Jump to content

Welcome to TheMalibuCrew!

As a guest, you are welcome to poke around and view the majority of the content that we have to offer, but in order to post, search, contact members, and get full use out of the website you will need to Register for an Account. It's free and it's easy, so don't hesitate to join the TheMalibuCrew Family today!

2016 Indmar Raptor\Monsoon Engine HP & Torque Ratings with answer from Malibu Factory Rep 


ORMailbuboater

Recommended Posts

 

My "journey" for 2016 Ford Raptor Engine information and answers to my questions from Malibu Factory Rep answered!  Posting this as some may find this useful about the Malibu 2016 Ford Raptor engine choices.    

A bit of background and investigation first.  I have been lurking on the Malibu Crew site for about a month now.  Many thanks for all the great info on the site! Researching all the posts on 2016 options such as G4 tower, surf gate, boat configurations, colors, etc… working toward my next Malibu boat purchase.  We like the traditional bow so decided on 23 LSV.

Currently proud owner of a 2001 Sunsetter LXI (with Wedge, Tower, modest ballast).  Sunsetter LXI has been a fantastic boat, bullet proof reliable and great all around boat for my family.  I decided 2016 is the year to finally update to a newer boat as Wake Surfing, Wakeboarding has taken over the behind the boat activities, plus leaps in technology, wife loves V Drive space vs direct inboard as well.  Skiing no longer a priority. 

The Raptor engine choices are the final sticking point for me.  Seen all the posts about Raptor increased engine noise over last year GM motors, some saying higher RPM at same speeds vs previous years, difficult prop choices, etc…     All good info but leaving me up in the air as to which engine to choose.  New Ford Raptor being somewhat “unproven” in Malibu with new 1.76 to 1 transmission ratio.  I am hesitant to order the base 410 engine. I love HP and Torque (who doesn’t).  All my cars and SUVs do not have stock mills.  Life begins at 400 HP J.   410 is only 350hp.

Searching the web left me frustrated due the lack of technical specs on Indmar or Malibu sites.   Many additional hours web browsing yielded very little new info.  Indmar site: Really only bore and stoke, type of fuel, oil recommendation and marketing hype?  Very short on technical data you find in most automotive brochures.  Marketing talks to the “highest” torque and HP on the market but NO Numbers?  Other questions:  What are the differences if any between Malibu 410, 450, 575 vs Indmar Raptor 400, 440. 575?  Engine internal differences between the engine choices?  Plus what’s up with the Monsoon 450 costing $7500 MSRP?  What do you get for the high cost and  “minor” bump in torque?  Understand the high price tag for the ROUSHCHARGED Raptor 575 but is that motor engineered for the extra boost and stress?   Actual torque curves, HP output, and other differences between the 410, 450, 575? 

(Bet I am not the only one who is looking for these answers.) 

I have discussed this with dealer.  Active Water Sports worked valiantly to get me technical information.  They recommend either the 410 or 575 (if you need\want more power).

I finally decided to contact the source.  Sent a note directly to Indmar (no response think they forwarded to Malibu) and Malibu separately asking for answers on engines (earlier this week).  Malibu Factory Rep from TN called me back same day!  Nice to provide such a quick response!  The Malibu rep was open answering my questions.  He provided detailed information on the engines and some on marketing strategies.  I was surprised and delighted at the honest responses. 

So here is what I gleaned from our conversation.  (Not word for word my but interpretation. Hope I got it right from the Rep.  If not I apologize to Malibu.) 

Is the Monsoon 410, 450 same as Indmar Raptor 400 and 440?  1st off the 410, 450 are the SAME as the 400 and the 440.  No difference.  Marketing by Malibu to call them the Monsoon 410 and Monsoon 450.  Indmar provides same engines to all boat mfg.  These are NOT tweaked for Malibu to 410 or 450 torque (see below for quoted numbers).  Rep clarified Malibu felt the higher torque at the prop due to 1.76 to 1 transmission instead of 1.5 to 1 other manufactures use.  So Malibu stayed with the same labeling.  Kind of a slight of hand measurement since torque rating is at the crankshaft not at the prop.    Difference is transmission ratio does provide more torque at the prop according to Malibu.  575 is identical to what is sold to others.

