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

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old     (nailem)      Join Date: Apr 2011       01-07-2018, 6:49 PM Reply   
Who will be the first to post "if you can afford the boat you shouldn't have to worry about fuel cost"?
I don't post here often but thought this was interesting.

http://www.mmwatersports.com/boat-pe...-fuel-economy/
Old     (scottb7)      Join Date: Oct 2012       01-07-2018, 7:08 PM Reply   
Pretty nice. Thanks. Interesting that the centurion and nautique were at 3000 rpm, and the malibu was 3600, and 4200 depending on the wedge setting.

That malibu was so loud. Let me be the first to say it: If you can afford the malibu you can afford the ear plugs.
Old     (onetogofast)      Join Date: Jun 2012       01-08-2018, 4:32 AM Reply   
Cool video to watch. Shocking there is that much difference between each and yes, that Malibu is screaming! My 12 MB isnít that loud! Crazy!
Old     (skiboarder)      Join Date: Oct 2006       01-08-2018, 6:30 AM Reply   
Unless I am wrong. That is not the current 24MXZ. That would mean that it isn't benefiting from the lifting wedge, new gear ratio or the 17" prop. The new 24 runs a much lower RPM.
Old     (Mike88)      Join Date: Aug 2016       01-08-2018, 10:49 AM Reply   
Great video! Always knew wakesetter are more noisy (less insulated) that was a huge point when I changed for my ‘17 Nautique. But man it’s a huge difference putting them in line.
Knew also that the monsoon motor is more fuel hungry but doesn’t think that much ! And wasn’t thinking the centurion was that less too! Wow.
Old     (YYCBoarder)      Join Date: Apr 2013       01-08-2018, 11:36 AM Reply   
It's an older G23 as well (pre 2016). I'm not sure about the 550 but the new H6 gets much better fuel economy than the old 450.
Old     (83Starsnstripes)      Join Date: Jul 2013       01-08-2018, 11:54 AM Reply   
Why compare old boats vs new boats? This video would be much better if it was all 2018 boats but I like the concept.
Old     (dakota4ce)      Join Date: Oct 2015       01-08-2018, 12:26 PM Reply   
Itís meant to promote Centurion. 95% of things like this are not objective.
Old     (Darkside)      Join Date: Apr 2015       01-08-2018, 1:33 PM Reply   
It's actually really accurate. I had a 2014 and 2015 24 MXZ. They both guzzled premium. 10+GPH average, so 18 underway not surprising.

My 257 uses 30-40% less fuel. I average roughly 7 GPH, but I also run 1000 pounds of lead, and use all of the ballast. Most don't run lead or use center tank, and sub 5 GPH is common.

I will say GPH is not a factor in new boat buying. The biggest thing is getting through a full day. My MXZ would not, they would be empty early afternoon. The 257 usually has 1/2 tank left.

I would like to see current G and MXZ as well, however I don't expect much difference, I know the M235 guzzles fuel, I would suspect 24 MXZ to be the same.
Old     (BoardCo)      Join Date: Mar 2010       01-08-2018, 1:56 PM Reply   
Since I was the one talking in the video I can shed some light on a few things:

The MXZ we ran was a 2016 and the Nautique was a 2015. The Malibu did have lift mode on the wedge, however, that doesn't matter at surf speed as you would never put it in lift mode to surf. To see what it does for wakeboarding and planing the boat out you can see our 2nd video here:

http://www.mmwatersports.com/boat-pe...d-performance/

The reason we ran a 2015 and 2016 boat wasn't that we wanted the results to be slanted but because those were the boats that we had access to. Both of the boats were boats that belonged to customers or team riders and they understood why we were taking them out. We would be more than happy to run 2018 boats as a direct comparison, the most difficult part is getting the boats to run. That is also the reason you don't see a MasterCraft or Supra in this test as well. There is no question that a 2017 or newer Malibu would have better fuel economy compared to a 2016 with the change in gearing, though I can't imagine anyone making the case that it would cut the fuel consumption in half.

The point of the videos isn't to degrade a Malibu or Nautique - they are fantastic boats that perform great. Rather, the idea was to showcase the benefits of the new Opti-V hull design in the best way we could. If any other dealers would like us to run the boats side by side at the same elevation we are more than happy to be a part of it.

