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     (Nordicron)      Join Date: Aug 2011       09-11-2014, 7:27 AM Reply   
I'm intrigued by this motor. 5yr warranty cool! Base motor cool! now that people are actually running these in boats let's get some updates. those that have demoed them lets hear some reviews? How's the power? How's it sound? Fuel consumption?
Old     (tyler97217)      Join Date: Aug 2004       09-11-2014, 7:34 AM Reply   
I will be testing one out soon. I have heard the power is night and day from a torque perspective. Will update once I can really test.
Old     (Brendon444)      Join Date: Jul 2011       09-11-2014, 8:02 AM Reply   
Why is everyone so excited about ford's 6.2 motor. "Raptor motor" Now that's a marketing thing. It's still the same 6.2 motor, terrible on fuel in a truck. The gm 6.2 motor kills in every category. I've owned both in trucks along with ls3 in car.
Old     (Tims)      Join Date: Feb 2014       09-11-2014, 8:08 AM Reply   
I had the opportunity to drive and ride behind the Raptor 440 for a majority of the Summer. Better low end power than my LS3 as well as a touch better fuel economy. (Same hull and same prop.) Best part, the 440 is a cheaper upgrade than the LS3.
Old     (Ttime41)      Join Date: Nov 2011       09-11-2014, 8:23 AM Reply   
I got a chance to ride behind the 2015 Mojo a couple weeks ago, and that motor is a beast. Ballast was about 5000 pounds total and the boat would plane under 30 seconds. That's not fast by any means, but the 350 gm motor in my SA couldn't dream of planing out with that much weight, even with the upgraded prop (usually just over 3000 is the limit). I'm really excited that the 400 is standard, and curious how ridiculous it probably is in the 20' Mondo
Old     (Nordicron)      Join Date: Aug 2011       09-11-2014, 8:24 AM Reply   
Tim's thanks for the info! What hull was this in? Also I'm more interested in the raptor 400, any experience with that motor as it's the base motor. My understanding is the 440 is a major cost upgrade over the 400.
Old     (Nordicron)      Join Date: Aug 2011       09-11-2014, 8:27 AM Reply   
Ttime how was that mojo wake with 5k in it? Any pics?
Old     (Brendon444)      Join Date: Jul 2011       09-11-2014, 9:21 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tims View Post
I had the opportunity to drive and ride behind the Raptor 440 for a majority of the Summer. Better low end power than my LS3 as well as a touch better fuel economy. (Same hull and same prop.) Best part, the 440 is a cheaper upgrade than the LS3.

Good info, must perform well in the boat. Wasn't impressed in the trucks but good to see it performs well in boat and at a cheaper cost.
Old     (Tims)      Join Date: Feb 2014       09-11-2014, 9:37 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nordicron View Post
Tim's thanks for the info! What hull was this in? Also I'm more interested in the raptor 400, any experience with that motor as it's the base motor. My understanding is the 440 is a major cost upgrade over the 400.

Supra SC hull. I have only been out in the 400 once so don't have a ton of experience with it. (It was a 2015 Mojo.) The 440 has a MSRP upgrade cost of around $6K. That is much less than the LS3 upgrade cost that was/is $9K.
Old     (Ttime41)      Join Date: Nov 2011       09-11-2014, 9:40 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nordicron View Post
Ttime how was that mojo wake with 5k in it? Any pics?

The wake was amazing, very similar to a slammed SA or SC, just a little narrower. Super clean and huge. This is the only pic I have, but it gives you a pretty good idea. From a goproName:  ImageUploadedByTapatalk1410453585.513379.jpg
Views: 7903
Size:  61.6 KB
Old     (boardman74)      Join Date: Jul 2012       09-11-2014, 10:08 AM Reply   
Funny the upgrade costs so much. Anyone know what is different between the 400 and the 440?? The ECM..thats it. When you look at it that way $6000 for a different ECM seems like a lot. Like anything else in the boat….break out another thousand!!!
Old     (99Bison)      Join Date: Sep 2012       09-11-2014, 1:54 PM Reply   
I demo'd a 2015 Moomba LSV with the Raptor. Smoother, quieter and didn't sound like it was working nearly as hard as the standard 350 in the 2014 Mondo demo'd same day, LSV had much more ballast filled as well.
Old     (DatTexasBoy)      Join Date: Aug 2012       09-11-2014, 4:39 PM Reply   
I was able to ride in a new MB with the 400 Raptor. It seem to have plenty of power not sure exactly which prop was on there but really want to try the 1235 on it. Heard that its a great combo.

