MasterCraft & Ski Nautique
Footer
On 1 Nov 1996 01:04:16 -0500, kengi...@aol.com (KENGIBBONS) wrote:
>I just read the thread "Ski Boat Advertizers Bashing in Water Ski
>Magazine". That perpetual Nautique attitude is continues to sicken me .
>
<SNIP>
>
>So, we'll battle in this new group about superiority. When we see you
>Nautique guys on the lake, we will wave a friendly wave to our inboard
>brothers. On the lauch ramp, we will talk about how great our inboards
>are. Bottom line, if I like my boat, and you like your boat, I'm happy.
Couldn't have said it better myself (I own an '88 Supra!). In
addition to my Supra, we have 2 Nautiques, 1 MasterCraft and 1 Ski
Supreme on our lake and all five of us inboard boat owners coudn't be
happier about our boats or get along any better than we do!!!
TLD
aka
Footer
--
foo...@isd.net
RAIBERT RJ
In article <55c3t0$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, kengi...@aol.com
(KENGIBBONS) writes:
>, if I like my boat, and you like your boat, I'm happy.
>
>
I like my 1997 Ski Nautique!!
Bob Raibert
email: raib...@aol.com (H)
email: LNUSIND...@gmeds.com (W)
TJSSKIER
Kevin and Ken,
Yes they all do use aluminum heads and cast iron blocks in those autos.
The difference is they all have a "closed cooling system". A closed
system
heats and cools gradually as you run it and shut it off. It also has
antifreez
to stop the galvanic corrosion caused by two dissimilar metals in the
cooling
system. The LT1 is also a reverse cooled engine which dumps cooling water
into the aluminum cylinders first. Nobody....not Merc, not OMC, not
Volvo,
not any marine engine company has a reverse cooled marine engine. Not one
of them has a "raw water cooled" engine with an aluminum head either!
When you pump raw water through an LT1, you have a battery. The two dis-
similar metals cause a current called "galvanic corrosion". Because it is
a
reverse cooled motor you are pumping much cooler water through the heads
which cause them to constrict on the cast iron block which expands and
contractsa at a different rate. The water from the lake is much cooler
than
water that would be coming from a radiator in a car or from a closed
cooling
system. This is especially a problem when you heat soak your boat and
then
start it 30 min later. This is tough on head gaskets!
Its not that it dosen't work. ...it does.....its just for how long??? I
would not
want to be the owner of an two year old LT1. Its an expensive motor to
work
on with the above problems. From the stand point of sales its neat
marketing
to get the consumer all hot about a Corvette motor in his boat.
My BMW has aluminum heads and a cast iron block....but it has a closed
cooling system. If BMW made a marine engine I'll bet it would have cast
iron
heads or a closed cooling system.
If its fast, thats great.....I also want it to last.
TJSSKIER/Tim
Kevin Clark
KENGIBBONS wrote:
>
> Gee, maybe CC should let Mercedes,
> BMW, Honda, and nearly every other auto maker that their aluminum
> head/cast iron block designs are fundamentally flawed.
As an MC owner, I agreed w/ nearly all of your post, especially the part
about people claiming that a certain brand is best, period, in all
categories. Every manufacturer has certain areas where they may be
slightly superior to their competition, so depending on the importance
of this area to the consumer, different boats will be "best" for
different people.
I'm not so sure about the statement I quoted above, though. I don't
know about those German cars, but I'm pretty sure Honda (as well as
Nissan, Mazda, etc...) use blocks made of aluminum w/ cast iron cylinder
walls. Correct me if I'm wrong...
Kevin Clark
Dallas, Texas
Doug
RAIBERT RJ <raib...@aol.com> wrote in article
> I like my 1997 Ski Nautique!!
Great! But how much do you like those hefty payments???
Trikskier
> Then I got behind it on
>a ski and was amazed at what an all around civilized wake it had, from
>long line kid speeds to short line slalom speed. I like the concept of
>not needing to equip my little boys with a cup to protect their privates
>from a raging rooster tail.
Mastercraft makes a good boat .. BUT .. it's obvious you (or your kids)
have not skiied behind this boat at 22 off!
RAIBERT RJ
>> I like my 1997 Ski Nautique!!
>
>Great! But how much do you like those hefty payments???
Actually, I am on schedule to pay it off in 2.5 years. The boat is
awesome. But hey I may sell my house here shortly. With the proceeds I
will be able to completely pay the boat off, granted it will be a little
cramped sleeping in the boat but I will stay dry as I bought the upgrade
cover. And just think, I can roll right out of bed and into the lake and
start skiing!
Bob Raibert
KENGIBBONS
Thanks to everyone who has contributed this thread, it helps prove my
point about not putting the facts in perspective. Here are a few of my
return return comments.
