WakeWorld

WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Archive through February 21, 2008 (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=550830)
-   -   Most fuel efficient wakeboard boats (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=545384)

eccpaint 02-13-2008 7:36 PM

With the cost of fuel going up, I was wondering what the most fuel efficient wakeboard boat is. I only found one website with very limited info. They had current info on Malibu, Tige and couple of Mastercrafts , but the MC's were from '06. <BR><a href="http://www.boattest.com" target="_blank">www.boattest.com</a> <BR>The Tige averaged about 1 gallon an hour better. Are there any other boat test sites that have a more comprehensive list?

882001 02-13-2008 7:39 PM

smaller hulls= smaller footprint =better fuel milleage

eccpaint 02-13-2008 7:42 PM

The Tiges are larger

05mobiuslsv 02-13-2008 7:45 PM

Tige's don't need ballast remember so they displace less water<img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/lol.gif" border=0>

steve_jones 02-13-2008 7:46 PM

My last Malibu VLX and Nautique 220 seemed to get better gas mileage than previous boats I've had, and we load them up to ride. I think it comes down to weight and the engine you choose. <BR> <BR>I would also suggest looking at an Acme high altitude propeller. Hands down, it decreased our fuel consumption by over 20%.

jon_a 02-13-2008 7:48 PM

Supra's smartplate technology helps the boat get on plane faster, therefore burning less gas.

eccpaint 02-13-2008 7:50 PM

All the boats were tested with no ballast and the wedge up.

eccpaint 02-13-2008 7:51 PM

I am looking for independent studies.

skier12 02-13-2008 7:53 PM

The Toyota's supposedly had very efficient engines.

ralph 02-13-2008 7:53 PM

I agree with 882001. <BR> <BR>You have to compare how big the wake is relative to how much gas you burn. The tige using less isn't really relevant if the wake is 1/2 the size.

ralph 02-13-2008 7:55 PM

"All the boats were tested with no ballast and the wedge up" <BR>Whats the point in that test, who rides with the ballast empty and wedge up?

grant_west 02-13-2008 7:56 PM

MY AIR NAUTIQUE <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/happy.gif" border=0> Its the Pryus of wakeboard boats

sulmaxwell 02-13-2008 8:12 PM

hmmm....fuel efficiency and wake board boat...isn't that an oxy moron? <BR>kind of like asking what kind of gas mileage a race car gets or how much it costs to fill this yacht up???if you have to ask...you probably shouldn't be playing the game...although i am curious to see if an 8.1 in an xstar consumes less fuel cause the engine is not working as hard...hmmmm

ottog1979 02-13-2008 9:37 PM

Funny, curiosity about my own gas usage had me start calculating this several months ago. Each time I fill up I write down the hours on the meter and how many gallons I put in. Subtract the previous hour reading from the current (just like car mileage) and divide that into the gallons at the fill-up. So far, I'm averaging about 4 gallons per hour that the motor is on. This is usually with our 400lbs of ballast full but each time has varying people in the boat. I only have 3 fill-ups to measure by so far but by next fall, I'll have a pretty accurate average of how much gas I use. <BR> <BR>Anyone else has done this consistently and what do the numbers say?

hamkj 02-13-2008 9:43 PM

There is a new boat in the works... made of carbon fiber... Model name... G West 21V... It actually runs above the water surface and a wake making device deploys each time the rider cuts... so that is the only time there is drag on the hull... only when you need it. It is also a hybrid design... and the excess 12 volts that are generated... are directed towards the insane stereo system... which the sound waves are pushed through the water to help shape and firm up the wake. <BR> <BR>Amazing technology... but then again.. what else would you expect from G-West Industries... "cutting edge!"

rallyart 02-13-2008 9:57 PM

I heard that that one had regenerative power from the elbow bends that happen with beer consumption. They use that to power the amps, I'm sure. My understanding is that when the drinking stops the stereo shuts down and everyone is ejected at the nearest pub. <BR>I think they're getting some kind of ethanol fuel Grant from the gov't.