As far as fuel consumption goes I will be able to give more input on that in a couple weeks.
Old     (Nordicron)      Join Date: Aug 2011       09-12-2014, 4:22 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DatTexasBoy View Post
I was able to ride in a new MB with the 400 Raptor. It seem to have plenty of power not sure exactly which prop was on there but really want to try the 1235 on it. Heard that its a great combo.

As far as fuel consumption goes I will be able to give more input on that in a couple weeks.

I've heard the original prop is not super good. To much pitch but like 46mph top speed?

Anyone now if a f22 will take a 15" prop? I think a 2313 would be a beast on a 2015 f22 or b52

Also anyone else with the raptor motor experience?
Old     (DatTexasBoy)      Join Date: Aug 2012       09-12-2014, 4:30 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nordicron View Post
I've heard the original prop is not super good. To much pitch but like 46mph top speed?

Anyone now if a f22 will take a 15" prop? I think a 2313 would be a beast on a 2015 f22 or b52

Also anyone else with the raptor motor experience?
I have a 2313 but think it will be a bit much. I think the 1235 will be plenty.

Yes a 15" will clear just fine.
Old     (Nordicron)      Join Date: Aug 2011       09-12-2014, 5:00 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DatTexasBoy View Post
I have a 2313 but think it will be a bit much. I think the 1235 will be plenty.

Yes a 15" will clear just fine.

Bit much meaning? Isn't the 2313 less aggressive than the 2315?
Old     (DatTexasBoy)      Join Date: Aug 2012       09-12-2014, 5:03 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DatTexasBoy View Post
I have a 2313 but think it will be a bit much. I think the 1235 will be plenty.

Yes a 15" will clear just fine.
Yes it has a slightly different cup. However i still believe it will be too aggressive.

I think the 1235 will pull all the weight you want and save you fuel at the same time. IMO
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-12-2014, 5:26 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DatTexasBoy View Post
Yes it has a slightly different cup. However i still believe it will be too aggressive.

I think the 1235 will pull all the weight you want and save you fuel at the same time. IMO
very very much doubt it.... but would LOVE to be proven wrong.
Old     (DatTexasBoy)      Join Date: Aug 2012       09-12-2014, 5:47 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
very very much doubt it.... but would LOVE to be proven wrong.
Which part do you doubt. The fuel or ability to pull the extra weight.

We had 400's in the rear lockers and an 1100 up front plus stock and was able to plane with the stock prop. 14.5 x 15.25

Last edited by DatTexasBoy; 09-12-2014 at 5:49 PM.
Old     (Nordicron)      Join Date: Aug 2011       09-12-2014, 6:50 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DatTexasBoy View Post
Which part do you doubt. The fuel or ability to pull the extra weight.

We had 400's in the rear lockers and an 1100 up front plus stock and was able to plane with the stock prop. 14.5 x 15.25

