PDA

View Full Version : Ilmor Marine


2gofaster
01-09-2011, 10:51 AM
I spent a significant amount of time yesterday with Ron Brown, President of Ilmor Marine. He shipped a 6.0 MV8 to the Houston Boat show and was gracious enough to spend the day with us talking to customers and answering questions. In speaking with Ron, I gathered a couple of interesting tidbits in my little pea brain. Although the switch to Ilmor seemed to come out of nowhere, Ron's team started working on the new inboard marine engine program in early 2007. They also have built a new facility in the Penske campus with a production capacity of 15,000 engines in a year. That blew me away. I'm an engine guy. I know what it takes to build high performance engines. 15,000 engines is a LOT of engines in a production environment. Currently, Mastercraft is the flagship brand they are being used in but it would seem Formula has now signed with them also. The 15,000 engines is a 5 year goal. But to build a facility based on that 5 year goal took a significant investment by Ilmor and the Penske Group. One other thing that took me by surprise was when he and I were discussing their parts production. I asked him where they were casting the intake, bellhousing, risers, etc. Low and behold, Ilmor is casting and fabricating every part in the US. With the exception of a few small parts where they couldn't find a suitable manufacturer in the US and had to outsource to a German company(who did open a US branch to handle the business) everything is made in the lower 48. Overall, I was very impressed with what I saw from Ilmor this weekend and thought others out there should hear about it.

duckguy
01-09-2011, 01:20 PM
I think Ilmor is terrible, I hate change and I won't buy a t-shirt with their logo!

TX.X-30 fan
01-09-2011, 01:23 PM
Their..........

duckguy
01-09-2011, 01:24 PM
That better **** stick?

TX.X-30 fan
01-09-2011, 03:32 PM
Yes a$$ _ick

CantRepeat
01-09-2011, 04:00 PM
I think Indmar is terrible, I hate change and I won't buy a t-shirt with their logo!

Me too. ;)

03geetee
01-09-2011, 05:28 PM
Pcm FTMFW?


JTR

BIGBADBLUE
01-09-2011, 06:21 PM
I just bought one ... Nashville Boat show was good. malibu has their Axis (sp?) line at the show and boy are they cheaply made.

ttu
01-09-2011, 06:54 PM
I just bought one ... Nashville Boat show was good. malibu has their Axis (sp?) line at the show and boy are they cheaply made.

that is a understatement! axis make moomba look like a well built boat.:rolleyes:

mccobmd
01-10-2011, 12:01 AM
that is a understatement! axis make moomba look like a well built boat.:rolleyes:

You mean they're not? :confused: :D

Barefooter92
01-10-2011, 12:23 PM
Ilmor vs. Indmar can be summed up like this...Who Moved My Cheese!

Someday we will all love the Ilmor but for now we have a history with Indmar.

MIskier
01-10-2011, 12:31 PM
Me too. ;)

I have spent a considerable amount of time on the water with both the 5.7 and 6.0 and can say that they are much better than the old indmars.

They run smoother, have better throttle response, and because of the new mufflers seem quieter than the Indmar running the same mufflers.

These new engines are great for MasterCraft and for all of us!

willyt
01-10-2011, 01:14 PM
i can't imagine "much" better than the indmars... i love my MCX to death, completely bulletproof and unless i'm COMPLETELY blown away by the ilmor (or they get 3 or 4 GPH)... i donno. Guess its a moot point after this year right?

2gofaster
01-10-2011, 01:28 PM
Ron Brown was very receptive to all of our feedback. One of our concerns we brought up was how the power curve of the new engines(since the area under the curve on the new motors is greater than the indmars) interacted with zero off and the hull on the 197/190 for a slalom skier. He was very interested in having us try some different props and possibly them coming down to do some testing with us in the spring. When we brought up some of the same questions to PCM and Correct Craft last year on the 200, they basically told us it is what it is, that they prop the boat for top speed and don't care how the boat feels. Ron Brown and Ilmor on the other hand seemed very interested in getting valid data on the feel of the boat with their engines.

captain planet
01-10-2011, 01:33 PM
I just bought one ... Nashville Boat show was good. malibu has their Axis (sp?) line at the show and boy are they cheaply made.

that is a understatement! axis make moomba look like a well built boat.:rolleyes:

....yea, I think malibu make moomba look good too. 8p

MIskier
01-10-2011, 01:37 PM
Ron Brown was very receptive to all of our feedback. One of our concerns we brought up was how the power curve of the new engines(since the area under the curve on the new motors is greater than the indmars) interacted with zero off and the hull on the 197/190 for a slalom skier. He was very interested in having us try some different props and possibly them coming down to do some testing with us in the spring. When we brought up some of the same questions to PCM and Correct Craft last year on the 200, they basically told us it is what it is, that they prop the boat for top speed and don't care how the boat feels. Ron Brown and Ilmor on the other hand seemed very interested in getting valid data on the feel of the boat with their engines.


