575 6.2L Ford ROUSHcharged Raptor vs 556hp Supercharged LSA ?

[Tims]

I think gas quality is the bigger factor in determining weather or not a boosted engine will last. Engines "designed" to be boosted break ring lands and let go all the time. Detonation is a killer and one bad tank of fuel can mean the end. Keep them fed with quality fuel and a good tune, they can hold up. Score a point for Doc's 7.4

[nyryan2001]

When the first LSAs came out in 2011 there were a few reports of overheat issues....since then there haven't been any wide ranging issues with any of them from Indmar or PCM.

I had to replace an O2 sensor at 180hrs, otherwise mine has been flawless, I'm at 250hrs now.

Fuel consumption.... if you don't manage it closely with how you use it can really change the way you use your boat. 3000rpm is ~9gph. 3500rpm is ~12gph and it goes up from there. Getting the right prop on there for your activities key, spin the biggest prop you can for your activity, take advantage of the tq that comes in at the lower RPMs, keep RPMs low and save gas. Most of the time now I surf 2600-2900rpms on a 16x16" prop.

[67King]

I doubt reliability an issue, lots of 3.5L all alum Eco boost motors in trucks with 150,000 miles 3000 hours are aok. running a Roush charged motor that was making 411hp and 434 torque boosted to 575 with unlimited cooling water from the lake and putting on maybe 40-50 hours a year, np. Heck my Kawasaki jet ski runs a 1.5L motor 300hp run it wo for half hour at a time no issues.

Different animals. The V6 was another that was going on while I was there (though I wasn't as familiar with it). It was designed wtih boost in mind very, very early on. The LSA took an architecture, and modified it. The 3.5L was designed as an architecture. But even still, its internals are much different, and much stronger. And all of its development was done in house, with MUCH better resources. And the manager who oversaw it (a guy named Jim Mazuchowski - he was my boss for a stint there) was absolutely top notch. Compression ratio is lower than comparable non-turbo engines (noting that it has direct injection, which allows higher CR, so while it may not seem low compared to an NA engine, it is low for a DI NA engine). Forged crank. I believe rods and pistons. But, as aluded to earlier, different rods and pistons.

The Roush was a production engine, never designed to be run with boost, and from what I can tell, has had a blower strapped on. No internal changes. No dropped CR. No nothing. Slap on a blower, and try to tune it with nowhere near the resources that Ford has. Pray it makes it past the warranty period.

The two are probably every bit as different as gasoline and diesel engines.

[IXFE]

Different animals. The V6 was another that was going on while I was there (though I wasn't as familiar with it). It was designed wtih boost in mind very, very early on. The LSA took an architecture, and modified it. The 3.5L was designed as an architecture. But even still, its internals are much different, and much stronger. And all of its development was done in house, with MUCH better resources. And the manager who oversaw it (a guy named Jim Mazuchowski - he was my boss for a stint there) was absolutely top notch. Compression ratio is lower than comparable non-turbo engines (noting that it has direct injection, which allows higher CR, so while it may not seem low compared to an NA engine, it is low for a DI NA engine). Forged crank. I believe rods and pistons. But, as aluded to earlier, different rods and pistons.

The Roush was a production engine, never designed to be run with boost, and from what I can tell, has had a blower strapped on. No internal changes. No dropped CR. No nothing. Slap on a blower, and try to tune it with nowhere near the resources that Ford has. Pray it makes it past the warranty period.

The two are probably every bit as different as gasoline and diesel engines.

This validates what I was challenging earlier... the notion that the LSA was designed from the ground up with forced induction in mind.

Your post above really helped solidify in my mind the following three approaches to forced induction:

1. Designed from the groud up (e.g. 3.5L Ecoboost)
2. Modify existing architecture (e.g. 6.2L LSA)
3. Slap it on and pray it don't blow (e.g. 6.2L Roush)

I might also add... I really enjoy your posts since you joined. Great addition to the forum. It's funny to see how different guys bring different expertise from their careers. Your background is particularly relevant. Thanks!

Edited August 20, 2015 by IXFE

[67King]

This validates what I was challenging earlier... the notion that the LSA was designed from the ground up with forced induction in mind.

Your post above really helped solidify in my mind the following three approaches to forced induction:

1. Designed from the groud up (e.g. 3.5L Ecoboost)
2. Modify existing architecture (e.g. 6.2L LSA)
3. Slap it on and pray it don't blow (e.g. 6.2L Roush)

I might also add... I really enjoy your posts since you joined. Great addition to the forum. It's funny to see how different guys bring different expertise from their careers. Your background is particularly relevant. Thanks!

