PDA

View Full Version : Ilmor Motors


TT197
10-08-2010, 03:43 PM
Just finished 3 days of testing the 6.2 closed cooled Ilmor engine with the guys from Ilmor.We used a X35 as the tester
We tested props and did it at 5950 ft. above sea level then went up to 9000 ft. The 6.2 is by far the best engine I have ever driven and I drove it for 3 days straight. Brand new engine 10hrs or less full trhottle all day top speed tests, 0-36mph ,0 to top speed loaded unloaded what ever we could do to it we did. Drag raced a 8.1L X-35 6.2L won ever time:D
The Ilmor guys Chris, Andy and Elmer wanted to thrash the motor and it ran flawless.
Top speed in x-35 at 6000 ft was 43MPH with RPM of 5750 14.25X14.50 prop
Lost about 2 MPH @ 9000 ft and 300 RPM
We had a ton of fun8p8p I want one in 2011 TT boat badly:D

rgardjr1
10-08-2010, 04:09 PM
Drag raced a 8.1L X-35 6.2L won ever time:D

Great feedback for the new motor choice. Sounds like the guys at Ilmor are getting it done right out of the gate.

yippikaiyay
10-08-2010, 05:34 PM
Well....you can send Chris, Andy and Elmer up my way any day for some testing at 500' above sea level!!! Man.....what a job!

TallRedRider
10-08-2010, 09:23 PM
Drag raced a 8.1L X-35 6.2L won ever time:D


Same prop? Were there any other differences in the X35's?

Do you have any pics?

MYMC
10-09-2010, 07:52 AM
Funny I didn't know that Ilmor built electric MOTORS...I had always heard they were ENGINE builders. Well, no one is really an "engine builder" anymore... especially in the marine market.

MattsCraft
10-09-2010, 10:56 AM
This is great, however my question is, will it stand the test of time/hours. I have and 09' Indmar MCX 250 hours, zero problems. My buddy has the same engine, over 1500 hours, zero problems and still runs great! All of these specs are nice, but I want an engine that will last and would like to see what the performance maintenance etc. is over the long haul before I burn my hard earned cash!!! ha ha

DooSPX
10-09-2010, 11:33 AM
I am glad to see that they are using the 6.2L platform. I'm sure it will be a reliable platform for them to work off of.

Jim@BAWS
10-09-2010, 11:50 AM
This is great, however my question is, will it stand the test of time/hours. I have and 09' Indmar MCX 250 hours, zero problems. My buddy has the same engine, over 1500 hours, zero problems and still runs great! All of these specs are nice, but I want an engine that will last and would like to see what the performance maintenance etc. is over the long haul before I burn my hard earned cash!!! ha ha


In all seriousness. Do you think that Ilmor uses a different 5.7, 6.0, or 6.2 block any different than anyone else??

It is all about what is mounted, strapped and programed on the block!!!


Jim@BAWS

TT197
10-09-2010, 07:20 PM
the X35's were exaclty the same the crew weight same equipment. The 8.1L run a different prop because the 6.2L prop was to small that MOTOR:D. We tested 8 different Acme and OJ props on 6.2L and we were very happy with the OJ 14.25 X 14.50 performance. Below a mile high it will probably have to be a little bigger. Sorry no pics and no horse power numbers;) I can say it is very strong.

kevkan
10-09-2010, 08:42 PM
TT, the use of the term "motor" is perfectly acceptable for describing an internal combustion engine. So fire up that motor boat!

Eagle
10-09-2010, 10:27 PM
Some of the best engines in the world are made by BMW. Bayerische Motoren Werke (aka Bavarian Motor Works)

MYMC
10-09-2010, 10:30 PM
TT, the use of the term "motor" is perfectly acceptable for describing an internal combustion engine. So fire up that motor boat!

Per Paul Brian's Common Errors in English Usage:
People who work on them distinguish between the electrically powered unit called the “motor” and the engine which it starts; but even in auto-parts stores the stuff which by that logic should be called “engine oil” is marketed as “motor oil.” Similarly, the English go motoring on motorways. In everyday American discourse, the terms are often interchangeable (you can buy a powerful engine for your motorboat), but you’ll embarrass yourself if you don’t make the distinction when talking to your mechanic.

