PDA

View Full Version : GM Performancs new 6.2L 540 horse marine crate....



Donziweasel
07-12-2008, 08:41 AM
New for 2009 is the GM Performance 6.2L crate. This is supposedly the first production Gen IV for the marine industry. 540 hp out of 376 CID is pretty impressive. Makes me think a SBC might be a good alternative to the BBC due to wieght savings. Anyway, pretty impressive.

http://www.gm.com/explore/technology/gmpowertrain/engines/specialized/marine/2009_6200_LSA_Marine.pdf

DonCig
07-12-2008, 08:49 AM
John, I am headed to the garage to see how the measurements compare to my 427 SBC. I have been waiting for this news as there has been rumor that Merc. would be rolling out a SBC lineup capable of replacing the BBC line. Could this be the first indicator?

467 pounds of engine with exhaust manifolds.

Don

PS- tell Boo Boo that I am glad that the surgery went well.

Donziweasel
07-12-2008, 09:04 AM
Thanks Don, I will tell her, man was Englewood hot. Highs in the upper 90's. And what is with all the rabbitts everywhere?:smash:

GM is also offering a NA version of the 6.2L at 418 Hp. Not sure if they are looking to replace the big block, but considering the stock 496 HO is rated at 425, it might make people think twice about a BBC. The weight savings are pretty impressive.

http://www.gm.com/explore/technology/gmpowertrain/engines/specialized/marine/2009_6200_LS3_Marine.pdf

Put the 540 horse in a 18 or 22 and I think the Cig boys at AOTH would have had handful.

In Carl's thread "imco", many said build a 540 out of a 502. I think this is a hell of an alternative. Might not be 600 horse, but I would think weight would make up the difference.

I don't think this is a BBC killer yet, but might make some people think twice. There are still too many people who don't trust or want a SC engine. On the other hand, most SC are aftermarket add on's. Perhaps, since this is a production GM engine, it might make them look twice.

Be interesting to see how one in a 22 would stand up against roadtripse's or Dr. Dan's 540.

Donziweasel
07-12-2008, 09:15 AM
Man, GM has been busy for 2009. Here is a NA 6.0L at 385 horse. 10 horse above the 496 non-HO.

http://www.gm.com/explore/technology/gmpowertrain/engines/specialized/marine/2009_6000_LY6_Marine.pdf

BBC are unchanged. 2009 for GM should be called "Attack of the Small Block" OR "The Small Blocks Revenge".

DonCig
07-12-2008, 09:28 AM
Ok
I measured my 427 SBC engine and here is how it stacks up to this new offering:

My engine height with the air clearner on and to the top of the hold down nut- 30.00" (I am running a RPM Air Gap, 3" Gaffrig Filter and no carb spacer. This all fits under a stock 1997 Calssic 18 hatch with .250" of clearance. So you should be able to drop this new SBC in.
New SBC- 30.15"

Width:
My SBC without manifolds - 21.625"
New SBC with manifolds- 26.57"

So, I predict that this new engine will push a Classic 18 to right around 87-93 mph. Any takers?
Maybe finally give the 22 guys a run for their money in smooth water? (I did say smooth water!)

Weights:
My SBC 535 pounds approx
New SBC 467 pounds approx
BBC 669 pounds approx

BigGrizzly
07-12-2008, 09:41 AM
Don, I just noticed your signature, I have such a 22 and your welcome to rid in it and maybe even drive it if you prove to be a responsible driver.:wink: If you happen to be in Atlanta, Eufaula or at the Owners rally in Fort Walton beach.

DonCig
07-12-2008, 09:46 AM
Don, I just noticed your signature, I have such a 22 and your welcome to rid in it and maybe even drive it if you prove to be a responsible driver.:wink: If you happen to be in Atlanta, Eufaula or at the Owners rally in Fort Walton beach.
Randy, thanks for your generosity, you are a class act.
I need to edit my signature or rephrase it because the word "looking for a ride" means the engine is looking for a new home; so if your boat is for sale, then drop my engine a line. He is getting bored sitting in the garage. LOL

Don

Donziweasel
07-12-2008, 09:46 AM
Randy, I think he means he has a 427 looking for a home in a 22.

Donziweasel
07-12-2008, 09:46 AM
Ooops, Don beat me to it.

BigGrizzly
07-12-2008, 10:25 AM
I see, The Criterion is not leaving my stable for two big reasons 1) My wife loves it and the engine. 2) It is the boat I always wanted but didn't know it until I got it!!:)

blackhawk
07-12-2008, 11:08 AM
Impressive hp for sure but even more impressive is that flat torque curve. Over 500lbs of torque from 2500 to 5500 rpm!!!

ITTLFLI
07-12-2008, 11:38 AM
Sweet engines NO DOUBT...BUT....compare the torque curve to a BBC.....I have done this on proir releases but not these engines and the torque never come close. Torque is what moves he fiberglass...HP is a math equation:wink:

PS: THese are bad arse SBC and they will move the boats quickly....Just in my opinion there's no substitute for cubic inches!!

