PDA

View Full Version : 2011 Indmar MCX less hp than before?


j.mccreight@hotmail.com
04-14-2011, 06:28 PM
I was doing some research for the 2011 new boats and it looks like that the Indmar MCX is now rated at 230 kW which equals 308 hp what gives, they detuned it that much so that the Ilmor will be more appealing at 239 kW=320 hp. Also looking on dealer websites they all still rate the MCX at 350 hp, what gives? who is accurate? also the L96 is rated at 284 kW = 380 hp. Indmar has no hp or kW ratings this is from MC's site. My math might be off but 1kilowatt=1.36horsepower.:confused:

MuskokaJ
04-14-2011, 06:50 PM
From my understanding the actual horsepower is the same. The issue was that Indmar was using a different rating methodology than Ilmor, which caused some customer questions/grief/etc., and ultimately Indmar/Mastercraft had to state the horsepower numbers using the same rating methodology. That is what I heard through a dealer, and it would seem to make sense.

JimN
04-14-2011, 07:00 PM
I was doing some research for the 2011 new boats and it looks like that the Indmar MCX is now rated at 230 kW which equals 308 hp what gives, they detuned it that much so that the Ilmor will be more appealing at 239 kW=320 hp. Also looking on dealer websites they all still rate the MCX at 350 hp, what gives? who is accurate? also the L96 is rated at 284 kW = 380 hp. Indmar has no hp or kW ratings this is from MC's site. My math might be off but 1kilowatt=1.36horsepower.:confused:

Could be that the gas formulation is behind any actual changes in performance. gasoline blended with ethanol stores about 68% of non-reformulated gas and since it's hard to find non-reformulated gas, they may have opted to allow performance to drop rather than cause the price of the boats to rise to the point of being unsellable to most potential buyers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent

east tx skier
04-14-2011, 07:02 PM
From my understanding the actual horsepower is the same. The issue was that Indmar was using a different rating methodology than Ilmor, which caused some customer questions/grief/etc., and ultimately Indmar/Mastercraft had to state the horsepower numbers using the same rating methodology. That is what I heard through a dealer, and it would seem to make sense.

Yup.

My understanding is that the MCX, at least for the last four years, has actually been around 311 hp before the exhaust tips are added to the equation. Also, I don't think Indmar states HP. It leaves that to the manufacturers.

Just a guy on the street. I could be wrong. But I'm not guessing.

j.mccreight@hotmail.com
04-14-2011, 07:11 PM
Does Ilmor or Indmar not use the standard SAE horsepower test, like other engine manufactures use to get their engines certified to advertise their power and torque ratings. If they dont then how do they know, is this why indmar does not publish hp numbers on their website.

MuskokaJ
04-14-2011, 07:35 PM
Does Ilmor or Indmar not use the standard SAE horsepower test, like other engine manufactures use to get their engines certified to advertise their power and torque ratings. If they dont then how do they know, is this why indmar does not publish hp numbers on their website.

I believe Ilmor uses the standard SAE test, and Indmar does not. I believe this was the root of the issues. Ilmor has a long history of racing engines, and an understanding of horsepower ratings, so I'm pretty darn certain these guys are on-the-money with their ratings.

MuskokaJ
04-14-2011, 07:38 PM
Just to clarify, when I said the "horsepower is the same", I meant this year's MCX versus previous years. Not Ilmor and Indmar having the same horsepower. I just re-read my post, and my response was confusing.

Sullivan
04-14-2011, 07:41 PM
I've been waiting for this to come up. I hope someone who knows the real reasons behind this dispcrepancy will chime in.

MuskokaJ
04-14-2011, 07:53 PM
I've been waiting for this to come up. I hope someone who knows the real reasons behind this dispcrepancy will chime in.

I am 99% sure it is a HP rating issue. Indmar was not using the proper standards for rating. I'm not just guessing, this came from the Mastercraft dealer, and to me, it makes complete sense.

Sullivan
04-14-2011, 08:07 PM
Then does that mean that the Indmar that Malibu uses that is rated at 350 HP is not 350HP either? It seems that Indmar has not been honest with HP numbers, or?

I was assuming that the 350 HP Indmar was the same motor in both the Mastercraft and the Malibu.

east tx skier
04-14-2011, 08:26 PM
Only way to know is to dyno the engine.

rlwiley
04-14-2011, 08:33 PM
Does ilmor dyno every engine? It would seem that would be the only way to test every engine.

j.mccreight@hotmail.com
04-14-2011, 08:35 PM
I guess we just have to go off what MC says. FYI, 2011 numbers are; Indmar engines MCX 5.7L 230kW=308hp, LSA 6.2L 395kw=530hp, L96 6.0L 284kw=380hp and Ilmor engines are MV8 5.7L 239kW=320hp, MV8 6.0L 285 Kw=382hp and MV8 6.2L 321kw=430 hp.

east tx skier
04-14-2011, 08:38 PM
Based on info I have seen on a dyno of a previous year model of MCX engine, 2011 estimates look very close to actual for that previous year.

willyt
04-14-2011, 09:34 PM
Anyone know what the true rating for the MCX is pre-cats? I have an 05 and don't want to overstate my HP...

