Engine Comparisons and Toyota
Engine Comparisons and Toyota
rec.boats 7 July 1997 - 11 July 1997
Message #1
Date: 7 Jul 1997 04:46:53 GMT
From: KENGIBBONS
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski
Subject: Re: Engine comparisons and Toyota
Toyota needs to be careful, or their rumored new boat will become a flop
like the T-100 pickups. Remember when they came out? The ads showed
three cowboys in the cab, complete with hats (I wonder where they got
three actors that small?). They were aiming at the "real" truck market, a
notch above their own mini-trucks. They hit Rangers and S-10's. Sales
were miserable, one of my friends bought one for an outrageous amount
below sticker, and a mega rebate too. No one wants them.
Time and buyer preferences have shown that there is no substitute for big
displacement, high torque power plants for trucks. I think it will be the
same with boats.
A four litre engine, no matter how tricked out, isn't going to do the
job. Would you like a boat engine that has to rev like a Dremel tool?
Message #2
Date: 7 Jul 1997 13:49:31 GMT
From: EFW5414
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski
Subject: Re: Engine comparisons and Toyota
the reliable 2-speed transmission is already here( mercruiser)and it
weighs 88#.if you think the japs are going to enter any U.S. market
without thinking of all the variables just remember Dec.7th.why are you
people obsessed with high h.p. motors?you dont need them.if I can get to
speed on a1580' lake with a 240hp351 why do I have to have a minimum
310h.p.it was just a few short years ago when 240 was the norm.and you can
still opt. for them if you want.just a while ago on this newsgroup someone
posted distance to speed results of various powerplants available.there
was very little difference,look at the difference .to me it doesn't
justify the added cost.the only major difference was the top speed.
Tora,Tora, Tora
Message #3
Date: 7 Jul 1997 18:21:00 GMT
From: Reg_Burgess%AntiSpamPostfix%@stratus.com
Reply-To: Reg_Burgess%AntiSpamPostfix %@stratus.com
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski
Subject: Re: Engine comparisons and Toyota
In article <19970707134900.JAA06481@ladder01.news.aol.com> efw5414@aol.com
(EFW5414) writes:
> the reliable 2-speed transmission is already here( mercruiser)and it
> weighs 88#.if you think the japs are going to enter any U.S. market
> without thinking of all the variables just remember Dec.7th.why are you
> people obsessed with high h.p. motors?you dont need them.if I can get to
> speed on a1580' lake with a 240hp351 why do I have to have a minimum
> 310h.p.it was just a few short years ago when 240 was the norm.and you can
> still opt. for them if you want.just a while ago on this newsgroup someone
> posted distance to speed results of various powerplants available.there
> was very little difference,look at the difference .to me it doesn't
> justify the added cost.the only major difference was the top speed.
> Tora,Tora, Tora
I agree that horse power beyond, say 200, doesn't do much for a ski boat.
What bigger DISPLACEMENT engines DO HAVE is more torque, so they pull back
a lot harder, e.g. it isn't as easy to pull 1 or 2 MPH off a tournament
boat with a 454 as it is one with a 351. Against that there is the
+~200lbs, equal to an extra large person in the boat.
Message #4
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 06:33:31 -0400
From: Mark Kovalcson
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski
Subject: Re: Engine comparisons and Toyota
EFW5414 wrote:
> the reliable 2-speed transmission is already here( mercruiser)and it
> weighs 88#.if you think the japs are going to enter any U.S. market
> without thinking of all the variables just remember Dec.7th.why are you
> people obsessed with high h.p. motors?you dont need them.if I can get to
> speed on a1580' lake with a 240hp351 why do I have to have a minimum
> 310h.p.
You missed the point. Your 240hp 351 has nearly 100 ft/lbs of torque
more than what they have currently.
Horse Power is not the issue.
What good is speed if it take a millenium to get there. Torque =
Accelleration
> it was just a few short years ago when 240 was the norm.and you can
> still opt. for them if you want.just a while ago on this newsgroup someone
> posted distance to speed results of various powerplants available.there
> was very little difference,look at the difference .to me it doesn't
> justify the added cost.the only major difference was the top speed.
Agreed. My boat with 240Hp 351 only goes 41 mph with the new 4-blade
prop, but it satifies all of my personal requirements. It would not
satisfy the barefooting population, however.