Are the engines built differently for the different torque ratings?  NO; Rep said all engines are identical mechanically for 410, 450, 575.  All have 6 bolt mains, same ECM, heads, crankshaft, pistons, valves, etc…   Rep said the Raptor motor line was designed with the 575 in mind.  Raptor Engine is designed to meet the 575 stress and boost requirements.  Same motor is “waterfalled” for use as 410 & 450 engines.  They are identical mechanically.  Asked about injector size on 575 since huge HP difference.  Malibu Rep conceded 575 most likely different injector size.  Obvious other external engine differences supercharger, ECM map, engine covers.  Rep further said engine build is total overkill for the 410 & 450 application.  Good news for 410 & 450 owners.  Have a motor built to withstand 575 lb ft torque doing duty at much less level.  Should last a very long time.

Rep said marketing strategy by Indmar is to make profit on 410s based on volume not much margin.  Bigger margin upgrading to 450 and 575.  Pretty straight forward marketing strategy. 

Raptor 450: What is the reason for the $7500 price tag?  Different internally for that rating?  NO; 450 engine is NOTHING more than a software flash with different engine cover.  (Saw that on Malibu crew post but now confirmed by Malibu Factory verbally to me.)  Asked why it is $7500 MSRP.  His response was Indmar set the pricing.  Since 450 is similar in HP/Torque to last year’s LS3 offering Indmar set price accordingly.  Malibu did not set the price.  My 2 cents: Looks like more of a pass through from Indmar.  Malibu does not make much on the deal. 

Rep also explained torque curves are identical for the 410 & 450 to 3800 RPM.  450 extra torque higher in RPM range above 3800.  Indmar adds 300 RPM to top of rev range for higher top speed.   Again my 2 cent:  Wow that is steep for a software upgrade only.  $7500 MSRP “too hard a pill to swallow for me” for just software.  My dealer kept telling me to save my money not get the 450.  Choosing either the 410 or pay out for ROUSHCHARGED Raptor 575.    

ROUSHCHARGED Raptor 575:  Enough said online.  As others have said it is a total beast.  According to Malibu Rep Raptor motor build to withstand the extra boost pressure and stresses.  Engine built around 575 extreme requirements not 410 then add a blower.  Like it says online extensive reliability testing done up to 6000 hours.   Long term reliability is still unknown but other boat makers been running them a couple years.  If there were to be major failures it would be all over the web.  We would have hear about it. 

One final question on the 575.  What about 93 octane requirement?  Rep said best performance with 93 Octane which he conceded is hard to get most place.  He noted it is not mandatory to run 93 octane.  Indmar has programmed into ECM what he termed as Octane scaling.  (May also apply to 410, 450)  If 93 not available engine management system scales back to match octane available.  Does defeat the purpose somewhat for buying the more expensive mill but at least the engine is protected if you cannot find the higher octane. 

Final word from Rep were quoted Top Speeds, HP, Torque values shown in table below. 

I added CA Carb HP off CA site.  (Converted from KW)

Quoted Top Speeds using standard prop.  410:  ~36mph   450: ~42mph    575: ~50+ in 23 LSV

HP & Torque specs quoted to me over the phone by Malibu Rep.

Indmar Raptor     Malibu Monsoon  HP+   Torque+      2016 CA Carb HP   CA Carb Link

400              410                        350*  404              350 (2015)

440              450                        400*  430              402 (2016)

575              575                        530*  575              520 (2015)

+ Malibu Rep said these are the Malibu certified numbers.

* Malibu Rep provided disclaimer that power ratings are + or – 5%  (Normal Variability in engines received from Ford)

- Torque curves are identical for the 410 & 450 to 3800 RPM. 

Hope this helps others who have questions about the new Raptor engine choices for 2016.   At least now I know what I will be buying for my money.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment

Good info. Only comment I will make is that the Raptor 6.2 was absolutely not designed to be a 575 supercharged, with the 400 and 440 waterfalling from the same design. That engine was fully designed to NOT be supercharged. Although it seems to handle the extra power fairly well, there are weak points. I found out about this first hand with my supercharged F150 Raptor. Many other roushcharged raptor owners have as well.

