The multi-speed is the best solutution. We proved that in 1998,1999 and 2000. The seatek could do nothing against the other gas boats until we ran the multi-speeds. They had overdrive crashboxes but it is asking way to much of the motor to perform from idle/plane/ midrange/ to top end.

We were running 3 speeds in 98 and then 4 speeds in 99 and 2000. We were working on a 5 speed when they changed the rules. We had dominated pole position and races won the class 1 championship back to back in 1999 and 2000.

The multispeed is the way to go on a boat.

pat W

A few years ago I had a Schiada 21 river cruiser with a 800 hp BBC with blower ,this was a shaft driven boat with a V drive and a T 400 GM tranny , almost all of these boats are using a T 400 tranny from GM ,mainly used for skiracing ,for pulling the skieer out the hole .

In my Dodge diesel truck I have the transmission from Goerend ,with a triple disc converter ,mod valve body,billed input/output shafts .
The truck is making +- 550 hp and 1100 torque ( based on 1/4 mile ) not dyno,d .

Do you think this sort tranny,s can be used for marine purpose ?
The converter is not needed anymore ,like in the T 400 GM we used a spline drive from ,, Art Carr'' the casing is aluminium and not that heavy ,but is quite long .

If anybody can find a way to shift the trans manual....it might maybe work.

Maybe ,,Mastmotorsport '' can do the job ,they are going to build some sort crate engine for boats truck etc ,and they can supply an aftermarket diesel fuel ECM module to drive these Cummins electronics

The trans can handle a lot torque ,I even take boost launches with this 7500 lbs truck ,and no problems for now .

(By thinking of this above ,I had a V drive with a 48 % step up in gears on this boat ,but using propellors 15 and 16 pitch .

So maybe the rpm,s that the outputshaft is turning is too low with a diesel..)

Shifter,

I agree the multispeed is a great asset for racing.

My relucantance in them is from a repowering stand point and only because of length. I don't know enough about them but my impression of such a unit would add at least 12" to the back of already longer engine and probaly then have to have a driveshaft to connect to the outdrive. It probably would not fit into existing space then?

I will say this strongly - the best place to make money with small diesels is in the re-power market. Carig Barrie and I and even Mark McMannus (if he remembers me still) had these discussions many moons ago. People that brought their boats only will go through so many sets of engines before they give up on performance boats in general.

After the first engines go they usally put in another set of engines of greater horsepower. When those go a certain % will sell the boat. Those that re-power again want more Hp again and then have to change drives, etc, etc and when those engines go the boat is for sale, at that point they are disgusted because each set of engines lasts progressivly less hours.

To make a dent on diesel you need to be able that after the first set blows that you can then drop in a diesel that will give some performance increase and not require extensive re-work of the boat - if it does the price of re-power becomes too high and you won't have sales. If that second set of engines can give them that 1,500 hrs of use trouble free - you have a home run and will change the performance boat market forever!!!

With that said, people will have no problem then upgrading everything (drives, etc) for an even higher Hp diesel to get more speed if the frist diesel set does what I said they should.

This project itself is over 20 yrs old (started 1985) and at it's peak in the eraly 90's those assumptions were very valid. Looking at all the late model boats for sale with re-powers and all talk on here I think those assumptions are still valid for the average buyer???

Thanks as always for great discussions!

Joe Gere

ps mthill - my cell is 732-718-2711

A inline 6 motor end for end minus bellhousing is 42 inches long. b-series

A bigblock v8 is 33 inches long.

A bellhousing is 5 inches

A Velvet drive is 11 inches to the flange.

A 3 speed with FNR is 13.5 to the flange.

A 6-speed with an offset output is 9 inches to the flange.

It is just a packaging problem.

Who said anything about making money this is the marine industry.:D

pat W

Is that like the 3-speed in that it includes FNR, or would you have to provision FNR separately?