True, the older 205's pulled very hard to the right. My '94 did and I
couldn't let go of the wheel. MasterCraft was a little over ambitious
with the rudder tuning, I guess thinking that every 205 would live within
the boat guide balls of a course. I tuned my rudder to suit my needs with
a mill file. Now it pulls a tiny bit to the right at slalom speeds, and
is comfortably neutral at wakeboard speed. As far as choosing growl over
pull, the growl is a basic design problem that couldn't be as easily
fixed. CC tried to fix the growl when they glued that Isodamp mat on the
gunnels to minimize resonance. It was a band aid at best. Again, no one
boat is perfect and best, except for the one that fits your needs. MC has
since mellowed the right hard pull.
The LT-1 heads will always be an interesting topic. Thermal expansion
doesn't bother me. Get out your properties of materials book, and look up
the coefficients of thermal expansion for both iron and aluminum,
noticing that they are linear with temp increase. Now consider how much
the engine temp changes from the ambient temperature at which it was
assembled at the factory to full heat soak, thats maybe 130 degrees, from
70 to 200. Calculate the expansion for both metals over that range, and
you'll see that the differential is insignificant. When this issue is
brought up, some people think that the difference must be measurable in
whole inches! By the way, I run my engine at 175. Cars run them at 220,
an almost 50% increase in temp range over the boat application.
As far as thermal cycling when the boat is running, mine runs right on
175. Once I borrowed some diagnostic software from my dealer to load on
my PC and connect to my engine while on the water to checking fuel
consumption and other data just for fun (you can't do this on some EFI
engines). I tried everything to trip up the cooling system, and could
only get a variance between 172 and 179 from extened idle to full speed
and back. That's stable enough for me, possible because of reverse
cooling, a great system. I must point out, however, that I use a heater
that is hooked up to the cooling system different than MasterCraft
recommends. It makes a difference. If you have an LT-1, E-mail me and
I'll see if I can clue you in.
As far as normal, quick start up/shut down thermal cycles (since there
aren't any while running), I just don't see that in my boat. It doesn't
warm up any faster than any other vehicle, but cools off way slower when
at the end of the day. Mine is still warm a day later. Must be that
great motor box sound deading insulation.
For galvanic corrosion, that is theoretical at best, I would like to see
some emperical data. GM knew these LT-1's were going into boats with open
cooling systems, they're reasonably sharp guys. Since none of the heads
have disolved yet, and I'm sure there are some out there with thousands of
hours on them, I won't worry too much. Worst case? Maybe in 150 years I
will have to buy some new heads. It will be worth it for the joy I get in
the mean time from this NorthStar ignitioned sweetheart.
Of course, no one else uses the aluminum/cast iron configuration, because
MasterCraft has the exclusive. And up till now, no other manufacturer
made a brute force engine configured like this... Ford's new V-8 and V-10
"Modular" engines are cast iron and aluminum. The 5.8 is being phased
out. I guess CC will have to eat their words. Bon appetite. By the way,
how do you CC guys feel about those steel bolts into alumimum on your
engine mounting frames? I wouldn't worry either, just like I don't worry
about the LT-1 heads.
The LT-1 is pretty strong, but so is the Monsoon, GT-40, and Black
Scorpion. I must admit, the CC guys really got me going on the "race
engine only" topic saying the LT-1 it has no torque. You can look at the
graphs and specs all day long, but what you need is some real life
experience. We met a family on the lake who has a boat identical to ours,
a '94 205 with an LT-1 1:1. He is a truck farmer/truck driver who will
drive only diesels. He likes his engines to grunt at low RPMs, so at his
request, OJ sold him a prop that looks like three frying pans on a hub.
It only allows the engine to turn up 3200 RPM at the full throttle. Mine
turns up 4800. His boat runs 43 MPH, mine runs 44 (at 4500 feet
elevation). It is unbelievable. It is wierd as heck to pull him through
the course with his engine turning 2300 at 34 mph. His boat demonstrates
the LT-1's serious mid range torque. Enough torque for me and you both.
It is not a high strung, tempermental race engine as some would like you
to believe.
As far as the 205's rooster at 22 off, I think that is dependent on the
prop used. My friend's frying pan equipped boat has a significant
rooster, even though the boats are the same hull. The 14x18 props used on
Slots produce a larger rooster, maybe the 205 mentioned in the thread had
a slot. Since my family isn't pulling the nationals, the 13x13 works just
fine, especially with the 4 blade. No rooster tail until you get to the
22 mph range and below, but it is so close to the boat its obviously no
problem while wake boarding.
