View Full Version : Did MC still use the LTR engine in 2003?
Jerseydave
06-16-2005, 08:35 PM
Anyone have one? I found one for sale with that engine, although my dealer says all 2003's had either a 310hp or the MCX 350 hp.
I think MC still had some of the LTR's around 2003 and used them up until they were gone.
Also, does anyone know how they got 20 more HP out of the MCX?
Other than HP, is there any other difference between the LTR and the MCX?
Sorry so long, hopefully a factory spokesperson reads this and can clear this up for me.
Thanks
John B
06-16-2005, 08:54 PM
Use the "Contact Us" at the bottom of this page and someone from MasterCraft will answer you.
gtink
06-16-2005, 09:48 PM
njskier, if you find the answer to the added HP, let me know. I have 1995 LT1 310 HP ProStart 205. Always willing to squeze a little more HP. :)
Jerseydave
06-16-2005, 09:57 PM
Use the "Contact Us" at the bottom of this page and someone from MasterCraft will answer you.
Sent message to webmaster. Lets see what he/she says. I'll keep you posted.
Leroy
06-16-2005, 10:33 PM
Would be a great time for enginenut to jump in!
Mag_Red
06-16-2005, 11:04 PM
I'm thinking the MCX is based on the LS1 Corvette engine :wavey:
NeilM
06-17-2005, 12:23 AM
njskier, I think you're right -- I think there still were some LTR's around in 2003
It depends on when the boat was built during the year...if it were built in June for example as a "photo boat" for the next year catalog then the boat would have the hull id that would make it a 2003. Once the line change occurs and "true" production begins (July) the LTR was done and gone. We sold a couple of these units so they do exist.
The MCX is the same engine from the cylinder heads down as the old LTR (not counting the ignition change). The increase in power is from the "tuned length" runners of the intake manifold. The LTR had almost no runner length and as such had very poor bottom end performance. The MCX on the other hand has moderate runner length and this creates a "ram" effect causing the cylinders to over fill and contributing to a V/E ratio of over 110% at certain RPM. The EXT exhaust manifolds help to contribute to a “strong” 350hp number as well, but that is another story. Almost all of the 20hp difference comes from the intake manifold.
Workin' 4 Toys
06-17-2005, 10:34 AM
I'm thinking the MCX is based on the LS1 Corvette engine :wavey:
As I understand you are correct. It does look exactly as it does in the corvette engine compartment with the exception of the valve covers and air intake. I also believe the corvette engine is also rated for 350 HP. Let me tell you, it is awesome.
The MCX and the LS1 have nothing in common other than the old Ed Cole (father of the small block chevy) mandated 4.400 bore centers. The LS1 has an aluminum case, its bore diameter is 3.8976 and the stroke is 3.6620. The MCX/LTR is a cast iron case (block) and has a 4.000" bore and a 3.500" stroke. The LS1 also has cross bolted mains (6 bolts) where the MCX/LTR has 2 bolt mains. LS1 use 4 head bolts per cyliner where the MCX uses 5. The LS1 also uses a different firing order (1-8-7-2-6-5-4-3) instead of the time honored sb chevy 1-8-4-3-6-5-7-2.
There is more like the longer rod in an LS1 or the fact that the LS1 has a piston that actually comes above the deck (negative deck height) as opposed to old way of zero deck or in the hole (MCX/LTR) (this is an emissions thing as NoX like to hide in crevices).
Other than suck, squeeze, bang & blow (4 steps of a 4 stroke engine) they have very little in common.
sizzler
06-17-2005, 11:08 AM
Other than suck, squeeze, bang & blow (4 steps of a 4 stroke engine) they have very little in common.
ahem???????? :D
but a lot in common with some people i know
Yep...hey wait no need to get personal here ;)
Jerseydave
06-17-2005, 12:29 PM
MYMC,
Thanks for the info about the engines. You have gone above and beyond my friend.
I'm sure that the LTR engine has plenty of ponies for what I need.
Anyone else have any comments about the performance of a 230 with the LTR engine?
