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!

engine considerations.


tccombs

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, WAwinegrapes said:

Malibu and to a degree Indmar should be installing truck engines in these boats, rather than a a corvette engine or cadallic engine.  Many have talked about these boat being tractors or tug boats.  SO these boats need a truck engine.  Generating more low end torque.

#1 - the motors installed aren't a "Corvette" or "Cadillac" engine, just how Malibu/Indmar/GM (not sure which) chose to brand it.  LS1/LS3/LS7 (depending on boat you are referencing) were all used in non-Corvettes as well - though I guess I can give a pass on the LS7 as at the time Malibu/Indmar used it this was only used in the Corvette.  LSA was also used in the 1st Gen ZL1.

As for needing truck engines, go take a look at some dyno numbers.  None of the GM truck engine lineup (besides the diesels) make the low end torque of the LSA (or other supercharged V8 engines).  The LS3 also makes a ton of low-end torque.  For example, the L92 is the truck variant of the LS3 but is basically just an LS3 with a couple cheaper parts on it.   

 

 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, WAwinegrapes said:

Malibu and to a degree Indmar should be installing truck engines in these boats, rather than a a corvette engine or cadallic engine.  Many have talked about these boat being tractors or tug boats.  SO these boats need a truck engine.  Generating more low end torque.

The raptor is a truck engine.

Link to comment
WAwinegrapes
On 12/14/2016 at 1:24 PM, tccombs said:

I know torque is also considerably higher than a 350...    however I have never been able to locate the exact number from Indmar.   let me know if you find it. 

 

Edited by WAwinegrapes
Link to comment

"Truck engines" As are many engines being used in our boats. And if not they are Hi performance. Not the base auto engine.  This is  similar to some of the discussions on the site about EcoBoost engines. We see issues or failures but for the most part the engines are standing up quite well. None of them are junk or they would not last for year after year!   

Edited by Sixball
Link to comment

So even the engines not used in trucks have been Hi performance. Four bolt mains, forged cranks, Better heads, Not the standard run of the line base auto engine.

Link to comment
WAwinegrapes

I should have stated I was only talking about the gm engines.  Yes the new FordRaptor engines are truck engines and built and designed for towing and low end TQ.

Not sure what low end tq nitrous is talking about, as most of of gm engines malibu used get their max TQ at about 4000+ rpm...aside from the 5.7 .   hardly what I would call stump pulling numbers.  and now where close to the 8.1 gm engine.  the ls3 in my 2010 Malibu  was THE SAME engine as in the corvette.  Down to the badging/valve covers.  and of you look at the gm links, the ls3 max TQ is at approx 4000 rpm.  and the l96 and l86 engines max TQ is 4100-4200 rpm

nitrous is right that the ls3 had found its way into many other gm products.

AND there is a difference to how a truck motor is built vs a ls3, ls7 or other higher revving engines you'd find in corvette and camaros.  That was a primary point I was trying to make.

Link to comment

FWIW, I am sold on the new GM GDI engines.  The 5.3l in my boat is awesome: quiet, powerful, and fuel efficient, and makes my boat leap out of the hole.  I hear the 6.2l is a real monster and it would not surprise me.  

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, WAwinegrapes said:

#1 Not sure what low end tq nitrous is talking about, as most of of gm engines malibu used get their max TQ at about 4000+ rpm...aside from the 5.7 .   hardly what I would call stump pulling numbers.  

#2 and now where close to the 8.1 gm engine.  

#3  the ls3 in my 2010 Malibu  was THE SAME engine as in the corvette.  Down to the badging/valve covers.  and of you look at the gm links, the ls3 max TQ is at approx 4000 rpm.  and the l96 and l86 engines max TQ is 4100-4200 rpm

#4:  nitrous is right that the ls3 had found its way into many other gm products.

#5 AND there is a difference to how a truck motor is built vs a ls3, ls7 or other higher revving engines you'd find in corvette and camaros.  That was a primary point I was trying to make.

#1:  The LS1 is a 5.7L motor.  Which motor are you actually talking about.  The dated GEN-I motor that was last updated in 1996 (using a standard coolant flow variation of the LT1 heads that were released in 1992).  Where are you getting your dyno numbers?  Just because a motor peaks at a certain point has nothing to do with area under the curve. 

