Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Boats, Accessories & Tow Vehicles

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    J.B. O'Neill (gnarslayer)      Join Date: Sep 2008       01-28-2012, 7:33 AM Reply   
obviously the 409 has more power, but how much of a difference does it really make? how much more weight can it push? will i save gas under the load?
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       01-28-2012, 8:00 AM Reply   
our twb 23 has the 343. We've propped it down a bit (Acme 1433 -- similar to 1235, just smaller diameter) and it gets out of the hole fine with full ballast. We're at altitude, usually running at 4000' or more. One lake we go to is at 5000', and with full ballast and a boat full of people I could see wanting a bit more power just for the holeshot. But it's not like it won't get out of the hole, it just doesn't JUMP out. At lower altitudes its great.

As a $6000 upgrade (?), you've got to save a lot of gas for the 409 to pay for itself.
Old    D.F.T.R. Josh (downfortheride)      Join Date: Jun 2005       01-28-2012, 8:03 AM Reply   
Ha we were just talking about this here for UT. Will it really be worth the 409 or will the 343 with the plate do it. We don't crazy load the boat, only 450 over stock. When it comes to resale will most buyers know the difference and want to pay the difference? Thanks J.B. I will be keeping and eye on this thread... What engine did the one have that you demo'd?
Old    B Beasley (ProvoMB52)      Join Date: Nov 2011       01-28-2012, 8:22 AM Reply   
We run the 409 in our 2012 MB 23TWB, with the trim plate. The plate does make a difference for the 23, and the guys at Reboats here in Utah, tell me their experience is that the plate should be on the spec sheet for the 21 footers for sure, and they order it on the 23's as well. The 409 is the standard order for the 23's, and I'm sure the 343 would be sufficient with the plate, but our '08 23' (which did not have a plate), was incapable of getting up on plane even with the ZR6 390 hp, with our normal load (full stock ballast, and about 10 people).

There is always something to be said for more ponies, and more torque.
Old    D.F.T.R. Josh (downfortheride)      Join Date: Jun 2005       01-28-2012, 8:36 AM Reply   
Hope to see your new MB on the lake Beasley! Did you Re Prop your 2012 yet or what prop did it come with?
Old    B Beasley (ProvoMB52)      Join Date: Nov 2011       01-28-2012, 8:56 AM Reply   
We did prop down to the 1433, and held onto the original spec (1125) for use at Lake Powell. Going to the boat show at SouthTowne?

Last edited by ProvoMB52; 01-28-2012 at 9:05 AM.
Old    Bruizza (bruizza)      Join Date: May 2009       01-28-2012, 8:59 AM Reply   
We always order the big engine. I have never once been like "man I wish I didn't have all this power" Been on plenty of boats though where the owner say "I wish I had more power" However I live in the Denver area and boat at 5k+ feet. Could be totally different at lower elevations.

Last edited by bruizza; 01-28-2012 at 9:01 AM.
Old    Bryce (brycejb328)      Join Date: Aug 2009       01-28-2012, 9:23 AM Reply   
rode a 21 twb with the 343, full stock ballast and 2 guys in boat, no trim plate. No problems at all. Judging from that... it could easily take another 1,000 pounds and be fine.
Old    D.F.T.R. Josh (downfortheride)      Join Date: Jun 2005       01-28-2012, 9:50 AM Reply   
Beasley ~ For sure I will be hitting the boat show... Best day to put some miles on the sneakers! Can't wait to see the new F21 that www.reboatsutah.com will have and all the other changes for the other manufactures.
Old    Ian Brown (wakereviews)      Join Date: Sep 2006       01-28-2012, 11:37 AM Reply   
If we are talking MBs, my 23 twb has the 343 and does fine with full ballast. Unless I had altitude issues, I would stick with the 343.
Old    DBC (ixfe)      Join Date: Aug 2008       01-28-2012, 11:52 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by downfortheride View Post
When it comes to resale will most buyers know the difference and want to pay the difference?
If this in an MB discussion, see my thoughts below. I can't speak for Tige or Nautique.

If you pay $6,000 to upgrade to the 409 on an MB you will never see the money at resale. What makes MB such a great resale is the quality at that magic $50K-ish price point. If you plan to resale soon, you can't cripple the boat with $6K upgrades, even for an upgraded engine. Most buyers don't even ask about the motor.