Not interchangeable to me...but I digress.

Make no mistake Jim@BAWS is correct in his statement.

JimN
10-09-2010, 10:35 PM
Per Paul Brian's Common Errors in English Usage:
People who work on them distinguish between the electrically powered unit called the “motor” and the engine which it starts; but even in auto-parts stores the stuff which by that logic should be called “engine oil” is marketed as “motor oil.” Similarly, the English go motoring on motorways. In everyday American discourse, the terms are often interchangeable (you can buy a powerful engine for your motorboat), but you’ll embarrass yourself if you don’t make the distinction when talking to your mechanic.

Not interchangeable to me...but I digress.

Make no mistake Jim@BAWS is correct in his statement.

Motor oil is what you put in a motor vehicle, right? Leave it to every state to get that wrong. :D

MYMC
10-09-2010, 10:38 PM
Some of the best engines in the world are made by BMW. Bayerische Motoren Werke (aka Bavarian Motor Works)
Well if we were n Germany this would be germaine to the point...but we are not and it isn't.
Here in America an engine converts energy to useful mechanical motion, a motor derives power without changing the fuels composition...

MYMC
10-09-2010, 10:39 PM
Motor oil is what you put in a motor vehicle, right? Leave it to every state to get that wrong. :D

Come on Jim you know that isn't the only thing every state has gotten wrong ;)

JimN
10-09-2010, 10:56 PM
Come on Jim you know that isn't the only thing every state has gotten wrong ;)

I know but I didn't want anyone to think I was pointing fingers.

kevkan
10-09-2010, 11:36 PM
So do only electric vehicles have to register at the DMV (department of motor vehicles)?

My old MasterCraft had a a 351 ENGINE, manufactured by Ford MOTOR Company. My new MasterCraft has a 350 ENGINE that is a General MOTOR Company product. Both of them are protected by a MOTOR box. My brother-in-law has a bass boat, with a big outboard motor. I grew up skiing behind a boat with an OMC ENGINE. What did the "M" stand for?

chippy1971
10-10-2010, 12:36 AM
Ok,

that is all good feedback but what is the litres per hour your are using.

for all you guys in the US 4.5 Litres per 1 gal of gas.

JimN
10-10-2010, 03:39 AM
Ok,

that is all good feedback but what is the litres per hour your are using.

for all you guys in the US 4.5 Litres per 1 gal of gas.

Is that a liquid gallon (3.79 L), dry gallon (4.4 L) or Imperial Gallon (4.55 L)?

Oh, and in the US, we spell it 'liter'. :D

vision
10-10-2010, 03:59 AM
Here is a curiosity question. When Indmar or Ilmor buys a GM engine, are they essentially buying the crankcase, cylinders, pistons, rods and crankshaft, and customizing everything else to their specs?

And who designs the fuel delivery system (fuel pump and rail), the engine manufacturer of MC?

JimN
10-10-2010, 04:27 AM
Here is a curiosity question. When Indmar or Ilmor buys a GM engine, are they essentially buying the crankcase, cylinders, pistons, rods and crankshaft, and customizing everything else to their specs?

And who designs the fuel delivery system (fuel pump and rail), the engine manufacturer of MC?

They buy a short block and put their own intake on it. The fuel line is usually a quick-disconnect, like they use on the cars or trucks, but they may spec it for a threaded coupling. How the fuel gets to the motor is the boat manufacturer's responsibility but it needs to meet the engine's pressure/volume requirements. These engines come off of the normal GM assembly line. If they use a different cam or other internal parts, they can but AFAIK, they aren't installed at GM- that would fall under 'custom order' and I have to think it would really drive the cost up too much.

Eagle
10-10-2010, 03:41 PM
Well if we were n Germany this would be germaine to the point...but we are not and it isn't.
Here in America an engine converts energy to useful mechanical motion, a motor derives power without changing the fuels composition...
True, this is not Germany. How about Motor City? General Motors? Ford Motor Company? Mopar? Motorcycle, motorboat, motormouth, department of motor vehicles, EBay Motors, ...

I googled "Motor vs. Engine" and see this is a lively topic of discussion.

