Anyone choose this option? Is it worth the $$$? Or just a nice to have.

just nice to have, Sangers power to prop combination is dialed very well. You won't need to upgrade for horsepower to get the performance. But having a little extra is always nice.

I can tell you that Mercruisers 6.1 or 6.2 or what ever this week is a DISASTER. This motor is not a 6 litre motor at all. It is a BORED and stroked 5.7 that is going down the same path as the SCORPION. <BR> <BR>STAY CLEAR OF MERCRUISER...bad warranty. tough to work on, overprized parts and not a INDUSTRY leader.

TJK, <BR> <BR>The 6.2 L might be a stroker 5.7, but what do you mean by "going down the same path as the SCORPION." What's wrong with the scorpion??? Last time I checked I think there were more Mercruisers in boats than any othe motor. I have not heard much bad about Merc. Do you have any more info?

I think alot of people are blowing out of perportion the issues with mercruser. There are both human and manufacture problems with all motors. Also mercruisers have been building motors longer then most of us have been alive. Id take a merc any day without hesitation.

I have a Black Scorpion in my 1997 Sanger V210 and I have never had one issue with it. I just do my annual maintenance and it's always performed beautifully. There are Indmar bigots out there, but my buddies Nautique doesn't perform nearly as well as the Sanger.

The initial issue seems to be a complaint with the short block construction of these engines. <BR>Not trying to pile on here, but bored and stroked small block Chevys are kind of my thing, and there is nothing wrong with building them that way. <BR>The engines my friends and I have played with seem to work just fine in the 360-388 inch range, making upwards of 650 HP, naturally aspiriated on race fuel. I have the dyno sheets to back that statement up. When you step to an aftermarket block, like a Dart or a Bow-Tie Chevy block, 430 C.I. plus is very doable. <BR>The new LT1, and the small LS series are based upon the newer versions derived from the Gen III SBC. <BR>The short block (w/street/race cam)of the marinized version of these engines is already producing big numbers in on dyno's throughout the country. <BR>I will grant you that the cylinder heads and fuel management systems are where the big improvement numbers are coming from, but they would not last on the dyno if the rotating assembly wasn't stout. If it interests you, read up on some of the new stuff in Hot Rod or Car Craft. You will hear words like Titanium, forged rods, steel crank, dry sump, etc. <BR>Mercruiser and Indmar, and everybody else that marinizes engines start with the same basic GM short block, w/a marine spec cam in it. There is little, if any change to the hard parts in the heads. Simply some seal changes and some other relatively simple stuff. So what Merc, Indmar and the others get is a Marine spec (camshaft)crate long-block that they work up. <BR> <BR>I will grant you that there are some differences in the approach each vendor takes to marinizing the engine, and everybody is entitled to an opinion on who performs that task best. <BR>But bore/stroke, rod length vs. stroke ratio choices, piston design and ring issues, and construction materials are all decisons GM makes. Not Merc or anybody else. <BR> <BR>(Message edited by sam8 on March 10, 2005)

Soooo...Army Dad, I guess that puts TJK's point about whether the 6.2L is a DISASTER to bed! <BR> <BR>Thanks for the info.<img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/rofl.gif" border=0>

Phateon has the 6.2 in his Pro-V &amp; had the 350 mag in his Cal-Air, you might ask him for some first hand experience.

Darren it would not be a good comparison. The Cal-Air was over 1000 pounds lighter than our Pro-V. Both motors however have worked flawless.

To give an engine more displacement, given the same number of cylinders, it must have a longer stroke or bigger bore. <BR> <BR>You can run a much longer stroke in a standard 350 block without issues, I don't see why this even came up as a negative. <BR> <BR>In the car scene the first things guys do is stroke it, building a 383, or 396. Bulletproof if built right. Usually stronger than the stock engine, because stronger parts are used.

Mercruiser is marketing that motor as a TRUE 6 litre when in fact it is not. Ask any(GOOD) inboard mech about which type is easier to work on and more reliable. Mercrusiers are a PAIN to work on. I know MERCURY makes alot of motors. There true inboard divison is not part of the OB division which produces a exceptional product. If your BLACK Scorpion has lasted this long consider yourself on one the lucky few.