I have had two 21' MB's with 343 and they have both had plenty of power. I once loaded my F21 with 4K in ballast (stock + 2000 + driver) and I had to use my plate to get out of the hole... but with that plate it was easy easy. The wake was stupid at that weight... I'm not sure why anybody would ever want to do that unless you can throw every trick in the book. The stock ballast makes such a huge perfect wake I don't see any reason to add extra ballast (the day I did it was at the request of my boat salesman who is a crazy good rider).

The only way I'd be even remotely tempted to get the 409 would be if I was getting a 23 and I had no plans to resale anytime soon. But even then my buddy has a 23 with 343 and the plate and it's perfect. Plenty of power. Afterall, the 23 only weighs 200 lbs. more than the 21.
Old    jkw (lakesurfer)      Join Date: Jul 2009       01-28-2012, 12:42 PM Reply   
I have the 409 in my Enzo 244 (Nati, MB, Tige and Centurion run PCM engines). I could not imagine running the 343 in that boat. With that said, the 343 in a 22' or 23' ft boat should be just fine (especially if you run the right prop). The only way you would nee the 409 in the smaller boat is if you ran a lot of weight a wakeboard speed. You should be able to run all the weight at surf speed with either engine.

Note: I am assuming you are using this boat to surf/wakeboard. If you are looking to ski/barefoot, you may definitely want the bigger engine just for top end speed.

Last edited by lakesurfer; 01-28-2012 at 12:44 PM.
Old    Kevin R Baugh (krbaugh)      Join Date: Mar 2002       01-28-2012, 12:49 PM Reply   
"If you are looking to ski/barefoot, you may definitely want the bigger engine just for top end speed. "

Yep I got the PCM 450 in my Centurion Enzo 211.... I never again want to hear the wife say....I told you to get the bigger engine (-:
Old    doug rose (dougr)      Join Date: Dec 2009       01-28-2012, 1:23 PM Reply   
lakesurfer, what prop did you get with your boat?
Old    B Beasley (ProvoMB52)      Join Date: Nov 2011       01-28-2012, 1:24 PM Reply   
I normally agree with DBC on this and other forums, but on this one item, I will choose to disagree. IMHO, and my experience, one of the first questions out of my mouth, or the mouths of others in my circle of boating friends, is what engine is in a particular boat. If the answer, in this instance was, "you won't be able to feel the difference between the two engines, and the cost differential is not worth it."

Test drive will provide the empirical evidence.

As I said, the 343, in the right boat, and with the right conditions (weight, prop, altitude, plate, etc.) should be fine. But before I would have ever accepted a 23' boat with a 343, with the loads we normally carry, and looking for the ability to still get a skier up when necessary, I would make sure to drive them both.

BTW, I'm not sure the premium for the upgraded engine is truly $6000. Does anyone know that for sure? My spec sheet differential, was considerable less than that.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       01-28-2012, 2:52 PM Reply   
What you need to be looking at is displacement and torque. These are directly related. Are the 343 HP and 409 HP engines the same displacement? If so, torque will be similar, but the 409 will likely have less torque at lower RPM but make up for it in more torque and HP at higher RPM. You'll be changing props with either and the 409 won't get out of the hole much better, if at all. They may even ship the boats with different props based on engine HP.

If the 409 HP engine has more displacement then go for it, no question to it. More displacement means more torque at all RPM unless the builder really screwed up. In a sacked out towboat application a 350 HP big block will outperform a 450 HP small block... Just the way it is.
Old    J.B. O'Neill (gnarslayer)      Join Date: Sep 2008       01-28-2012, 3:54 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadunkle View Post
What you need to be looking at is displacement and torque. These are directly related. Are the 343 HP and 409 HP engines the same displacement? If so, torque will be similar, but the 409 will likely have less torque at lower RPM but make up for it in more torque and HP at higher RPM. You'll be changing props with either and the 409 won't get out of the hole much better, if at all. They may even ship the boats with different props based on engine HP.

If the 409 HP engine has more displacement then go for it, no question to it. More displacement means more torque at all RPM unless the builder really screwed up. In a sacked out towboat application a 350 HP big block will outperform a 450 HP small block... Just the way it is.
you are saying the 409 hp engine will get out of the hole around the same as a 343???

i am really looking to slam the boat i get as much as possible maybe 3000 lbs on top of stock. if thats possible?

i am looking into getting and mb f21 because of their awesome pricing and great wake, but no this is not an MB thread.

Knowledge from any boat owner with either of these engines would be great.

I read that the 343 has 403 ft.-lbs. of torque and the 409 has 492 ft.-lbs. of torque. this seems like it would get out of the hole much better with the 409?
Old    Johnny (johnny_defacto)      Join Date: Sep 2006       01-28-2012, 4:08 PM Reply   
JB. 3k over stock (4800?). No question, go for the 409. You may be able to make the 343 work with that weight with a super aggressive prop, but man you will be running high rpms at riding speed (especially since, i am assuming, you are riding around 25mph).

I dont have an mb, or pcm, so this is probably close to worthless... however, I have the indmar 335, OJ "core" 4 blade prop, 4000lbs ballast, riding near sea level (800ft or so?) and with full tank, 5 adults, stereo equipment, and gear, I can barely plane. On top of that I am running high rpms (riding at 25mph) and my top speed with my prop is 34ish. I do have an extra foot of boat over the f21 though. (I have a brand new OJ cinco prop sitting on my workbench waiting to get my boat back so I can test it, it will significantly reduce my rpms and increase my top speed and should have same hole shot).

If I were you, with your weight intensions, just go with the 409 and have no regrets.

Last edited by johnny_defacto; 01-28-2012 at 4:09 PM. Reason: spelling
Old    D.F.T.R. Josh (downfortheride)      Join Date: Jun 2005       01-28-2012, 4:11 PM Reply   
J.B. ~ I'm sure pricing has to do something with it but slamming a boat why not just go for the 409?
Old    Cole K (SkySki)      Join Date: Feb 2010       01-28-2012, 4:12 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnarslayer View Post
you are saying the 409 hp engine will get out of the hole around the same as a 343???

i am really looking to slam the boat i get as much as possible maybe 3000 lbs on top of stock. if thats possible?

i am looking into getting and mb f21 because of their awesome pricing and great wake, but no this is not an MB thread.

Knowledge from any boat owner with either of these engines would be great.

I read that the 343 has 403 ft.-lbs. of torque and the 409 has 492 ft.-lbs. of torque. this seems like it would get out of the hole much better with the 409?
Please post pictures if you end up with 4800 lbs in the F21. That is definitely not something I have seen yet.
Old    J.B. O'Neill (gnarslayer)      Join Date: Sep 2008       01-28-2012, 4:13 PM Reply   
i am also going to prop the boat, not sure which prop yet but i will have my local prop dealer Nettles help me pick the right one.

my boat will be in lake austin which is a little more than 500 ft above sea level, so altitude isnt really a problem
Old    B Beasley (ProvoMB52)      Join Date: Nov 2011       01-28-2012, 4:21 PM Reply   
As far as deciding which prop you really want, I would go onto Acme's website, www.acmemarine.com and use their performance template, and fill out all the data, and let the guys at Acme tell you which prop in their arsenal will really serve your needs best. I know all of us out here will have our own opinions, but the reality is that the guys at Acme have the research data to back up their recommendation.

Good luck with your decision.
Old     (simplej)      Join Date: Sep 2011       01-28-2012, 4:31 PM Reply   
I read the 343 has 420ft lbs? Regardless JB maybe this can help. We inquired when we got our boat about a 409, we were told since we're only gunna run up to 3k in a small boat it would be enough. The reason being that the torque comes earlier in the power band than the 409 so the hole shot is almost the same. But since you're gunna run 5k, you animal, id say 409, plus then you probably wouldn't need a plate
Old    A.J. West (you_da_man)      Join Date: Sep 2009       01-28-2012, 5:19 PM Reply   
Haven't seen anyone mention it so I'll ask. With JB wanting to run so much ballast and I believe he keeps his boats for a while, how will the 343 fair in longevity vs the 409 with regular heavy loads?
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       01-28-2012, 5:32 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnarslayer View Post
you are saying the 409 hp engine will get out of the hole around the same as a 343???

i am really looking to slam the boat i get as much as possible maybe 3000 lbs on top of stock. if thats possible?

i am looking into getting and mb f21 because of their awesome pricing and great wake, but no this is not an MB thread.

Knowledge from any boat owner with either of these engines would be great.

I read that the 343 has 403 ft.-lbs. of torque and the 409 has 492 ft.-lbs. of torque. this seems like it would get out of the hole much better with the 409?
If they are the same displacement, and given running the same prop... Yes the 409 HP engine will have a comparable holeshot to the 343. The 409 will pull stronger at higher RPM though. 492 ft/lbs sounds like a lot for a ~350 inch package. What is the displacement of each engine? If they are the same you'll likely find at peak torque RPM of the 343 (probably 3500 or so) the 409 will be around the same torque number but will keep climbing.

