604 c.i. Quad Whipple Project
03-03-2010, 12:49 AM
#31
Registered
You need my shrimp boat pipes. When I used to run one on the ground like that, I added some rubber hose and 4" pvc pipe to extend the tails. I did it so the water wouldn't fly back onto the rear of the engine. It was gauranteed to make any engine sound like a shrimp boat, no matter what it was.
03-03-2010, 08:46 AM
#33
Geronimo36
Gold Member
You need my shrimp boat pipes. When I used to run one on the ground like that, I added some rubber hose and 4" pvc pipe to extend the tails. I did it so the water wouldn't fly back onto the rear of the engine. It was gauranteed to make any engine sound like a shrimp boat, no matter what it was.
Now all I have to do is the rigging before our 2nd baby gets here...
03-03-2010, 09:38 AM
#34
Looks like a nice build, good that you could put all the early stuff behind you.
It's none of my business, but I would rethink the low RPM set up. Most of the failures that I have seen with bravos and big power have been low rpm and high torque numbers like yours. In my experience, the bravos can take quite a bit of Hp. They just need Higher rpm and lower torque. I ran 1000 hp at 7200rpm for several yrs with very little problems in a 42 fountain. I think with your lighter boat and a higher rpm motor you would be fine, for the most part. Just something to consider.
Michael
It's none of my business, but I would rethink the low RPM set up. Most of the failures that I have seen with bravos and big power have been low rpm and high torque numbers like yours. In my experience, the bravos can take quite a bit of Hp. They just need Higher rpm and lower torque. I ran 1000 hp at 7200rpm for several yrs with very little problems in a 42 fountain. I think with your lighter boat and a higher rpm motor you would be fine, for the most part. Just something to consider.
Michael
03-03-2010, 12:24 PM
#36
Registered
That is the exact reason....the rod angle. Ideally, you want to see 1.5 or better. You divide the length of the rod by the stroke. In this case it is 6.535 (rod length)/4.625(stroke)=1.41
This is the reason that I don't build a 632 ci. The lower ratio gives the rod more angle when the piston is at BDC, which puts more pressure on the piston and the cylinder wall. It will egg shape both the piston and cylinder faster. It also causes a higher piston acceleration.
I am shooting for about 5600-5700 rpm max. This will go a long way towards engine longevity, which is what we are ultimitely after. We aren't looking for 1200 hp. Anything over 1000hp is a bonus. Torque should end up about 1050-1100. Although it's still a bunch of torque and power, I think the drives will be OK as long as Eric stays away from hard accelertion. I've found a well built Bravo to do pretty good with the torque and power under steady state running, even at WOT with that much power. I have a few customers running that much and more power and torque on Bravos that have lasted quite well. It's not a real heavy boat, so that will help. I guess we will see shortly. In talking to Eric, I really don't think it will get run that much at WOT.
Eddie
This is the reason that I don't build a 632 ci. The lower ratio gives the rod more angle when the piston is at BDC, which puts more pressure on the piston and the cylinder wall. It will egg shape both the piston and cylinder faster. It also causes a higher piston acceleration.
I am shooting for about 5600-5700 rpm max. This will go a long way towards engine longevity, which is what we are ultimitely after. We aren't looking for 1200 hp. Anything over 1000hp is a bonus. Torque should end up about 1050-1100. Although it's still a bunch of torque and power, I think the drives will be OK as long as Eric stays away from hard accelertion. I've found a well built Bravo to do pretty good with the torque and power under steady state running, even at WOT with that much power. I have a few customers running that much and more power and torque on Bravos that have lasted quite well. It's not a real heavy boat, so that will help. I guess we will see shortly. In talking to Eric, I really don't think it will get run that much at WOT.
Eddie
03-24-2010, 06:05 AM
#38
More progress on the motors. They are about 2 weeks away from the dyno. Push rods were selected. Eddie had to open the pushrod holes in the AFR heads as they were making contact in stock configuration with the T&D rockers. He relieves the bottom piece of the Keith Eikert valve covers to keep them from leaking oil. Eddie is working on wiring. The other photo is a really sweet looking N/A EFI that is about ready for the dyno. He has a lot of good looking hardware going together right now.
