New Supercharged LSA 550hp for 2011

[funkcity]

New Supercharged LSA 550hp for 2011

Has anyone driven one yet here?

http://www.gm.com/vehicles/innovation/powertrain-technology/engines/specialized/marine/REV_3_2011_6200_LSA_Marine.pdf

From Malibu:

New Power L96 & LSA

The new L96 6.0L (410 HP) pulls every water sport you’re into with 400 foot-pounds of torque. Low-end power or top-end speed, the L96’s Variable Valve Timing (VVT) automatically adjusts giving you the absolute best performance in either situation. And because Malibu powers boats with standard engines that are built specific 2011 Malibu G3 Tower in whiteand anything but standard, this one makes its home in the new 247 LSVs. The Supercharged LSA 6.2L (550 HP) tops Malibu’s list of engine options as the first production supercharged Gen-IV small block engine the marine industry has ever seen. With 545 ft-lb of torque the LSA doesn’t mess around and is available in all 23-247 foot Wakesetters and Sunscapes.

The LSA is the Cadillac CTS-V engine a slightly detuned and less-boosted version of the Corvette ZR-1 engine.

[jrz1]

Thanks for posting pdf. Havent seen that. Interesting that the lsa has torque starting at 400lbs which is where base engine peaks and then builds to 545 lbs. The hole shot, especially mid range while already on plane has got to be something. Havent driven one yet but am going to order one in the next few days. Anyone close to charlotte will be welcome to come check it out when it comes in.

[REW]

Thanks for posting pdf. Havent seen that. Interesting that the lsa has torque starting at 400lbs which is where base engine peaks and then builds to 545 lbs. The hole shot, especially mid range while already on plane has got to be something. Havent driven one yet but am going to order one in the next few days. Anyone close to charlotte will be welcome to come check it out when it comes in.

I'm Game post upwhen it shows up.

[jrz1]

Will do.

[Steve B.]

Do you need a pilot's license to fly one of these things ?

Steve B.

[REW]

Do you need a pilot's license to fly one of these things ?

Steve B.

The funnist airplane I ever flew only had 65hp, no electrical system and was covered in faberic. LR 60 not bad though

[oceanbu]

I was talking to my dealer about this bad boy and he said downside was it takes only premium gas. Where I am you can't get premium on the lake only mid-grade. Be a pain to have to pull out to gas up all the time or jerry can it. And that thing is going to be thirsty!

[jrz1]

I was talking to my dealer about this bad boy and he said downside was it takes only premium gas. Where I am you can't get premium on the lake only mid-grade. Be a pain to have to pull out to gas up all the time or jerry can it. And that thing is going to be thirsty!

Premium is recommended but not required. The motor will adjust. Youll just lose a little power as the electronics dial things back to avoid knock. Also, had one dealer tell me economy was better than the 8.1. Wouldnt surprise me at other than full throttle.

Edited December 9, 2010 by jrz1

[stroker-ace]

that looks 'spensive

[jkendallmsce]

New Supercharged LSA 550hp for 2011

Has anyone driven one yet here?

http://www.gm.com/vehicles/innovation/powertrain-technology/engines/specialized/marine/REV_3_2011_6200_LSA_Marine.pdf

From Malibu:

New Power L96 & LSA

The new L96 6.0L (410 HP) pulls every water sport you’re into with 400 foot-pounds of torque. Low-end power or top-end speed, the L96’s Variable Valve Timing (VVT) automatically adjusts giving you the absolute best performance in either situation. And because Malibu powers boats with standard engines that are built specific 2011 Malibu G3 Tower in whiteand anything but standard, this one makes its home in the new 247 LSVs. The Supercharged LSA 6.2L (550 HP) tops Malibu’s list of engine options as the first production supercharged Gen-IV small block engine the marine industry has ever seen. With 545 ft-lb of torque the LSA doesn’t mess around and is available in all 23-247 foot Wakesetters and Sunscapes.

