Northstar repower?

[QC]

Re: Northstar repower?

Money.

Dang it, dang it, dang!!!! Not that flippin' barrier again . . .

 

[mkast]

Re: Northstar repower?

Dang it, dang it, dang!!!! Not that flippin' barrier again . . .

I don't think GM is in the shape it's in because of the R&D capitol expenditure.
The average boat purchaser doesn't give a rat's butt what engine is in the boat, that's not going to sell next year.

 

[justchange]

Re: Northstar repower?

Money.

Funny thing about that. Ford has been putting the 4.6 liter OHC in cars since the mid 1990's So, appparently it was developing long before this. Guess some just look to the future.

 

[rodbolt]

Re: Northstar repower?

Martin, while jerry rigging a boat is ok would your rig PASS a united states coast guard inspection.
some of the USCG rules can be waived if the hull is used at sanctioned racing events but then sanction rules will apply.
doesnt anyone realize what the mercruiser plant in still water OK actually produces.
some years back I was chatting with a GM rep at a boat show,the year after ford WITHDREW from the marine market period and was informed that the GM marine division was about 10% of engine sales and about 90% of warrenty claims.
got so bad about 95 we had issues warrenting the junk 6 month old circulating pumps on GM stuff.
as far as Inmars claims all I can do is laugh.
however I keep reading rumors that GM may discontinue the cast iron V blocks from general production.
so the northstar and a few others may be marinized.
merc after the 3.7 fiasco may or may not wish to place the R&D money into such a limited sales effort, just the EPA certifications would take years.
using the nortstar in a hull would be a lot of fun just like my desighn for the wankel in a 15ft jet boat.
however money did come into play and there wasnt a good way to make it USCG compliant and 30 years ago EPA regulations on boats were non existant.
now as of 2010 all gas motors with exception of the 4.3 and the 8.1 will have to have catalic exhaust systems.
hopefully the 3.0 will be excempt as well.
dang cats didnt work well in the 80,s gotta see them the first time water intrudes or a seawater pump fails at full engine load.
up until we had so many rules regulations and lawyers ya shoulda seen commercial crab and net boats in my area.
direct drive,keel cooled and dry stack ex and whatever motor you could pluck from a junkyard.

 

[mylesm260]

Re: Northstar repower?

Don't sell the push-rod small block short.

Here's something to consider.

Toyota and nissan's full size pickup trucks have "modern" 4 valve per cylinder, dual over head cam v8's

Chev's trucks have pushrod, 2 valve V8's.

Year after year, the the chev trucks outperform the toyota's and nissans in the "truck shootout magazines" both in performance and gas mileage.

Not only that, but the heads on the toyota engines are MUCH bigger, and because of that, their engines weigh more.

So while yes, it's using the same technology that's been around since the 50's, but the end result is a smaller package, that weighs less, that has fewer moving parts and makes more power, more torque and has a lower brake specific fuel consumption.


Another classic example is the corvette. It is using a push-rod v8 and leaf-springs but is consistently one of the best performing automobiles, often beating out cars with much more exotic engines and suspension.


The v8's used in our boats are all Gen-1 or Gen-1.5 (vortec)

The current line of chev v8's are Gen IV.

Since our motors were developed, chev has made the LT-1 (gen 2) the LS-1 (gen 3) and the LS-2 (gen 4)

So yes, a northstar is much better than a stock gen 1 boat motor, but it cannot hold a candle the the Gen 4's.

A gen 4 will weigh less than the northstar, create more power, more torque and use less fuel.



Ford is another classic example. Ford's single overhead cam 3 valve motors and their dual overhead cam 4 valve motors are often beaten out by chev's 2 valve push-rod's motor.


By using bigger bores, shorter strokes, bigger valves, longer intake runners and variable valve timing, GM has refined the small block so much that it is actually staying ahead of the Japanese v8's. (I consider the northstar to be a Japanese style v8)

 

[martin pritchard]

Re: Northstar repower?

when is cadillac going mass produce the v12 northstar

i will send some photos of the boat when i get my act together

 

[fabrimacator21]

Re: Northstar repower?

wow.... it amazes me how many people here don't know what the northstar is capable of,,,,, when turboed:redface:

Those motors are VERY poplular with the hot rod croud when you put a turbo on em.