Chevy has a new 6.0L LS2 engine for the Corvette. I've read that this engine is a stroked and bored 5.7L (350) engine. The output of this engine has increased to 400-hp. I don't know much about the Mercury line up but I expect that the 6.0L Mercury might be a derivative of the LS2.

TJK were do you get your information from. I think if all these motors were having failures that we would hear about it more. There are engine failures in all types of motors and just because your mechanic doesnt like working doesnt speak for the rest of the world.

Hey by the way, the 6.2 340 hp is going in the same path as the "Scorpion", thats because it is "Black Scorpion". And by the way any (good) mechanic in the world can work on these motors. But back to original question, The extra horsepower is not necessary, but that depends on which sanger your are going to get. Bigger boat = bigger motor. <BR>It would be nice if sanger would offer other engine options just to make everbody happy, but that would cost more money to produce the boat. I think sanger puts mercury in their boats because there is a mercury wherehouse 10 min. from the Sanger Manufacture. Im guessing that is also why Supreme and Calabria put merc in there boats, because there is a distribution center close by. <BR> <BR>by the way, I have a PCM Chevy engine, and it is also a great motor <BR>

Edward, <BR> <BR>Stand by, the 427 inch version of that engine is going to hit the street in the Z06 Corvette. It is making a honest to goodness 500 ponies, and is going to really put some of competition back in the sports car world. It is rumored to be good for close to 200 MPH. <BR>Get your orders in now..<img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/biggrin.gif" border=0> <BR> <BR>

Army, <BR> <BR>I just spent all of my mid-life crisis allowance on a new boat this year. Don’t think the sports car things going to happen. I am very jazzed about the boat though. <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/crazy.gif" border=0>

Since the horse is just about dead, and some of you guys seem interested, here is some background on the 6.2 <BR> <BR>This engine is a V-8. The Bore is 4.00 inches, which has been the standard small block chevy bore for many SBC based engines since the introduction of the 350, which replaced the 327 back in the late 60s. <BR>The stroke, which is the distance the connecting rod travels in the bore when the crankshaft rotates, is 3.75 inches. <BR>Do the math, this comes out to 377 cubic inches, or 6.2 litres. <BR> <BR>Now, the history part. Some of you out there may remember the small block chevy 400 CID. This engine used a 3.75 inch stroke on a shorter connecting rod,(5.65 vs. 5.7) but a bigger bore to get to 400. I believe it was 4.125 +, but the memory bank might be faulty on that. So big, in fact, that is was necessary to modify the cylinder block to allow the now very thin cylinders to cool. <BR>These engines were very popular in truck applications, the primary power range was below 4500 RPM. Great for towing boats, hauling trailers, etc. <BR>They were strong runners, but had a reputation of overheating. Some of that was deserved, some was B.S. <BR>Back to the 6.2. Now we have a 4.00 inch bore and a 3.75 crank. GM is reaching for the best of both worlds here. Lots of bottom end grunt aka torque, and a decent higher rpm number(horsepower), they know what works, they've been at it awhile with these things. <BR>It just so happens that the old 377 trick was one we racer tyes used for years, for the same reasons. The 383 combo is another good one for a truck. The 396 was initially a big block, but as I already stated the aftermarket can give you just about anything... <BR> <BR>Want real power??? <BR>My wife has already nixed this idea, but, in my last sandrail, (pics over iin the dirt bike thread) we used a Bow-Tie Chevy block with SPlayed 4-bolt mains. Insted of the 350 crank, (3.48 stroke, we went to a 3.625 stroke. commonly called 3-5/8. Then, instead of the 5.7 350 or 5.65 400 rod, we went to a 6 inch rod... <BR>Then we went .030 over. We now have a 368 cid. The rod/stroke ratio, which is related to RPM capability, is darn near perfect. Add some aftermaket aluminum heads, approx 12.86 to 1 compression, a race carb, a rather serious roller cam and valve train, and you get an engine that starts to build big numbers at about 3500 RPM, and doesn't fall off until over 7800!! <BR>At 7500, it is making right at 626 HP, and over 500 Ft. lb. of torque from about 4400 all the way to 5250...<img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/proud.gif" border=0> <BR>I want to build another one and put it in the Sanger, but; <BR> <BR>a) Wife turned purple even at the mere mention of another engine.. <BR> <BR>b) Methinks the ole' velvet drive would not be pleased...