The LSA is the Cadillac CTS-V engine a slightly detuned and less-boosted version of the Corvette ZR-1 engine.

Depends on what and how you use the boat. If you compare the LSA to the LS3 or even the monsoon, the power curves are roughly the same from idle to 3,000+ rpm. There is a slight advantage going with the LS3 as it is aluminum, so there is some weight savings over the cast iron monsoon. Only after you pass 3,000+ rpm do you see any significant HP or TQ increase.

Nice to have the most HP on the pond, but side by side, there is no difference in hole shot from the LS3 and the monsoon. At about 35 mph, the LS3 begins to pull away, but not by much. I would venture the same when compared to the LSA.

You'd see more improvement in performance by playing with the prop, ie cupping.

[85 Barefoot]

Premium is recommended but not required. The motor will adjust. Youll just lose a little power as the electronics dial things back to avoid knock. Also, had one dealer tell me economy was better than the 8.1. Wouldnt surprise me at other than full throttle.

It should be. 25% less displacement....what I found most interesting is that it doesn't even weigh 500 pounds. Impressive. Not that that's a good thing per se for wakesports, but an impressive piece of machinery.

[Bobby Light]

Depends on what and how you use the boat. If you compare the LSA to the LS3 or even the monsoon, the power curves are roughly the same from idle to 3,000+ rpm. There is a slight advantage going with the LS3 as it is aluminum, so there is some weight savings over the cast iron monsoon. Only after you pass 3,000+ rpm do you see any significant HP or TQ increase.

Nice to have the most HP on the pond, but side by side, there is no difference in hole shot from the LS3 and the monsoon. At about 35 mph, the LS3 begins to pull away, but not by much. I would venture the same when compared to the LSA.

You'd see more improvement in performance by playing with the prop, ie cupping.

That new LSA would stomp a mudhole in a monsoon from holeshot to whenever you wanted to stop. It makes more torque than the max monsoon tq at 2K rpm and has all 545+lb tq at 4k rpm. It's right around 4k rpm that the monsoon makes max torque.

Edited December 9, 2010 by 06vlx

[jrz1]

From eyeballing GM spec sheets on the 5.7L, the 6.0L VVT and the 6.2L LS3 and S/C LSA. I didn't even use ruler to eyeball so give me a break if the numbers aren't perfect. Note these figures won't match the motors in the Malibu precisely as the various marine powerplant companies tweak the mechanicals/electronics for each specific boat manufacturer but it's decent for comparative purposes.

I've not driven any of these in a Malibu so I'm only speculating but it would be hard to imagine the LSA would not have some degree of hole shot advantage over the other motors given the higher low end torque and rapid rise in torque even at < 3k RPM. At 2K RPM the diffences in torque and HP are meaningful enough to be felt and the advantage grows dramatically as RPM climb (@ 2000RPM +20% inrease in toque vs. LS3; 30% vs. 6.0VVT). Midrange acceleration is likely significantly better.

Whether this increase is "worth" the extra $$ - it's each individual's own opinion.

5.7L (Torq/HP); 432 lbs (engine weight)

1500RPM - 350/100

2000RPM - 355/150

3000RPM - 365/190

4000RPM - 355/250

6.0L VVT; 539 lbs

1500RPM - 325/100

2000RPM - 345/160

3000RPM - 375/240

4000RPM - 395/320

6.2L LS3 (normally aspirated); weight N/A but probably 445 lbs +/-

1500RPM - 350/100

2000RPM - 375/160

3000RPM - 390/230

4000RPM - 410/340

6.2L LSA (supercharged); 467 lbs

1500RPM - 400/125

2000RPM - 450/170

3000RPM - 500/300

4000RPM - 525/420

[jkendallmsce]

That new LSA would stomp a mudhole in a monsoon from holeshot to whenever you wanted to stop. It makes more torque than the max monsoon tq at 2K rpm and has all 545+lb tq at 4k rpm. It's right around 4k rpm that the monsoon makes max torque.

