WakeWorld

WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Archive through April 21, 2006 (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=320404)
-   -   Gas usage in big boats? - 24GG (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=315070)

ralph 04-08-2006 10:25 PM

Currently considering upgrade options for a new boat. Am I right in assuming if I upgraded to 23-24 foot boat I will have to burn a lot more gas to produce a wake of "pro" size. <BR> <BR>Right now I have a V210 which we run pretty slammed and uses an average of 3 gallons per set. The crew I ride with are all competive riders and have chunky length sets. <BR> <BR>At the moment I am looking at the Supra 24GG and I'm trying to get a handle on required engine option and gas consumption.

entrustclothing 04-09-2006 12:10 AM

i have a mobius XLV 23' boat. i put $40 in it so like 16 gallons or so and i put like 6 hours on it before having to put more gas in it, and that's running it weighted about 3/4 of that time

supra24ssv 04-09-2006 5:41 AM

my xlv would use a full tank in 4-5 hours the tank on a 24 is bigger I have not had mine in h2o yet but i would say it likes gas also, that is the only thing i dread about this summer b/c i expect $4 a gallon while the ceo of exxon mobile makes 1.2 million a day and all the oil companies had record profits last year

supra24ssv 04-09-2006 5:44 AM

my xlv would use a full tank in 4-5 hours the tank on a 24 is bigger I have not had mine in h2o yet but i would say it likes gas also, that is the only thing i dread about this summer b/c i expect $4 a gallon while the ceo of exxon mobile makes 1.2 million a day and all the oil companies had record profits last year

supra24ssv 04-09-2006 5:44 AM

sorry for the double

ralph 04-09-2006 7:31 PM

When you say 6 hrs is that on the water time or engine hrs? How much weight are you guys running in the XLV and 24?

badbob13ftw 04-09-2006 9:29 PM

I went from a 19 ft dd comp skier (1900 # ), that ran on 10 gal a day... to a 06 vlx (3900# + 1100# BALAST + wedge ) runs 30 gal a day ;)

kraig 04-09-2006 10:40 PM

Entrust- I take it that 6 hrs you are referring to drained the tank right? Not just the 16 gallons. Last time I tracked my GPH usage she was drinking about 6-6.5 gallons per hour. So your estimate of 6 hours till you had to put more gas in her is about right. If you drained the tank from full or close to it. I run about 2000lbs of ballast.

entrustclothing 04-13-2006 5:01 PM

kraig yes you are correct, i put 16 gallons in on top of what was already in it <IMG SRC="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> <BR> <BR>

three6ty 04-13-2006 5:25 PM

Those Toyota Epic Boats are looking nicer by the minute!!!!!!!<img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/lol.gif" border=0>

greatdane 04-13-2006 9:42 PM

This is a big deal to me. <BR> <BR>Its about the running cost of the day. <BR> <BR>Its about spreading the cost between friends. <BR> <BR>This is why it pisses me off that no boat manufacturer seems to be paying attention. <BR> <BR>Its time for smaller narrow boats like the CC 2001 or CC SAN! <BR> <BR>Add the efficiency of the wedge (less drag when moving slow), a better transmission and a toyota style motor and some manufacturer would have a winner!

greatdane 04-13-2006 9:44 PM

BTW, my sacked BU blows through 35 gallons in less than a full day and it sucks having to refuel mid-day!

ralph 04-13-2006 10:43 PM

Yes big deal to me too. Big boats are cool but if it means we have to run a smaller wake so we can afford to run it then thats a compromise I'm not ready to make. The BS about if you can afford the boat you can afford the gas doesn't hold up if you run a serious crew who ride heavy and long and all chip for gas. <BR> <BR>Normally with a crew of 7 riding twice each (14 sets) we chew 3/4's of a 37gal tank. So I guess thats 2 gallon a set not 3 as I said before. I'm going off the 24GG just thinking about it...

ripr 04-14-2006 6:08 AM

Darren, I think Marty Mcfly may be the guy to talk with on the 24. I know the wake can be almost too big with the right amount of wake...with the 8.1L motor it won't work as hard so it may help you on fuel...however, that's a $6-8K USD upgrade that you'd pay out up front. <BR> <BR>The 21V sounds like it might fit your needs too. I'll be running the 340 in mine this year, so we'll see how the consumption compares to the 325 in last years. Unfortunately, I never calculated gas consumption last year...Until tax time..then I got sick.<img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/blush.gif" border=0>

discolafinger 04-14-2006 6:41 AM

not alot of time on my 06 24v, but one time, 4 hrs 1/2 run time and 1/2 boarding it was about a 1/4 tank, if that

yosquire 04-14-2006 7:52 AM

My VLX burns 5GPH running easy, and 7GPH running hard and heavy. <BR> <BR>Unfortunately, it takes a lot of energy to move water.