Edward... <BR> <BR>I understand completely, this stuff just rings my bell, ya know? <BR>I have a 1940 Ford Sedan just about finished, and am starting on a 56 F-100 that I have had since I was 17. <BR>After playing in the sand for 20 years, we sold the rail cause of a bad back, and bought the Sanger. I am okay with the 315/350 in it, just have the HP virus running rampant in my blookdstream, have had it for most of my 46 years, and am not seeking a cure..

Army Dad, sounds awesome man... <BR> <BR>Before I sold it to buy a house, I had a '95 Z28 with a built LT1 396 (350 bored .030 over, stroked to 3.875). Had a Cola 4340 crank, splayed billet 4-bolt mains, billet rods, JE custom blower pistons, aftermarket wide-band EFI, AFR heads, yada yada. <BR> <BR>Without much effort, she made 500hp naturally aspirated, and 795HP with 8-psi boost, on 93-octane gas. I was going to crank up the boost to >15 psi, but I sold it before adding the necessary fueling system. <BR> <BR>Car had a 9" ford axle, and was pretty fun to drive. <IMG SRC="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> Wonder how that would have felt in a wakeboard boat, lol. <BR> <BR>Anyway, the 383 configuration, a 350 bored .030 over and stroked to 3.75 is a bulletproof setup. Bashing an engine as not being a "true" 6.2 liter for this reason is ridiculous, and I'm not even a Mercruiser fan.

Boomer, that sounds like a lot of fun, too. <BR>How much clearancing of the side rails of the block did you have to do to get the crank counterweights to clear the pan rails? Was this done in the stock LT1 block? What trans did you have behind it? <BR>Boost is an interesting concept. I remember reading a book that used to be out called, "Street Supercharging Basics" about three times when I was thinking about a blower project car. <BR>At 14.7 PSI of boost, given a standard barometric pressure day, (29.92 inches of Mercury) you have effectively doubled the displacement of a given engine. <BR>When I did some mods to my Ford Turbo-diesel, the chip in it can bring the boost gauge up to almost 35 PSI before the waste-gate opens..really starting to like the turbo idea, it doesn't take any HP to drive it, like a supercharger does. The turbo is almost free HP. <BR> <BR>After the 56 truck is done, and I build my dream ride, (a chopped 34 Ford 3-window coupe) <BR>I would like to do one of the new Camaro Replica bodies with a twin turbo destroked 350, maybe even a 327. <BR>Something that will wind quickly, with 7500 rpm capability. I want to use an aftermarket EFI set up. To counter the lag on the spool up, I want to try a nitrous tickler in the intake tract path upstream from the turbos. Just a 25 HP shot, boost referenced. Once the engine sees 3 or 4 PSI of manifold pressure, the NOS shuts <BR>off. Should be just about seamless acceleration. <BR> <BR>I just need to live til I'm about 125 and win the lotto to do all this, but it is nice to dream.. <BR> <BR>(Message edited by sam8 on March 11, 2005)

We had to clearance the side rails a bit, but not too bad. Yes, was a stock LT1 short block. <BR> <BR>The rods we used were specifically picked because they used cap screws instead of bolts, and were "stroker" rods designed to require less clearancing of the block, and to also clear the cam. <BR> <BR>Your car dreams are nice. I just don't have the time or $ to mess with it anymore! <BR> <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65921/216616.jpg" alt="">

I don't have the $ either...the 56 will happen, and the 40 is pretty much done. Everything else is just dreamin' <BR> <BR>I am a big believer in Crower stuff too. Crank, Rods, Cam, Roller Rockers were all Crower in my engine.

I looked into the Merc powerplants in great detail. For wakeboarding purposes, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to pay for the Black Scorpion Upgrade. I think that is why Merc is offering these upgrades at no charge. The Black Scorpion offers nothing more on the low end torque. Thye get a little higher top end... which does nothing for hole shot or holding speed with a fully weighted down boat. The upgrade to the 6.2L is costly, but if you are planning the extra service plan... it makes sense to go with the 6.2L Black Scorpion over the 6.2L MX upgrade... because the 3 yrs is included in the price of the upgrade. And by the way... it is a nice quiet motor... runs at low rpm when the boat is fully weighted... I am very impressed... Nice looking motor I might add.