torque V12
 

I have been away from the board for awhile, and i just found out that torque has gone out of business!! does anyone know what happened? those motors seemed like the answer to a lot of power problems.

I think Sterling bought the remains and are perfecting the V-12 mills for better reliability, testing currently and available within a year or so.

I had heard that Callan bought the rights.

I heard the sterling rumor too. Torque going under was rather predicatable. Those are some pretty expensive motors and they just wern't selling.

In a recent Powerboat issue, they wrote that Sterling did in fact acquire the engines and are optimizing them.

I always thought one Torque motor, one IMCO splitter and two IMCO Xtreme drives would make an outstanding, lightweight, good handling, easy around the dock, race/hi performance pleasure/poker run boat...

Where did I see something about Callan/Torque?

What I heard is that Callan actually outbid Sterling for Torque Engineering Corporation's assets and then proposed to Sterling to work in a cooperative agreement to modify the engines and try to market them more successfully. As for modifications, I believe D'Annibale declared somewhere that they are trying to simplify the engine and make it more cost-effective to make and ultimately cheaper for the consumer. The problem is that at the end of those simplifications, the consumer may end up with a cheaper product but at the expense of quality. The fact that the whole thing is gear driven should be an argument in favor of reliability if it's done right. That should be revised and made right instead of trying to do away with the system. It's a good one so if it doesn't work fix it, don't bin it. Anyway, just my opinion and guessing... I'm sure Sterling know what they're doing and anyway, it's not like they're into low budget engines to be obliged to cut costs before they market it. Any actual news on what modifications are being done?

But I'm glad this came up. I love the whole Torque idea and if this type of thing was developed and major manufacturers got into it, I don't think I would be into diesels. I always say that gas engines are not unreliable because they run on gasoline. Gasoline is great fuel but the design of traditional V8s is just too damn old to take the power and stress demands a modern powerboater has. If this type of modern technology was applied by a large manufacturer which has enough resources to fully develop the end product, gas engines would be reliable and very powerful. The new BMW M5 or the current M3 CSL engines produce over 100 hp/liter of displacement and are still good for tens of thousands of miles, even hundreds. Why not see this in boats? So respect goes out to Ray Wedel, the former president of Torque whom I had the chance to meet, and his team of engineers for trying something new and definitely going in the right direction. I also hope Sterling and Callan will succeed without watering the initial idea down too much.

just so everybody knows exactly what we're talking about, here's the Torque brochure for their naturally-aspirated engines. I hope you can magnify this and see the print when you open it...

page 2...

final page...

Wow that can't be ST someone got a hold of his username and password.

I think this is a pic of the blown version

EFI

IN use!

that dual blower setup is wierd. A budy o fmine was saying somethign about having harmonic wave issue or somethign when runngin two eqaully non sequential turbos on cars. Somethign abtou eth turbine blades breakign the soudsn barrier and a shockwave traveling througheth e intake to eth other blower and causing premature failure or soem wierd **** like that. I'd think with 2 equal size superchargers runngin at exactly the same rpms off teh same belt tha coudl be an issue.

Harmonics are a very interesting subject. This could be the explanation for a number of unexplained mechanical failures. Some engines for example keep on breaking a certain type of drive even though the drive rating is high enough for the engine's output. I've also seen problems with a specific type of ZF gearbox and the MTU 12V2000 1500hp engine. The engine is sequentially twin turbo-charged and for some reason we think that when the second turbo comes into play around 1700 rpm, the trannie does not like the frequency of engine's vibration. Whether this is what happens with the Torque engine, I do not know. Any physicists out there who could better explain the issue of harmonics?

Couldn't baffe boxes to conjoin the pressurised air and limit the variations of the second unit kicking in help.
Also why not make both turbos gradually generate pressures cojointly instead of one over the other.

But i'm sure a buch of brighter people than my dumb azz tought of that.

Callan Marine did buy Torque Engineering Corporation's assets and then proposed to Sterling to work in a cooperative agreement. This will be an better product when Callan/Sterling start producing it.
MD

I am impatient to see it produced and tested. Another interesting subject is the BMW-Victory Team joint venture. They marinized a BMW 4.4 V8 block and won two Class 2 championships in a row with those engines in their 35' cat. However, now they're talking about working on the 760 motor which is a 6 liter V12. They want to take it closer to the 8.2 liter displacement limitation of UIM Class 1 racing and possibly supercharge it. It produces 445 hp as it is now so it could be quite something with all those changes. I am convinced that with modern tecnology, a gasoline engine can produce 100 hp/liter, rev 6000 RPMs and last for over 500 hours without any problems.

So guys, sharpen your pencils and start writing to Mercury...

And GLH, I asked the same question but ZE GERMANZ from MTU decided to do it that way so better don't ask. Even Seatek use a sequential turbo system on their racing engines. I think it's a performance issue because turbos are driven by exhaust gases which means that if the motor is already spinning 1700 RPM (out of 2350) when the second turbo is let off its leash, it provides a real kick. I've been on a boat powered by four twin-turbo Seateks and the acceleration is better when the second turbo kicks in than anywhere else in the RPM range. However, this moment of force is a source of big problems. I've got a gearbox on my hands where shaft has jumped off the pinion or whatever you call it, because of that sudden boost. I was explained by ZE GERMANZ that they use a special production technique where the casing is closed and sealed and the internals put in place by putting them under 3000 bars of oil pressure. Great! How I'm going to recreate 3000 bars of oil pressure, that I do not know.

BTW, the worst thing for longevity is the bang-bang system where turbos are kept spooled up and spinning all the time, even below their activation RPM limit. This is designed to reduce the so called "turbo lag" and provide maximum pressure as soon as you hit the throttle. But it does funny things to engine internals...

Aren't Serpentine blowers "a la" Prochargers or Vortec spooling kind of chargers also?

Spooling chargers? No, that term applies to compressors whose turbine speeds are not tied to crankshaft speed. An exhaust turbo won't spin very fast at low engine speeds because a) it doesn't have much input energy from the exhaust stream and b) it is pumping against a mostly closed throttle plate. You yank the throttles open and it takes some time (inertia) and then as it begins to build boost, the exhaust stream responds with increased thermal energy which further drives the turbine. The point at which the turbine goes from "mostly coasting" to "pumping like mad" is considered to be the "spool up" point.

Engine-driven blowers have rotational speeds tied directly to crank speed so they have no "spool up". The fact that centrifugal blowers do make more and more boost with increased rotational speed is indeed a characteristic, but is different from a spool up condition.

It is interesting to note that a diesel turbo application will spin the impeller MUCH faster at cruise than a gas turbo application - thisis because the gas motor has physical throttle plates choking the turbo and causing it to spin against a load while the diesel just blows it on thru the motor freely.

As far as why we don't have a gazillion BMW V8 powered boats scattered all over the lake the answer is very very simple. Cost.

Take note that in addition to the ancient cast iron lumps we have in most boats, there have been commercially available:
* ZR-1 Corvette motors, 5.7L 410hp
* Caddy Northstar motors.
* Lexus V8 VVTi Motors.
* Lamborghini V12s
* Torque V12s

All of these have proven to be NOVELTIES.

Claims have been made in this thread that "advanced" technology motors can be made to be reliable and put out 100hp/liter or better in a marine application.

Sure they can, at great cost.

Take, for example, a BMW 4.4 Liter V8 at around 420hp.
Nice damn motor. If I am staring at a 29' deep vee recreational hull and am choosing a motor, what do I need to consider?

Here's the answer: I need to consider TORQUE characteristics of the motors. I am NOT convinced that the BMW 4.4 (at 420horse tune) would be able to easily grunt the boat onto plane (at 2200rpm). I am NOT convinced that it would have adequate midspeed performance. AND I AM NOT CONVINCED IT WOULD PROVIDE 500 HOURS OF CONTINUOUSLY LOADED TROUBLE FREE PERFORMANCE IN A MARINE APPLICATION. I'm gonna choose a 496HO over the BMW motor and buy a spare to put in the shed and STILL save money. I don't expect that I would see any fuel economy benefit worth noting with either choice.

Also, when you get a chance, compare the fully-dressed weights of a BBC (with aluminum heads and intake, since you are comparing against an all aluminum BMW) with a 4.4 BMW. I promise you will be surprised.

In ALL honesty, we may be seeing the development of the perfect high performance marinemotors happening already, and in an environment FAR from Bavaria's Autobahn. BOATS HAVE DIFFERENT PERFORMANCE/TORQUE REQUIREMENTS THAN AN M5. Where, you ask, are these "perfect" marine motors being secretly developed???

Look on the ass of a new center console. Don't you see a big honking fourstroke? They are up to 250 horsepower now, and are climbing rapidly. I predict that if the market demands are strong for it, that these "developed for marine performance and environment" beauties will continue to get larger, and will be naturally altered to be rotated into a sterndrive configuration.

300 hp from 3 liters? No biggie.
400 hp from 4 liters. Sure.

Stop wishing. The future is near.

In the meantime, take a good look at what you get today for your dollar. The 496HO is a good example of good performance for he dollar, and good longevity, and excellent torque characteristics that fits the needs of boaters.

I'll put your magic Bimmer motor up against one any day, especially if you allow the score to be adjusted by "entry cost".

Thanks Mccollinstn, that was a good explanation of the difference between turbos and superchargers and it also explains why turbocharging is so effective on diesel engines. However, I would like to add one distinction within the family of superchargers. There are centrifugal superchargers and positive-displacement superchargers like the Lysholm screw type, Eaton, Roots... While it's true that the rotational speed of any type of supercharger will be related to the crankshaft speed, only positive-displacement superchargers will exhibit a linear boost-RPM relationship, ie. if you peak at 10psi at 6000 RPM, you will have 5psi at 3000 RPM. The centrifugal supercharger's boost-RPM relationship will depend on the configuration (mostly size) of driving pulleys and usually they are set to produce maximum boost at max RPM but you will have less than the relative max boost at lower RPMs. For example if you have 10psi at 6000 RPM again, you will have 3psi at 3000 RPM or something like that, instead of 5psi. Just a little distinction...

Concerning your comments about engines, I suppose you're talking about 4-stroke outboards and I agree 100% with you. But how is this any different from what I've been saying? Honda is the technology leader in this sector and they are an automotive company which is based on a strong engineering culture. They produce the highest specific output atmospheric engine on the market which is the S2000 motor, producing 120hp/liter. They also produce the highest revving production motor on the market, the Civic Sport which revs to 9200 RPM (at least in the Euro market). They are on the cutting edge as far as engine design is concerned. They were the first ones to try variable valve control and lift mechanism (V-TEC) and among the first ones to go to 4 and even 5 valves per cylinder. And they are applying this to their marine engines: aluminium blocks, DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder... And the results are impressive and include cleanliness, high performance and longevity. And this is exactly what I was talking about: application of modern technologies to marine engines to produce a better engine in every respect. BMW was just an example and you're right, perhaps Honda was a better one. Sure, they used to be insanely overpriced but have come down and have become affordable.

As far as the 496HO is concerned, I have to disagree. Under heavy load factors and continuous operation at 95%, such as when 4 are mounted on a 22 000 lb patrol boat, they last on average 50 hours. The only difference between a 502 and a 496 is that 496's electronics often stop you before major damage has been made so rebuilds are easier, whereas I used to see loads of fireworks with the 502... And I'm being kind by saying 50 hours...

BTW Mccollinstn, you're right about the main requirement for recreational boating: torque. But then a 496HO is far from being the best answer. Get a Yanmar diesel instead...

Yea but they smell bad and sound worse :D :D

The main thrust of the Sterling/Torque program is industrial not marine.

FOR WHAT TYPE OF INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS??

The engine is being converted to NG and propane and will target power generation (standby) and perhaps bus/rv engines.

Termoli you are forgetting that the air flow capacity of the restriction after the blower (the engine) is closely related to RPM, not exactly linear but close, actually moves less air per revolution (therefore more restriction) as the RPM goes up. In my experience on the dyno assuming full throttle the boost does not change all that much from 2500 RPM up with a belt driven blower.

Not exactly linear. That was my point. How close to linear depends on setup characteristics. But the main idea is to say that not only turbos are affected by the so called "lag". Some superchargers are also affected by this phenomenon, even though it's reduced to a minimum... Besides, I don't know which setup you have experience with but if it's whipple, they are not the type which would exhibit this "lag" or unlinear realtionship between boost and RPM. As for noise comments about diesels, there is not much I can say in their defense. It's not bad if you like the industrial sound of trucks but it will never equal the roar of a big block V8. As for the smell, diesels are getting better. With modifications to the turbocharging system and injection improvements such as EFI, common rail or direct injection, smoke is reduced to a minimum. If you also have underwater exhausts, the only thing you will find is some sooth on your transom. But it is so with gas V8s as well.

And I hope you guys are kidding about industrial as being the main application for the Torque V12. That would break my heart. As I said in another thread, I always wanted to see what triple Torque SCs would do in boats I'm building. I really think 160 would fall...

As marc pointed out, positive displacement superchargers put out very close to max boost at any speed over idle. If they put out 10psi at 6000, then they'll put out very close to 10psi at 1500rpm - not the relationship you expressed. It is th emechanical nature of positive displacement blowers (and why ther have that name) that they pump a given volume of air with each rotation ( up to the pressure within their design spec). Be aware that we are talking about boost pressure with the throttle open (because otherwise you aren't reading what the compressor is capable of, only what it is doing under part throttle conditions).

And Honda did not have the first production 4-valve per cylinder engine (I know you said they were only "among the first"). Chevrolet had one in 1974 with the Cosworth Vega. If you want to exclude the Cosworth from the running due to its limited production status, then Mercedes beat Honda with the 1983 190E. This doesn't even mention the other early 70's cars like Jensen Healys and such. And Honda doesn't "do" production 5-valve motors - only a few race ones. And, also, Honda has no current DOHC marine motors, only SOHC. Suzuki is the tech leader in gizmos on outboards...

Honda trailed Mercedes in variable valve timing, as well, coming in 2 years behind the 2001 SL, and moving thru the entire range of Benz V8's by 1992.

And variable valve lift? Cadillac, 1981 (yeah, I know it didn't work very well).

(ALL of these advances were pioneered by aircraft and racing engine gurus in the 1915 to 1945 range)

What's different about my discussion of Honda (and others') new marine motors versus your mention of BMW? Simple. I am talking about motors designed from the ground up for a marine environment, not a marinized high revving performance automobile. You were extolling the virtues of the Bimmer, specifically. You didn't say "Wow this Bimmer motor AND THE NEW 4 STROKE OUTBOARDS would be great new boat motors". There is where I claim to see a difference. If you were expecting us to "fill in the blanks there" then I regret that I was not insightful enough to understand to do so.

496 won't cut it on a patrol boat, eh? Wouldn't by any chance be a misapplication of the motor would it? How do you feel that your BMW motor would work there? Or maybe you feel that an S2000 motor would live at it's power peak (7700 rpm) for 50 hours. My guess is that your patrol boat has improperly sized heat exchangers and/or propping for the application.

I'm confident you are familiar with the output classifications for diesel engines. You of all people, should recognize that a pleasure craft (class E) motor is tuned to provide higher power output, albeit for shorter WOT periods with adequate "resting time". A Class C motor is designed from the same basic envelope to provide a lesser power output but at higher percentages of WOT operation. A Class A diesel is designed to primarily run full throttle for months at a time without being shut off or unloaded.

The patrol boat application you speak of is definitely NOT a Class E Pleasure Craft application. It MIGHT be a Class C "Maximum Continuous" Application. Or It might be a Class B "Heavy Duty" Application. It is DEFINITELY NOT a Class E High Performance Pleasure Craft application.

The 496 you make mention of is a Class E crossreference. Sorry if it isn't holding up. Somebody needs to pony up for some true Commercial Duty motors for those patrol boats.

And Diesels are indeed my preferred choice of power in a heavy boat. But you gotta pay for them and the marine pleasurecraft industry has learned by experience that the consumer will choose the cheaper motor every time when the top speeds are comparable - and it doesn't matter if its lifespan is drastically reduced over the more expensive choice.

I guess it's the same reason China is doing so well in the world marketplace. Quality and longevity be damned - I want the cheaper one.