muffintop 04-14-2006 12:07 PM

Big boats + Big Engines + Extra Ballast + Full Crew = lots of gas. Not the mfg. problem. With good gas mileage, you'd get less power, less resale, and less fun. If you're consistently running the crew all in your boat, it goes without saying that you need to spread the $$ load. Otherwise, I think if you've got the nicest set of golf clubs in the world and can't afford the balls, then don't golf <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/proud.gif" border=0>

greatdane 04-14-2006 12:34 PM

It would be interesting to see some real research on gas consumption. <BR> <BR>Compare sacked out boats: <BR> <BR>CC-2001: narrow 19' boat <BR>CC-SAN: narrow 21' boat <BR>MC-X1: narrow 21' boat <BR>MC-X2: wide 21' boat <BR>MC-XSTAR: wide 23' boat <BR>BU-VLX: wide 21' boat <BR>BU-LSV: wide 23' boat <BR>TOY-EPIC: wide 21' boat with better motor <BR> <BR>Too bad the boat manufacturers are not required to put out numbers like the car manufacturers.

yosquire 04-14-2006 12:37 PM

If someone were to figure out a scientific testing method, I'd participate with my BU-VLX. <BR> <BR>

ripr 04-14-2006 12:40 PM

I'd be willing to help out as well while breaking in the '06. (Poopra 21V) <BR> <BR>Just need some method of doing so.

greg2 04-14-2006 12:45 PM

Still a hard one to figure out...A lot of gas consumption is between the driver and the throttle.

greatdane 04-14-2006 12:55 PM

We blow through 35 gallons on my BU with a full day (10 AM to 4PM) of riding. At $3 per gallon, that is $105 per day. At $5 per gallon (coming soon), that is $175 per day. That kind of expense (towards $50 per person) can start to put a damper on the fun. Cutting it in half would certainly be an improvement.

faceplanter69 04-14-2006 1:10 PM

That sounds about what we used for the V-ride GD. The new VLX was quite a bit more as well. <BR> <BR>Like I said in the X-1 - SSV post. The bigger wider boats look good in the showroom but on the water they're going to start getting really expensive. <BR> <BR>Why don't you stick with a Sanger Darren? Get the 215 or do they have a 230? They're still pretty narrow right? Easier to sink and less money to run them. <BR> <BR>It will be interesting to see how the new X-2 does on this front. It looks like it has the room of a 21-22 foot boat but at 20 feet could potentially use way less gas. <BR> <BR>175 bucks per day will hurt, but it still won't stop me from going out. How many 18-20 something year olds will it stop though? Factor gas for the tow vehicle and it starts being a 250-400 dollar day really fast with everything else. <BR> <BR>

guido 04-14-2006 2:03 PM

GD: I agree with you 100 percent. It's time for a boat company to use technology to make a wake instead of just dumping more weight into it. The only boats I personally would consider for cost of operation would be the smaller ones like the VLX, X1, V210 or SAN. I just don't need much more space when I'm riding. Having 10 people on the boat just means you have to wait a long time between sets. <BR> <BR>I also agree that filling in the middle of the day sucks. My X2 is a total pig and only holds around 30 (useable) gallons of gas. If we're out all day, then we're refilling. I don't know if my old Sanger did better on gas, but it had a 37 gallon tank and I never had to refill it after 1 day. Even when we ride at night I figure that by the time we get to a ride spot and each person takes a pull we use 5 gallons per person. At the $3 per gallon that I paid to fill up this AM it makes for $15 everytime you get behind the boat. <BR> <BR>I would love to see a boat company re-introduce a closed bow 19(ish) foot boat that has a proper wake making hull and an efficient motor. Keep it priced reasonably and throw in all necesary options. I know it isn't in the books, but I think it'd be cool. I'd love to a boat like that in our crew for riding at night and then a big ol tugboat for the weekend parties. <BR> <BR>BTW Paul, the new X2 is flat out TOO WIDE. It takes a ton of weight to get a wake. We had 2500lbs in one last weekend and the wake just wasn't that big, but it did take full throttle and 30 seconds to plane out. You could almost watch the gas guage dropping.

jon4pres 04-14-2006 2:04 PM

If you are spending $75 - 225 a day on gas for your tow vehicle you need to find a closer closer lake. <BR> <BR>I have an 82 Ski Nautique 2001(small direct drive). It has a carberated 351 that I am sure is not very efficient. I would say I would go though between 30-45 gallons in a long day of running hard.

