Articles
   
       
Pics/Video
       
Wake 101
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Boats, Accessories & Tow Vehicles

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old     (Spotless)      Join Date: May 2016       02-19-2019, 12:55 PM Reply   
Congrats to Indmar. Just killing it. Now bump that to the 3.5 and take my money please!

https://boatingindustry.com/news/201...gy-in-engines/
Old     (Fixable)      Join Date: Oct 2012       02-19-2019, 1:39 PM Reply   
The 3.5EB would be awesome in a towboat. Hopefully they follow up with that soon.

Gonna be an interesting year for boat engines. Malibu is about to drop the 650ish horsepower LT4.
Old     (Surfer101)      Join Date: Oct 2015       02-19-2019, 10:15 PM Reply   
I heard that is for the jet boat lineup. Too small for us.
Old     (theloungelife)      Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Salt Lake City, UT       02-20-2019, 8:38 AM Reply   
That's amazing. If they do the 3.5V6, specs look like they would be 375 horsepower and 470 pound-feet of torque. That would be awesome.
Old     (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       02-20-2019, 11:17 AM Reply   
as an owner of an ecoboost I would not want that engine in my boat. Mine SUCKS gas when driven hard. I can't imagine what it would be like pushing water all day.
Old     (jonblarc7)      Join Date: Jul 2006       02-20-2019, 11:20 AM Reply   
^^ agreed wouldn't you always be in boost and sucking gas. They always say it can either be Eco or Boost. It cannot be both.
Old     (bcrider)      Join Date: Apr 2006       02-20-2019, 12:17 PM Reply   
^ this is the truth. It's one or the other and would agree that in a boat running higher RPM's you wouldn't want an EB motor. I have a 14 EB F150 and my wife has an EB 10 Flex.
Old     (dakota4ce)      Join Date: Oct 2015       02-20-2019, 3:57 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcrider View Post
^ this is the truth. It's one or the other and would agree that in a boat running higher RPM's you wouldn't want an EB motor. I have a 14 EB F150 and my wife has an EB 10 Flex.


But max torque comes at 2200rpm....therefore perhaps it could be geared to run slow. I think that’s the point.

Who knows. It hasn’t happened anyway.
Old     (CALIV210)      Join Date: Jun 2015       02-21-2019, 6:31 AM Reply   
Not that I could afford a new boat with that engine or any engine for that matter I'm not a big fan of that platform being a tow boat engine .
Old     (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       02-21-2019, 7:47 AM Reply   
I could see this in the small jet boat market where the boat is not under constant load and cooling might be easier. But i'd think in a wb/ws platform, even the v6 EB, man you'd have some crazy exhaust temps pushing boost thru there for extended periods of time.
Old     (rdlangston13)      Join Date: Feb 2011       02-24-2019, 3:42 AM Reply   
Large displacement NA engines like a lot of fuel when placed under high loads too
Old     (Fixable)      Join Date: Oct 2012       02-24-2019, 5:15 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdlangston13 View Post
Large displacement NA engines like a lot of fuel when placed under high loads too
This......

No matter how you cut, or slice it......... smaller turbocharged engine is going to be at least slightly more volumetrically efficient than its larger displacement NA equivalent.

With the torque curve characteristics of the 3.5 EB, it would be a nice setup in a wakeboat, and with proper gearing and prop, would be more efficient. Probably not much difference, but would have a slight advantage.
Old     (Matt0520)      Join Date: Feb 2019       02-24-2019, 6:52 AM Reply   
Wouldn’t cooling be a challenge?
Old     (Fixable)      Join Date: Oct 2012       02-24-2019, 12:50 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt0520 View Post
Wouldn’t cooling be a challenge?
The turbo is water jacketed, and you have an endless supply of cooling water.
Old     (Matt0520)      Join Date: Feb 2019       02-24-2019, 1:19 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fixable View Post
The turbo is water jacketed, and you have an endless supply of cooling water.


Rgr that!
Old     (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       02-25-2019, 7:09 AM Reply   
If you had a V6 vs a V8 with the same loads given to each wouldn't the V6 have to work harder to maintain a certain speed? I am not an engine guy at all so just asking.
Old     (Matt0520)      Join Date: Feb 2019       02-25-2019, 9:22 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by psudy View Post
If you had a V6 vs a V8 with the same loads given to each wouldn't the V6 have to work harder to maintain a certain speed? I am not an engine guy at all so just asking.
I would think it would be in boost the whole time. Obviously more air = more fuel to maintain a good mixture...so I'm curious as well what the estimates would shake out to be as far as GPH.