This is one of the areas that I feel that Ilmor really has PCM and Indmar beat. They have huge engineering resources compared to Indmar and PCM, which means they have the ability to really pay attention to what the boats need.

With the 200 its not just PCM not concerned about how it feels, it is also CC. With such a high drag hull design they needed to really crank that engine to ensure they had the performance to pass AWSA and to satisfy skiers and jumpers.

bturner2
01-10-2011, 02:58 PM
Would love to see those dyno sheets and hear what they did to make such a marked and "noticeable" improvement. I think I've read about three of these threads so far and no one has produced a dyno sheet for any of the engines unless I missed them somehow. I'm not doubting the quality of the engines, would just like to see some basic information on how and why these engines perform better.

For a noticeable improvement I'd expect to see a substantial increase in HP and torque. So how did they get there? This is going to requires more than red paint. Most of these engines are bought from GM as long block assemblies and many of those use the standard GM intake. Without going into the higher expense of working the heads that pretty much means the only places to make changes are in the intake, exhaust or PCM. Would love to hear what they're doing to set themselves apart without the marketing fluff.

2gofaster
01-10-2011, 03:16 PM
For one thing, Ilmor is casting their own individual runner intake manifold and tossing the GM truck manifold that the GM longblocks come with. Also, they are using their own design camshaft. Cold startup seems to be far better than Indmar's I've owned and driven.

bturner2
01-10-2011, 03:29 PM
Thank you. Finally more than fluff. Very impressive that they're actually doing R&D and making substantial improvements to the "old faithful" engine black that we've all come to love.

vision
01-10-2011, 03:29 PM
Would love to see those dyno sheets and hear what they did to make such a marked and "noticeable" improvement. I think I've read about three of these threads so far and no one has produced a dyno sheet for any of the engines unless I missed them somehow. I'm not doubting the quality of the engines, would just like to see some basic information on how and why these engines perform better.

For a noticeable improvement I'd expect to see a substantial increase in HP and torque. So how did they get there? This is going to requires more than red paint. Most of these engines are bought from GM as long block assemblies and many of those use the standard GM intake. Without going into the higher expense of working the heads that pretty much means the only places to make changes are in the intake, exhaust or PCM. Would love to hear what they're doing to set themselves apart without the marketing fluff.

Totally agree. I am however, pleased that Ilmore has such a deep engineering commitment.

There are certainly technologies that could be adapted to marine engines that would give you more torque with better fuel efficiency and a lighter, smaller engine foot print. Whether these technologies are cost effective in our relatively small market, I do not know. But I would enjoy seeing a small block V8 with a modern turbocharger in an inboard.

2gofaster
01-10-2011, 03:44 PM
At some point, you will see some more specific power information on most of the marine motors out there due to the federal regulations that have forced the CAT equipped motors.

Some of the other interesting things about the MV8 series motor was that Ilmor cast their own bellhousing to relocate the start on the top side of bellhousing. BEAUTIFUL idea. As well as mounting the alternator on the top of the motor rather than down low. Also, the oil filter is top mounted in it's own drain tray. You open the engine cover, unscrew the oil filter, let it drain into the tray(which has it's own drain out)and then you can wipe the tray out with a rag. Also, the CAT's are attached to the risers with VBand clamps like you'd see on a commercial turbocharged diesel engine for pressurized pipe. They are even building their own CAT's in the US. There are just a lot of little things that really stand out when comparing this engine series to the Indmar and PCM variants.

gchapman-tt
01-10-2011, 05:25 PM
[QUOTE=2gofaster;725944]At some point, you will see some more specific power information on most of the marine motors out there due to the federal regulations that have forced the CAT equipped motors.

Those numbers are out there now, easy to compare cat compliant engines.

TX.X-30 fan
01-10-2011, 05:45 PM
Do there engines have any marine track record in ski boats or is MC the guinea pig so to speak?

2gofaster
01-10-2011, 05:49 PM
They've been doing offshore stern/surface drive marine engines for 8 years. They have a very successful APBA racing history. Both in V8 and V10 configurations.

TX.X-30 fan
01-10-2011, 06:01 PM
First for ski/wake boats then. Have they said how easy it will be to access plugs, oil, trans, for routine maint. ?? I can't see the plugs in the pic on the web site, do the risers have to come off?

2gofaster
01-10-2011, 06:05 PM
Oil is way easy to change. Spark plugs are the same as Indmars. Trans is the same as Indmar as it uses the same ZF transmission.

BIGBADBLUE
01-10-2011, 06:06 PM
Has anyone seen real world fuel burn data for the 5.7 vs the 6.0?

TX.X-30 fan
01-10-2011, 06:14 PM
Oil is way easy to change. Spark plugs are the same as Indmars. Trans is the same as Indmar as it uses the same ZF transmission.



Thanks for all the info, change is always met with skepticism but it sounds like they will be great power-plants.