rallyart 02-13-2008 10:09 PM

I got just under 2 gallons per hour over 110 hours last summer. Of course that was wakeboarding with a 50# kid at about 13 MPH most of the time. Hitting it when surfing with my kids involves putting it in gear, then they are up. The slow speed really helps the GPH but not the MPG. <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/happy.gif" border=0> I'm going to blame the good fuel use on all that wood in my boat because it floats. (Jk)

davee22ve 02-13-2008 10:15 PM

In my experience my tige 22ve does seem to get better fuel economy. I went with 6 riders everyone took 2 pulls I took 3 and I still had 3/4 of a tank left we also had 1280 lbs of fat sacks.

redsupralaunch 02-14-2008 1:06 AM

Supra and Moomba with 340 CAT do about 10% better than without the CAT <BR> <BR>I highly recommend the CAT for better fuel economy, performance and large reduction in CO

882001 02-14-2008 5:37 AM

props will have a huge impact. a wakeboard prop on a boat without weight will make it get worse mileage .. but way better with weight. so a test of new boats without weight is kinda stupid.

ldr 02-14-2008 6:31 AM

I also hear that toyota did very well on fuel economy.

eccpaint 02-14-2008 7:27 AM

I think the Toyota will have the best efficiency. <BR> <BR>As far as testing goes... I guess you have to start with a base line ( no weight) but where do you go from there? There are so many variables, Do you put the same amount of weight in all or do you add weight so they all have same overall weight? Will the weight be in the back, front, side lockers? Will the wedge be up, down in between, TAPS up , down, in the middle? I guess the manufacturers will want them to test for optimum fuel efficiency, then it will be up to us (the consumer) to lower it with weight &amp; other wake enhancing devices. <BR> <BR>I'm just surprised there isn't more research out there.

davee22ve 02-14-2008 7:54 AM

I think the test should be just the stock boats. Every boat I have been behind even though not the prefered size of wake still have a nice wake stock so put the same amount of people in the boat and run them all day on the same schedule and course with the same amount of idle time, towing,and lake drive time. If your pulling fill all stock ballast put wedges down wake plates up. If you are traveling do the opposite and then at the end of the day see how much each boat burned. That would give you a good idea of each boat then any extra weight from there should drag each boats efficiency down equally or close to it. <BR> <BR>I am perfectly happy with my boats stock wake and with its fuel economy. however there are somedays I like to add to much weight and enjoy the huge fuel consuming wake but I also know if I take the weight out I can go up to lake powel and play hard every day all day and not have to be chasing fuel all the time.

dh03r6 02-14-2008 7:56 AM

toyota should bring them back they were nice looking boats

evil0ne 02-14-2008 8:17 AM

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>kind of like asking what kind of gas mileage a race car gets or how much it costs to fill this yacht up???<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR> <BR>Actually in racing fuel efficiency is important. Fewer pit stops the better. That doesn't mean they're getting what is considered good mileage by the greenies, but 1mpg better then your competitor at the same speed will make a huge difference on the length and frequency of your pit stops.

phenom_1819 02-14-2008 9:16 AM

My Toyota burned between 3-4 gph with ballast full (800 lbs on my boat). This, and the bullet-proof reliability of the engine, were the main reasons I was concerned about selling it. In four years, the boat never gave me one real problem. It was a sad day to see the new owner drive away with it, and I'm definitely going to miss it... <BR> <BR>For more info, go to <a href="http://www.epicmarine.com" target="_blank">http://www.epicmarine.com</a>.

lakeski 02-14-2008 6:20 PM

Ditto what Cal said. <BR> <BR>Great boat with a great engine (click on my profile). It's the same V8 engine used in the flagship Lexus LS sedan. It's very easy on gas, using a fraction of what the typical inboard engine uses. My GPH is the same as Cal's Toyota.