Although we have never made money in the marine industry it might just be novel to try for once!!!:evilb:

Our box fit into the #3 housing slightly and added only 6" , the trick was to close couple a Bravo drive. At that point you could almost drop them in?

That included the FNR. It is a completely new design.

There is transition happening slowly with diesels. Lighter weight and higher reving. I.E. Audi / Peugeot v12's This was done with the direct injection. As this begins to invade the current motors there will be a switch to the newer light weight designs. That means lighter boats and faster. With the lighter motors the hull can be redesigned to accomidate the lighter package. In theory you can rev a diesel to 9000 rpm.

It will take a while for the big companies to switch because they are already set with their tooling. They have made little changes by dumping the mechanical injection and adding a electric fuel pump system but the base engine is still a generator unit designed to run x-RPM for x-hours and sitting on the ground not in a vehicle. Big, heavy and durable and has its place, always will. Think hoe cool it will be when they start to incorporate the new designs in the bigger diesels.

With the increase in revs the torque will drop. Multispeeds will make up for that. Giving the lowend torque and top speed performance.

pat W

You're right Pat ,Audi shocked the world when they won the Rolex 24 hrs endurance race for more than 2 years on a row with a Diesel power; they have a team that work together with lot of money and determination to make it happen.In the U.S, Diesel have not gain any respect in the high performance arena simply because the mayority of people dont believe on it,and there hasnt been a big company that would like to spend the big bucks and get this thing rolling simply for conflict of interest,so til then we'll be just a group of friends exchanging ideas in this forum....

While I would love to see a marinized version of the Audi V12 that is in their Q7 SUV, to be fair to the other Le Mans prototype racers, the reason for the recent diesel wins is at least as much due to the rules differences for diesel-powered competitors as it is to any actual head-to-head advantage of the diesel engines over the more conventional powerplants.

Thanks for the reply, Pat. I agree with your vision of the marine diesel future completely, but I am curious as to whether 6-speeds may be too many gears. What is the advantage of having such narrow RPM bands when compared to something like a 2 or 3-speed transmission?

We ran 6 speeds with the class 1 boat in 1999. It is a great way to set the boat for the for almost any sea condition. Right now there is 6 speeds in a pick-up truck with a dmax why not a boat?

pat W

Pat, I asked you why. Don't throw "why not?" back at me as a non-answer answer. Now please try again: What is the advantage of a 6-speed over a 2 or 3-speed in a boat? Do such narrow RPM bands really gain you anything? What is the limit of usefulness? If 6-speeds is good, why not 10 or 12-speeds?

eurotrash
 

Cummins QSB is about the same displacement and has been built to over a hundred HP more. The Banks Sidewinder Dakota can out run that Le Mans car.:p

In other words you can keep the engines in the sweet spot and match your speed to how big the water is:p

Can't get no respect
 

Try this comparison: http://galebanks.com/Sidewinder-vs-Enzo.cfm :p

The Banks Sidewinder Dakota can out run that Le Mans car.:p[/QUOTE]


Only when both thrown off the mount everest.

If Audi was going to set their car up for topspeed only .....
you know the result

If!
 

Only when both thrown off the mount everest.

If Audi was going to set their car up for topspeed only .....
you know the result[/QUOTE]

Theres that "if" word again! Facts are:

Le Mans car 206 mph measured speed. Sidewinder Dakota 222 mph measured speed.

Le Mans car 660 hp. Sidewinder Dakota 735 hp.

Le Mans car 120 hp per liter. Sidewinder Dakota 124 hp per liter.

Why won't Audi bring that car out to the salt flats? ( We all know what happens to euro trash cars when they try to run with the big dogs):p

Sure, that's the basic premise with any multi-speed transmission. My question is not about the basic premise, but about why 6-speeds is the right number, as opposed to 2, 3, 10, 12, whatever.

Sure, and if you put the Audi engine in an airplane, it will double the speed of the Sidewinder Dakota.