#2:  Other than the supercharged motors, of course not.  It's an 8.1L big block. 

#3: Two of the 3 motors you are talking about are truck motors.  Kind of goes against your original statement.  

#4:  Yes, G8 GXP, Camaro, SS .  Same as the LS7 (Vette and Z28), LS1 (GTO, F-Body) - plus more outside of the US or non-GM vehicles

#5:  You already quoted truck-only motors in #3 complaining about peak numbers.  Now let's look at the difference between the L92 and LS3, as they are nearly the same motor.  Same shortblock except the L92 has a slightly lower CR to run lower grade fuel.  Same heads except the L92 has weaker springs and heavier valves.  Hard to find stock L92 cam specs, but from what is out there they look very similar.  How is it the truck motor is better than the car motor?

Link to comment
WAwinegrapes
On 4/7/2017 at 8:53 AM, Nitrousbird said:

#1:  The LS1 is a 5.7L motor.  Which motor are you actually talking about.  The dated GEN-I motor that was last updated in 1996 (using a standard coolant flow variation of the LT1 heads that were released in 1992).  Where are you getting your dyno numbers?  Just because a motor peaks at a certain point has nothing to do with area under the curve. 

#2:  Other than the supercharged motors, of course not.  It's an 8.1L big block. 

#3: Two of the 3 motors you are talking about are truck motors.  Kind of goes against your original statement.  

#4:  Yes, G8 GXP, Camaro, SS .  Same as the LS7 (Vette and Z28), LS1 (GTO, F-Body) - plus more outside of the US or non-GM vehicles

#5:  You already quoted truck-only motors in #3 complaining about peak numbers.  Now let's look at the difference between the L92 and LS3, as they are nearly the same motor.  Same shortblock except the L92 has a slightly lower CR to run lower grade fuel.  Same heads except the L92 has weaker springs and heavier valves.  Hard to find stock L92 cam specs, but from what is out there they look very similar.  How is it the truck motor is better than the car motor?

If you'd pull your head out. and take a breath!  Look at the links I provided in my earlier post.  The dyno numbers are included for each engine.  I guess your ADD kicked in and missed that part.

And unless you can read my mind, which you can't.  I was NOT complaining. Not sure where you came up with that opinion about the complaining.  I was however simply providing numbers that GM uses to sell/promote their engines.    But we all know what opinions are worth.

And I did not say truck engines are better than  say  car engines...If I did, please point that out to me.  WHat I DID say, was that truck engines are designed differently than high revving engines in corvettes and camaros, as TQ is more important than HP,  as their use and needs are much different. that should be a no brainer?  and common sense would suggest that? maybe not?

in simple terms.  the right tool/engine/part for the job.  Hopefully that is clear and understandable.

Link to comment

It would be nice if there was a true standardized method for HP and torque ratings on Marine engines. Sadly there is not. When I compare engines I use the CARB test results because at least you know each engine was tested the same. A example is the H6 PCM engine. Nautique rates it at 450HP on regular fuel. The GM marine site lists the engine at 420HP on premium fuel. Carb lists the engine at 391HP. 

Link to comment

So does anyone know, when we are considering engine considerations, what sort of re-power would allow the addition of Zero Off?  If my motor in my '98 Response, a 5.7 Monsoon, ever were to go down, I would be interested in adding it.  

Edited by sunvalleylaw
Link to comment
ahopkins22LSV
5 hours ago, sunvalleylaw said:

So anyone know, when we are considering engine considerations, what sort of re-power would allow the addition of Zero Off?  If my motor in my '98 Response, a 5.7 Monsoon, ever were to go down, I would be interested in adding it.  

I have very limited knowledge on this, but I believe ZO just requires a specific type of ECM and multi-port/DI fuel. I could be wrong about the fuel portion though. If you contact ECM or as on BOS they will know.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, ahopkinsTXi said:

I have very limited knowledge on this, but I believe ZO just requires a specific type of ECM and multi-port/DI fuel. I could be wrong about the fuel portion though. If you contact ECM or as on BOS they will know.

Ok, I am not very knowledgeable.  What is "ECM"? and who on BOS?  AS?

 

EDIT:  Ok, I researched a little. So my old '98 350 5.7 Monsoon needs to have an EControls drive-by-wire engine control unit in order for it to work.  Not sure if one can add that.  Will look around and see what I can find.  Probably this question should be a different thread as it seems to be a different type of engine consideration.  