93Prostar190
04-14-2011, 09:51 PM
Willy ... my 2008 MCX said it was 350 .... so it must be 350!

oh boy .... I lost 42 HP from the time I placed the order for my boat to the time I took delivery. :(

j.mccreight@hotmail.com
04-14-2011, 10:47 PM
Willy ... my 2008 MCX said it was 350 .... so it must be 350!

oh boy .... I lost 42 HP from the time I placed the order for my boat to the time I took delivery. :(

I dont know how Indmar rates their engines, but SAE Net hp is measured at the engine's crankshaft, and so does not account for transmission losses. However, the SAE net power testing protocol calls for standard production-type belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, emission controls, exhaust system, and other power-consuming accessories. This produces ratings in closer alignment with the power produced by the engine as it is actually configured and sold.

FourFourty
04-15-2011, 07:55 AM
I dont know how Indmar rates their engines, but SAE Net hp is measured at the engine's crankshaft, and so does not account for transmission losses. However, the SAE net power testing protocol calls for standard production-type belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, emission controls, exhaust system, and other power-consuming accessories. This produces ratings in closer alignment with the power produced by the engine as it is actually configured and sold.

From what I heard at the MC factory on the issue, this is exactly right. Basically Indmar was rating the engines without the belt drivin accessories or production exhaust manifolds. The reason for that was that the same base engine was being developed for multiple boat manufacturers.....

Ilmor rates them as they land in the boat..... With the exception of driveline losses through the transmission.

rgardjr1
04-15-2011, 02:25 PM
Pretty interesting to go back through the years and see the differences in numbers at the CARB website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/cert/cert.php

I was looking at the 2006 vs 2007 numbers for PCM

2006 5.7L 239kW
2007 5.7L 201kW

Lucky I have a 2006 Crusader in my bote ;) Not sure what games have been played over the past, but it sounds like numbers are at least getting to where a reasonable comparison can be made.

sand2snow22
04-15-2011, 02:28 PM
IIRC, 2007 first year of cats on MCX.

rgardjr1
04-15-2011, 02:37 PM
IIRC, 2007 first year of cats on MCX.

What's kind of funny about this is that Indmar lists both a cat version and non cat version of the 5.7L in 2007

5.7L W/ Cats 230kW
5.7L No Cats 218 kW

jason95gt
04-15-2011, 06:34 PM
Just another reason why it is so exciting to have Ilmor in our corner!

MattsCraft
04-15-2011, 07:28 PM
Does it really matter??? My MCX performs just fine in my X2 Loaded to the gills, 1800#,s ballast and 10 peeps. Seriously who gives a crap, 350, 308 whatever it takes:D

east tx skier
04-15-2011, 07:44 PM
What's kind of funny about this is that Indmar lists both a cat version and non cat version of the 5.7L in 2007

5.7L W/ Cats 230kW
5.7L No Cats 218 kW

I think 2006 was the first year, but memory fades.

mccobmd
04-15-2011, 08:15 PM
Does it really matter??? My MCX performs just fine in my X2 Loaded to the gills, 1800#,s ballast and 10 peeps. Seriously who gives a crap, 350, 308 whatever it takes:D

That is pretty much my take. My RTP may be down to 20 or 30 HP for all I care. It moves my boat more than need it to. Would chime in that there should be some way to compare for those that are shopping.

j.mccreight@hotmail.com
04-15-2011, 09:27 PM
Does it really matter??? My MCX performs just fine in my X2 Loaded to the gills, 1800#,s ballast and 10 peeps. Seriously who gives a crap, 350, 308 whatever it takes:D

I didn't say the mcx doesn't performance well. I was just trying to find accurate information on the new engines. Your mcx might be 350 I don't know. Mastercraft website says one thing all the dealers say another and the manufacturer doesn't tell at all.

Sullivan
04-15-2011, 09:34 PM
I know I'm going to regret this........For a wimpy wakeboarder and a cooler full of beer it may not matter.

For those of us that slalom, jump and barefoot its important, I'm just saying.

Oh boy, this is going to hurt.

ddanenberger
04-16-2011, 08:37 AM
I problally should stay out of this, but this is my understanding of the situation.

The HP has not changed, the performace has not changed. The manufactures could pick based on a range. Most pick the high end. This caused problems when the motors did not come up to specs. I was told and stress told, that this is normal and all manufactures were doing this. Mastercraft decided to revert back to the actual ratings as tested. This lowered the placard.

Again, as I understand, the motor performace has not changed only the placard.