That said, they are usually making it to 80-100k miles +, before having issues. And even then, only some are having problems. 

This 6.2 is a rugged engine. If the supercharged version had a lower compression ratio, and more surface area on connecting rod bearings, it probably would have been bulletproof with the supercharger.

 

Oh, and yes, the torque at the prop is definitely higher with the 1.76:1 than it is with the 1.5:1. That is directly relative to the ratio...... If the raptor 400 is in fact 400lbft at the crank, then the prop torque would be-

raptor 400 with 1.5:1 = 600lbft prop torque (minus driveline loss %)

raptor 400 with 1.76:1 = 704lbft prop torque (minus driveline loss %)

i remember the days when PCM used to advertise torque on prop numbers with a gear reduction.... Sneaky sneaky 

Edited by TenTwentyOne
Link to comment
12 hours ago, TenTwentyOne said:

Good info. Only comment I will make is that the Raptor 6.2 was absolutely not designed to be a 575 supercharged, with the 400 and 440 waterfalling from the same design. That engine was fully designed to NOT be supercharged. Although it seems to handle the extra power fairly well, there are weak points. I found out about this first hand with my supercharged F150 Raptor. Many other roushcharged raptor owners have as well.

That said, they are usually making it to 80-100k miles +, before having issues. And even then, only some are having problems. 

This 6.2 is a rugged engine. If the supercharged version had a lower compression ratio, and more surface area on connecting rod bearings, it probably would have been bulletproof with the supercharger.

 

Oh, and yes, the torque at the prop is definitely higher with the 1.76:1 than it is with the 1.5:1. That is directly relative to the ratio...... If the raptor 400 is in fact 400lbft at the crank, then the prop torque would be-

raptor 400 with 1.5:1 = 600lbft prop torque (minus driveline loss %)

raptor 400 with 1.76:1 = 704lbft prop torque (minus driveline loss %)

i remember the days when PCM used to advertise torque on prop numbers with a gear reduction.... Sneaky sneaky 

You could be right.  At least I have more info to think about.  He did not tell me his title.  He just said that the engine was built for the 575.  Indmar starts with the standard motor for the F250 then adapt for marine use.   Considered it over built for the not supercharged applications.

Thanks for the clarifications.  

Link to comment

Great posting and information.  IXFE is spot on with what he did (just my 2 cents).  I tend to flip boats annually, or so, and usually go for the base motors (I am at 800 ft elevation) so have had good luck.  This year I was feeling froggy (or it could be my 40th bday is coming up) and wanted the 575.  

I am beginning to worry since my spray date was supposed to be 3/10.  I know driving the 575 in a 25LSV was amazing!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, pauley71 said:

Interesting. The literature I got from skiers choice when boat shopping said the 400 was 385hp and 404ft torque. 

Malibu Rep kept referring to Malibu Certified numbers for the different engine choices.  Not sure who certified those numbers.  Looking at CA Arb has the same number (in KW) on their web site from Indmar.  Not to say it could not be 385hp.  Just not what I was told or found on CA Arb site.  http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/cert/eo/2015/sime/u-w-011-0066.pdf

 

Link to comment

When you look at HP ratings you have to make sure you compare apples to apples. The agency that rated the 400 at 350hp rated the 2015 5.7 at 297 HP. If you accept the 5.7 at 350 HP then the the 400 would be around 400HP. 

On the subject of the 400 verses the 450 I called indmar and spoke to them. I don't know since like the original poster have only what a person said to go by but he stated there were hardware changes including injectors, cam and fuel pump. Ford like Indmar had two different versions of the 6.2 that I suspect are the exact same Indmar uses. They rated the higher HP version at 411HP and 434 ftlbs of torque. Peak torque is at 3800 RPM which makes the Malibu reps statement about torque impossible. In the Ford trucks the lower power version is rated at 385 HP and 404 Torque. Ford forums claim it does have different cams. Be nice to get a parts manual for both motors to find out if it's true.