Basically what I'm saying is that if these two engines are the same displacement the 409 HP engine will have to turn a higher RPM to actually use the power. For the average person that might mean the 409 HP engine will offer little performance difference.

In your case of 3000 lbs + whatever stock is you'll need all the power you can get. Propped to ride at 4000+ RPM the 343 HP engine may still struggle and speed may vary. The 409 may turn the same 4000+ but will have more power and torque at that higher RPM and be able to hold a steady speed easily. You'll be changing props (gearing) for that much weight anyhow, so get the higher power engine. You'll be turning lots of RPM with that weight in a small block boat so best to have the max power at the higher RPM you'll be turning.

To expand though, all this kind of assumes running the same gearing. Trans ratio and prop both change gearing. Think of early boats with "powerslot" transmissions. Big block boats (more displament, 454 cubic inches) got 1:1 ratio normal transmissions and might turn 2200 RPM at 21 MPH. A small block boat might get a powerslot trans at 1.21:1 and might turn 2700 RPM at 21 MPH. Say the small block makes 340 ft/lbs and the big block makes 430 ft/lbs. At 21 MPH the small block boat is turning 500 RPM more but with torque multiplication it will be putting 411 ft/;bs to the prop shaft. This is a gross oversimplification, but the gearing makes up for the lack of torque so the small block boat can pull a similar load. The sacrifice is more RPM, increased engine wear and increased fuel consumption.

Of course the small block will also run out of RPM sooner and have a lower top speed, due to the gearing. Changing props is the same idea... And why I mentioned the 343 and 409 boats may come from the factory with different props.

The bigger engine (displacement) will always do the same work as the smaller engine (displacement) at a lower RPM. That is why given a particular scenario you're always better off with the bigger engine. For lighter loads (less ballast) the bigger engine may not help much. Sure it'll be able to pull the same weight at a lower RPM but you'll still burn a little more fuel. You will have a higher top end speed since it won't need as much gear reduction (trans and/or prop) to do the work needed at riding speed. This is why I say find out the displacement of each. Given 492 ft/lbs I suspect the 409 HP engine has a small amount more displacement.

Regardless, In your application you're gonna heave a screamer no matter what. The 343 may be a marginal screamer while the 409 should be more comfortable doing what you ask of it and may require slightly less RPM. Again, with the weight you plan to run I'd go with the higher output engine. You'll be changing props no matter what.
Old    J.B. O'Neill (gnarslayer)      Join Date: Sep 2008       01-28-2012, 5:33 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by you_da_man View Post
Haven't seen anyone mention it so I'll ask. With JB wanting to run so much ballast and I believe he keeps his boats for a while, how will the 343 fair in longevity vs the 409 with regular heavy loads?
i will probably own the boat i choose for the next 8 years. my supra has been with us since 04 but have ran stock ballast untill late 2011.

i will probably be riding the boat with a large amount of ballast but not always 3000 on top of stock.
i listed a very high weight to see if you guys thought it was possible.

i emailed pcm engines to get more information on the differences and also messaged a friend which is a local nautique salesman and has tested plenty of pcm motors.

i will post up the information i learn
Old    J.B. O'Neill (gnarslayer)      Join Date: Sep 2008       01-28-2012, 5:38 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadunkle View Post
If they are the same displacement, and given running the same prop... Yes the 409 HP engine will have a comparable holeshot to the 343. The 409 will pull stronger at higher RPM though. 492 ft/lbs sounds like a lot for a ~350 inch package. What is the displacement of each engine? If they are the same you'll likely find at peak torque RPM of the 343 (probably 3500 or so) the 409 will be around the same torque number but will keep climbing.

Basically what I'm saying is that if these two engines are the same displacement the 409 HP engine will have to turn a higher RPM to actually use the power. For the average person that might mean the 409 HP engine will offer little performance difference.

In your case of 3000 lbs + whatever stock is you'll need all the power you can get. Propped to ride at 4000+ RPM the 343 HP engine may still struggle and speed may vary. The 409 may turn the same 4000+ but will have more power and torque at that higher RPM and be able to hold a steady speed easily. You'll be changing props (gearing) for that much weight anyhow, so get the higher power engine. You'll be turning lots of RPM with that weight in a small block boat so best to have the max power at the higher RPM you'll be turning.