Will there be a big block/high horsepower motor down the road?

bturner2
01-10-2011, 06:57 PM
This is so much better than we saw in the earlier posts. Thanks

2gofaster
01-10-2011, 07:38 PM
They do have the v10 viper engine in their back pocket. Not saying they'd build it for a v drive configuration but they have 8 years of R&D already done on it for the marine environment.

scott023
01-11-2011, 09:09 AM
They do have the v10 viper engine in their back pocket. Not saying they'd build it for a v drive configuration but they have 8 years of R&D already done on it for the marine environment.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

I'm listening.

eficalibrator
01-11-2011, 11:25 AM
Improving upon the GM supplied intake and camshaft doesn't take a rocket scientist these days. Any modern dry-flow intake design should pretty much run circles around the dual plane intakes that are currently the reference as far as fuel economy, efficiency and power are concerned. It's not uncommon to see 60+hp increases in the performance aftermarket with a similar type of cam/intake swap while still retaining emissions compliance. I don't suspect Ilmor is any dumber.

As for adding other technologies like forced induction, variable cams, or cylinder deactivation; I think those are just a matter of time before the marine market starts to adopt. I've already had some of these conversations at work with potential marine powertrain applications. There are certainly benefits to be had, it's just a matter of justifying the cost. Ski and wakeboard boats are nice in that respect since the owners will often pay a little extra if it means something tangible like more torque or better response.

CantRepeat
01-11-2011, 11:44 AM
Improving upon the GM supplied intake and camshaft doesn't take a rocket scientist these days.

I don't think it ever took rocket science to improve on GMs out of the box motors, did it?

Flow bench tech, data logging and dyno work have been around for a long time.

Craig
01-11-2011, 02:09 PM
A bit of a threadjack.

So if GM stock motors are so bad, and it is so easy to make improvements why doesn't everyone? In addition, why doesn't GM?

2gofaster
01-11-2011, 02:42 PM
No one is saying the gm motors are bad. The marinized engines are simply a truck long block, though. There is room for improvement. It comes down to risk/reward. Do you risk the capital necessary for the possibility of a reward in increased sales and/or margin. Indmar(and for that matter PCM to some extent)chose not to do the R&D for whatever reason, more than likely cost. Ilmor could have done that same thing too. But being that they are an engineering motorsports firm first and foremost, it was only natural for them to attempt to improve on the mousetrap.

CantRepeat
01-11-2011, 02:48 PM
A bit of a threadjack.

So if GM stock motors are so bad, and it is so easy to make improvements why doesn't everyone? In addition, why doesn't GM?

I think they do, now. It's the GMPP division but I do not think their primary purpose in life was build boat motors which is why Indmar used that rocket science to make better boat motors.

eficalibrator
01-12-2011, 09:54 AM
GM already paid for the tooling to make these engines decades ago. They're basically able to keep cranking these engines out for the cost of raw materials and selling at market prices. They have less than zero incentive to change the design on their end as long as they're still selling. Companies like Ilmor, Indmar, et. al. are the ones looking to innovate to grab new market share, so they are the ones spending money to tool new manifolds and such.

CantRepeat
01-12-2011, 11:06 AM
With more and more people turning to the new blocks, LS1s and what not, it wont be long before all that new tech finds its way into other markets.

Jesus_Freak
01-16-2011, 07:32 AM
Flow bench tech, computer modeling, data logging and dyno work have been around for a long time.

Sentence slightly modified...8p

Jesus_Freak
01-16-2011, 07:38 AM
...Companies like Ilmor, Indmar, et. al. are the ones looking to innovate to grab new market share, so they are the ones spending money to tool new manifolds and such.

With more and more people turning to the new blocks, LS1s and what not, it wont be long before all that new tech finds its way into other markets.

Great posts, but, as I am sure you well know, these improvement technologies are not "new", right? There simply has to be a financial incentive for the manufacturer to source, install, tune, etc the components.

CantRepeat
01-16-2011, 08:23 AM
Great posts, but, as I am sure you well know, these improvement technologies are not "new", right? There simply has to be a financial incentive for the manufacturer to source, install, tune, etc the components.

New in the sense that it's not in the marine market yet. I don't know how long GM had been developing the next gen motors but I'm sure it has been a while. With the kinds of numbers they can pull from stock LS1s I'd like to see them in boats sooner rather then later.

sand2snow22
01-16-2011, 11:04 AM
Rumor is they dyno'd the MCX at 308 hp, Ilmor 5.7 aprx. 318 hp. Impeller looks difficult to get to on the Ilmor 5.7

TX.X-30 fan
01-16-2011, 02:50 PM
False advertising.........

trickskier
01-16-2011, 03:05 PM
:eek: :eek: :eek:

I'm listening.

V-10 Take a Look ---

http://www.ilmor.com/marine/gen-IV.html

ddanenberger
01-16-2011, 05:56 PM
ilmore mv8 specs

http://www.ilmor.com/marine/mv8specs.html

Jesus_Freak
01-22-2011, 06:57 AM
New in the sense that it's not in the marine market yet. I don't know how long GM had been developing the next gen motors but I'm sure it has been a while. With the kinds of numbers they can pull from stock LS1s I'd like to see them in boats sooner rather then later.

