Cobaltchat.com

slideruleracer wrote: Thu Jul 26, 2018 3:55 pm

cmattj wrote: Thu Jul 26, 2018 6:55 am Who will purchase the Vovlo 430 hp ECU and fuel pressure sensor?? Since those seem to be the only part number changes for the 6.2.

2k investment? Someone.... somewhere is going to take the bullet. Then if 50 hp later prevails it’s prop shopping for 1k.

Is a $3,000 investment for 4-5 mph in cruise speed and top end going to be worth it? Not bad if it works out. I’m sure it will happen soon

Are you guys sure that the cams aren't different?

I wasn’t until I pulled up the Volvo Penta catalogues on the new gen 6.2 . Geeze they’re right ??? same cam part number. Cyl head. T body etc. I came away with ecu and fuel pressure sensor the only variance.

The 6.0 engines had diff cyl head cam etc..

I know it baffled me as 8.2 mag vs ho is different like your gxi is.

Booring idle and another 50hp. Geeez Volvo

Small blocks just can’t make the music.
Unfortunately, until GM invests in B.B. technology and advancements (read: no chance), the 6.2 is still the best option, especially a single engine.
Truthfully, if I ever step up to a twin, it will be big blocks with the four holes in the rear to play that song.

If its truly the same cam, then I start to become skeptical of the nameplate horsepower difference. Has anybody seen hp/torque curves for the motors? If it's the same cam and truly a 50hp difference, then the 380 is seriously de-tuned without even the valve spring reliability boost that would normally accompany it, which is too bad. Plus, it would mean that neither is really capable of great out of the hole torque...

Even with the big blocks, reviewers have commented that the Gi holeshot felt better and it was due to a cam that was marginally torquier in the lower rpm band but ran out of steam higher up because of less valve lift.

Now I'm really curious to hunt down the power curves for these motors to see what's up.

When you look at the parts lists for these 2 engines they are the same.

The gi and gxi 8.1's are 2 different birds. I've had both in a 220 and the gxi out performs it all the way around.

Slide,
I can tell you that the hole shot and throttle response on the 6.2 will knock you out. Much faster plane time than the B.B. 11.5 to 1 compression carries a lot of torque potential to spread around. As we know, 6.2 has the ability to change cam timing using the ECM. So many modern electronic adjustments...

I wish i knew WTF your all talking about.....

Do we all need new engines dropped in?

TR, Until we can drop in another one in side by side, we’re splitting performance hairs

Tuscany wrote: Thu Jul 26, 2018 10:28 pm Slide,
I can tell you that the hole shot and throttle response on the 6.2 will knock you out. Much faster plane time than the B.B. 11.5 to 1 compression carries a lot of torque potential to spread around. As we know, 6.2 has the ability to change cam timing using the ECM. So many modern electronic adjustments...

Oh, I don't doubt that at all. What I'm struggling with is the 50hp difference between engines with the same hardware. With vvt, they could be retarding the cam timing in the 380 to pull power, but to pull 50 hp out is a lot. It's hard to pull >10% of an engine's power without it running obviously poorly, which obviously the 380,doesn't.

I guess the cynic in me is having a hard time believing that there's really a 50hp difference, exact same hardware or combination of both.. Are the rev limits different? Maybe the hp difference is simply because they don't let the 380 rev out? If I'm not mistaken, peak power is pretty high in its rpm band, right?

Tuscany wrote: Thu Jul 26, 2018 10:28 pm Slide,
I can tell you that the hole shot and throttle response on the 6.2 will knock you out. Much faster plane time than the B.B. 11.5 to 1 compression carries a lot of torque potential to spread around. As we know, 6.2 has the ability to change cam timing using the ECM. So many modern electronic adjustments...

I can tell you when I met up with Gdane. His 6.0 VP 380 pulled away from my 496 every time we took off. I would eventually catch him due to the fact my 262 is a 1000lbs lighter than an R7. But I was shocked the hole shot he had over me.

slideruleracer wrote: Thu Jul 26, 2018 11:27 pm

Oh, I don't doubt that at all. What I'm struggling with is the 50hp difference between engines with the same hardware. With vvt, they could be retarding the cam timing in the 380 to pull power, but to pull 50 hp out is a lot.