To expand though, all this kind of assumes running the same gearing. Trans ratio and prop both change gearing. Think of early boats with "powerslot" transmissions. Big block boats (more displament, 454 cubic inches) got 1:1 ratio normal transmissions and might turn 2200 RPM at 21 MPH. A small block boat might get a powerslot trans at 1.21:1 and might turn 2700 RPM at 21 MPH. Say the small block makes 340 ft/lbs and the big block makes 430 ft/lbs. At 21 MPH the small block boat is turning 500 RPM more but with torque multiplication it will be putting 411 ft/;bs to the prop shaft. This is a gross oversimplification, but the gearing makes up for the lack of torque so the small block boat can pull a similar load. The sacrifice is more RPM, increased engine wear and increased fuel consumption.

Of course the small block will also run out of RPM sooner and have a lower top speed, due to the gearing. Changing props is the same idea... And why I mentioned the 343 and 409 boats may come from the factory with different props.

The bigger engine (displacement) will always do the same work as the smaller engine (displacement) at a lower RPM. That is why given a particular scenario you're always better off with the bigger engine. For lighter loads (less ballast) the bigger engine may not help much. Sure it'll be able to pull the same weight at a lower RPM but you'll still burn a little more fuel. You will have a higher top end speed since it won't need as much gear reduction (trans and/or prop) to do the work needed at riding speed. This is why I say find out the displacement of each. Given 492 ft/lbs I suspect the 409 HP engine has a small amount more displacement.

Regardless, In your application you're gonna heave a screamer no matter what. The 343 may be a marginal screamer while the 409 should be more comfortable doing what you ask of it and may require slightly less RPM. Again, with the weight you plan to run I'd go with the higher output engine. You'll be changing props no matter what.
thanks for this reply i will most likely go for the 409
Old    jkw (lakesurfer)      Join Date: Jul 2009       01-28-2012, 6:25 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougr View Post
lakesurfer, what prop did you get with your boat?
Currently running the upgraded stock prop that Centurion now runs. It works just find with the 409 and low altitude here in TX. I am going to buy a spare prop in the Spring, so I will do a little more research to make sure I have the right prop.
Old    DBC (ixfe)      Join Date: Aug 2008       01-28-2012, 6:35 PM Reply   
^^^ Good call given your weight requirements and desire to hang onto the boat for a long time.

Buy I'd still get the trim tab if I were you.
Old    DBC (ixfe)      Join Date: Aug 2008       01-28-2012, 6:36 PM Reply   
343 is 5.7L

409 is 6.0L

Why don't you get the 6.2L 550hp PCM???
Old    Kevin R Baugh (krbaugh)      Join Date: Mar 2002       01-28-2012, 6:52 PM Reply   
Have you ever heard a boat owner say....dang I wish I had gotten a smaller motor
Old     (Bam6961)      Join Date: Apr 2011       01-28-2012, 8:15 PM Reply   
Didn't MB used to have 2 speed transmissions??that would work perfectly with the 6.0L. - i would definitly try to get that done if still possible. cuz then you don't have to worry about running those high rpms which means your engine will last longer.

5.7l to 6.0l isn't to much of a difference down at the lower Rpms but probably some where around 3500 it will start to jump.. sounds like its just a 350ci that is bored and stroked to 383ci.
Old    J.B. O'Neill (gnarslayer)      Join Date: Sep 2008       01-28-2012, 8:40 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by ixfe View Post
343 is 5.7L

409 is 6.0L

Why don't you get the 6.2L 550hp PCM???
because a 450 hp motor is difficult to find in a used boat but i found 409s in a few and i would probably go brand new with a 343
Old    Darren Yearsley (ralph)      Join Date: Apr 2002       01-28-2012, 9:58 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by krbaugh View Post
Have you ever heard a boat owner say....dang I wish I had gotten a smaller motor
Have you ever heard anybody say....dang I wish I had $6000 more dollars?
Old    Kevin R Baugh (krbaugh)      Join Date: Mar 2002       01-28-2012, 10:01 PM Reply   
yep
Old    Kevin R Baugh (krbaugh)      Join Date: Mar 2002       01-28-2012, 10:02 PM Reply   
and lots that said I should have gotten the bigger engine or I am going to trade for a new boat with a bigger engine
Old    DBC (ixfe)      Join Date: Aug 2008       01-28-2012, 11:28 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProvoMB52 View Post
I normally agree with DBC on this and other forums, but on this one item, I will choose to disagree. IMHO, and my experience, one of the first questions out of my mouth, or the mouths of others in my circle of boating friends, is what engine is in a particular boat. If the answer, in this instance was, "you won't be able to feel the difference between the two engines, and the cost differential is not worth it."