Air 22
07-12-2008, 11:51 AM
Interesting Engine for sure!!!:cool: When someone installs it in a 22C or 18C :smash: I'd luv to see the numbers/results...The weight savings and HP are impressive!:wink: Until then...its just speculation...:nilly:

Donziweasel
07-12-2008, 12:33 PM
Wonder if Mercruiser or Volvo will adopt any of them. They get their blocks from GM and then install their own components, right? Niether has done a whole lot in the SBC area for a while. 5.7, 5.0 and even the 4.3 have been around for ages. They have done a little ignition work (Merc Thunderbot IV to V), added fuel injection and vortec heads in the 90's (still offer carbs though), etc.... but not what i would call "revolutionary" changes in these engines. Not much in change in 10 years. Might be time to shake things up a bit. Why doesn't GM sell directly to boat manufacturers? Is it because they do not offer a drive? Supply contracts on blocks with Merc and Volvo? Just curious. I think they do sell some inboard tow engines to a few manufactures, once again, no drive needed.

blackhawk
07-12-2008, 01:11 PM
Sweet engines NO DOUBT...BUT....compare the torque curve to a BBC.....I have done this on proir releases but not these engines and the torque never come close. Torque is what moves he fiberglass...HP is a math equation:wink:
PS: THese are bad arse SBC and they will move the boats quickly....Just in my opinion there's no substitute for cubic inches!!

Actually that torque curve looks pretty close to the torque curve of a HP500. Maybe even a little stronger!

Donziweasel
07-12-2008, 01:19 PM
Torque curve looks really impressive. Not sure what the 496 HO is, but the GM goes up quick and then is pretty damn flat through the whole power range. Not only that, 540 ft at 4000 is pretty damn good. Looks like it gets close to that much earlier. If the numbers are right, GM did a pretty good job with the torque curve on this marine engine.

roadtrip se
07-12-2008, 06:23 PM
should be interesting to see how the real world results play out.

The weight savings is amazing on its own.

The flower pot isn't going anywhere, so we can wait.

zelatore
07-12-2008, 06:55 PM
Any real world pricing yet?

No idea.

I'll guess $18K just to pull a number out of my a$$

It comes with manifolds, but you'll still need a lot off odds and ends to get it in the boat. Say $3K?

Could you do a repower with it for under $25K?

You guys should know this better than me

Donziweasel
07-12-2008, 07:06 PM
GM hasn't released the price, but on some other boards it is speculated that this engine will be way less expensive than the Merc Racing 525.

Even the NA 6.2L at 418hp is still not a slouch. Three new marine engines for 2009 from GM is pretty impressive. Been a long time since a manufacturer did that. They have obviously been very busy and see $$$$ in the performance marine small block market for some reason.

Donziweasel
07-12-2008, 07:29 PM
How much does a 496 HO weight? According to the Merc website, engine and Bravo One X is 1199 pounds. Specs on the Bravo One X is 130 lbs. 496 can't weigh over 1000 pounds. Does the Bravo One X weight not include transom assembly?

Buiz, I thought you were a NA guy.

Greg K
07-12-2008, 08:52 PM
Weight savings should be around 260 pounds between the two engines. 496 HO is at about 725 pounds.

gcarter
07-12-2008, 10:00 PM
So did all of you read the fine print and notice it needs closed cooling?????????:doh:
That's all right by me, but some of you would rather eat glass than add closed cooling to your boats.:eek!:
To go a step further, the weight posted is a bare block engine....
so add50-60# for exhaust
then 15-20# for a sea water pump
how about 50-70# for the cooling system
Did I miss anything?

zelatore
07-13-2008, 01:13 AM
Now there you go again George, spoiling everybody's fun with facts....

I was about to break out the visa card...Oh well, I'll have to stick with my old-tech 502. And here I was dreaming of all that extra room under the hatch.

Dr. Dan
07-13-2008, 06:46 AM
:smash: Very Cool - there was a feature article in Powerboat a few issues back this year that was essentially the Closed Cooling Vette Motor... and it was put together by the the gentleman at Raylar I had thought. It retailed for Low 20's I had thought and it was a closer comparison to the Ilmor Power Plants as to Weight vs Displacement Ratio Comparison...it was also an all aluminum SBC and it was.:beer:

Soooo its all good... I love progress in engineering & development... :wink:

Also "Weisel" - Todd and I have Stock 502 EFI Motors - its Byron, Poodle and Cliff that live in the true Cubic Inch Field! So just to be clear... mines a feable little BBC.... honest.:spongebob:

Cool Stuff...

Doc of Displacement Baby - Yo Adrian Dis Place is a Mess ... :doh:

gcarter
07-13-2008, 07:24 AM
Guess I forgot the alternator and power steering pump plus the brackets so add another 30# for a grand total of;

Drum roll please...........