Edited by sunvalleylaw
Link to comment

 

17 hours ago, WAwinegrapes said:

#1:  If you'd pull your head out. and take a breath!  Look at the links I provided in my earlier post.  The dyno numbers are included for each engine.  I guess your ADD kicked in and missed that part.

#2: And unless you can read my mind, which you can't.  I was NOT complaining. Not sure where you came up with that opinion about the complaining.  I was however simply providing numbers that GM uses to sell/promote their engines.    But we all know what opinions are worth.

#3:  And I did not say truck engines are better than  say  car engines...If I did, please point that out to me.  WHat I DID say, was that truck engines are designed differently than high revving engines in corvettes and camaros, as TQ is more important than HP,  as their use and needs are much different. that should be a no brainer?  and common sense would suggest that? maybe not?

in simple terms.  the right tool/engine/part for the job.  Hopefully that is clear and understandable.

#1:  I looked at your GM Dyno example.  GM L31 (GEN-1e) makes 308ft/lb peak at 1400 RPM.  The other two examples on that page, 5.3L L83 makes the same at that RPM but continues to climb to 382.  The 6.2L L86 makes 340ish at that RPM climbing to 460.  How does that make the L31 a "stump puller" in comparison to the others when one makes the same torque at the same RPM and the other makes more, yet both continue to climb?  Both of these motors are far and away better even from a torque perspective than the L31.

#2:  And I quote "Malibu and to a degree Indmar should be installing truck engines in these boats, rather than a a corvette engine or cadallic engine.  Many have talked about these boat being tractors or tug boats.  SO these boats need a truck engine.  Generating more low end torque."  Sure sounds like complaining about using "car" engines to me.

#3:  You stated truck motors are better than car motors for this application.  The difference is you have some theory that these truck-only motors are designated to make more power down low at the sacrifice at high RPM HP.  The reality is the car variants make same/similar low RPM power but more peak power, due to being more expensive designs that require higher octane fuel (hence my L92 vs LS3 example - very similar engines, with the LS3 having a few higher grade pieces and a higher compression ratio).  Go look at the number of dyno tests out there (RWHP, so the numbers will be lower) on the LS3, LS2, LS7, etc), all "car" motors that make a lot of power down low.  That is what they are known for.  Then truck variants are simply less expensive to build and have lower fuel requirements.  Cost to build and fuel requirements are a much bigger deal for large volume vehicles to build, such as trucks/SUV's. 

Even then, GM has put "car" motors into SUV's.  The Trailblazer SS & Saab 9-7x got the LS2, both which I've seen being used for towing duties (we have a local with a decent cam/exhaust setup at the ramp all the time).   

Link to comment
WAwinegrapes

first is it NOT my example...it is GM's very own info/data they supply to the public and for public consumption.  Not as if is I  pulled the info outta some orifice.  It is called cut and paste.  You might try it some time.

You are entitled to your own opinion(s). No matter how juvenile, sophomoric and/or uninformed.  Some folks have a difficult time dealing and accepting facts.  I guess you are one of those.

Again I NEVER said one engine is better than the other...your reading seems ok, your comprehension is lacking.  Maybe you are simply stuck on some mode?

This debate only reinforces my thoughts that some folks love to argue, even about mundane things like what the definition of "is" is. I have better things to do.

Clearly you were unable to comprehend my right tool for the job comment.  For that I apologize, but I am unable to simplify any further.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, WAwinegrapes said:

#1: first is it NOT my example...it is GM's very own info/data they supply to the public and for public consumption.  Not as if is I  pulled the info outta some orifice.  It is called cut and paste.  You might try it some time.

#2: You are entitled to your own opinion(s). No matter how juvenile, sophomoric and/or uninformed.  Some folks have a difficult time dealing and accepting facts.  I guess you are one of those.

#3: Again I NEVER said one engine is better than the other...your reading seems ok, your comprehension is lacking.  Maybe you are simply stuck on some mode?

#4:  This debate only reinforces my thoughts that some folks love to argue, even about mundane things like what the definition of "is" is. I have better things to do.

#5:  Clearly you were unable to comprehend my right tool for the job comment.  For that I apologize, but I am unable to simplify any further.

