496 sante Log Out | Topics | Search | Register | Edit Profile | User List
Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Moderators | Help/Instructions
WakeWorld Discussion Board » >> Boats, Accessories & Tow Vehicles Archive » Archive through August 27, 2006 » 496 sante « Previous Next »
By Mad Child (madchild1) on Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 2:14 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
why weren't many 210s built with it? if i were in the market for a brand new san, i'd be all about the 8.1. hell, it weighs like another 200 lbs and would NEVER have a problem getting out of the hole. from what i've seen on the internet, the ones for sale are coveted. i saw an '03 with a 200 or so hours for like $45k!
By Brit Rider (brit_rider) on Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 2:31 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Because its noisy as hell and the San with the 365HP does fine...

It also doens't fit properly and munches gas like I drink beer...

By Paul Bernier (wakeriderixi) on Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 2:59 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
"Munches gas like I drink beer..." True that, true that!
By Peter Chandler (peter_c) on Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 3:46 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Is everybody assuming it sucks gas like mad or does someone actually have personal experience?
By Brian N. (ntron) on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 1:25 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
That is just an urban legend. It does not have to work as hard to get on plane, no shifting people to the front of the boat to help it out. Typically only half throttle it to get on plane and that is with 5 to 6 people and 1400-1600 pounds of ballast. It is noisy and a beast but I would not have it any other way. It is a fun boat. Upload

(Message edited by ntron on August 13, 2006)

By Mad Child (madchild1) on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 3:13 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
brian, you should put an 8.1 badge on the side. at least i would.

i think a 21 footer with an 8.1 is my dream boat.

By Peter Chandler (peter_c) on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 4:48 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Isn't the boat pictured above powered by a 502 (8.2L)Python? Seems to be the 496 (8.1L) was not used yet. Sweet boat either way though :-)

I have no experience with the 8.1L in a boat, but have one in my truck. Taken from tons of research from the RV'ers the big blocks get better milage towing than small blocks. My friends and I have also proven that with our own vehicles. With the bigger motor in a boat they put on a larger prop with a higher pitch. That equates to lower engine RPM's. Lower RPM's mean better fuel efficiency. Also not having to fun full throttle to pull up a rider will save fuel.

So who has actual proof?

Edit: read this real life experience regarding a 502 http://www.airnautique.com/502.cfm

(Message edited by Peter_C on August 13, 2006)

By Luciano Grimblat (luchog) on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 6:57 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
"My friends and I have also proven that with our own vehicles. With the bigger motor in a boat they put on a larger prop with a higher pitch. That equates to lower engine RPM's. Lower RPM's mean better fuel efficiency"

And lower RPM translates in less overall engine power, therefore higher engine temp, wich translates into accelerated engine wear.

So you should always keep the prop wich allows the engine to reach max RPM at WOT.

By Peter Chandler (peter_c) on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 10:04 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Ummm NO! A big block makes maximum torque at a lower RPM. Did you not read the link I posted? A 65% increase in torque from a small block to a big block means a lot more power no matter what RPM level you want to look at, be it off idle to 4500 RPM's.

Lower RPM would be less engine temp as the oil will run cooler and there is less load on a big blocks internal surfaaces than a small blocks. A big block at lower RPM's will always outlast a small block at higher RPM's. That has been proven over and over. Plus the bigger the motor the stronger the journels etc.

With 435 HP and 510 ft pounds of torque the Python motor will have no problem hitting redline with almost any prop. That is a heck of a lot of power.

By trace (trace) on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 4:55 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
That article has no actual data, and I take issue with his claim that a DD is more efficient than a V. More wetted surface at speed = less efficient.

I've experienced the same results, though, towing a similar rig with a big block and small block pickup. The big block gets about the same mileage towing or not, and the small goes from better mileage unloaded to much worse when loaded.

By Bocephus (bocephus) on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 7:03 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
A DD is more efficient than a VD, less parasitic loss throughout the driveline. On my old DD I could go for days without filling up...
By trace (trace) on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 7:58 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Good point on the driveline, but it's really just a couple extra cogs. Not like there's a torque converter in there or anything.

