Hey Jer

[Blown 472]

Since you are after just "power" and not torque why didn't you keep the the 4" stroke crank and over bore .100 or .125" to get a bigger bore which would allow you to unshroud your bigger valves and make more "power"??

[Jet Hydro]

I thought Jer was all about torque and not Power?

[cyclone]

here we go again.
you must have talked to a great (read- not west coast, not in a magazine, and definately not using a dyno) engine builder today and are feeling saucy enough to challenge LV.
this ought to be good. hold on while i pop 5lbs of popcorn, grab a case of beer and a lazy boy, so i can sit comfortably and watch the fireworks.
:D
play on playas.

[Jordy]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Jer has 100 different charts and graphs to show ya why he did what he did... :D

[cyclone]

Originally posted by jordanpaulk
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Jer has 100 different charts and graphs to show ya why he did what he did... :D
almost seems dumb to challenge him then huh? you'll just get smacked upside the grill with a pie graph. :D

[cyclone]

although i do see the logic in going with a larger bore diameter to unshroud the valves, that doesn't mean LV's engine builder didn't have a different plan of attack in mind. I guess blown should be making a call to DNE rather than calling out Jer on the board.

[Blown 472]

Originally posted by cyclone
here we go again.
you must have talked to a great (read- not west coast, not in a magazine, and definately not using a dyno) engine builder today and are feeling saucy enough to challenge LV.
this ought to be good. hold on while i pop 5lbs of popcorn, grab a case of beer and a lazy boy, so i can sit comfortably and watch the fireworks.
:D
play on playas.
Nope, unlike you I read alot of info. You should talk to Jack about this he is the one that turned me on to this theory.

[cyclone]

Originally posted by Blown 472
Nope, unlike you I read alot of info. You should talk to Jack about this he is the one that turned me on to this theory.
and you know how much i read because??? give it up and just concentrate on your inevitable battle with LV.

[Blown 472]

Originally posted by cyclone
and you know how much i read because??? give it up and just concentrate on your inevitable battle with LV.
Cuz you are so smart, can throw together an engine and not know what to check.

[corlish]

Ok,
I am going to jump in here half cocked and without knowing the differences between Jer's new and old engine. It sounds like Blown's question is implying that he has the same displacement just a different bore/stroke combination?
If that is the case, it is certainly a valid question. Take two engines of the SAME displacement and all else being equal and the shorter stroke engine will make more power. This can be shown mathematically for the naysayers.
Let the flames begin.
Corey

[Blown 472]

Originally posted by corlish
Ok,
I am going to jump in here half cocked and without knowing the differences between Jer's new and old engine. It sounds like Blown's question is implying that he has the same displacement just a different bore/stroke combination?
If that is the case, it is certainly a valid question. Take two engines of the SAME displacement and all else being equal and the shorter stroke engine will make more power. This can be shown mathematically for the naysayers.
Let the flames begin.
Corey
Close, Jer is a torque hater, so he built a longer stroke motor to get him more "power" without torque from the longer stroke, so I asked him why he didn't leave the 4" stroke because he doesn't need torque and just built a bigger bore motor.
Seems to work for Hicks. He ran 135 mph with a 4" stroke motor.

[cheech]

the shorter stroke motor will make more hp at a higher rpm. take 2 motors of same cubes and run them at THE SAME RPM and then see what your difference is. if you use 5000 rpm as a test the longer stroke will win if you use 7000 the short stroke will win.

[Jet City]

Originally posted by Blown 472
Nope, unlike you I read alot of info. You should talk to Jack about this he is the one that turned me on to this theory.
Nice attitude:rolleyes:

[Cs19]

Maybe he didnt want to take his new high dollar block out to .100 over quite yet.

[Blown 472]

Originally posted by cs19
Maybe he didnt want to take his new high dollar block out to .100 over quite yet.

[DiverDown]

cheech originally posted...
the shorter stroke motor will make more hp at a higher rpm. take 2 motors of same cubes and run them at THE SAME RPM and then see what your difference is. if you use 5000 rpm as a test the longer stroke will win if you use 7000 the short stroke will win.
It just isn't that simple, as always there are variables, and it is the sum of those varibles that determine where an engine will makes it's power.
Having said that though, in my experience watching dynos, the long stroke motors usually make torque quicker, and the shorter stroke motors usually make more overall torque.
PS. I am new to the boards and it is certainly not my intent to tick anybody off...just want to share and learn with everyone else.:)

[MAD-MarKist]

Diverdown,
YOU
just don't know what you stepped into! Good luck!
yeah, Good luck Dude!:D :D :D

[cheech]

i was refering to both motors identical except for bore and stroke. your right about the torque. but doesn't it move the powerband up into higher rpms with the shorter stroke. then you will also gain from being able to run a longer rod also.

[cheech]

i am here to learn also, if i find out a better way or even the right way it is worth it. thankx for the input.

[DiverDown]

I will probably always give my input on this type of thing because I believe in real world application, (we don't race dynos), and I think there is a lot to be learned from a lot of different people with different ideas some of which are maybe not so good and some we can probably all learn from. I have built lots of engines, but I am just now getting into the performance boat stuff, and that is why I thought I would cruise around the boards and see what kind of experiences people are having and have had with their boats and motors as well as what some common problems are with the boat deals so that I can include this information in my thought process on future endeavors with the boat deals.
cheech posted
i am here to learn also, if i find out a better way or even the right way it is worth it. thankx for the input. No problem dude.