What boat was this? 1100 front bag is a lot of weight! Anyway maybe a 2249 might be a good one to try
Old     (DatTexasBoy)      Join Date: Aug 2012       09-12-2014, 6:57 PM Reply   
B52 23
Old     (Froggy)      Join Date: Nov 2013       09-15-2014, 6:09 AM Reply   
I was talking to a rep this weekend about Indmar switching to Ford . He said PCM will continue with GM he also added they have a new engine coming out that will top the Raptor in all categories.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       09-15-2014, 6:19 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Froggy View Post
I was talking to a rep this weekend about Indmar switching to Ford . He said PCM will continue with GM he also added they have a new engine coming out that will top the Raptor in all categories.
Including price?
Old     (wakecumberland)      Join Date: Oct 2007       09-15-2014, 6:25 PM Reply   
I have 25 hrs on my B52 with Raptor motor and the thing sips gas. I'm estimating that I'm burning about 4 gallons per hour. Much less than my X15 with 5.7 Ilmor.
Old     (jwl019)      Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: N.E. Louisiana       09-15-2014, 6:45 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakecumberland View Post
I have 25 hrs on my B52 with Raptor motor and the thing sips gas. I'm estimating that I'm burning about 4 gallons per hour. Much less than my X15 with 5.7 Ilmor.

What size Raptor do you have and what kind of weight and activity (surf/wakeboard) are you doing and prop? Just curious since debating on a leftover SC345 or waiting on a 15 SC400 model with the Raptor. I surfing with a lot of weight and only using 4 gph, that might sway my decision to wait!
Old     (Nordicron)      Join Date: Aug 2011       09-15-2014, 7:25 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakecumberland View Post
I have 25 hrs on my B52 with Raptor motor and the thing sips gas. I'm estimating that I'm burning about 4 gallons per hour. Much less than my X15 with 5.7 Ilmor.

Nice info! I ride on a x15 all the time! We always use about 4 gals a set wakeboarding. How would you say the b52 compares wake wise to the x15?
Old     (wakecumberland)      Join Date: Oct 2007       09-15-2014, 8:03 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwl019 View Post
What size Raptor do you have and what kind of weight and activity (surf/wakeboard) are you doing and prop? Just curious since debating on a leftover SC345 or waiting on a 15 SC400 model with the Raptor. I surfing with a lot of weight and only using 4 gph, that might sway my decision to wait!

I have the 400. Good mix of surfing with 4000+ ballast, 2000-3000lb wakeboarding and empty cruising. I'm really pleased with the engine!
Old     (wakecumberland)      Join Date: Oct 2007       09-15-2014, 9:23 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nordicron View Post
Nice info! I ride on a x15 all the time! We always use about 4 gals a set wakeboarding. How would you say the b52 compares wake wise to the x15?

B52 is a little more vert and maybe a bit more weight sensitive. I haven't gotten to try weight in the nose yet but with a 3/4 factory full I'm really happy with the wake. My x15 had plug n play totaled about 2000 lbs total ballast. If my memory is correct I would run about 3500 rpms surfing while the raptor motor is turning about 2600. Maybe my memory is off but it seems to run much lower rpms overall.
Old     (Throwaway1)      Join Date: Nov 2013       09-18-2014, 7:25 AM Reply   
driven a mix of boats with the 400 raptor. with different propellers. 1235 on the base 400 is almost unstoppable. It's like it barely recognizes that there's weight in them.
Old     (DatTexasBoy)      Join Date: Aug 2012       09-18-2014, 8:04 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Throwaway1 View Post
driven a mix of boats with the 400 raptor. with different propellers. 1235 on the base 400 is almost unstoppable. It's like it barely recognizes that there's weight in them.
What other propellers have you tried? What are the supra coming with stock. The MB is a 2701. Must be new, not on the site.

I heard the same thing about the 1235 being a beast on this thing.
Old     (Throwaway1)      Join Date: Nov 2013       09-18-2014, 8:51 AM Reply   
2079, 1235, stock, and a 5 blade monster. the 1235 seemed like the right fit. the 2079 was a bit too aggressive, but might be proper for some people
Old     (DatTexasBoy)      Join Date: Aug 2012       09-18-2014, 9:15 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Throwaway1 View Post
2079, 1235, stock, and a 5 blade monster. the 1235 seemed like the right fit. the 2079 was a bit too aggressive, but might be proper for some people
Thx, I figured the 2315 or 2079 would be a little steep.