trace 02-14-2008 6:50 PM

Toyota built a great boat with a lot of refinement, but "a fraction of what a typical inboard uses" is pretty strong language for 3-4 gph vs. 4-5 gph. The Toyotas were also lacking in torque to push a lot of ballast. Load them down like most everyone does nowadays, and I doubt they would do any better than a smallblock in fuel consumption. Also, when it comes time for a rebuild, I'll take a pushrod SBC any day.

phenom_1819 02-14-2008 7:28 PM

Actually, my consumption did not change much at all when fully loaded -- what killed consumption was running over about 28-30 mph. And I could get out of the hole just fine with 2000 lbs of ballast and more than a few people... This pic is me riding behind my Toyota when FULLY loaded (rear 800 lb. bag full, two 400 lb. bags on either side of engine full, and a 400 lb. bag in the walkway -- five people in the boat. <BR> <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65921/545773.jpg" alt="Upload">

snork 02-14-2008 7:43 PM

My 2007 XSTAR with 350HP MCX and cats, stock ballast + 750lbs burns < 6 gal. hour. Not sure I really want that ly6 in the new 2008 XSTAR

lakeski 02-14-2008 7:58 PM

I don't read many posts from boat owners who are proud about their GPH consumption. It's just not talked about very much and we all know why - boats are thirsty. <BR> <BR>Fact is, 3-4 GPH is 20% to 25% less than 4-5 GPH. That's a pretty decent percentage that means considerably lower operating costs over time. Plus, a lot of inboards burn much more than 4-5. <BR> <BR>Go to <a href="http://www.epicmarine.com" target="_blank">www.epicmarine.com</a> and search "GPH." You'll see lots of posts from Toyota owners who are pretty happy when it comes to low fuel consumption and low operating costs. <BR> <BR>GPH is a popular topic on the Toyota site, not a topic that gets swept under the rug. Read the posts from actual owners and you'll see that "fraction" is a fair word.

chpthril 02-15-2008 6:09 AM

WOW, A New WakeWorld Record, 2 responses before it became a Tige bash thread. <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/crazy.gif" border=0>

05mobiuslsv 02-15-2008 8:02 AM

Come on tigemike don't get butthurt <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/lol.gif" border=0>

wakeride26 02-15-2008 8:24 AM

IMO opinion if you want fuel economy buy a Stingray. This is the first year I have ever had the fuel economy question come up at the boat show. I was shocked at how many dealers are actualy using this in their sales presentations to close deals. Loaded down v-drive wakeboats suck gas and lots of it no matter what brand is on the side. I personaly would not buy model x because of a 1gph difference in fuel consumption. Just drink cheap beer if it matters that much.

ttduncan 02-15-2008 10:17 AM

why is it that so many people do not keep track of their fuel use? is it because all the cars have the computers on that tell us how many miles to empty? i am interested in the fuel use. i occasionally boat in locations that refueling can be difficult (lake powell, ut) and if you go dry, you could be in trouble. just keep a note of the hours on the engine and the gallons you put in. <BR> <BR>in my boat search over the last two years i believe i found one dealer that would give me a range of fuel use, it was always "it depends on what you are doing" i understand that. <BR> <BR>on the highway, sometimes i drive on roads that the best i can do is 60mph. i get great mpg then. some times on the interstate i average 85-90mph for 200-300 miles my mpg sucks. <BR> <BR>redsupra: where did you get this? <BR>Supra and Moomba with 340 CAT do about 10% better than without the CAT <BR> <BR>one dealer i spoke (the only one who gave fuel use) with said he did not think it would be more than 1/4 to 1/2gph improvement with the CAT and that i should expect around 6gph with the 325. <BR> <BR>no flame intended, just would like to know your reference or experience. <BR> <BR>i recently rented a boat for a day of riding. the posted fuel use was 12-14gph. that really hurt at $5/gal on the water when we were done.

phenom_1819 02-15-2008 10:50 AM

ttduncan -- at 5-6 gph, 10% and 0.5 gph are the same thing.

chpthril 02-15-2008 10:52 AM

"<i>Come on tigemike don't get butthurt</i> <BR> <BR>No "butthurt" here. <BR> <BR>Ya'll are getting slow, they got in 2 replies before the first Tige comment. <BR> <BR>I just wouldn't know what to do with all my free time if the (wake) World wasn't so full of misinformed boaters high on Hateraid <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/biggrin.gif" border=0> <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/lol.gif" border=0> <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/wink.gif" border=0> Thanks WW, I have a reason to live!!!

