|
1 Attachment(s)
Jobs like Joes, and even mine can have busy days and not, today I am testing fiber optic, allows lots of feee time between tests...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]563571[/ATTACH]
Originally Posted by MILD THUNDER
(Post 4517657)
^^^ Thanks. Its all in good fun. I enjoy discussing this stuff, and learning, but thats probably because I am not doing it 9-5. My hat goes off those those guys, who take the time to post info on the forums that do it all day long building engines and stuff to pay the bills.
But yes, I do have a full time job, as well as a part time " googler " :) |
I will say thanks to guys that are helping me and not bashing me, as I myself have learned and continued to do so
|
3 Attachment(s)
Stainless Marine Exhaust Manifolds. Its what I had on the Mistress, No Problems and my 540's made 680 on the Dyno and the boat ran 78 without playing with props and dialing it in.
|
Originally Posted by cigrocket
(Post 4517707)
Stainless Marine Exhaust Manifolds. Its what I had on the Mistress, No Problems and my 540's made 680 on the Dyno and the boat ran 78 without playing with props and dialing it in.
|
He saw 78 with Konrads and I think 75-76 with Trs... otherwise same boat... he and I talked a lot about setupnin past
|
Personally I think if my engines made the same numbers they made on the Dyno, except for the torque and power band moved up to be able to carry the boat I think my speech would've been right up there with Cigrocket
|
Originally Posted by Full Force
(Post 4517505)
Show me whgere I said 2-3 mph faster MANY times?? never said one time...why are you trying to poke a battle? boat went 73.7 with old power once, new power 73.2..... yes thats 2-3 mph? ok thx for input.
as far as CI, I explained that in other reply, thx Bob M... New engines 638tq@4500, 630hp @5900 best I seen 73.1 one time mostly low 72mph....[/QUOTE] Ok i stand corrected, it was almost 2mph. I still think you would of ended up with a hell of alot more motor and mph, putting you AFR cnc chambered heads on the old 565 with even a little bigger cam than whats in your 540. Don't take this the wrong way either, just because you have thin skin. "Again not trying to poke a battle" I think if guys would like a easy 700hp and roughly 650 too 700 tq, to check out some bigger cubic in. engines (565,572,598's). ESPECIALLY N/A.......... Those engines seem to hit that target with relative ease. There a number of proven recipes that scream those #'s to 6000 rpm. I hope your engines hit your marks. Your just showing us all how important cubic in. is in a N/A engines. Trying beat your old 565's POWER with smaller engines has proven to be very COSTLY. I think we all have learned that here, including me. Again thanks for putting all this out there. |
Originally Posted by cigrocket
(Post 4517707)
Stainless Marine Exhaust Manifolds. Its what I had on the Mistress, No Problems and my 540's made 680 on the Dyno and the boat ran 78 without playing with props and dialing it in.
|
Originally Posted by Full Force
(Post 4517727)
Personally I think if my engines made the same numbers they made on the Dyno, except for the torque and power band moved up to be able to carry the boat I think my speech would've been right up there with Cigrocket
2 different engines, with 2 totally different power bands. Hopefully you end up with some bigger power over what you had. |
man you guys are putting salt in the wound,i don,t recall tim ever saying his old engines made less power that the 540s.that,s yesterday,s news.when this engine go around is done and exhaust system is in the budget i think he will be a happy camper.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:49 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.