Finally, we went wake boarding yesterday. The air was up into the 50's
and the water had only dropped to 48. We passed one boat, a Ski Nautique.
We smiled and waved in passing.
Bob Scibienski
Ken,
I won't take issue with most of your statements. However, there are a few
things ----. First, I find it hard to believe that GM would give ANY marine
engine mfg'r. an exclusive right to a production engine. Can you cite any
industry publication which provides this information? More importantly, your
comments about roostertails got me going because we beat this around last year.
The prop (wash) makes minor or no contribution to the size of the tail at skiing
distances (including short shortline). If you don't believe me just go out and
observe, from within the test boat and from one running parallel and behind. Or
just hang out there on your ski and watch for awhile. The roostertail is a
result of the water "falling" back into the trough left by the hull as it rushes
in from both sides. Where it meets in the middle it wells up. The tail's size
and shape are primarily dictated by the depth/width of the trough and the shape
of its "edges", all of which are a function of hull design and displacement. I
have a feeling that your farmer friend's boat was carrying a bit more weight
than yours and that this made the major contribution to the difference between
the otherwise "identical" hulls. 'Course, they could have come out of different
molds also, which can make a difference. As far as the prop wash contributing.
its major effect is probably due to any turbulance the prop introduces. If the
water is more "worked up" where the inrushing walls of water meet then this can
affect the characteristics. My logic (such as it is) would lead me to conclude
that the more the turbulance, the "softer" would be the tail, but I've never
made any comparisons with different props on the same boat. I'd rather just
ski!
Bob S.
Chip Broecker
Trikskier wrote:
>
> Mastercraft makes a good boat .. BUT .. it's obvious you (or your kids)
"beavertail" that doesn't launch the ski.
I skied behind a 1995 CC and I liked it too. I thought the three humps of the triple tail looked
wierd, but at 22/34 I skied between them.
I regularly ski behind a 1980 SkiTique (16 footer). This boat defines the concept of 'bad rooster
tail' and 'spray'. But you know what? I still ski behind it and enjoy it. I use 22 off as a body
position check because if I don't get a ton of lean and leverage on 2-3 the rooster hits my knees,
thigh, and chest so hard it nearly rips me out of the bindings. And what a challenge to drive,
countersteering and throttling up 4 times for a 34 pass, feeling the boat race ahead at each ball.
Funny thing is, I am sure that back in 1980, CC was slamming the competition and saying how
wonderful the boat is. And it is a good boat, 16 years old and still pulling 36mph, much better
than the Boston Whaler 13 and the SeaCraft 23 that I learned behind.
CC keep up the good work, and stuff a rag in it. We MC folk like your boats MUCH better than your
attitude.
Chip
Kevin Cook
Trikskier wrote:
>
> In article <55c3t0$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, kengi...@aol.com
> (KENGIBBONS) writes:
>
> > Then I got behind it on
> >a ski and was amazed at what an all around civilized wake it had, from
> >long line kid speeds to short line slalom speed. I like the concept of
> >not needing to equip my little boys with a cup to protect their privates
> >from a raging rooster tail.
>
trik...@aol.com
In article <564v2b$4...@herald.concentric.net>, Kevin Cook
<"kev...@cris.com"@concentric.net> writes:
Yes ... you are right. I have also skied behind one at 15 off. Not to
mention, 28 off, 32 off, 35 off, 38 off and 39.5 off!!! Hmmmm..........
Jim Lince
Tim -
You state some facts and then throw in several opinions, which are fine
of course, but let's not confuse the two. #1, My two year old LT-1 runs
great. #2, You have no idea what BMW would or would not design with a
marine engine (yes, I am a BMW owner as well), unless you work for the
BMW engine design team, which I don't think you do. #3 Mastercraft does
offer fresh water cooling (your "closed system") as an option. #4 The
AMOUNT of corrosion directly caused by mixed metals, is NOT significant
compared to the damage caused by lake water or salt water over a given
period of time. This last one comes from the head of service (a marine
mechanic with 20+ years of tearing down marine engines and works on
LT-1 mastercrafts --- he might be lying to me, thus supporting the
mastercraft LT-1 foolery of the public at large theory, but he seemed to
know a heck of alot about marine engines, including building several
drag boat engines.
The fact is that if you are concerned about damage to your
cooling system, get a fresh water cooling system, period, in any marine
powerplant.
Regarding the constricting issue on the heads, if this was
significant, the head gaskets would blow within the first few cold
winter starts on your BMW as your block doesn't heat up as quick as you
think it does. Why does it take five minutes to get heat? because the
coolant is cold (much colder than average lake water) --- and yes the
heads and the block are getting the same temperature coolant thrown at
them during circulation, and the heads are not expanding at the same
rate as the block as they heat up. So what. This is a non issue and
built into the design. Agreed the LT-1 is getting constant cold weather
starts, but no one's suggesting not to buy a BMW in cold weather
climates because of the aluminum heads.