Message #5
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 07:01:22 -0400
From: Mark Kovalcson
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski
Subject: Re: Engine comparisons and Toyota
Barefootr wrote:
> <<<< weighs 88#.>>>>>>
>
> Yes it is. But, that's 88 lbs you have to carry around in the back of
>
> your boat, a place where no one wants it except wakeboarders.
> The alternative that I would like to suggest to someone is a duo-prop
> style driveshaft arrangement on an inboard. It works extremely well on
> I/O's like the Ski Pro, and now on Yamaha outboards...
Doesn't that 88 lbs replace an existing transmission that is heavier if
you are comparing it to an old velvet drive ?
So you don't think someone could design a hull to compensate even if it
were heavier ?
Current ski boats are about 200 pounds heavier than the earlier ski
boats they replace and it appears that by widening the hull more weight
can be carried without ill effect to the wakes. Granted the additional
drag requires some more horsepower. Just a thought.
Message #6
Date: 8 Jul 1997 01:45:05 GMT
From: Mike Scannell
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski
Subject: Re: Engine comparisons and Toyota
Y'know ....nothing I've seen in that article says that the thing's going to
be an inboard. Wouldn't we all be dissapointed if it was a 17' stern drive
runabout. Some would call that a ski boat. If that's the case, it would
most likely be an excellent boat, compared to something with a 4.3LX V6.
As far as power goes, my boat is my hot rod. Sure, a car will run great
with a smaller motor, but if that car is for pleasure and show, if given a
choice you'll want the bigger motor. It's a status thing, as well as a
pulling thing.
It will be interesting to see how it turns out.
Mike
Message #7
Date: 8 Jul 1997 02:24:24 GMT
From: EFW5414
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski
Subject: Re: Engine comparisons and Toyota
well whatever, but I think everyone will see that the japs come to the lake
ready to play and no I wont buy one- if I buy it will be american.but if
you think they are coming to the lake with some underpowered sampan you
better think again.bigger dont mean better and the japs take a back seat
to no one on engineering.one of my friends is the #1 engineer at a GM
plant and whose cars do you think are always ripped apart in R&D? they
will be fierce competition, but that should make the breed better.
Message #8
Date: 8 Jul 1997 19:58:52 GMT
From: EFW5414
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski
Subject: Re: Engine comparisons and Toyota
while cubes maybe the easy way for torque it is not the only way.there are
so many other ways to do it although not as simple.I really like their
higher redline v-8's, you could run a lot less pitch with a higher redline
and get the same or better results.big cube engines are largely an
american phenomenom.not the worlds.I haven't been to too many tournaments
where everybody was standing in line to ski behind a bigblock-have you?
all I am trying to say is that the japs are more than adequate when it
comes to making an engine run .when that thing hits the water,torque wont
be a problem.if you guys want 310 hp engines great ,I cant afford them or
need them.if you guys think a taurus SHO v-8 gets with the program thank
yamaha
Message #9
From: Mike Scannell
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski
Subject: Re: Engine comparisons and Toyota
EFW5414 wrote in article
<19970708195801.PAA10684@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> while cubes maybe the easy way for torque it is not the only way.there are
> so many other ways to do it although not as simple.I really like their
> higher redline v-8's, you could run a lot less pitch with a higher redline
> and get the same or better results.big cube engines are largely an
> american phenomenom.not the worlds.I haven't been to too many tournaments
> where everybody was standing in line to ski behind a bigblock-have you?
> all I am trying to say is that the japs are more than adequate when it
> comes to making an engine run .when that thing hits the water,torque wont
> be a problem.if you guys want 310 hp engines great ,I cant afford them or
> need them.if you guys think a taurus SHO v-8 gets with the program thank
> yamaha
>
But I've yet to see any Japanese car beat Detroit V-8 muscle off the line.
This sport requires a lot of low end torque for hole shot. The horsepower
has to come sooner at a lower rpm. Most of the horsepower in the imports
comes at a much higher rpm. You don't see a lot of drag racing in Japan,
and if you do they're in American cars. Yes, they can make an engine run
great, but can they get the low end muscle in a smaller motor?