I still say that the mass-market American performance boating community won't pay a penny more for something "exotic and better" unless it will stomp the holy britches off an HP500EFI. And I don't think there's any current basis on the market for a marine motor that can outwrangle the blue Merc (or for the money, the 496, unless it is grossly misapplied).

Mccollinstn, I was referring to centrifugal superchargers when talking about boost presure "lag" or the unlinear relationship between boost and RPM. I stated that the positive-displacement superchargers like the Lysholm, Eaton, Roots types of which Whipple chargers are an example I believe, do not exhibit this characteristic. The airflow is roughly linear to RPM meaning that boost pressure is fairly constant. That's what I meant to say: just distinguish between centrifugal and positive-displacement superchargers...

As for engines, I agree with you again. A clean sheet engine designed for marine applications will always be better than a marinized automotive block. However, pure marine engines are very rare so I was just wondering how well a BMW would do. If there are so few true marine engines around, you have to start thinking about the next best thing: marinized engines and that's what I was doing. The opinion remains the same though and I think we both agree: marine engines, marinized or designed for this purpose, would be much better if modern technologies were applied to them. Sure, it would be great if BMW took a clean sheet of paper and made a big block marine engine but for the lack of it, you have to wonder what a marinized one would do. I believe it would be an extremely good engine. Afterall, it did win two Class 2 championships... Once again, what Suzuki or Honda are doing may be a better example but I think the message remains the same: a marine engine with DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder, variable valve timing and adequate displacement for torque would be more powerful, more reliable, more economical and cleaner for the environment. So I guess we agree on that one, no?

You actually seem to go further in your call for a modernization of marine engines by saying that a clean sheet design for a purely marine engine is needed. Economic realities impose other priorities. Automotive market is bigger and so a great majority of engines will be designed for this application and then marinized. Combined with the fact that they were tinkering with the idea in coop with Victory Team, this is why I tought about BMW. But sure, there are better examples like Yanmar, Seatek and others who design their marine engines from zero... Although I believe Honda use their automotive blocks as a base for their engines, at least on certain models.

As for the 496HO, once again you're right but the simple reality is that I have no other choice. Patrol boats are a very difficult market where even though a heavy-duty rated engine version would be approprite, clients usually demand a light-duty version because it is more powerful and they need speed, even if it means problems every 50 hours. So faced with this reality, I think that an engine with modern technologies in application would do a better job indeed. The problem is that we need to rev the GM big blocks at approx. 5000 RPM to get the power and decent top end and this type of engine is not originally intended to rev that high. A high-tech modern engine, even a marinized one, would cope better with this kind of revving. And by that virtue alone, it would be a better solution. Yes, a 4.4 V8 would have a hard time because it is too small and it would not have the torque to cope with 20 000+ lb. Which brings us to your point that original designs for marine use are a better solution. Now if only BMW could design an 8.2 liter or why not a 10 liter or so engine with all its technology for marine applications. Would it be better than a 496HO? Yes, no doubt. Would it cost more? Surely but guys who buy patrol boats don't care. And with time, this would also become affordable just like Honda and Suzuki outboards came progresively down to earth in terms of pricing.

BTW, I now see what you mean by saying that the boost is very close to max anywhere above idle. I was thinking about boost at a given throttle position, not necessarily open. While it's true that in this case you're not judging the pure performance of the supercharger itself, they are bolted to an engine and the engine is used the way it's used, not necessarily with throttle open all the time. I guess it's a different definition of supercharger performance, but you're right. Thanks for the clarification...

Super,

We're on the same page.

m

that marc bamm is a real asset to this board.rap on marc.

ps it was nice talking to you and heather in key west.

Thanks Lucy, same here but not enough time in KW.

termoli, from a practical standpoint any of the belt driven (including centrifugal) blowers deliver pretty constant full throttle boost levels within the useful RPM range of the engine.

"full throttle" is the key notion here and if that's factored in, I agree with you 100%. Thanks for bringing it up. It made me look upon the issue from a different perspective...

Where is the V12?
 

It's been a few years and no update on the Torque marine mill. Any news anywhere?

Last I heard, Brad Smith and Tyson Garvin have the blocks now.