![]() |
Well I guess I got caught. You're right, I paid a builder to build the engines and to dyno them. And I'm almost embarrassed to admit I tried parts on the dyno before I bought them. Believe me, I wish I built my own so it would be someone else's fault if I'm unhappy. I guess that's how it works?
|
I'll start.
650 hp @ 5900 edit - What's the height of the new vs old intakes so I can fine tune the number? |
Originally Posted by Eliminated572
(Post 4518681)
Tim, has the new cam spec's been available yet? Maybe I missed them trying to read all the pages
|
Originally Posted by Full Force
(Post 4518667)
Yes, heavy TRS boat, that was first thing the cam guys asked, I think the smaller cams would have been better in a stepped Fountain over my heavy hull
Genericaly said, If your boat won't accelerate past 5000rpm, why make more power at 6k and not 5k. Anyway - you have a schoolbus, not a 67 Nova. :) |
Originally Posted by SB
(Post 4518693)
I'd give the easier to move boat more cam as it will not need as much lower in the rpms than the heavy stuck to the water boat.....let it air out and breath.
Genericaly said, If your boat won't accelerate past 5000rpm, why make more power at 6k and not 5k. Anyway - you have a schoolbus, not a 67 Nova. :) |
Originally Posted by Full Force
(Post 4518677)
I would not say I dis advice all the time, but when you have 50 people and half think one thing, other think another, why am I wrong for listening to wrong half? That's one thing that led to some of my issues before..
This is a quote from one of your posts { 629 hp@5900 638tq 4400 in marine trim } from your dyno session, you and who ever was helping, saw the the HP and torque numbers from the dyno graphs throughout the complete pull, the complete curve, peak and max torque and HP, but now you're saying that the torque curve needs moved up because the cams are wrong. IF you all knew the engine wasn't pulling the numbers and you're so well versed in high performance engine building why wasn't this fixed at that time instead of putting them in the boat, Im done good luck |
Originally Posted by Full Force
(Post 4518694)
I know, 6 well known cam companies are probably wrong, I mean why would innot listen to what they say? Stupid on my part again for listening to cam grinders over someone on Oso
Take the fukin' chip off your shoulder. You bounce around all over the place like a kid on a pogo stick...both with your emotions and what you think is right. I'm done for the moment too. Your are just too much. |
Originally Posted by bck
(Post 4518683)
Well I guess I got caught. You're right, I paid a builder to build the engines and to dyno them. And I'm almost embarrassed to admit I tried parts on the dyno before I bought them. Believe me, I wish I built my own so it would be someone else's fault if I'm unhappy. I guess that's how it works?
|
Originally Posted by 33outlawsst
(Post 4518695)
So 25 people gave you wrong ( bad ) information ?? as I recall you blamed it all on one person, never mind
This is a quote from one of your posts { 629 hp@5900 638tq 4400 in marine trim } from your dyno session, you and who ever was helping, saw the the HP and torque numbers from the dyno graphs throughout the complete pull, the complete curve, peak and max torque and HP, but now you're saying that the torque curve needs moved up because the cams are wrong. IF you all knew the engine wasn't pulling the numbers, why wasn't this fixed at that time instead of putting them in the boat, Im done good luck |
Originally Posted by SB
(Post 4518699)
You've mentioned this how many times now ? So why do you keep these threads going ?
Take the fukin' chip off your shoulder. You bounce around all over the place like a kid on a pogo stick...both with your emotions and what you think is right. I'm done for the moment too. Your are just too much. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:26 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.