Absolutely!

Forrest-X45
01-22-2011, 08:07 PM
The LS engines are already in boats. The supercharged LSA (just look at the name) from Indmar is the LS9 from the Caddy CTS-V. It is closed cooling which surprised me and requires 5w-30 Mobil 1 synthtic oil.
I spoke with Parks at the boat show at length about his X-Star with the LSA and he said the engine was an animal and blew the old L18 away with identical ballast setups and the stock prop. He was ready to drop prop sizes for extra torque but didn't need to at all. He is running 4200 pounds of extra ballast on top of the factory tanks. The boat just rips were his words even with the extra ballast and mid 50's mph were easy on the gps. His old white X-Star with the LSA in it was at the show.
Rumor at the show was the new Ilmor engines are LS based as well but I was not able to confirm with the Ilmore rep at the show. It makes sense since the 6.0L and 6.2L from GM are LS engines.

CantRepeat
01-22-2011, 09:55 PM
The LS engines are already in boats. The supercharged LSA (just look at the name) from Indmar is the LS9 from the Caddy CTS-V. It is closed cooling which surprised me and requires 5w-30 Mobil 1 synthtic oil.
I spoke with Parks at the boat show at length about his X-Star with the LSA and he said the engine was an animal and blew the old L18 away with identical ballast setups and the stock prop. He was ready to drop prop sizes for extra torque but didn't need to at all. He is running 4200 pounds of extra ballast on top of the factory tanks. The boat just rips were his words even with the extra ballast and mid 50's mph were easy on the gps. His old white X-Star with the LSA in it was at the show.
Rumor at the show was the new Ilmor engines are LS based as well but I was not able to confirm with the Ilmore rep at the show. It makes sense since the 6.0L and 6.2L from GM are LS engines.

Rumor, really. Did you not read the Ilmor website?

vision
01-23-2011, 10:41 AM
I spoke with Parks at the boat show at length about his X-Star with the LSA and he said the engine was an animal and blew the old L18 away with identical ballast setups and the stock prop. He was ready to drop prop sizes for extra torque but didn't need to at all. He is running 4200 pounds of extra ballast on top of the factory tanks. The boat just rips were his words even with the extra ballast and mid 50's mph were easy on the gps. His old white X-Star with the LSA in it was at the show.

That is a massive amount of torque. I am guessing he can only ride for a couple of hours before its time to refuel!

On a side note, can you run a closed cooled marine engine at a higher temperature, or does the Coast Guard mandate lower operating temperatures in all boats?

Forrest-X45
01-23-2011, 12:24 PM
That is a massive amount of torque. I am guessing he can only ride for a couple of hours before its time to refuel!

The LSA is roughly 25 more foot pounds over the outgoing L18. Parks said the LSA revs much better so it is much more responsive and gets into the power band a lot faster than the L18. He also said it used far less gas than his old L18.
Now we just need Ilmor to build a supercharged 6.2L for 2012.

2gofaster
01-23-2011, 12:46 PM
The Ilmor's ARE GM 6.0 and 6.2 LS engines. They take off the shelf GM long blocks and do their thing to them.

CantRepeat
01-23-2011, 01:01 PM
The 6.2 is an LS motor and the 5.7 is GM as well.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_78fbWL4fUD0/TPgGYL8-WvI/AAAAAAAAAXY/KNM8_x99mDE/s1600/MV8_6.0L_Hero_R1.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_78fbWL4fUD0/TPgF1s3q12I/AAAAAAAAAXQ/yVkuKZMvdC8/s1600/MV8+57L+Production+Line+2010.jpg

willyt
01-23-2011, 08:58 PM
Rumor is they dyno'd the MCX at 308 hp, Ilmor 5.7 aprx. 318 hp. Impeller looks difficult to get to on the Ilmor 5.7


Took a look at a ilmore 5.7 in an X15 at the cinci boat show this weekend, it's actually very easy to get to

sand2snow22
01-25-2011, 12:57 PM
How about an Ilmore Ecoboost. 365 hp, 420 ft lbs hopefully less gph?

vision
01-25-2011, 01:49 PM
How about an Ilmore Ecoboost. 365 hp, 420 ft lbs hopefully less gph?

Sign me up! If it was available, I would buy a small V8 or large V6 with twin turbos over a larger naturally aspirated V8. Better fuel efficiency and torque and much lower rpms. The Ford 3.5 Ecoboost looks sweet!

On a side note, could you have an electrically turbocharged or FI engine? What if you used a small bank of batteries that recharged with shore power to run the turbos and generate the compressed air, would this give you even better fuel efficiency as the engine was not responsible for the work required to compress the air?

FourFourty
01-25-2011, 05:27 PM
On a side note, could you have an electrically turbocharged or FI engine? What if you used a small bank of batteries that recharged with shore power to run the turbos and generate the compressed air, would this give you even better fuel efficiency as the engine was not responsible for the work required to compress the air?

