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 Archive > Archive through February 21, 2008

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Greg Hodgin (eccpaint)      Join Date: Feb 2002       02-13-2008, 7:36 PM Reply   
With the cost of fuel going up, I was wondering what the most fuel efficient wakeboard boat is. I only found one website with very limited info. They had current info on Malibu, Tige and couple of Mastercrafts , but the MC's were from '06.
www.boattest.com
The Tige averaged about 1 gallon an hour better. Are there any other boat test sites that have a more comprehensive list?
Old    882001 (882001)      Join Date: Nov 2003       02-13-2008, 7:39 PM Reply   
smaller hulls= smaller footprint =better fuel milleage
Old    Greg Hodgin (eccpaint)      Join Date: Feb 2002       02-13-2008, 7:42 PM Reply   
The Tiges are larger
Old    Nu Bu (05mobiuslsv)      Join Date: Apr 2006       02-13-2008, 7:45 PM Reply   
Tige's don't need ballast remember so they displace less water
Old    Steve Jones (steve_jones)      Join Date: Jun 2006       02-13-2008, 7:46 PM Reply   
My last Malibu VLX and Nautique 220 seemed to get better gas mileage than previous boats I've had, and we load them up to ride. I think it comes down to weight and the engine you choose.

I would also suggest looking at an Acme high altitude propeller. Hands down, it decreased our fuel consumption by over 20%.
Old    Jon Allen (jon_a)      Join Date: Feb 2003       02-13-2008, 7:48 PM Reply   
Supra's smartplate technology helps the boat get on plane faster, therefore burning less gas.
Old    Greg Hodgin (eccpaint)      Join Date: Feb 2002       02-13-2008, 7:50 PM Reply   
All the boats were tested with no ballast and the wedge up.
Old    Greg Hodgin (eccpaint)      Join Date: Feb 2002       02-13-2008, 7:51 PM Reply   
I am looking for independent studies.
Old    Kyle L (skier12)      Join Date: Mar 2006       02-13-2008, 7:53 PM Reply   
The Toyota's supposedly had very efficient engines.
Old    Darren Yearsley (ralph)      Join Date: Apr 2002       02-13-2008, 7:53 PM Reply   
I agree with 882001.

You have to compare how big the wake is relative to how much gas you burn. The tige using less isn't really relevant if the wake is 1/2 the size.
Old    Darren Yearsley (ralph)      Join Date: Apr 2002       02-13-2008, 7:55 PM Reply   
"All the boats were tested with no ballast and the wedge up"
Whats the point in that test, who rides with the ballast empty and wedge up?
Old    "G" (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       02-13-2008, 7:56 PM Reply   
MY AIR NAUTIQUE Its the Pryus of wakeboard boats
Old    SulMaxwell (sulmaxwell)      Join Date: Dec 2003       02-13-2008, 8:12 PM Reply   
hmmm....fuel efficiency and wake board boat...isn't that an oxy moron?
kind of like asking what kind of gas mileage a race car gets or how much it costs to fill this yacht up???if you have to ask...you probably shouldn't be playing the game...although i am curious to see if an 8.1 in an xstar consumes less fuel cause the engine is not working as hard...hmmmm
Old    Andy Graham (ottog1979)      Join Date: Apr 2007       02-13-2008, 9:37 PM Reply   
Funny, curiosity about my own gas usage had me start calculating this several months ago. Each time I fill up I write down the hours on the meter and how many gallons I put in. Subtract the previous hour reading from the current (just like car mileage) and divide that into the gallons at the fill-up. So far, I'm averaging about 4 gallons per hour that the motor is on. This is usually with our 400lbs of ballast full but each time has varying people in the boat. I only have 3 fill-ups to measure by so far but by next fall, I'll have a pretty accurate average of how much gas I use.

Anyone else has done this consistently and what do the numbers say?
Old    HeHateMe (hamkj)      Join Date: Apr 2002       02-13-2008, 9:43 PM Reply   
There is a new boat in the works... made of carbon fiber... Model name... G West 21V... It actually runs above the water surface and a wake making device deploys each time the rider cuts... so that is the only time there is drag on the hull... only when you need it. It is also a hybrid design... and the excess 12 volts that are generated... are directed towards the insane stereo system... which the sound waves are pushed through the water to help shape and firm up the wake.