Semantics aside, what do you think of the Ilmor engine, Mike?

Oh, isn't Germaine one of the Jackson 5?

TX.X-30 fan
10-10-2010, 05:19 PM
Nice, I like to see a little pissy banter.................... A motor is electric though not combustion

MYMC
10-10-2010, 11:49 PM
True, this is not Germany. How about Motor City? General Motors? Ford Motor Company? Mopar? Motorcycle, motorboat, motormouth, department of motor vehicles, EBay Motors, ...

I googled "Motor vs. Engine" and see this is a lively topic of discussion.

Semantics aside, what do you think of the Ilmor engine, Mike?

Oh, isn't Germaine one of the Jackson 5?
What do I really think? Hmmm...okay here we go
If someone wanted to make a real difference they would do something more than paint. A real "ENGINE BUILDER" would work with the manufacture and make sure all the ancillary components added power output and efficiency (IMHO there is room for improvement here). We (racing/manufacturers) learned in the 80's that the goal is a three legged stool... fuel efficiency, performance and fuel economy. Miss one and the stool will not stand.

The sad and I do mean sad fact is that there is not enough profit in a $75,000 "ski boat" to justify the expense. There is fuel to be saved and power to be made; however, the current formula/SOP does not support real innovation.

Germaine...hmmm I could tell you about a Testarossa I fixed for Tito back in the 80's but I don't want to date myself.

Nice, I like to see a little pissy banter.................... A motor is electric though not combustion
In the immortal words of Rick Bobby: "Hey, it's me America"

Eagle
10-17-2010, 08:36 PM
Mike,

Which would you choose, MCX or Ilmor 5.7?

I may be ordering an X-25 and would need to make a decision.

Thanks!

vision
10-18-2010, 02:58 PM
The sad and I do mean sad fact is that there is not enough profit in a $75,000 "ski boat" to justify the expense. There is fuel to be saved and power to be made; however, the current formula/SOP does not support real innovation.

This seems to be true for many aspects of the boats we love.

Mike, any local performance shops doing forced induction add ons or other modifications to individual marine engines?

It would be interesting to see what a supercharger, tuned for the marine environment, would do for a little MCX or other small block marine V8. I do not need massive torque or HP. But, maximizing the performance of the engine I have, and picking up 50 or 60 ftlbs of torque and hp would be of value.

I still want that CVT as well....

JimN
10-18-2010, 03:12 PM
This seems to be true for many aspects of the boats we love.

Mike, any local performance shops doing forced induction add ons or other modifications to individual marine engines?

It would be interesting to see what a supercharger, tuned for the marine environment, would do for a little MCX or other small block marine V8.

I still want that CVT as well....

Speed shops are all over the country- how many do marine engine development? I don't know but I suppose someone could call around their area to find out.

"I do not need massive torque or HP. But, maximizing the performance of the engine I have, and picking up 50 or 60 ftlbs of torque and hp would be of value."

20-25% is substantial. It's not 500HP but an additional 50HP brings a, MCX to about 380 and that has to be enough for what these boats were designed. If someone needs more than that AND a specific shape for the wake, they might want to look into designing their own. I'd say that the days of hard-core skiing is over of so many people want a speedboat instead of a ski boat.

eficalibrator
10-18-2010, 03:55 PM
Forced induction has all kinds of potential for ski boats. I would do it on something other than an MCX though. For 95% of us, the MCX already makes way more power than we really need. What if someone offered up a supercharged (properly for Marine use!) V6 or I4 engine that made enough power and torque under boost to have a good holeshot (even with ballast) but got 30% better fuel economy and weighed less? Would that have your attention?

I can easily see a blown 4 or 6 cylinder in the PS190 size boats being more than adequate to yank a slalom skier up in no time. I've played with hot rods for years where addiing power is almost too easy these days and work in the automotive OEM arena where fuel economy and emissions are king. It's very probable that these two worlds will merge in the future to the benefit of the marine guys.

ksdaoski
10-18-2010, 04:21 PM
agree 100%!

