Fuel Efficiency - 08 VLX vs 08 SAN 210 TE

Is there a difference in fuel efficiency between these two boats? From a physics perspective, the wedge (whether up or down) causes unnecessary drag that could affect fuel efficiency. The SAN doesn't seem like it would have this same issue as the Hydrogate doesn't have a lip on it like the wedge does. I've never ridden in a SAN but on my buddy's old VLX it seemed as if he would always need to fill it up after a long day at the lake (6-8 riders + ballast + sometimes wedge). Am I off base here?

In my opinion both boats loaded down to create a solid wakeboard/ surf wake would probably be quite similar in fuel consumption at the end of the day, however I could be wrong. Wakeboard boats are inherently bad on fuel either way you look at it. I have a wakesetter with a wedge and I personally do not notice a difference in fuel consumption compared to my buddys x2 and x Star when wakeboarding with stock ballast at 22 mph. The wedge does create additional drag and you can definetly feel it down there during cornering and driving double ups but I wouldnt say it is noticeably different. I am interested to see what other peoples experiences with it have been.

The old original SAN made a great wake with little weight and sipped the gas. This is largely because the boat was more narrow.

A CC 2001 is even more efficient at producing a great wake since it is so narrow.

It will be interesting to see if wakeboard boat companies start to consider fuel efficiency.

Imagine a closed bow CC 2001 vdrive with ballast in the floor/bow and forward/rear faced seating for 4 or 5.

The wedge pulls the boat down based on speed of water running over the water wing. This is different from ballast that pulls a boat down at any speed. So, in my guess, the wedge would be more efficient.

An interesting system would be a purevert style system that fills up relatively fast when on plane and dumps when done with the pull. Not sure if more energy would be lost moving all that water around but I guess thats what boats do.

I would also bet that a good trim tab controlled automatically as we get up to speed will save a ton of fuel spent during the getting onto plane process.

"An interesting system would be a purevert style system that fills up relatively fast when on plane and dumps when done with the pull" (gd)


GD, i think we both have mentioned this in prior threads, but I am 100% on board with you here. the gravity system mb has fills in 60seconds or so, that is short enough to wait for full ballast. my boat takes 23 seconds to plane when fully loaded, so whats another 40 seconds to have full ballast...

apparently there is someone local to me who has had his hand in the industry pretty heavily who is working on a system similar to this. I haven't heard anything for 6 months, although i have only met him a couple times...

I do believe the PCM delivers better fuel economy than the Indmar. I have nothing to back that up other than posts I have read. It seams the BU needs more ballast than the San to make a good wake. I rarely have to put in more than stock ballast to please any rider on my 210. One thing for sure more weight [or wedge] adds to drag more drag will take more fuel.

I highly doubt there is any noticable fuel consumption differences between a PCM motor and an Indmar motor. They are both GM motors with a few parts swapped out and custom tuning.

The only way to really make this comparision is to have two boats with simliar motors running the same prop.. The VLX could have a couple different motors in it, as I'm sure the SAN could as well. I doubt the wedge in the up position makes any noticable change in fuel consumption.

no matter what boat you use you will always need to fill up after a long day of use with 6-8 riders.

fuel efficiency and boats do not mix. boats are fuel pigs. if you are worried about fuel efficiency find another sport. just sayin.