It has been tried before(in a car), the problem is that it takes way to much power to compress the air. Supercharged V8s have a parisitic draw of 20-40hp just to run the blower...... That is a big electric motor, and lots of batteries. It could be done, but you would be carrying around an extra 5-700lbs all the time (which could be good for the wakeboarding!!), but not very efficient. Doable though :D

MC option price would probably be- $10,000....... Allegedly

MIskier
01-25-2011, 10:42 PM
The problem with forced induction is they can't run on 87, you must burn premium fuel. I cant wait to see how many people with the new supercharged motor have warranty claims after they put in the wrong fuel and burn up the seals

eficalibrator
01-26-2011, 07:46 AM
I'd be willing to wager that 89 octane (available at most marinas I've been to) would be fine for a supercharged marine engine. I'm an engine calibration engineer (PCM "tuner") and I've made literally hundreds of unique supercharged engine combinations work with 91 octane. Having an infinite supply of lake water for an intercooler goes a long way toward helping knock resistance on lower octane fuels. It can also mean that the PCM can be configured to detect "good" fuel and add even more power when it's available.

FourFourty
01-26-2011, 08:21 AM
The problem with forced induction is they can't run on 87, you must burn premium fuel. I cant wait to see how many people with the new supercharged motor have warranty claims after they put in the wrong fuel and burn up the seals


The only reason most forced induction engines require premium fuel is because they are calibrated to run on it. They figure that the person who opts for the more powerful engine, is not going to have issue with filling it with premium fuel to get the most power out of it. Engines with forced induction can be easily calibrated to run on 87 octane.....They just wouldnt have quite as much power as they would if calibrated for, and run on, 91 octane. A little change in ignition timing is all you need. (lower compression ratio wouldnt hurt either). Fords Eco-Boost engines do not require premium fuel. Its suggested in the higher performance vehicles, like the SHO, but not required.

Besides, modern engines have knock sensors and EGT probes to monitor against detonation and excess combustion temperatures.

vision
01-26-2011, 09:12 AM
You would think with all the marinized chevy 5.7 engines in use that there would be a market for a marine FI kit to get another 10% of HP/torque from this small V8. Small twin turbos maybe be better as it seems they get more torque at lower rpms, but a supercharger I am guessing would be much easier.

Anyone run across a FI kit specifically tuned for the marinized 5.7?

Jesus_Freak
01-30-2011, 06:14 AM
It has been tried before(in a car), the problem is that it takes way to much power to compress the air. Supercharged V8s have a parisitic draw of 20-40hp just to run the blower.....

Yes, which is why the turbocharger is advantageous. The exhaust gas has to be expanded and cooled anyway, i.e. wasted, so one might as well expand it across a turbine and sap some useful energy out of it.

thatsmrmastercraft
01-30-2011, 10:50 AM
Yes, which is why the turbocharger is advantageous. The exhaust gas has to be expanded and cooled anyway, i.e. wasted, so one might as well expand it across a turbine and sap some useful energy out of it.

It is my understanding that there is significantly more heat developed by a turbocharger that the parisitic draw from the supercharger is the lesser of two evils.

Jesus_Freak
02-03-2011, 06:28 AM
It is my understanding that there is significantly more heat developed by a turbocharger that the parisitic draw from the supercharger is the lesser of two evils.

Great point. Both devices input compression heat...directly related to the pressure rise and heat capacity of the gas (air in this case). The turbocharger, however, takes many more revolutions in order to perform the compression. More RPM = more friction = more heat = more entropy = lost useful work.

You've got me thinking...I assume someone has done an apples:apples comparison between the two. I wonder which is the worse of two "evils"?

ksdaoski
02-03-2011, 07:11 AM
Great point. Both devices input compression heat...directly related to the pressure rise and heat capacity of the gas (air in this case).
I'm not an expert, but theres a pretty big difference when looking at the heat in each system.

The heat added to the supercharger, is directly related to the pressure increase (P=nRT if I remeber my chem 201!), but the air is being pulled from the atmosphere, by a typical air intake. With a turbo, not only do you have the heat added because of the pressure increase, but also because the compression of air is being pulled from the engine exhaust, which has already cycled through and is A LOT hotter than the ambient air pulled by the supercharger.

Regarding "which is better", you'll have endless arguments supporting either one. With the turbo, cooling is much more important because the temperatures are so much higher. Because of this, usually requires a more complicated cooling system. Many superchargers do not have any additional cooling systems. Generally, a comparable turbo will produce more power and at lower engine RPM's, than a supercharger.

FourFourty
02-03-2011, 08:39 AM
I'm not an expert, but theres a pretty big difference when looking at the heat in each system.

The heat added to the supercharger, is directly related to the pressure increase (P=nRT if I remeber my chem 201!), but the air is being pulled from the atmosphere, by a typical air intake. With a turbo, not only do you have the heat added because of the pressure increase, but also because the compression of air is being pulled from the engine exhaust, which has already cycled through and is A LOT hotter than the ambient air pulled by the supercharger.