Amazing technology... but then again.. what else would you expect from G-West Industries... "cutting edge!"
Old    Art (rallyart)      Join Date: Nov 2006       02-13-2008, 9:57 PM Reply   
I heard that that one had regenerative power from the elbow bends that happen with beer consumption. They use that to power the amps, I'm sure. My understanding is that when the drinking stops the stereo shuts down and everyone is ejected at the nearest pub.
I think they're getting some kind of ethanol fuel Grant from the gov't.
Old    Art (rallyart)      Join Date: Nov 2006       02-13-2008, 10:09 PM Reply   
I got just under 2 gallons per hour over 110 hours last summer. Of course that was wakeboarding with a 50# kid at about 13 MPH most of the time. Hitting it when surfing with my kids involves putting it in gear, then they are up. The slow speed really helps the GPH but not the MPG.
I'm going to blame the good fuel use on all that wood in my boat because it floats. (Jk)
Old    david rogers (davee22ve)      Join Date: Nov 2007       02-13-2008, 10:15 PM Reply   
In my experience my tige 22ve does seem to get better fuel economy. I went with 6 riders everyone took 2 pulls I took 3 and I still had 3/4 of a tank left we also had 1280 lbs of fat sacks.
Old    Chris Walker (redsupralaunch)      Join Date: Aug 2002       02-14-2008, 1:06 AM Reply   
Supra and Moomba with 340 CAT do about 10% better than without the CAT

I highly recommend the CAT for better fuel economy, performance and large reduction in CO
Old    882001 (882001)      Join Date: Nov 2003       02-14-2008, 5:37 AM Reply   
props will have a huge impact. a wakeboard prop on a boat without weight will make it get worse mileage .. but way better with weight. so a test of new boats without weight is kinda stupid.
Old    Matthew Bird (ldr)      Join Date: Nov 2002       02-14-2008, 6:31 AM Reply   
I also hear that toyota did very well on fuel economy.
Old    Greg Hodgin (eccpaint)      Join Date: Feb 2002       02-14-2008, 7:27 AM Reply   
I think the Toyota will have the best efficiency.

As far as testing goes... I guess you have to start with a base line ( no weight) but where do you go from there? There are so many variables, Do you put the same amount of weight in all or do you add weight so they all have same overall weight? Will the weight be in the back, front, side lockers? Will the wedge be up, down in between, TAPS up , down, in the middle? I guess the manufacturers will want them to test for optimum fuel efficiency, then it will be up to us (the consumer) to lower it with weight & other wake enhancing devices.

I'm just surprised there isn't more research out there.
Old    david rogers (davee22ve)      Join Date: Nov 2007       02-14-2008, 7:54 AM Reply   
I think the test should be just the stock boats. Every boat I have been behind even though not the prefered size of wake still have a nice wake stock so put the same amount of people in the boat and run them all day on the same schedule and course with the same amount of idle time, towing,and lake drive time. If your pulling fill all stock ballast put wedges down wake plates up. If you are traveling do the opposite and then at the end of the day see how much each boat burned. That would give you a good idea of each boat then any extra weight from there should drag each boats efficiency down equally or close to it.

I am perfectly happy with my boats stock wake and with its fuel economy. however there are somedays I like to add to much weight and enjoy the huge fuel consuming wake but I also know if I take the weight out I can go up to lake powel and play hard every day all day and not have to be chasing fuel all the time.
Old    Dhtige Hill (dh03r6)      Join Date: Mar 2007       02-14-2008, 7:56 AM Reply   
toyota should bring them back they were nice looking boats
Old    Evil0ne (evil0ne)      Join Date: Sep 2006       02-14-2008, 8:17 AM Reply   

quote:

kind of like asking what kind of gas mileage a race car gets or how much it costs to fill this yacht up???




Actually in racing fuel efficiency is important. Fewer pit stops the better. That doesn't mean they're getting what is considered good mileage by the greenies, but 1mpg better then your competitor at the same speed will make a huge difference on the length and frequency of your pit stops.
Old    Cal (phenom_1819)      Join Date: Jan 2008       02-14-2008, 9:16 AM Reply   
My Toyota burned between 3-4 gph with ballast full (800 lbs on my boat). This, and the bullet-proof reliability of the engine, were the main reasons I was concerned about selling it. In four years, the boat never gave me one real problem. It was a sad day to see the new owner drive away with it, and I'm definitely going to miss it...

For more info, go to http://www.epicmarine.com.
Old    lakeski (lakeski)      Join Date: Dec 2006       02-14-2008, 6:20 PM Reply   
Ditto what Cal said.