Tom023
06-17-2005, 01:49 PM
I've got one in my X30 and have never had a power issue or concern. I don't load my boat with ballast and 12 friends either, but with 4-6 people and some ballast, it does a great job. My dealer actually told me the LTR has a better pull than the MCX, something I'm skeptical about, but without seeing any published torque information, it's kind of hard to verify. I think you will be more than satisfied.
MYMC,
Thanks for the info about the engines. You have gone above and beyond my friend.
I'm sure that the LTR engine has plenty of ponies for what I need.
Anyone else have any comments about the performance of a 230 with the LTR engine?
I dont have 230 experience, but I had an LTR 330 in a 190 and while it is a very strong & reliable motor, I did complain of the bottom end as mentioned here. I now have an MCX and have no complaints of bottom end power, but (I have no documentation regarding this) the mcx does seem to burn more fuel.... That being said, my LTR was 1:1 trans and the mcx I have experience with is a powerslot which may contribute to the lack of fuel economy
Jerseydave
06-17-2005, 02:28 PM
Ric,
An MCX with a powerslot would have alot more bottom end torque than the LTR with a 1:1 ratio, I would think.
If the LTR had a powerslot trans. too, it would be a more fair comparison.
I don't plan on loading down the boat with alot of people or ballast, so I think the 330hp should do fine. (3 years ago I had a 22ft. runabout with a 280hp I/O, so the 330hp v-drive should feel like a powerhouse.) :D
bucky
06-17-2005, 02:30 PM
I have an 01 190 LTR w/powerslot. The only problem I have from a dead start is prop cavitation. ;)
One last thing for everyone...
1) The torque number is an expression of the ability to do work at a given RPM.
2) The HP peak number tells you how long (RPM wise) the engine is able to carry torque (this is why diesels have huge TQ numbers and comparably low HP ratings, they have small RPM ranges).
3) More horsepower means more fuel consumption...this goes goes to brake specific fuel consumtion. You may as well figure .50lbs of fuel an hour per horsepower (being fuel injected it's probably more like .45). This makes the MCX use 180lbs of fuel in an hour at wide open throttle versus the LTRs 170lbs (or 25.7 gallons vs. 24.2).
Given the known values of both engines the MCX comes out on top everywhere...more torque, more horsepower and more fuel consumption. :dance:
Didn't mean to put anybody to sleep...just having fun on a Friday.
Jerseydave
06-17-2005, 02:48 PM
Wow, MYMC you know your stuff!
Do you get your info from MC about the engine specs?
Your a MC dealer, right?
Yes, I am an MC dealer. The data used is by Indmar. The math and insight comes from over 10 years of working with engines (seems like another life now). :friday:
Ric,
An MCX with a powerslot would have alot more bottom end torque than the LTR with a 1:1 ratio, I would think.
If the LTR had a powerslot trans. too, it would be a more fair comparison.
I don't plan on loading down the boat with alot of people or ballast, so I think the 330hp should do fine. (3 years ago I had a 22ft. runabout with a 280hp I/O, so the 330hp v-drive should feel like a powerhouse.) :D
sorry, I should have mentioned the fact that I actually had pulled with a few mcx 1:1's and that is actually what I ordered.
I am comparing 1:1 LTR in my '00 190 to 1:1 MCX in my 05 197 and do feel that the lack of bottom end has been rectified with the MCX. That's apples to apples (Or at least 190 to 197 with same trans anyway).
(The powerslot that I have now is a loaner and seems to be hard on fuel after having put about 30 hrs on it)
LTR is a good motor, don't get me wrong. Plenty of power and never never failed me in any way.
Yes, I am an MC dealer. The data used is by Indmar. The math and insight comes from over 10 years of working with engines (seems like another life now). :friday:
mymc, is there any of these reprogrammers (Like Wester's Garage) that can give us a "hot tune" or otherwise change our programs on these boats, or is it totally different than what they do to the ecm in a pickup truck?
Anyone with the source code could (easy since we still use a flash burn system), I just don't know of any that have. My guess is that it is an economic issue...inboard boat sales make up less than 1% of the total boating market. Then factor in the number of owners that want to upgrade to a "hot" ecm and you can imagine just how many you would sell.
On a positive note there are more and more people asking for this, so maybe someone will pay attention.