Regarding "which is better", you'll have endless arguments supporting either one. With the turbo, cooling is much more important because the temperatures are so much higher. Because of this, usually requires a more complicated cooling system. Many superchargers do not have any additional cooling systems. Generally, a comparable turbo will produce more power and at lower engine RPM's, than a supercharger.

The exhaust and inlet air go through seperate housings in a turbo. The inlet air is not heated by the exhaust. When sitting still, there is some heat soak from one housing to the other.....Not a big difference though. The primary reason for added heat is because of the compression of the air, and the speed of the compressor wheel. That is why a Centrifugal Supercharger creates more heat than A Positive Displacement Supercharger.

Typically turbo's have a greater advantage in small displacement engines, and superchargers are a better fit for larger engines. Supercharger systems are substantially cheaper to throw into the mix. And a Positive Displacement Blower would probably be the best fit for a boat IMO. I am thinking that for the following reasons- #1 Turbos add tons of residual heat around the engine(not a great fit in a boats engine compartment that doesnt see much fresh air), #2 who wants to deal with the lag and then the sudden increase in power associated with changes in requested power from the engine. I think PP would get really pissed trying to deal with variances in torque due to turbo lag. #3 Supercharger would be cheaper!!

ksdaoski
02-03-2011, 08:50 AM
The exhaust gas from the engine is what turns the turbine, which then compresses the air thats pulled to the intake. So I was incorrect in implying the exhaust is just pulling feeding straight back into the intake- Hadn't had my coffee yet this AM! :D

FourFourty
02-03-2011, 09:09 AM
The exhaust gas from the engine is what turns the turbine, which then compresses the air thats pulled to the intake. So I was incorrect in implying the exhaust is just pulling feeding straight back into the intake- Hadn't had my coffee yet this AM! :D

:D Happens to the best of us!!

I attached an exploded view for the peeps that have not seen how a turbo works...

http://www.beesandgoats.com/boostfaq/turbo_diagram.jpg

DooSPX
02-03-2011, 09:11 AM
FYI, the Eaton TVS series Superchargers, by Magnacharger that are found found on the market today (GM LSA Caddy CTS-V and the LS9 Corvette ZR1, etc) have a by-pass valve for no boost situations where the valve opens releasing the pressure (boost). The new blowers are so efficient they use only about 1/3-1 hp to spin the belt when not in boost conditions...

scott023
02-03-2011, 09:36 AM
FYI, the Eaton TVS series Superchargers, by Magnacharger that are found found on the market today (GM LSA Caddy CTS-V and the LS9 Corvette ZR1, etc) have a by-pass valve for no boost situations where the valve opens releasing the pressure (boost). The new blowers are so efficient they use only about 1/3-1 hp to spin the belt when not in boost conditions...

You beat me to it....

FourFourty
02-03-2011, 09:54 AM
FYI, the Eaton TVS series Superchargers, by Magnacharger that are found found on the market today (GM LSA Caddy CTS-V and the LS9 Corvette ZR1, etc) have a by-pass valve for no boost situations where the valve opens releasing the pressure (boost). The new blowers are so efficient they use only about 1/3-1 hp to spin the belt when not in boost conditions...

Its true. Most OEM systems have had bypass valves for over 20 years. Even the old thunderbird supercoupe (80s) had one. The efficiency of superchargers under load has been more about cooling the air and improving thermal efficiency in most recent years..... Or it seems that way to me.... The base design of a roots type blower has remained unchanged for eons.

vision
02-03-2011, 01:33 PM
Not owning a vehicle with either type of forced induction system, I have no experience with the turbo lag. But, looking at the available published torque curves, it seems that the turbos have most of their torque available at low rpms, even below 2000 rpms, whereas the superchargers do not experience significant increase in torque until higher rpms. Would that not make a turbocharged system better for a tow boat? Perhaps the torque curves are misleading.

I would think the availability of raw water cooling would greatly decrease the potential heat issues with both systems. Could you not essentially use a std marine heat exchanger, used for closed cooling systems, as a heat exchanger for a turbo charger? Just curious.

FourFourty
02-03-2011, 02:21 PM
Not owning a vehicle with either type of forced induction system, I have no experience with the turbo lag. But, looking at the available published torque curves, it seems that the turbos have most of their torque available at low rpms, even below 2000 rpms, whereas the superchargers do not experience significant increase in torque until higher rpms. Would that not make a turbocharged system better for a tow boat? Perhaps the torque curves are misleading.

I would think the availability of raw water cooling would greatly decrease the potential heat issues with both systems. Could you not essentially use a std marine heat exchanger, used for closed cooling systems, as a heat exchanger for a turbo charger? Just curious.

With turbochargers, full power is delayed until the turbos are spooled up. Basically, your skiier says go, you hit the throttle to pull them up nice and steady. About 1-2 seconds later you get a rush of 50-60% more power without ever advancing the throttle any further. I would think it could have potential to make things difficult for the person being pulled. A supercharger has very linear power delivery and is easier to modulate. You are very right about low end torque with turbos! Alot of that has to do with size and compressor wheel specs. Typically though, a turbocharged engine will have more torque down low than its supercharged equivalent. I really think that the power delivery characteristics would be less than preffered in a boat though. It may be hard to get PP to work well with it also.