It was overkill, but other day I referenced a new Ford V6 that was netting 365hp....would be perfect for a boat, once you figure out the cooling portion-

START FORD COMMERCIAL NOW:
365hp 420lb-pds 11,300lbs towing capacity All from a 3.5L V6
http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2...0_EcoBoost.pdf

Also have a 3.7L with 300hp that will get 17/23mpg
http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2011_F150_V6.pdf

Compared with the current 4.6L V8 with 242hp that only gets 14/19

All because of the FI-


EDIT: looks like the first link was removed, but here are the stats:
3.5-liter Ti-VCT EcoBoost
A premium powertrain offering available after launch, the 3.5-liter EcoBoost has more torque than any competitors’ V8 with the fuel economy of a smaller-displacement engine. This EcoBoost engine will establish a new benchmark for its combination of performance capability and fuel efficiency. Its attributes include:

* 365 horsepower at 5,000 rpm on regular fuel
* Best-in-class 420 lb.-ft. of torque at 2,500 rpm on regular fuel
* Best-in-class 11,300 pounds maximum trailer tow vs. all competitors
* Best-in-class 3,060 pounds payload vs. all competitors
* Up to 90 percent of peak torque available from 1,700 rpm to 5,000 rpm
* New benchmark for combination of performance capability and fuel efficiency
* Ti-VCT creates precise, variable timing control of both the intake and exhaust camshafts to optimize power, performance and fuel economy
* Intake and exhaust camshafts optimized for improved fuel economy and performance
* Cast exhaust manifolds for heavy-duty operation and durability
* Improved manifold and cylinder heads for improved performance
* Direct-acting mechanical bucket (DAMB) valvetrain with polished buckets to reduce friction and improve fuel economy
* Built at Cleveland Engine Plant

JimN
10-18-2010, 05:10 PM
agree 100%!

It was overkill, but other day I referenced a new Ford V6 that was netting 365hp....would be perfect for a boat, once you figure out the cooling portion-


So when you say it was overkill, you're saying it was perfect, right?:D

ksdaoski
10-18-2010, 05:48 PM
I meant my post was overkill! lol

Nothing wrong with 365/420, getting 10-20% better mileage!

vision
10-18-2010, 06:10 PM
What if someone offered up a supercharged (properly for Marine use!) V6 or I4 engine that made enough power and torque under boost to have a good holeshot (even with ballast) but got 30% better fuel economy and weighed less? Would that have your attention?


You betcha.

The new Ford SC V6 seems ideal!

Forrest-X45
10-19-2010, 01:51 PM
I meant my post was overkill! lol

Nothing wrong with 365/420, getting 10-20% better mileage!

I don't think you would see that kind of improvement in a marine environment where the engine is under constant load and boost. I don't know if you would see a fuel savings versus a low compression marine V8 versus a boosted V6. Plus a boosted V6 is never going to sound as good a V8 in a boat.
And let's not forget about durability.....my thoughts are a low compression V8 with much lower cylinder pressure is going to last a lot longer than a highly boosted V6 with much higher cylinder pressure in a marine or towing enviornment. And I am only talking gas engines, not diesels.

Just something to think about.......

eficalibrator
10-19-2010, 04:32 PM
Actually the marine environment carries some of the solutions to traditional forced induction roadblocks. Mainly in the form of almost unlimited cooling media for both the engine, exhaust, and charge air coolers. Traditional supercharged applications need to add fuel to control catalyst temperature and avoid knock. If you water cool the exhaust manifolds and catalysts, you've solved #1 and running a far superior temp drop in the intercooler will allow leaner (relatively speaking) mixes under boost that are basically the same ratio as the naturally aspirated engines.

Running a boat is almost like towing. We do a LOT of durability testing for things like Baker grade (a looooong uphill 70mph grade in the Mojave) in the automotive world. Comparing that to boats, we don't get the benefit of 80* or cooler water to directly cool the engine and boosted air. If we could regulate the engine to the same 170* temps that marine engines use, it would go a long way toward preventing knock and allow us to run leaner mixes that use less total fuel.

Keep in mind that the worst consumption is on the first 10 seconds as you get the boat onto plane. Once you're planing, especially with skiers and no ballast, the load is significantly lighter. This is where the reduced pumping and windage losses start to shine. If you're able to run a higher static compression ratio you'll get better thermal efficiency out of the combustion anyway. Controlling knock and temp are the keys, but that's relatively easy if you can "cheat" by always having cold water available to cool things.