C'mon, a Le Mans prototype and a Bonneville racer are completely different animals competing under completely different rules.

I didn,t see any sidewinder on Le Mans ,like Njawb said these two cars are totally different ,a multi million € downforce car set up for topspeed is nice to put in magazines (for the speed number only),so people will say ,wow thats fast,but it isn,t Audi,s goal,and if it was ,I would put my money on Audi.

Would love to see the sidewinder for 24 hrs on Le mans

A Corvette ZO6 with Ls7 will run 200 with 500 hp,do you really think the audi will only run 206 ....yeah maybe on the fastest part of the circuit where they measured speed.



Euro trash cars..................mmmmm

As for the transmission speeds ,I think Shifter means that he used a 6 speed for a certain engine /boat combo,and he probably meant class 1 with 2 x seatek diesels (euro trash) with giant turbo,s that need to be spooled up,and kept spooled up for max thrust

I think , (and I,m no expert ) that the engine /boat combo is leading to a gearbox with X amount of speeds ,and its depending on the powerband /torque and rpm ,and boat type ,and racecourse to find how many gears you need .

And people like Shifter can probably tell from experience how many gears are needed if the engines /boat etc is given.

Well, I hope that knowing how many gears works best is based on more than a gut feeling derived from experience. I certainly don't have that experience, nor do I have a firm grasp on the more formal engineering determinants deciding the optimal number of gears. I was kinda hoping for at least a hint of insight into the latter.

Shifter,

I remember your more gears/speeds transmissions in class 1, they were awesome. I assume that those boats were almost driven like a bull dozer with a hydostatic trans - what I mean is the engine rpm's stayed very constant and you changed gears instead of throttleing???

I don't rememeber very well, but weren't those boats more like today's racing (inshore, closed course) as opposed to the old school open ocean racing???

Again, I don't remember but would those multi-speeds work well if you had to throttle alot?

Joe Gere

V-disease
 

I swear every time you guys see a V type engine it's lust at first sight. The Audi V12-TDI has all those flashy euro numbers lets cut them down to real world numbers 500 PS @ 1000 Nm. Or in real world numbers 493 hp SAE (actually less because they cheat on the dyno set up)@ 738 ftlbs. Now if you take a look at their own published performance curves you will see the torque curve peters out at 3000 rpm. http://www.worldcarfans.com/2060911....2-tdi-revealed
A Cummins QSB 5.9 will out perform the Audi engine hands down. Lets take a redneck physics lesson. You have a two 53' trailers loaded with 75 lb bags of pinto beans. You have one being unloaded by a dozen 10 yr olds and the other one by a half dozen 20 yr olds. The 20 year olds can lump one bag per man per trip into the trailer. The 10 year olds can lump one bag per two children per trip into the trailer. Two kids on one bag cannot move as well as one adult on one bag. It's parasitic loss. Under 15 liters of displacement straight 6 engines out perform V engines any day of the week.:p

firefox - well said, I'll have to remember the pinto beans when I go off on a tangent again - thank you!!!

Now compare the overall dimensions and weight of the QSB 5.9 and the Audi V12.

And to make it even more fair, let's turn the prop at the same speed for both engines -- let's say 3200 RPM at the top end (the same as a gas engine that produces top speed at 4800 crankshaft RPM using a 1.5 gear ratio drive.) That means the QSB will need a 3400/3200 = 1.0625 gear, while the Audi will need a 4000/3200 = 1.25 gear. As a result, the QSB will produce 1000 lb-ft peak propshaft torque at 2070 propshaft RPM, while the Audi will produce 922 lb-ft peak propshaft torque, and will hold that same torque from 1440 to 2400 propshaft RPM. For comparison, the QSB will produce a little under 700 lb-ft propshaft torque at 1440 propshaft RPM, and a little under 925 lb-ft propshaft torque at 2400 propshaft RPM. Significantly lighter weight, same peak horsepower, and more area under the propshaft torque curve means that the same boat with only changes in engine and gear ratio will have a better top end speed and quite a bit better low-end acceleration using the Audi V12 diesel vice the Cummins QSB.

