Go Back   TeamTalk > Maintenance Tips, How-tos and Refurbishing Topics > Engine / Drive Train

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 10-29-2012, 09:10 AM
JimN's Avatar
JimN JimN is offline
MC Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surfer View Post
Hi,

JimN, thanks a lot!
Yes, the engine is non-Vortec.

Ok, I might ask for price of roller rocker arms for the base engine, if it is an option and maybe for newer TBI manifold. But MC did this type of engine only 1995 - 1997, after that MPI?

So EFI computer just "puts gas in", when crackshaft position sensor says so? When and how fast the valve is opening, fully open, closing and closed, does not matter?
Craph for roller cam vent opening is more rectangular, as flat tapped cam craph is more parabolic, as in time vs. vent opening x-y scale.


BR, Pasi
They won't have the same intake MC put(s) on the newer TBI and the one used on the Vortec won't work because of the way the bolts go in.

TBI engines, especially from the '90s, don't have a crank position sensor, they use the can on the distributor shaft and, unlike crank sensors, that doesn't tell the ECM which direction it's turning. The ECM uses the MAP sensor to detect engine load (uses barometric pressure and engine-induced vacuum relativee to RPM and throttle position), TPS detects idle throttle position (</= 2%) run throttle position (>2%) and fast throttle position changes (delta >20) for acceleration enrichment or deceleration enleanment, and coolant temoerature to determine whether to add or remove fuel when it compares its state, relative to the fuel mapping tables in the program. These run rich enough that changing the lobe shape won't cause the engine to experience problems unless it's run really hard and something is outside of the normal ranges.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-29-2012, 10:51 AM
Surfer Surfer is offline
TT Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Boat: MC PS 190 1995, 350 cid. injection, 275 hp, 1:1, 4-blade prop.
Location: South Finland
Posts: 48
Hi,

so driving for barefoot, there is a slight change of experience problems with roller cam and original EFI computer? Ok, nothing should be out of normal range, except the cam (the not original roller cam was included in your reasoning). Also cooler air temp. in Finland, but this EFI does not straigth take that into account?

Or, as you said rich enough; If we know the max. output of the original EFI, we could calculate what is the base GM engine's max. requirement?
Or are these specifications publicly available? Something should exist at least.


BR,

Pasi
__________________
PS190 1995 5.7 l EFI TBI 1:1 13x13 4-blade prop. Barefoot boom, wakeboard boom & fatsack. UK made trailer
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-29-2012, 11:06 AM
JimN's Avatar
JimN JimN is offline
MC Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surfer View Post
Hi,

so driving for barefoot, there is a slight change of experience problems with roller cam and original EFI computer? Ok, nothing should be out of normal range, except the cam (the not original roller cam was included in your reasoning). Also cooler air temp. in Finland, but this EFI does not straigth take that into account?

Or, as you said rich enough; If we know the max. output of the original EFI, we could calculate what is the base GM engine's max. requirement?
Or are these specifications publicly available? Something should exist at least.


BR,

Pasi
The intake air temp isn't monitored on older models. The only time I saw people having problems barefooting with a TBI engine was when they had small feet and were relatively heavy. With cooler air temp, the extra power wouldn't hurt (it's always nice to have a little extra)- what is the elevation where you'll be skiing?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-29-2012, 08:05 PM
Rossterman's Avatar
Rossterman Rossterman is offline
MC Fanatic
 
Join Date: May 2012
Boat: 2001 prostar 205V
Location: Westcoast
Posts: 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surfer View Post
Hi,

thanks for the answers!



Rossterman, you meant in comparison to vortech car engine cam is different in marine engine?
JimN, yes I just need basic replacement, no customization.

If so, the GM base marine engine will do ok? Even the replacement has got a roller cam,
as the original engine has got flat tappet cam.
Ok, flat tappet cam is maybe an option, but roller cam would be better I understand; E.g. a bit more power.

The valve timings seem to be different with different cams, that is why I am wondering if the original EFI computer would do ok with roller cam?

I do not know EFI working principles yet so closely, and I am not able to tune EFI computer, and don't want to buy a new one.


Thanks!