Well, thanks much for teh compliment! However, modifying an existing architecture isn't necessarily an inferior way of doing it. It just means you have to do things differently. For example, if you have a block with really thick bulkheads, you can use a crank that is not quite as strong. But if you have thinner bulkheads, you have to use a more expensive crank. Sometimes, you just have to change both - some examples are the Ford GT and the Terminator (03-04 Cobra). But most forced induction cars have NA counterparts, and they are usually older. Shoot, I've been through a fair number of Porsche 944 turbo engines. NOthing inferior about it, at least related to the forced induction part (their gawd-awful oiling is another matter, and it doesn't care about induction!).

Even still through all of that, one can still use weaker parts, just throw on forced induction, and still make it work if it is tuned properly. Now, it won't work particularly well, but everything is about compromise. But it can survive.....though it will be a lot less robust to the folks out there who will invariable try to get a little more out of it.

[23LSVOwner]

Even still through all of that, one can still use weaker parts, just throw on forced induction, and still make it work if it is tuned properly. Now, it won't work particularly well, but everything is about compromise. But it can survive.....though it will be a lot less robust to the folks out there who will invariable try to get a little more out of it.

That depends on the robustness of the "weaker parts". If you haven't spent any time in a roush modified vehicle you should. Roush isn't exactly some fly by night company. Anything they design is well tested and engineered.

In my experience as well as the experience of my dyno tuner it isn't a compromise that doesn't work "particularly well" at all.

Edited August 21, 2015 by 23LSVOwner

[67King]

That depends on the robustness of the "weaker parts". If you haven't spent any time in a roush modified vehicle you should. Roush isn't exactly some fly by night company. Anything they design is well tested and engineered.

In my experience as well as the experience of my dyno tuner it isn't a compromise that doesn't work "particularly well" at all.

I had mentioned earlier that I was with Ford doing engine development. I have countless hours in the 2003 Cobra (which was D&R'd by Roush, as were most SVT products) most of them heavily instrumented on a chassis dyno, as it went into production before the base engine, and subsequently had to have production halted because it wasn't ready due to a cylinder head cooling issue. And as a follow up, almost 50% of the engines had to be replaced under warranty......mostly due to the bottom end. And I also have spent countless hours in their engineering facilities. They are certainly a big step above your average corner tuner shop, but that's not what at play here. Their designs are nowhere nearly as well tested or engineered as OEM ones, which is what is being compared.

Aftermarket companies do not have as stringent durability, or even EPA types of requirements, placed on them as do OEM's, It is more than a little unfair to compare Roush to Ford or to GM. Of course they don't have the resources, and of course they can get away with more. But we are comparing two different engine options in boats, and from the customer perspective, Roush *IS* being compared to GM.

[23LSVOwner]

I had mentioned earlier that I was with Ford doing engine development. I have countless hours in the 2003 Cobra (which was D&R'd by Roush, as were most SVT products) most of them heavily instrumented on a chassis dyno, as it went into production before the base engine, and subsequently had to have production halted because it wasn't ready due to a cylinder head cooling issue. And as a follow up, almost 50% of the engines had to be replaced under warranty......mostly due to the bottom end. And I also have spent countless hours in their engineering facilities. They are certainly a big step above your average corner tuner shop, but that's not what at play here. Their designs are nowhere nearly as well tested or engineered as OEM ones, which is what is being compared.

Aftermarket companies do not have as stringent durability, or even EPA types of requirements, placed on them as do OEM's, It is more than a little unfair to compare Roush to Ford or to GM. Of course they don't have the resources, and of course they can get away with more. But we are comparing two different engine options in boats, and from the customer perspective, Roush *IS* being compared to GM.

Almost 50% of the engines had to be replaced due to bottom end failure? Pretty sure that would be all over the Mustang forums if true.

From a quick perusal of the forums it looks like 95% of the ones that have been reported as blowing up were fairly highly modified.

[LS-One]

I have a question. I have a Honda S2000. I understand the motor cannot accept a turbo but can accept a supercharger.

Why is that ?

[23LSVOwner]

I have a question. I have a Honda S2000. I understand the motor cannot accept a turbo but can accept a supercharger.

Why is that ?

Boost is boost, turbo or supercharger.

Lots of turbo kits out there for them.