#1:  You chose to use the GM numbers provided on their site = your example. Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V.  Got it - I only use it 100+ times a day. 

#2:  I enjoy your personal attacks.  I'm not sure what facts you expect me to accept - you made statements I clearly debunked with your own information

#3:  Except you did in the context of this thread about engines in a towboat.  And I quote: "Malibu and to a degree Indmar should be installing truck engines in these boats" and "SO these boats need a truck engine"

#4:  You make blanket statements that need to be corrected.  Such as your inference of the L31 being a better than an LS3/L86/etc. because it has a peak torque number at 1400RPM, yet all those other motors make the same or more torque at the same RPM. 

#5:  Totally comprehend the statement.  The fact is the "truck" engines aren't any better at low end torque than the equivalent "car" motors.  I have already point that out and what some of the differences are.   

Link to comment
On ‎4‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 9:24 PM, WAwinegrapes said:

Malibu and to a degree Indmar should be installing truck engines in these boats, rather than a a corvette engine or cadallic engine.  Many have talked about these boat being tractors or tug boats.  SO these boats need a truck engine.  Generating more low end torque.

You are right on point!   they are more like a tractor than... than a car or even a truck..

 

      However,  my engine builder says   a marine engine needs to go even a step or two even  beyond a truck engine...    A a marine engine really needs to even  be even tougher than a typical  truck engine...     Here is how he explained it to me. The guy who is building my engine builds racing engines of all sorts and he really  knows his stuff and explained this well to me I think.   at least It made a whole lot of sense to me..

A.   "Car engine"..   With a car engine and depending how you drive.. you will only occasionally  rev it up to full power  when accelerating only momentarily getting the RPMS over 3000.    then you hit highway speeds  and it takes little to no power to maintain that speed and rpms drop below 2000.   you can see it takes little power to maintain speed  because if you go 60 mph  then put the car in neutral  you can coast for a mile or more  before stopping...  so it takes little power to maintain speed.

B.  A "Truck engine"   A truck it heavier  less aero dynamic and built to haul heavy loads  up steep hills  so it needs more power and torque and needs to be a heavier duty engine. the rpms will be similar  to the  car..   But still if you do the same experiment  and put it in neutral and coast it wont go  approximately 3/4 of the distance of the car.

C.   Now a  "Marine tow boat engine"    needs  full or  nearly full power to pull up a skier or boarder quickly.  But  unlike the car or truck   to maintain speed at 34 Mph...   it doesn't downshift.. to a lower rpm... it continues to  run at about 3500 RPMs   for extended periods of time...  This higher rpm is necessary to produce the torque and HP to  overcome the significant drag on a boat  when under way..    frequently we drive home fast 40+  at over 4000 rpms  too..  for long periods of time..     under the same same example as above,  if you are traveling at speed  in a boat and put it in neutral...  it comes to a stop really fast! usually in 100 feet or less!   that shows very quickly how  much drag that engine must overcome the entire time it is running.   

So unlike a car or truck...   we are running high HP!   at High  RPMS!   under High torque!  for pretty  long periods of time!  and we are doing it in a rather harsh hot and wet environment.. this is why boat engines need to be build to a whole other level    or  more like a "tractor"  as you put it   and why they need to be balanced  so very well.. 

I was told our  typical  car and truck factory engines are balanced to within 8- 10 grams out of the factory.    and the marine manufactrues don't  usually  improve upon that...    However my builder  says  for our marine engines... it should be  balancing  mine  to  within 0.5 grams  which is what he plans to do with mine.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

The naming car or truck is the only thing I hesitate with. What you are looking for are more robust parts. Forged crank,rods and pistons, 4 bolt main bearing caps things along that line. After that compression, cams, heads, valves, valve springs, lifters, or intake and exhaust manifolds. Things like the Calibration of the ECU all give you what you want. H.P. and torque  at A given RPM or curve.  Simple but not so much car or truck but build and calibration.  Its likely a hi performance car engine could have a better harmonic balancer over a truck if RPM is the guide line. I don't keep up with factory builds much anymore the only time I look at this would be picking a engine if A choices.  I don't disagree with what you are trying to get across I understand what  you are saying.  I would love to see a close up clear picture of the crank end at the brake, head on. So did you notice any engine vibration before the problem?  An old racer is always curious.  In the end I hope you get squared away and back to enjoying A good boating season. 