I believe this to be called marketing...After all they now have a new engine lineup.

gchapman-tt
04-16-2011, 09:37 AM
What's kind of funny about this is that Indmar lists both a cat version and non cat version of the 5.7L in 2007

5.7L W/ Cats 230kW
5.7L No Cats 218 kW

The reason for the different rating...
The 5.7L No Cats was the TBI rated at 218kW
The 5.7 W/Cats is the Multiport Fuel Injection rated at 230kW

What is interesting is that the pre 2007 MPFI was rated at 231kW, so virtually the same.
Also during that time frame 5.7 PCM did appear to hold a HP advantage with a 246kW rating.
However the recent certification of the 5.7 PCM w/Cats are only rated at 207kW

JimN
04-16-2011, 09:55 AM
The question of "How many users are running their boat in the range where the HP/torque are highest?" needs to be asked. Unfortunately, that HP/torque curve isn't available to us but if most users are wake boarding or running at 34MPH without a whole stack of skiers, it doesn't matter if it tops out at 308 or 330HP. Even if the boat is used for barefooting, there's not that much load added by one person. Top speed may be needed but it's not like someone is trying to pull stumps.

If people noticed a real lack of power, it would be well-known.

east tx skier
04-17-2011, 09:24 PM
The question of "How many users are running their boat in the range where the HP/torque are highest?" needs to be asked. Unfortunately, that HP/torque curve isn't available to us but if most users are wake boarding or running at 34MPH without a whole stack of skiers, it doesn't matter if it tops out at 308 or 330HP. Even if the boat is used for barefooting, there's not that much load added by one person. Top speed may be needed but it's not like someone is trying to pull stumps.

If people noticed a real lack of power, it would be well-known.

Very true statement. But all the same, manufacturers are, no doubt, trying to use these numbers as marketing tools, i.e. "We have more horsepower than brand X." When the marketing doesn't always line up with facts, the response isn't going to be positive. Of course we don't need as much hp as we have. I started skiing behind 150 hp. My first boat to own had 180 hp. My MC had 285 hp, then 300 hp. My current boat currently has 310 hp.

I know I haven't gained that much weight! 8p

SWeaver
04-17-2011, 09:35 PM
Does anybody know how to make my MCX LOUD?!?! :rolleyes:

JimN
04-17-2011, 10:56 PM
Very true statement. But all the same, manufacturers are, no doubt, trying to use these numbers as marketing tools, i.e. "We have more horsepower than brand X." When the marketing doesn't always line up with facts, the response isn't going to be positive. Of course we don't need as much hp as we have. I started skiing behind 150 hp. My first boat to own had 180 hp. My MC had 285 hp, then 300 hp. My current boat currently has 310 hp.

I know I haven't gained that much weight! 8p

But your first ski boats were outboard, right? 2 stroke motors are really high-torque, compared with a 4 stroke with similar displacement and the Barefoot 200 is a good example- it goes like a battouttahell.

The Malubu vs MC HP arguments were flying when I worked the boat show in '98- the local Bu dealer was usually ordering them with Mercruiser engines and dumping on the MCs because of how the HO was measured, but they were just PO'd because we had a lot more traffic at our booth.

JimN
04-17-2011, 10:57 PM
Does anybody know how to make my MCX LOUD?!?! :rolleyes:

Put your ear up to the exhaust port. It won't be much louder than that.

Doug G
04-17-2011, 11:58 PM
Say it ain't so! My 350 isn't really 350. Damn, hoodwinked again. That must be why I had to change the prop after I added all that ballast, I got short changed in HP. Bet if I had all 350 ... oh never mind.

Is there a system that will restore the lost HP?

east tx skier
04-18-2011, 12:31 AM
But your first ski boats were outboard, right? 2 stroke motors are really high-torque, compared with a 4 stroke with similar displacement and the Barefoot 200 is a good example- it goes like a battouttahell.

The Malubu vs MC HP arguments were flying when I worked the boat show in '98- the local Bu dealer was usually ordering them with Mercruiser engines and dumping on the MCs because of how the HO was measured, but they were just PO'd because we had a lot more traffic at our booth.

No, not a one. The first two were 4 stroke inboard out drive motors. All v8. The last two were direct drive Fords, one an Indmar MC, the most recent a PCM SN.

terrafirma
05-24-2011, 10:14 PM
[QUOTE=Doug G;745947]Say it ain't so! My 350 isn't really 350. Damn, hoodwinked again. That must be why I had to change the prop after I added all that ballast, I got short changed in HP. Bet if I had all 350 ... oh never mind.

Am about to buy a new X14 Direct drive and this is a 21.4 feet boat that seats 11 people and has a ballast system. The engines are now Ilmor and the standard engine is 320HP quoted by Ilmor, however the dealers quote this engine as 350HP. Ilmor do not make a 350HP engine, the next engine is the MV6.0L which is 382HP. My dealer in fact told me he would not charge me extra for the 350HP engine, what a load of ______!

I am concerned the 320HP engine will not have enough grunt when the boat is full? The 382HP engine only weighs 26KG or 57lbs more. I am seriously considering this engine. Any thoughts.?

skierdan
05-24-2011, 10:47 PM
Just curious, How does the new engines compare to the engines of 10 plus years ago? My 94 LT1 says it is 319hp in the manual. Is this accurate or is the actual number lower?

I dont care much about HP, I just love that my boat can rip my arms off :)

vision
05-24-2011, 10:54 PM
[QUOTE=Doug G;745947]Say it ain't so! My 350 isn't really 350. Damn, hoodwinked again. That must be why I had to change the prop after I added all that ballast, I got short changed in HP. Bet if I had all 350 ... oh never mind.