[The Hulk]

What I like about the sc raptor... Pure red neck it's NASCAR Roush powered, has a steel block and 90 pound tvs charger. Package is 250 heavier than the lsa... Free ballast weight.

if the Roush is 250 lbs heavier ....then the LSA would be better (not speaking of free ballast) but i thought i read somewhere that a general rule of thumb was that for boats and jetskies it takes 1hp for every 2lbs additional weight to maintain the same speed, not sure exactly how that plays out or how true that is, but if thats the case or even a fraction of that then the LSA is the clear winner.

[67King]

Almost 50% of the engines had to be replaced due to bottom end failure? Pretty sure that would be all over the Mustang forums if true.

From a quick perusal of the forums it looks like 95% of the ones that have been reported as blowing up were fairly highly modified.

Warranty info from 10 years ago isn't going to be all over too many forums.........

[23LSVOwner]

Warranty info from 10 years ago isn't going to be all over too many forums.........

Owners with blown up motors talk about it.

[Dodger40]

I'm not an expert, so I'm a little leary to post here. You do have to wonder how many of the owners blame themselves for pushing there motors too hard, or are such fanboys they never realized their motors weren't built strong enough.

[67King]

Owners with blown up motors talk about it.

Yes, and they were 10 years ago when it was happening. I'd point you to a link, but the forums are often expunged in that timeframe.

For example, I found this link with about 5 seconds of sleuthing on Corral.net. But the link isn't working: http://www.modularfords.com/forums/2003-2004-mustang-cobra/summary-of-blown-engines-12489.html

[Nitrousbird]

I have a question. I have a Honda S2000. I understand the motor cannot accept a turbo but can accept a supercharger.

Why is that ?

Probably a packaging issue. That car needs a LSx motor swap, not forced induction added to it.

[2014Skier]

if the Roush is 250 lbs heavier ....then the LSA would be better (not speaking of free ballast) but i thought i read somewhere that a general rule of thumb was that for boats and jetskies it takes 1hp for every 2lbs additional weight to maintain the same speed, not sure exactly how that plays out or how true that is, but if thats the case or even a fraction of that then the LSA is the clear winner.

I can't see this being even remotely true. So say it takes 200 HP to move a boat 24 mph, then that exact same boat adds 3000 lbs of ballast and still wants to go 24 mph, does that mean that it needs 1700 HP?

As far as the LSA is concerned, to suggest that it is simply an LS3 with a blower bolted on top is insane, just because externally the engines look similar, doesn't mean they are. I can't remember exactly in which way off the top of my head but the LSA block is strengthened and cast from a different mold than the LS3, it might even be a different alloy then the LS3 block, I'm quite certain the LS9 block is. The LSA's have a forged crank with 8 flywheel bolts compared to LS3 six, stronger rods and pistons, roto cast cylinder heads with thicker deck surfaces, and piston oil squirters, just to name some stuff off the top of my head. Different block, rotating assembly, and heads, sure seems like a built for boost engine to me, it just looks similar on the outside.

I did some searching and found this....

LS3 has a Cast Nodular Iron crank, LSA has a forged crank

LS3 no piston oil squirters, LSA have piston oil squirters

LSA block is 20% stronger than the LS3 short-block

LS3 Block is a deep skirt cast A356-T6 ALUMINUM ALLOY with pressed in cylinders.

LSA and LS9 Block is a deep skirt cast 319-T7 ALUMINUM ALLOY, with cast-in-iron cylinders

and uses 4-Bolts per cylinder to affix the cylinder heads to the block, just as does an LS3.

LSx376 B15 Block is made from 400 mPA Tensile Strength Iron and uses 6-Bolts to affix the cylinder

heads to the engine block. It is yet again, ~20 % stronger than is the LSA, which is ~20%

stronger than the LS3. This engine can be bored safely to 4.200” for NA applications retaining

0.200 inch of minimal cylinder wall thickness.

Or bored to approximately 4.155” or maybe even 4.185” for FI applications, while retaining 0.215”

of minimal cylinder wall thickness. The 6-bolt heads add additional 'clamping' required for boosted

applications, as well as the larger cylinder bore.

-NOTE-

A 4.185” bore will allow one to use a 2.300” intake valve.

If one uses a 92% cutter, this will yield a valve throat area of 3.51 Sq.”

Using the same 130 – 133 cfm per square inch of flow, as we have done

before on this forum, this would yield a HP potential of ~ 923 NA HP

as the cylinder head would theoretically flow ~ 461.57 cfm @ ~315.6 fps.

And “NO” <Big Wink>, I don’t believe your LSA heads can be fitted with a 2.300” valve,

So one would have to go out and either build or purchase such a head.

But I still do not believe one will see more than ~435 cfm with the valve and port

angles of our existing heads. So this would mean that one would not only

have to build or purchase the head, one would also have to build special

manifolds for the engine (JMHO)!

