Anyone have the Vortec L-18 or the Vo... 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 November 17, 2003 » Anyone have the Vortec L-18 or the Vortec LQ9? « Previous Next »
By Whit (whit) on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 7:14 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Time to a boat for next year and I'm not sure which engine is best. My dealer normally orders the MCX version and has had a few folks order the LQ9. I'm thinking I would rather be over powered than underpowered and the L-18 might be the way to go.

I've driven an X-Star, loaded with factory ballast, powered by the MCX and the boat performed fine. The boat didn't feel like it had goobs of extra power, but the boat reached plane and speed quick enough.

The biggest question about the L-18 over the MCX comes down to is the extra 14K or so worth it for the 8.1L? Would an X-Star with ten people and 2000lbs of ballast be sluggish with the MCX? What is the difference in gas usage? I'm guessing that even though the 8.1L won't have to work as hard, it will still use a bunch of gas. I just wonder what the difference in gas usage is between the MCX and L-18.

The LQ9 looks like a nice engine but it only comes with a closed cooling system, I think. That means no hot water shower. Of course, the difference between the L-18 and LQ9 is a chunk of change to pay for a shower.

Anyone have any insight on the three motors? (MCX, LQ9, and L-18) Fuel usage, torquiness, maintenance costs, reliability, stuff like that...

 
By cdm (cdm) on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 9:36 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
whit, i have the mcx on my 03 MC X-Star and its great. I have spoke with my dealer, expressed my concerns - feeling like I wanted more HP and they are glad I went with the MCX. They say forget the L-18, not a great match, its heavy, gas consumption and cost does not outweight performance.. As for the LQ-9, they say it is slow out of the hole and not worth the extra 6000.00 when compared to the MCX and it's performance. After I installed a 13.5 * 16 ACME 4 blade prop power is not a problem. I run a lot of ballast! 1100 lbs stock + 1100 lbs (2) 550 sacs in the back + (2) 350 side sacs in front(they are closer to 250-275 lbs because they cannot fill totally + (2) 65 lb leadheadz + usually 3 people and a full tank of gas = 2880 in ballast alone. Not including gas, equipment, and people. It is a bit slow out of the hole but not the normal waiting to get "over the hill feeling". Its constantly increasing speed just takes a sec. This is mostly when the gas tank is FULL. Once we burn off a 1/4 or so its much better. The wake is huge. I hope this is helpful, and honestly I would love to try out the LQ-9 with equal weight but regardless the MCX gets it DONE!!! Hope this helps. I strongly urge you to go with the MCX, shoot the 04 has even a bit more HP. I run about 3800 - 3850 rpms @ 23- 23.5 mph. Also it plans much better when using the rpm based cruise. When accelerating I jump up the rpms above 4000 until the speed picks up and then drop it down to ~3800 rpms. acceleration is much better like this apposed to speed based. And it took me a while to switch. I was a bit speed based cruise guy for a while. Rambling... hope this helps.. interested in what you think! If you plan on running stock ballast and people, the MCX is a no brainer.
 
By Whit (whit) on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 5:28 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Thanks for your insight. I definately plan to add a bunch of ballast.

What is gas consumption like? Any estimate on the gallons burned per hour?

The L-18 sure looks good on paper--well until you get to the cost column...

 
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.
WakeSpace@WakeWorld.com