Great boat with a great engine (click on my profile). It's the same V8 engine used in the flagship Lexus LS sedan. It's very easy on gas, using a fraction of what the typical inboard engine uses. My GPH is the same as Cal's Toyota.
Old    Trace (trace)      Join Date: Feb 2002       02-14-2008, 6:50 PM Reply   
Toyota built a great boat with a lot of refinement, but "a fraction of what a typical inboard uses" is pretty strong language for 3-4 gph vs. 4-5 gph. The Toyotas were also lacking in torque to push a lot of ballast. Load them down like most everyone does nowadays, and I doubt they would do any better than a smallblock in fuel consumption. Also, when it comes time for a rebuild, I'll take a pushrod SBC any day.
Old    Cal (phenom_1819)      Join Date: Jan 2008       02-14-2008, 7:28 PM Reply   
Actually, my consumption did not change much at all when fully loaded -- what killed consumption was running over about 28-30 mph. And I could get out of the hole just fine with 2000 lbs of ballast and more than a few people... This pic is me riding behind my Toyota when FULLY loaded (rear 800 lb. bag full, two 400 lb. bags on either side of engine full, and a 400 lb. bag in the walkway -- five people in the boat.
Upload
Old    MCXSTAR (snork)      Join Date: Jun 2007       02-14-2008, 7:43 PM Reply   
My 2007 XSTAR with 350HP MCX and cats, stock ballast + 750lbs burns < 6 gal. hour. Not sure I really want that ly6 in the new 2008 XSTAR
Old    lakeski (lakeski)      Join Date: Dec 2006       02-14-2008, 7:58 PM Reply   
I don't read many posts from boat owners who are proud about their GPH consumption. It's just not talked about very much and we all know why - boats are thirsty.

Fact is, 3-4 GPH is 20% to 25% less than 4-5 GPH. That's a pretty decent percentage that means considerably lower operating costs over time. Plus, a lot of inboards burn much more than 4-5.

Go to www.epicmarine.com and search "GPH." You'll see lots of posts from Toyota owners who are pretty happy when it comes to low fuel consumption and low operating costs.

GPH is a popular topic on the Toyota site, not a topic that gets swept under the rug. Read the posts from actual owners and you'll see that "fraction" is a fair word.
Old    TigeMike (chpthril)      Join Date: Oct 2007       02-15-2008, 6:09 AM Reply   
WOW, A New WakeWorld Record, 2 responses before it became a Tige bash thread.
Old    Nu Bu (05mobiuslsv)      Join Date: Apr 2006       02-15-2008, 8:02 AM Reply   
Come on tigemike don't get butthurt
Old    Bret (wakeride26)      Join Date: Dec 2006       02-15-2008, 8:24 AM Reply   
IMO opinion if you want fuel economy buy a Stingray. This is the first year I have ever had the fuel economy question come up at the boat show. I was shocked at how many dealers are actualy using this in their sales presentations to close deals. Loaded down v-drive wakeboats suck gas and lots of it no matter what brand is on the side. I personaly would not buy model x because of a 1gph difference in fuel consumption. Just drink cheap beer if it matters that much.
Old    ttduncan (ttduncan)      Join Date: Jan 2008       02-15-2008, 10:17 AM Reply   
why is it that so many people do not keep track of their fuel use? is it because all the cars have the computers on that tell us how many miles to empty? i am interested in the fuel use. i occasionally boat in locations that refueling can be difficult (lake powell, ut) and if you go dry, you could be in trouble. just keep a note of the hours on the engine and the gallons you put in.

in my boat search over the last two years i believe i found one dealer that would give me a range of fuel use, it was always "it depends on what you are doing" i understand that.

on the highway, sometimes i drive on roads that the best i can do is 60mph. i get great mpg then. some times on the interstate i average 85-90mph for 200-300 miles my mpg sucks.

redsupra: where did you get this?
Supra and Moomba with 340 CAT do about 10% better than without the CAT

one dealer i spoke (the only one who gave fuel use) with said he did not think it would be more than 1/4 to 1/2gph improvement with the CAT and that i should expect around 6gph with the 325.

no flame intended, just would like to know your reference or experience.

i recently rented a boat for a day of riding. the posted fuel use was 12-14gph. that really hurt at $5/gal on the water when we were done.
Old    Cal (phenom_1819)      Join Date: Jan 2008       02-15-2008, 10:50 AM Reply   
ttduncan -- at 5-6 gph, 10% and 0.5 gph are the same thing.
Old    TigeMike (chpthril)      Join Date: Oct 2007       02-15-2008, 10:52 AM Reply   
"Come on tigemike don't get butthurt

No "butthurt" here.