Test drive will provide the empirical evidence.

As I said, the 343, in the right boat, and with the right conditions (weight, prop, altitude, plate, etc.) should be fine. But before I would have ever accepted a 23' boat with a 343, with the loads we normally carry, and looking for the ability to still get a skier up when necessary, I would make sure to drive them both.

BTW, I'm not sure the premium for the upgraded engine is truly $6000. Does anyone know that for sure? My spec sheet differential, was considerable less than that.
Not sure what you are disagreeing with... I think I said in a 409 in the 23 is a toss-up. In your case, at altitude, I would have done the same thing you did... get a 409 (or more).

My comment about people not asking was specific to resale. In my experience almost nobody asks about the engine, and those who do are usually impressed when you tell them it has a 5.7L V8. Who really expects more in a 21 foot boat? And technically the 343 is an upgrade over PCM's base 303hp motor (not offered by MB).

You are right that the upgrade is probably not really $6,000. In MB's case I believe it's more like $5,000 retail. But I have had a hell-of-a time trying to sell my 2012 F21, and it's been priced under $50k for months! I can't imagine trying to sell it for $4K - $5K higher due to an engine upgrade.

Last edited by ixfe; 01-28-2012 at 11:32 PM.
Old    B Beasley (ProvoMB52)      Join Date: Nov 2011       01-29-2012, 6:22 AM Reply   
Not that it was much of a point of disagreement, but that was my point: in Utah when you are buying a boat, whether new, or used, one of the first questions asked, if not the first, is what size motor is in the boat, or to be more specific, how many ponies? Altitude is a surprise in the way it affects performance. Like I've said, our '08 had the 390 ZR6, and even that motor wouldn't plane with our full load. (One of the reasons our new '12 absolutely was going to have the plate.)

Now to be sure the new hull design has a great deal to add in that conversation.

I am more than a little surprised you have had a challenge selling your boat for your price point. My bet would be that it'll be out of your garage by April. You've got a great looking boat, with all the standard options owners look for.

Good luck

Last edited by ProvoMB52; 01-29-2012 at 6:28 AM. Reason: added info
Old    Jon Hunter (hunter660)      Join Date: Aug 2007       01-29-2012, 8:25 AM Reply   
So is everyone in agreement that the 343 with a wake plate is adequate at sea level in the 23 TWB?

I have an X-10 now with the 330 LTR, I have run around 2500 ballast plus 10 people and I am happy with the performance not that I have a 5 blade prop.
Old    B Beasley (ProvoMB52)      Join Date: Nov 2011       01-29-2012, 9:56 AM Reply   
IMO, the 343 at sea level, with a trim plate, on the new 23 TWB should be sufficient, but I will admit I have absolutely no experience with the 23 TWB with the 343 installed, and running at sea level.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       01-29-2012, 1:21 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by hunter660 View Post
So is everyone in agreement that the 343 with a wake plate is adequate at sea level in the 23 TWB?

I have an X-10 now with the 330 LTR, I have run around 2500 ballast plus 10 people and I am happy with the performance not that I have a 5 blade prop.
I have the 343 and no plate in the twb 23 and we have no problems getting out of the hole. I have propped down to the 1433. We were a little slower out of the hole at 5,000' (but still could get on plane just fine) with 8 people in the boat and full ballast, and I'd think that if we did have the plate that would have been no prob.

At sea level I don't think you really need the plate at all on the twb 23, unless you are running really heavy (over stock). I have no experience with trying to run super heavy like that.
Old    Drew Richardson (surffresh)      Join Date: Jun 2010       01-30-2012, 4:08 PM Reply   
6 grand difference....hmmm, now if I said 6 grand extra for a deisel and half fuel consumption with more torque???? any interest there?
Old    Jon Hunter (hunter660)      Join Date: Aug 2007       01-30-2012, 4:25 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by surffresh View Post
6 grand difference....hmmm, now if I said 6 grand extra for a deisel and half fuel consumption with more torque???? any interest there?
Count me in!!!
Old    Kevin R Baugh (krbaugh)      Join Date: Mar 2002       01-30-2012, 9:30 PM Reply   
6k is way to much for an upgrade from the 343 to the zr409

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 2:48 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us