I think the big block is overkill for tournament boats because of the extra
weight, gas consumption, size, and you just don't need that much extra
horsepower.
The only advantage I can see to having the Toyota is the weight of the
engine. With the new technology, maybe they could probably give the big
boys a run for there money. But I don't think the serious skiers will bite.
They're still about 30 HP shy of the base engine in a tourny inboard, and
if the HP it has comes at a higher rpm? Maybe you don't need 310 hp, but
would you really want less than 260? And what kind of hull are they going
to put it in?
They'll make a great boat, I'm sure, but I don't think MC, CC, and Malibu
are quivering in their boots. I think it'll be mostly recreational sales.
It'll be interesting to see what they come up with.
Mike
Message #10
Date: 9 Jul 1997 14:11:41 GMT
From: EFW5414
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski
Subject: Re: Engine comparisons and Toyota(FLASH!!!300H.P.TOYOTA)
page 32 ofaug.97 popular mechanics has a small article about this 4.0
liter engine(all true)apparently the emporer read this newsgroup and
became worried.he immediately contacted the imperial navy and issued a
decree that no engine less than 300hp would be permitted in any boat of
the rising sun empire.for the last 72hrs.the engineers have been
up(abstaining from saki and rice)and apparently have met their goal.as
were last seen the engineers were feasting on rice-a- roni(that san
francisco treat)
Message #11
Date: 9 Jul 1997 16:35:34 GMT
From: Steve Cobb
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski
Subject: Re: Engine comparisons and Toyota
Perhaps; but to the majority of the boat-buying public, "inboard" refers to
an i/o sterndrive, not a direct-drive. So I'll bet the Toyota is going to
be an i/o--not a tournament-style boat.
Message #12
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 06:49:14 -0400
From: Mark Kovalcson
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski
Subject: Re: Engine comparisons and Toyota(FLASH!!!300H.P.TOYOTA)
EFW5414 wrote:
> page 32 ofaug.97 popular mechanics has a small article about this 4.0
> liter engine(all true)apparently the emporer read this newsgroup and
> became worried.he immediately contacted the imperial navy and issued a
>
> decree that no engine less than 300hp would be permitted in any boat of
> the rising sun empire.for the last 72hrs.the engineers have been
> up(abstaining from saki and rice)and apparently have met their goal.as
> were last seen the engineers were feasting on rice-a- roni(that san
> francisco treat)
Going from 270 to 300 Hp is not great feat once you've taken away cats
and mufflers and air filters. Just making the boat breath better will
give you this.
What about torque ??????
Torque
Message #13
Date: 10 Jul 1997 20:33:44 GMT
From: EFW5414
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski
Subject: Re: Engine comparisons and Toyota(FLASH!!!300H.P.TOYOTA)
is that so? is that what happens ? oh if thats the case well I'll just run
out there and rip all that *!*!*!@ off then, if that's all it takes .I
would bet you" good ole boys"that you would see a drop in horspower and a
burnt valvetrain.GO TRY IT.if you read the article you will see that they
aren't going to "gasoline alley" for h.p. tips.I feel so enlightened after
reading your post that I am going to rip out that ridiculous fiberglass
vernay that correct craft installed and drill another hole in the
transom,that way it will breath better .so that underpowered 310 h.p. pcm
pig will jump right up to 340h.p.YEAH RIGHT.the last time I looked at a
dyno chart most h.p. increases result in a torque increase, not all the
time and not top end hp only,but most of the time.you know ford ,gm &
chrysler weren't worried either when the japs came ashore either. of
course then I'm just a dumb old yankee carpet bagger so what do I
know.what I have seen the japs do with torque increases on 125c.c.
motocross bikes are flat out amazing .what is it with you guys, you think
that they cant increase torque?they can increase torque.and there is also
another (hitherto unknown in your parts)strange spec. called h.p./lb..like
alum. vs. cast iron. think about that one.
Message #14
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 08:40:19 -0400
From: Greg Wait
To: Mike Scannell
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski
Subject: Re: Engine comparisons and Toyota
Mike Scannell wrote:
>
> Y'know ....nothing I've seen in that article says that the thing's going to
> be an inboard. Wouldn't we all be dissapointed if it was a 17' stern drive
> runabout. Some would call that a ski boat. If that's the case, it would
> most likely be an excellent boat, compared to something with a 4.3LX V6.