Hank, wasn't your DD a smaller boat than your SAN? My old carbed PS190 definitely burned less gas than my EFI VLX, but that's kinda apples to oranges.

I bet there're a few people who've switched from a D to V version of the same hull that might be able to chime in. DD Launch / 21V, Wakesetter / WS VLX, Sport to SAN, etc.

By Jason Pribyl (skibum69) on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 8:20 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
In comparing to my 205 vs. my friends '04 x-2 I burn way less gas with about he same ballast and crew size. We typically go through a tank in about about 6 hours and a tank in mine in about 8 hours.
By Luciano Grimblat (luchog) on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 11:52 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Peter, I grant you the point aboout the torque, but that's just because of the bigger engine, not because of smaller propeller you were using.

It's like comparing the 4.3 V6 against the 5.7 V8 engines. When one is using full Hp the other is still iddling but propeller should always allow max RPM at WOT.

If you were to use the Big Block at FULL load you would make it run underforced because of the lower rpm, therefore the higher engine temp/wear.
It's not only about torque, it's about Horsepower too. it's not the same to pull out of the whole 4000lbs at 3500rpm than at 4500rpm.

(Message edited by luchog on August 14, 2006)

By Mikeski (mikeski) on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 2:01 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
It's difficult to compare efficiencies based on motor size alone, or driveline layouts alone. Most direct drives are designed to make a small wake at 30+ mph so they are not pushing as much water as a V-drive hull designed to produce large wakes. The direct drives also plane much easier because of the forward center of gravity which allows them to take less energy to get to plane.

Somewhere above 40mph things reverse when the front of the V-drive starts to lift higher and the DD bow starts to plow, then the V-drive should be more efficient.

If you are asking for wakeboarding efficiency for a heavily loaded boat it might be a tough call. Knowing how hard my 330hp small block chevy works to get my V-drive on plane, I thing it's quite plausible that a high torque big block could get better mileage than a struggling small block. I don't think the direct drive results can be applied to a V-drive wakeboarding boat.

for what it's worth... my opinoin

By coinless (bruce) on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 2:25 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
If you need to waste 6,500 dollars to gain 4-5 mph, add 250 pounds of ballast and increase the noise level in your boat, I guess a Python is just the thing to have.
By Mad Child (madchild1) on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 4:16 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
i think you're missing the point coinless. i think we're more concerned with the torque curve and horsepower at lower rpms.
By Peter Chandler (peter_c) on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 5:06 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
If you are keeping a boat long term and have to replace the engine then the $6500 replacement engine covers the big block upgrade. I would rather have the power all along.

Under sustained heavy loads a small block will blow up. The life expectancy probably drops from 1,200 hours to around 750 with a heavy load. A big block on the other hand was designed to sustain that heavy load.

For those of you arguing about the V-drive vs a DD remember the Nautiques have the same hull. So the only loss would be in the transmission/V-drive unit or by a different weight configuration.

Something else to think about...most people I know that wakeboard on the Delta drop their boat in and usually start filling ballast immediately, and many run lead. There is almost no time when the boat is driven around unloaded.

By coinless (bruce) on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 5:26 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Just how much torque do you need to get pulled out of the water on a wakeboard? Ever seen a Sea World or Cyprus Gardens show where they pull a pyramid around with 15 skiers? They use a GT40. It doesn't take a ton of torque or speed to wakeboard. If you need more torque get a different prop. Much cheeper than a Python.

Maybe on a bigger boat like a 24+ footer you'd need more motor, but not on a SAN.

By Bocephus (bocephus) on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 5:32 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Lets just say the Python is a really fun boat to drive and call it all good.
By Peter Chandler (peter_c) on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 5:45 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Coinless, have you ever driven a fully loaded SAN? I do not mean yours with stock ballast and a bunch of people but a really loaded down boat, with the platform well underwater. They do need more power than a GT40, even repropped. My friends also blew the motor at 650 hours.

