WakeWorld

WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Boats, Accessories & Tow Vehicles (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=3183)
-   -   G23 fuel consumption (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=797030)

jason95gt 02-21-2013 11:40 AM

G23 fuel consumption
 
I heard from a very viable source that a weighted G23 is running about 15+ gallons an hour and wanted to hear others experience. If this is the case, that is absolutely crazy!

wakedaveup 02-21-2013 11:52 AM

Too much speculation, too much he said she said, sorry man. This is going to turn into one of "those" threads. To determine what you heard you would have to know what engine and exactly how much weight. As well as speed, prop, etc. A G23 was not designed with a Prius concept in mind and when purchasing one, a buyer should not expect to get great fuel economy (Cruise speed with no ballast is a different story, but still not that of a 21ft direct drive). It's a 23 foot boat with 2800lbs of ballast and no where in that equation is good fuel economy no matter brand or boat.

jason95gt 02-21-2013 12:01 PM

The motor was the LSA 6.2L with full stock ballast and about another 1500 in people. I understand that they do not get great fuel consumption, but a sacked out Star is only 9 gallons an hour. This is twice that if not more. It just seemed crazy when I heard it and wanted to see if anyone else has first had experience.

ironj32 02-21-2013 12:09 PM

Here's my take on the fuel consumption after putting 85 hours on my G23 with the 450hp engine, last summer. We usually always fill up the tank before each outting. After approx 2 - 30 minute sets, I seem to typically have to put in about 19.5 gallons to top the tank off again. Divide that by the 2 sets, it's 9.75 gallons per set. Figure the average cost of fuel right now in MN is about $3.65/gallon...that puts it at $35/30 min set. Not too much worse than a slammed 230 or XStar.

One thing to note is that I fall a lot, so spend a lot of time getting on to plane.

cboom12 02-21-2013 12:13 PM

G that i rode in had the 450 and the owner told me that if he get $20 a rider it it pretty much exactly covers his fuel cost. He did say however if they need to do alot of driving to find good water that it easily can jump $5 a person. This at cali gas prices of right around $4 gal. I have no idea what his gph is.

MrPeepers 02-21-2013 12:15 PM

If someone is fortunate enough to purchase a $100k tow boat, then I would presume the cost to operate it would not be much of a factor.

CarZin 02-21-2013 12:26 PM

I think this is actually something that needs to be addressed one way or the other. I have been on a kick on the centurion board that Centurion needs to have a fuel totalizer onboard. I had one on my airplane, and it does wonders. You know exactly what the fuel flow rate is, and how changes to weighting and throttle affects fuel consumption. The devices are pretty cheap (less than $250) and would be interfaced to the onboard dash, so no new gauges needed. Could put all this to rest. You would know exactly what weight and speed does to economy. I spend a lot of time cruising around, and I would love to know what the sweet spot is for cruising economy, so I can stop wasting gas.

One possible solution is for the boat manufacturers to agree on a standard weighting and speed, and run tests on fuel economy so there can be some comparisons from boat to boat. And then display that on a sticker, much like an EPA label.

In my case, with the Enzo SV233, it is certainly cheaper than the comparable Tige boat. But if the Tige uses 2-3 gallons less an hour to wakesurf with the same weight, then the difference could be made up pretty quick. And without a fuel totalizer, people can make claims about fuel economy that can't really be backed up. I'd like to see these Tige claims of really low use, with a video showing a rider on a big wave, going back to a fuel totalizer showing 4 GPH.

Of course, what one boat does with a given weight is going to be different than what another boat does with a given weight. Thats why a fuel totalizer would be great. Once wakes are setup properly, the community can report back that a Malibu, properly weighted to produce the best wave, uses X amount of fuel, and Centurion uses Y, and Tige uses Z.

ironj32 02-21-2013 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ironj32 (Post 1807897)
Here's my take on the fuel consumption after putting 85 hours on my G23 with the 450hp engine, last summer. We usually always fill up the tank before each outting. After approx 2 - 30 minute sets, I seem to typically have to put in about 19.5 gallons to top the tank off again. Divide that by the 2 sets, it's 9.75 gallons per set. Figure the average cost of fuel right now in MN is about $3.65/gallon...that puts it at $35/30 min set. Not too much worse than a slammed 230 or XStar.

One thing to note is that I fall a lot, so spend a lot of time getting on to plane.

The other thing to keep in mind is that I run about 2200 pounds of extra ballast, on top of the 2800stock.

CarZin 02-21-2013 12:39 PM

Well, that comment does go to my second part of my response. Do you need 2200 pounds to create a wave comparable to something like an Enzo at 2500 pounds? if so, does it really matter? I think most people here are going to weight the boats to the point where it creates a really good wave. If the G23 wave is subpar at 2800 pounds, then the fact that you need to add to it doesn't really mitigate the fuel consumption issue.

jarrod 02-21-2013 12:56 PM

In the end, I think the correlation between the size and mass of your wake and your fuel consumption is probably pretty consistent across all boats. I've yet to find a massive wake at 25 miles per hour that is any less expensive that another.

All of our boats have always been in the 5-6 gallons per set range depending on the length of the set, speed, and the amount of extra people weight we are running that day. The MXZ takes less weight that our other boats, and burns slightly less fuel, but it's not an earth shattering amount.

With the added size and weight of the G23, and the amount of water it's displacing, I'm not surprised that it's more expensive to run.

ironj32 02-21-2013 12:57 PM

I am in no way complaining or bragging about the fuel consumption. I don't surf at all, so have no interest in comparing the boat to an Enzo for surf "waves". I strictly wakeboard, and will put as much weight as possible to get the wake as big and hard as I can, regardless of how it compares to other boats.

The original poster was talking about fuel consumption, and that is what my responses have been aimed at.

ralph 02-21-2013 1:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPeepers (Post 1807900)
If someone is fortunate enough to purchase a $100k tow boat, then I would presume the cost to operate it would not be much of a factor.

Not always. When the 04 X-star came out a guy here picked one up, There was a pretty tight bunch of semi serious riders who rode in a group sharing boats etc, everyone paid for there sets depending on what it costed. Normal rate was $20 per set (gas here is expensive), to get a similar sized wake out of the X-star it was costing $40 per set. The guy had a hard time getting riders to go out with him so started running less ballast and the wake suffered as a result. The guy ended up selling the boat after a season or so.