607 POUNDS

So it still saves a good bit.....
I wouldn't kick it out of bed.

BigGrizzly
07-13-2008, 07:30 AM
I was sitting back enjoying the family and just got back on the net. There IS no substitute for cubic inches. A boat gets heavier the faster it goes because the water resistance of the lower unit, prop etc. This is not a drag race for reducing inertia, this is real world. I am sure ITLFLI meant torque not HP. I have seen this before. there have been tons of articles on small block vs big blocks, small block usually looses on heaver units. When was the last time you saw a small cid semi hauling up a hill. This isn't a Europe type car with 5 horse power and 32 gears forward. A while ago I had a discussion with a auto sales guy who though the Honda Ridgline could out tow my 2002 Grand Cherokee. After all he said it has more HP and more torque. I told him were on. Long story short Jeep has a 4.7 which is larger than the Honda. Jeep won towing a slightly heavier boat, no surprise here. However not towing the Ridgline is faster. one side note the Jeep also gets better fuel economy towing also.

Greg K
07-13-2008, 07:35 AM
George,

Add all of those items to the 496HO starting at 725 pounds and see what you get.

Donziweasel
07-13-2008, 07:54 AM
Dan, my bad. I thought on the imco thread you and roadtrip were talking about you personal 540's. MP, ready to trade in for SBC power?:smash:

Hmmmm....big block vs. small. I think this engine is simply an alternative to a BBC like the Merc 525. It is lighter and has more torque as well as hp.

George, Greg K says the 496 is around 725. Does that include exhaust? Merc's website is saying it is heavier, MUCH heavier. The new 6.2 has iron exhaust manifolds, so aftermarket could be added.

As for the closed cooling, looking at the air cooler, which being a finned cooler, needs the closed cooling. For me, I think I would remove it. Air temps out here are already cool enough and I don't think I would see any benefit, or very little benefit from it. Plus, shave another few pounds. I bet George could make it work w/out the air cooler.

Not defending it, but think it is cool to see a production alternative to BB power. I always thought the secret to speed was to get the boat out of the water as well as reduce drag. Taking a couple of hundred pounds off the ass end of your boat seems like a good start. :wink:

I like it. It isn't for eveyone. Some of the BBC guys have already stated they would rather have thier CID. Plus, it will never sound like a BBC. I guess it is personal preference, but I know some people, like Tamm, have been looking or decided on SBC power for 22's. Scary thing is this engine in a 18.

Overall, can't go wrong with a 540. Probably can't go wrong with this little beast either. Me, I like it simply because it is SC. As Hedgehog once said, you can't beat SC at altitude. Bring a 540 and this engine up here, and I guarantee you the 540 will fall off much worse than a sc engine at 7000ft.

Finally, like Dan said, it is just cool to see some new factory technology out there. Not a whole lot has happened in the sterdrive market for a while. 502 to 496 is about it since the turn of the century. Mercruiser's, Volvo and GM's lineup hasn't seen a major change, especially in the SBC, for a long time.

gcarter
07-13-2008, 10:30 AM
You definately would want to have closed cooling on this engine if for no other reason than the mix of materials..i.e., lots of aluminum, steel, and brass.....it needs coolant, not water.
Next would be the engine management feedback system. W/o it operating correctly, you would probably always be in limp mode and what would be thhe point other than a lot of money??
This is a VERY expensive and high tech engine. Just look at the car it comes from...Z06 is in the range of mid $70's and the blown Corvette (I can't remember what it's called) is $110'ish and it's mostly engine, chassis tuning, and a few exotic materials. But mostly engine.

Donziweasel
07-13-2008, 11:12 AM
You make sense George. I agree, closed cooling is probably best. I forget that this is not a bored and stroked 350 with a SC. This looks like a very new and tech advanced engine.

Wonder why they went with a roots blower instead of a more efficient centrifigal one. I admit I have never seen a roots with that config though.

gcarter
07-13-2008, 12:03 PM
You make sense George. I agree, closed cooling is probably best. I forget that this is not a bored and stroked 350 with a SC. This looks like a very new and tech advanced engine.
Wonder why they went with a roots blower instead of a more efficient centrifigal one. I admit I have never seen a roots with that config though.
Roots is best for low end volumetric effiency, i.e., more volume per revolution, better air sealing, etc.
And, no, this isn't a mixed metaphor....you will have better volumetric effiency w/a Roots than a centrifugal at low RPMs.

BTW, does anyone here know where and when Roots blowers were invented and for what purpose?????
I mean, does anyone know??? Don't look it up.
I used to think it (many years ago, before Gore invented the internet) that the British Roots Group, the now defunct British car manufacturer did.