NOt sure where you are plucking your numbers from. Just where are you getting the HP/TQ curve for the LSA? Because GM's site curve will not be identical to Indmar's.

I have a LS3, and from 0 to 30 mph...there is NO difference. And Indmar's very own HP and TQ curves substatiate that. Not sure why they are not provided on their website. In fact, the last time I looked, Indmar did not even show the LS3, which shows/compares both engines to be nearly identical up to about 3,000+ (actually 3200). Like I said about the only difference is the weight when looking at the 0-30 hole shot. GM does not even list the gross/net/fry weight for the LS3, but does for the 5.7 L.

The LSA and the LS3 take nearly identical time frames for either/both engine to spool up to that 4k rpm. So the 0-30 is the same, it is the 30+ where you'd see any difference, which is what I said in my initial post.

Edited December 9, 2010 by jkendallmsce

[Bobby Light]

NOt sure where you are plucking your numbers from. Just where are you getting the HP/TQ curve for the LSA. Because GM's site curve will not be identical to Indmar's.

But I have a LS3, and from 0 to 30 mph...there is NO difference. And Indmar's very own HP and TQ curves substatiate that. Not sure why they are not provided on their website. In fact, the last time I looked, Indmar did not even show the LS3, which shows/compares both engines to be nearly identical up to about 3,000+ (actually 3200). Like I said about the only difference is the weight when looking at the 0-30 hole shot. GM does not even list the gross/net/fry weight for the LS3, but does for the 5.7 L.

The LSA and the LS3 take nearly identical time frames for either/both engine to spool up to that 4k rpm. So the 0-30 is the same, it is the 30+ where you'd see any difference, which is what I said in my initial post.

LS3? Did I say anything about that motor?

I would like to see these Indmar tq curves you speak of though if you can produce them.

Edited December 9, 2010 by 06vlx

[Malibudude]

LS3? Did I say anything about that motor?

I would like to see these Indmar torque curves you speak of though if you can produce them.

Indmar doesn't release them.

[jrz1]

As I said, the curves I got are from GM Powertrain who provides the cores to Indmar. I indicated the numbers won't exactly match as each firm like Indmar does it's own tweaking of the basic block etc.

There shouldn't be too much difference down low between the LS3 and the LSA since they are essentially the same core motor. The LSA's compression ratio is lowered from the LS3's (10.7:1 down to 9:1:1) given the supercharging so that will impact the curve down low before the impact of the S/C really comes into play. That said, the LS3 is no longer avail as far as I know for 2011 so the real comparison is the 6.0VVT vs. the LSA if you're considering a new boat.

Have you driven a boat with the LSA? Still think by 30mph the LSA has to be pulling a lot harder but who knows.

[Bobby Light]

Indmar doesn't release them.

That was the point.

[martinarcher]

That new LSA would stomp a mudhole in a monsoon from holeshot to whenever you wanted to stop. It makes more torque than the max monsoon tq at 2K rpm and has all 545+lb tq at 4k rpm. It's right around 4k rpm that the monsoon makes max torque.

Totally agree. The LSA would crush a Monsoon out of the hole - even more so with a weighted boat. The peak torque generated by that motor isn't going to be in the high RPM range.

[jkendallmsce]

Indmar doesn't release them.

They will send if you ask. I have power curve date for LS3 and monsoon.

[jkendallmsce]

From eyeballing GM spec sheets on the 5.7L, the 6.0L VVT and the 6.2L LS3 and S/C LSA. I didn't even use ruler to eyeball so give me a break if the numbers aren't perfect. Note these figures won't match the motors in the Malibu precisely as the various marine powerplant companies tweak the mechanicals/electronics for each specific boat manufacturer but it's decent for comparative purposes.

