Marine LS/LQ or Ford Modulars?

[EMC 1810SS]

I have been watching and waiting for Mercruiser or Volvo to start using the newer small blocks that are now dominating the market. Is there a reason that They are both hanging on to a block platform that dates back to 1986 and a head design that is over 15 years old? Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with the gm small block. I think it is a great engine for its day. I just think that with the fuel economy and emission issues that are now impacting the marine engines, I don't understand why they have not been incorporated into the Mercruiser and Volvo line ups?

The 5.7 vortec v8 has not been installed in a production vehicle for 11 years!

Thoughts?

 

[HT32BSX115]

Re: Marine LS/LQ or Ford Modulars?

The 5.7 vortec v8 has not been installed in a production vehicle for 11 years!

Thoughts?

The same could be said of the 3.0L engine.......except that it has NEVER been used in a "production vehicle"

They use engines that GM continues to produce. They really don't care if they're used in cars.... (um....boats aren't cars)


As far as using FORD? Ford doesn't provide "marine" engine anymore at all and hasn't for many years.......evidently, there's no money in it......

Is there a reason that They are both hanging on to a block platform that dates back to 1986 and a head design that is over 15 years old?

My guess is that the block/head combo that works well for a "car" that has to provide FAR less torque and HP in a very wide range of RPM doesn't necessarily "work" better for an application that requires constant, continuous (MUCH higher RPM/TQ) power..........

 

[RogersJetboat454]

Re: Marine LS/LQ or Ford Modulars?

My guess is that the block/head combo that works well for a "car" that has to provide FAR less torque and HP in a very wide range of RPM doesn't necessarily "work" better for an application that requires constant, continuous (MUCH higher RPM/TQ) power..........

Funny thing is that GM does make marine LS engines.

http://www.gmpowertrain.com/Libraries/Marine_Engines/Vortec_6_0L_V-8_VVT_L96_Marine.sflb.ashx
http://www.gmpowertrain.com/Libraries/Marine_Engines/LS3_6_2L_V-8_Marine.sflb.ashx
http://www.gmpowertrain.com/Libraries/Marine_Engines/LSA_6_2L_V-8_SC_Marine.sflb.ashx

Their current intended purpose is most likely for inboards I'm guessing.

I see no reason why the LS truck based engines wouldn't be great candidates for Merc and VP to use. I love the old small block as much as the next guy, but the LS is head and shoulders better out of the box, and highly adaptable too.

I'm guessing Merc and VP are dragging their heals on using them based on all the time and money invested in the traditional mouse and rat motors. Plus the fact that it would take a considerable amount of capital to retool and use them, especially in a crappy economy.

 

[HT32BSX115]

Re: Marine LS/LQ or Ford Modulars?

Funny thing is that GM does make marine LS engines.

Yeah they do. Don't expect the cam profile, EFI mapping etc....... to be "the same"

I think they would great candidates too.........but Mercruiser, Volvo, Master craft, Ski Supreme etc etc etc has to BUY them in enough numbers to make it worthwhile. AND NOW, they have to meet the California Communist Party emission requirements (it just gets better and better!)

 

[EMC 1810SS]

Re: Marine LS/LQ or Ford Modulars?

My guess is that the block/head combo that works well for a "car" that has to provide FAR less torque and HP in a very wide range of RPM doesn't necessarily "work" better for an application that requires constant, continuous (MUCH higher RPM/TQ) power..........

I TOTALLY disagree. The Lx heads produce more torque at EVERY rpm level per cubic inch and use less fuel doing it than the 5.7/5.0 ever could.

Funny thing is that GM does make marine LS engines.

Exactly! Corvette LS engines have been in ski boats for YEARS. (Another testament to their torque)

The only thing that comes to mind that may be an issue is the corrosion warranty. Aluminum heads and iron block may not work well in a raw water cooling environment. I know the older 6.0 LQ engines had iron heads.....

I'm guessing Merc and VP are dragging their heals on using them based on all the time and money invested in the traditional mouse and rat motors. Plus the fact that it would take a considerable amount of capital to retool and use them, especially in a crappy economy.

I don't really think it would be that difficult. They have the same bolt pattern on the bell housing, make up a few brackets for the serpentine belt powered accessories and engine mounts and it should be a near drop in (GM even worked out the Fuel Injection). They wouldn't even have to change the outdrive mating system.

 

[emilsr]

Re: Marine LS/LQ or Ford Modulars?

My guess is that the block/head combo that works well for a "car" that has to provide FAR less torque and HP in a very wide range of RPM doesn't necessarily "work" better for an application that requires constant, continuous (MUCH higher RPM/TQ) power..........

That'd be my guess. The old pushrod Chevy V8's have a torque curve as wide and flat as Kansas....particularly the big block. The newer automotive engines have to rev to produce torque which makes them not as suitable for a boat motor.

GM is advertising a marinized version of the LS, but I think only Ilmor is producing them for the tow boat market. Haven't seen anything from Merc or VP.