Oh, and I'd wager that a boosted 4cyl is about 150+lb lighter than your typical V8. All the slalom guys should love this since it means less displacement and a smaller wake. It's also smaller, so I could see where the doghouse would get smaller and allow more cabin room for families and friends on an otherwise cozy boat.

scott023
10-19-2010, 04:45 PM
Actually the marine environment carries some of the solutions to traditional forced induction roadblocks. Mainly in the form of almost unlimited cooling media for both the engine, exhaust, and charge air coolers. Traditional supercharged applications need to add fuel to control catalyst temperature and avoid knock. If you water cool the exhaust manifolds and catalysts, you've solved #1 and running a far superior temp drop in the intercooler will allow leaner (relatively speaking) mixes under boost that are basically the same ratio as the naturally aspirated engines.

Running a boat is almost like towing. We do a LOT of durability testing for things like Baker grade (a looooong uphill 70mph grade in the Mojave) in the automotive world. Comparing that to boats, we don't get the benefit of 80* or cooler water to directly cool the engine and boosted air. If we could regulate the engine to the same 170* temps that marine engines use, it would go a long way toward preventing knock and allow us to run leaner mixes that use less total fuel.

Keep in mind that the worst consumption is on the first 10 seconds as you get the boat onto plane. Once you're planing, especially with skiers and no ballast, the load is significantly lighter. This is where the reduced pumping and windage losses start to shine. If you're able to run a higher static compression ratio you'll get better thermal efficiency out of the combustion anyway. Controlling knock and temp are the keys, but that's relatively easy if you can "cheat" by always having cold water available to cool things.

Oh, and I'd wager that a boosted 4cyl is about 150+lb lighter than your typical V8. All the slalom guys should love this since it means less displacement and a smaller wake. It's also smaller, so I could see where the doghouse would get smaller and allow more cabin room for families and friends on an otherwise cozy boat.

Too bad the majority of boats MC sells are not ski boats... so the need for a lighter motor may not be needed.

ksdaoski
10-19-2010, 04:52 PM
Too bad the majority of boats MC sells are not ski boats... so the need for a lighter motor may not be needed.

but they are gas hogs-

eficalibrator
10-20-2010, 09:02 AM
You can always add ballast. It's really tough to add lightness after the fact.

captain planet
10-20-2010, 03:14 PM
So do only electric vehicles have to register at the DMV (department of motor vehicles)?

My old MasterCraft had a a 351 ENGINE, manufactured by Ford MOTOR Company. My new MasterCraft has a 350 ENGINE that is a General MOTOR Company product. Both of them are protected by a MOTOR box. My brother-in-law has a bass boat, with a big outboard motor. I grew up skiing behind a boat with an OMC ENGINE. What did the "M" stand for?

Outboard Marine Corporation

Forrest-X45
10-20-2010, 03:25 PM
but they are gas hogs-

Ahhh.....it's a boat, you don't buy them because of gas mileage so who cares if they are gas guzzlers. :) It's not like I am driving it to work everyday...

Just take more friends with you, that's what they are for - pay for the gas. :D

scott023
10-20-2010, 03:50 PM
Ahhh.....it's a boat, you don't buy them because of gas mileage so who cares if they are gas guzzlers. :) It's not like I am driving it to work everyday...

Just take more friends with you, that's what they are for - pay for the gas. :D

Spot on Forrest.

thatsmrmastercraft
10-20-2010, 04:04 PM
Ahhh.....it's a boat, you don't buy them because of gas mileage so who cares if they are gas guzzlers. :) It's not like I am driving it to work everyday...

Just take more friends with you, that's what they are for - pay for the gas. :D

I need different friends. No one ever coughs up any money for gas.:(

sk8salomon
10-20-2010, 04:08 PM
So, I can't help but think like this...

