Subject: Open Letter to Manufacturers

Date: 8 Jun 1997 05:33:18 GMT
From: "Daniel J. Hunter" 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski


Since you are out there listening, how about answering a question or two?

What is driving the current horsepower race?  Obviously, there's some
demand but is there a real purpose?  

Let's take a look at two of the more popular engines offered by Mercury
Marine to illustrate my point:

Mercruiser's 350 Magnum EFI

Propshaft Horsepower:290
Maximum Peak Torque:365 Ft. Lbs. @ 3,800 R.P.M
Compression Ratio:9.4:1
Fuel System:Mercruiser/Delco EFI
Full Throttle RPM:5,000

Mercruiser's Black Scorpion

Propshaft Horsepower:315
Maximum Peak Torque:365 Ft. Lbs. @ 3,800 R.P.M
Compression Ratio:9.4:1
Fuel System:Mercruiser/Delco EFI
Full Throttle RPM:5,000


I noticed the same peak torque (occurring at identical RPMs) on the 350
Magnum EFI and the Black Scorpion.  Does the difference of 25 horsepower
result in a measurable increase in performance that might justify the
additional cash outlay?  Have you done side-by-side tests comparing the
relative performance of your power packages and will you publish the data?

Is it correct that the Black Scorpion is the only Mercruiser that requires
premium gas, a drawback of the maximized total ignition advance setting?

After years of operating smoking outboards, I am thrilled to see the
wholesale adoption of fuel injection.  Still, tournament boats have been
embroiled in a horsepower war that has failed to significantly increase top
end speed.  It appears that tournament boats are essentially
semi-displacement hulls with a limiting hull speed. If this is the case, it
would be interesting to note what those speeds are.  Boats designed for
barefooting continue to use outboards with a significant CG difference and
hull design so apparently there is a limit to how fast a tournament hull
can be pushed.

Any thoughts?

Hunter

Subject: Re: Open Letter to Manufacturers

Date: 10 Jun 1997 13:26:00 GMT
From: Dan Hoffmann 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski


The current issue of WaterSki magazine has a very interesting boat test of
a Sanger inboard with four different Mercruiser powerplants, starting with
the 350 carbureted, up to their big-block Super Scorpion. Interestingly
enough, in this test, acceleration didn't change dramatically from the 290
hp but top speed did. Mercruiser was allowed to pick the props and the
377hp SS went 56mph. The only thing missing from this test was a
measurement of fuel economy. This article shows that contrary to what many
in this newsgroup say, inboard ski boats can run well into the 50's with
brute force and the right prop....

Dan 

Subject: Re: Open Letter to Manufacturers

Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 09:51:20 +1000
From: Daniel McCurtayne 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski

The lower the  noise, the lower the  performance.
The more fuel economical, the lower the performance.

So if you want less noise and more fuel economy,
don't buy an inboard.

Noise is part of the sport, deal with it.

DAN

P.S. I lover the sound of a roaring V8 boat.

Dan Hoffmann wrote:

> Please note that I didn't advocate high speeds nor assess any value to
>
> them. I don't even barefoot. I was only pointing that inboards CAN go
> pretty fast if that is desired. The two things I'd like to see  from
> manufacturers is better fuel economy and less noise. Better fuel economy
> saves me money. Maybe boat makers need to juggle their props a bit more
> instead of staying with 13x13. I just don't enjoy noisy motors....
>
> Dan
>

Subject: Re: Open Letter to Manufacturers

Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 20:37:49 -0400
From: Mark Kovalcson 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski


Daniel McCurtayne wrote:

> The lower the noise, the lower the performance.
> The more fuel economical, the lower the performance.
>
> So if you want less noise and more fuel economy,
> don't buy an inboard.
>
> Noise is part of the sport, deal with it.
>
> DAN

What an attitude !!!

The noise bothers me more than the fuel economy, but I would spend at
least 1,000 dollars for a noise cancelation system that dropped the
noise levels by 10dB or so.

Many people comment on how much they like the sound of my 240 Hp PCM
with glasspacks. I'd prefer quiet !!

Subject: Re: Open Letter to Manufacturers

Date: 10 Jun 1997 15:42:33 GMT
From: Reg_Burgess%AntiSpamPostfix%@stratus.com
Reply-To: Reg_Burgess%AntiSpamPostfix %@stratus.com
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski

In article <01bc75a1$4e3c7260$462012ac@dhoffman.bmc.com> "Dan Hoffmann"  
 writes:
> This article shows that contrary to what many
> in this newsgroup say, inboard ski boats can run well into the 50's with
> brute force and the right prop....

Yes, but why would you want to buy a "Ski Boat" to use as a "Speed boat" ?
Dunno 'bout you, but I have NO desire to ski or foot at 50 +

Subject: Re: Open Letter to Manufacturers

Date: 11 Jun 1997 03:15:56 GMT
From: kevin R Baugh 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski

Dan Hoffmann  wrote in article
<01bc75a1$4e3c7260$462012ac@dhoffman.bmc.com>...
snip
> This article shows that contrary to what many
> in this newsgroup say, inboard ski boats can run well into the 50's with
> brute force and the right prop....

The Sanger is not a typical inboard ski boat it has much more v almost all
the other inboards ar flat in the back the Sanger is not..

Subject: Re: Open Letter to Manufacturers

Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 12:02:43 +1000
From: Daniel McCurtayne 
To: Dan Hoffmann 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski

Dan Hoffmann wrote:

[snip]

>  I want less noise
> because my boat will have kids in it and I'd like to talk to them
> while
> we're underway.

So how can you talk to a kid while they are skiing if your in theboat
and they are skiing.
When I'm skiing with a friend I can hardly hear what they are
saying and they are only 1-2m away from me, this has nothing
to do with engine noise just the fact that the wind past your
ears is too loud.

> I'm not looking for a silent inboard boat, just a bit
> quieter than most are today.
>
> if you had read the original post, you might have noticed that the writer
> asked manufacturers what was driving the horsepower race. I merely suggest
> that engineering could be spent on some things other than hp. Do you know
> anything about engines?

Yep, as much as I need to know at this point in my life.

> Most of the EFI engines today have better economy
> AND performance than their carbureted versions....

So thats why drag cars and drag boats are Fuels injected, not Blown.
Nothey would never thinks of putting a blower onto a drag boat.

> Most high performance
> engines, whether boat, car, or motorcycle are actually more efficient
> with
> a given quantity of fuel.

I don't know what you are saying here but I know thatAv gas ain't cheap.

> If you take the muffler off your car, does it
> produce more power?

Do you mean muffler or exhaust pipe.If you mean muffler, when you take
it off it
doesn't increse performance but a muffler is
designed to reduce noise, not performance.
But if you put a bigger exhaust system on, THAT increases
performance and noise.

> Nope. All aspects of engine performance are tradeoffs
> and can be balanced in almost any direction.

@*X@!!!, so many mods can be made to an engine its notfunny. A lot of
them increase performance and don't have an
opposite effect, you are just making a generalisation here.

DAN

> Dan
>
> Daniel McCurtayne  wrote in article
> <339DE877.1E03934F@viper.net.au>...
> > The lower the  noise, the lower the  performance.
> > The more fuel economical, the lower the performance.
> >
> > So if you want less noise and more fuel economy,
> > don't buy an inboard.
> >
> > Noise is part of the sport, deal with it.

Return to Recreational Boat Building Industry Home Page