Regarding your point about "not wanting to be the owner of a Two
year old LT-1 ... it's an expensive motor to work on" -- that is your
opinion, expensive is a relative term --- I know ten people who would
knock your BMW for the same reason. I, myself, have enjoyed the LT-1 to
the point that the added maintenance expense (if there is any) wouldn't
bother me a bit --- that's why I own one and you don't.
You are mixing being practical with an exotic high performance
engine and those terms are mutually exclusive...talk to any high
performance owner be it, boat, airplane, car. Put this LT-1 debate into
context please.
Bob Scibienski
Jim Lince <jli...@gogis.com> wrote:
>#4 The
>AMOUNT of corrosion directly caused by mixed metals, is NOT significant
>compared to the damage caused by lake water or salt water over a given
>period of time. This last one comes from the head of service (a marine
>mechanic with 20+ years of tearing down marine engines and works on
>LT-1 mastercrafts ---
Tell this to all those boat owners who pour millions into replacing sacrificial
zinc every year so that they don't have to pour billions into repair of corroded
parts! My electrochemistry is real rusty but I'll give this a try. I think to
a certain extent this discussion may be about apples and oranges. If you just
let two conductor linked metals which differ in the galvanic series sit in
conducting water (and even most freshwater lakes will conduct a little) one will
survive at the expense of the other's dissolving to form a salt. It is
essentially a battery. If you take those aluminum heads you are so fond of,
attach them to the iron block via a copper wire and immerse the set in sea
water, when you return a month later the iron block will be plated with whatever
metal ions are present which have the same or lower oxidation potential and the
aluminum heads will have lost some of their aluminum. If you now attach an
external source of electrons (e.g. - a real battery or shore power) between the
pair while maintaining the water connection you will accellerate the reaction.
On the other hand, if you set up the "experiment" so that the water is
constantly flowing first past the iron and then past the aluminum you will
partially inhibit the reaction. If you can manage to completely electrically
isolate the two from each other (other than the water connection) you will
completely inhibit the reaction. So, good gaskets and water flow from block to
heads and then overboard will protect your precious heads, probably adequately
but not completely. At least, I think that's that's way it works ----- :-)
Bob S.
kengi...@aol.com
The key word in Bob Scibienski's LT-1 galvanic corrosion posting (a very
though provoking one at that) may well be "conducting" in describing lake
water. Could we please quantify that? Does lake water conduct much
better than automotive antifreeze that is loaded with oxidized iron?
By the way, no one has brought up the issue of cast iron's nasty property
of continually oxidizing, the dreaded "rust out". With aluminum, once the
surface layer of oxidation has formed, it essentially stops which protects
the metal underneath. Cast iron oxidation keeps on going. That's
partially why in automotive applications, they paint the block (along with
aesthetics) but the aluminum can remain uncoated and nice (not that a
block would ever rust through in our life times).
So, if one were to analyze loss rates from both metals in a head
application, would the cast iron rust oxidation loss be as much galvanic
loss in aluminum? Does it matter??? Like I've said, the LT-1 has such a
sweet personality, I would gladly buy new heads for it in 150 years when
they theoretically self destruct. Heck, I would do it every 5 years but I
know I won't have to.
Why didn't Indmar spec cast iron heads? After all, they do cost more to
make. Aluminum heads are actually quite trick as the automotive industry
confirms. Since aluminum conducts heat so well, they can run a 10.5:1
compression ratio without a melt down. The LT-1's reverse cooling ensures
a huge safety factor for preventing that. And with the NorthStar
ignition, you can run 10.5:1 on regular gas!
Finally, my LT-1 is so nice that it brings tears of joy to my eyes. So
does the EFI 460 in my Ford F-250. Get the point?
Art Kotz
kengi...@aol.com wrote:
>
> The key word in Bob Scibienski's LT-1 galvanic corrosion posting (a very
> though provoking one at that) may well be "conducting" in describing lake
> water. Could we please quantify that? Does lake water conduct much
> better than automotive antifreeze that is loaded with oxidized iron?
A few years ago, a chemist in my company went through some electrochemical
estimates of galvanic corrosion rates assuming typical (and even large) values
for lakewater conductivity. His conclusion was that galvanic corrosion was
negligible in freshwater. I wish I knew who it was that made those calculations
so I could elaborate further... Has such an estimate been published anywhere?