Edited by Sailvi767
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Sailvi767 said:

When you look at HP ratings you have to make sure you compare apples to apples. The agency that rated the 400 at 350hp rated the 2015 5.7 at 297 HP. If you accept the 5.7 at 350 HP then the the 400 would be around 400HP. 

On the subject of the 400 verses the 450 I called indmar and spoke to them. I don't know since like the original poster have only what a person said to go by but he stated there were hardware changes including injectors, cam and fuel pump. Ford like Indmar had two different versions of the 6.2 that I suspect are the exact same Indmar uses. They rated the higher HP version at 411HP and 434 ftlbs of torque. Peak torque is at 3800 RPM which makes the Malibu reps statement about torque impossible. In the Ford trucks the lower power version is rated at 385 HP and 404 Torque. Ford forums claim it does have different cams. Be nice to get a parts manual for both motors to find out if it's true.

Thanks for the input.  So confusing and as you say only have the word of the person you talk to.  Would expect that Indmar rep should know more about the internals of the engine than a Malibu rep.  Good to have another perspective thatsays  the engine truly is different and not just a software flash upgrade as the Malibu rep told me.  Makes sense to have other changes as $7500 price tag is a bit much if only a flash upgrade.    More info to mull over.  Thanks

18 hours ago, 67King said:

FWIW, it isn't engine noise, it is gear noise.

Sorry if it was not clear yes not exhaust noise but internal engine noise aka overhead cam gear train noise.   Thanks

Link to comment

One thing that does interest me is there are cam kits out for the motor that claim around 60 HP and 60 ftlbs of Torque increases. I will not do it now but might consider it a few years down the road. The kits show nice torque increases below 3500 RPM. The ford forums seem to feel the engine is bulletproof and can take the power. Love the engine lope at idle with the new cams installed. Would sound great in the boat!

Link to comment

Here is more info on the two versions as used by Ford. The more I read the more I think the cams probably are different.

I did some research on this (phoned an old friend who still works in Dearborn). Here's the deal between the 6.2 as installed in a 2014 F-150 Raptor and the 6.2 installed in a 2014 F-350:

The engine hard parts - by that I mean the heads, intakes, and the bottom ends are the same. The camshafthowever, is the only significant engine part that is different as it carries a different part number between the two engine applications.

There is a difference in the strategy in the ECU to open the throttle angle less on the Super Duty version of the 6.2. This is why a 5-star tuner wakes up a 6.2 in the Super Duty somewhat dramatically, making it perform better at lower throttle positions, in effect tricking the engine computer into thinking that it's in a Raptor.  

The fuel systems are different and timing/fuel tables for the flex sensor are different because the Super Duty is E85 compatible. (That "FlexFuel badge on the tailgate.)

Link to comment

If that engine was not "built" for boost I would not trust it on a heavily weighted boat. It isn't so much the boost that will kill it, the detonation will beat the bearings out and can crack a ring land on the pistons (I have done both). That is also why they want you to run 93 octane on it, the computer probably has to retard so much timing with less octane a non supercharged motor would perform better. I am not brand bashing, just sharing knowledge with others and I never trust a salesman, when he wants to come over to my shop and prove myself and the college instructor and countless racers who I learned engines from I will buy their plane ticket.

Link to comment

So here's a dumb question...

why do we assume that just because Ford has two different 6.2's (Super Duty & Raptor) that the two different engines Indmar sells originate from those two different Ford engines?  I mean, isn't it possible Indmar is buying ONE engine and applying different tunes to each?

edit: I'm kinda surprised @67King isn't chiming in more. I have a feeling he knows a lot about this topic. 

Edited by IXFE
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, IXFE said:

So here's a dumb question...

why do we assume that just because Ford has two different 6.2's (Super Duty & Raptor) that the two different engines Indmar sells originate from those two different Ford engines?  I mean, isn't it possible Indmar is buying ONE engine and applying different tunes to each?

edit: I'm kinda surprised @67King isn't chiming in more. I have a feeling he knows a lot about this topic. 