greatdane 04-14-2006 2:46 PM

Wide boats suck gas. <BR> <BR>Evan, I dig that idea. I have mentioned it before too! A 19 ft narrow closed bow! Either a v-drive with the motor in the back or a direct drive with the motor in the bow (not sure if that can work). Adequate built in ballast (second hull idea). Driver plus 3 rear facing seats. The ultimate wake machine for 3 to 5 people. I hardly ever want more than 4 or 5 on my boat anyway! <BR> <BR>My second hull idea is to have a inner hull and outer hull. Flood the inner hull when you want ballast. Fill the inner hull with air when you want efficiency. And, always keep the back open so you don't have to count this water weight in the float calculation.

ralph 04-14-2006 4:42 PM

There must be a market for a 19' 88" beam closed bow V-drive. Push the drivers station all the way forward and run a bow tank and tanks underfloor through the entire length of the boat. Some thing like this. <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65921/317311.jpg" alt="Upload">

cyclonecj 04-14-2006 7:03 PM

My Epic 22 is 21' 8" with a 93" beam, uses between 2 and 3 GPH with about 1600lbs in it plus some people. <BR>It has a 27 gal tank, I have never been able to use it all in one day, I usually get 2-3 times out on a tank.

greatdane 04-14-2006 7:23 PM

BEAM is the widest point of the boat -- this is likely not equal to the width of the boat underwater at 22 mph. <BR>In fact, what I think is important is the width of the boat at the deepest part of the boat (the back of the hull).

greatdane 04-14-2006 7:39 PM

Could someone who has a boat handy measure the width of the bottom/back of the hulls of say the X1, X2, VLX and SAN?

tdc_worm 04-14-2006 7:40 PM

yup, beam is what kills ya when it comes to the need for extra ballast and consequently high fuel bills. i have a calabria pro-v (102" beam). when we run it hard with 6000 lbs of total weight between boat, ballast, fuel and gear plus the weight of 6 people we will burn 50 gallons of fuel between 11 am and 9 pm (65 gallon tank so no need to refuel!). that was my heaviest day to date, all 6 of us took 3 boarding sessions and 1 surfing session. so by todays prices of $3 per gallon that is $150 fuel divided by 6 people equals $25 fuel per person... then i am lucky enough as the boat owner to pay for launch fees, fuel for towing, maintenance, insurance, etc. <BR> <BR>i will say this in spite of the heafty fuel costs: if you have ever spent upwards of 8-10 hours partying and riding in one day, the mammoth cockpit of a wide beam boat IS WELL WORTH THE EXTRA THIRTY BUCKS FOR FUEL TO SPEND THE DAY COMFORTABLY. <BR> <BR>when i used to live on a lake in FL, a SANTE was the perfect ticket because you could leave unecessary gear on the dock. now that i live in TX and we have to tote every ones gear and libations with us, a large cockpit boat is the only solution, and the extra cost is definitely worth it.... <BR> <BR>(Message edited by tdc_worm on April 14, 2006)

bwood 04-15-2006 4:10 AM

GD, I just measured the bottom/back of my 04 VLX and it was around 77-80, I did it by my self so it was hard. The boat has a 93in beam. <BR> <BR>Does changing to a lower pitched prop help with gas on a sacked out boat?

greatdane 04-15-2006 12:18 PM

Yup, BEAM is a near useless measurement since it is just the widest point of the boat. On most boats, this widest point in the boat is far removed from the water. Many boats have a "wedge" shape such that the bottom of the boat is a lot less wide than the top of the boat. <BR> <BR>Could someone report the width measurement for the back of the SAN hull?

talltigeguy 04-15-2006 7:59 PM

I think I have a different impression than some of you. A wider boat (or a boat with a wider 'footprint') will actually be more efficient because of the fact that it is closer to being on plane even before it starts - Right? <BR> <BR>I think that shouldn't be confused with the wakemaking capacity, which largely has to do with how the 'footprint' of the boat sinks into the water. Yes, to get a wider boat to sink 6 inches deeper will require more ballast, and hence decrease fuel economy, but with equal weights - a wider boat will get better fuel economy. <BR> <BR>(Message edited by talltigeguy on April 15, 2006)

faceplanter69 04-16-2006 5:58 PM

GD just got my SANTE <BR> <BR>You want the measurement from where? I got around 74 inches. the boat has a 91 inch beam I believe. I'm wondering if we should be measuring the widest point of the boat that still sits in the water though?

greatdane 04-17-2006 12:21 PM

VLX: 93" beam; 78" rear. <BR>SAN: 91" bean; 74" rear. <BR> <BR>Thats not enough of a difference to explain the SAN efficiency and more narrow/vert wake. So, I am thinking that hull shape (lift) is also a large contributor.

