Most efficient wakeboard hull? 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 March 18, 2009 » Most efficient wakeboard hull? « Previous Next »
By vision (bobenglish) on Saturday, June 07, 2008 - 7:37 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
I realize this is a matter of opinion. But I am curious what everyone thinks are the more efficient wakeboard hulls?

For example, our X-star throws a large, nicely shaped wake. But, it takes a few thousand pounds of ballast and we have to run at 25-26 mph to get the shape we want. In contrast, our 05 X-2 (205V hull) throws a smaller wake, but with half the ballast it has a great wake shape at only 22 to 23 mph. So I would call the X-2 more efficient at generating a good wake. To put it another way, if gas was $10/gallon, what hull would you select to get a medium sized, nicely shaped wake without killing your fuel efficiency by having to add tons of ballast or running faster?

I have been told that the SAN 210 throw a great shaped wake with minimal ballast.

 
By 882001 (882001) on Saturday, June 07, 2008 - 7:59 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
210 or 2001
 
By vision (bobenglish) on Saturday, June 07, 2008 - 8:23 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
A friend indicated that the early to mid 2000s SAN 210 boats throw a great wake shape with minimal ballast. I have never ridden behind one.
 
By TigeMike (chpthril) on Saturday, June 07, 2008 - 10:41 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
To put it another way, if gas was $10/gallon, what hull would you select to get a medium sized, nicely shaped wake without killing your fuel efficiency by having to add tons of ballast or running faster

Tige Ve hull: Does not need a ton of ballast for a nice wake for boarding or surfing. Great fuel efficiency.

 
By Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas) on Saturday, June 07, 2008 - 11:15 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Nautique Super Air/Sport 210
awesome wake with minimal weight.

 
By innov8actionsports.com (innov8) on Saturday, June 07, 2008 - 11:17 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Nautique 210.
 
By 882001 (882001) on Saturday, June 07, 2008 - 11:47 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
another reason why it would be great to bring back the 210. the green boat that will save the planet.
 
By ks (phirates) on Saturday, June 07, 2008 - 12:24 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
x2 on the Tige
 
By Bill K (bill_airjunky) on Saturday, June 07, 2008 - 12:24 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Seems like weight would come into play on a "most efficient boat" comparison. Just looking at Boattest.com at the flagship wake sport boats:

22' Mastercraft X-star - 4200 lbs
22' Tige VE - 3900 lbs
23' CC 210 - 3800 lbs
21' Malibu VLX - 3600 lbs
23' Centurion Enzo - 3500 lbs

Boat manufacturers should be posting gph specs for ALL their boats, especially now.

 
By vision (bobenglish) on Saturday, June 07, 2008 - 3:27 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
I second Bill K's thoughts. At least you could compare the base GPH in an unweighted boat.

When did he SAN 210 hull change? 2007?

 
By Joe Umali (dakid) on Saturday, June 07, 2008 - 3:52 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
older 210 does really well. and even the newer 210 isn't bad at all.
 
By innov8actionsports.com (innov8) on Saturday, June 07, 2008 - 4:02 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Yup 07 on the new 210 hull, but even the new 210 is great, dont need much weight to get a great wake and its a lot less sensitive with side to side weight then the old 210.
 
By HeHateMe (hamkj) on Saturday, June 07, 2008 - 8:41 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Go with something that is narrow and pronounced v-hull.

I love it when they say Tiges don't need ballast... well back in the day.. they were also about 1000lbs heavier than a comparable sized boat...

Anyway... back to the topic... find something with a 90-95 inch beam.

 
By Matthew Bird (ldr) on Saturday, June 07, 2008 - 9:29 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Sanger v210
similar specs to the SAN
and 205V

 
By Josh C (pcolajosh) on Sunday, June 08, 2008 - 6:37 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
MC 205V hull is great. On my 99 X-Star, I get about 3-4gph. With 1300# of ballast, that number jumps to 4-5gph. Efficient, and a great wake at any weight.
 
By TK (swab791) on Sunday, June 08, 2008 - 8:13 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
To put it another way, if gas was $10/gallon, what hull would you select to get a medium sized, nicely shaped wake without killing your fuel efficiency by having to add tons of ballast or running faster

Tige Ve hull: Does not need a ton of ballast for a nice wake for boarding or surfing. Great fuel efficiency.


Thanks for sharing the Koolaide !!

 
By Nate (norcalmalibu) on Monday, June 09, 2008 - 9:54 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Sanger v210, SAN, 205V or first X Star
 
By Chris Watson (watsoc) on Monday, June 09, 2008 - 10:22 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
I love my 2000 SAN 210 and I usually have half or a little less of my tank left after a full day even when running close to 2000 lbs. of ballast. The unweighted SAN wake is great as well and my wife likes it a lot more then the wall of water we usually roll with .
 
By Don (silverwake) on Monday, June 09, 2008 - 10:41 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Just a minor note, I believe the Centurion Enzo 230 weighs 4400lbs. not 3500lbs.
 
By C.I.E.....Evan (guido) on Monday, June 09, 2008 - 11:06 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Sanger 215 or 210 is really efficient, too.

X1 with the RTP motor will get you a long ways when fully loaded.

