One of the strangest threads ever. The "Sure, I ate two quarter pounders with cheese and supersized the fries, but I ordered the diet coke!!!" defense rarely turns out the way the poster thinks it will.

Children Children

Ahh Mom! We were just having fun!!

I'm sorry.... ;)

All you guys need to open your eyes up a little bit. There is room in the market for a wakeboard that uses less fuel. And I can guarantee you there are people out there that will buy the boat that uses less fuel for a number of reasons.

Just think about if you lived on a lake that had no fueling and you had to haul every gallon down to your boat!

Room in the market, maybe. Will it be worth the development costs? Will the owners be willing to sacrifice huge wakes, all the bling, and pay more?

The 205v and Nautique SS/SANTE 210 both were very fuel efficient for wakeboats. They are almost constantly knocked for storage space, interior room, rough water ride, and simplicity. (Although some of us prefer a simple boat) Can a more fuel efficient boat be designed? Yes, but again sacrifices will need to be made, and I don't see the people currently putting money down on the 100k+ machines willing to sacrifice the very things they feel justify the price.

Another thing to consider, care to take a guess at how many 23Es Epic sold compared to the regular 23V? I am guessing not many, considering we have't seen one pop up here, and it is no longer listed on Epic's site.

I strongly believe the free market should determine what people buy not government. I would prefer government not mandate gallons per hour rates, but maybe government should develop a standard and require a sticker. Standard could be as simple as stock gallons used per hour used at 10 mph, 25 mph, and 35 mph. And maybe that's it or same 3 with extra 2500 lbs or something.

The norm here is the riders pay for gas not the boat owner, if you have the choice of riding a similar wake for half the cost is that not important? Most riders I know are broke 16 to 25 year olds. I don't get how running cost are not important.

I would say the G23 and G25 probably get a bit better gas mileage than say this surfing machine.
http://mowake.com/Mastercraft%20300%20Photoshoot.html

To Matties question about sacrifice. I'm not saying sacrifice any of that at all! I'm saying the boat manufacture that figures out how to do all that and substantially beat the competition in GPH will have something.

That is what the OP was suggesting, his post was getting at why buy a G when you could buy a Star and burn half the fuel.

And epic! Really how many ugly boats do they sell a year anyway?

Man I was really interested in the fuel consumption rate of a G23. Any owners want to offer up some real world numbers they've experienced and get back on topic?

Please keep in mind that the OP is talking about a G23 with a 6.2LT super charged engine that runs only on premium octance fuel. This engine has a "super charger" and high performance heads among tons of other high performance components. No buyer purchases a super charger when they are primarilly concerned about fuel consumption, that's just crazy and if somebody ever did they were making a very uninformed decision. The argument could be the same in regards to a hybrid or electric boat. Is our electricity and power consumption not as concerning as fuel? How much would it take to charge an electric G23? How much would it COST to charge an electric based G23? My utility bills are enough as it is, last thing I need is to add an electric wakeboat to that bill. I do think it would be awesome for more manufacturers to make fuel efficient boats, I just don't know why we expect a 23' supercharged boat with 2800lbs of stock ballast to fit in that category. C'mon haha

There isnt enough energy density currently in battery packs to allow for a true wakeboarding boat. But if there was, you would be thrilled to use it to power your boat. Electricity is super cheap compared to gas. Its the storage costs which are high. With electric cars, you essentially pay for the storage up front, and the energy is dirt cheap. For a gas burner, storage is dirt cheap, but energy prices are high.

My car costs me 2 cents per mile to drive at my electrical rates. Compare that to something like an F-150, and its about 22.5 cents per mile. Even a car that gets 23 MPG costs about 17 cents per mile at 3.80 a gallon fuel. Even a Prius is about 7 cents a mile, so my car is 1/3 the cost to drive than a Prius. Put another way, I drove 22,000 miles last year for about $370 in electricity.

No, I don't want to get in the discussion of electric cars. but since he mentioned electric boats, I thought I would opine.

reposting for Keith :)

Man I was really interested in the fuel consumption rate of a G23. Any owners want to offer up some real world numbers they've experienced and get back on topic?

I trailer, so I do get fuel on land. E10 is just fine and I have no problems using it. You just have to jet larger than running normal MTBE or leaded gas. Not a big deal, because E10 is here to stay, MTBE gas is harder to find all the time and leaded would be more expensive and probably illegal to use on public waterways.

When I stay on the lake for a few weeks I will sometimes bring the cans to town and get gas a bit cheaper there, but I usually get gas at one of the places on the water because it's more convenient. Cheapest place on the lake has MTBE gas, the two others (significantly more expensive) have E10, and are also farther away. So where I go, E10 is more expensive than straight gas with MTBE. When I run the MTBE gas my boat will run a little rich since I'm jetted for the E10 I normally run. I'd rather run a tad rich than a tad lean and worry about detonation or driveability issues.

I assume you keep your boat in the water and that's why you buy gas there at higher prices, for the convenience. If you trailer and get gas on the water, well it's your money to spend as you see fit but you're not getting any benefit from it.