My concern with heat and turbos is not about the charge air temp for the engine. We could definitely use our endless supply of water for that :D

Its more about having the exposed turbine housings and extra exhaust piping associated with a TC system. There would be tons more heat in the engine bay. The turbine housings get so red hot that they are almost transparent sometimes. 1200-1300f on a regular basis. There may be potential to have a water jacketed turbine housing....but I have never seen one before. Someone else may know if they exist though. I am not sure there would be enough surface area to properly cool the housing without having frequent cracking.

With all that said, I am SURE it could be done. Money would probably be the deal breaker as it would probably cost 2-3x as much as a supercharger. It would be awesome though!

cbryan70
02-03-2011, 03:31 PM
Dont they have systems now that "pre-spool" a turber charger up for less lag to no lag at all?

thatsmrmastercraft
02-03-2011, 03:36 PM
Now bring into the mix a twin turbo arrangement where one turbo operates at the low end and tha other turbo handles the high end. More space more, complicated, more expensive, but perhaps slightly less heat to deal with overall. Lag would be negated but now you are probably at three or four times the price of a super charger.

scott023
02-03-2011, 03:41 PM
Now bring into the mix a twin turbo arrangement where one turbo operates at the low end and tha other turbo handles the high end. More spacem more complicated, more expensive, but perhaps slightle less heat to deal with overall. Lag would be negated but now you are probably at three or four times the price of a super charger.

Not worth it at all... who would spend the money for twins when the end result isn't going to be significant in a boat? Seems that would be a lot of work AND a lot of money to slam onto a boat that isn't built to utilize the power available from the turbos.

CantRepeat
02-03-2011, 04:56 PM
Twin turbo inner-cooled Halletts, Schiadas and Spectras are very popular for speed skiing but most of the short track stuff, like Parker, is done at 90+ mph.

FourFourty
02-03-2011, 05:29 PM
Now bring into the mix a twin turbo arrangement where one turbo operates at the low end and tha other turbo handles the high end. More space more, complicated, more expensive, but perhaps slightly less heat to deal with overall. Lag would be negated but now you are probably at three or four times the price of a super charger.

Stacked Turbos in a ski/wakeboard boat?!?!?! You're crazy man. CRAZY!!

2.0l DOHC inline 4 with forged guts, Stacked turbos, liquid to air intercooler, 30psi boost, 650bhp and 520lbft at 2800rpm. Would that work ok in a ps197??

thatsmrmastercraft
02-03-2011, 06:17 PM
Stacked Turbos in a ski/wakeboard boat?!?!?! You're crazy man. CRAZY!!

2.0l DOHC inline 4 with forged guts, Stacked turbos, liquid to air intercooler, 30psi boost, 650bhp and 520lbft at 2800rpm. Would that work ok in a ps197??

Just thought I would stir the pot. I am a big fan of superchargers though I do like a turbo-diesel in a truck. Here is supercharged AND twin-turbocharged D-Max marine engine by Banks.

ddanenberger
02-03-2011, 06:41 PM
What are you guys needing all the hp for do you plan on towing barges? LOL

vision
02-03-2011, 06:45 PM
Cummins and other companies makes turbocharged diesels for marine applications. I know many are for large boats, but they have some smaller ones. A 450 hp turbo diesel could be perfect. I assume weight and expense, mainly expense, keeps them out of our market.

Is heat less of an issue with diesel turbochargers?

I still think there is a market for adding a supercharger to the old reliable marinized chevy 5.7. Certainly easy to do for a car, although this thread has been a great education on the challenges of using a FI system in a boat. Has anyone seen the Indmar supercharged 6.2? Is the charger oil cooled or water cooled?

jakethebt
02-03-2011, 09:10 PM
It seems that you guys are over thinking this with super vs turbo. You will make the boats so much more complicated and difficult to work on and decrease reliability or increase maintenance.

If you need more power, buy the bigger engine. Then you say it drinks too much gas. It is a boat designed to tow things... it is never going to have great fuel burn. You are talking about saving $5 bucks on a $100 fill up on a $100,000 boat.

If you want it to have better fuel burn maybe you should put a sail on it :D

FourFourty
02-03-2011, 09:59 PM
Cummins and other companies makes turbocharged diesels for marine applications. I know many are for large boats, but they have some smaller ones. A 450 hp turbo diesel could be perfect. I assume weight and expense, mainly expense, keeps them out of our market.

Is heat less of an issue with diesel turbochargers?

I still think there is a market for adding a supercharger to the old reliable marinized chevy 5.7. Certainly easy to do for a car, although this thread has been a great education on the challenges of using a FI system in a boat. Has anyone seen the Indmar supercharged 6.2? Is the charger oil cooled or water cooled?

Turbo diesels tend to make a little less heat than a gasser, but not much.

