Time for a rebuild. Which way to go NA or Supercharged?
03-19-2013, 11:31 PM
#32
Registered
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 701
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I 100% completely agree with Eddie.
People assume because its ''naturally aspirated" its gonna last longer. In order to make lets say 750HP out of a 540, it will hardly be a long lifed mild mannered engine. Its gonna take a lot of compression, a lot of camshaft, and a lot of RPM to do it.
Now, with a blower, to make 750HP out of a 540ci, you can use the right blower, low boost, mild hydraulic camshaft, and easily make that power, and at a reasonable RPM level. It can be extremely user friendly around the docks, and no wake zones.
Also, the beauty of going with a larger compressor like Eddie says, you always have the option to take that low boost 750HP setup, and crank out some more power with a pulley swap if desired.
People assume because its ''naturally aspirated" its gonna last longer. In order to make lets say 750HP out of a 540, it will hardly be a long lifed mild mannered engine. Its gonna take a lot of compression, a lot of camshaft, and a lot of RPM to do it.
Now, with a blower, to make 750HP out of a 540ci, you can use the right blower, low boost, mild hydraulic camshaft, and easily make that power, and at a reasonable RPM level. It can be extremely user friendly around the docks, and no wake zones.
Also, the beauty of going with a larger compressor like Eddie says, you always have the option to take that low boost 750HP setup, and crank out some more power with a pulley swap if desired.
it seems that alot of "marine engine builders" push blowers to make easy HP without having to put high end parts in the motor. i don't see the reason for blower unless trying to 900 to 1000 hp or more.
i'm not DISSING anyone here, just pointing out the fact that it can be done. just gotta do the research. there is always a trade off somewhere, i find it funny when someone says you can get x-amount more hp just by adding a blower vs na that would have to be built better ? doesn't that say something about the blower motor ??????
you can put lipstick on a PIG but its still just a pig...............
03-20-2013, 12:14 AM
#33
Registered
iTrader: (3)
under 800 is relatively easy with na motor. had a 9.5-1 motor that would run on 87 that made 750 hp with stock 1050 holley. lasted 3 yrs and the last yr we got 6 races out of it.
it seems that alot of "marine engine builders" push blowers to make easy HP without having to put high end parts in the motor. i don't see the reason for blower unless trying to 900 to 1000 hp or more.
i'm not DISSING anyone here, just pointing out the fact that it can be done. just gotta do the research. there is always a trade off somewhere, i find it funny when someone says you can get x-amount more hp just by adding a blower vs na that would have to be built better ? doesn't that say something about the blower motor ??????
you can put lipstick on a PIG but its still just a pig...............
it seems that alot of "marine engine builders" push blowers to make easy HP without having to put high end parts in the motor. i don't see the reason for blower unless trying to 900 to 1000 hp or more.
i'm not DISSING anyone here, just pointing out the fact that it can be done. just gotta do the research. there is always a trade off somewhere, i find it funny when someone says you can get x-amount more hp just by adding a blower vs na that would have to be built better ? doesn't that say something about the blower motor ??????
you can put lipstick on a PIG but its still just a pig...............
I guess mercury racing, sterling, chief, Teague, zul, young, and a bunch of others just been pushing blowers on their customers, because they are too stupid to know how to build a Naturally aspirated engine......pffft, what junk parts they use.....they must have been using iron peanut port heads, flat tappet cams, and cast cranks in their builds.
03-20-2013, 09:35 AM
#34
Registered
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 701
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curious, what cubic inch was this N/A 800HP mill that ran on 87 octane?? Any dyno sheet??
I guess mercury racing, sterling, chief, Teague, zul, young, and a bunch of others just been pushing blowers on their customers, because they are too stupid to know how to build a Naturally aspirated engine......pffft, what junk parts they use.....they must have been using iron peanut port heads, flat tappet cams, and cast cranks in their builds.