Am about to buy a new X14 Direct drive and this is a 21.4 feet boat that seats 11 people and has a ballast system. The engines are now Ilmor and the standard engine is 320HP quoted by Ilmor, however the dealers quote this engine as 350HP. Ilmor do not make a 350HP engine, the next engine is the MV6.0L which is 382HP. My dealer in fact told me he would not charge me extra for the 350HP engine, what a load of ______!

I am concerned the 320HP engine will not have enough grunt when the boat is full? The 382HP engine only weighs 26KG or 57lbs more. I am seriously considering this engine. Any thoughts.?

I swear I saw somewhere that the Ilmore 6.2 is lighter than the 6.0 which is lighter than the 5.7 due to more aluminum and less cast iron in the newer engines? But I can not find the reference so I must be thinking incorrectly.

YooperScott
05-25-2011, 08:21 AM
Just curious, How does the new engines compare to the engines of 10 plus years ago? My 94 LT1 says it is 319hp in the manual. Is this accurate or is the actual number lower?

I dont care much about HP, I just love that my boat can rip my arms off :)

Bringing up the LT-1, they were playing HP games back then too if you ask me. They started at 318 (if I recall) and by the end they were calling them 340 or more. Since nothing ever changed HP wise in the car world (Corvette was 300, F-body were 275 and then 285 once they went to double cats) and Indmar gets the engines straight from the manufacturer I have a VERY hard time believing the horsepower of those engines changed at all. The boat lacks A/C, power steering, and emissions stuff which explains the horsepower increase over the cars, but when the cars never changed horsepower through those years, i'd like to know how the boats did? There may have been programming changes that helped in mid range stuff but I highly doubt full throttle wasn't close from the start because that is the easiest thing to tune. Even so there may have been 2-5 horsepower on the table not 20+.

I am sure the same is true now. Nothing has changed with the engines, either they are rating them different or just playing with the numbers.

Scott
'95 LT-1 Prostar 190 - PP Stargazer

DooSPX
05-25-2011, 08:56 AM
The LT1 was not the same from GM. Add to that, no AC or PS to drag the hp down. Also, the tuning. The factory LT1 from Indmar was a hot tune. Also, I am almost positive it was not a factory LT1 camshaft which is a lowly 205/207 .447/.459 117. I know for a fact they changed the camshaft on the Ford motors.

YooperScott
05-25-2011, 09:56 AM
What was different about it? Better yet what changed between the years then to change the horsepower? Little cam changes of a few degrees of duration or small changes in left may give 3-5 hp but not 30+ (they were saying 350hp by the end right?). By the end they were claiming horsepower above what the LT-4 was putting out. Also what is a "hot" tune? I spent lots of hours on dyno's back in my car days tuning on cars after modifications and so on - on cars with fully programmable computers. Forced induction/nitrous aside unless you are talking really wild setups there just is not going to be much tuning on the table for 'stock' motors unless they just started off in a barely running state.

All that said at 318 or whatever they started at that's only 18 above what the vette was rated. Pull the accessories, convertors, and run an open filter on the vette and i'm sure you'd get all the 18 horsepower difference.

YooperScott
05-25-2011, 10:52 AM
I guess the best way will be to compare same hulls same motors between the years and what rpm and mph they do. If it's the same then that'll pretty much tell you that nothing changed horsepower wise.


Back on the LT-1, even though there isn't much data I looked back at the top speed, prop, rpm etc thread from back a while ago.

All LT-1 Prostar 190s BUT 3 different hulls represented.

'94 did 4700 and 48 mph
'95 did 4800 and 46 mph (I however now own that boat and I saw 48 on Stargazer last year)
'96 did 5100 and 48 mph (it had powerslot which probably helps explain the rpm change)
'98 did 4400 and 43 mph
Different '98 did 4400 and 44 mph

Certainly not a good case for 20-30 more horsepower in the later years.

JimN
05-25-2011, 10:54 AM
I guess the best way will be to compare same hulls same motors between the years and what rpm and mph they do. If it's the same then that'll pretty much tell you that nothing changed horsepower wise.


Back on the LT-1, even though there isn't much data I looked back at the top speed, prop, rpm etc thread from back a while ago.

All LT-1 Prostar 190s BUT 3 different hulls represented.

'94 did 4700 and 48 mph
'95 did 4800 and 46 mph (I however now own that boat and I saw 48 on Stargazer last year)
'96 did 5100 and 48 mph (it had powerslot which probably helps explain the rpm change)
'98 did 4400 and 43 mph
Different '98 did 4400 and 44 mph

Certainly not a good case for 20-30 more horsepower in the later years.

Can't use the power numbers on different hulls and call it a good comparison. The '98 hull was noticeably different, especially with the hydrorails and whatever hook they added and it's not as efficient as the '94-'97 hull. What about the props- the same, or different? Also, the LT-1 was originally brought out for barefooters, right? That speed isn't needed for slalom, anyway.