Donziweasel
07-13-2008, 12:05 PM
Thought it was the aircraft industry in WWII. Probably wrong.

onesubdrvr
07-13-2008, 01:24 PM
I don't know for sure, but they use 'em on big propulsion type diesels, and have since WWI. On submarines, where you may not be completely on the surface when running, you neede additional "umph" to overcome the sea pressure on the exhaust, and having to bring in the large amounts of air needed to feed them through a bunch of piping.

Wayne

Donziweasel
07-13-2008, 04:08 PM
Guess it is more of a twin screw blower.

smallblockford
07-13-2008, 04:41 PM
what you guys dont know is chevy is trying to do away with the production of a factory big block so there is talk about the 6.2 having to be beefed and that mercruiser will not be doing big blocks in standard production, i am sure they will be making hi performance big blocks but since chevy isnt going to mas produce them.

i dont know how it really pans out but i heard it from a boat manufacture when i was at the cleveland show.. i feel that they will still be able to do crate moters and build them in house but it is going to knock the already high cost up higher. so just some foood for thought

if this move ever happens like i was told it will i am going to really miss the big blocks in bigger boats

any one heard about this

BigGrizzly
07-13-2008, 04:49 PM
Having worked for a major auto maker the big block thing is a EPA and fleet average thing GM is not doing too well in that respect. They have been cutting back for years as are the rest. There are some other issues between Merc and GM at this point.

blackhawk
07-13-2008, 04:56 PM
Once again I disagree with there being no substitute for dispacement. Yes, in many cases that is true but not always. If a small block can produce equal torque at THE SAME RPM then it will perform just as well as a big block. The trick is getting a small block to have the lower rpm torque of a big block, which is tough to do. But looking at the numbers of this engine they have done it and then some.

I know a similar thread got heated about this subject last time but I will say it again. Two motors that have idenctical torque curves will perform the same in the real world, regardless of CID. Obviously leaving weight of the motor out of the equation.

I don't know what it will weigh fully dressed but a BBC is 900-1000lbs.

The Hedgehog
07-13-2008, 05:03 PM
Thought it was the aircraft industry in WWII. Probably wrong.

I think that you are right. They even had two speed blowers.

It was done for an altitude thing....kind of like Jackson Hole!

gcarter
07-13-2008, 05:05 PM
I don't know for sure, but they use 'em on big propulsion type diesels, and have since WWI. On submarines, where you may not be completely on the surface when running, you neede additional "umph" to overcome the sea pressure on the exhaust, and having to bring in the large amounts of air needed to feed them through a bunch of piping.

Wayne
Hint;
Way before WW-I, and at first not for engines.:wink:

gcarter
07-13-2008, 05:09 PM
I think that you are right. They even had two speed blowers.
It was done for an altitude thing....kind of like Jackson Hole!
All of the superchargers used in aircraft in WW-II were centrifugal, in all kinds of configurations....2 and 3 stage and multi speed.
But you and Weasel get an "E" for effort.
So does Wayne.
But no one get a cigar.

BigGrizzly
07-13-2008, 05:17 PM
BH you are technically correct. If the torque and horsepower curve is identical, it should perform the same. The problem is for OUR applications, Boats, it has never been done. You can get the torque down low on a small block but top end suffers and vice versa. There is always a trade off. Its getting closer with the newer engine designs but it isn't there yet. The closest you can come is with a blower, preferably a roots type for bottom grunt. The screw types works pretty well too. I do hope it does happen. The fuel economy may be better.

Donziweasel
07-13-2008, 05:30 PM
I don't know about not having both torque down low and at high end with a SB. The torque curve on this engine begins to peak at 2800 rpms' and doesn't fall off to 5000, and then it just barely falls off to 5500. It has 400 ft-lb at 1500 rpm's. Seems pretty damn good on the low and high end of the engine. I am going to have to go with Blackhawk, maybe there is a substitute for displacement. Hedgehog, your on the blower path, thoughts?

Better question is you have a 22 with BBC and a 22 with a SBC with the same torque curve and hp, but the SBC is 250 pounds lighter. Identical props and drives. Which boat is faster?

blackhawk
07-13-2008, 05:44 PM
I think what others are trying to say is it is tough to match the torque curve of a BBC with a SBC. But obviously this motor has done it. The HP and TQ look a little stronger than a HP500.

blackhawk
07-13-2008, 05:47 PM
Better question is you have a 22 with BBC and a 22 with a SBC with the same torque curve and hp, but the SBC is 250 pounds lighter. Identical props and drives. Which boat is faster?