I would be Interested to see if a 5 blade would work.
Old     (JWalk)      Join Date: Aug 2013       09-18-2014, 2:38 PM Reply   
Is it true that the 400 is in reference to the torque not HP? I had a customer and a brand rep tell me this but when I got on Supra's website all they say is 400 and never actually say HP - 400. If this is true pretty smart marketing on skiers choice end, because I would just assume 400 HP.
Old     (mcdye)      Join Date: Apr 2009       09-18-2014, 3:28 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWalk View Post
Is it true that the 400 is in reference to the torque not HP? I had a customer and a brand rep tell me this but when I got on Supra's website all they say is 400 and never actually say HP - 400. If this is true pretty smart marketing on skiers choice end, because I would just assume 400 HP.
it is coming from Indmar marketing not SC about the 400 part...

Indmar ---> "Based on Ford’s 6.2L SOHC V8, a proven workhorse, the Raptor 400 boasts some serious low-rpm torque at a staggering 400 lb-ft. - See more at: http://www.indmar.com/Engine/RaptorSeries/RAPTOR400.aspx#sthash.xud2u3dt.dpuf"

Last edited by mcdye; 09-18-2014 at 3:28 PM. Reason: udpate
Old     (azwakeYO)      Join Date: Mar 2010       09-18-2014, 6:56 PM Reply   
I've got a 15 B52 with the 400 in it and I cant believe the amount of power it has, I ran the boat with stock prop, full #3200 stock, 10 people and it planed no problem! I'm really surprised how much more low end torque there is compared to the 5.7.
Old     (srock)      Join Date: Mar 2002       09-19-2014, 7:47 AM Reply   
I have a Raptor and one of the things about the 6.2 liter is it is a more simplistic motor especially compared to something like the ecoboost. Single overhead cam with a cast block. It may do better on economy in a boat because it does not have to work as hard as a smaller engine...the right engine for the job.
Old     (JWalk)      Join Date: Aug 2013       09-19-2014, 7:57 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcdye View Post
it is coming from Indmar marketing not SC about the 400 part...

Indmar ---> "Based on Ford’s 6.2L SOHC V8, a proven workhorse, the Raptor 400 boasts some serious low-rpm torque at a staggering 400 lb-ft. - See more at: http://www.indmar.com/Engine/RaptorSeries/RAPTOR400.aspx#sthash.xud2u3dt.dpuf"
After I posted yesterday I did a little research and found this as well. Still could not find anything listing horsepower. I have heard it is around 325-350hp but can't find anything to back that up. just trying to compare this engine to say an Ilmor or PCM. The 6.0L Ilmor is 411 ft pounds of tourque and 375 HP and the 6.2 is 445 ft lbs and 425 hp. I am in boat sales so always want to make sure that when asked I can give an accurate answer not hear say.
Old     (DatTexasBoy)      Join Date: Aug 2012       09-19-2014, 8:05 AM Reply   
I have been told it's only around 380hp& 400lb of torque
Old     (Nordicron)      Join Date: Aug 2011       09-19-2014, 9:15 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DatTexasBoy View Post
I have been told it's only around 380hp& 400lb of torque