JimN
05-25-2011, 11:01 AM
What was different about it? Better yet what changed between the years then to change the horsepower? Little cam changes of a few degrees of duration or small changes in left may give 3-5 hp but not 30+ (they were saying 350hp by the end right?). By the end they were claiming horsepower above what the LT-4 was putting out. Also what is a "hot" tune? I spent lots of hours on dyno's back in my car days tuning on cars after modifications and so on - on cars with fully programmable computers. Forced induction/nitrous aside unless you are talking really wild setups there just is not going to be much tuning on the table for 'stock' motors unless they just started off in a barely running state.

All that said at 318 or whatever they started at that's only 18 above what the vette was rated. Pull the accessories, convertors, and run an open filter on the vette and i'm sure you'd get all the 18 horsepower difference.

The Vortec heads and roller rockers/cam weren't used before '96. If they changed the intake manifold AND used the Vortec/roller cam, it would easily add noticeable HP.

YooperScott
05-25-2011, 11:02 AM
I agree with you to a point. I also agree it is a SMALL data set but all I had. '94 to '95 was a different hull too with no change. Could the '98 hull really have so much more drag that even with 20-30 more horsepower they were still several hundred rpm low and also several mph low? I betting regardless of what the horsepower was, little if anything changed between the years. Same is probably the case with the MCX. Regardless of the 'rating' i'd put money on if they were put on a dyno there would be little to no difference.

YooperScott
05-25-2011, 11:13 AM
LT-1's never had Vortec heads. They had an aluminum (Corvette, f-bodys - Z28, Firebirds) and an iron version (b-bodys - Impala's, Caprices and such) and that's it. In '96 GM came out with the LT-4 head (and intake) which was definitely better and would definitely give a horsepower advantage as it did in the Corvette both via ratings along with real world data from a racetrack. They also had roller rockers so IF by chance they were actually installing LT-4 engines then there would be roller rockers. Anyone with a '98 wanna take a good look in the oil filler and see what kind of rockers are in there? If rollers then i'll totally buy it that the horsepower is indeed up. Otherwise I still want to know how they added that kind of horsepower between the years especially when nothing changed on the car side?

Edit: Guess you can tell i'm not too into work today huh? :)

DooSPX
05-25-2011, 11:18 AM
Edit: Guess you can tell i'm not too into work today huh? :)

You and me both.... :)

JimN
05-25-2011, 11:22 AM
I agree with you to a point. I also agree it is a SMALL data set but all I had. '94 to '95 was a different hull too with no change. Could the '98 hull really have so much more drag that even with 20-30 more horsepower they were still several hundred rpm low and also several mph low? I betting regardless of what the horsepower was, little if anything changed between the years. Same is probably the case with the MCX. Regardless of the 'rating' i'd put money on if they were put on a dyno there would be little to no difference.

If the hull is less efficient and the prop's pitch is excessive, you'd get both- lower speed and RPM. '97 is the demarc point WRT the hull- they stopped using it on the ProStar and came out with the SportStar, at a lower price point (because the hull design/tooling had been amortized) and yes, the '98 hull was less efficient. Then, there's the rudder- the standard one wasn't used on the '98 and IIRC, the '99 model years. If someone can confirm/deny this, go ahead.

YooperScott
05-25-2011, 11:25 AM
Should just leave for the weekend NOW!!! But unfortunately I cannot.

Hopefully the weather will be good enough that I can try out my portable course that I built last week/weekend via EZ Slalom plans.

DooSPX
05-25-2011, 11:27 AM
You're correct... The Vortec heads are not LT heads... the Vortec design was borrowed from the iron LT heads used in the B -Bodies. the Intake and export design was used, but the C.C. was different as well as the obvious lack of reverse cooling.
You are also correct in assuming that the cam change cannot vouch for 30+ hp but a small custom cam (to Indmar's specs can be worth more than 5+. I think the largest point you are overlooking is the lack of accessory drives and the tuning. I have gained as much as 40+ hp from tuning a bone stock LS1 (said crappy factory tune per vehicle) I can see 15+ from tuning alone even on the LT1. Tuning has nothing to do with the engine itself, but with the ECM's ability to control the engine. The reason the LS1's gain so much with tuning is the ECM's fast calculations and its ability to control the parameters of the engine. The LT1 from Indmar also had a Delphi ECM not a factory LT1 ECM. I do not know how much faster (if any) the Indmar/Delphi ECM is, but I know the LT1 ECM is slow as can be...


IS IT FRIDAY YET!!!!!!! :(

JimN
05-25-2011, 11:30 AM
LT-1's never had Vortec heads. They had an aluminum (Corvette, f-bodys - Z28, Firebirds) and an iron version (b-bodys - Impala's, Caprices and such) and that's it. In '96 GM came out with the LT-4 head (and intake) which was definitely better and would definitely give a horsepower advantage as it did in the Corvette both via ratings along with real world data from a racetrack. They also had roller rockers so IF by chance they were actually installing LT-4 engines then there would be roller rockers. Anyone with a '98 wanna take a good look in the oil filler and see what kind of rockers are in there? If rollers then i'll totally buy it that the horsepower is indeed up. Otherwise I still want to know how they added that kind of horsepower between the years especially when nothing changed on the car side?