Ya'll are getting slow, they got in 2 replies before the first Tige comment.

I just wouldn't know what to do with all my free time if the (wake) World wasn't so full of misinformed boaters high on Hateraid Thanks WW, I have a reason to live!!!
Old    Nu Bu (05mobiuslsv)      Join Date: Apr 2006       02-15-2008, 11:54 AM Reply   
The tige sales pitch (feeding people full of crap) just makes it to easy though
Old    TigeMike (chpthril)      Join Date: Oct 2007       02-15-2008, 11:56 AM Reply   
^ I'll agree
Old    GrandmasterB (bp909)      Join Date: Oct 2007       02-15-2008, 12:19 PM Reply   
I remember reading a graph of a late 90 model Natique's gas consumption. It based rpm/mph aginst gph. 20 mph is best for gph vs speed. Don't remember what that rating was so I am not going to guestimate. When the speed was 40 mph the gph was 23. 40 is pretty much full throttle. So if you were running full throttle in that particular boat you would be out of gas in an hour. The motors have not improved much so it is safe to say it depends on weight, speed, and prop.
Old    ttduncan (ttduncan)      Join Date: Jan 2008       02-15-2008, 2:43 PM Reply   
cal, yes, you are correct.

i should have also said that the 1/4 was emphasized over the 1/2. the 1/4 would be 5%.

so here is my math: the 340 cat is around a $1600 add. average boat use at 80hrs/yr = 20gal/yr 20gal@$3/gal = $60 saving, $1600/$60 = 26 yrs to pay off on fuel(13 yrs if 10%)
Old    Bret (wakeride26)      Join Date: Dec 2006       02-15-2008, 3:47 PM Reply   
Exactly my point. not worth it trying to say my boat gets this and my boat gets that.... Everyone has to try and find a way to out do the next guy. why doesn't everyone just ride and enjoy what they do have....
Old    KEVIN (kko13)      Join Date: Jul 2006       02-15-2008, 5:50 PM Reply   
well when i asked my customers about fuel consumption. and i service every brand out there. there is one clear winner in this category. TIGE. with mastercraft being one of the worst. and dont even think about a jet boat those things suck fuel like its going out of style although i dont really like to compare these boats to REAL wakeboats. no offense to jet boat owners.

(Message edited by kko13 on February 15, 2008)
Old    Chris Walker (redsupralaunch)      Join Date: Aug 2002       02-15-2008, 9:13 PM Reply   
TTDUNCAN - I got that info 2 ways. Direct from Indmar Engineer in a discussion on the dock at WWA Worlds in Reno. Also Personal expierence - I ran 150 hours on 06 340 non cat and 135 hours on 07 340 w/cat. Basically it comes not from the cat per say but the fact that the cat allows an oxygen sensor which in return leans out the mix instead of just a stab in the dark.
Old    Bret (wakeride26)      Join Date: Dec 2006       02-16-2008, 8:18 AM Reply   
A clear winner can not be determined unless the boats have the same engine, props, are aprox. the same size, and are run at exactly the same speed with exactly the same load. No clear winner unless this is performed with all the brands on the same day in the same conditions with the same variables.
Old    Jason (azpowerhouse)      Join Date: Jul 2007       02-16-2008, 9:38 AM Reply   
BOATCRAZY.COM, has plenty of info. But in the end who cares.
Old    T-Bag (nasty530)      Join Date: Aug 2007       02-16-2008, 11:20 AM Reply   
THE ONE GOING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AT 60!!
Actually the diesel mastercraft would truly be the most fuel efficient. If you really need the most fuel efficient boat, you cant afford a boat. Sorry but their are 10 things that cost just as much or more when it comes to boating. Instead I suggest you fill the boat with good friends and good times, when the fuel gauge reads E the above 2 things will make filling it up with fuel very painless and easy.
Old    AndY (andy13)      Join Date: Apr 2007       02-16-2008, 11:13 PM Reply   
i actually did an engine swap this winter and put a nuclear reactor in my boat. 0gph of gasoline its great
Old    Bill Sloan (bill_sloan)      Join Date: Nov 2007       02-17-2008, 4:58 AM Reply   
I bet it's hole shot is phenomenal!

(Message edited by bill_sloan on February 17, 2008)
Old    shane (auto)      Join Date: Aug 2002       02-17-2008, 6:34 AM Reply   
uhhhh who cares? It's not like you are buying a wakeboard boat to reduce your gas consumption.

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 2:12 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