The ski shows do not run ballast and the weight of 15 people is less than the ballast many of the people on here run. Not a good comparison.

By Mikeski (mikeski) on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 5:48 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post

I used to work at Marine World, we did a staggered dock starts with 10+ behind a Mastercraft prostar running a 265hp motor and stock prop, in my experience it actually takes more power to get a fully loaded V-drive boat with ballast and people out of the water.

and... unfortunately they don't make the GT-40 any longer.

By Mad Child (madchild1) on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 5:52 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
in addition to peter's rebuttal, i'm pretty sure they use something likethis...


By Mikeski (mikeski) on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 7:03 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
mad child,

That's a 50+mph ski-fly tow rig, not a show boat, as I seem to recall from when it was first posted on planet nautique...

(Message edited by mikeski on August 14, 2006)

By coinless (bruce) on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 7:58 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Bocephus hit it right on! They are fun. Loud, gass-guzzling, overpriced fun. My first Correct Craft had a 454 and it was all that and more!

I have my SAN weighted with 1600# plus passengers and have never had any trouble (knock on wood).

It just seems silly to spend such an exorborate amount of money (after already spending too much in the first place) on a feature that will enhance the performance by so little and add so many negatives (adverse noise and ongoing expense).

Continue on gents!

By Bocephus (bocephus) on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 8:59 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Damn, this place is getting really, really crazy. That makes like four or five people who have agreed with me in the last month or two on this forum...The sky is falling, the sky is falling...
By Brian N. (ntron) on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 - 6:43 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
But what boat sacked down is not gas-guzzling? This boat uses no more or maybe even less gas than the malibu(DD) that we had before it sacked down with the same amount of weight. I am not going to lie we purchased the boat used and it was not over priced compared to the other SAN with the stock 310. WE GOT LUCKY! I will give the python this, we do not have to wait 30+ second to get on plane and we do not have to move observers to the front of the boat to help it get on plane. Just from personal experience...
By Jack (miljack) on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 8:20 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
The same discussion is going on at planetnautique, I posted this earlier tonight;

I have some "data" for you on the python engine. I received a dyno "plot" from PCM which shows that the python engine (8.2 liter-2000 model) is producing 400 ft.lbs of torque at 1500rpm, which steadily increases all the way across the rpm range to a peak of 504 ft.lbs of torque at 3800 rpm.
In my direct drive boat with a 1.23:1 reduction transmission, I run the ACME 380 prop which is the same prop on the superairs, not sure about the SANTE. The V drive boats use a 1.46:1 I think or somewhere right around there. Most people could run a "bigger" prop with a Python engine vdrive setup, depends on what kind of ballast you want to run with.
My boat will pull wakeboarders 20-24 mph at 2000-2300rpm. It also planes off no sweat, I've had a about 1500 pounds in it, and it pulls it right up on plane. I haven't done an average gallon per hour of running time, but for "normal" use, ie. wakeboarding, tubing and some cruising on a smallish (~3000 acre) lake, it will only burn about 30 gallons in a loongg day.
Luciano, did you know that HP is a calculation which utilizes torque to arrive at the HP figure? Torque is what a heavily loaded wakeboard boat needs. HP is dependent on RPM, hence the ability of motorcycles and F1 race cars with tiny engines to produce about 200+ (almost 300hp for the F1 engine) hp/liter!! The reason? The engines are very efficient at high RPM's (think 15,000-18,000 rpm).


By markj (markj) on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 9:58 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
For what it's worth--I used to own a 1991 Barefoot Nautique w/a 454. Now I have a 2005 Super Air. ---The Barefoot w/it's big block did better on gas. That's the one thing I liked about the old boat.
By Luciano Grimblat (luchog) on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 10:14 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
So you need RPM to get HP, if you're using your boat fully loaded you need them all, dont you??

What is max RPM in the big block manual?

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions Administration
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
WakeSpace is owned by eWake, Inc.
Copyright © 1996 - 2008, All Rights Reserved.