Well my money is on the SBC since it's 250lbs lighter. I'm guessing 1-2mph.

gcarter
07-13-2008, 06:10 PM
are you guys really that naive.....
look at both of the charts, and get back to me....
since when does hp vs. torq cross paths at 2500 rpm?
and BOTH of the hp numbers are still climbing hard at 5400, no peak in sight, but the fuel shuts off at 5300??
automotive dressed pictures...
advertising garbage... :smash:
begeezus :hangum:
Jim, do ya mean the "Prelinminary/ estimated performance"?

blackhawk
07-13-2008, 06:16 PM
are you guys really that naive.....
look at both of the charts, and get back to me....
since when does hp vs. torq cross paths at 2500 rpm?
and BOTH of the hp numbers are still climbing hard at 5400, no peak in sight, but the fuel shuts off at 5300??
automotive dressed pictures...
advertising garbage... :smash:
begeezus :hangum:

Wow, maybe you should look at the chart again. :rolleyes: The torque and hp doesn't cross at 2500.

There is a different set of numbers for the hp and the torque.

cutwater
07-13-2008, 06:20 PM
are you guys really that naive.....

look at both of the charts, and get back to me....

since when does hp vs. torq cross paths at 2500 rpm?

and BOTH of the hp numbers are still climbing hard at 5400, no peak in sight, but the fuel shuts off at 5300??

automotive dressed pictures...

advertising garbage... :smash:

begeezus :hangum:

The chart does not show Torque/HP crossing at 2500 rpms. Look at it. Also, the spec sheet lists fuel shutoff at 5600.

Donziweasel
07-13-2008, 06:23 PM
Blackhawk's right. Torque and hp are not the same scale and are not crossing at 2500.

Donziweasel
07-13-2008, 06:25 PM
Ooops, Cutwater beat me to it.

cutwater
07-13-2008, 06:51 PM
You are arguing that they will not be able to achieve their HP/Torque claims... You may be right. I have NO experience with these engines. I will not even begin to make that judgement since I would just be guessing.

We are arguing that the graphs are not being read correctly. The curves DO NOT "cross" at ~2400 rpms. Look at the axes labels... Also, what does it matter if they "cross" within 100 rpms of each other? The NA version is making 70 HP less at 2400 rpms than the blown version. What is unrealistic about that? By changing the axis units, I could make either curve "cross" the other one at any RPM.

I say this every time, but 'crossing' means absolutely nothing, they are different units completely. There is never a point where torque=hp.

Edit: hope I don't sound like a jerk... maybe I'll add a few smiley's :angel: :wink: Much better.

Donziweasel
07-13-2008, 07:15 PM
So Jim, do you like the engine or not?:) Also, knowing you enjoy the muscle car era, GM is also doing a anniverary 427 for street. Thought you might like to take a look-

http://www.gmperformanceparts.com/EngineShowcase/anniversary427.jsp

blackhawk
07-13-2008, 07:57 PM
Buizilla, learn how to read a dyno graph and get back to me. The numbers don't even come close to crossing at 2500. Torque is about 500 at 2500 and hp is about 250.

That graph is very crude and obviously for marketing purposes. But the hp and tq does cross at about the 5200 mark.

GM has never been known for inflating the numbers on their crate engines so I don't know why they would start now.

But I'm not trying to argue with you, because you are always right. :rolleyes:

Donziweasel
07-13-2008, 08:14 PM
There not exactly alike. The NA has a steeper hp curve and not as flat a tourque curve.

blackhawk
07-13-2008, 08:20 PM
so esplain to us dumbfvcks how a NA engine can virtually equal a screwrotor compressed engine on an acceleration ramp up
everything presented is fairy tale
get back to me if your so smart
better yet, don't bother, just buy one if your so sure the facts are right
then get back to us :cool:

Unfortunately I will never be as smart as you are. I don't think that is possible. But please use your infinate wisdom and explain how the tq and hp cross at 2500 when the tq is 520 and the hp is 250.

I eargerly await your answer.

Thanks

ky-donzi
07-13-2008, 08:22 PM
gcarter

I'm guessing that the original used is what alot of roots type "blower" are used for today. That is to move large quanities of air like in mining, or industrial applications. I have seen roots type blower used as rock dust blowers to dusting coal mining walls to reduce the chances of fire or explosion.

I once had a rock dust blower very similar to this
http://www.globaltecheng.com/pdplus.htm

A friend and I mated it to a JUNK Buick 307 in a Electra 225. Could ever get the rpms right to make boost tho, got tired of fooling with it, junked the car keep the blower at my shop right now, darn thing weights aobut 90lb so its a good anchor.

cutwater
07-13-2008, 08:28 PM
so esplain to us dumbfvcks how a NA engine can virtually equal a screwrotor compressed engine on an acceleration ramp up

:confused: Who or what claimed that they are even remotely similar??

The links that John posted show an immense difference in performance across the board. I try to avoid getting involved in pissing matches... but really, are we looking at the same graphs??

blackhawk
07-13-2008, 08:50 PM
:confused: Who or what claimed that they are even remotely similar??

The links that John posted show an immense difference in performance across the board. I try to avoid getting involved in pissing matches... but really, are we looking at the same graphs??