Even with our GM 6.2 vvt we have camshaft and cylinder head differences to achieve the different levels .

I won’t rest either until I figure out how Volvo can in effect make a engine less efficient in software.

Tuscany wrote: Thu Jul 26, 2018 7:22 pm Small blocks just can’t make the music.
Unfortunately, until GM invests in B.B. technology and advancements (read: no chance), the 6.2 is still the best option, especially a single engine.
Truthfully, if I ever step up to a twin, it will be big blocks with the four holes in the rear to play that song.

Agree with you T!

But I’m stuck on the glaring fact of when the cylinder head flow. Camshaft design and compression vs bore and stroke are equal.

You are making an engine volumetricly inefficient .

Technically the 430 would have a better lifespan due to its true efficiency as a combustion engine. I of course I loce the nasty poor inefficient idle sound of a camshaft that targets a rpm powerband that’s why I’m mifted that Volvo can do this.?

At least give the 430hp some camshaft performance idle is what I’m referencing. Or people will be buying new 430hp engine cowl decals and ecu’s.??

I forget most wont notice or care to ask “ so what I’m I getting for the 10 k extra??

Good find Matt.
I'm sure someone will eventually try the ECU and fuel sensor swap. But why? For 3 to 4 mph? That's crazy..
But if a guy is willing to spend $1200 on a freakin umbrella then I guess a $10,000 upgrade from the factory "for an extra 50 hp" would be no big deal if he never knew the difference. Sounds like an excellent marketing ploy.

Shoot, just look at what happened to Tuscany. And he still doesn't know for sure which motor he has. Slap the wrong sticker on... and oops. You just gained 50 ponies.

I'm with slide, I dont see any way there can be that big of a difference in hp with software if everything else is the same. It would be interesting to have a side by side dyno with both motors and see the data.

Who has a marine dyno?

Detuning an engine is common in the automotive world. Just pull some timing. On the electronic throttle body engines you can make the TB less responsive or prevent it from opening all the way too.

I think it's the Russians... They must be to blame for this whole misleading hp difference.

One glaring fact that may give some hints..
We know the engines are the same, we know that the compression ratio is a rather high 11.5 to 1, and both can run 88 octane gasoline. That tells me that both the 380 and the 430 ECU programs have slightly retarded timing programs in order to safely burn regular 87-88 gasoline. I would expect major pre-ignition, but there never is a hint of knock. My wife’s 6.2L gen 5 in her Denali requires 92 octane.. or it will back down timing if the ECU senses knock.
Personally, I would have more respect for the idea of program horsepower if the 430 required premium gasoline.. It doesn’t, which leads to more questions regarding the value of the 430 upcharge.

IMO, I would guess that there is little difference between the two. Simply marketing a 10K upload, a sticker, and an F6 prop to keep the needle watchers happy.
The difference in speed is purely prop. The 380 uses the F5, the 430 uses the F6. The 380 advertises faster plane times than the 430, again prop..
I don’t really know what I have for a program. I do have the F5 prop, and my engine redlines easily to where I can’t leave it wide open..as if being underpropped.

I am sure I could easily squeeze higher speeds with a simple prop change.

thunder550 wrote: Fri Jul 27, 2018 7:53 am Detuning an engine is common in the automotive world. Just pull some timing. On the electronic throttle body engines you can make the TB less responsive or prevent it from opening all the way too.

Yes, but both tb changes you mention would give it worse holeshot, which empirically we know not to be the case. Maybe they give 100% throttle opening up to a certain rpm and then trim it back slowly? That's possible, but it seem ) like you'd end up with a dead spot in throttle response somewhere along the curve.

In their literature, they talk a lot about the improvements in fuel efficiency of the new gen v motors. If they were cutting timing to get rid of 50hp in the 380, I'm not sure they would be able to achieve those fuel efficiency claims, imho.

Here's a power curve of one of the automotive variants. Admittedly, I extremely impressed at how flat the torque curve is, and that's coming from someone who actually *owns* a Gen V engine. It's just that mine is supercharged, so I never really dug into the non supercharged motors much. The peak power is over 6k rpm. But, it flattens out enough at the top that I no longer think it's just an rpm limit change. According to this curve, they would need to cut a lot of revs to kill 50 hp from the peak.