After running forced induction in a few daily and track cars...not sure I'm on board with that added maintenance and that extra cost may outweigh any fuel savings long term. But the power would be amazing.
Old     (rdlangston13)      Join Date: Feb 2011       02-25-2019, 10:42 AM Reply   
In road vehicles, a naturally aspirated V6 pulling a trailer vs a V8 pulling that same trailer will require the V6 to select a lower gear increasing the RPM to achieve the same power. So say a V8 can pull the load at 2,000 rpm = 8,000 power strokes a minute. The V6 may be at 3,000 rpm = 9,000 power stroke a minute. This results in a larger fuel burn. Of course different engines have different characteristics, this is just a generalization. The ecoboost on the other hand generates great low rpm torque resulting in it being able to turn a lower speed than a naturally aspirated V6.

Also, whether it is in boost or not, its only going to burn fuel at the ratio programmed.
Old     (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       02-25-2019, 11:18 AM Reply   
"I would think it would be in boost the whole time."

That's what i'd think too, particularly for tow sports. In nearly any boosted engine, the boost is used to get a load moving, then once up to speed the N/A engine maintains the load. In a drag application, it's obviously in boost the whole time, but that's only for a limited time. that's why temperature monitoring (EGT and Cyl Head temp) is critical when towing with a turbo engine. it you're in boost too long, it'll build up quicker and quicker (albeit not liquid cooled).

I just think a diesel would be a better fit for out boats, but were it not for all the emissions required.

disclaimer: not an engineer.
Old     (jonblarc7)      Join Date: Jul 2006       02-25-2019, 12:16 PM Reply   
Yes the ECO boost has max torque at a low 1800 rpm's but it still is using boost to do that which is using more fuel. ECO boost does good in a truck because you can use boost to get you up to speed then use very little engine to keep moving if you not going up hill.

Think about when your in your truck and you let off the gas. You can coast for a mile before you come to a stop. Now thing about when you cruising in your boat at 35 and you let off the gas. It only takes what a hundred feet to stop? That's because your on under constant load.


If you read the forums the 5.0 or the new GM DI 6.2 gets better gas mileage while pulling. Because that little V6 is in the boost more. Even if it is only do 2000 rpm's
Old     (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       02-25-2019, 1:10 PM Reply   
Thats what I am thinking. My truck gets close to the advertised MPG at 55mph on a calm day. Only problem is nobody drives 55 anymore. Get it on the highway at 85 and you are looking at 13mpg. I think the V8 would do better in real world scenarios.
Old     (Xbigpun66)      Join Date: Aug 2016       02-25-2019, 6:48 PM Reply   
There is no substitute for displacement.
Old     (tbowen929)      Join Date: Dec 2018       03-07-2019, 4:41 PM Reply   
I'm a mechanic and I can tell you the eco boost is a complete piece of sh*t!
Old     (Wgetty8885)      Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: Oregon       03-07-2019, 7:50 PM Reply   
What about a smaller turbo diesel? I understand that most marinas do not sell diesel fuel, but heavy weight seems most efficiently pushed/pulled with a diesel. More torque, lower RPMs, better economy. Plus they weigh more which adds to the overall displacement in the water.
Old     (hunter991)      Join Date: Jul 2016       03-08-2019, 5:09 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbowen929 View Post
I'm a mechanic and I can tell you the eco boost is a complete piece of sh*t!
do tell. i am in the market for a new truck and am very puzzled by the Eco. Scared in some respects but seems like a good idea in others.
Old     (Mike88)      Join Date: Aug 2016       03-09-2019, 8:00 PM Reply   
Never Been a fan of ecoBoost. Surely Will not in a boat.

Always been a more chevy fan.
Had the L96 motor (GM HeavyDuty) for 4years and just love it.

