Marine Engine debate

Jon

Jon

Senior member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
788
Cruising area
Kings Road
Thread split from 'Cigarette 28'

Ned said:

Not so sure about your Yank junk comment however. Do you think your boat might be feeling a little unloved?
Click to expand...

No, on the contrary Ned, I love my boat, but given the opportunity she would be running a Japanese Motor.

I mean, 7.4litres producing 330hp!! That is not what i call cutting edge technology or engineering.

Now, the Nissan 350 Z Engine (Voted the best V6 in the world, for the last ten years) de-restricted with some NISMO goodies and you are talking some serious power to weight ratio figures coupled with excellent reliability.

My point is that the Americans can not build quality motor cars and their engine technology is even behind the Australians.

What was your involvement in the Music Industry Ned?
 
Many, many years ago, quite a few race teams attempted putting wizzy little, very high performance engines in boats, ie, very small capacity, light weight, but powerful jobbies, they just don't work in a boat, and I would say that rule applies even more strongly for a pleasure boat.

difficulties getting on plane, especially in a rough sea, etc. generally nasty revvy, albeit powerful engines may seem ideal,, but theres a good reason for the saying "There aint no substitute for cubes"

Anyway, your 7.4 330 isn't really a good example of what the 'Yanks' can offer, is it? in yank/boat speak, you have a Morris Oxford engine! step up to a 575 sci, or even a 496 HO, these are 'todays' offerings from accross the pond.

All IMHO
 
Johnson said:
Many, many years ago, quite a few race teams attempted putting wizzy little, very high performance engines in boats, ie, very small capacity, light weight, but powerful jobbies, they just don't work in a boat, and I would say that rule applies even more strongly for a pleasure boat.

difficulties getting on plane, especially in a rough sea, etc. generally nasty revvy, albeit powerful engines may seem ideal,, but theres a good reason for the saying "There aint no substitute for cubes"

Anyway, your 7.4 330 isn't really a good example of what the 'Yanks' can offer, is it? in yank/boat speak, you have a Morris Oxford engine! step up to a 575 sci, or even a 496 HO, these are 'todays' offerings from accross the pond.

All IMHO
Click to expand...

Well thanks for the reply, even if it is a bit contradictory,

If the Mercury outboards everyone on this forum keep going on about aint nasty revvy albeit powerful engines then i dont know what are.

And as for your comments about todays offerings from mercruiser such as the 575sci or the 496 HO well they aint cutting edge in world engineering either.

From an engines point of view in boating as well as in any application you are dealing with torque curves and hp and obtaining the right balance for a particular application.

The best choice always being one of power to weight ratio, in other words the higher the output and the lighter the object to propell the faster it will go.

It aint rocket science.

Theres a thought perhaps thats why jet engines are extensively used in aircraft, now if i can obtain a Rolls Royce RB11 and shoehorn it into . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:drain:
 
Well, I can only suggest you put it into practice and swap your big V8 for one of these little powerplants, and let us know how you get on.
 
Don't put him off! I want to see him try to re-invent the wheel!
I'd love to see his Formula with a chipped sierra cossie engine nestling in the back :D

He can be the 'boatmad entertainment officer'
 
This is a Forum isnt it Jon?

A place where like minded individuals are free to share their knowledge, views and opinions. . .
 
Yup, so when do you plan to start the project?
 
Uh. What project?
 
Volvo used to sell drive/gimbles without engines attached, they stopped doing it years ago because so many people tried exactly what you're talking about, and ended up with a boat that wouldn't even get on the plane (even tho' some may have had a very high theoretical power to weight), and of course blaming the drive.

surely you don't think you're the first person to consider the power to weight aspect :brain:

And if you're not, which you're not, where are they all??? Like you say, it aint rocket science.
 
Back in the 80's a team ran a pair of V6 fords, something like 3.2 or 3.4 litres each in a 30' Velocity. (what is now known as Mr Noisy). They were motors that had proved very successful in Europe in Gp2 motor racing, possibly built by Cosworth. These motors had huge amounts of power, but in a very small powerband, but they certainly did rev.

It spent days crawling up and down Poole Harbour just trying to get on the plane, whilst we had great fun watersking along side it whilst making numerous rude gestures with our fingers!!!

They eventually abandoned the project, which was a shame coz they sounded fantastic!
 
My personal feelings are that a light race boat, with a vented surface drive may let things get on the boil with such a boat, but a pleasure boat that would need to behave nicely, mebbe pull a skier, with a load of geezas on board, and full of fuel etc would fail miserably, as they always have in the past.

Phantom built a 23 donkeys years ago with a fuel injected (lucas) SAAB turbo motor and a Volvo 'E' drive (a propeller from which you now own matt) it didn't cut the mustard!, also, lozzas stapely cat/150 odd hp wankel engined 1.3 litre boat was a bit of a flop in 'real terms', even tho it had getting on for twice the power of the other boats (90 yams)

like I said before, many people have gone down this route for racing, and failed, and they only need to meet one criteria, 'absolute performance', when it has to have the manners of a pleasure boat, I reckon there's little or no chance......big is beautiful as far as I can see.
 
