WakeWorld

WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Archive through March 18, 2009 (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=680898)
-   -   Most efficient wakeboard hull? (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=587987)

bobenglish 06-07-2008 7:37 AM

I realize this is a matter of opinion. But I am curious what everyone thinks are the more efficient wakeboard hulls? <BR> <BR>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? <BR> <BR>I have been told that the SAN 210 throw a great shaped wake with minimal ballast.

882001 06-07-2008 7:59 AM

210 or 2001

bobenglish 06-07-2008 8:23 AM

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.

chpthril 06-07-2008 10:41 AM

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

sidekicknicholas 06-07-2008 11:15 AM

Nautique Super Air/Sport 210 <BR>awesome wake with minimal weight.

innov8 06-07-2008 11:17 AM

Nautique 210.

882001 06-07-2008 11:47 AM

another reason why it would be great to bring back the 210. the green boat that will save the planet.

phirates 06-07-2008 12:24 PM

x2 on the Tige

bill_airjunky 06-07-2008 12:24 PM

Seems like weight would come into play on a "most efficient boat" comparison. Just looking at Boattest.com at the flagship wake sport boats: <BR> <BR>22' Mastercraft X-star - 4200 lbs <BR>22' Tige VE - 3900 lbs <BR>23' CC 210 - 3800 lbs <BR>21' Malibu VLX - 3600 lbs <BR>23' Centurion Enzo - 3500 lbs <BR> <BR>Boat manufacturers should be posting gph specs for ALL their boats, especially now.

bobenglish 06-07-2008 3:27 PM

I second Bill K's thoughts. At least you could compare the base GPH in an unweighted boat. <BR> <BR>When did he SAN 210 hull change? 2007?

dakid 06-07-2008 3:52 PM

older 210 does really well. and even the newer 210 isn't bad at all.

innov8 06-07-2008 4:02 PM

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.

hamkj 06-07-2008 8:41 PM

Go with something that is narrow and pronounced v-hull. <BR> <BR>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... <BR> <BR>Anyway... back to the topic... find something with a 90-95 inch beam.

ldr 06-07-2008 9:29 PM

Sanger v210 <BR>similar specs to the SAN <BR>and 205V

pcolajosh 06-08-2008 6:37 PM

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.

swab791 06-08-2008 8:13 PM

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 <BR> <BR>Tige Ve hull: Does not need a ton of ballast for a nice wake for boarding or surfing. Great fuel efficiency. <BR> <BR> <BR>Thanks for sharing the Koolaide !!

norcalmalibu 06-09-2008 9:54 AM

Sanger v210, SAN, 205V or first X Star

watsoc 06-09-2008 10:22 AM

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 <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/lol.gif" border=0>.

silverwake 06-09-2008 10:41 AM

Just a minor note, I believe the Centurion Enzo 230 weighs 4400lbs. not 3500lbs.

guido 06-09-2008 11:06 AM

Sanger 215 or 210 is really efficient, too. <BR> <BR>X1 with the RTP motor will get you a long ways when fully loaded. <BR> <BR>210 SAN.. Narrow and easy to weigh down.

bmartin 06-09-2008 11:49 AM

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.

wake_upppp 06-09-2008 6:59 PM

Yep, Sanger V210 and SN 2001 and SAN 210 are among the top of the efficiency list for weight to wake ratio.

waterskirebel 06-09-2008 7:57 PM

Guys, <BR> <BR>Tige Ve hull: Does not need a ton of ballast for a nice wake for boarding or surfing. Great fuel efficiency. <BR> <BR>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).

dabell 06-09-2008 8:15 PM

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

lsukuntryboy 06-10-2008 7:58 AM

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!<img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/biggrin.gif" border=0> <BR> <BR>i wouldnt recommend it though. 6 people tops. and thats crowded

nickbot 06-10-2008 9:34 AM

2001...almost knee high with total weight (boat + people + ballast) < 3000lbs...that translates into a fun ride and very good fuel economy...

chilidog 06-10-2008 12:18 PM

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

eubanks01 06-10-2008 1:26 PM

Hulls that producer steeper wakes are doing to have a "better" wake out of the box with no ballast.

trace 06-10-2008 1:51 PM

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>Plus they use around 6 GPH, where others are closer to 10-12.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR> <BR>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.

trace 06-10-2008 1:53 PM

And for the record, I am a Tigé fan.

gene3x 06-10-2008 7:38 PM

I cannot believe nobody mentions the old Toyota Epic. Damn efficiant.

markj 06-10-2008 8:46 PM

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.

froese 06-11-2008 9:08 AM

SN 2001 <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/proud.gif" border=0> <BR> <BR>2 riders, 2 sets a piece, 6 gallons of gas, over knee-high solid wake. <BR> <BR>Granted the rest of the day was an additional 18+ gallons, but still...

big_wave 06-11-2008 10:20 AM

07 tige 24ve with 2000lbs ballast is giving us 6-7 gph. solid wake for both surf and wakeboarding

ncboarderboy 06-11-2008 10:27 AM

We get 4-5 gph behind our 03 supra ssv without weight and it still produces a good sized wake

sidekicknicholas 06-11-2008 10:58 AM

95 Supersport (SAN) <BR>2 riders - 2 sets (about 1 hour) about 3/4 gallons <BR> <BR>The wake with 1500 water + 2 people in the boat <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65921/589533.jpg" alt="Upload">

chpthril 06-11-2008 11:09 AM

Hehateme &amp; TK, <BR> <BR>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

dabell 06-11-2008 11:47 AM

^^^^ he he he

1boarder_kevin 06-11-2008 4:48 PM

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.

nsolis220 06-11-2008 6:03 PM

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

sinister_designs 06-11-2008 8:11 PM

how does the '06 X2 Mastercraft compare? RTP engine

bobenglish 06-12-2008 8:09 PM

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. <BR> <BR>Our old 2005 X2 with MCX used 3.5 to 4.5 GPH with around 1200 ballast and people. <BR> <BR>I would guess that a new X2 with RTP engine would be 4 to 5 GPH if correctly propped for the level of ballast.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 9:37 PM.