But then again; there are other advantages, such as aiding 'pressure recovery' by using the 2.300" valve

with the valve and port angles of our existing heads. I believe we are far better of seeing

a maximum velocity of ~ 262 - 285 fps than something around 305 - 315 fps (JMHO)!

This requires your curtain area to become larger. This can be achieved by either increasing valve lift,

or by re-fitting a larger valve to an exisiting port / throat area combination, serving to slow

the charge speed down before it enters the cylinder.

LSA and LS9 heads are A356-T6 Rotocast cast aluminum, compared to the

cast 319-T5 aluminum of LS3 heads.

Rotocasting is simply a process that rotates the head mold as the molten alloy cools and

essentially eliminates porosity, or microscopic pockets of air trapped in the casting.

Rotocasting delivers a stronger part that helps maintain performance and structural integrity

over the life of the engine.

The A356-T6 Rotocast aluminum particularly benefits a supercharged engine at the thin bridge area

between the intake and exhaust valves, where heat dissipation is crucial for long term durability,

as well as long term performance.

There has been much discussion over the years regarding the difference in materials regarding the

LS3 versus the LSA cylinder heads. GM states their is more rigidity and durability of the LSA

over the LS3 because of the different materials.

It is interesting to note:

When both heads are stripped down bare, the LS3 casting weighs ~19.5 pounds and the LSA weighs ~21.5 pounds.

When cutting into the heads, the LSA is much harder to cut.

The LS3 uses 6-bolt powdered metal Main Bearing Caps.

The LSA uses 6-bolt Nodular iron Main Bearing Caps.

The LS9 uses 6-Bolt Forged Steel Main Bearing Caps as does the LSx B15 engine.

Bulkheads are the structural elements that support the crank bearings.

In the LSA, they accommodate six-bolt, cross-threaded main-bearing caps

that limit crankshaft flex and stiffen the engine's structure.

The caps are nodular iron, specified for its strength, rigidity and minimal vibration.

Bulkheads in the LSA engine block have been strengthened 20 percent by optimizing the size

of the bulkhead "windows" to take advantage of material thickness in the bulkhead.

This is additional improvement beyond a 20% gain obtained in the naturally aspirated 6.2L LS3 V-8

The enlarged bulkhead windows also improve bay-to-bay breathing by managing airflow inside the engine

more efficiently, thereby decreasing pumping loss, or reducing resistance to the pistons' downward movement.

This is, to my knowledge, pretty much identical to the treatment given to the LS9 block!

As I understand it the LSA engine accumulated over 6,400 hours of Dyno time at GM (this was sometime back).

It was run over 270 consecutive hours at wide open throttle without failure.

The LS9 only accomplished 100 hours of wide open throttle testing. Again, this is

Info from some years back, so things may have changed by today?

Edited August 22, 2015 by 2014Skier

[gordon20mxz]

What is the bottom line boys? I have enjoyed this technical discussion about the engines, although it is way above my head. And I know the thread started out for discussion of the super charged engines. But I have question for you about the base engines.

I went to my dealer yesterday to look at some 2015 22 VLX boats. Both of them had the 350 Monsoon (350 CID). Now, last year (2015) there was also the option of upgrading one step to the Monsoon 409 (364 CID).

Now, if I were to order a 2016 22 VLX the base engine would be the Raptor 400 (379 CID).

So, the 2016 base engine is larger than the 2015 "one step up" optional engine? Is that a really good thing? Is the Raptor 400 any better any worse than the Monsoon 409?

I guess in a 22 VLX more horsepower and more torque is always a good thing, even though there have been threads about the 350 Monsoon being fine in this boat?

My dealer is willing to give fairly good discounts on the 2015 boats he has with the Monsoon 350 engines. Is it worth it to wait, pay more and get a 2016 with a Raptor? He is working up 2016 pricing for me today, I don't have that yet.

The only difference between the 2015 and the 2016 model years would be the engine change and the Surf Band, but my dealer says Surf Band can be added to the 2015 models, making the only difference the base engine.

How does Raptor get more horsepower out of the two non-supercharged engines the 400 and the 440 if the Indmar website has them as having the exact same 379 CID?

Thanks

[JoeA]

Gordon--

You may want to test drive both. I rode in a Moomba Mojo this Summer with the base 400 fully loaded with ballast, I think it was 3,100 lbs. It was a rocket at take off with no problem getting on plane. I like the performance of the Ford engines and the exhaust. Do a test drive then compare prices to make the decision that is best for you.