CarZin 02-21-2013 1:18 PM

Jay: I know.

But this has struck a chord with me. Fuel consumption issues on boats are real. Companies need to be penalized or rewarded for doing more with less fuel. There is unfortunately not a way to really determine this yet. It also really helps with the total cost of ownership, which is important. Too much of the boating industry is subjective.

boardman74 02-21-2013 1:18 PM

MrPeepers hit the nail on the head. If you can afford a $125K boat.....you don't care how much fuel it burns.

For the OP Iron J is saying about 19.5 an hour with about 5K in ballast, so you probably heard right.

Anyone worried about the fuel consumption of a G23 probably can't afford it or would be overextending their credit to own one. Buy a boat within your budget(including gas, insurance, upkeep, etc)..won't be an issue. IronJ is the most vocal G23 owner on here and I don't recall him ever mentioning a problem with the fuel consumption!!! As the saying goes..."If you have to ask....you can't afford it"!!

boardman74 02-21-2013 1:23 PM

CarZin....your kidding, right?????

We all know boats carrying a bunch of water around for no other reason than to make the boat PLOW thru the water are going to burn A LOT of gas. No question there. If you want a fuel flow meeter on your boat, install one. You can find them at just about any marine store and they aren't tough to install. I personally don't see the point . Its a boat..it's expensive. It's a toy..if you can't afford it sell it.

Don't lose sight of what boat stands for....Break Out Another Thousand!!!

CarZin 02-21-2013 1:24 PM

Yeah, thats just bogus. I owned an airplane and I still cared about fuel. There is no boat on this forum as expensive as owning an airplane (unless someone on here owns so sea faring boats, and then there is going to be some competition). When you are burning a lot of it, efficiency makes a big difference. It was one of the reasons I wanted to get a Mooney. about 30 more knots an hour at the same flow rate. it absolutely matters.

granted, there are plenty of people that don't care about throwing money away. I'm not one of them. I don't mind spending money on pleasure, but I want to make the most of the money I spend :)

With all the gadgets that boats have, and as much as the fuel burn issue comes up, this should not even be debated.

boardman74 02-21-2013 1:34 PM

Well then like I said, by all mean buy and install a fuel flow meter. I don't think you can a marine one for the $250 you stated, but they aren't terrible. They start in the 5-600 range. The problem I see it people ride at set speeds. They WANT to ride as a speed so knowing how much fuel your burning doesn't matter as you can't adjust anyway without changing the riders speed. In a plane or a cruising boat you can adjust to the most efficient cruising speed, in a wake boat Johnny wants to ride at 22.5, not 27 or 29 where the boat is more efficient.

Pick up a copy of Boating Magazine. Every boat the test they have full fuel and efficiency numbers on. Not sure what you mean they aren't tested. Do you mean because they don't have an EPA sticker like a car? Do new airplanes have EPA stickers? What Toy does? Not boats, snowmobiles, motorcycles, 4 wheelers, etc.

boardman74 02-21-2013 1:38 PM

I have friends who own airplanes and you sound like them. If you try to apply your airplane mentality to a boat I'm afraid you are setting yourself up for a very unhappy boat owning experience. You've already experienced one of the 2 happiest days as a boat owner and that was buying it. From your mindset it sounds like happy day number 2 will be the day you sell it.

FYI.. if your worried about fuel economy and it sounds like you keenly are. DON'T ever weight your boat....it will make it use more fuel!!!!!!!

CarZin 02-21-2013 1:39 PM

Actually, the fuel flow meter you are referring to includes an expensive gauge. The gauge isnt needed in the digital dashes for the new boat. Just the totalizer. At that point, its just software. So I have no doubt the manufacturers can do it cheap.

Airplanes absolutely do have published fuel flow numbers at various configurations.

And yes, I think having some sticker on the boat indicating burn rate with given weight and speed for various sports would be beneficial.

Guys, i already own a boat. I just bought a bigger one. I'm not new to this game. I am upgrading from a 21 foot to a 23 foot with a slightly larger engine. I think you are mistaking my desires for the industry as a personal concern or worry. The amount of fuel the boat burns isn't going to really matter much on my bottom line. It doesn't mean that it shouldn't be an issue. If its an issue for cars and planes, why not boats?

I drive an electric car as well ;) So, maybe I take fuel consumption a little more personally.

spencercoon 02-21-2013 1:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarZin (Post 1807930)
Yeah, thats just bogus. I owned an airplane and I still cared about fuel. There is no boat on this forum as expensive as owning an airplane (unless someone on here owns so sea faring boats, and then there is going to be some competition). When you are burning a lot of it, efficiency makes a big difference. It was one of the reasons I wanted to get a Mooney. about 30 more knots an hour at the same flow rate. it absolutely matters.

granted, there are plenty of people that don't care about throwing money away. I'm not one of them. I don't mind spending money on pleasure, but I want to make the most of the money I spend :)


Well said.

CarZin 02-21-2013 1:45 PM

Thank goodness somebody gets it. I felt like I was on an island fighting a bunch of gas drunk sailors ;)

boardman74 02-21-2013 1:52 PM

While I don't totally disagree with you...you will get no where in the tow boat industry. What people want is a bigger wakeboard or surfing wave. That takes either a heavier boat or ballast, which takes more fuel. The buyer of a towboat cares about the wake produced not the fuel burned. The buyer of a Prius or an electric car cares about fuel burned, not wake boarders or wake surfers. There are a few who do, but not enough for the industry to take notice. If they did we'd be going away from ballast, not to more...more..more!!

CarZin 02-21-2013 2:10 PM

I think there is a lot of room for improvement and a bigger wake doesn't have to mean more fuel. If you believe the Tige claims, they already have figured out a lot about efficient epic waves.

Fixable 02-21-2013 2:10 PM

If someone is really concerned about fuel with a newer boat, they should just make sure that they buy a boat with a Gen IV SBC. Provided that Indmar/PCM/Ilmore tuned the engines properly, an LS3 based engine (6.2l) will have the best fuel economy. (This doesn't include the LSA. Indmar runs that engine on the very rich/safe side. They do it for a very good reason, but fuel economy suffers greatly) The 5.7s and 6.0s are not nearly as good as the LS engines..... However, with the upcharge for the LS3, you could run a 5.7 or 6.0 for 10 years before you saved any money......