That being said,,, if I was gonna swap something in a boat looking for good power it'd be a gm 6.0L. The "325 hp 380 ft lb" lq4 6.0 dynos (on a real dyno) at 340 and 400 ft lbs. Just headers will get you 430+ ft lbs. A cam and headers your looking at 420hp. Put some 6.2 heads on it (can be found reasonably cheap on ebay) and your pushing 440hp with a little tq sacrificed.

To sum up... turbo the northstar and it's a monster. If your going Naturally aspirated then you CAN'T do any better then a 6.0 for the money. They can be had out of a junk yard with 40k or less miles for 1300 bucks COMPLETE with fuel injection.

Did I mention that the STOCK 325hp lq4 6.0 makes OVER 300 ft lbs at 800 rpm? Can you say GRUNT?

 

[45Auto]

Re: Northstar repower?

(NOTE: Notice how the torque and HP curves don't cross at 5252 RPM. Figuring out why is left as an exercise for the reader..... )

(NOTE #2: This is a manufacturer's chart produced in accordance with SAE J2723. Up to you whether you want to believe it or not! )

To sum up... turbo the northstar and it's a monster.

So what's the difference between a turboed northstar and any other turboed motor???

If you want to drop in more power, quit screwing around and drop in a factory dry-sump, twin-supercharged variable-boost 1200 HP big block that you can idle around the dock all day:

http://www.mercurymarine.com/engines/racing/hp1200sci.php

If you really want to be different you can get it in 8 different color schemes....

http://mercuryracing.com/sterndrives/hp1200sci.php

 

[Bronc Rider]

Re: Northstar repower?

If you want to drop in more power, quit screwing around and drop in a factory dry-sump, twin-supercharged variable-boost 1200 HP big block that you can idle around the dock all day:

http://www.mercurymarine.com/engines/racing/hp1200sci.php

If you really want to be different you can get it in 8 different color schemes....

http://mercuryracing.com/sterndrives/hp1200sci.php

I'm in love with that engine.

Personally, that 427 that supposedly throws rods would be my choice. That old chunk of iron will stay put together long after the cadi engine becomes destroyed.

 

[mylesm260]

Re: Northstar repower?

(NOTE: Notice how the torque and HP curves don't cross at 5252 RPM. Figuring out why is left as an exercise for the reader..... )

Yes, because the TQ and HP are on different scales.

if you look, at 5252, the actual numbers represented by the graphs are the same.



Oh and BTW, people turbo the 6.0L v8's all the time. They have 6 bolt mains!

There is absolutely no benefit to turboing the northstar over the 6.0L

in fact, with the size of the heads on the northstar, a twin turbo setup would be virtually impossible due to size restrains, but the much much smaller heads on the 6.0l's would allow for more room.


The "turboability" of a motor is basically how over-built it is. A 2 bolt main gen 1 chev small block will fly apart if turbo'ed because the metal stretches and fatigues too much.

But, a gen IV SB has 6 bolt mains, and a massive "girdle" instead of bearing caps, not to mention forged connecting rods, and much much improved head gasket, head bolt and con-rod fastener designs.


Other factors of "turboability" are combustion chamber dynamics (resistance to detonation) oil pump flow (must have more available to lube turbo(s)


Also, something to remember, gm "slaps" supercharges on these from the factory both in the marine, and automotive side, so you know these motors have some head-room from the factory.

 

[Maclin]

Re: Northstar repower?

I just wonder why GM insists on using pushrod engines instead of developing a more modern, lighter and less complicated engine.

Mechanically speaking, pushrod engines ARE the less complicated ones. Overhead multi-valve configurations have way more moving parts.

 

[haulnazz15]

Re: Northstar repower?

Many newer engines (LS7) are better than pushrod configs, but a lot worse can happen when something goes wrong (ie timing belt snaps). Pushrods are a lot more fool-proof and don't sacrifice a whole lot in return.

 

[justchange]

Re: Northstar repower?

when is cadillac going mass produce the v12 northstar

i will send some photos of the boat when i get my act together

Why not the V-16?