--
Art L. Kotz <alk...@mmm.com>
"Narf!" - Pinky in "Pinky and the Brain"
hamm...@aol.com
> Regarding the constricting issue on the heads, if this was
>significant, the head gaskets would blow within the first few cold
>winter starts on your BMW as your block doesn't heat up as quick as you
>think it does. Why does it take five minutes to get heat? because the
>coolant is cold (much colder than average lake water) --- and yes the
>heads and the block are getting the same temperature coolant thrown at
>them during circulation, and the heads are not expanding at the same
>rate as the block as they heat up. So what.
So what, ever hear of heat soak? After you shut that engine down and
change skiers, look at your temp gauge, you'll see it approach
200-210degrees, THEN dump the cold lake water on the heads, it can't be
good for it. Also anyone hear the rumors about all the leftover M/C
inventory in various places like the Seattle area? Not good for resale.
John Anderson
In article <19961115225...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, hamm...@aol.com says:
>
>
>So what, ever hear of heat soak? After you shut that engine down and
>change skiers, look at your temp gauge, you'll see it approach
>200-210degrees, THEN dump the cold lake water on the heads, it can't be
>good for it. Also anyone hear the rumors about all the leftover M/C
>inventory in various places like the Seattle area? Not good for resale.
You're right, it can't be good for it. But then again, it might not
be bad for it. What sort of background experience do you have with
the effects of temp. chhange on aluminum heads:
John Anderson
Altamonte Springs, FL
Ted Martin
In article <19961115225...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
hamm...@aol.com wrote:
>
> So what, ever hear of heat soak? After you shut that engine down and
> change skiers, look at your temp gauge, you'll see it approach
> 200-210degrees, THEN dump the cold lake water on the heads, it can't be
> good for it.
If your boat approaches 200-210 deg. then you have something wrong. We put
160 deg. thermostats in and if the temperature rise close to 200 we start
looking for problems with impellor or debris.
Mark Kovalcson
Ted Martin wrote:
>
> If your boat approaches 200-210 deg. then you have something wrong. We put 160 deg. thermostats in and if the temperature rise close to 200 we start looking for problems with impellor or debris.
Reality Check !!!
This occurs in all boats I have ever seen !!!
The engines cool down immediately when the engine starts to run, but
when you've just pulled someone a set and kill the engine the water
stops moving and the engine gets hot.
--
Check out the Skiers of Knoxville Web Site
http://www.public.usit.net/kovalson
Kevin Cook
WOW!
hamm...@aol.com
In article <19961115051...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
kengi...@aol.com writes:
>Does lake water conduct much
>better than automotive antifreeze that is loaded with oxidized iron?
>
>
Anti-freeze has rust inhibitors in it to stop this, galvanic corrosion is
where the aluminum litteraly gets eaten away by electrolisis, this is
controled in Outboards by the use of special marine alloys and zinc
sacrificial anodes.
>Why didn't Indmar spec cast iron heads? After all, they do cost more to
make.
Indmar sent out a bulletin to all dealers to make sure their customers do
not use the LT-1 in any brackish or salt water environment, this is enough
to cause a little alarm.
Just a couple questions more..........
hamm...@aol.com
In article <Ted-161196...@ppp2.tt.net>, T...@waterskis.com (Ted
Martin) writes:
>If your boat approaches 200-210 deg. then you have something wrong. We
put
>160 deg. thermostats in and if the temperature rise close to 200 we start
>looking for problems with impellor or debris.
>
>
Heat soak is when you shut the engine off and the internal temp begins to
rise, check it out for yourself!
kengi...@aol.com
Thank you, Art Kotz, for your comments on the conductivity of lake water
as relating to galvanic corrosion, even though you couldn't quote the
actual data. It intuitively makes sense. That's why I don't put a closed
cooling system on my LT-1, which would solve the alledged problem. I just
don't think those heads will ever dissolve.
By the way, you would think that the "heresay" conductivity data for lake
water would be 100% admissible in this news group. After all, the
anti-LT-1 folks jump on every bit of negative second hand conjecture
related to the motor, and all of a sudden, it's a proven fact!
Unfortunately, the data won't make them feel any better about their own
boats, so they will dismiss it.
My LT-1 does heat soak (just like every other engine), but not to where I
would get excited. I run a 170 thermostat. When I hook up a Tech-1
serial data analyzer, it tells me that the ECM thinks the engine runs at
175. The dash gauge reads just below 180. When it heat soaks, the dash
gauge goes up to 200. It drops when I start the engine. Now, let's get
back to the thermal coefficients of expansion for cast iron and aluminum.
In a 20-25 degree span, the expansion differential is less than
insignificant. A good point was made previously about automotive
applications. Say you start your Corvette car at -15 and run it up to
220, the normal operating temperature. Every day, all winter. They have
no problems. Just like the rest of the aluminum headed world.