I don't think any of the marine engine companies run any of the other naturally aspirated Gen IV LS engines, except Ilmore. They run the LSX 454 Small Block, but I wouldn't have high hopes for the fuel economy in that. It will be better than the Gen II 454, but will definitely drink more than a 5.7 or 6.0.

It's to bad we can't get the LS7. That would be a killer boat engine, with great fuel economy for the horsepower. These marine engine companies are stuck in the stone age of engine platforms. I am surprised that we have an LS3 available!

ralph 02-21-2013 2:26 PM

One of the biggest factors is footprint. Narrower boats need less energy to produce taller wakes. Nobody wants a 90" beam boat these days tho.....

02-21-2013 2:26 PM

The worst thing to happen to tow boats fuel economy was the required catalytic converters from 2012+ boats. My uncle's Nautique 200 turns about 1500 to 1800 more rpms vs his 196 with the same motor without cats pulling the same skiers. For wake boats though, if you are expecting some awesome fuel economy, you're in the wrong sport. Most everyone runs ballast and that's going to be your biggest fuel consumption area.

Kjkimball 02-21-2013 4:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fixable (Post 1807946)
I
It's to bad we can't get the LS7. That would be a killer boat engine, with great fuel economy for the horsepower. These marine engine companies are stuck in the stone age of engine platforms. I am surprised that we have an LS3 available!

Indmar did offer the LS7 for a while. Remember the corvette Malibu? Nice engine package. I guess the boat manufacturers didn't want it. Isn't the LS7 a lower volume engine than the LS3? Seems I recall something about lots of hand assembly.

Kjkimball 02-21-2013 4:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9Drozd (Post 1807953)
The worst thing to happen to tow boats fuel economy was the required catalytic converters from 2012+ boats. My uncle's Nautique 200 turns about 1500 to 1800 more rpms vs his 196 with the same motor without cats pulling the same skiers. For wake boats though, if you are expecting some awesome fuel economy, you're in the wrong sport. Most everyone runs ballast and that's going to be your biggest fuel consumption area.

I don't agree. The cat engines are tuned to run leaner than the non cat. I have a 2011 Supra 242 with a 5.7 340 cat. A friend has a 2011 Moomba Outback V with the 325 non cat 5.7. We have had many days on the same lake together running the same hours. I consistently burn less gas than he does to the order of about 10 gallons per day. Granted, my boat holds more gas but when we start at full tanks and then refill them to see the actual fuel used, my big boat used less than his small one.

02-21-2013 6:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjkimball (Post 1807990)
I don't agree. The cat engines are tuned to run leaner than the non cat. I have a 2011 Supra 242 with a 5.7 340 cat. A friend has a 2011 Moomba Outback V with the 325 non cat 5.7. We have had many days on the same lake together running the same hours. I consistently burn less gas than he does to the order of about 10 gallons per day. Granted, my boat holds more gas but when we start at full tanks and then refill them to see the actual fuel used, my big boat used less than his small one.

Yes they do run leaner because of the O2 sensors, but they don't produce the power they used to. Both boats he has/had both had the PCM 343. He also has the same fuel usage gauge/system (taken out of the 196 and installed in the 200) and the gauge doesn't lie. The 196 he was using 7 to 7.4 GPH vs the new 200 at 8.7 to 9.2 GPH. It was pretty bad when he got his new boat with the same prop from the 196 and couldn't pull the skier out of the hole anywhere close to his old boat. He spent a solid 2 months trying new props from the dealer till he found one that could pull close to the same as his old boat. However, hes having to turn the motor up more RPMs to pull the skiers on the big end. If your scenario held true to this, he should be getting better fuel economy because the 200 is roughly 4in longer, and its the same motor with cats. Maybe his scenario is some fluke occurrence, but its the best side by side comparison of the cat vs non-cat motors I've seen. So idk, maybe they do get better fuel economy and the 200 is just a design with so much more drag than the 196, so who knows....

MattieK27 02-21-2013 6:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9Drozd (Post 1808003)
Yes they do run leaner because of the O2 sensors, but they don't produce the power they used to. Both boats he has/had both had the PCM 343. He also has the same fuel usage gauge/system (taken out of the 196 and installed in the 200) and the gauge doesn't lie. The 196 he was using 7 to 7.4 GPH vs the new 200 at 8.7 to 9.2 GPH. It was pretty bad when he got his new boat with the same prop from the 196 and couldn't pull the skier out of the hole anywhere close to his old boat. He spent a solid 2 months trying new props from the dealer till he found one that could pull close to the same as his old boat. However, hes having to turn the motor up more RPMs to pull the skiers on the big end. If your scenario held true to this, he should be getting better fuel economy because the 200 is roughly 4in longer, and its the same motor with cats. Maybe his scenario is some fluke occurrence, but its the best side by side comparison of the cat vs non-cat motors I've seen. So idk, maybe they do get better fuel economy and the 200 is just a design with so much more drag than the 196.

Cat equipped boats typically have seen better fuel economy. You nailed what your friend is experiencing, its the 200's design. There is more boat in the water than the 196, it's wider, and it's heavier. This is a common issue with the 200, and why for a while many on PlanetNautique still considered the 196 a better ski boat.

This is a very odd thread. It starts with a guy who works at a Mastercraft dealer questioning G23 fuel usage compared to the Xstar, and it has people debating fuel efficient in boats that are DESIGNED to created bigger wakes. (and therefore inherently produce more drag) Honestly, you want a huge wake and a boat that has tons of interior space and storage? You are going to have to suffer in the fuel economy department. Want a slight improvement in efficiency? Be prepared to pay even more for the r&d effort that results...

