Go Back   TeamTalk > General MasterCraft Topics > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 03-21-2013, 01:05 PM
FourFourty's Avatar
FourFourty FourFourty is online now
MC Devotee
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Boat: 2014 X30 with a lightly tickled LS7
Location: Northeast
Posts: 1,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRBenj View Post
I do not believe that is true. The ZR-450 uses a cam made specifically for PCM, per the engineer I spoke with at length. The cam, intake and different A/F curve (which makes use of 93 ocatane) are the things that separate a 409 and a 450.

That could very well be the case. I wouldn't know for 100% sure. If you talked to a PCM engineer, I am sure you are probably right. I just know that GM offers several variations of the 5.7, 6.0, and 6.2 to the marine industry.

Im not disagreeing on the different hp rating conventions. Ilmore does seem to be the only one quoting the CARB numbers, for whatever reason. I dont doubt the different marinizers put out comparable hp levels when comparing similar engines. It is convenient that all of the Indmar and PCM numbers are low, though. Who actually conducted the CARB testing? Do all marinizers go through this (and only Ilmore chooses to publish those numbers) or did Ilmore take the initiative to have the competitors tested to the same standard they chose? The numbers on the 350 based PCM sure look way out of bed with the way those boats perform (277hp vs. 330-343 stated). I saw the same chart posted at the MC booth at the boat show, I took it for marketing spin. Its not like automotive headers on a dyno will give you real world hp numbers anyways. Like I said, the proof is in the pudding (the way the boats perform).
California air resources board (CARB) sends a technician to pick a few examples of each engine variation to test. They then require that all accessories, and emissions components are on the engines when they are dyno'd. (Following SAE guidelines, which is what the automotive industry is held to) They then record emission, and performance data. CARB is particularly interested in HP levels, because it is a relative consideration for hp/emission performance compared to the actual engine size. CARB testing is done by the engine manufacturer, but under the supervision and guidance of an on-site CARB technician. (Probably cheaper than sending 4 engines, for each engine model, out to California.)

CARB is an independent government agency. I wouldn't think that Ilmore has any pull there....
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-21-2013, 01:15 PM
TRBenj TRBenj is offline
MC Devotee
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Boat: 1990 Ski Nautique
Location: NWCT
Posts: 1,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by EJ OJPROP View Post
Yes, even the 6.0's and they don't get on the limiter with that prop. Yes. I was refering to that set up. I have run our 13 X 15 4-blade on those with lower RPM than the stock or even the new prop they went to. Run a lower pitch on the 5.7. The 196 is a different animal than the new hull, seems to have a bit more drag.
Is the limiter the same 5600 on the Indmar/Ilmore 6.0L's? What do the 197 6.0L's run for top end? I assume around 47-48mph?

Agreed that the 200 hull has a whole lot more drag than the 196. Seems to be a lot closer to the 197 in that regard now. Both the 200 and 197 seem to run quite a bit slower than the 196 when comparing like powertrains.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-21-2013, 01:47 PM
gchapman-tt's Avatar
gchapman-tt gchapman-tt is offline
TT Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Boat: 32yrs Tournament Team
Location: midwest
Posts: 85
[quote= What do the 197 6.0L's run for top end? I assume around 47-48mph?[/QUOTE]

That is about right. My 2012 6.0L ran 48.4 @5100 WOT. 36 mph/3570rpm.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-21-2013, 01:53 PM
willyt's Avatar
willyt willyt is offline
MC Devotee
 
Join Date: May 2009
Boat: ER xstar
Location: high in the middle and round on both ends
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by FourFourty View Post
You brought it up on WW last week. yes, no??
haha yep, i did. every time i see those numbers i just want that 7.4 in my boat
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-21-2013, 04:24 PM
kgrove kgrove is online now
MC Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Boat: 2011 X-25
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 570
Anyone have comps on torque and torque curves for Ilmore vs Idmar and others? I don't suppose CARB looks at those.

I had been looking at making the 6.0 a requirement for my next boat, but that was based on my experience with the Indmar 5.7 (MCX is great for my current boat, but my next boat will be bigger). Knowing the Ilmore 5.7 has more power than the Indmar I'm used to might put an Ilmore 5.7 back in the mix as an acceptable and more affordable choice.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-21-2013, 04:55 PM
FourFourty's Avatar
FourFourty FourFourty is online now
MC Devotee
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Boat: 2014 X30 with a lightly tickled LS7
Location: Northeast
Posts: 1,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by kgrove View Post
Anyone have comps on torque and torque curves for Ilmore vs Idmar and others? I don't suppose CARB looks at those.