Back to reverse cooling, it's a great system. The engine temp stays
remarkably constant. We have a heater in our boat and it cranks out full
heat at idle because the temp doesn't drop. I have friends with
MerCruisers who have to pull out the neutral knobs and rev the engines to
1500 RPM to get heat even marginal heat while stopped.
It's too bad that the MasterCraft dealer in Seattle mis-read the market
and had to unload some boats, hurting resale values. My Utah dealer was
out of '96 205s in August. I think the 190s were gone soon thereafter. I
never think about resale. Why would we part with our '94 205? It's the
perfect boat.....for my family.
And finally, I don't think that Ford will drop the aluminum heads from
modulars. They cost too much to develop and the benefits to significant.
I read in Automotive Industries magazine that Ford is even considering a
composite intake manifold for the V-10. Cast iron has seen better days.
And again, when the aluminum headed modulars make it into the PCM line,
don't worry doomsday-ers, it works great.
mqual...@aol.com
Here some factual data on this issue. Pure H2O is an insulator and ion
free. Lake water is contaminated with either acidic or akaline ions, if
you don't believe this then jump in the lake with a live electical charge.
( please don't do that just stated it that way to make a point )
Point number two, heat makes ions acts faster, and electrons to move
faster, thus increasing galvanic corrossion.
Does aluminum rust ? Yes it's that white crusty stuff you can brush off
of the heads when you get a chance to tear down one of these engines.
Anti- freeze does have prohibitive qualities that do protect your engine
in a closed cooling system.
Final observation if the aluminum heads are so good why do they not let
the engine breath well enough to get a cam in that can create low end RPM
torque.
Mark
kengi...@aol.com
I think that "white crusty stuff" is a heat induced build up of salts,
minerals, and sediments from the lake water. Think of it as magnum water
spots that you can't towel off everytime you pull the boat out of the
water. I have that "white crusty stuff" in the hoses leading to my
heater, too. Dang, I was momentarily worried that the rubber was
undergoing galvanic corrosion :-) .
You get that white crusty stuff in cast iron, too. However, it is colored
and camouflaged by the red rust from the iron corrosion. In Utah, a
couple of lakes are known for being hard on engines because of "stuff" in
the water. About 400 hours in one of these lakes, and the cooling jackets
clog, cast iron or aluminum. Funny thing is, it has the most beautiful,
crystal clear water you've ever seen. Utah also has the Great Salt Lake,
7 times more salty than the ocean. No one power boats on it. What a
waste of water.
About torque and the LT-1's ability to breath freely at low RPM, aluminum
head construction has nothing to do with porting or cam duration and lift.
I say again, how much torque do we need? We are at 4500' elevation and
have a 1:1. No one I pull asks for a full throttle punch to get up.
Under a hard pull, the RPMs stay steady. If there is any speed variation,
it is caused by prop slip, which is not the LT-1's or any other motor's
fault. The LT-1 has tons of torque.
Which leads to the GT-40. Another nice motor, indeed. However, it is not
a stump pulling torque monster some folks think it is based on the
manufacturor's specs. When I was being jerked around by the Nautique guys
before I bought our MasterCraft, I remember the GT-40 literature saying
something about the heads being "race bred". That's funny, in this group,
the LT-1 gets slammed for being a high rev, high performance design.
Look at the dry land applications for the GT-40. They sure didn't offer
it in the heavy duty work horse F-250 or F-350 trucks. Ford put it in the
F-150 Lightning, essentially a street rod with minimal towing capacity
compared to the base 351 or the 460. By the way, I love my EFI 460 in my
F-250.
Since 1992 when the LT-1 was the first EFI tournament boat engine, I've
never heard of any corrosion problems in the aluminum heads. Maybe I'm
sheltered.
mqual...@aol.com
>Look at the dry land applications for the GT-40. They sure didn't offer
it in the heavy duty work horse F-250 or F-350 trucks. Ford put it in the
F-150 Lightning, essentially a street rod with minimal towing capacity
compared to the base 351 or the 460. By the way, I love my EFI 460 in my
F-250.<
That's odd since I had Gt 40 heads in my light industrial truck. I guess
I forgot to tell Ford they were'nt allowed to put them in it.
You spoke of racing engines which brings up a good point. I will use the
Dodge Viper and Ram in this example; Viper V 10 aluminum heads, Ram V 10
cast iron. Why durability, Dodge knows that truck is going out every day
into high work enviroment, they also know the Vipers going to be driven
on an occassional basis without load conditions.
Please don't mis read this I'm not against aluminum heads or the LT 1 it's
a good engine for a non load bearing enviroment.