It's a silly analogy that oversimplifies to the point of inaccuracy. Using pinto bean logic, the best engine would have a single cylinder to minimize "parasitic loss".

I meant it was funny using beans.

I think his point was a just a simple every time on here when the word diesel with Duramax or someother "V" engine comes up people tend perk up about it. The only reason people get excited about a "V" diesel is they can relate it to their American V-8, push rod gas engines that they think are so powerful when in fact the hp/cui is pretty low.

I ran those Seatek's, we could kick every Amereican gas boat out there with their V-8 engines. Take away the muti-engine advantage and use Shifter's multispeeds and the V-8's still couldn't catch them!!!

Yet, since they were in-line 6's American's in general can't grasp that they could be as powerful as the mighty V-8 engine.

That has nothing to do which is better or worse it's perception and here on OSO over 25 years later from when diesels started racing and winning the mear mention of a "V" engine get's people excited and dreaming "what if?".

There goes that presumption again, Joe.

I get more excited about the idea of a marinized Audi V12 TDI than the existing QSB 5.9 not because it is as familiar as a gas, pushrod V8 (which, in truth, it is not at all), but because such an engine would have the same or better performance than the QSB while coming in a package size between a SBC and a BBC, and weighing about the same as a BBC. Yes, the bigger, heavier Cummins may well be more durable, but the Audi in SUV trim is by no means a high-strung, high-maintenance, race-only engine. On the contrary, physically smaller and lighter, automobile-based diesels (many of them V engines) will be a better fit to many performance marine applications, even if I6's continue to dominate the trucking industry.

It's not presumption and don't want to argue about a point so silly, time will tell who is right?

What do you do for a living, are you in the marine or auto industry?

If you research what 35 plus year old males in the US like you will see I'm right about assuming it's a V-8 thing. Look at the recent car auctions over the last 3 years - American Muscle cars have exploded, is it cyclic - YES. But, the fact the people with money buying those are the 35 and ups and they remember good old American V-8 power either from their own or father's cars - that is what drives the market.

It's just a point that today not 2 years or 5 years from now that the I-6 diesel engine is superior to any V out there in production form.

I for one don't disagree that V's may rule someday, but people in general don't think I's can beat a V's based on life's lesson of growing up in the USA not the engineering facts.

That's not good nor bad and you do a little research and you'll see it to be true for yourself.

Joe, when you declare that you know the only reason why people get excited about diesel V engines, that is presumptuous. I am a person, and I do not get excited about diesel V engines out of some sense of nostalgia for American pushrod V8s. That many people may engage in such confused, nostalgic reasoning doesn't change the fact that it is presumptuous to declare that everyone who likes the idea of marine diesel V engines is so engaged.

Ding ! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. Njawb is now officially the most condecending person on OSO.
Wow man, lighten up.




Darrell.

V vs L redux
 

It's all basic stuff dude. Diesels are compression ignition. That requires longer strokes with stronger pistons and rotating assemblies. This all translates to more weight. More weight spinning on a crank means more drastic harmonics. A 120 degree crank will out perform a 90 degree crank any day of the week. Proven by real world performance. V-8 bad! V-12 or L6 good! Now we get get to the V-12 vs L-6 thing. The Bean Bag explanation covers that. To a point! there is a tipping point where the V-12 out performs the L-6. Lets go back to those trailers and change some parameters. Lets make the bags a 150 lbs and its 12 adults vs 6 asian elephants. The two man teams will out perform the elephants as far as speed in unloading is concerned. The tipping point for diesel engines is about 15L displacement. At 85 PS per liter that Audi engine is no slouch. The Banks tuned QSB is hitting a 124 hp per liter. There are older 6-BT engines in sled competition hitting a 169 hp per liter. Cummins is still on the fence about releasing the QSB-600. Thats a production marine engine that puts out 101 hp per liter. That Audi engine is an engineering marvel. But its near it's peak out of the box. There isn't very much room to tweak some more go fast out of it. But remember the QSB is no technological slouch. It was using the same fuel delivery system as the Audi while the Audi was still on the drawing board. The Banks tuned QSB uses a VGT turbo like the Audi albeit a different design. Also remember this. The L vs V argument is the same for gasoline engines too!:p

I give up!!!!!