As for me buying a new boat, or what's new in 10 years... No thanks. I will never own any fuel injected vehicles. Newest I'd ever go in a wake boat would be mid-late 90s because the styling on most is still pretty good, gauges are still normal gauges, and the fuel injection and wiring on those boats is still simple and easy to convert to a carb without major changes and electronics to worry about. So for me, the GPH of a new boat is irrelevant both now and later.

My boat is dry stored at a marina. Put in and out of the water with a lift. Its out of convienence and necessity.

the g23 is heavy on gas but the plus side is it makes a big wake, i know the 2011 xstar was heavy on gas but Harleys new 2013 model with the 7.4lt engine is way better than the old boat. The old boat with it loaded was about 40lt per engine hour and the new boat is about 32lt per engine hour. Back on the g23 now big boat big wake = lots of gas, its just a fact of life with any big boat regardless of brand.
Im sure the guys that own them are not really worried about gas consumption, but i do understand the point of view about the cost of gas. Harley nearly sent me broke over the years with the amount of gas we used in our boats.

"I don't understand how rich people buying $70k+ boats can be concerned about fuel consumption."

Most "rich" people GET that way BY being concerned about expenses which includes fuel consumption.... The idea that (most) folks with money don't give a damn how they spend it is a fallacy by those who don't know many people with money.

The other thing is that one time expenses like a boat purchase are forgotten, but the pain of paying $6/gal goes on over and over and over, so it's in your face every time you go out. It's a partially psychological thing.

Keith, Iron J who is a G23 owner posted towards the top he burns about 19 Gallon/hour(2-30 minute sets he stated) with stock ballast plus about 2000 lbs., so over 4K ballast total. He ran a G23 most of last year and is about the most experienced on here with that boat, IMO!

You can't have it both ways. Nothing about buying a G23 (the original wakeboat in question) suggests a concern about fuel expenses. It implies the buyer is willing to pay a premium to achieve a premium result. I haven't seen anyone accusing these the owners of just tossing money around willy nilly. The same owner may use solar panels, drive a Prius, use geothermal cooling, but they were very obviously willing to sacrafice this need for efficiency for a superior wake.

My point was the fuel costs of running a new G23 are a much smaller percent of the cost of the boat compared to someone like myself buying an older boat that burns half as much gas even with some weight in it (granted, the wake isn't anywhere near that level, but neither is my skill!). Under 5% cost of boat for fuel per year for a G23 vs 20% cost of boat per year for my old Supra.

What quantifies a significant amount of money is relative to income.$2500/yr for fuel isn't a big deal for me. Maybe half of that is paid by my crew, the ones who always throw some cash my way and are regulars. So even out of pocket 10% of value of the boat spent annually on fuel is, by that measure, still more significant than the 5% for the brand new gas guzzler. I see if as penny wise and pound foolish to buy a new $70k+ boat, or $100k+ in this case, and worry about a few thousand a year in fuel. If total cost is more of a concern, buy a used boat for $30k and still have something quite new and quite capable. Or if fuel costs are a major conern, buy a SN2001, sack it out. You'll have a great wake, well under $10k in the boat and burn anywhere from 4-6 GPH from what I've heard.Or just get a new but smaller boat and run less weight.

It's play money, disposable income already budgeted for. I don't imagine anyone, rich or poor, is dipping into the retirement fund or mortgage payment to pay for boat gas this weekend.

One thing is for sure. This is the LAST damn time I'll mention putting a fuel totalizer on a boat to a bunch of boat owners :)

I'm sure thats the sort of thing you rich older gentleman talk about over on the flying forums, but your the first person I've heard demand a fuel flow meter on your wake boat on this forum!! :)

I'm 35. Not old yet :)not rich either

Why do you keep saying Tige claims?Don't you know someone with a Tige?This is a G23 FUEL consumption thread.Not a Malibu,Centurion or a Tige thread.I believe like others already that if you can afford the G23 you can afford the fuel.

Im 21 and in the same boat..... Pun intended:p

Do the G23 and 25 not run on thank yous:confused::confused::rolleyes::p

Zin I'm gonna bust your chops for a minute..no offense intended..just adding the facts.

Your 35, own an airplane, drive an electric car, and complain about our use of fossil fuels. Are you sure your not a hipster??? Sure you don't long to hug trees?

Just giving you a hard time, but you really should fill out your profile so you don't look like a troll. Also so I don't think your that dude from a couple months ago that couldn't decide if he wanted a G23, but told us over and over again he could pay cash for 6 of them if he wanted too. He was concerned about fuel consumption too.

Definitely not that guy. The G23 is more than I want to spend and doesn't suit my mission. Definitely dont have the cash to buy 6 of them either. Flat out gorgeous boat though. I sat in one in the Raleigh boat show just before we ordered the Enzo. The dealer asked me what it would take for me to buy that instead in which I replied "lower the price 30k". :)

I'll fill out my profile. I came over here to look in the wakesurfing forum.

As to the Tige claims, I thought those came from ragboy. Could be wrong. When I was looking at different models, I saw the Tige claims more than once. No one seemed to believe them. But I don't have any first hand knowledge.

Having a "supercharger" increases volumetric efficiency of an engine. If you compare the LSA against a naturally asprirated engine, (of the same horsepower and basic design), it will get better fuel economy..... The supercharger is not the issue. It's the 550hp, and pushing 7-8k pounds through the water, that is the problem.