400lbs seems low for a 6.2 motor
Old     (JWalk)      Join Date: Aug 2013       09-19-2014, 9:52 AM Reply   
Ok so the engines are CARB certified @the 400 Raptor being 349 actual HP and the 440 Raptor is 396 HP. CARB is the California Air and Resource Board. All engine manufactures have to turn over all engines to them so they can run tests on their machine to get actual ratings and make sure they pass California emissions standards. This is a fair test because all engines are done on the same machine. One Dyno may read different from the next so there is no cheating this test. The GM 6.0L is actually 361 HP and the GM 6.2L is 402 HP. My understanding that the only difference between the 400 and 440 is a chip that gets some extra performance but it is the same exact engine. That last statement again is hear say but from what I would consider a pretty good source.
Old     (boardman74)      Join Date: Jul 2012       09-19-2014, 10:13 AM Reply   
An Indmar engineer told me the same thing, while I was working for a dealership. Only difference is the ECM. Nothing internally at all. Thats why the price difference seems crazy.
Old     (Kjkimball)      Join Date: Mar 2011       09-19-2014, 10:59 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWalk View Post
Ok so the engines are CARB certified @the 400 Raptor being 349 actual HP and the 440 Raptor is 396 HP. CARB is the California Air and Resource Board. All engine manufactures have to turn over all engines to them so they can run tests on their machine to get actual ratings and make sure they pass California emissions standards. This is a fair test because all engines are done on the same machine. One Dyno may read different from the next so there is no cheating this test. The GM 6.0L is actually 361 HP and the GM 6.2L is 402 HP. My understanding that the only difference between the 400 and 440 is a chip that gets some extra performance but it is the same exact engine. That last statement again is hear say but from what I would consider a pretty good source.
Not a correct statement on CARB data. Each mariner uses their own testing on their own dyno to generate the data for CARB and EPA. CARB does not perform the test. They accept the data from each company. Further, each company can decide how to run the engines to generate the data they provide. For example, the rpm at which the engine is run. Some companies may turn it to 5600 while another only 5400. Makes a difference on the data submitted to CARB. Some may use 93 oct fuel and others use 87. Makes a difference too.

As for the differences between the 400 and 440, there is some difference in content in addition to a difference in the calibration. About the same as the differences between a base 5.7 and a premium 5.7. On the 5.7, there is a difference in the tune along with a few items different in the bill of materials. Same for the Ford 400/440. Not only that but there IS a performance difference between the 400 and the 440 with the 440 being able to handle larger boats or larger loads than the 400.
Old     (JWalk)      Join Date: Aug 2013       09-19-2014, 11:14 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kjkimball View Post
Not a correct statement on CARB data. Each mariner uses their own testing on their own dyno to generate the data for CARB and EPA. CARB does not perform the test. They accept the data from each company. Further, each company can decide how to run the engines to generate the data they provide. For example, the rpm at which the engine is run. Some companies may turn it to 5600 while another only 5400. Makes a difference on the data submitted to CARB. Some may use 93 oct fuel and others use 87. Makes a difference too.

As for the differences between the 400 and 440, there is some difference in content in addition to a difference in the calibration. About the same as the differences between a base 5.7 and a premium 5.7. On the 5.7, there is a difference in the tune along with a few items different in the bill of materials. Same for the Ford 400/440. Not only that but there IS a performance difference between the 400 and the 440 with the 440 being able to handle larger boats or larger loads than the 400.
See its funny because one manufacturer tells me one thing and the next is totally different. I had believed for years that each company submitted the results to CARB but was recently taught different. I guess the main thing is that it performs well at the best fuel economy possible. I just found it odd that it took this much homework to find a HP rating. Most companies fudge the # by 10% but at least they advertise something. For me HP is what I need to know, I have been selling inboards for 10 years and have not one time been asked for the torque that I can remember.
Old     (boardman74)      Join Date: Jul 2012       09-19-2014, 12:35 PM Reply   
@ Kevin..can you tell me what components are different between the 400 and the 440. Other than the ECM. I'm asking because I oversaw the service department of a dealer that carried these. I had multiple conversations with the engineers that marinized these 6.2 engines. Those guys told me there is no difference other than the ECM. So if thats what the boys at indmar are telling dealers than I'm curious where you heard something different. I specifically asked about the usual changes..cams..injectors..fuel delivery..intake…exhaust…same answer to all..exactly the same other than the ECM. So what exactly is different and where are you finding that info? I feel knowledge is always a good thing so if I was told wrong I would love to have the correct info. I know on the 5.7's there was differences..that why we asked about the differences in the 6.2's.
Old     (timmyb)      Join Date: Apr 2007       09-19-2014, 3:29 PM Reply   
Ford is backing Indmar's 5 year warranty from what I am being told so if you go with a Ford, at least you have the big guy backing up the little guy.
Old     (imscarlet)      Join Date: Mar 2008       09-19-2014, 5:12 PM Reply   
Don't know where you fellas are getting the figures from for your CARB HP but here is the link that I get my ones from http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/eng-cer...rt-ghg-14d.xls This is for the 2014 model year as the 2015 model year is pretty empty for all engine manufactures with the exception of Ilmor. Speaking of Ilmor they list the Chev based LS3 and LS7 engines + the Dodge V10 on the table looking at engine capacities.