I had been looking at making the 6.0 a requirement for my next boat, but that was based on my experience with the Indmar 5.7 (MCX is great for my current boat, but my next boat will be bigger). Knowing the Ilmore 5.7 has more power than the Indmar I'm used to might put an Ilmore 5.7 back in the mix as an acceptable and more affordable choice.

Torque is what they measure to determine the horsepower. The Ilmore engines do not rev higher, so the "peak" torque would be higher on the Ilmore. Horsepower is just a measurement of torque/time.

The torque curve would be a hard one to find..... you would need dyno sheets from each manufacturer. I would guess that they would be very similar, but that doesn't necessarily mean they actually are.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-21-2013, 05:07 PM
Forrest-X45's Avatar
Forrest-X45 Forrest-X45 is offline
MC Fanatic
 
Join Date: May 2009
Boat: X-45
Location: Northwest
Posts: 656
This thread is depressing......shoulda got the bigger engine. Good for MC though because it just makes me want a new boat with the 7.4.
__________________
2008 X-45 Pro Tour Red and White
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-21-2013, 06:21 PM
kgrove kgrove is online now
MC Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Boat: 2011 X-25
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by FourFourty View Post
Torque is what they measure to determine the horsepower. The Ilmore engines do not rev higher, so the "peak" torque would be higher on the Ilmore. Horsepower is just a measurement of torque/time.

The torque curve would be a hard one to find..... you would need dyno sheets from each manufacturer. I would guess that they would be very similar, but that doesn't necessarily mean they actually are.
Agree on all that. My guess is the Ilmore version of each engine does indeed have more torque than Indmar since it produces more horsepower without a higher redline, but theoretically the Ilmore could produce crappy torque at low rpm but then produce higher torque at higher rpm ranges than its Indmar comparison. If that were true it would produce more HP but would likely feel sluggish getting on plane...

Rather than go all geeky and look for curves, anyone have direct experience with identical hulled MC but one powered by Indmar and one powered by Ilmore? Does the Ilmore feel materially stronger? In the end that's what I care about... Not how it's rated but how it pulls.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-21-2013, 10:44 PM
PT 1999 ProStar's Avatar
PT 1999 ProStar PT 1999 ProStar is offline
TT Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Boat: Mastercraft ProStar 190 1999 330HP Powerslot - 1st MC 1987 ProStar Current 2012 ProStar 197
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by kgrove View Post
Agree on all that. My guess is the Ilmore version of each engine does indeed have more torque than Indmar since it produces more horsepower without a higher redline, but theoretically the Ilmore could produce crappy torque at low rpm but then produce higher torque at higher rpm ranges than its Indmar comparison. If that were true it would produce more HP but would likely feel sluggish getting on plane...

Rather than go all geeky and look for curves, anyone have direct experience with identical hulled MC but one powered by Indmar and one powered by Ilmore? Does the Ilmore feel materially stronger? In the end that's what I care about... Not how it's rated but how it pulls.


That is what we need the answer too! I will have it this summer but not yet there is still is ice on the lake! Can anyone answer this now??
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-21-2013, 10:46 PM
east tx skier's Avatar
east tx skier east tx skier is offline
MC Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Boat: 1998 Ski Nautique
Location: End of my rope.
Posts: 25,276
GT-40 and gear reduction pulled me up and down the lake just fine last weekend. Stated hp, 310. Actual hp, probably 312. To be honest, when I was skiing it, hp was the last thing from my mind.
__________________
Previous: 1993 Prostar 205

Red 1998 Closed Bow Ski Boat, Ford 351, 310 hp, Acme 4 blade, Perfect Pass SG.

FAQ


Tyler Ski Club


To me, this forum is about love of inboard boats. It is about the sharing of information and, on a good day, some humor. It is not about post count, brand of boat, or any other superfluous labels that lend themselves to a false sense of superiority. Please, respect one another, try to pass on accurate information, and keep your eye on the ball.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:06 PM.