You talk tech all you want, when you bring something to market I wish you luck and hope it sells and don't have warranty issues etc and make money at it.

I thought we can chat on here without going legal about taking phrases that imply "all" that are said in spirit not literally to make a point. I know I should say things like majority or most and not imply all - I come here to engage in light hearted dialogue about things that I enjoy and ignor my wife and kids for at least 5 minutes!!

So.

Yes, I am stupid and when I imply "All" I mean every last A-hole on the planet!!!

I don't know why you guys are getting so hung up on inline vs. V-engine diesels. It turns out for most long haul trucks, the inline 6 is a good sized package at a reasonable cost. However, Cummins, Detroit Diesel, Cat, and others have all built V8 HD diesels, usually in larger displacements. For light trucks, the V-engine is easier to package because it's shorter, hence, the popularity there.

Michael

Lighten up yourself, man. I am not condescending to Joe. Rather, I am objecting to his condescension in presuming to tell me why I think the potential for marine diesel V engines is exciting. In point of fact, I am far more interested in his telling me what he thinks about high-performance marine diesels (which is usually highly informative and useful) than in his trying to tell me what I (or anyone else) think about those engines.

Could you explain your thinking a bit more? I can understand the main bearing support argument, but this harmonics argument makes little to no sense to me. Yes, an I6 or V12 has inherently low primary and secondary harmonics, but so does a fully counterweighted, cross-plane V8. Counterweighting is a problem if you want a quick responding, high revving engine, but that hardly describes the typical diesel.

The "E" word
 

My point is not something I thought up. My points are based experience. I'm still a young buck even though I just turned the 1/2 century corner. Back in the day there was more than one hot rodder that had a hopped up V-8 that got the stink stomped out of him by a grocery getter with a slant 6. Out in the 3d world go fast boats Big Block Chevys get stomped regularly by junkyard dog L-6 Nissans. You need a Chevy Big Block 8.9L or bigger to get 500 hp. Or 56 hp per liter. A used Nissan RB-26 long block with a better turbo and fuel delivery set up will give you an easy 500 hp. Thats 192 hp per liter. If you have money the old boys down in Omori will sell you one blueprinted and tuned to a 1000 hp. Thats 384 hp per liter. An 8.9L BBC would have to put out over 3000 hp to match that. The V-8 was pushed onto the American public because it sounded more marketable.

Harmonics?

When it gets to the point of conspiracy theories, I think discussion is pretty much beyond hope. Why would someone want a V8 engine when they are compact, lightweight, have excellent rigidity, are smooth, powerful, look good under the hood, and sound great? We sure are a bunch of morons to fall for that marketing.:rolleyes:

Michael

Firefox ,in most of your posts you are comparing engines to totally different engine,s ,,,,why ?
A big block chevy can put out 100 hp /litre naturally aspirated
when the proper parts are used ,and 7000 hp when topfuel is used ( 500 ci) that 875 hp /litre (I know this is no comparison)

that 2,6 L Nissan can put out 1000 hp with a big turbo,but only if you spend big $$ on a bottem end and ring/studding the head,if not its a ticking time bom ,you have to use racing fuel to keep the engine from destructing itself ,and or cool things down with water /meth etc
A big block 8 litre used for dragracing with turbo,s /blower can put out the same hp/litre if the bottem is reinforced and ringing the head



The more air is been pumped in ,the more power the engine makes ( if supplied by fuel)