Man, it must still be winter...

grant_west 02-21-2013 6:33 PM

"People that can afford a 100k wake boat don't care about mpg" Yea everyone I know that can afford a 100k boat just throw's money in the air and takes a bath with crystal! LOL people you need to pull your pants up and stop watching thoes silly rap videos.

ilikebeaverandboats 02-21-2013 7:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarZin (Post 1807905)
I think this is actually something that needs to be addressed one way or the other. I have been on a kick on the centurion board that Centurion needs to have a fuel totalizer onboard. I had one on my airplane, and it does wonders. You know exactly what the fuel flow rate is, and how changes to weighting and throttle affects fuel consumption. The devices are pretty cheap (less than $250) and would be interfaced to the onboard dash, so no new gauges needed. Could put all this to rest. You would know exactly what weight and speed does to economy. I spend a lot of time cruising around, and I would love to know what the sweet spot is for cruising economy, so I can stop wasting gas.

One possible solution is for the boat manufacturers to agree on a standard weighting and speed, and run tests on fuel economy so there can be some comparisons from boat to boat. And then display that on a sticker, much like an EPA label.

In my case, with the Enzo SV233, it is certainly cheaper than the comparable Tige boat. But if the Tige uses 2-3 gallons less an hour to wakesurf with the same weight, then the difference could be made up pretty quick. And without a fuel totalizer, people can make claims about fuel economy that can't really be backed up. I'd like to see these Tige claims of really low use, with a video showing a rider on a big wave, going back to a fuel totalizer showing 4 GPH.

Of course, what one boat does with a given weight is going to be different than what another boat does with a given weight. Thats why a fuel totalizer would be great. Once wakes are setup properly, the community can report back that a Malibu, properly weighted to produce the best wave, uses X amount of fuel, and Centurion uses Y, and Tige uses Z.

Ive been saying this forever....
The concept is extremely simple... basically have a timer that keeps a count when the flow rate is within a particular range, decrease range size for higher accuracy, (calculus :D ) and output a summation....AWESOME.
Also gives you the opportunity to see real time fuel economy.
Would be pretty simply to program and would be easy to integrate the system into the touch screen systems like TigeTouch and all the others.

On a side note, im not sure why this boat doesnt have a monster diesel powerhouse in it, I know that there are threads on WW about diesel all the time....but seriously, there is a reason you dont tow huge heavy trailers with gasoline trucks...why would you power a monster, heavily weighted wake boat with a high HP gasoline engine?

tdc_worm 02-21-2013 8:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarZin (Post 1807930)
Yeah, thats just bogus. I owned an airplane and I still cared about fuel. There is no boat on this forum as expensive as owning an airplane (unless someone on here owns so sea faring boats, and then there is going to be some competition). When you are burning a lot of it, efficiency makes a big difference. It was one of the reasons I wanted to get a Mooney. about 30 more knots an hour at the same flow rate. it absolutely matters.

granted, there are plenty of people that don't care about throwing money away. I'm not one of them. I don't mind spending money on pleasure, but I want to make the most of the money I spend :)

With all the gadgets that boats have, and as much as the fuel burn issue comes up, this should not even be debated.

for your comparison to be analogous, you would have to argue and convince others that the purpose of your Mooney was to create turbulence in its wake, effectively slowing it down and making it less efficient. fluid dynamics applies to both gases and liquids. the amount of water in a wake at a given speed is directly proportional to the amount of water displaced by the hull.

the only way to make vessels of similar beam and weight more efficient is to create the added displacement after the vessel has gotten on place...i.e. by adding auto deploying drag hardware. so to that end, the boat builders are giving us exactly what we are asking for: less efficient hulls.

the fuel management strategy by the different marinizers (which i might add all source the same long blocks from GM) is a different argument all together.

spencercoon 02-21-2013 8:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grant_west (Post 1808008)
"People that can afford a 100k wake boat don't care about mpg" Yea everyone I know that can afford a 100k boat just throw's money in the air and takes a bath with crystal! LOL people you need to pull your pants up and stop watching thoes silly rap videos.

hahahaha!!!!!

ralph 02-21-2013 9:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdc_worm (Post 1808024)
the amount of water in a wake at a given speed is directly proportional to the amount of water displaced by the hull.

the only way to make vessels of similar beam and weight more efficient is to create the added displacement after the vessel has gotten on place...i.e. by adding auto deploying drag hardware. so to that end, the boat builders are giving us exactly what we are asking for: less efficient hulls.

Yes that's true but you can have a table top style wake which is very thick or a peaky style wake which is taller and thin. The older narrower quality wake hulls tend to be more peaky and A LOT cheaper to run. Wide boat on narrow running surface would be a great solution.

cadunkle 02-22-2013 4:34 AM

I don't understand how rich people buying $70k+ boats can be concerned about fuel consumption. I'm poor, and on a good season I might be able to put 100 hours on my boat. At 6-7 GPH like I get, call it 6.5 GPH that's 650 gallons at 3.75 that works out to $2437.50... That's about 20% of the value of my boat. Still not a lot of money to a poor guy like me. Say you got one of these new boats running a huge amount of weight and you get 15 GPH. So for a expensive new boat that gets 15 GP that's 1500 gallons at $3.75 for $5625. OK for a poor guy like me that's starting to get expensive but still not crazy for the one thing I enjoy doing. A G23 has a sticker price over $116k, and you annual fuel cost for a 100 hour year would be 4.8% of the boat's value. I genuinely cannot comprehend how rich folk running these boats are feeling the pinch from putting gas in them. I think comparing the expenses of a small inboard boat to the expenses of an airplane is comparing two very different things.

ironj32 02-22-2013 6:10 AM

I don't think the people that own the boats that burn 10-15+ gph are the ones complaining about the fuel economy. It's the people that don't have them that complain about them. Yes, I'm sure everyone would love to be able to only spend $10 on gas for an entire day of wakeboarding (why wouldn't you?), but that just isn't reality. I have yet to hear/read about a G23/SAN 230/XStar owner complain about the fuel economy of the boat they own. I'd guess the ones that do complain about it no longer have that rig.

MrPeepers 02-22-2013 6:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grant_west (Post 1808008)
"People that can afford a 100k wake boat don't care about mpg" Yea everyone I know that can afford a 100k boat just throw's money in the air and takes a bath with crystal! LOL people you need to pull your pants up and stop watching thoes silly rap videos.

It's obvious why you fabricated your own quote instead of actually quoting someone.

Fixable 02-22-2013 6:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kjkimball (Post 1807987)
Indmar did offer the LS7 for a while. Remember the corvette Malibu? Nice engine package. I guess the boat manufacturers didn't want it. Isn't the LS7 a lower volume engine than the LS3? Seems I recall something about lots of hand assembly.

Wasn't that the only boat it was ever offered in?? Thats not a wake boat.... It would have been nice to see it available in wakeboats. Ya, I think it might be a hand built engine, which would add to the cost. You are right, that is probably a good reason for them to not use it in boats.....cost. Still, there are other Gen IV engines to use (L99, L92, LS2, LS3 etc...) , and they are almost 30% better on fuel than their Gen II and Gen III counterparts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9Drozd (Post 1808003)
Yes they do run leaner because of the O2 sensors, but they don't produce the power they used to. knows.

O2 sensors do not control the air/fuel mixture while the engine is under load. They simply monitor air/fuel ratio and make microscopic short term fueling adjustments while the engine is under a light load cruising condition at lower RPM's. The O2 signals are ignored while you are towing anyone or anything. The only time that your short term fuel trim will be changed in a boat, is while you are steadily cruising at 15-20mph for an extended period of time. And even then, the adjustments are so small, you would never notice it at the gas pump. Most of these newer engines produce more power, and are better on fuel. Some of the old platforms, that are still used, didn't change a lot though. Boats are getting bigger and heavier. It is not the engines, they have only gotten better.

MrPeepers 02-22-2013 6:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cadunkle (Post 1808051)
I don't understand how rich people buying $70k+ boats can be concerned about fuel consumption. I'm poor, and on a good season I might be able to put 100 hours on my boat. At 6-7 GPH like I get, call it 6.5 GPH that's 650 gallons at 3.75 that works out to $2437.50... That's about 20% of the value of my boat. Still not a lot of money to a poor guy like me. Say you got one of these new boats running a huge amount of weight and you get 15 GPH. So for a expensive new boat that gets 15 GP that's 1500 gallons at $3.75 for $5625. OK for a poor guy like me that's starting to get expensive but still not crazy for the one thing I enjoy doing. A G23 has a sticker price over $116k, and you annual fuel cost for a 100 hour year would be 4.8% of the boat's value. I genuinely cannot comprehend how rich folk running these boats are feeling the pinch from putting gas in them. I think comparing the expenses of a small inboard boat to the expenses of an airplane is comparing two very different things.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

boardman74 02-22-2013 6:35 AM

Thats exactly what I said Jay. I have never heard you make a peep about your boats fuel bill. But the guy who used to have an airplane thinks its about as important as world hunger. These boats are not efficient. WE don't want them to be. We want them to BARGE thru the water to push water to create a large wake. Its quite the opposite of efficiency. if the hull was light and efficient it would skim across the water and leave hardly any wake at all. Who would buy that? Thats why the manufacturers don't invest in it.

If you want a fuel flow meter to watch how much fuel you are burning, get one. But I doubt its an option you will see in a wake boat in the near future.

Back to the OP. Breaking news...Wake boats aren't efficient and burn alot of gas. G23 confirmed to burn 15-19 GPH. FYI if you can't afford the couple hundred to fill the tank you might not want to buy the $125,000 G23.:rolleyes:

CarZin 02-22-2013 6:37 AM

Quote:

At 6-7 GPH like I get, call it 6.5 GPH that's 650 gallons at 3.75 that works out to $2437.50...
I don't get gas on the mainland. I get ethanol free fuel, and you pay extra for it. That boutique fuel is already $5 a gallon at the marina pumps. The way fuel pricing is going, it wouldn't surprise me to see it closer to $6 this summer, and the skies the limit from that point on. But you should care that purchasers of new boats care, because if you buy used, its eventually going to trickle down to you.

I keep coming back to the Tige, and I haven't seen a good response to it yet. If Tige has figured out how to make a boat throw a big wake, and do it efficiently, which I hear owners saying, then its just laziness by the other manufacturers to put any emphasis on it. But then again, I don't know if those claims are legitimate or not, because there are no publishing standards for efficiency.

Anyway, people are just repeating themselves at this point, so I am going to bow out of this discussion.

Ultimately, with the way I fear gas prices are going, the boat industry is going to pay a price sooner than later without getting creative with fuel economy. General aviation has already learned this lesson. They didn't care, and neither did the owners, until AVGas spiked (currently $7.44 a gallon at my airport). When I got my license back in 2004, AVGas would something around $2.50 a gallon. It has tripled now. Now people are flying a lot less, the inefficient planes have tanked in value (because no one can afford to fly them), and plenty of manufacturers have just gone out of business. There are also fewer licensed pilots. Not to mention prices on planes went through the roof, much like how wakeboard boats have been going. Just driving it more and more to an elite only hobby, and I didn't grow up with it being that way (boating).

And no, its not a world hunger issue. However. if you actually care about something, you want to foster its growth, not its demise.

boardman74 02-22-2013 6:48 AM

An airplane is the next step in luxury items past a boat. If you have that kind of change laying around I have no sympathy for you. If you can afford the airplane you shouldn't be whining about the gas. Wanna be rich people make me laugh. They want the toys so people think they are rich, but can't afford them because they aren't. My uncle bought a small plane years ago because he wanted to tell everyone he had an airplane. Never flew it much and always complained about how expensive it was. It was never about the airplane as it was about the status.

Since you want to keep talking about your airplane on a wakeboarding site I suspect it's the same with you. When we used to put avgas in our racing motorcycles and snowmobiles it was more than that and that was back in High School. I graduated in 1993.

boardman74 02-22-2013 6:51 AM

"I don't get gas on the mainland."

What is this Hawaii 5-0?? What do us mainlanders know anyway!!!:confused:

MrPeepers 02-22-2013 6:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarZin (Post 1808064)
Ultimately, with the way I fear gas prices are going, the boat industry is going to pay a price sooner than later without getting creative with fuel economy. General aviation has already learned this lesson. They didn't care, and neither did the owners, until AVGas spiked (currently $7.44 a gallon at my airport). When I got my license back in 2004, AVGas would something around $2.50 a gallon. It has tripled now. Now people are flying a lot less, the inefficient planes have tanked in value (because no one can afford to fly them), and plenty of manufacturers have just gone out of business. There are also fewer licensed pilots.

I'm not a pilot, but I work in Aviation. It isn't really an apples to apples comparison between aviation and the wakeboat community. Aviation, especially General Aviation, is dominated by people 50+ years old and retired Ol'timers.

You are correct about the price of AVGas having an impact though. GA airports have much less traffic because many recreational pilots have stopped flying and the young guys can't afford to get licensed. If it wasn't for Corporate traffic, many airports would just shut the fuel farms down.

CarZin 02-22-2013 6:55 AM

I need the little icon with the yellow happy face shrugging.

If you don't get it, then you don't get it. To care about operation costs and to own a toy that has a lot of operation costs are not mutually exclusive. I am not going to make this a d*ck measuring thread. I am not going to make it personal, even though you have just attempted to make it personal.

Quote:

I'm not a pilot, but I work in Aviation. It isn't really an apples to apples comparison between aviation and the wakeboat community. Aviation, especially General Aviation, is dominated by people 50+ years old and retired Ol'timers.
I think if you look at who actually owns the new boats, it probably is 50+ years old :) But you're right. It isn't completely apples to apples, but there are similarities.

This topic has gone a bit deeper than I wanted :)

Quote:

What is this Hawaii 5-0?? What do us mainlanders know anyway!!!
Sorry. I guess I should have said onshore.

MrPeepers 02-22-2013 6:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boardman74 (Post 1808068)
An airplane is the next step in luxury items past a boat. If you have that kind of change laying around I have no sympathy for you. If you can afford the airplane you shouldn't be whining about the gas. Wanna be rich people make me laugh. They want the toys so people think they are rich, but can't afford them because they aren't. My uncle bought a small plane years ago because he wanted to tell everyone he had an airplane. Never flew it much and always complained about how expensive it was. It was never about the airplane as it was about the status.

Since you want to keep talking about your airplane on a wakeboarding site I suspect it's the same with you. When we used to put avgas in our racing motorcycles and snowmobiles it was more than that and that was back in High School. I graduated in 1993.

This is only partly true. You can get into a small airplane for about the same as our wakeboats. The operating/maintenance/hangar/inspection fees can build up though, so it is a step up from boating, like you said.

MrPeepers 02-22-2013 7:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarZin (Post 1808071)
I think if you look at who actually owns the new boats, it probably is 50+ years old :) But you're right. It isn't completely apples to apples, but there are similarities.

This topic has gone a bit deeper than I wanted :)

NEW BOATS, yes. I know lots of 20-30 somethings that own used wakeboats though, myself included. The average age hanging around an FBO is atleast 50-60. My point is that younger guys tend to care a bit less about spending extra money to have a good time on the weekends. The older guys will shut it down more quickly.

CarZin 02-22-2013 7:07 AM

All this discussion does remind me of a story I heard, that is likely not true, about a Bugatti Veyron owner. Apparently the cost to operate that car is so high, one owner purportly has the car trucked to his destination, then flies in to drive it :) The story being that its cheaper to fly a jet than to drive the Veyron ;) At I think 50,000k just for new tires on that car, I could believe it.

phillywakeboarder 02-22-2013 7:41 AM

This is a strange world we're living in. Manufacturers are lauded for "innovations" like underwater LED lights and convertible seating, but someone who would like a factory-installed fuel totalizer is made out to be a lunatic. I, for one, think it would be great. I could find my optimal cruising speed. I could make more informed decisions when trying out props. I could more accurately assess my crew's fuel bill. If I wanted to get really crazy, I could even try to drive in a more fuel efficient manner. I went through more than 1500 gallons of gas last season, and I'm sure many of you did as well. To me, a fuel totalizer would be at least as useful as, say, factory-installed window vents.

Nordicron 02-22-2013 7:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cboom12 (Post 1807899)
G that i rode in had the 450 and the owner told me that if he get $20 a rider it it pretty much exactly covers his fuel cost. He did say however if they need to do alot of driving to find good water that it easily can jump $5 a person. This at cali gas prices of right around $4 gal. I have no idea what his gph is.

According to J's #'s your buddy is only covering half his costs if he is only getting $20.

Now as for people not caring about gas costs for these boats I think that's somewhat untrue. When boat shopping I think it does factor a small part in people's decisions. Now the OP is trying to say that potential G owners should consider a star because its twice as efficient and no way I believe that. Even the old stars loaded down with only 3k ballast used upwards of 12 gal and hour. Let's hear some real world honest guys like J report on their experience with the new star. Also this whole thing the Tige had figured something out? Please! They use the same motors as everyone else for the most part. If a Tige gets such great GPH then it's simply because they aren't putting as much weight in it! An therefor it ain't gonna throw as big a wake, period.

Nordicron 02-22-2013 7:47 AM

My fuel totalizer is the gas pump a couple miles down the rode from the ramp! Always accurate, tells me exactly how much my fun cost me!!!

OldDad 02-22-2013 7:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarZin (Post 1807927)
Jay: I know.

But this has struck a chord with me. Fuel consumption issues on boats are real. Companies need to be penalized or rewarded for doing more with less fuel. There is unfortunately not a way to really determine this yet. It also really helps with the total cost of ownership, which is important. Too much of the boating industry is subjective.

What? Seriously, who here doesn't understand the way this works? If you want a big wake, you are going to have to move a LOT of water. That takes a LOT of energy ie fuel. If you are dropping $125K on a boat and you and your crew can't swing the fuel bill, you have made a VERY poor purchasing decision. Perhaps you could/should take up sailing.

Along with owning a gas guzzling boat, I also own a gas guzzling SUV so that I can tow the gas guzzling boat. Call me an environmental terrorist if you want, but it would be kind of foolish of me to complain about gas usage when I knew full well going in that this wasn't going to be cheap.

CarZin 02-22-2013 7:59 AM

This world obviously lacks in people that have good reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.

OldDad 02-22-2013 8:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarZin (Post 1807938)
Actually, the fuel flow meter you are referring to includes an expensive gauge. The gauge isnt needed in the digital dashes for the new boat. Just the totalizer. At that point, its just software. So I have no doubt the manufacturers can do it cheap.

Airplanes absolutely do have published fuel flow numbers at various configurations.

And yes, I think having some sticker on the boat indicating burn rate with given weight and speed for various sports would be beneficial.