Pasi
Roller cam in the vortech truck could be the same as marine as i have never seen anyone publish the lift and duration numbers of either. I suspect they are identical but cant prove. You will get more power using the roller cam vortech motor as much superior cylinder heads to non vortech motors and the roller cam has better performance with quicker opening/closing ramps
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-30-2012, 05:05 AM
Surfer Surfer is offline
TT Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Boat: MC PS 190 1995, 350 cid. injection, 275 hp, 1:1, 4-blade prop.
Location: South Finland
Posts: 48
Temp.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimN View Post
The intake air temp isn't monitored on older models. The only time I saw people having problems barefooting with a TBI engine was when they had small feet and were relatively heavy. With cooler air temp, the extra power wouldn't hurt (it's always nice to have a little extra)- what is the elevation where you'll be skiing?

Hi,

my barefooting driving is rarely 38 mph (US nautical miles), more likely in 35 -36 mph range at the highest.
By the way the old engine (ca. 2100 h) still this summer took close to 38 mph, before it broke down.

Cooler air is more packed, i.e. more oxygen in smaller space, you get more power then actually?

Maybe with TBI, high revs and constant resistance for the engine with previously described barefooter causes something? Though I understand no major problems.

My altitude where I normally ski would be ca. 102 feet above sea level. Occasionally at around 246 feet.


BR,

Pasi
__________________
PS190 1995 5.7 l EFI TBI 1:1 13x13 4-blade prop. Barefoot boom, wakeboard boom & fatsack. UK made trailer
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-30-2012, 09:37 AM
JimN's Avatar
JimN JimN is offline
MC Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 11,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surfer View Post
Hi,

my barefooting driving is rarely 38 mph (US nautical miles), more likely in 35 -36 mph range at the highest.
By the way the old engine (ca. 2100 h) still this summer took close to 38 mph, before it broke down.

Cooler air is more packed, i.e. more oxygen in smaller space, you get more power then actually?

Maybe with TBI, high revs and constant resistance for the engine with previously described barefooter causes something? Though I understand no major problems.

My altitude where I normally ski would be ca. 102 feet above sea level. Occasionally at around 246 feet.


BR,

Pasi
It's less a matter of more power and more about whether the air/fuel ratio is correct and while using an intake air temperature is more accurate, these run just fine in cooler weather. The first thing that happens when the key is turned on is the ECM uses the MAP sensor to check the barometric pressure. You should be fine.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-31-2012, 04:25 AM
Surfer Surfer is offline
TT Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Boat: MC PS 190 1995, 350 cid. injection, 275 hp, 1:1, 4-blade prop.
Location: South Finland
Posts: 48
Hi,

any estimate, how much base engine with roller parts and new intake manifold would increase fuel consumption? Likely to be not less consumption.
I mean more hp, vents longer time open, but less friction, newer engine. + / - = 0?


BR,

Pasi
__________________
PS190 1995 5.7 l EFI TBI 1:1 13x13 4-blade prop. Barefoot boom, wakeboard boom & fatsack. UK made trailer
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-31-2012, 07:21 AM
Rossterman's Avatar
Rossterman Rossterman is offline
MC Fanatic
 
Join Date: May 2012
Boat: 2001 prostar 205V
Location: Westcoast
Posts: 666
Dont think you will see much change. Tbi predator engine is essentially what you would have and they are very good on gas. Better combustion and less friction with roller cam and rockers = better fuel economy.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-31-2012, 09:35 AM
Surfer Surfer is offline
TT Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Boat: MC PS 190 1995, 350 cid. injection, 275 hp, 1:1, 4-blade prop.
Location: South Finland
Posts: 48
Ecm

Hi,

any idea what exactly is the ECM on this original engine?
Maybe some codes on the ECM will tell.

I have replaced that many years ago, as the original broke itself, had to order a new one from MC UK.

The boat with original ECM had starting problems with warm engine since new, I experienced that a couple of times, but not anymore after replacing the ECM.


BR,

Pasi
__________________
PS190 1995 5.7 l EFI TBI 1:1 13x13 4-blade prop. Barefoot boom, wakeboard boom & fatsack. UK made trailer
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-01-2012, 04:44 AM
Surfer Surfer is offline
TT Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Boat: MC PS 190 1995, 350 cid. injection, 275 hp, 1:1, 4-blade prop.
Location: South Finland
Posts: 48
Hi,

Roger from Michigan Motorz told me not to take an engine with a roller cam.

"TBI 5.7L engines and the ECMs are very finicky and do not like any changes or modifications. We know from experience." The engine might not run properly.
__________________
PS190 1995 5.7 l EFI TBI 1:1 13x13 4-blade prop. Barefoot boom, wakeboard boom & fatsack. UK made trailer
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 12:56 PM.