[carguy79ta]

Just my 02, I am a gm guy, bbc, sbc and LS motors. In general, a boat motor takes a hell of a beating compared to a vehicle motor. I was explaining to my dad that the drag on boats is huge compared to the rolling resistance on cars. When we surf we are always under load. If you were burning 9gal per hour in a vehicle that would be horrendous mileage. Similar to towing a heavier boat than my A22 in 2nd gear on the highway.

[catalac]

I asked our dealer about the raptor 410 vs 350 and 409 he said very similar power to the 350 less than the 409, as I guess I'd expect, thought the 400 was better out of hole but once over 3000rpm about the same in 16 vlx they've been demoing he had net been in a 450 in an lsv yet. Did say the raptor was a louder motor that the gm's. They have been running a 25 with a 575 he said its a beast.

[The Hulk]

I can't see this being even remotely true. So say it takes 200 HP to move a boat 24 mph, then that exact same boat adds 3000 lbs of ballast and still wants to go 24 mph, does that mean that it needs 1700 HP?

again take this with a grain of salt.... but it might have been something i read about the top end speed and maybe it applied for jet-skies only as a rough estimate., with a boat and ballast it might be more of the RPM's as well there are significant rpm advantages with the bigger hp motors in the same configs, obviously difficult to compare apples to apples because of the prop differences slippage spin outs weight etc..

But for example a 23lsv with a 350hp and 555hp there isn't a whole lot of top end difference for all that extra. i'm guessing low 40s vs low 50s mph wise.

a 155hp jet ski topping out around 60mph while a whopping 260hp-sc jet ski tops out around 75mp, only about 15mph more on 105hp more ... you would think there to be much more difference. Guys that ramp up into the 350+hp range on these jetskies are seeing in the low 80s... again not that much more.. and somehow i think the ratio curve gets exponential.

on a 23lsv i dont know what top end is with 350hp but on a 555hp its 51-54 mph (depending on gas/gear/ppl/wind/air temp) i'm "guessing" top end with 350hp is probably around low 40s? so maybe less than 15 mph difference only on a whopping 205hp difference.

Again not sure how that all calculates, just interesting non the least all that hp doesnt translate to that much faster in respect to top end. just interesting at least.

[MadMan]

again take this with a grain of salt.... but it might have been something i read about the top end speed and maybe it applied for jet-skies only as a rough estimate., with a boat and ballast it might be more of the RPM's as well there are significant rpm advantages with the bigger hp motors in the same configs, obviously difficult to compare apples to apples because of the prop differences slippage spin outs weight etc..

But for example a 23lsv with a 350hp and 555hp there isn't a whole lot of top end difference for all that extra. i'm guessing low 40s vs low 50s mph wise.

a 155hp jet ski topping out around 60mph while a whopping 260hp-sc jet ski tops out around 75mp, only about 15mph more on 105hp more ... you would think there to be much more difference. Guys that ramp up into the 350+hp range on these jetskies are seeing in the low 80s... again not that much more.. and somehow i think the ratio curve gets exponential.

on a 23lsv i dont know what top end is with 350hp but on a 555hp its 51-54 mph (depending on gas/gear/ppl/wind/air temp) i'm "guessing" top end with 350hp is probably around low 40s? so maybe less than 15 mph difference only on a whopping 205hp difference.

Again not sure how that all calculates, just interesting non the least all that hp doesnt translate to that much faster in respect to top end. just interesting at least.

The problem with inboard boats is they are very inefficient at high speeds. The prop is angled severely down and the more power you send through it, the harder it shoves the bow down in the water.

I had a 19' bow rider (typical family ski boat) with a measly, 6 cylinder Chevy, 190hp 4.3l mercruiser i/o. When "trimmed up" it would do 55 mph (per gps). Trying to get top speed out of an inboard is just a losing battle.

The moral to this story is don't go racing the family guy on your lake (typical tubers) with a high horsepower inboard, it will be embarrassing.

Edited August 22, 2015 by MadMan

[Sixball]

Jet are not a good example for the reason that the jet ( pump and housing with the tunnel) are the big stopper. If you don't work on the jet you just are not going to pass more water through. It's similar to our boats you can add a significant amount of HP and not increase the top speed much. The hull is the drag. Boats that go fast do so first by getting the hull out of the water then more HP gets more speed.

I have talked before but no one thing is a key its in a total package.

[tjklein]

MadMan is spot on. You also have to remember the physics with water. It's somewhat exponential in terms of resistance the faster you're traveling. (as is air if you're going fast enough) There are serious hull limitations with our inboard boats as well.