Boats For Sale:
New Prop |
Post Reply 
|
Page <12 |
| Author | |
Hollywood 
Moderator Group 
Joined: February-04-2004 Location: Twin Lakes, WI Status: Offline Points: 13514 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: April-17-2015 at 2:00pm |
|
gotta be careful, don't want to spill your rum runner
|
|
 |
|
|
oldcuda
Senior Member 
Joined: June-22-2010 Status: Offline Points: 474 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April-17-2015 at 2:17pm |
|
Was not trying to be a wise ass or sarcastic just trying to understand performance upgrades.I am dealing with a different hull so kind of comparing apples to oranges but with a stock merc lower end changing to closed chamber large oval port heads and RPM intake was able to push 1" more pitch to 4500 rpm.Kind of surprised your engine guy didn't tell you that you are against brick wall with stock heads.You can get more power from the stock cam just bump up compression and open a larger valve with a larger oval port head.
|
|
|
|
|
Sleepyone
Groupie 
Joined: September-05-2014 Location: Brandon Ms Status: Offline Points: 91 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April-17-2015 at 3:34pm |
|
Understood. We went over all this and he wanted me to put the New Brodix Race Rite heads on it still oval port but its a 50 hp advantage and you dont have to change the Pistons. If you go to a different head such as a Square port the cahamber is also different so Pistons would also be needed. You can make plenty of power with a oval port heads but not in the Budget and the Engine is very strong as it only has 480 hours on it so maybe next year or by then a faster boat all together. Lets face it the nautique isnt going much faster with current hull witout alot of other stuff breaking or causing trouble with added HP at its age.
|
|
|
|
|
phatsat67
Grand Poobah 
Joined: March-13-2006 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 6157 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April-17-2015 at 4:04pm |
|
Uhh, TRBenj's 79 runs 67-68 mph and never has any drive-train issues. Last I checked that's about 17 mph faster than a stock 79 should run.
Footer hull is one of the fastest most stable choices to modify for performance of the CC inboard lineup. But, if you want a faster boat I am sure plenty of good CCF.com folk would be willing to take it off your hands. |
|
|
|
|
TRBenj
Grand Poobah
Joined: June-29-2005 Location: NWCT Status: Offline Points: 21184 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April-17-2015 at 4:12pm |
|
He's got a 2001 Zach... It doesn't have the same speed potential and can potentially get a little squirrelly when you wander into the mid 50's and above. I do agree that the 454 bottom end wouldn't be stressed with a bit more hp. Different heads with different chambers don't necessarily cause piston interference problems- the common large oval and rectangle GM heads play nicely with the stock bottom end. Of course the CR would be down in the dumps so a piston change or one of the less common smaller chamber factory oval heads would be advised.
And it's only run 66 thus far... None of this 67-68 nonsense. |
|
|
|
|
oldcuda
Senior Member
Joined: June-22-2010 Status: Offline Points: 474 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April-17-2015 at 4:22pm |
|
Oval and rect port heads pretty much share the same combustion chamber ovals are better for low-mid range perf and larger rect ports work better for higher rpm.Velocity vs Volume.I went with a set of 063 GM iron heads @ 100 cc eliminating need for dome piston and at 9:1 cast flattops should live.Thinking of trying some newer 279 Vortec 100cc heads on another BB just to see if any advantage to modern chamber.Most can take 2.19/1.88 valves some 2.25/1.90 without hitting water.solution ...540ci forged flattops 119cc aluminium large ovals RPM intake 850 mechanical and just tear s**t up.I do everything bass ackwards pick prop I want to run then build power till it works.
|
|
|
|
|
skutsch
Grand Poobah
Joined: June-19-2008 Location: Racine, WI Status: Offline Points: 2874 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April-17-2015 at 4:23pm |
And at that end of the scale adding 1 or 2 mph is a VERY big endeavor. Quite amazing that he has that bad boy running 66! |
|
|
|
|
phatsat67
Grand Poobah
Joined: March-13-2006 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 6157 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April-17-2015 at 5:45pm |
DOHHHHHH case of the Fridays popping in. Regardless, why not make the 2001 go fast. The 2001 hull has plenty more potential for fun with power. Seems like 55ish is the magic number for most of the CC tournament hulls huh? The 79 plants around 54 right? |
|
|
|
|
MrMcD
Grand Poobah
Joined: January-28-2014 Location: Folsom, CA Status: Offline Points: 3749 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: April-18-2015 at 4:16am |
|
Earlier in this post I read a 750 CFM carb was being used. If the engine is not exceeding 5,200 RPM a 625 CFM carb is proper size for a 454. If you are looking to rev it to 6,000 by all means jump on the 750 CFM. When it comes to carburetors run the smallest one that can give you a proper fuel ratio at max RPM. The smaller carb will respond better from idle to Wide Open Throttle.
We built a strong 460 Ford for my brothers Jet boat. We knew the pump would limit RPM to 5,200 so we limited the Carb to a 650. We did not dyno the engine but I am sure it was 330 to 375 HP. It ran perfectly from Idle to wide open, never felt like it needed a little more carb. It burned clean to, the exhaust always smelled correct not over rich. If the pump did not limit the RPM and the same engine was going to spin higher we would have needed a bigger carb. Edelbrock, Holley and Carter all have charts out that tell you how much CFM a engine will use based on the RPM and displacement of an engine. |
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page <12 |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
TRBenj wrote: