Indmar Engine in a X-star....

(uppledup17) · (uppledup17) **Join Date: Sep 2005** 09-18-2006, 2:18 PM

Besides the additional HP and Torque, can anyone tell me the advantages of going to this motor? Does the boat perform better on the high end with this motor? Are there Any disadvantages other than fuel costs?

(jcv) · (jcv) **Join Date: Oct 2005** 09-18-2006, 2:23 PM

i thought indmars, usually the MCX or 381?, are already in x-stars. are those the two you're trying to compare?

(uppledup17) · (uppledup17) **Join Date: Sep 2005** 09-18-2006, 2:28 PM

Yes Jeff, The MCX versus what I was told was the "cadillac" engine. I am looking at a few 04' X-stars and a couple have the 385 HP motor instead of the MCX. They have told me it is an option but I was curious what the advantages were?

(malibuboarder75)

From what I have read on here, the standard engine does fine if you get a wakeboard specific prop. I think if you plan on heavily weighting the boat (more than 2000lbs on top of stock ballast), you might see a little more fuel efficiency with the bigger engine.

(denverd1)

LQ9 is the caddy engine. Hammerhead is the 381, i think. like leo said, propped right, you should be fine with the MCX. unless you plan on putting 8ppl and 3K lbs in it

interesting.. i didn't think the 381 was an option on the star.

(Message edited by denverd1 on September 18, 2006)

(uppledup17) · (uppledup17) **Join Date: Sep 2005** 09-18-2006, 3:12 PM

Any disadvantages to the LQ9?

(jcv) · (jcv) **Join Date: Oct 2005** 09-18-2006, 3:20 PM

nacho, that's why i added the "?" because i wasn't sure of the name on the bigger engine. now i know

(tbonus) · (tbonus) **Join Date: Oct 2005** 09-18-2006, 3:58 PM

Two differences i am aware of are:

1) LQ-9 requires 93 octane and the MCX requires 89 octane fuel.

2) The LQ-9 only comes with closed water cooling because of the aluminum heads. (fyi - w/ closed water cooling system you can not run a shower system.)

(xaggie) · (xaggie) **Join Date: Nov 2002** 09-18-2006, 11:57 PM

The LQ-9 We had on our '03 X-30 was bad ass once you were up and running but as some have said I think the eng. is a little shallow on low end torque. Since we have gone with the 8.1 in our X-Stars' and I believe that it for sure is worth it even with just stock ballast +10 people. My 2 Cents, Matt

(driving) · (driving) **Join Date: Jan 2003** 09-19-2006, 6:26 AM

Adam,

I highly recommend the MCX. I can get any engine I like in my boat, and that's the one I go with. You just need to get the OJ 14.25x14.5 prop with the XMP edge. You will run lower rpm's and get better gas mileage out of it. I have had the LQ9 for the past 3 years and went with the MCX this year and couldn't be happier. I have up to 3400 lbs in the boat with as many as 8 people, and it will still do the job.

As far as gas, I run 87 all the time, no matter what engine I have, and I put over 800 hours a year on a boat with no issues. Just do all your scheduled maintenence and you will be fine.

(uppledup17) · (uppledup17) **Join Date: Sep 2005** 09-19-2006, 6:36 AM

Thanks guys for all your help guys but who is this Travis guy, "what does he know about boats"??

Just playin Travis, after hearing at Nationals, what it is it 1 million pulls or is it 2?~ I think I would take your advice over any. Thanks a bunch Travis, Peace.

(ronskal) · (ronskal) **Join Date: Jul 2006** 09-19-2006, 7:10 AM

Listen to Travis, not us scrubs!

It will be interesting to see how the new 6.0L
engine (07 MC's) with the variable valve timing performs out of the hole.