5.7 carbed vs 5.7 MPI

BarryTurano

Petty Officer 2nd Class
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Messages
145
I have a 24 Albemarle Jackshaft CC. a year ago August I replaced my worn out 5.0 GI with the 5.7 Carbed motor. I am considering changing the motor to MPI. I am at 270 horsepower with the carb. I am turning Duoprop D4's. I burn about 16 gallons per hour at 3600 rpm's. I am cruising at 21 knots. That translates to about 1.5 mpg
If I modify my motor to MPI, I am told my horsepower would increase to 320. Does anyone have any data on this motor in a jackshaft center console? I don't want to use numbers from an express because they sit higher on a plane than I do. The express has it's motor at the transom. Mine is amidships so I think that I am pushing more water. Any ideas would be a great help.
 

Scott Danforth

Grumpy Vintage Moderator still playing with boats
Staff member
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
47,297
Your HP would not increase (EFI does not improve power, infact on a given engine, the peak power slightly drops). where the EFI motor would have more power, is that the combustion mix is changed (compression, timing, fueling and cam) to allow the motor to run closer to the edge of detonation than a carb

your fuel economy would not increase (EFI does not offer noticeable improvements in fuel consumption) Spark ignited motors have a BSFC of 0.4#/HP/Hr

you will notice easier starts and mild manors around the dock

you can get your current motor up over 300hp fairly easily with a few component changes
 

BarryTurano

Petty Officer 2nd Class
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Messages
145
Thanks for the reply. What type of component changes. I am running a Quadrajet carb and a Davis HEI distributor
 

aimlow

Petty Officer 2nd Class
Joined
Nov 7, 2018
Messages
180
Thanks for the reply. What type of component changes. I am running a Quadrajet carb and a Davis HEI distributor

The q'jet is an outstanding carb. Make sure the air valve tension spring is tight enough so the secondary air valve is closed at cruise. This also keeps the manifold vacuum higher and keeps the power piston closed.
 

Scott Danforth

Grumpy Vintage Moderator still playing with boats
Staff member
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
47,297
Thanks for the reply. What type of component changes. I am running a Quadrajet carb and a Davis HEI distributor

cam change, 2" carb spacer, and possibly a re-tune of the carb.
 

Bondo

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 17, 2002
Messages
70,465
Ayuh,..... I agree with Scott,.... MPI will never pay for itself,.... not in a million years,.....

A bigger cam, 'n carb retune can get ya darn close to 350 hp,.....

Fuel economy may improve, but probably not,......
as Scott says, it takes X number of fuel Btus to move a boat,.... regardless the motor used,......
 

BarryTurano

Petty Officer 2nd Class
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Messages
145
Thinking I may have been looking at this problem from the wrong end. When I put this motor in I was still running D5's.I could not get above 4000 rpms. I dropped down to I4's. My rpm's got up to 4400 if I was going with the tide and wind at my stern (everything going in my direction short of hoisting a sail) I spoke with Ken at Prop Gods he put me in touch with Pablo at General Propeller. He suggested going down another number of pitch. He says that I should get up on plane quicker and hold plane at a lower rpm. And should bring wot to close to 4800 which would bring my cruise up to 3600 (@75% of wot) As of now 3600 rpms is 82.5% of wot. And it is possible my secondaries are slightly open. I am thinking I can probably cruise at 3400 where I am burning about 12gph. If I can get 21 knots at 3400 rpm that is the same speed I am getting at 3600 but 4gph less is a big deal. Especially on a 150 mile stream trip. I will be hauling in about 2 weeks for annual drive service. I will put the new wheels on then and report back. Stand by and thank you all.
Barry
 

Scott Danforth

Grumpy Vintage Moderator still playing with boats
Staff member
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
47,297
Pablo in the guys at General Propeller know me by name. Regarding your particular issue dropping down in Pitch will help bring the engine RPM up. However cruise is a function of hull length and hull weight (power required to move the load) However you might be in the secondaries if the engine needs it.

A carb spacer will help with low to mid-range torque which might help. Overall you're going to need a cam change to move your power or most importantly you might need to build a stroker to have the torque to turn a set of B5s. Not sure what your boat weighs, however the rogue in my sig weighed 3600# and I was spinning B6s at 4800 rpm with my 5.7 running vortec heads and a cam
 

DouglasW

Petty Officer 1st Class
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
269
I knew of two guys who ran a speed shop in Atlanta who documented a study they did on various engine improvements they planned to offer. This was in 2001 as I remember. They took a stock carbed 5.0L engine from an 85(?) Trans Am and converted it to MPI using only the GM stock FI components. The dyno tests showed an increase in maximum power from 162 to 201 BHP. Those numbers closely aligned with the advertised power of the two available 5.0L engines in 85, 165 and 200. How do you guys explain that?

By the way, the engine dyno tests were done at the flywheel.
 
Last edited:

Lou C

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Nov 10, 2002
Messages
11,802
It is an interesting question. I think if someone just took a standard GM marine engine and converted it from a carb to MPI, they might not realize the full benefit of EFI. That is, an EFI engine due to better fuel atomization and fuel distribution, can tolerate both higher compression and more spark advance. It is those factors that make more power. If you go back and look at some of the changes made to popular engines that were in use before the EFI change over in the 80s, you find out that in order to get the full benefits, other changes were made too and for sure they found more HP in the same engine after those changes were made. There are differences in Marine use due to the constant load, so some of the changes may not be as dramatic.
 