210 SAN.. Narrow and easy to weigh down.

 
By AtTheLake (bmartin) on Monday, June 09, 2008 - 11:49 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Of most of those that have been mentioned, I was very impressed with the SAN210 and stock balast wake. Do not know what the GPH is, but the wake to balast ratio is the best I have been behind.
 
By Sparky Jay (wake_upppp) on Monday, June 09, 2008 - 6:59 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Yep, Sanger V210 and SN 2001 and SAN 210 are among the top of the efficiency list for weight to wake ratio.
 
By Waterski Rebel (waterskirebel) on Monday, June 09, 2008 - 7:57 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Guys,

Tige Ve hull: Does not need a ton of ballast for a nice wake for boarding or surfing. Great fuel efficiency.

Go and test drive one. You'll be glad you did. Plus they use around 6 GPH, where others are closer to 10-12. The price of Gas isn't getting any cheaper (I wish it was).

 
By David B. (dabell) on Monday, June 09, 2008 - 8:15 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
I got 5.2 GPH last weekend with not ballast and the wake was about 2.5 feet tall. That was on the 2007 Tige RZ2
 
By Nick McDonald (lsukuntryboy) on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 7:58 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
my 79 MC stars and stripes does great! cost 45 bucks to fill up and i can board all day long on half a tank! even with all the bags full!

i wouldnt recommend it though. 6 people tops. and thats crowded

 
By Nickbot (nickbot) on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 9:34 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
2001...almost knee high with total weight (boat + people + ballast) < 3000lbs...that translates into a fun ride and very good fuel economy...
 
By Scott (chilidog) on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 12:18 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
My sanger v215 gets great mileage, about a half tank to board for most of the day, 45 bucks ain't touchin half a tank on that old girl though, more like $80
 
By Eubanks (eubanks01) on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 1:26 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Hulls that producer steeper wakes are doing to have a "better" wake out of the box with no ballast.
 
By trace (trace) on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 1:51 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post

quote:

Plus they use around 6 GPH, where others are closer to 10-12.




There went your credibility. My 72 foot, 45,000 lb houseboat with twin 5.0L's burns about 12 gph while cruising, with the 15 kW generator running.

 
By trace (trace) on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 1:53 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
And for the record, I am a Tigé fan.
 
By Gene Williams (gene3x) on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 7:38 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
I cannot believe nobody mentions the old Toyota Epic. Damn efficiant.
 
By markj (markj) on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 8:46 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Even with my owners goggles removed, I can honestly say the san 210 has to be the most efficient hull. It's one of the many reasons I bought mine.
 
By Fro-Z (froese) on Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 9:08 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
SN 2001

2 riders, 2 sets a piece, 6 gallons of gas, over knee-high solid wake.

Granted the rest of the day was an additional 18+ gallons, but still...

 
By David Hartwig (big_wave) on Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 10:20 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
07 tige 24ve with 2000lbs ballast is giving us 6-7 gph. solid wake for both surf and wakeboarding
 
By Gerald B. (ncboarderboy) on Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 10:27 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
We get 4-5 gph behind our 03 supra ssv without weight and it still produces a good sized wake
 
By Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas) on Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 10:58 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
95 Supersport (SAN)
2 riders - 2 sets (about 1 hour) about 3/4 gallons

The wake with 1500 water + 2 people in the boat
Upload

 
By TigeMike (chpthril) on Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 11:09 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Hehateme & TK,

Not sure what you gays are driving at, or why this needs to be another "bash Tige" thread. No one here has said "Tiges do not need ballast, and TK, the invite is here if you ever want to ride......I'll prove my statement 100%. I did not say it was "the best" wake, "Pro level" wake or anything like that. Simply indicated you DO NOT need to load it up to get a rideable wake that anyone with some skills can do any tricks off of. If you guys need a bigger wake, sounds like the boat is not the problem. $.02

 
By David B. (dabell) on Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 11:47 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
^^^^ he he he
 
By 1boarder_kevin (1boarder_kevin) on Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 4:48 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
My old X1 use to get around 3-5 gph. Closer to the top when heavily weighted with a lot of start/stops. For a wake boat, I alway figured on 5-8 gph loaded. I haven't run the numbers yet on my X2, but I feel like it may be slightly more than the X1, but not much.
 
By Nick (nsolis220) on Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 6:03 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
my sanger v210 i guess is better on gas usage than some bigger boats but imo still not great. I use about 18-20 gallons in 3.5 to 4 hrs and thats with usually 4 peeps and 750 lbs in ballast
 
By Ace (sinister_designs) on Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 8:11 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
how does the '06 X2 Mastercraft compare? RTP engine
 
By vision (bobenglish) on Thursday, June 12, 2008 - 8:09 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Our X-star with MCX and stock 14.25 x 14 prop uses 5.8 to 6.8 GPH at 25 mph and around 1800 - 2000 lbs ballast and people.

Our old 2005 X2 with MCX used 3.5 to 4.5 GPH with around 1200 ballast and people.

I would guess that a new X2 with RTP engine would be 4 to 5 GPH if correctly propped for the level of ballast.

 

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 - 2009, All Rights Reserved.
WakeSpace@WakeWorld.com