CC=PCM
Malipoo=Indmar
MC=Ilmore

PP
Stargazer
ZO (A-1,2,3 B-1,2,3 C-1,2,3)

Pretty soon there won't be any common parts between the mfg's whatsoever. I'm hearing more and more likes/dislikes about each boat per event. (eg- trickers don't like nautiques, jumpers like MC for prop rotation & pull, long liners prefer nautique wake, malipoos just plain suck, etc etc. let's make things more complicated....rant off.

vision
10-20-2010, 06:41 PM
Ahhh.....it's a boat, you don't buy them because of gas mileage so who cares if they are gas guzzlers. :D

I know this statement was just made for humor, but it brings up an important point in my mind.

I could get a team of Percherons to run down the shore pulling me, but instead I thought a boat would be better.

I could by an inboard/outboard boat to ride behind, but I prefer the benefits of an inboard.

I could by a low end inboard, but I bought an MC because I wanted quality and innovation.

I would buy a boat with an equally powerful, more fuel efficient, less environmentally damaging engine over one with less fuel efficiency.

I want a boat that strives to be the best in all facets of its use and I see utility in improving fuel efficiency. I mention this because only if end users demand more fuel efficiency will MC and engine manufacturers place importance on fuel efficiency.

ksdaoski
10-20-2010, 07:58 PM
Its not the cost savings I'm really a fan off, it would be minimal in the whole scope of boat ownership.

However, I value my time on the water. And if I can spend more time on the water with the engine running, and less time filling up at the dock, or less time and energy dumping gas from a bunch of 5 gallon tanks, I'm all for it!

ghind
10-21-2010, 06:42 AM
Imagine the complaints of turbo lag and a zero off boat!!

sk8salomon
10-21-2010, 10:49 AM
I know this statement was just made for humor, but it brings up an important point in my mind.

I could get a team of Percherons to run down the shore pulling me, but instead I thought a boat would be better.

I could by an inboard/outboard boat to ride behind, but I prefer the benefits of an inboard.

I could by a low end inboard, but I bought an MC because I wanted quality and innovation.

I would buy a boat with an equally powerful, more fuel efficient, less environmentally damaging engine over one with less fuel efficiency.

I want a boat that strives to be the best in all facets of its use and I see utility in improving fuel efficiency. I mention this because only if end users demand more fuel efficiency will MC and engine manufacturers place importance on fuel efficiency.

Bravo! We should make a T-shirt with this stuff and make millions!

Goinbroke
10-21-2010, 10:56 AM
Imagine the complaints of turbo lag and a zero off boat!!

Turbo lag is a thing of the past my friend. Todays technology can produce a turbo motor that snaps off the bottom end like a supercharger.

MCwake
10-22-2010, 01:38 PM
Nice to hear good comments about the new engines in the new mastercrafts. Does Ilmore have a 5 year factory warranty? Heard Indmar has one now.

Jim@BAWS
10-22-2010, 01:59 PM
Nice to hear good comments about the new engines in the new mastercrafts. Does Ilmore have a 5 year factory warranty? Heard Indmar has one now.

INDMAR has the availability of a 5 year warranty starting with 2011 motors. You must sign up with Boaters Insurance withing 30 days of purchase and stay with them for the 5 year term. Great RATES Great service and it can be transferred to the next owner

Jim@BAWS

jwroblew
10-22-2010, 02:35 PM
I heard the new engines are almost 150 lbs heavier than the Indmars. Don't know if this is true, good for wakeboard boats not so good for the ski boats.

Jim@BAWS
10-22-2010, 04:06 PM
I heard the new engines are almost 150 lbs heavier than the Indmars. Don't know if this is true, good for wakeboard boats not so good for the ski boats.



RUMOR CONTROL RUNS RAMPID HERE!!!

macattack
10-22-2010, 07:15 PM
INDMAR has the availability of a 5 year warranty starting with 2011 motors. You must sign up with Boaters Insurance withing 30 days of purchase and stay with them for the 5 year term. Great RATES Great service and it can be transferred to the next owner

Jim@BAWS

Here's the Indmar link ref the 5 yr warranty option...sounds pretty good as Jim explained!

http://www.indmar.com/News/IndmarFactory5.pdf

TT197
10-23-2010, 10:19 AM
The current LY6 is 50 lbs. lighter than an MCX.The new 6.2's are 150 lbs. lighter than a current LY6. A new 6.2 in a 197 would take up tp 200 lbs out of the boat.:D