350 (5.7)
Indmar 215.00 HP @ 4900rpm
Indmar 230.00 HP @ 5000rpm
Mercury 224.00 HP @ 5000rpm
PCM 211.00 HP @ 5000rpm

L18 (6.0)
Indmar 270.00 HP @ 5200rpm
PCM 280.00 HP @ 5600rpm

LS2
Ilmor 253.00 HP @ 5200rpm
Indmar 300.00 HP @ 5200rpm
MarinePower 310.00 HP @ 5600rpm
Mercury 239.00 HP @ 5000rpm

LS7
Ilmor 390.00 HP @ 5800rpm
Ilmor 428.00 HP @ 6000rpm

LSA
Indmar 388.00 HP @ 5300rpm
PCM 389.00 HP @ 5400rpm

8.0L
Ilmor (Dodge V10 8.4L) 486.00 @ 6000rpm
Mecury (Custom V8 block 8.2L) 392.00 @ 5000rpm
Mecury (Custom V8 block 8.2L) 522.00 @ 5000rpm
Old     (Kjkimball)      Join Date: Mar 2011       09-19-2014, 7:03 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWalk View Post
See its funny because one manufacturer tells me one thing and the next is totally different. I had believed for years that each company submitted the results to CARB but was recently taught different. I guess the main thing is that it performs well at the best fuel economy possible. I just found it odd that it took this much homework to find a HP rating. Most companies fudge the # by 10% but at least they advertise something. For me HP is what I need to know, I have been selling inboards for 10 years and have not one time been asked for the torque that I can remember.
I know Indmar runs the tests and submits the data to CARB and EPA. A friend of mine is the guy at Indmar that submits the data. Indmar hasn't posted HP ratings for the GM engines. In the past, the boat companies advertise the HP and some do stretch the truth as you suggest but it isn't Indmar fudging the numbers.

HP is what the buying public has been taught to care about even though it is a derived number from torque and rpm. A Mazda rotary engine can make 700 plus hp in racing trim but it wouldn't do well pushing a loaded wake boat because it has relatively low torque for the HP. A diesel engine can have 600-800 fl-lb torque yet only 180-200hp. The torque is a better number to know to understand the work the engine can do.
Old     (Kjkimball)      Join Date: Mar 2011       09-19-2014, 7:33 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by boardman74 View Post
@ Kevin..can you tell me what components are different between the 400 and the 440. Other than the ECM. I'm asking because I oversaw the service department of a dealer that carried these. I had multiple conversations with the engineers that marinized these 6.2 engines. Those guys told me there is no difference other than the ECM. So if thats what the boys at indmar are telling dealers than I'm curious where you heard something different. I specifically asked about the usual changes..cams..injectors..fuel delivery..intake…exhaust…same answer to all..exactly the same other than the ECM. So what exactly is different and where are you finding that info? I feel knowledge is always a good thing so if I was told wrong I would love to have the correct info. I know on the 5.7's there was differences..that why we asked about the differences in the 6.2's.
I should qualify my statement. Performance cost more in wake boat engines and computer chips. I would think the cost to produce a 2.0ghz processor and a 3.2 version is not that different even though the upgrade from the average performance to smoking fast is a good percentage up charge. The cost can come from the development time as much as it does from a difference in the actual hardware.