I'm not sure how else to explain this--------again

For me it's not about going fast or haveing the fastest boat. I enjoy cruising around and exploring. Is that ok?

 

[45Auto]

Re: Northstar repower?

Nobody said you have to go fast. You're the one who complained about the 5.7L being a "lead sled".

With the HP1200 you won't even have to crank it up!

You said you wanted something unique and different. I guaruntee you that if you put an HP1200 in your 1976 Apollo, you'll have the most unique one out there! All you'll have to do is show up with it on a trailer. It'll get EVERYBODY's attention!!

And the HP1200 is specifically designed with variable boost to have a nice idle, so you can cruise around and explore to your hearts content! Much more impressive than a run of the mill caddy motor would be ......

 

[justchange]

Re: Northstar repower?

Nobody said you have to go fast. You're the one who complained about the 5.7L being a "lead sled".

With the HP1200 you won't even have to crank it up!

You said you wanted something unique and different. I guaruntee you that if you put an HP1200 in your 1976 Apollo, you'll have the most unique one out there! All you'll have to do is show up with it on a trailer. It'll get EVERYBODY's attention!!

And the HP2300 is specifically designed with variable boost to have a nice idle, so you can cruise around and explore to your hearts content! Much more impressive than a run of the mill caddy motor would be ......

True there. I was planning on using a different and a bit larger boat for this project. I'd want the use of the current one.

I do need to add that I have much respect for those that manage such high horsepower out of a smallblock. [current guesses on NASCAR cup engines are 900 hp for a 358 ci] The Northstar would be something different. I've been trying to find the USCG specs for fuel lines, etc without much luck on thier site. It's as much the project as it is to have it in a boat.

 

[justchange]

Re: Northstar repower?

This from Indmar customer service.


They no longer offer the Northstar and have no parts available. They had a poor acceleration and were expensive to build. Not good in ski boats.


So, now ya know.


I'd still like one.

 

[Bronc Rider]

Re: Northstar repower?

Why not the V-16?

At 185hp, I would easily skip it and go for a Chevy 350.

Unless you are talking about the concept v16. If thats the case put me down for one also.

 

[fabrimacator21]

Re: Northstar repower?

There is absolutely no benefit to turboing the northstar over the 6.0L

.

Sure there is.... price out a turbo kit or supercharger for both and get back to me.

Not to mention the northtar only weighs under 500 lbs FULLY DRESSED.

As for the 496.... I'll take a 6.0 anyday. Heads, cam, and headers and it making tq numbers that are 20ft lbs less for a comparable price..... with another 30hp over the BB. It also weighs less, sucks alot less gas, and is alot easier and cheaper to find.... so are hot rod parts. It also likes to rev more. All the trophy trucks and class 1 buggies in desert racing are usually running the LS motors.... the 6.0 is basically an iron block ls.

 

[45Auto]

Re: Northstar repower?

There's an old hot-rod saying that takes some people lots of time and money to learn. Maclin said it all way back in post #50 on this thread:

No Replacement for Displacement.

As for the 496.... I'll take a 6.0 anyday.....sucks alot less gas

Do you have any kind of data on the 6.0 fuel mileage? Hopefully your other claims have more validity than this one. If you do any kind of research you'll quickly find that on boats of approximately the same size, the engine is pretty much irrelevent when it comes to fuel mileage. Water drag is so high that other factors become very minor. There is only so much energy (HP) per gallon of gas. Makes no difference whether it's a 496, a 6.0L, or a 5.0L, you're going to be burning the same amount of gas to propel the boat at a given speed.

I plotted the speed and mileage numbers on the graph below from Boattest.com when I was looking for a 22' bowrider. You can see just how bad the 496 sucked compared to a 5.0L, 5.7L, 6.2L, a couple of outboards and the Yamaha dual waterjet . I would be very interested if you have anything that shows where a 6.0L would be any different.

 

[scipper77]

Re: Northstar repower?

I just wanted to be post #100!! Yeah.

The only issue I have with this thread is that we everyone is telling this guy what motor to put in his boat instead of the northstar and nobody knows what the boat is. A boat can only handle so much weight and HP (unless it was restored by Oops!)