He obviously doesn't know how to read a dyno graph. But we are the dumbfvcks! LOL

blackhawk
07-13-2008, 08:59 PM
Here's a graph with the same scale for hp and tq. As you can see, hp and tq cross at 2500 rpm as Buizilla stated. :doh:

blackhawk
07-13-2008, 09:01 PM
what part of bogus don't you understand??

You claim it's bogus. I claim it's a crude marketing graph. Those numbers are VERY realistic. But since you are always right I must be wrong.

My point was you didn't read the graph correctly and then you make an arrogant statement about it.

I'm out for the night. Hopefully you will have an explanation of how the hp and tq cross at 2500rpm waiting for me in the morning. :D

cutwater
07-13-2008, 09:06 PM
Buiz, I always respect your input, but you still haven't addressed my question. The engines might be crap, might be awesome, I don't know. The fact remains there is nothing abnormal about the dyno charts, except that you seem to have an extreme bent against this lineup. I'm done with this thread before it gets out of hand.

gcarter
07-13-2008, 09:21 PM
gcarter

I'm guessing that the original used is what alot of roots type "blower" are used for today. That is to move large quanities of air like in mining, or industrial applications. I have seen roots type blower used as rock dust blowers to dusting coal mining walls to reduce the chances of fire or explosion.

I once had a rock dust blower very similar to this
http://www.globaltecheng.com/pdplus.htm

A friend and I mated it to a JUNK Buick 307 in a Electra 225. Could ever get the rpms right to make boost tho, got tired of fooling with it, junked the car keep the blower at my shop right now, darn thing weights aobut 90lb so its a good anchor.
Ding Ding Ding....We have close to a winner. Yes, mining operations.
But almost 150 years ago.
Two brothers named Roots (not Root as in our Jamie) in the 1860's in England designed these blowers for ventilating coal mine shafts.
Obviously, steam engines would have to have made their appearance first.
Roots blowers are positive displacement devices so they work well with vacuum operations also....like emptying your septic tank. Because Roots devices are positive displacement, they do well for generating a lot of torque at low RPM's. Jim has already explained how they work.
Centrifugal blowers are anything but positive displacement and require a substantial gear up drive to be of any benefit. I'm not sure about Pro-Charger, but most of the centrifugal blowers we're familiar w/use at least a 6:1 gear up ratio. In many applications like in high gear in a R-R Merlin or Griffon, there might be as much as 10:1 or 12:1 ratio. These things do better in a more constant speed application.

BUIZILLA
07-14-2008, 06:45 AM
you guys can do your own homework....

done with this forum

Donziweasel
07-14-2008, 07:30 AM
Deep breaths everyone. Nice graph Blackhawk. Jim, I would have liked to have seen yours. Who deleted all your posts?

chappy
07-14-2008, 08:00 AM
Deep breaths everyone. Nice graph Blackhawk. Jim, I would have liked to have seen yours. Who deleted all your posts?

I thought the graph he was referring to is in GM's link in the first post of the thread. And, safe money is on Jim deleting his own posts.

The Hedgehog
07-14-2008, 08:54 AM
Ding Ding Ding....We have close to a winner. Yes, mining operations.
But almost 150 years ago.
Two brothers named Roots (not Root as in our Jamie) in the 1860's in England designed these blowers for ventilating coal mine shafts.
Obviously, steam engines would have to have made their appearance first.
Roots blowers are positive displacement devices so they work well with vacuum operations also....like emptying your septic tank. Because Roots devices are positive displacement, they do well for generating a lot of torque at low RPM's. Jim has already explained how they work.
Centrifugal blowers are anything but positive displacement and require a substantial gear up drive to be of any benefit. I'm not sure about Pro-Charger, but most of the centrifugal blowers we're familiar w/use at least a 6:1 gear up ratio. In many applications like in high gear in a R-R Merlin or Griffon, there might be as much as 10:1 or 12:1 ratio. These things do better in a more constant speed application.

The procharger is around 4.4 to 1

mjw930
07-14-2008, 09:35 AM
You are arguing that they will not be able to achieve their HP/Torque claims... You may be right. I have NO experience with these engines. I will not even begin to make that judgement since I would just be guessing.
We are arguing that the graphs are not being read correctly. The curves DO NOT "cross" at ~2400 rpms. Look at the axes labels... Also, what does it matter if they "cross" within 100 rpms of each other? The NA version is making 70 HP less at 2400 rpms than the blown version. What is unrealistic about that? By changing the axis units, I could make either curve "cross" the other one at any RPM.
I say this every time, but 'crossing' means absolutely nothing, they are different units completely. There is never a point where torque=hp.
Edit: hope I don't sound like a jerk... maybe I'll add a few smiley's :angel: :wink: Much better.

A friend of mine who works for Volvo doing their engine tuning, clued me into this motor about 6 months ago and yes, they easily make the numbers posted and do it with longevity unmatched in the aftermarket OR with Merc Blue motors. That's not me saying that, it's an engineer who's been working on these motors for Volvo for the last year.

Torque is what's measured, Horsepower is what's calculated. If 2 motors have the same area under the torque curve they will move an identical boat exactly the same way. Peak torque or peak HP are irrelevant, it's the area under the torque curve that will give you an idea which motor will best suit your boating needs.

One advantage of running a motor that's comfortable turning to 5600 RPM AND can make good low end torque is the ability to use a lower pitched prop. If I take 2 identical boats with the same WOT top speed but one uses a 502 propped to 5200 RPM WOT and the other is using this 6.2L SC propped to 5600 RPM WOT which do you think will be more responsive, pull harder out of the turns and be better able to manage rougher water?

Think of it a different way. Take a car that can top out in 4th gear at redline (the 6.2L SC). Shift to 5th gear and you reach the same terminal velocity but you are 400 RPM below redline (the 502). Now, leave the car in 5th and do a WOT run from 40 MPH to 100 MPH (502). Do the same thing in 4th (6.2L SC). Which run gets to 100 MPH faster?

BTW torque ALWAYS crosses HP @ 5250 RPM when the chart uses a common vertical axis. HP = (TQ * RPM)/5250

cutwater
07-14-2008, 10:18 AM
A friend of mine who works for Volvo doing their engine tuning, clued me into this motor about 6 months ago and yes, they easily make the numbers posted and do it with longevity unmatched in the aftermarket OR with Merc Blue motors. That's not me saying that, it's an engineer who's been working on these motors for Volvo for the last year.

That's good news. Like I said, I've never owned an LS-based engine. I hope they are as good as claimed. For marine apps I have only owned SBCs, SBFs, and Hercules I-6s, but never an LS V8. I am pulling for these engines :wink:. They would make a sweet addition to the marine lineup.


Torque is what's measured, Horsepower is what's calculated.

Yep... I explained this exact thing in a previous thread that also got heated. This is true for the conventional dyno, but it is possible to measure power... It's just easier to directly measure torque.


If 2 motors have the same area under the torque curve they will move an identical boat exactly the same way. Peak torque or peak HP are irrelevant, it's the area under the torque curve that will give you an idea which motor will best suit your boating needs.

Not true... area is no indication of how an engine will perform at any given RPM. Area is a figure of merit and can be an indicator of expected performance. But pushing an identical boat, two engines with the same area under the curve but different torque shapes will behave completely different. Trust me :wink:.


One advantage of running a motor that's comfortable turning to 5600 RPM AND can make good low end torque is the ability to use a lower pitched prop. If I take 2 identical boats with the same WOT top speed but one uses a 502 propped to 5200 RPM WOT and the other is using this 6.2L SC propped to 5600 RPM WOT which do you think will be more responsive, pull harder out of the turns and be better able to manage rougher water?

I agree :wink:. How about that! :angel:


BTW torque ALWAYS crosses HP @ 5250 RPM when the chart uses a common vertical axis. HP = (TQ * RPM)/5250

No, it doesn't. Let's take the LSA here for example. At 5252 RPMs, it has approximately 719 Nm of torque and 395 kW of power. See what I mean? When you are talking about torque and horsepower being "equal", you are only referring to the scalar which could just as easily be any other number. This whole "crossing" thing has no significance whatsoever. It is simply an artifact of the units you chose to use.

cutwater
07-14-2008, 10:25 AM
I guess we can add "torque/power theory" to the list including engine oil, props, and bottom speed-wax :wink:. Everybody's a little on-edge these days... we should all get out on the water more often :propeller:

BigGrizzly
07-14-2008, 10:31 AM
Procharger states thats theirs is the most efficient in the industry(centrifugal). I personally do not know. it seams to be with the results I have witnessed. Even if I like another brand or not. All I can say is I do like my Procharger, but I like the Vortex units too very much. The key is volumetric efficiency. roots have it down low and centrifugal up high. Realize high and low are relative. With american type engines in boats I call high 5100 rpms, in motorcycles high to me is 14,000rpms. Low in boats ,to me is 1,200->2,500 rpms, just to putmy statements in perspective.
Boy am I glad I left the computer off after 3:00pm yesterday. I did not want to get into another one of these discussions on theory vs experience vs what the graph shows. I have a Condition you know :wink: My old heart can't take much anymore. We will never really know until somebody gets one and applies it to OUR application. I though we are discussing what they would do for our boating. Cars, trucks, motorcycles and planes are different applications. What I have seen on the dyno doesn't always work out on the application it is used for. It has been my experience that when the real engine is put on a dyno the graph usually doesn't match the advertised one. We have gotten Winston class sealed motors that don't even come close to the sheet.
Just a note, most of us aren't trying to show how smart we are just giving experience and information. Someone gives some seemingly interesting info and than someone tries to put some big holes in it with some theory. Some times I feel like I am walking around with a target on my back. I am sure most of you haven't been as lucky as I have been in experience and the people I have met on both the east and west coast. I am 62+ years and have been doing this since I was a little kid. So like MOP, G.Carter I am old and opinionated. Buzz only tries to help and One thing I will say he does know what he is talking about. we have discussions and don't always agree, but the respect is always there. So lets cool our jets and stay on track. My grand dad use to say "Theory is good but honest testing is truth." My Mom use to say "Statistics lie and statisticians are liars". no offense to any statisticians on the board.

cutwater
07-14-2008, 10:32 AM
You metric guys are just weird...