The Indmar 6.2 is GMs LSA engine from the Cadillac CTS-V. The bearings and gears etc. in the supercharger are cooled and lubricated with oil. The charge air (the compressed intake air), however, is cooled with a coolant to air intercooler.

Just thought I would stir the pot. I am a big fan of superchargers though I do like a turbo-diesel in a truck. Here is supercharged AND twin-turbocharged D-Max marine engine by Banks.
Can you imagine.....:D

vision
02-03-2011, 10:07 PM
It seems that you guys are over thinking this with super vs turbo. You will make the boats so much more complicated and difficult to work on and decrease reliability or increase maintenance.

If you need more power, buy the bigger engine. Then you say it drinks too much gas. It is a boat designed to tow things... it is never going to have great fuel burn. You are talking about saving $5 bucks on a $100 fill up on a $100,000 boat.

If you want it to have better fuel burn maybe you should put a sail on it :D

I understand your point and that is exactly what the recreational marine engine makers have said for 20 years. But why not use better technology to get more power from every gallon of fuel? We are not even talking new technology, just a slightly different application. I am sure folks thought that EFI was too complicated, automatic transmissions were too complicated, anti-lock brakes were too complicated...

Plus, you could retrofit a FI system onto an older boat that needed more power.

I am no expert, but FI engines seem to achieve about 30% better fuel efficiency per HP/torque unit. That means less environmental impact on our lake and would save me $800/year. I can afford to buy a 100K boat because a few hundred dollars is still significant to me.

Barefooter92
02-03-2011, 10:24 PM
Has anyone thought about HHO? The splitting of the water to make two hydrogen and one oxygen the dumping it in the intake?

FourFourty
02-04-2011, 08:23 AM
Plus, you could retrofit a FI system onto an older boat that needed more power.

I am no expert, but FI engines seem to achieve about 30% better fuel efficiency per HP/torque unit. That means less environmental impact on our lake and would save me $800/year. I can afford to buy a 100K boat because a few hundred dollars is still significant to me.

The only thing about retrofiting an older engine, or one not designed for FI, is that you will shorten its life significantly. Engines that come FI, have a ton of provisions to handle the extra heat and torque. Most times they will use forged pistons and connecting rods, sometimes a forged crankshaft. Most FI engines have special oil galleys in them to spray oil on the underside of the pistons to keep them cool under the added heat. Also, bigger radiators, heavier transmission components and so on. You can definitely put FI on an engine that is not designed for it, but you will shorten its life considerably. On the other hand, an engine like the LSA has provisions that will keep it going for as many hours as an unmodified NA V8.

You are correct about efficiency, especially with turbochargers....

thatsmrmastercraft
02-04-2011, 09:38 AM
The only thing about retrofiting an older engine, or one not designed for FI, is that you will shorten its life significantly. Engines that come FI, have a ton of provisions to handle the extra heat and torque. Most times they will use forged pistons and connecting rods, sometimes a forged crankshaft. Most FI engines have special oil galleys in them to spray oil on the underside of the pistons to keep them cool under the added heat. Also, bigger radiators, heavier transmission components and so on. You can definitely put FI on an engine that is not designed for it, but you will shorten its life considerably. On the other hand, an engine like the LSA has provisions that will keep it going for as many hours as an unmodified NA V8.

You are correct about efficiency, especially with turbochargers....

Two things you missed that a engine design to run FI is lower compression to allow for more boost, and there is a change in camshaft profile to work with the FI set-up.

DooSPX
02-04-2011, 09:48 AM
The big changes have came in the form of the new rotors that is being applied... the Twin Vortices Series or TVS. The outcome was better fuel efficiency, more power, and spin at a higher speed, no noticeable power drop off (does not fall flat) and lower IAT's.

FourFourty
02-04-2011, 10:04 AM
Two things you missed that a engine design to run FI is lower compression to allow for more boost, and there is a change in camshaft profile to work with the FI set-up.

I also forgot- oil cooler, higher oil pressures, EGT and MAP sensors, additional knock sensors....

There really is alot to it in order to do it properly. The aftermarket add on FI systems do give you more power, but they are not built to give you 1000 hours of trouble free service like an OEM FI engine.

Jesus_Freak
02-06-2011, 08:09 AM
...is directly related to the pressure increase (P=nRT if I remeber my chem 201!)....

The ideal gas expression (which you misquoted here :)) is a state function. Compression is not a state function, so you cannot use the ideal gas law to find the pressure/temperature relationship during compression.

...When sitting still, there is some heat soak from one housing to the other.....Not a big difference though. The primary reason for added heat is because of the compression of the air, and the speed of the compressor wheel. That is why a Centrifugal Supercharger creates more heat than A Positive Displacement Supercharger.

Yes, thank you. I was neglecting the heat conduction between the exhaust volume and the intake volume. Centrifugal style pumps have much stronger relative motion between compressor blades and the air. Relative motion creates shear, which produces viscous dissipation heat (energy in its lowest form).