 

Link to comment
WAwinegrapes
1 hour ago, tccombs said:

You are right on point!   they are more like a tractor than... than a car or even a truck..

 

      However,  my engine builder says   a marine engine needs to go even a step or two even  beyond a truck engine...    A a marine engine really needs to even  be even tougher than a typical  truck engine...     Here is how he explained it to me. The guy who is building my engine builds racing engines of all sorts and he really  knows his stuff and explained this well to me I think.   at least It made a whole lot of sense to me..

A.   "Car engine"..   With a car engine and depending how you drive.. you will only occasionally  rev it up to full power  when accelerating only momentarily getting the RPMS over 3000.    then you hit highway speeds  and it takes little to no power to maintain that speed and rpms drop below 2000.   you can see it takes little power to maintain speed  because if you go 60 mph  then put the car in neutral  you can coast for a mile or more  before stopping...  so it takes little power to maintain speed.

B.  A "Truck engine"   A truck it heavier  less aero dynamic and built to haul heavy loads  up steep hills  so it needs more power and torque and needs to be a heavier duty engine. the rpms will be similar  to the  car..   But still if you do the same experiment  and put it in neutral and coast it wont go  approximately 3/4 of the distance of the car.

C.   Now a  "Marine tow boat engine"    needs  full or  nearly full power to pull up a skier or boarder quickly.  But  unlike the car or truck   to maintain speed at 34 Mph...   it doesn't downshift.. to a lower rpm... it continues to  run at about 3500 RPMs   for extended periods of time...  This higher rpm is necessary to produce the torque and HP to  overcome the significant drag on a boat  when under way..    frequently we drive home fast 40+  at over 4000 rpms  too..  for long periods of time..     under the same same example as above,  if you are traveling at speed  in a boat and put it in neutral...  it comes to a stop really fast! usually in 100 feet or less!   that shows very quickly how  much drag that engine must overcome the entire time it is running.   

So unlike a car or truck...   we are running high HP!   at High  RPMS!   under High torque!  for pretty  long periods of time!  and we are doing it in a rather harsh hot and wet environment.. this is why boat engines need to be build to a whole other level    or  more like a "tractor"  as you put it   and why they need to be balanced  so very well.. 

I was told our  typical  car and truck factory engines are balanced to within 8- 10 grams out of the factory.    and the marine manufactrues don't  usually  improve upon that...    However my builder  says  for our marine engines... it should be  balancing  mine  to  within 0.5 grams  which is what he plans to do with mine.

 

Hopefully someone who we all know and respect reads this as that person was stuck on the TQ, HP and something else??,  missing, by a jinormous mark, my comments and points!  Maybe if that person was less intractable?? And just maybe someone who has built dozens of engines for ag use and racing over a decade or 3,  MIGHT just know a thing or 2??

 

Tolerances are much different and even the oil used is different.  Most marine applications use a 15W-40 while the LS3 in  my boat uses a 5W-30.  And the LS3 uses 5W-30 cause it is the exact same engine outta a corvette.  Even the badgin says CORVETTE!  imagine that!

Edited by WAwinegrapes
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Sixball said:

The naming car or truck is the only thing I hesitate with. What you are looking for are more robust parts. Forged crank,rods and pistons, 4 bolt main bearing caps things along that line. After that compression, cams, heads, valves, valve springs, lifters, or intake and exhaust manifolds. Things like the Calibration of the ECU all give you what you want. H.P. and torque  at A given RPM or curve.  Simple but not so much car or truck but build and calibration.  Its likely a hi performance car engine could have a better harmonic balancer over a truck if RPM is the guide line. I don't keep up with factory builds much anymore the only time I look at this would be picking a engine if A choices.  I don't disagree with what you are trying to get across I understand what  you are saying.  I would love to see a close up clear picture of the crank end at the brake, head on. So did you notice any engine vibration before the problem?  An old racer is always curious.  In the end I hope you get squared away and back to enjoying A good boating season. 

 

you are right.. of course..   but for some of us who don't speak "engine "so well  putting it in terms of truck ,car,  or marine makes more sense  to some of us. 

