our ski boats before long.

They won't be the first turbocharged ski boats either. Think Nautique for Sky Fly.

[Golfguy]

Doesn’t it require a good deal of air to the turb charger? How would that be handled under the engine shroud of a ski boat?

[Jetsetr]

deleted- redundant Pro Eco Boost comment...

 

[liquid d]

Will it make 39's easier?

[Greg Banish]

@Golfguy 330hp requires roughly the same engine airflow either way. The benefit here is that the turbocharger gets to use a VERY efficient water-to-air intercooler that has an infinite supply of cool water under the boat to keep actual inlet temps to the cylinders in a safe range, regardless of what's going on under the engine box.

[ALPJr]

I wouldn't be surprised if at some point Sanger offers the 2.3 in the DXII. Would replace the V8 with the same hp. And bring the dry weight of the boat in at around 2,100 lbs.

[Keith_Menard]

I don't understand the cubic inches OR turbo question...

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/enjj8RMt75pzUF3q6

[DW]

@ALPJr: Not sure it would drop 300 lbs off the powertrain weight, seems more like around 100 from what I can see relative to the LS options.