Guys, i already own a boat. I just bought a bigger one. I'm not new to this game. I am upgrading from a 21 foot to a 23 foot with a slightly larger engine. I think you are mistaking my desires for the industry as a personal concern or worry. The amount of fuel the boat burns isn't going to really matter much on my bottom line. It doesn't mean that it shouldn't be an issue. If its an issue for cars and planes, why not boats?

I drive an electric car as well ;) So, maybe I take fuel consumption a little more personally.

I think we can all agree that a private plane has to be one of the LEAST efficient modes of transportation available.....ever! So preaching about fuel economy is kind of silly at this point. Your story kind of reminds me of a celebrity who drives a Prius to the airport to jump in a G5. Seriously?

Of course the burn rate in a plane is vitally important. Run out and you die. Run out in your boat and you have to get towed in....maybe even by a Mastercraft.....how embarrassing would that be!! ;-)

CarZin 02-22-2013 8:07 AM

Somehow I bet many of the people that think fuel economy isnt an issue, go out of their way to find the cheapest gas on the lake, or tow their boat onshore to fill it with cheaper ethanol based fuels to save a few bucks :) A lot of dishonesty in this thread :)

And I'd be amazed if the people with the big towing rigs haven't complained about what it costs to fill their SUVs.

And for the record, for me, this has nadda to do with the environment. I am also a registered Republican. So you can bark up a different tree if you want to paint me as some tree hugging hipster.

man, from the way some of you are reacting, you'd think I called your wife ugly and kicked your kids in the face.

OldDad 02-22-2013 8:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarZin (Post 1808064)
I don't get gas on the mainland. I get ethanol free fuel, and you pay extra for it. That boutique fuel is already $5 a gallon at the marina pumps. The way fuel pricing is going, it wouldn't surprise me to see it closer to $6 this summer, and the skies the limit from that point on. But you should care that purchasers of new boats care, because if you buy used, its eventually going to trickle down to you.

I keep coming back to the Tige, and I haven't seen a good response to it yet. If Tige has figured out how to make a boat throw a big wake, and do it efficiently, which I hear owners saying, then its just laziness by the other manufacturers to put any emphasis on it. But then again, I don't know if those claims are legitimate or not, because there are no publishing standards for efficiency.

Anyway, people are just repeating themselves at this point, so I am going to bow out of this discussion.

Ultimately, with the way I fear gas prices are going, the boat industry is going to pay a price sooner than later without getting creative with fuel economy. General aviation has already learned this lesson. They didn't care, and neither did the owners, until AVGas spiked (currently $7.44 a gallon at my airport). When I got my license back in 2004, AVGas would something around $2.50 a gallon. It has tripled now. Now people are flying a lot less, the inefficient planes have tanked in value (because no one can afford to fly them), and plenty of manufacturers have just gone out of business. There are also fewer licensed pilots. Not to mention prices on planes went through the roof, much like how wakeboard boats have been going. Just driving it more and more to an elite only hobby, and I didn't grow up with it being that way (boating).

And no, its not a world hunger issue. However. if you actually care about something, you want to foster its growth, not its demise.

But there are HUNDREDS of more fuel efficient boats available to the consumer. Wakeboard boats are a TINY % of the market and will likely remain that way forever. You can buy a small Baja with a 90hp outboard etc if you are looking for a cost effective way to spend the day on the water.

Boating and flying are probably two of the best ways ever to burn through disposable income! Throw in horses and you have the trifecta of ridiculous spending.....and yet here we are :D

OldDad 02-22-2013 8:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarZin (Post 1808097)
This world obviously lacks in people that have good reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.

The world also lacks a little self awareness. An electric car and a private plane? LOL!!! You can't make this stuff up folks.

CarZin 02-22-2013 8:15 AM

My original point was wanting a totalizer on the boat, so I can figure out the most efficient cruising speeds, and decide if that extra 1000 pounds of ballast to make the wave 1 foot longer is worth at extra 2 gallons an hour. It also helps at fillup not to overfill knowing what you've burned, and from personal experiece, seeing fuel flow issues can help diagnose engine issues. Its really that simple. All the rest of this stuff has just been silly extensions of that feature, which are personal, and not needed to give me a damned totaler.

I know I can buy them aftermarket, but I don't want to junk up a clean dash with aftermarket gauges for something that should be an option anyway. For heaven's sake, if I can spend $500 on LED speaker rings, a totalier for $500 isn't exactly out of line.

CarZin 02-22-2013 8:17 AM

Quote:

The world also lacks a little self awareness. An electric car and a private plane? LOL!!! You can't make this stuff up folks.
It definitely doesn't lack in people that think they actually have a clue about the motivations of others.

OldDad 02-22-2013 8:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarZin (Post 1808101)
Somehow I bet many of the people that think fuel economy isnt an issue, go out of their way to find the cheapest gas on the lake, or tow their boat onshore to fill it with cheaper ethanol based fuels to save a few bucks :) A lot of dishonesty in this thread :)

And I'd be amazed if the people with the big towing rigs haven't complained about what it costs to fill their SUVs.

And for the record, for me, this has nadda to do with the environment. I am also a registered Republican. So you can bark up a different tree if you want to paint me as some tree hugging hipster.

man, from the way some of you are reacting, you'd think I called your wife ugly and kicked your kids in the face.

No, but nice try. What I'm saying is you sound like a guy who just bought an ice cream cone and want to complain about the calories. The rest of us are shaking our heads, saying "Duh! What did you think you were buying??"

I bought (in this case leased) a big SUV. It would be silly to complain about the mileage. I knew full well going in. Just as you knew full well going in that an airplane was going to be more expensive than flying commercial, yet you made the purchase anyway. If we didn't allow our hearts to overrule our brains, there would be no boating industry! No man on this board wants to arm his wife with information like fuel burn rate. Not ever!!! Before you know it, she's looking in my golf bag adding it all up. NOTHING good can come from that!! Ever!!! :D

CarZin 02-22-2013 8:21 AM

Quote:

What I'm saying is you sound like a guy who just bought an ice cream cone and want to complain about the calories. The rest of us are shaking our heads, saying "Duh! What did you think you were buying??"
No, I'm like the guy who bought an ice cream cone that says, "Man, this is awesome, but wouldn't it be even better if it were less calories."