 

Ill see if I can find the photos

Link to comment

From what I've seen, marine engines don't use any tougher parts than a typical passenger car engine.  The reason they can get away this is that a car going 200k miles these days is the norm.  At average 50 mph, that's 4000 hrs.  The same engine in a boat, with the rougher duty cycle, might only last half that, but that's good enough.

Link to comment
WAwinegrapes
10 hours ago, tccombs said:

You are right on point!   they are more like a tractor than... than a car or even a truck..

 

      However,  my engine builder says   a marine engine needs to go even a step or two even  beyond a truck engine...    A a marine engine really needs to even  be even tougher than a typical  truck engine...     Here is how he explained it to me. The guy who is building my engine builds racing engines of all sorts and he really  knows his stuff and explained this well to me I think.   at least It made a whole lot of sense to me..

A.   "Car engine"..   With a car engine and depending how you drive.. you will only occasionally  rev it up to full power  when accelerating only momentarily getting the RPMS over 3000.    then you hit highway speeds  and it takes little to no power to maintain that speed and rpms drop below 2000.   you can see it takes little power to maintain speed  because if you go 60 mph  then put the car in neutral  you can coast for a mile or more  before stopping...  so it takes little power to maintain speed.

B.  A "Truck engine"   A truck it heavier  less aero dynamic and built to haul heavy loads  up steep hills  so it needs more power and torque and needs to be a heavier duty engine. the rpms will be similar  to the  car..   But still if you do the same experiment  and put it in neutral and coast it wont go  approximately 3/4 of the distance of the car.

C.   Now a  "Marine tow boat engine"    needs  full or  nearly full power to pull up a skier or boarder quickly.  But  unlike the car or truck   to maintain speed at 34 Mph...   it doesn't downshift.. to a lower rpm... it continues to  run at about 3500 RPMs   for extended periods of time...  This higher rpm is necessary to produce the torque and HP to  overcome the significant drag on a boat  when under way..    frequently we drive home fast 40+  at over 4000 rpms  too..  for long periods of time..     under the same same example as above,  if you are traveling at speed  in a boat and put it in neutral...  it comes to a stop really fast! usually in 100 feet or less!   that shows very quickly how  much drag that engine must overcome the entire time it is running.   

So unlike a car or truck...   we are running high HP!   at High  RPMS!   under High torque!  for pretty  long periods of time!  and we are doing it in a rather harsh hot and wet environment.. this is why boat engines need to be build to a whole other level    or  more like a "tractor"  as you put it   and why they need to be balanced  so very well.. 

I was told our  typical  car and truck factory engines are balanced to within 8- 10 grams out of the factory.    and the marine manufactrues don't  usually  improve upon that...    However my builder  says  for our marine engines... it should be  balancing  mine  to  within 0.5 grams  which is what he plans to do with mine.

 

Compare a car.  velocity is 35 mph, put it in neutral.  How many feet will it coast on a level roadway until it stops?

any Malibu, velocity is same,  35 mph (same as the car) .  How many feet will the Malibu coast until it comes to a complete stop?

That is how much more drag (frictional forces) the Malibu has to contend with vs the car.  Of course, water temp and if brackish, or even salt, the results will be different, but obvious.

Now put a few hundred pounds of water in the Mallibu and perform the test again.

You tell me which engine is working harder!

Or have a corvette with a LS3 and a malibu also with a LS3.  both start from 0 velocity, accelerate to 40 mph.  both continue at 40 mph for 1 hour.  Compare gas usage.

Again tell me which engine is working harder to maintain a velocity of 40 mph?  The difference will be even more noticable, as frictional forces are squared when calculating drag or friction.

Performing any of the above tests at 45 or 50 mph the results will generate even bigger discrepencies.

Link to comment

Boat and aircraft engines are similar in power demands. Both types lead a much harsher life then car engines. Piston aircraft engines routinely operate at 75% power or more. They even rate power that way as a percentage of full power. Published time between overhauls is usually about 1800 hours however many don't make it that long. Boats operate at similar power levels. A car on the other hand cruising at 65mph is probably operating at 20 to 30% power. Engine life goes down exponentially as average power setting goes up. The other thing that effects engine life is thermal cycles. Engines run  at a constant power setting will run trouble free many times longer than those with constantly changing power demands. 

Edited by Sailvi767
  • Like 1
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...