All,
I've spoken with a few people at Toyota marine, and they are building
inboards. I'll have a little more info about what they're up to in the
summer issue of BTB, which should be out any day now...
Sincerely,
--
Greg Wait
Editor
Behind the Boat - The Magazine of Boat-Towed Sports
Feel the Pull. http://www.behindtheboat.com/
Message #15
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 12:32:03 -0400
From: Mark Lenox
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski
Subject: Re: Engine comparisons and Toyota
> They'll make a great boat, I'm sure, but I don't think MC, CC, and Malibu
> are quivering in their boots.
Not this year, but maybe next... I bet they are watching things very
closely.
> I think it'll be mostly recreational sales.
That is true, and is precisely the reason why Toyota's entry into the
market is so important. As a tournament skier, it is easy to dismiss
them, but by far most of the market ($$$) is recreational skiers.
Without recreational skiers buying these boats, I think it is doubtful
that there are enough tournament skiers buying inboards to keep all
these companies going.
> It'll be interesting to see what they come up with.
I think so as well.
Mark Lenox
Message #16
Date: 10 Jul 1997 23:32:02 GMT
From: Seajmlvt
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski
Subject: Re: Engine comparisons and Toyota(FLASH!!!300H.P.TOYOTA)
.....ya mean like Infiniti racing engines. Or Lexus racing engines?
Message #17
Date: 11 Jul 1997 02:44:44 GMT
From: Shawn
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski
Subject: Re: Engine comparisons and Toyota(FLASH!!!300H.P.TOYOTA)
Everybody is all wrong Binford is building the boat for Toyota. The boat will have
a Space Shuttle motor that burn liquid hydrogen and oxygen. It will also have
2 Million HP and 7 Million Ft/lbs of torque. Thus will be tough on skiers if there
not wearing sunblock. Point is lets stop this nonsense bitch session and see
what Toyota has to offer.
Shawn
Message #18
Date: 11 Jul 1997 04:52:16 GMT
From: Pete Fitzsimmons
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski
Subject: Re: Engine comparisons and Toyota(FLASH!!!300H.P.TOYOTA)
> Point is lets stop this nonsense bitch session and see what Toyota has to
> offer.
I second the motion!!!!! I thought this thread would die while was
overseas for the last three months, but I come back to find it still alive
and kicking. Although all the conjecture about which
engine/transmission/prop Toyota might build may seem interesting to some,
its all just that, conjecture. The proof will be when the boat hits the
water, which I'm sure will be more than adequately covered when it happens.
If its at all like the rest of the Toyota line I'm sure it will be a fine
( and overpriced ) product. Besides, what are you going to tow it with,
certainly not a 4Runner. Let's just call this whole thing off until the
boat comes out.
Fitz
Message #19
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 07:22:57 -0400
From: Mark Kovalcson
Newsgroups: rec.sport.waterski
Subject: Re: Engine comparisons and Toyota(FLASH!!!300H.P.TOYOTA)
EFW5414 wrote:
> I'm just a dumb old yankee carpet bagger so what do I
> know.what I have seen the japs do with torque increases on 125c.c.
> motocross bikes are flat out amazing .what is it with you guys, you think
> that they cant increase torque?they can increase torque.and there is also
> another (hitherto unknown in your parts)strange spec. called h.p./lb..like
> alum. vs. cast iron. think about that one.is that really supposed to be an
> interesting website "the thinkers of knoxville ''when I visited it .it
> looked pretty damn boring man
Wow !!! Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm not from Knoxville
originally. I grew up in Haverhill, MA.
Oh well. Guess if I were called a thinker of Boston I would still be
boring ;)
My website it for the local ski club, I don't put my personal opinion
there or many other things for that matter.
My club has MasterCraft, Ski Nautique and a large Malibu boat contigent
as well as many other skiers with various old boats. I was not
suggesting that you modify your boat engine, I was talking about the
difference between a marinized vs car engine. Sorry for sounding
preachy.
I think I am starting to agree with other responders to this thread.
Let's see what we get in 1998 :)
Later.
--
Check out the Skiers of Knoxville Web Site
http://www.public.usit.net/kovalson