Mr. Fuller,

It is very unwise to make assumptions in life. It is always a good idea to listen to what people have to say, even if it is ****, cos somewhere in there, there just may be a tiny snippet that will come in handy someday.

And besides, my mother said it was rude not to listen when someone is talking.

There is much much much more out there compared to the tiny world of Boatmad.com and much broader issues than what size engine you have and how revvy it is.

One thing certain for sure in life all over the world is that everything else is insignificant compared to how large your Penis & Balls are. . . .
 
R-Don said:
Mr. Fuller,

everything else is insignificant compared to how large your Penis & Balls are. . . .
Click to expand...

:cry:
 
Matt said:
Listening to Jon and Lozer, my impression from both was that the wankel engine package 'could' have been made to work with the right hull & drive combination.
Click to expand...

Yes, as I said in my previous post, for a race boat, with a very narrow requirement, it may be possible, and in fact I really like it when someone goes off the beaten track.
However, Lawrences cat really should have cleaned up given the massive advantage it had power and weight wise (due to the way Wankels are compared for for cylinder capacity) but it still didn't.

The reason for this thread flaring up the way it has, is that whilst Mr R-don states his case, he didn't ask for everyones elses opinion, then state his own, he just bowled in dissing Yank kit, and proclaiming in not so many words, 'it aint rocket science, you're clearly all stupid, I know how to change the world!'

And now he's belittling boatmad! what will this achieve? :confused: ...oh well.
 
R-Don said:
Now, the Nissan 350 Z Engine (Voted the best V6 in the world, for the last ten years) de-restricted with some NISMO goodies and you are talking some serious power to weight ratio figures coupled with excellent reliability.

My point is that the Americans can not build quality motor cars and their engine technology is even behind the Australians.

What was your involvement in the Music Industry Ned? [/B]
Click to expand...

Quick comparison - the low tech Ford 4.6 V-8 v the cutting edge Nissan 3.5 V6

Ford: DOHC, 32 valves, aluminium block and heads, Ford EEC -V engine control system with port fuel injection, 305 hp @ 5,800 revs

Nissan: DOHC, 24 valves, aluminium block and heads, Nissan engine control system with port fuel injection, 280 hp @ 6,200 revs

How do they perform in their respective vehicles? The following from a test in Car & Driver 12/02. The Ford engine resided in a lowly Mustang, the Nissan was the omnipotent 350Z

0 - 60: Mustang 5.2 350Z 5.7
1/4 mile: Mustang 14.0@103 350Z 14.3@100
road course Mustang 1:12.02@76.5 350Z 1:10.03@77.7

I imagine the point is that the engines are essentially the same bar the size and make roughly (the Nissan has the advantage with an additonal 15 hp per litre) the same amount of power per litre. Would I want either engine in a boat? Probably not as I would go for the Mercruiser 6 litre which produces 300shp (incidentally, the same as your old 7.4) for the torque advantages.

The music industry:
Studio and live musician, Certified recording engineer, live sound reinforement, worked in New York for the major musical instrument retailer and generally played in bands for years and years.

That's my c.v. from a former life. Thanks very much and I hope I passed the audition.
 
Tony Davis said:
Back in the 80's a team ran a pair of V6 fords, something like 3.2 or 3.4 litres each in a 30' Velocity. (what is now known as Mr Noisy).

It spent days crawling up and down Poole Harbour just trying to get on the plane,


Nice to see some things never change.
Click to expand...
 
IMHO

I think what is required is a significantly new design of hull . . . .

Ive left that open havent i, and a lightweight engine design with a good spread of torque aided by a crank driven supercharger. Fuel injection and variable valve timing would be desireable along with a self contained cooling system with heat exchangers.

A 240W Bose system would be desireable along with a few more noughts on my Bank Statement.

Seriously though, the answer is out there waiting to be concieved, however the answer will only materialise by those who strive to re-invent the wheel. I am surprised at how long it took Ocke Mannerfelt to come up with the bat boat. I think the problem lies in the fact that the boating industry will never ever generate the kind of income enjoyed by the motor industry and therefor will never benefit from the investment required to move on to the next stage. Its just too risky on a commercial level.

Imagine wanting to design a new more efficient design. Imagine how much time & money you would have to invest in order to fulfill your dreams. Now imagine how many copies of your design you would have to make and sell before you have even recouped your initial investment . . . . .

It just dont stack up commercially.
 
Ned,

Thanks for the engine comparison between the mustang and the 350Z.

However, what you are quoting with regard to the 350Z engine is its resricted power output of 280hp.

For those of you who dont know, the Japanese car manufacturers got together with some bloke in government and decided to cap the production hp limits of their engines. This was agreed at 280hp and was introduced to prevent a manufacture war of power the likes of which occur in the states time and time again.

The un-resricted hp of this engine when coupled with some components from the Nissan Motorsport department is an engine output in excess of 500hp and thats without turbo chargers, nitrous, superchargers etc.

However, if you go the whole hog this engine in motorsport has achieved 1200hp.

Bring on the Amercian challenger please.
 
And then some tosser will 'splash' it, and build them to a low standard, much cheaper, and claim that by changing the colour of their underware, it doesn't fall under the copywrite laws :bang:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top