There has been lots of talk of a supercharged LS to replace the 496 (which was discontinued when GM stopped production of the 8100 Vortec). Mercruiser has instead gone back to the old 502 (called an 8.2, and it has catalysts to meet emissions standards). Not sure what VP is doing to fill the big block market at the moment.

Bottom line is that requirements for a boat motor are a LOT different than a car motor, and there is no replacement for displacement. The bigger, heavier boats need the torque that only a large displacement engine can provide, so the older style engines will likely be in use for many more years.

 

[EMC 1810SS]

Re: Marine LS/LQ or Ford Modulars?

AND NOW, they have to meet the California Communist Party emission requirements (it just gets better and better!)

Yet another reason to take advantage of the cleaner burning engines.........

 

[RogersJetboat454]

Re: Marine LS/LQ or Ford Modulars?

That'd be my guess. The old pushrod Chevy V8's have a torque curve as wide and flat as Kansas....particularly the big block. The newer automotive engines have to rev to produce torque which makes them not as suitable for a boat motor.

Click on the links I provided to the GM LS marine literature, there is graphs of HP and torque curves.
The basic 6.0L starts at 300ftlbs of torque at 1K rpm's, and makes a small hill up to 6K rpms
The other two are higher torque at about the same RPM with torque that keeps climbing to 6K.

In other words, these aren't Ferrari engines. They build lots of torque down low and maintain it higher then the old mouse could.
If Merc or VP had a problem with the torque curve, it would probably be easily cured with a cam change and recalibration.

 

[emilsr]

Re: Marine LS/LQ or Ford Modulars?

Click on the links I provided to the GM LS marine literature, there is graphs of HP and torque curves.
The basic 6.0L starts at 300ftlbs of torque at 1K rpm's, and makes a small hill up to 6K rpms
The other two are higher torque at about the same RPM with torque that keeps climbing to 6K.

In other words, these aren't Ferrari engines. They build lots of torque down low and maintain it higher then the old mouse could.
If Merc or VP had a problem with the torque curve, it would probably be easily cured with a cam change and recalibration.

I've looked at them, read the specs and understand what you're saying. I do agree with you that they're much newer/better technology engines, but (for whatever reason) Merc and VP are NOT using them. There has to be a reason for that. Perhaps it's just money....I don't know....but even the cost no object guys aren't going that direction.

A few years ago Raylar put this LS based engine on the market: http://www.raylarengine.com/550_engine.html I don't think they've sold any of them, and they had to increase the displacement to 7.4 liters to get the power they wanted for a marine engine.. For what this baby costs you could have a 540 (or 572) built with upwards of 600hp and 500+ lb. ft. of torque just off of idle. Again, maybe it's all cost related, but I can't help but believe SOMEBODY would be going this direction if there were a light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[EMC 1810SS]

Re: Marine LS/LQ or Ford Modulars?

The more I think about it the more I think it has to do with cost and corrosion. I think that as the emmisions standards start creeping into the marine segment, and rising fuel costs will tip the scale.

I do know one thing, if I was to buy one, I would either want iron heads, OR closed cooling..... Or aluminum block and head....no mixing!

 

[HT32BSX115]

Re: Marine LS/LQ or Ford Modulars?

but (for whatever reason) Merc and VP are NOT using them............. Perhaps it's just money....I don't know...

It's absolutely MONEY. there's no other reason. They HAVE to sell them in huge numbers to make money.

Has gasoline gone down in price? Are people buying boats in higher numbers than in past years? nope.

I wouldn't expect HUGE leaps in technology for (consumer type) boats any time in the future............So the large boat builders are not going to demand high tech engines that increase the cost of their boats because people aren't going to buy them..........

Just look at the small plane market. (there isn't one any more) There's been little or NO improvement in engine technology for YEARS.......they're still using WWII vintage engine design. (there's no money in improving them)

The only thing driving boat engine design now is those "California Communist Party" emission requirements I mentioned before which are adding catalytic convertors and other emission controls......(like the small numbers will make ANY difference)

AND I'm not going to play there at all. I WILL not buy any new boats ever again.


Maybe I'll get a Sail Boat!!

 

[emilsr]

Re: Marine LS/LQ or Ford Modulars?

It's absolutely MONEY.

I'm about 90% on board with that....but....

...the other 10% is wondering why no development with the LS. There is a percentage of the boat market (albeit a small one) where cost literally is no object, and these guys are pouring many cubic dollars into engine development. Over the past few years Mercury has developed several engines producing in excess of 1,000 hp, some supercharged, some turbocharged. Gale Banks has developed (but not sold that I know of) a high performance version of the Duramax, and Ilmor is making (and selling) marinized versions of the Viper V-10 along with a stern drive to go with it.

Outside of the realm of high performance boats, Steyr out of Austria has developed a hybrid marine powerplant, Mercury has developed the Axius drive system, and even Volkswagen has entered the marine market.

There are development dollars being spent, just not with GM's LS....I just can't help but wonder why.

 

[HT32BSX115]

Re: Marine LS/LQ or Ford Modulars?