05mobiuslsv 02-15-2008 11:54 AM

The tige sales pitch (feeding people full of crap) just makes it to easy though<img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/biggrin.gif" border=0>

chpthril 02-15-2008 11:56 AM

^ I'll agree

bp909 02-15-2008 12:19 PM

I remember reading a graph of a late 90 model Natique's gas consumption. It based rpm/mph aginst gph. 20 mph is best for gph vs speed. Don't remember what that rating was so I am not going to guestimate. When the speed was 40 mph the gph was 23. 40 is pretty much full throttle. So if you were running full throttle in that particular boat you would be out of gas in an hour. The motors have not improved much so it is safe to say it depends on weight, speed, and prop.

ttduncan 02-15-2008 2:43 PM

cal, yes, you are correct. <BR> <BR>i should have also said that the 1/4 was emphasized over the 1/2. the 1/4 would be 5%. <BR> <BR>so here is my math: the 340 cat is around a $1600 add. average boat use at 80hrs/yr = 20gal/yr 20gal@$3/gal = $60 saving, $1600/$60 = 26 yrs to pay off on fuel(13 yrs if 10%)

wakeride26 02-15-2008 3:47 PM

Exactly my point. not worth it trying to say my boat gets this and my boat gets that.... Everyone has to try and find a way to out do the next guy. why doesn't everyone just ride and enjoy what they do have....

kko13 02-15-2008 5:50 PM

well when i asked my customers about fuel consumption. and i service every brand out there. there is one clear winner in this category. TIGE. with mastercraft being one of the worst. and dont even think about a jet boat those things suck fuel like its going out of style although i dont really like to compare these boats to REAL wakeboats. no offense to jet boat owners. <BR> <BR>(Message edited by kko13 on February 15, 2008)

redsupralaunch 02-15-2008 9:13 PM

TTDUNCAN - I got that info 2 ways. Direct from Indmar Engineer in a discussion on the dock at WWA Worlds in Reno. Also Personal expierence - I ran 150 hours on 06 340 non cat and 135 hours on 07 340 w/cat. Basically it comes not from the cat per say but the fact that the cat allows an oxygen sensor which in return leans out the mix instead of just a stab in the dark.

wakeride26 02-16-2008 8:18 AM

A clear winner can not be determined unless the boats have the same engine, props, are aprox. the same size, and are run at exactly the same speed with exactly the same load. No clear winner unless this is performed with all the brands on the same day in the same conditions with the same variables.

azpowerhouse 02-16-2008 9:38 AM

BOATCRAZY.COM, has plenty of info. But in the end who cares.

nasty530 02-16-2008 11:20 AM

THE ONE GOING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AT 60!! <BR>Actually the diesel mastercraft would truly be the most fuel efficient. If you really need the most fuel efficient boat, you cant afford a boat. Sorry but their are 10 things that cost just as much or more when it comes to boating. Instead I suggest you fill the boat with good friends and good times, when the fuel gauge reads E the above 2 things will make filling it up with fuel very painless and easy.

andy13 02-16-2008 11:13 PM

i actually did an engine swap this winter and put a nuclear reactor in my boat. 0gph of gasoline its great <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/proud.gif" border=0>

bill_sloan 02-17-2008 4:58 AM

I bet it's hole shot is phenomenal! <BR> <BR>(Message edited by bill_sloan on February 17, 2008)

auto 02-17-2008 6:34 AM

uhhhh who cares? It's not like you are buying a wakeboard boat to reduce your gas consumption.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 2:08 PM.