View Poll Results: 114 or 112 for low rpm power
114
15
46.88%
112
17
53.13%
Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll
Cam LSA
#32
Registered
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Between A Womans Leggs in IL
Posts: 6,306
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
fixx
on another note from what i have been toold this boat in ? has something likr 575 575 252 248 on a 115 lsa cam and the boat was a rocket out of the hole up to 124 mph so i blame the guy that chose the cam that were put in the new re-freshened engine..
Last edited by FIXX; 11-30-2012 at 08:14 PM.
#33
Registered
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Between A Womans Leggs in IL
Posts: 6,306
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
fixx
that is another story in its self...with the old engines it has imck drives with -3 shortys and a 1.50 ratio..the motors would go past 6k and jo thought it would be better with 1.36 imco's and -1 shortys which that caused a major loss on his acceleration problem.. now i believe he is going back to the 1.50 ratios and the -3 shortys and is going to try 5 blades of bigger 4 blades..
#35
I like the Procharger in my 26, they can be set up to make a ton of bottom end power and still have a great top end. From what I've seen they like different cams than a Roots or Whipple. If it were me I would want way more cubic inch in a 42, but then it would probably scatter drives every time out.
#36
I like the Procharger in my 26, they can be set up to make a ton of bottom end power and still have a great top end. From what I've seen they like different cams than a Roots or Whipple. If it were me I would want way more cubic inch in a 42, but then it would probably scatter drives every time out.
Our buddy joe can go roots setup, but even after all the problems he has had with these procharger deals, he's determined to see them succeed. I can respect that. He has more patience then I do, I would have bolted on some roots blowers a long time ago and been boating a lot more.
#37
Check out these numbers from Dennis R's blow thru procharger builds. Granted these are bigger CI, but look at the power curve. These things should not be a slouch in any way! Seems right on for a marine engine. Also included is Joe's dyno sheet. Boost numbers are close, compare the torque band. Would have been interesting to see Joe's motors pulled down to 2500.
Many guys have called BS on Joe's dyno numbers. Even if the correction factor was a bit optimistic, and you compare the numbers. Dennis' Engines have 78 more cubic inches. With almost equal boost psi on the big end, he made an additional 130HP. Obviously that number can be higher based on the fact two different dyno's, but why would 1298HP with 16lbs of boost be labeled such poppycock by so many?? It would have been nice to see Joe's BSFC numbers.
Doesnt really matter, because the goal here was to increase bottom end power ,and driveability. Even if Joe's setup is somewhat detuned by running a smaller cam, and backing the boost down, and made 950-1000HP. Since when Is a 1000HP marine engine anything to turn your nose at? Been trying to tell Joe there is more to getting a boat to go fast than just throwing HP at it.
Many guys have called BS on Joe's dyno numbers. Even if the correction factor was a bit optimistic, and you compare the numbers. Dennis' Engines have 78 more cubic inches. With almost equal boost psi on the big end, he made an additional 130HP. Obviously that number can be higher based on the fact two different dyno's, but why would 1298HP with 16lbs of boost be labeled such poppycock by so many?? It would have been nice to see Joe's BSFC numbers.
Doesnt really matter, because the goal here was to increase bottom end power ,and driveability. Even if Joe's setup is somewhat detuned by running a smaller cam, and backing the boost down, and made 950-1000HP. Since when Is a 1000HP marine engine anything to turn your nose at? Been trying to tell Joe there is more to getting a boat to go fast than just throwing HP at it.
Last edited by MILD THUNDER; 12-01-2012 at 07:46 AM.
#38
Registered
iTrader: (3)
as i have told joe b before,big hp numbers are nice,but drivability is more important when you are docking.my thinking is so what if you give up 100 hp,the boat will still do 115 mph and be a lot more fun every weekend.hell,a top fuel car makes near 8000 hp these days,but the engine life is 1000 feet!
#39
Registered
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 2,287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a 540 with a M4 procharger running around 10 lbs of boost. The boat was a dog out of the hole but was bearable. It would only pull about 1-2 lbs of boost coming on plane. Once up and going the motor could rip the prop loose.
My current boat has whipples. After having both I will go with whipples next time.
I think the main question needs to be changed to say Procharged engine, since when talking procharger it is not like a roots or whipple at low rpms.
My current boat has whipples. After having both I will go with whipples next time.
I think the main question needs to be changed to say Procharged engine, since when talking procharger it is not like a roots or whipple at low rpms.
#40
Check out these numbers from Dennis R's blow thru procharger builds. Granted these are bigger CI, but look at the power curve. These things should not be a slouch in any way! Seems right on for a marine engine. Also included is Joe's dyno sheet. Boost numbers are close, compare the torque band. Would have been interesting to see Joe's motors pulled down to 2500.
Many guys have called BS on Joe's dyno numbers. Even if the correction factor was a bit optimistic, and you compare the numbers. Dennis' Engines have 78 more cubic inches. With almost equal boost psi on the big end, he made an additional 130HP. Obviously that number can be higher based on the fact two different dyno's, but why would 1298HP with 16lbs of boost be labeled such poppycock by so many?? It would have been nice to see Joe's BSFC numbers.
Doesnt really matter, because the goal here was to increase bottom end power ,and driveability. Even if Joe's setup is somewhat detuned by running a smaller cam, and backing the boost down, and made 950-1000HP. Since when Is a 1000HP marine engine anything to turn your nose at? Been trying to tell Joe there is more to getting a boat to go fast than just throwing HP at it.
Many guys have called BS on Joe's dyno numbers. Even if the correction factor was a bit optimistic, and you compare the numbers. Dennis' Engines have 78 more cubic inches. With almost equal boost psi on the big end, he made an additional 130HP. Obviously that number can be higher based on the fact two different dyno's, but why would 1298HP with 16lbs of boost be labeled such poppycock by so many?? It would have been nice to see Joe's BSFC numbers.
Doesnt really matter, because the goal here was to increase bottom end power ,and driveability. Even if Joe's setup is somewhat detuned by running a smaller cam, and backing the boost down, and made 950-1000HP. Since when Is a 1000HP marine engine anything to turn your nose at? Been trying to tell Joe there is more to getting a boat to go fast than just throwing HP at it.