OldDad 02-22-2013 8:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarZin (Post 1808106)
It definitely doesn't lack in people that think they actually have a clue about the motivations of others.

LOL! What is your specialty?

OldDad 02-22-2013 8:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarZin (Post 1808109)
No, I'm like the guy who bought an ice cream cone that says, "Man, this is awesome, but wouldn't it be even better if it were less calories."

They call it yogurt.

CarZin 02-22-2013 8:27 AM

This is not the forum for those discussions. But in short, it has everything to do with diversifying away from a single fuel sourced economy and giving the consumer substitution from a purely oil driven society. It has to do with reducing our FTD. It has to do with insulating us from the repeated economic pains we have repeated time after time with high oil prices. It has to do with not needing to send our troops overseas to protect foreign oil infrastructure. Suffice it to say, for my personal motivations, it has nothing to do with the environment.

Am I going to live my life in total sacrifice of those beliefs? No. Am I going to do what little I can? Sure.

Nordicron 02-22-2013 8:29 AM

I get what Zin is saying. If all else is equal I think fuel usage does play a part. I know on my last wakeboard search I wanted a boat with a PCM because on average they were known to be slightly more fuel efficient engines than indmar.

Same goes when I bought my suburban, I looked at ford expedition but everyone knew at the time that the suburbans got better mpg.

Now if it comes down to a new star or new G for some folks I do think that 19gph vs 9gph(which I don't believe) will have some factor in people's decisions. But again this is only a small small factor in many.

OldDad 02-22-2013 8:52 AM

If fuel consumption were that important, then he would find another sport or stick to cable parks. It is simply silly to say you are concerned about fuel consumption while justifying a private plane and wakeboard boat. Those two things are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Like I said, it's like some celebrity greenie driving a Prius to get on the G5. A complete lack of self awareness. The only thing sadder is standing there, pointing fingers at everybody else. Seriously????

Now, are some people going to get priced out of wake boarding? Absolutely. It's a really expensive sport. Is the guy buying a G23 going to get priced out? Not very likely. If they are, then they are making a bad decision to begin with. Guys here that are hardcore are looking for a specific wake size or shape. Most often, they spend serious money to make their boats LESS efficient to achieve it. I probably put 70 hours a year on our boat (northern climate - what are we thinking?) at $5-6 a gallon at the marina. It's cheaper to put it on the trailer and buy gas down the road but if we want fuel on the lake, we have to support them. If I know I am pulling the boat, I will fill up on the road. That's just common sense.

CarZin 02-22-2013 9:01 AM

I deal with this all the time having an electric car. The people on opposing side trying to put words in your mouth to make their argument look better. When did I point fingers, exactly? hehe

Is there an ignore function on this forum?

OldDad 02-22-2013 9:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarZin (Post 1808127)
I deal with this all the time having an electric car. The people on opposing side trying to put words in your mouth to make their argument look better.

Is there an ignore function on this forum?

Thanks for playing Doc. I'll leave you alone. It was an entertaining conversation. Hope spring arrives soon wherever you are.

MattieK27 02-22-2013 9:55 AM

I just like the fact the guy arguing about oil/fuel consumption got a boat with 4300 lbs of ballast.

Yes, you truly are "doing what little you can."

CarZin 02-22-2013 10:01 AM

Considering I bought a car that prevented me from using 1,000 gallons of fuel in the first year alone, I think I am. Its called offsetting. Heard of it? I also keep the boat stored at the marina, and don't have to waste money hauling it back and forth with a big tow vehicle (I live 1.5 hours from the lake). So I've more than made up for my guilty pleasure.

MattieK27 02-22-2013 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarZin (Post 1808134)
Considering I bought a car that prevented me from using 1,000 gallons of fuel in the first year alone, I think I am. Its called offsetting. Heard of it?

Yep, I have heard of it. I am also familiar with the terms "ironic" and "hypocritical."

Justify it how you want, but no one in the boating community should be touting their decisions as "eco-conscious"....

CarZin 02-22-2013 10:09 AM

You may be familiar with those words, but you clearly don't know what they mean as they don't relate to my argument at all.'

Find one spot up there where I was talking about being ecoconscious?

oh, wait... YOU CAN'T> So shut up

OldDad 02-22-2013 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarZin (Post 1808134)
Considering I bought a car that prevented me from using 1,000 gallons of fuel in the first year alone, I think I am. Its called offsetting. Heard of it? I also keep the boat stored at the marina, and don't have to waste money hauling it back and forth with a big tow vehicle (I live 1.5 hours from the lake). So I've more than made up for my guilty pleasure.

:rolleyes:

MattieK27 02-22-2013 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarZin (Post 1808137)
You may be familiar with those words, but you clearly don't know what they mean as they don't relate to my argument at all.

Nah, I am pretty sure someone who just purchased a boat that is largely made of oil based materials, has 4300lbs of ballast, and chooses to get on their environmental soap box on a wakeboarding forum falls into the realm of irony and hypocritical thinking...

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarZin (Post 1808137)

Find one spot up there where I was talking about being ecoconscious?

oh, wait... YOU CAN'T> So shut up

You babble about fuel usage during this entire thread, is that not being eco conscious? Is the concept of oil usage offset not eco conscious?

CarZin 02-22-2013 10:15 AM

No, you're just an idiot.

Done with you all. I mean this in the kindest way. Screw off :)

MattieK27 02-22-2013 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarZin (Post 1808140)
No, you're just an idiot.

Done with you all. I mean this in the kindest way. Screw off :)

Personal insults? I guess you didn't have any other direction to go huh? :rolleyes:

michridr69 02-22-2013 10:18 AM

if I owned a G, the last thing id be worred about is fuel consumption. If you have a 125k boat and complain about fuel........ well you made a very unwise investment.

OldDad 02-22-2013 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarZin (Post 1808140)
No, you're just an idiot.

Done with you all. I mean this in the kindest way. Screw off :)

Guess we don't have a foot stomping, door slamming emoticon ;-)

MrPeepers 02-22-2013 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michridr69 (Post 1808142)
if I owned a G, the last thing id be worred about is fuel consumption. If you have a 125k boat and complain about fuel........ well you made a very unwise investment.

Yeah, it is the boating version of being "House Poor".


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 7:41 PM.