I'm a standard guy myself... just goofing around :wink:. Don't you hate it when you tear into an American V-8, and have to go get your metric wrenches?? :hangum: What next? Will I have to measure my waist in centimeters to order my Donzi Latex Underwear from Dr. Dan??

BigGrizzly
07-14-2008, 10:56 AM
Cutwater I am impressed, nice separation of facts and point for point answers. I too am not happy with the metric and SAE mix on stuff, and I worked for a Japanese company. My only wish is do one or the other, not both. However On my old Dyanasty I changed the lower attaching stud into metric allen sizes just to pi$$ of lower unit thieves. A 10 mm socket head really befuddles them. BTW I made the socket heads fit the SAE lower unit stud holes I did not retap the holes.

blackhawk
07-14-2008, 11:09 AM
Raylar also has a nice lightweight aluminum NA small block that is putting out 550hp and 535lbs of tq. They are selling it as a complete drop-in package.

cutwater
07-14-2008, 11:27 AM
My only wish is do one or the other, not both. However On my old Dyanasty I changed the lower attaching stud into metric allen sizes just to pi$$ of lower unit thieves. A 10 mm socket head really befuddles them.

You are right on the money. It should be one or the other. Heck, having to get my 10mm socket out befuddles me too!

Donziweasel
07-14-2008, 11:38 AM
Raylar also has a nice lightweight aluminum NA small block that is putting out 550hp and 535lbs of tq. They are selling it as a complete drop-in package.

It is lightwieght, only 543 pounds, but it is a BB, 7.4L.

blackhawk
07-14-2008, 11:55 AM
It is lightwieght, only 543 pounds, but it is a BB, 7.4L.

Hmmm...on another forum Ray stated it was a 434 based on the LS platform.

blackhawk
07-14-2008, 12:08 PM
Some good info.

http://www.powerboatmag.com/lightweight-contender.html

BUIZILLA
07-14-2008, 12:21 PM
It is lightwieght, only 543 pounds, but it is a BB, 7.4L.
it's 450 INCH LS based, all aluminum....

Donziweasel
07-14-2008, 02:19 PM
I'm not saying anything else about any engines. It is obviously wat too emotional a topic.:hangum:

blackhawk
07-14-2008, 03:00 PM
I'm not saying anything else about any engines. It is obviously wat too emotional a topic.:hangum:

I know, you'd think we were talking about props! :smash: :D

BigGrizzly
07-14-2008, 03:35 PM
Nice stuff from everybody but look what I found.
"We go by the old saying, 'There's no replacement for displacement,'" he says.

My question, when is a small block a big block or a big block is a small block?
I think the heat started with the statement above. &.1 liters is a pretty big engine. No rebuttals just throwing this out

RickSE
07-14-2008, 04:05 PM
Probably the only way you'll be able to get a hold of one of these motors anytime soon will be to go buy a roll bar boat with one, pull the motor and sell the boat. :bonk:

The LS motors have been available for several years in the ski boat market but Merc. has been dragging their feet when it comes to adopting them in the stern drive market.

Last Tango
07-17-2008, 03:50 PM
:popcorn:

Okay, I have let the emotions simmer down before posting.
I actually want to know what "other" things one needs to know before purchasing one of these for a conversion from a 350 Mag MPI.
New throttle/controls?
What else?
How does it hook up to my existing Bravo One drive? Does someone have to custom make the bell housing and other stuff?
Do you go to a Chevy dealer to order and receive these engines, or is there and Authorized GM Marine dealer and installer?
Warranty?
I'm interested in the LS3/418 HP version for my 22ZX. Not interested in any SC engines.
I like the 400HP Black Scorpion engines that Merc is doing, but they seemed only for tow sports boats with a shaft drive. Haven't seen a version for outdrive. Is there any reason that motor can't just use the Merc Marine stuff from my 350 Mag MPI to hook up the motor? Obviously I don't save any weight with the Merc Black Scorpion, but I get 33% HP increase without a blower.
Anyone want to buy a 2006 Merc Mag MPI 300 hp with about 120 dealer maintained and serviced and unmolested hours?

BigGrizzly
07-17-2008, 05:52 PM
You guy don't know that it is easy to put a out drive on that engine. I have seen it done many times. It is just that right now they are going into the ski boats. If you want one buy it and put it in the boat!