Edit: Guess you can tell i'm not too into work today huh? :)

I know the LT-1 never had Vortec heads but the LTR and TBI did after '97. Boats don't get the new motors at the same time the cars do, partly because GM won't sell them when those versions are new- they want them for their own production. I did have to remove a head on an LT-1 with a bent valve, in a Maristar, and I'm pretty sure it had roller rockers. It would have been a '98 model year boat.

Yeah, I spazzed- you wrote that it was all LT-1s in the 4 years. EngineNut would be the person to contact about any changes to the LT-1 that was used in MC boats.

JimN
05-25-2011, 11:33 AM
I have gained as much as 40+ hp from tuning a bone stock LS1 (said crappy factory tune per vehicle) I can see 15+ from tuning alone even on the LT1. Tuning has nothing to do with the engine itself, but with the ECM's ability to control the engine. The reason the LS1's gain so much with tuning is the ECM's fast calculations and its ability to control the parameters of the engine. The LT1 from Indmar also had a Delphi ECM not a factory LT1 ECM. I do not know how much faster (if any) the Indmar/Delphi ECM is, but I know the LT1 ECM is slow as can be...


IS IT FRIDAY YET!!!!!!! :(

Might have been crappy tuning but it met the emission specs, right? I'm sure that all of the automakers would give us more HP/torque than we need if they could but when the EPA, CARB and Cafe standards requirements are what they are, we get crap.

DooSPX
05-25-2011, 11:37 AM
The LT's had a hard time passing sniffer test even stock sometimes if they needed a tune up... LOL
I have passed a sniffer with tuning full aftermarket exhaust with a LS1. (no visual checks)

YooperScott
05-25-2011, 11:45 AM
Hey all in good fun. I've just always been curious since I have an LT-1 (and used to have a car with one that received tons of modifications netting 390 dynoed rear wheel horsepower, which was VERY stout back in the mid 90s not really so exciting these days) about these 20-30 hp changes and what they were and am obviously very skeptical that anything really changed. Not that my boat needs anymore power or I would throw on some 1.6 rollers rockers because they gave an honest to goodness seat of the pants (and track measured) improvement and they are a dead simple and easy thing to do without any real drawbacks besides the $300 or whatever to buy them.

DooSPX
05-25-2011, 11:52 AM
390 from an LT1 is really nice... what mods did you have? stock cid? the LT1 have never been dyno queens but can surprise a LOT of people on and off the track if built right. Now days people always look down on the LT1's because they cannot break 400 cam only... I have seen some LT1's ran damn good with good drivers... a friend ran a 96 T/A WS6 with borla exhaust to a 13.2x and also ran a 12.6 with just a good 'ol hot cam and headers before he sold it.

You ever get tired of the LT1 in the boat, you let me know. I will buy it from you! lol
I have thought about buying a few wrecked LT F-bodies around here and rebuilding the LT1, finding the Delphi ECM and installing in my boat many times!

YooperScott
05-25-2011, 12:10 PM
Wow we've taken this off-topic, sorry.....

My '94 Z28 in 390 rwhp mode had (gotta go back to the memory bank here so may not be perfect):

Stock short block and rotating assembly
CNC ported AFR heads 2.02/1.60 valves (with some hand porting done from 'the man' Craig Gallant)
1.6 roller rockers
Comp 305 cam (if I recall 220/230 duration, .544/.544 lift with 1.6 rockers, 112 LSA)
Ported intake
58mm TB
Crane ignition box, coil
SLP 1 3/4" headers with crankcase EVAC
SLP '2 on the left' exhaust and a cutout for the track
4.10 gears
Ford 24lb injectors (blue maybe I forget?)
Airbox
Zero emissions stuff
Any other bolt of stuff at the time of which I cannot remember

Usually ran 12.10s around 116-117 if I recall in total street form on BFG Drag Radials.

Then there was the LS1 ('99 Z28) it's list was longer and it went a good bit faster. The guy I sold it to went 197 at the Texas mile with it on a 150 shot. That's smokin in the mile for an f-body.

DooSPX
05-25-2011, 12:22 PM
That is cookin in the mile... Too bad way back when custom cams from LE or AI weren't known for the LT1. but the CC305 was and still is a good off the shelf grind.

Sounds like your had a stout car... I had a Z at one time with the 2OTL and stripped all the Z28 badges and screwed with people on the street. I made a lot of enemies with that car... LOL
Would have loved to see your old LT tearin it up!

kskonn
05-25-2011, 12:39 PM
Am about to buy a new X14 Direct drive and this is a 21.4 feet boat that seats 11 people and has a ballast system. The engines are now Ilmor and the standard engine is 320HP quoted by Ilmor, however the dealers quote this engine as 350HP. Ilmor do not make a 350HP engine, the next engine is the MV6.0L which is 382HP. My dealer in fact told me he would not charge me extra for the 350HP engine, what a load of ______!

I am concerned the 320HP engine will not have enough grunt when the boat is full? The 382HP engine only weighs 26KG or 57lbs more. I am seriously considering this engine. Any thoughts.?