I am making that assumption and it is just that a assumption because the specs on the two Ford versions are virtually identical to the two indmar versions. In addition I was told by indmar the cams are different. If you look at the HP and torque increases it makes sense they would run different cams. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Just an observation, after owning 2 ford raptors, the power band on these trucks is from about 4 to 5900 rpms. Not where you want it in a tow boat. Seems to me the cheaper motor would be a better option. The truck is actually a pig off the line, but really shines, once you get into the higher rpms.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, surfdude said:

Just an observation, after owning 2 ford raptors, the power band on these trucks is from about 4 to 5900 rpms. Not where you want it in a tow boat. Seems to me the cheaper motor would be a better option. The truck is actually a pig off the line, but really shines, once you get into the higher rpms.

That's not what Ford states in all their press releases on the raptor engines. They state they were purpose built for truck applications with the torque curve pushed to the low rpm range. Indmar makes the same statements. The published torque curves bear that out. Peak torque is at 3800 rpm. In my boat the engine is a beast. In a 22 VLX I can get about 41.5 mph at the RPM limiter with full factory ballast and throttle still left. The boat surfs effortlessly with the wedge at 3 clicks, full factory ballast. 2 800's in the lockers, 650 in the bow and 800 lbs of people. In fact the boat seems to handle it so well I am thinking about propping it up a bit for more speed. So far I am a big fan of the engine except for noise. Indmar says it's quieter but I don't buy it. It's loud.

Edited by Sailvi767
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Sailvi767 said:

That's not what Ford states in all their press releases on the raptor engines. They state they were purpose built for truck applications with the torque curve pushed to the low rpm range. Indmar makes the same statements. The published torque curves bear that out. In my boat the engine is a beast. In a 22 VLX I can get about 41.5 mph at the RPM limiter with full factory ballast and throttle still left. The boat surfs effortlessly with the wedge at 3 clicks, full factory ballast. 2 800's in the lockers, 650 in the bow and 800 lbs of people. In fact the boat seems to handle it so well I am thinking about propping it up a bit for more speed. 

Curious... which engine in the VLX?  6.2L 410 or 450?

Link to comment

I think I would want to ask the dealer to try a boat with the two different motors side by side with the same ballast, before I pealed off another seven grand!

Link to comment

image_zpsymaobhha.jpegMy boat has the 450. No one should pay 7500 for it. When it's time to close the deal have them upgrade the motor at cost. Would be interested if anyone in the Charlotte area has the 410 engine to run them side by side. If it works I will try and post a HP/Torque curve I have for the base motor from Ford. It's a pretty impressive torque curve.

 

Edited by Sailvi767
Link to comment

I still wonder why Indmar/Malibu don't publish power numbers (they publish torque numbers and call it power, which it isn't).

There are a couple reasons why they use 2 v-drive ratios.  The first one is obvious, the higher torque motor (575) doesn't need as much torque multiplication so it can get by with 1.5.  But also, if the 1.76 was coupled to the 575 it would probably be above the torque capacity of the v-drive.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Sailvi767 said:

I am making that assumption and it is just that a assumption because the specs on the two Ford versions are virtually identical to the two indmar versions. In addition I was told by indmar the cams are different. If you look at the HP and torque increases it makes sense they would run different cams. 

Indmar is NOT using the Superduty version of the 6.2. The base 400 and 450 are the same engine and both use the Raptor cams. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
18 hours ago, Sailvi767 said:

One thing that does interest me is there are cam kits out for the motor that claim around 60 HP and 60 ftlbs of Torque increases. I will not do it now but might consider it a few years down the road. The kits show nice torque increases below 3500 RPM. The ford forums seem to feel the engine is bulletproof and can take the power. Love the engine lope at idle with the new cams installed. Would sound great in the boat!

That "lope" usually comes from additional cam overlap which could cause a concern for reversion causing water ingestion.

 

Just something to keep in mind.

Edited by 23LSVOwner
Link to comment

Late to the party, but it sounds like it's gotten on track.  Base motors are the same outside of ECU, supercharged motor was not built to be supercharged.  Overall the base engine is good and would recommend avoiding the other two if you want to save some cash (450) or plan on keeping your boat for a few years.  (575)

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...