>About torque and the LT-1's ability to breath freely at low RPM, aluminum
head construction has nothing to do with porting or cam duration and
lift.<
Actually it has everything to do with this, thus the creation of the gen 1
head design.
Mark
David Burton
>
> Back to reverse cooling, it's a great system. The engine temp stays
> remarkably constant. We have a heater in our boat and it cranks out full
> heat at idle because the temp doesn't drop. I have friends with
> MerCruisers who have to pull out the neutral knobs and rev the engines to
> 1500 RPM to get heat even marginal heat while stopped.
>
Just what is reverse cooling? Can I adapt my boat to do it?
I have the problem of low heat output when idling.
Disconnecting the heater hose I see no water flows through
the heater core until rpm's are above idle.
DB
ihv...@aol.com
Enough of the engine arguments, we know that cast blocks and aluminum
heads are not perfect, neither are cast blocks and cast heads. How did
end up on a flame about engines from a simple comparison of the Nautique
and the Master Craft? By the way, who ever started this you never
responded to the questions I e-mailed you.
Scott
Ted Martin
In article <328E1B...@usit.net>, kova...@usit.net wrote:
> Ted Martin wrote:
> >
> > If your boat approaches 200-210 deg. then you have something wrong. We
put 160 deg. thermostats in and if the temperature rise close to 200 we
start looking for problems with impellor or debris.
>
> Reality Check !!!
> This occurs in all boats I have ever seen !!!
>
> The engines cool down immediately when the engine starts to run, but
> when you've just pulled someone a set and kill the engine the water
> stops moving and the engine gets hot.
At our shop where I have been working and using these boats Mastercraft,
Nautique, Malibu, and Gekko for ten years. I have seen heat soak increases
of 10-15 degrees, but an increase of 50 degrees is UNUSUAL! Granted I am
in Minnesota where the water temps are not what they are in the south,
this could have some effect, but then the engine would operate at a higher
temp. in the first place.
Reality Check !!!?????????????? you must really feel strongly about your
opinions or you really need to cut down on the caffein.
Jim Lince
mqual...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Here some factual data on this issue. Pure H2O is an insulator and ion
> free. Lake water is contaminated with either acidic or akaline ions, if
> you don't believe this then jump in the lake with a live electical charge.
> ( please don't do that just stated it that way to make a point )
>
> Point number two, heat makes ions acts faster, and electrons to move
> faster, thus increasing galvanic corrossion.
>
> Does aluminum rust ? Yes it's that white crusty stuff you can brush off
> of the heads when you get a chance to tear down one of these engines.
>
Yes, just like the "brown rust" on cast iron when tearing down other
long blocks.
> Anti- freeze does have prohibitive qualities that do protect your engine
> in a closed cooling system.
Really? Say it isn't so.
>
> Final observation if the aluminum heads are so good why do they not let
> the engine breath well enough to get a cam in that can create low end RPM
> torque.
Obviously the expert on cams and heads, you tell me why. Take it up with
GM design team, they obviously could lean a thing or two from you. After
all the Corvettes with the LT-1 are slow off the line aren't
they? Contrary to popular opinion low RPM torque isn't the only
measurement of an engine's performance.
Let's talley the LT-1 knockers so far:
- No low end torque (obviously a mis-statement it itself)
- Heads melt down (engine runs at 175 all day long)
- Heads corrode off the block (example please)
- Not designed for marine use (according to which professional
engineer?)
- Heads expand more than block (winter starts anyone?)
- The dip stick isn't sheilded from UV, thus the oil becomes too hot and
is causing premature main bearing failure (we've never seen this happen,
but in THEORY this is what is going on, I swear it!).
...and the number one reason the LT-1 is a bad powerplant --- because it
isn't in a Nautique! Because if it was, it would be the greatest engine
on the face of the earth, bar none. Right my SNOBish friends?
Jim
>
> Mark
Kevin Cook
statement!
Kevin
mqual...@aol.com
Some one does'nt like the truth. I care nothing about the boat regarding
this issue, as I far as I'm concerned we could be talking about Sea Ray to
Crownline.
My point refers to engine and only engine, my data comes from experience
and data provided by Ford & GM, which is available to the public if they
want to research the subject. I would also suggest talking to the people
that deal with these products every day. ( the racing community -drag
racing stock fields )
By know means would I put down MC or CC they make great boats and I've
owned both.
Another suggestion is get out the closed world of ski boats and look to
other applications with these products involved it might give insight to
greater understanding of issues.
Unfortunately, it looks like mostly MC people have been offended, this I
apologize for, but I will never hold back from speaking the truth.