I have a X30 which is 22'8 with the MCX, I usually have 4-8 people with a total of about 3k in ballast, I have not problems whatsoever. I would not worry about the engine power in an 14 I have been in the X14V with 6 or 7 people and it was not a problem.

DooSPX
05-25-2011, 01:16 PM
Some how or another I always end up jacking a thread... Sorry OP. I know nothing about Wake boats, sorry. I know in a Prostar a MCX w/ the slot would be more then enough.

SS LS1
05-25-2011, 04:14 PM
Interesting discussion guys, I purchased my ' 98 30th Anniversary ProStar 190 last fall and used it twice before winter so I do not have much data but here is what I know. The boat has a LT-1 with power slot trans and stock prop on it, (14 x 20) iirc. It's advertised by MC as a 350 hp anniversary package (power slot was an option). Before I bought it I looked in the oil fill and had my brother in-law (at Indmar) run the hull, engine and ecm numbers to see what it was all about. Sure enough there are roller rocker arms under the valve covers and the ecm calibration was for the "350 hp" package according to the tuning techs at Indmar. I have no idea if this is true hp or just marketing hype so don't shoot the messenger. :)

My particular boat has the 4 tracking fins, stock winged rudder ( drag) but no hydro rails on the hull. (the ' 1998 listed in the speed/rpm post is also a 30th anniversary boat but has hydro rails, the updated winged rudder with more wing pitch but no power slot trans) FWIW.

On the water last fall the boat ran a gps verified 48.5 mph with myself, various ski gear, heavy sub woofer box, 1/8th tank of gas and the tower installed (wind resistance). I do not know the rpms as the tach is temperamental and I ran out of room on our small private lake.

Last weekend I got the boat out for the 1st time this year and it ran 45.5 with 4 adults, ski gear, sub box, tower installed and 30+ gallons of gas which is as much as another person I would guess (200 lbs +). Unfortunately no rpm reading as the tach was acting up. So I guess that isn't too bad for a "high drag" 1998 hull. The power slot must really make a noticable difference in the' 98's top speed and I was worried it might hurt the top speed a little.

Our elevation can't be much over sea level here in Michigan but I do not know how much for sure. I would guess the updated rudder with even more wing pitch would cause more drag than mine as it is supposed to lift the back of the boat (to improve the ski wake) which would drive the nose even further into the water. Same for the hydro rails that were designed to increase wetted surface area lifting the back of the boat. I would guess those combined could scrub off 3-4 mph on the top end, right?

Food for thought I guess, I just wanted something to haul my 250 lbs fast enough for barefooting. :)

east tx skier
05-25-2011, 05:41 PM
Just curious, How does the new engines compare to the engines of 10 plus years ago? My 94 LT1 says it is 319hp in the manual. Is this accurate or is the actual number lower?

I dont care much about HP, I just love that my boat can rip my arms off :)

I thought it was 310 hp in 94. That's at least what the purported hp was according to the 93 BBG.

YooperScott
05-26-2011, 08:12 AM
Sure enough there are roller rocker arms under the valve covers and the ecm calibration was for the "350 hp" package according to the tuning techs at Indmar. I have no idea if this is true hp or just marketing hype so don't shoot the messenger. :)



Well then i'd have to say that there is a very good chance your LT-1 may actually be an LT-4. If so great news for you as the heads were more efficient (ports were better plus little bigger valves, better valve springs, slightly smaller combustion chamber giving a tad more compression) and there was definitely more power there (the difference in Corvette's was marketted 300hp LT-1, 330hp LT-4). It would make sense to me as the LT-4 came out in '96 and even though as I recall it was only supposed to go into the Grand Sport Corvette's, it actually wound up going in all of the 6 speed manual Corvette's and a pretty rare number of Z28's. Would not seem to unreasonable to me that some didn't make it to the boats and maybe the ones with the "special" horsepower were the LT-4's. This is all my speculation but probably not too far off. Otherwise I fall right back into my original stance of highly doubting anything was done to actually help the horsepower and it was all marketing. :)

DooSPX
05-26-2011, 08:42 AM
Well then i'd have to say that there is a very good chance your LT-1 may actually be an LT-4. If so great news for you as the heads were more efficient (ports were better plus little bigger valves, better valve springs, slightly smaller combustion chamber giving a tad more compression) and there was definitely more power there (the difference in Corvette's was marketted 300hp LT-1, 330hp LT-4). It would make sense to me as the LT-4 came out in '96 and even though as I recall it was only supposed to go into the Grand Sport Corvette's, it actually wound up going in all of the 6 speed manual Corvette's and a pretty rare number of Z28's. Would not seem to unreasonable to me that some didn't make it to the boats and maybe the ones with the "special" horsepower were the LT-4's. This is all my speculation but probably not too far off. Otherwise I fall right back into my original stance of highly doubting anything was done to actually help the horsepower and it was all marketing. :)

the LT4 found its way into a few SLP Z28's with the SS package and a few of the Firehawk WS.6 Pontiac's too.
It is completely possible that the Anniversary boats got a LT4.

