x

Michael T

x

MarkB

Interesting ... are they going to update their manuals to say Synthetic Blend is fine?

Black_Diamond

Interesting that Mobil-1 is OK for cars with a catalytic converter...would assume the same chemistry is at work in the marine engine.  There are syn oils with much higher phos / ZDDP and those do warn about using with a cat.

212rowboat

Black_Diamond said:

Interesting that Mobil-1 is OK for cars with a catalytic converter...would assume the same chemistry is at work in the marine engine.  There are syn oils with much higher phos / ZDDP and those do warn about using with a cat.

I'm thinking operating temperature plays a role, where as epa mandates 195* stats in cars, egr's, ect... Substantially increasing the temperature and burning excessive unspent gasses.. Marine engines run much cooler... I'm going to hafta read up on how those bricks work... If any different from cars... modern cats actually help scavenge pulses in cars/trucks,  instead of creating back pressure, but do so because of really high heat and convection drawing the pulses from the collector.  those bricks can't possibly get that hot... Can they? which is why I wouldn't use a zinc laden oil in a cat'd marine engine. it would clog quick like, where the cat on a car gets hot enough to mitigate that... Speculation, of course. 

212rowboat

I should have said minimum of 195* mandated by the epa on vehicles, but some use 205*, such as the modern hemi... It barely squeaks past emissions...  otherwise you get a p0182.code... Too cold too long... That is ALL epa done... The first thing I usually do to an engine upon purchase (efi pcm controlled), is program the pcm to handle a 180* stat, which allows timing to be advanced considerably.   

212rowboat

MT- good info... Good to see mercury taking such an interest in getting the right product ready for use... 

Not to be converse, but I still stand behind the best oil for your purpose, and that can be done only via analysis... I get the warranty thing, but there is no way one oil (mercury blend) is the best for every circumstance and use... Just can't be... 

Michael T

x

Michael T

x

Michael T

x

Black_Diamond

MT: can't blame you at all with engines under warranty.  Best to CYA for sure...then do what you want after the warranty. 

212rowboat

You're certainly not harming the engine with mercury oil... I certainly don't mean it that way... I'm just suggesting there could possibly be a better one... 

But ya wanna know what the absolute best oil is very EVERY application? 

Fresh oil.  Fresh filters.  Well adhered to maintenance plan. you have to go out of your way to go wrong of you simply follow the maintenance plan... No? 

Michael T

x

Michael T

x

212rowboat

MT, there isn't a gasser in existence that can match a turbo diesel (can you even get them sans turbo now?) c.i.d. to c.i.d. in terms of torque... throughout the RPM range... it ain't even a contest... it's got to do with the rate of burn on diesels (slower than gas), and more energy being stored in diesel than in gas mL to mL.... the problem with diesels is weight.  it takes a much more substantial assembly to contain 17:1 compression ratio's of a diesel when it's not under boost.. boosted just one atmosphere (14.7:1 at sea level, or just under 15psi) doubles that compression ratio.  So... you'd have to compare weight to weight instead of CID to CID.... a diesel engine (available, not the new innovations) around 230cid is likely equivalent in weight to a chevy small block engine, and though the torque from the diesel is same or greater, the gasser (equiv in weight, not displacement) will have more working (horse) power in the RPM range that matters..

for instance- my 6.4L PSD has a HP and TQ range over a thousand RPM's wide- that is ridiculous to expect from a gasser... gassers (especially those with a camshaft profile for marine applications) have a peak range nowhere near that, but instead of around 200RPM wide. 

it's ALL about weight to power ratio... small applications could stuff a 300hp diesel in them, but the weight would negate that.  whereas the same boat with a 300hp gasser would have a greater hp:lbs ratio... cut the diesel down to match weight, and they would perform similarly, but the diesel would be much more expensive.  that is the advantage to firing by spark as opposed to firing by compression.


now about those 502's and the small blocks scrapping it out:

you're dead on- it's all about load on the engine.  the small blocks translate torque to ponies just like the big blocks do, but don't leave torque in abundance behind like the big blocks... the BBC's have torque to spare, and due to the stroke/bore/chamber ratio.... the small block may produce equiv HP, but the TQ is depleted (robbing HP) when loaded, where as the big block produces equiv HP, but has more TQ to toss at the obstacle when the load increases... the big blocks are great, until you toss them into a smaller boat that doesn't require grunt- just finesse... then they suffer, and due again to the hp:lbs equation. 

a decent sized planing boat that requires a lot of TQ translated to HP to get it on plane, once on plane, doesn't require near the TQ/HP to keep it there- and the load on the engine seriously diminishes, allowing the engine to sip fuel enough to keep the requested engine speed, but no more... where as a small block pushing the precise same boat up on plane depletes it's TQ, and requires more fuel to maintain the requested engine speed..... that's on the 'count that it's a decent sized boat.. a smaller boat that didn't deplete the TQ to get to or maintain the requested engine speed is burning less fuel...

but, then volvo:  they do something like Chevy did circa 1967, but in reverse... i highly suspect car makers do this today- a matter of fact I KNOW they do (read up on rating formats used by makers for 1/2 ton p/u trucks- they choose to use their own format)... Volvo rates the available power in a range that is more theoretical that practical.  I'm not saying it isn't there, but who will ever run their engines up to 6kRPM to find out?  Chevy did the opposite in '67 with the bow-tie 302, where it was rated at the factory @290 ponies, but in a range down low- it was a deceptive move to lure ford (mustang rated @330hp from the factory) out and think they had the lead- that year, chevy took the IROC series from ford and never gave it back, as those truly stock z28's were actually pushing 410ish HP..... the same deception takes place today with marketing and the lack of functional/practical data being related to consumers.  It's because of that and nailing Volvo for practicing that, that makes me mighty suspicious of them all the time.....
 

212rowboat

It's a Cummins turbo diesel.... I'm watching it closely to see what happens...  I'm hearing talk of 400hp on unreleased tunes, so far. 

Black_Diamond

I believe that 3.0l eco diesel is a Fiat product imported from Europe.  Can't bring enough of them in to fill orders.

212rowboat

I think you may be right, bd, but I think Cummins is involved, somehow... Joint, maybe? 

mvn

Ram's newest turbo diesel engine is manufactured by VM Motori, a Chrysler Group diesel engine supplier since 1992.

Mark

212rowboat

i'm out too lunch and confused... i couldn't wrap my brain around what y'all were saying......

the cummins is a 5.0 v8, set to be dropped into a nissan titan... it's a bad motor scooter...

Rinkerbuoy62

Diesel = Knot in my slip, or on the ramp. Just my thought.