Mark
kengi...@aol.com
ihv...@aol.com: I started this thread.
mqual...@aol.com: Your logic about why Dodge uses aluminum heads in the
Vipor (intermittent, light duty) and iron heads in the Ram truck ( heavy
duty) does not translate to the Ford modulars. Therefore, may I suggest
that you do not know what you are talking about when you apply your logic
to the LT-1, either.
The Ford Modular V-10 (with aluminum heads) was developed specifically for
the workhorse models of the F-series truck and Econoline van. The engine
was developed from a "clean sheet". Do you really think that they would
go to all the expense to design the heads, engine system, and
manufacturing infrastructure for aluminum, knowing that they would have to
switch in a few years? The F-Series is Ford's bread and butter. Ford
wouldn't take that gamble. The aluminum headed modulars are well thought
out. Aluminum heads are good when set up with the proper cooling system
(reverse cooling in the LT-1).
Some of the current new style F-Series and Expeditions have the V-8 5.4
modular with aluminum heads. That is the engine PCM should be dialing in
on rather than trying to buy up the older 5.8's.
So what about rec.sport.waterski? The LT-1 is a terrific motor and
compliments MasterCraft very well. Stick to the track record of the
motor. We love ours. Don't grasp for hypothetical rumors to try to knock
the LT-1.
Mark Kovalcson
Ted Martin wrote:
>
>
> Reality Check !!!?????????????? you must really feel strongly about your
> opinions or you really need to cut down on the caffein.
It's obviously the caffein ;)
mqual...@aol.com
I need you to explain to me the cam design the firing design of the
modulars and then tell what is different from this block and its
components in regards to the LT 1. I will look forward to your answer if
you need some help you can e- mail to get the answers.
You are comparing to very different engines in all elements of design.
Now if your so sure of yourself answer this question, why when a certain
boat company made a Corvette ski boat did they not put an LT 1 in it
instead they chose a 383 cid Calloway conversion? Why did'nt the people at
Calloway beef up an LT 1. I look forward to a straight answer on
questions.
Mark
Pete Fitzsimmons
> Now if your so sure of yourself answer this question, why when a certain
> boat company made a Corvette ski boat did they not put an LT 1 in it
> instead they chose a 383 cid Calloway conversion? Why did'nt the people
at
> Calloway beef up an LT 1. I look forward to a straight answer on
> questions.
>
> Mark
>
LT-1 marine application.
Reason # 2 The corvette boat is a specialty item, it needed something other
(read more powerful) than an engine already offered on many other boats
currently on the water. (i.e. if you're paying 40K it better have the most
powerful engine out there)
Reason # 3 Not sure about this one, its been a while since I read the full
article on the "vette", but I believe they do use the LT-1 block bored out
to a 383.
Fitz
kengi...@aol.com
To mqual...@aol.com:
Maybe I was unclear on my modular posts. I never said the modulars and
LT-1's were functionally similar. I only meant that it looks like at
least one other company (Ford) thinks that you can make heavy duty, big
power engine with aluminum heads that will survive heat soaks and winter
startups.
kengi...@aol.com
Reverse cooling is that evil system used in the LT-1. It is famous for
all kinds of awful things that no one can really put their finger on :-) .
Just ask the guys with that one other brand of boat, who somehow know
more about LT-1's than us owners.
Reverse cooling pumps the water into the heads first, and then into the
block which is backwards from conventional cooling. The engine doesn't
use the conventional small block water pump. The LT-1 pump and thermostat
housing ensure that a nice consistant mix of pre-heated water is
circulating at all times, all speeds. That way, you get rock solid engine
temperature.
Unfortunately, it only works with an LT-1. Sorry.
Tommy Phillips
>
I own a two year old LT-1 with 1895 hrs and it runs great. Ski school boats are worked the hardest. This
boat starts easy and only got faster and more efficient. It holds speed and drives like a jem. Merry
Christmas.
Tommy Phillips
Seajmlvt
So where is the Nautique part of this post as stated in the "Subject" box?
kdaug...@aol.com
In article <59agp9$i...@lal.interserv.com>, tphi...@interserv.com (Tommy
Phillips) writes:
>only got faster and more efficient
Is it because it's getting lighter every year? Ken Gibbons can probably
tell you why. ;-)
Bob Scibienski
tphi...@interserv.com (Tommy Phillips) wrote:
snip
>I own a two year old LT-1 with 1895 hrs and it runs great. Ski school boats are worked the hardest. This
>boat starts easy and only got faster and more efficient.
There's the proof! It must be getting lighter from galvanic corrosional loss of
mass from the heads! You should start a monitoring program immediatly to record
the monthly weight loss from this point onward. That way we will be able to
calculate a rate and tell all other LT-1 owners when its time to bail out.
;^)
Bob S.