There is a percentage of the boat market (albeit a small one) where cost literally is no object, and these guys are pouring many cubic dollars into engine development.

I absolutely agree with you there........ But I'll bet they're still just a drop in the bucket for a big company like GM that doesn't get enough from their marine engine sales to put a LOT of "design" into them..... So they stick with what has worked well for several years.....

 

[Bondo]

Re: Marine LS/LQ or Ford Modulars?

GM is advertising a marinized version of the LS, but I think only Ilmor is producing them for the tow boat market. Haven't seen anything from Merc or VP.

Ayuh,... It's ALL 'bout the Money....

Illmor, 'n a few others are in the market,...
They All, also run closed cooling, due to the disimilar metals, 'n the need to stabilize Temps for the 'puter...

The 1s I've noticed run 'bout 1/2 again that of a drop in Merc 350 comparable type motors...
Sometimes More...

 

[RogersJetboat454]

Re: Marine LS/LQ or Ford Modulars?

I absolutely agree with you there........ But I'll bet they're still just a drop in the bucket for a big company like GM that doesn't get enough from their marine engine sales to put a LOT of "design" into them..... So they stick with what has worked well for several years.....

Question is though, how much would GM have to change to make the LS engines work in a stern drive application?

In reality, the current 305/350 is nothing more than the last generation truck engine. No special heads, no special bottom end. All off the shelf parts with only specific gaskets, core plugs, and maybe a different profile cam being the exception.

Looking at the big picture, what does it cost GM to keep the factory that stamps out the old school engines operating? The only big demands for them is crate engines and marine use. I would be skeptical believing that the crate engines outsell the quantity of engines that VP and Merc order in a year.

So going along with the possibly flawed assumption that the current production SBC's main target audience is marine use. I don't see why VP and Merc couldn't call the shots and request a marinized version of a current production engine. A fixed cam, iron block, carbureted or injected 6.0L or 5.3L could probably be put together with 90% of the parts off GM's really big shelf.

Plus, if VP and Merc switched to LS engines, I would think the cost for them would be lower than what most inboard builders have to pay, as VP and Merc would probably be buying a greater volume then the inboard guys.

The inevitable will most likely happen some day anyway. The current power plant design is reachin 56 years old. I don't imagine VP and Merc becoming the French military that was using flathead Fords in its military vehicles all the way up till the early 90's

OR.... Maybe I'm dreaming and totally talkin outa my butt.
In any case, its just my 2?.......

 

[HT32BSX115]

Re: Marine LS/LQ or Ford Modulars?

The inevitable will most likely happen some day anyway. The current power plant design is reachin 56 years old.

I think you're right there. The inevitable WILL probably be something like you're talking about.......OR GM will just abandon the Marine market altogether.

It's going to be very hard to sell a boat that burns 10 gallons per hour of $10/gallon gasoline............. (that's $100/hr for those of you that are "Math-Challenged")

 

[TilliamWe]

Re: Marine LS/LQ or Ford Modulars?

I see no reason why the LS truck based engines wouldn't be great candidates for Merc and VP to use...

See this reason: Too high of rpms to develop their peak torque and horsepower. Mercruiser's and Volvo's drives are made to turn 5000rpm or 5200rpm WOT. Those LS motors develop their peak HP at 5500 or so, and their torque is at 4500 or so. It would require all new gearing and/or different pitched props. So the engines would cost a fortune from GM and then Merc /VP would have to totally redesign their sterndrives? Not gonna happen.

Why would Mercruiser spend extra money to do all that, when GM just keeps making the great ol' Small Block Chevy for them? There is no reason to use the LS engines, actually.

(Aside: HT the 2.5l predecessor of the 3.0 was indeed used in a car. The Chevy IIs of the 60s. True the 3.0 wasn't ever in a car, but the engine family did begin its life as a car engine.)

 

[EMC 1810SS]

Re: Marine LS/LQ or Ford Modulars?

I am not buying the "torque band of the ls motors" excuse at all. Anyone that thinks that this head design has no low end torque has no idea what they are talking about. Cubic Inch for Cubic Inch, at the Exact same RPM the LS engine will have more torque AND will have a wider power band. Yes they peek higher, but they still have more torque at 2500 rpm but don't run out of breath.

Take the 6.0 L. Actually look at the power curves as shown on the links posted by Rogersjetboat454. It has OVER 300 ft lbs at 1000 rpm and still pulls over 350 horsepower at the "magic" 5000 rpm. These are better numbers than the 454 at any given rpm, even though it has 23% more cubic inches and weighs in at the small block weight.

I can agree that cost per engine would be an issue, possible electronic (ignition and fuel injection) durability issues, and the galvanic corrosion issues from dissimilar metals, even the fact that there is no way to run this engine with out at the minimum an ignition computer. (it has no distributer, but niether did the 496) but power output? Nope, no way.

On the 3.0, it may not have been used in a car, but there are thousands of air compressors, generators, and pumps that this mighty little engine has and still power but even this engine will probably give into some of the newer over head cam 4 cylinder designs at some point.