[Blown 472]

Originally posted by riodog
Diverdown,
YOU
just don't know what you stepped into! Good luck!
Rio-i ain'y sayin a word-Dog:rolleyes:
Dude, dont be scarin tha newbie.

[Blown 472]

Originally posted by DiverDown
I will probably always give my input on this type of thing because I believe in real world application, (we don't race dynos), and I think there is a lot to be learned from a lot of different people with different ideas some of which are maybe not so good and some we can probably all learn from. I have built lots of engines, but I am just now getting into the performance boat stuff, and that is why I thought I would cruise around the boards and see what kind of experiences people are having and have had with their boats and motors as well as what some common problems are with the boat deals so that I can include this information in my thought process on future endeavors with the boat deals.
No problem dude.
rot row, you have come to the wrong place, we bench race dynos here.

[LVjetboy]

Hey Blown,
Jet performance depends on power to the impeller, not torque. That doesn't mean I hate torque, just it's the wrong thing to focus on. Torque's a non-emotional number like all others. A focus carried over from the car community and what I believe is a misunderstanding of the physics.
Why I chose a stroker? Strangely enough, it had nothing to do with torque...
Originally, my plan was for Dave to rebuild my 454 block. Add a 100, no maybe 200, wait how about 300 hp? No blower, no turbos, no high octane. Dave said no problem. We always talked power, never torque. I'm not implying my opinions are or are not Dave or Jack's views on Q vs hp. We never talked much about that. Just that was my focus...something I concluded after lots of thought on the subject. Anyway, sonic check shows 30 over comfortable, and a stroke crank gets me extra power at the rpm I estimated my B would turn. That based on JPC pump curves. Heads and cam the rest. Yes, I got graphs too if you like.
Then I got greedy. Halfway thru the build I decided to go with the Dart block instead of the 454. Like changing horses. At that point we already had the stroker crank. At the time I didn't consider going back to a 4" and boring out a new block to equivalent cubes, but since you mention it, not sure I would either. If I had I doubt the power gain at 6200 compared to the stroker would've been worth the over-bore and switching cranks again.
Either way, one fact still remains, it's all about how much power you deliver to the impeller, not how much torque.
Hp rules!
If the decisions you make during engine buildup reduce power to your impeller at full throttle, they hurt performance. I may not've picked the perfect power combo, and some of my (lake boat friendly) decisions like hydraulic rollers and 87 octane certainly cut my peak power. But my good or bad decisions don't change the underlying principle...if you care about jet boat performance, focus on power not torque. And in the end I achieved my goal.
Cyclone, I have no problem being called out by anyone, even Blown. :) In fact, I enjoy it.
jer

[Jordy]

Holy shit Batman. Not one graph or chart to back his claims up. This has to be a new ***boat record... :D

[LVjetboy]

Don't push your luck. I save that stuff for those who "call me out"
:)
jer

[Blown 472]

Originally posted by LVjetboy
Hey Blown,
Jet performance depends on power to the impeller, not torque. That doesn't mean I hate torque, just it's the wrong thing to focus on. Torque's a non-emotional number like all others. A focus carried over from the car community and what I believe is a misunderstanding of the physics.
Why I chose a stroker? Strangely enough, it had nothing to do with torque...
Originally, my plan was for Dave to rebuild my 454 block. Add a 100, no maybe 200, wait how about 300 hp? No blower, no turbos, no high octane. Dave said no problem. We always talked power, never torque. I'm not implying my opinions are or are not Dave or Jack's views on Q vs hp. We never talked much about that. Just that was my focus...something I concluded after lots of thought on the subject. Anyway, sonic check shows 30 over comfortable, and a stroke crank gets me extra power at the rpm I estimated my B would turn. That based on JPC pump curves. Heads and cam the rest. Yes, I got graphs too if you like.
Then I got greedy. Halfway thru the build I decided to go with the Dart block instead of the 454. Like changing horses. At that point we already had the stroker crank. At the time I didn't consider going back to a 4" and boring out a new block to equivalent cubes, but since you mention it, not sure I would either. If I had I doubt the power gain at 6200 compared to the stroker would've been worth the over-bore and switching cranks again.
Either way, one fact still remains, it's all about how much power you deliver to the impeller, not how much torque.
Hp rules!
If the decisions you make during engine buildup reduce power to your impeller at full throttle, they hurt performance. I may not've picked the perfect power combo, and some of my (lake boat friendly) decisions like hydraulic rollers and 87 octane certainly cut my peak power. But my good or bad decisions don't change the underlying principle...if you care about jet boat performance, focus on power not torque. And in the end I achieved my goal.
Cyclone, I have no problem being called out by anyone, even Blown. :) In fact, I enjoy it.
jer
Thanks Jer, I was just wondering.

[LVjetboy]

Sure, no problem.
jer

[pops1]

Originally posted by Blown 472
Close, Jer is a torque hater, so he built a longer stroke motor to get him more "power" without torque from the longer stroke, so I asked him why he didn't leave the 4" stroke because he doesn't need torque and just built a bigger bore motor.
Seems to work for Hicks. He ran 135 mph with a 4" stroke motor. What Hick's has in that setup you could buy three of anything else. Also 4-5 years to get it there.
Best Racing ever seen was Wilder Days (Wilder Craft) -Tom Enis with his little Rick Green FORD and the Hicks & the TUB. "The Best of Racing- TOMMY come back we miss the Little Red Boat and Rick! Pop's