ripr 04-17-2006 12:35 PM

I think the hull shape does have something to do with it, but I also think that 4" is pretty big difference when it comes to pushing water. I lean towards the footprint at the water (not beam measurement) and overall weight of the boat in relation to the amount of throttle you need to get the boat on plane (as well as # of stops and starts) play the biggest roll in fuel consumption and efficiency. <BR> <BR>Also, I'm wondering if your guys' VLX numbers are calculated with your wedge deployed?? I would think with that much drag on the back of the boat your consumption would skyrocket. <BR> <BR>

greatdane 04-17-2006 12:43 PM

I am thinking the wedge should help gas economy because, unlike raw weight, it adds downward pressure that grows with boat speed. So, when running slow to pick up a fallen rider, the effective weight of the boat (and resulting displacement of water) is less. Thus, the wedge should save gas when running slow.

bughunter 04-17-2006 6:22 PM

Just want to throw in something about the width of the X-Star. It is a wide boat, but once on a plane it is not wider than most other boats. The hull narrows down a lot from just above the waterline. That is why the wake is not that wide either. <BR> <BR>On consumption. 2006 X-Star, MCX... VERY heavy. <BR>2 hours wakeboarding, 2 hours wakesurfing; 31.5 gallons. Close to 8 gallons an hour. <BR>I think wakesurfing is what causes this sad number. <BR>We put 5.5 hours on it Sunday just wakeboarding. I will try to remember to write down how much we used when we fill it back up this week. <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65921/318075.jpg" alt="Upload">

greatdane 04-17-2006 6:57 PM

Ya, MC is trying to put wide boats on narrow bottoms since wide boats make smaller rampier wakes for the same weight. <BR> <BR>Could you tell us what the width is after that first major reduction (just below the swim platform)? <BR> <BR>(Message edited by greatdane on April 17, 2006)

faceplanter69 04-17-2006 8:29 PM

I would think the wedge causes far more gas consumption than what just using weight would? <BR> <BR>My truck will use more gas towing 2000 pounds than when I have 2000 pounds in the box as payload weight. I don't know if you can use the same analogy? A constant drag would be worse for the gas consumption I would think. <BR> <BR>Looking at the X-star hull the MC engineers are clearing trying to create a small hull platform with a wider deck and interior. <BR> <BR>

greatdane 04-17-2006 10:38 PM

The wedge acts like 250 lbs at 5 mph, 500 lbs at 10 mph and 1000 lbs at 20 mph (or so). So, it should definitely help save gas when not-power turning to get your rider. Assuming you do your rider pickup at 5 mph, then its like your boat went on a 750 lb diet for that duration.

entrustclothing 04-18-2006 8:26 AM

i don't usually do a rider pickup at 20mph anyway. i run about 2000lbs in the boat. when the rider falls i slow down, turn around and go get them slow, so i'm not creating a whirlpool of waves. unless the rider is in danger of getting hit of course. picking up riders is the least of my worries when burning gas. <BR> <BR>Bottom line, a 23' boat with lots of weight sucks for gas consumption, but it's just the way it is. just make sure everyone pays up for their ride <IMG SRC="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> <BR> <BR>i do agree though that it would be cool to have a smaller closed bow wake boat and maybe put a fuel efficent 6 cylinder in it, since a 300+ hp gas prehistoric small block is kinda unessary to pull a rider.

toyotafreak 04-18-2006 9:10 AM

Toyota v-drive here, 21'7". Over the past three years, I've consistently run right under 4 GPH when either strictly wakeboarding with a small crew and 1500-1800 pounds OR during weekends at Havasu where we're not shy about mixing mostly unballasted riding with long trips between dam and town and sandbar and even Needles (usually cruise between 25 and 30, but an hour at 30 mph burns a LOT more gas than a morning of wakeboarding). The S22's got about 45 gallons of Chevron Super in it (at about $23/gallon). That's basically a full weekend if you're not worried about running the tank down low. <BR> <BR>I have had it up to 6 gph when Thane had it up to 3K in ballast. <BR> <BR>I like the golf club analogy - right on. I'm that guy - barely making the payments and struggle to afford gas. <BR> <BR>IMHO, the SAN is an amazing package, but it could totally do well with less power. Putting my 4.0 Lexus in a SAN would still let you sack it up pretty damn good and would drop the GPH down a little. Thing is, like everybody knows, SANs get pretty darn good mileage already cuz they throw a nice one with only a little weight. <BR> <BR>The Avalanche gets pretty good mileage with the 350 Magnum when we run it lite. Also at Havasu, he's consistently real close to my GPH.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 6:57 AM.