But I loved my ford limited 2014 too (v8 6.2). Bit less than the l96 but like it.
When it was Time to change it in 2017 was ecoBoost only.. never been a fan since I tow daily minimum 3000 lbs.
took it anyway to give it a chance and return it 1 months later. Completely hate it. Had troubles, driving sucks, fuel effiency doubles.
EcoBoost is for people who dont work with their truck lol..
change it for a 5.0 platinum.
Now Ford doesnt offer v8 anymore In «*high class*» just XLT. Really sad.
Going back on chevy’s side with the 6.2 in 2020. Give it a try.
With the new Ford/GM 10speed trans I Think it will be awesome.
Sad because I prefer the look, interior and confort of f150. But they should offer at least the possibility to have the v8 in the platinum and not just XLT.

Matter of fact always been a nautique owner. Had a 2007 nautique 210 for almost 10years love this boat. Change it for an indmar 400 2016. Bad experience with that motor.
Since i loved so much the l96 I came back with a 2017 nautique 210 with the l96 in it (zr-409) really love it.

I dont see why an ecoBoost can be a good option on a tow boat. Even more for surfing with Many people on the boat.
Just my personal opinion and experience.

Last edited by Mike88; 03-09-2019 at 8:07 PM. Reason: Tapping
Old     (Spotless)      Join Date: May 2016       03-13-2019, 2:38 PM Reply   
Soo should we just start unhooking all the superchargers on the LSA and Roush 6.2 boats and maybe take the turbo off my diesel too. Come on, y'all must not remember how ****ty the fuel economy of a 454 or 8.1
Old     (jonblarc7)      Join Date: Jul 2006       03-15-2019, 11:45 AM Reply   
No those don't have a 3.5L V6 hooked up to them.
Old     (CALIV210)      Join Date: Jun 2015       03-15-2019, 12:16 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike88 View Post
Never Been a fan of ecoBoost. Surely Will not in a boat.

Always been a more chevy fan.
Had the L96 motor (GM HeavyDuty) for 4years and just love it.

But I loved my ford limited 2014 too (v8 6.2). Bit less than the l96 but like it.
When it was Time to change it in 2017 was ecoBoost only.. never been a fan since I tow daily minimum 3000 lbs.
took it anyway to give it a chance and return it 1 months later. Completely hate it. Had troubles, driving sucks, fuel effiency doubles.
EcoBoost is for people who dont work with their truck lol..
change it for a 5.0 platinum.
Now Ford doesnt offer v8 anymore In «*high class*» just XLT. Really sad.
Going back on chevy’s side with the 6.2 in 2020. Give it a try.
With the new Ford/GM 10speed trans I Think it will be awesome.
Sad because I prefer the look, interior and confort of f150. But they should offer at least the possibility to have the v8 in the platinum and not just XLT.

Matter of fact always been a nautique owner. Had a 2007 nautique 210 for almost 10years love this boat. Change it for an indmar 400 2016. Bad experience with that motor.
Since i loved so much the l96 I came back with a 2017 nautique 210 with the l96 in it (zr-409) really love it.

I dont see why an ecoBoost can be a good option on a tow boat. Even more for surfing with Many people on the boat.
Just my personal opinion and experience.
Hey what ever GM truck you get make sure it doesn't have AFM (Active Fuel Managment) its GM's way of clearing the EPA hurdles at the expense of right around 100k miles of engine longevity. If it does make sure it can be programmed out by the aftermarket . There is a reason the 1999-2006 GM trucks lasted so much longer .

Last edited by CALIV210; 03-15-2019 at 12:17 PM. Reason: addition
Old     (Matt0520)      Join Date: Feb 2019       03-15-2019, 12:56 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by CALIV210 View Post
Hey what ever GM truck you get make sure it doesn't have AFM (Active Fuel Managment) its GM's way of clearing the EPA hurdles at the expense of right around 100k miles of engine longevity. If it does make sure it can be programmed out by the aftermarket . There is a reason the 1999-2006 GM trucks lasted so much longer .

What about AFM decreases longevity?
Old     (jonblarc7)      Join Date: Jul 2006       03-18-2019, 8:04 AM Reply   
Lifters fail easier. But that being said I have a 2014 6.2 Sierra with 115K miles and it still gets after it and pulls like a dream. I have HP tuners program and the first thing I did when I bought it used is turn off the AFM in the tune just in case. They make delete kits where you can replace the AMF lifters and plug the extra oil ports for about 700 bucks.

By the way with the larger tires I run I saw no difference in MPG with AFM active or turned off.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 7:15 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2019 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us