I guess mercury racing, sterling, chief, Teague, zul, young, and a bunch of others just been pushing blowers on their customers, because they are too stupid to know how to build a Naturally aspirated engine......pffft, what junk parts they use.....they must have been using iron peanut port heads, flat tappet cams, and cast cranks in their builds.
mild, apparently your a blower guy and not too educated on na motors or motors at all. look at the top few guys i hear most often - sterling (probably the best hands down), young, potter and chief. almost all of them offer an NA motor in the 750 hp range. so i don't understand your statement ????? they start with blower motors when you get above that.
i was trying to mildly point out that after the top few guys that are well known, there seems to be a large amount of builders doing stuff in the 700+++ hp range with blowers. why? i'm going out on a limb a nd saying that they can build a half-azz motor stick a blower on it and make good looking dyno wall clippings.
so in short i would rather have sterling or young 750 na motor vs a merc 700 sci. which motor you think has better parts ????
please educate yourself and do research.
03-20-2013, 09:58 AM
#35
VIP Member
VIP Member
Curious, what cubic inch was this N/A 800HP mill that ran on 87 octane?? Any dyno sheet??
I guess mercury racing, sterling, chief, Teague, zul, young, and a bunch of others just been pushing blowers on their customers, because they are too stupid to know how to build a Naturally aspirated engine......pffft, what junk parts they use.....they must have been using iron peanut port heads, flat tappet cams, and cast cranks in their builds.
I guess mercury racing, sterling, chief, Teague, zul, young, and a bunch of others just been pushing blowers on their customers, because they are too stupid to know how to build a Naturally aspirated engine......pffft, what junk parts they use.....they must have been using iron peanut port heads, flat tappet cams, and cast cranks in their builds.
I'm running Tall deck N/A engines that dyno'ed right at 800HP @5900. All of the best parts and a fantastic hydraulic roller setup that let's them idle about 650 rpm's around the dock in gear. They are 9.6 to 1, run 93 octane fuel and have 210 hours on them without having removed the valve covers. I'm curious to see how long they last as they aren't showing any signs of weakness.......yet
I will agree that the blower motors win the "cool factor" vs. N/A!
__________________
Happily retired and living in Heavens waiting room.
Happily retired and living in Heavens waiting room.
03-20-2013, 10:26 AM
#37
Registered
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 701
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybe eddie could chime in hear about his NA motors and when its time to step up to a blower setup. plus explain the longevity between the too.
my opinion theres way too many variables between motor and parts used to how much you boat. then you have how hard you push the engines ect ect............
03-20-2013, 11:13 AM
#39
Fast Singles Club
Gold Member
iTrader: (8)
I believe it all boils down to your personal parameters . Boat type , boating style , size of wallet and speed you desire to run will determine the necessary horsepower level . With longevity in mind i think right around 700 + - horsepower is where the lines start to blur as far as n/a vs s/c but your personal boating parameters will dictate which way to go .
03-20-2013, 11:27 AM
#40
Registered
iTrader: (1)
87octane on a 9.5;1 motor? wtf?
I think what TaterDave is trying to say is that builders will use crappy and cheap parts and then put a blower on to compensate.
ummmm ok
Blowers provide reliable power at a discount, In an automotive application the conventional modifications cost about $58 per horsepower, the supercharger kit's horsepower cost under $34 per horsepower.
Which would you rather have I guess depends on preference, I`ll take mild cam, low compression, low boost 800hp blower motor over a high compression, wild cam, high rpm NA motor.
Blower motors TQ and HP numbers will be higher across ENTIRE RPM band not just peak at 6000rpms
Id say it depends on drive too with a Bravo I`d go NA, you don`t want that tq of the blower down low
I think what TaterDave is trying to say is that builders will use crappy and cheap parts and then put a blower on to compensate.
ummmm ok
Blowers provide reliable power at a discount, In an automotive application the conventional modifications cost about $58 per horsepower, the supercharger kit's horsepower cost under $34 per horsepower.
Which would you rather have I guess depends on preference, I`ll take mild cam, low compression, low boost 800hp blower motor over a high compression, wild cam, high rpm NA motor.
Blower motors TQ and HP numbers will be higher across ENTIRE RPM band not just peak at 6000rpms
Id say it depends on drive too with a Bravo I`d go NA, you don`t want that tq of the blower down low
Last edited by ICDEDPPL; 03-20-2013 at 11:30 AM.