I've not driven any of these in a Malibu so I'm only speculating but it would be hard to imagine the LSA would not have some degree of hole shot advantage over the other motors given the higher low end torque and rapid rise in torque even at < 3k RPM. At 2K RPM the diffences in torque and HP are meaningful enough to be felt and the advantage grows dramatically as RPM climb (@ 2000RPM +20% inrease in toque vs. LS3; 30% vs. 6.0VVT). Midrange acceleration is likely significantly better.

Whether this increase is "worth" the extra $$ - it's each individual's own opinion.

5.7L (Torq/HP); 432 lbs (engine weight)

1500RPM - 350/100

2000RPM - 355/150

3000RPM - 365/190

4000RPM - 355/250

6.0L VVT; 539 lbs

1500RPM - 325/100

2000RPM - 345/160

3000RPM - 375/240

4000RPM - 395/320

6.2L LS3 (normally aspirated); weight N/A but probably 445 lbs +/-

1500RPM - 350/100

2000RPM - 375/160

3000RPM - 390/230

4000RPM - 410/340

6.2L LSA (supercharged); 467 lbs

1500RPM - 400/125

2000RPM - 450/170

3000RPM - 500/300

4000RPM - 525/420

The HP/TQ data is interesting, but one needs to take into account drag/wetted surface area. You can't just use HP to calculate speed/acceleration. In other words it is not a linear progression. ie if your 300 HP boat wlll go 50 mph, plopping in a 600 HP engine the boat's velocity would also double. We should know that is not the case.

ANd in the racing world, for every 2 pounds of dead weight, you need 1 HP to maintain the same velocity. But again, it is not a linear progression.

[SmoothWaterMan]

Torque is everything.

LSA torque is fascinating.

[jrz1]

The HP/TQ data is interesting, but one needs to take into account drag/wetted surface area. You can't just use HP to calculate speed/acceleration. In other words it is not a linear progression. ie if your 300 HP boat wlll go 50 mph, plopping in a 600 HP engine the boat's velocity would also double. We should know that is not the case.

ANd in the racing world, for every 2 pounds of dead weight, you need 1 HP to maintain the same velocity. But again, it is not a linear progression.

Agree but if we're talking same hull, you can make some comparison based on HP/TQ figures. Same thing for weight - other than the difference in the weight of the engines which is nominal at most. Understand about the non-linear relationship between power and speed. The laws of diminishing returns take over quickly, however, there should be noticeable differences in performance, especially in mid range acceleration where power plays an important role and before the the laws of diminishing returns (not sure what the physics terms are but understand the practical concepts) take over.

All that said, I'm going with the bling. Life is short and I do like having the most horsepower/torque on the lake (or at least having the most I can reasonably get my hands on) and I'd expect I'll be happy with the performance.

Edited December 10, 2010 by jrz1

[Ndawg12]

Thanks for posting pdf. Havent seen that. Interesting that the lsa has torque starting at 400lbs which is where base engine peaks and then builds to 545 lbs. The hole shot, especially mid range while already on plane has got to be something. Havent driven one yet but am going to order one in the next few days. Anyone close to charlotte will be welcome to come check it out when it comes in.

I'm Game post upwhen it shows up.

I'll bring the sodas

[jkendallmsce]

Agree but if we're talking same hull, you can make some comparison based on HP/TQ figures. Same thing for weight - other than the difference in the weight of the engines which is nominal at most. Understand about the non-linear relationship between power and speed. The laws of diminishing returns take over quickly, however, there should be noticeable differences in performance, especially in mid range acceleration where power plays an important role and before the the laws of diminishing returns (not sure what the physics terms are but understand the practical concepts) take over.

All that said, I'm going with the bling. Life is short and I do like having the most horsepower/torque on the lake (or at least having the most I can reasonably get my hands on) and I'd expect I'll be happy with the performance.

Better be prepared to drop your load then. Maybe you can postpone little Johnnie's trip to college for a year or 2!! ha ha The LS3 was not cheap. ANd the LSA has got to be twice the cost of the LS3. ANd I am pretty sure the LS3 is avail in the 2011.