Scott Danforth

Grumpy Vintage Moderator still playing with boats
Staff member
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
47,297
I knew of two guys who ran a speed shop in Atlanta who documented a study they did on various engine improvements they planned to offer. This was in 2001 as I remember. They took a stock carbed 5.0L engine from an 85(?) Trans Am and converted it to MPI using only the GM stock FI components. The dyno tests showed an increase in maximum power from 162 to 201 BHP. Those numbers closely aligned with the advertised power of the two available 5.0L engines in 85, 165 and 200. How do you guys explain that?

By the way, the engine dyno tests were done at the flywheel.

The same base 5.0 with a proper carb and a properly designed manifold with divorced - long runners (similar to the RPM air-gap) would have put out nearly the same power (unless you swapped cams as well - see below). remember, the carb that was on the car was a smog carb with a million vacuum ports and actuators, on a badly designed cast-iron intake which had the base of the carb sitting low in the valley, where the TPI manifold used had the large divorced plenum and long-runners to increase velocity which in turn makes mid-range torque

The engine builds in the F-bodies from GM were different for each of the offerings the TPI was the LB9, the base 5.0 at 160hp was the LG4 and the HO carb version was the L69. While the rotating assemblies were common, some of those changes were the camshaft. EFI needed a different lobe center as well as less peak lift and a bit longer duration to work. install a knock sensor controller on the HO carb version and increase the timing a bit and you can exceed the TPI power output

When I seriously thought of converting one of my hot-rod builds in the early 90's, the peaky little 8000 RPM grenade I built would have lost about 10% (30hp) as the cam required to get EFI to function would have reduced output noticeably. Not to mention the conversion at the time cost almost as much as the motor cost to build.
 

DouglasW

Petty Officer 1st Class
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
269
The Atlanta guys did not change the cam, although they may have changed heads. The point of their test was to make a validated benchmark for further modifications. The question remains, how did they get that gain from the SAME engine.
 

Scott Danforth

Grumpy Vintage Moderator still playing with boats
Staff member
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
47,297
The Atlanta guys did not change the cam, although they may have changed heads. The point of their test was to make a validated benchmark for further modifications. The question remains, how did they get that gain from the SAME engine.

intake alone is a large step. the only "magic" in the TPI setup used in the 80's was the large plenum and the long runners - it basically tripled the velocity of the air entering the system at 4000 RPM and below, therefore pushing more charge into the combustion chamber. does same thing a 2" carb spacer on a marginal carb manifold does. or a properly designed medium rise carb manifold - increase plenum volume.

they would have had to change cam to get the EFI to function as the carb cam didnt generate enough vacuum
 

aimlow

Petty Officer 2nd Class
Joined
Nov 7, 2018
Messages
180
The Atlanta guys did not change the cam, although they may have changed heads. The point of their test was to make a validated benchmark for further modifications. The question remains, how did they get that gain from the SAME engine.

At the same rpm? Same a/f ratio? Same timing?

Horsepower is a function of torque and rpm. Horsepower is work, torque is a force, rpm is a distance. THIS is the difference, not just EFI. All EFI does is spray fuel directly, rather than airflow sucking fuel out of a venturi. More rpm's, more fuel sucked in.
 

QBhoy

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Mar 10, 2016
Messages
8,286
Your HP would not increase (EFI does not improve power, infact on a given engine, the peak power slightly drops). where the EFI motor would have more power, is that the combustion mix is changed (compression, timing, fueling and cam) to allow the motor to run closer to the edge of detonation than a carb

your fuel economy would not increase (EFI does not offer noticeable improvements in fuel consumption) Spark ignited motors have a BSFC of 0.4#/HP/Hr

you will notice easier starts and mild manors around the dock

you can get your current motor up over 300hp fairly easily with a few component changes

Think he is talking about MPI, not efi. Mpi has massive power gains and efficiency over the Carb Scott
dont think this case it would be worth while though. Be as well buying a good used complete engine.
 

DouglasW

Petty Officer 1st Class
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
269
So far nobody has told us why this worked for the Atlanta guys and not for anyone else. This was an actual case history. I wish I could find the details but since the study was done 17 years ago, even the forums (2) where I read it all don't search back that far.
 

aimlow

Petty Officer 2nd Class
Joined
Nov 7, 2018
Messages
180
So far nobody has told us why this worked for the Atlanta guys and not for anyone else. This was an actual case history. I wish I could find the details but since the study was done 17 years ago, even the forums (2) where I read it all don't search back that far.

Because it was a publicity event. Something to drum up business. Hardly a legit "study".
 

DouglasW

Petty Officer 1st Class
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
269
So just duplicating the same numbers that GM had, doesn't count I guess. More fake news?
 

muc

"Retired" Association of Marine Technicians...
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
2,064
EFI can compensate for changes in intake air temperature and barometric pressure. It can also increase spark advance to the optimum amount. So the possibility for increased power and fuel economy compared to a carburetor is obvious.

Changing from a carb to EFI is a lot like going from a gas engine to diesel. There will be a payback, but you need to put on a lot of hours to see it.

I once was involved in advising a customer on ordering a new 35 foot cruiser. He planned to own the boat for 5 years. The numbers might not be valid anymore because I had to use the cost of fuel vs gas and resale value to come up with the numbers and this was 10 to 15 years ago. But after taking into account the fuel, resale, up charge for a pair of Diesel engines and generator, the average speed he wanted and maintenance costs. He would have needed to run over 400 hours a year to see a pay back. Sales department wasn’t real happy with me because there is a bit more profit in a diesel boat. But it worked out in the end because we had a 35 gas in stock, so it was a quick sale and he come back in 2 years and bought a 40 foot with diesels.

Moral of the story. Upgrades to a boat take along time to payback and never think that “this is the last boat I’ll ever buy”.
 
Top