Yes, the ECM and calibration are different. The bill of materials is different for the 400 and 440 as things like the cover, colors, some brackets etc. are different between versions. Early versions of the 440 didn't have all of the different items on them and were more as you were told, basically the same except for programming, ecm and performance. Just as the 5.7 base and premium with a different top and programing. A base 5.7 and a premium 5.7 have the same cams, injectors, etc. There seems to be a misconception that there are internal differences in these versions of the 5.7. Not so. The 5.7 blocks don't know if they will be a base or premium when they arrive at a marinizer. In other words, the differences in the 5.7s are not as vast as most assume.

The point being made to the dealers is that the 6.2 as it comes from Ford to Indmar is a common unit inside the 400, 440 and 575 package. This reduces the number of engine types a service tech must be trained on and reduces the number of parts needed to support and service engines at the dealer. Common parts for all versions.
Old     (DatTexasBoy)      Join Date: Aug 2012       09-23-2014, 7:11 PM Reply   
Have not had a chance to check fuel consumption yet however I did try a different prop today and it's a serious contender on the motor. I have a 2015 MB B52 23 and I put an OJ 5 Blade on it and the motor responded very well. With two people in the boat normal gear 300lbs of lead and stock ballast full. It comes out of the hole quite well. Didn't even need the cav plate to plane like with the stock prop.

3100rpm @ 23.6 mph
Old     (srock)      Join Date: Mar 2002       09-24-2014, 5:59 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by imscarlet View Post
Don't know where you fellas are getting the figures from for your CARB HP but here is the link that I get my ones from http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/eng-cer...rt-ghg-14d.xls This is for the 2014 model year as the 2015 model year is pretty empty for all engine manufactures with the exception of Ilmor. Speaking of Ilmor they list the Chev based LS3 and LS7 engines + the Dodge V10 on the table looking at engine capacities.

350 (5.7)
Indmar 215.00 HP @ 4900rpm
Indmar 230.00 HP @ 5000rpm
Mercury 224.00 HP @ 5000rpm
PCM 211.00 HP @ 5000rpm

L18 (6.0)
Indmar 270.00 HP @ 5200rpm
PCM 280.00 HP @ 5600rpm

LS2
Ilmor 253.00 HP @ 5200rpm
Indmar 300.00 HP @ 5200rpm
MarinePower 310.00 HP @ 5600rpm
Mercury 239.00 HP @ 5000rpm

LS7
Ilmor 390.00 HP @ 5800rpm
Ilmor 428.00 HP @ 6000rpm

LSA
Indmar 388.00 HP @ 5300rpm
PCM 389.00 HP @ 5400rpm

8.0L
Ilmor (Dodge V10 8.4L) 486.00 @ 6000rpm
Mecury (Custom V8 block 8.2L) 392.00 @ 5000rpm
Mecury (Custom V8 block 8.2L) 522.00 @ 5000rpm
I can assure you of one thing, I am not running my engine at 5 to 6000 rpm all day. Drop the RPM then check the horsepower or even better check the torque curve.
Old     (DatTexasBoy)      Join Date: Aug 2012       10-20-2014, 5:41 PM Reply   
After putting a good 10 hrs of hard riding on this monster fully loaded and 4 grown men on board. It burned a little under 6.5 gph.
Old     (lsukuntryboy)      Join Date: Jul 2007       10-22-2014, 11:09 AM Reply   
I have the 400 Raptor in a 2015 Moomba Mondo. Got about 60 hours on it already and about 20 of them are from pulling comps. I'm running about 4200 lbs of ballast before people. The only time I've ever crossed 1/4 of a tank besides the competitions was we had 13 people in the boat plus full ballast running 3700 rpm with the 15in acme 4 blade 12 pitch? (I think). It usually cost me about 40 bucks for a afternoon of 4 riders taking a wakeboar and wakesurf set. Im extremely happy with it.

Only issue is the motor is flat out wider. So watch some of your hoses and wires that run past the motor. Since there is barely any room between the manifolds and the wall, when you fill up the sacks, the wall bows just a touch and causes the ballast hose to press on the manifold and melt. I put a piece of aluminum behind the wall to support it and I havent had any issues since.

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 12:26 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