SS LS1
05-26-2011, 05:36 PM
It would make sense to me as the LT-4 came out in '96 and even though as I recall it was only supposed to go into the Grand Sport Corvette's, it actually wound up going in all of the 6 speed manual Corvette's and a pretty rare number of Z28's. Would not seem to unreasonable to me that some didn't make it to the boats and maybe the ones with the "special" horsepower were the LT-4's. . :)

Well based on that I guess the timing is just about right as the ' 97 Corvette was the first to get the LS1 engine then followed by the Camaro and Firebird in 1998. Master Craft ran the "LT-1" in boats in ' 98 and ' 99 IIRC when GM was all but done with this engine. So if there was a "left over" supply of LT-1 and fewer LT-4 engines, they might as well market a "special package" and get rid of them in boats. It probably worked out well for all (GM, MC and Indmar). Either way I'm glad to have it in the boat as it is a beast with the powerslot option. :)

Shavo9
10-31-2013, 02:53 AM
so nobody has really answered this from what i read,

purely how would a 2007 X2 with MCX compare to a brand new X2 with the ilmor 5.7?

Alan-S
10-31-2013, 11:32 AM
No, Indmar was not accurate with the HP rating, and still are not. PCM is the worst. Look at the California Air Resources board reports for the different manufacturers.

5.7L
PCM 343 = 277hp actual
Indmar 350 = 292hp actual
Ilmor 320 = 320hp actual

TRBenj
10-31-2013, 02:17 PM
Oh boy, here we go.

Do we really think that there are huge power differences between the different marinizers, who are all using the same long blocks? Exhaust manifolds, ignition and ECM tune are going to result in 40+hp differences? C'mon.

Alan-S
10-31-2013, 02:32 PM
Intake, Exhaust, and ECM tune for 9%. Absolutely.

JimN
10-31-2013, 02:37 PM
Intake, Exhaust, and ECM tune for 9%. Absolutely.

9%, what- air-fuel ratio? Not that I ever heard at training and we discussed this power rating issue a few times. No doubt, it's richer than a car but I'm not sure it's 6% richer than stoichiometric.

Part of the problem is that some manufacturers say they measure HP at the crank and some say they measure it at the prop. Who's believable? Hard to say, without seeing their setup.

TRBenj
10-31-2013, 05:13 PM
If the boats with engines that have the alleged higher "real" hp were proving to be quicker and faster than the boats with "overrated" powerplants, I could maybe buy that. But its simply not the case. Comparable hulls with comparable engines from comparable marinizers (SN 200 with PCM409 vs. 197 with Ilmore 6.0L, for example) run nearly identical top end speeds (47-48mph).

Youre buying into a numbers game because you want it to be true. The proof is in the pudding!

scott023
10-31-2013, 06:01 PM
If the boats with engines that have the alleged higher "real" hp were proving to be quicker and faster than the boats with "overrated" powerplants, I could maybe buy that. But its simply not the case. Comparable hulls with comparable engines from comparable marinizers (SN 200 with PCM409 vs. 197 with Ilmore 6.0L, for example) run nearly identical top end speeds (47-48mph).

Youre buying into a numbers game because you want it to be true. The proof is in the pudding!

There's no better way to state it then that.

Rossterman
10-31-2013, 08:31 PM
Earlier post on LTR vs. base TBI where they dyno'd each showed that the HP difference was really ~ 12-15 Hp not the 40HP advertised. If you think about it, Manufacturers have fudged the numbers up and down for years as a sales/marketing gimmick.

2001 camaro LS1 was rated at 325hp but routinely put more that down to the back wheels. Down rated primarily as the same engine was used in the corvette and couldn't have too close of a rating for marketing purposes.

If you think about it, the engines are really mechanically identical on the internals (cam, heads, comp ratio, etc.) so intake and exhaust and what makes the difference. TBI intake was pretty well designed and comparable most of the way up the RPM range compared to the LTR which breathed slightly better on top due to open plenum manifold. This was worth a few HP on top but how many would they sell if they indicated that the difference was only ~ 10hp?

JimN
10-31-2013, 08:47 PM
Earlier post on LTR vs. base TBI where they dyno'd each showed that the HP difference was really ~ 12-15 Hp not the 40HP advertised. If you think about it, Manufacturers have fudged the numbers up and down for years as a sales/marketing gimmick.

2001 camaro LS1 was rated at 325hp but routinely put more that down to the back wheels. Down rated primarily as the same engine was used in the corvette and couldn't have too close of a rating for marketing purposes.

If you think about it, the engines are really mechanically identical on the internals (cam, heads, comp ratio, etc.) so intake and exhaust and what makes the difference. TBI intake was pretty well designed and comparable most of the way up the RPM range compared to the LTR which breathed slightly better on top due to open plenum manifold. This was worth a few HP on top but how many would they sell if they indicated that the difference was only ~ 10hp?

Most of the difference between TBI and multi-port injection has to do with the turbulence caused by that big goiter of injectors in the way of the air that's trying to get in. When a throttle body has no obstructions, getting more HP is a piece of cake. Tasty, tasty cake.