In the videos we tried to be as objective as possible which is why we ran stock ballast, only had 3 people in the boat, used each boat with the optimal prop setup for elevation and made sure that each boat had the engine that is most commonly put in it at our elevation (roughly 5,500 feet). This is part of the reason we ran a Ri257 with max ballast instead of a Ri237 with 3,000 lbs. to match the other boats.

If anyone has any questions about the specifics we are more than happy to provide it.
Old     (skiboarder)      Join Date: Oct 2006       01-08-2018, 2:20 PM Reply   
The 2017 MXZ has a whole new hull, a different prop and a different gear ratio. Also, wedge position plays a huge role. I see knuckleheads with their wedge in the 5 spot when surfing. I run my 25 LSV in the 2.
Old     (Darkside)      Join Date: Apr 2015       01-08-2018, 3:34 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiboarder View Post
The 2017 MXZ has a whole new hull, a different prop and a different gear ratio. Also, wedge position plays a huge role. I see knuckleheads with their wedge in the 5 spot when surfing. I run my 25 LSV in the 2.
Wedge position does play a huge roll, on the 1st gen 24 MXZ I found 3-5 To be sweet spot with PW2, any more and wave lip washed out any less and wave was too flat.
Current gen MXZ is a new hull, and has steeper prop angle, larger prop, but also has more ballast and weighs more, so likely a wash. The MXZ hull is very similar to the M235 and the M235 is not fuel efficient at all.

Keep in mind the greater the prop angle the less efficient the prop becomes as the angle causes the prop to push up vs forward. This is why I/O trim enables phenomenal fuel economy.
Old     (downfortheride)      Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: SLC, UT 5600'       01-08-2018, 4:33 PM Reply   
Quote:
Opti-V hull
What's Opti V hull? I've done a basic search with zero results.
Old     (scottb7)      Join Date: Oct 2012       01-08-2018, 6:08 PM Reply   
Thanks for sharing more video. The second video set is also pretty interesting. The 550 g23 seemed the most quiet and got to about 3700 rpm. The centurion was pretty noisy on that one. Clearly a larger engine requires less rpm, and is quieter.

It looked like you did not use the ncrs on the nautique to get you on plane. As it would get you on plane and then the back of the boat kind of settles back into the water to make the wake bigger. I am guessing you turned off to make a fair comparison. But it seemed like you maybe were not full throttle on the g23. It just never got high in rpms, which I would think it would if you pushed it.

So i guess i am kind of unconvinced, NOT on the fuel consumption side, where that can be compared i guess. But on the time to plane not sure it makes even sense to compare. Everyone is coming out with aids to help plane boats.

Honestly if i guy can't spare an extra 5 seconds from 8 seconds to 13 seconds then he is a douche. You can argue that you are safer once you get on plane but we aren't comparing bow rise degrees anyway.

The centurion does seem like a contender so glad to see you making this stuff!

I guess at your elevation you gotta compare the 550, but most boats don't have 550s so kind of a waste to compare for most people.

Other thoughts?
Old     (Fixable)      Join Date: Oct 2012       01-08-2018, 7:10 PM Reply   
I had mentioned this over on TMC as well.....

But my 550 powered G23 would hit 23mph in 7.6 seconds with stock ballast, stock prop, and two people in the boat. I documented this in a prop comparison thread on PN over 6 months ago. And that was just a prop comparison thread. I wasn’t comparing to another brand, and there was absolutely 0 reason to post results that weren’t 100% accurate.

Heck, I was hitting my top speed of 42 in less time than they are saying it takes to get to 23 on stock ballast.

Mitch- Glad you guys are having fun and putting some interesting data out. But I gotta say..... I am really calling your G23 0-23 time in question. I know better than that.

If I hadn’t done so much prop testing on my 16 and 17 g23s, and my neighbors 2013 G23 w/409, I might have just assumed the data was correct. But even my neighbors boat with the little 409 gets to 23 in less time than you are claiming in that video. (11 seconds)

Edit- just noticed your note on the elevation you are at. That definitely makes a difference. However, in that same prop comparison thread on PN, there was another member that did a data set at that elevation, and still had significantly lower times than what you are claiming (on all three props he tested)

https://www.planetnautique.com/vb5/f...an-alternative

Last edited by Fixable; 01-08-2018 at 7:17 PM.
Old     (scottb7)      Join Date: Oct 2012       01-08-2018, 8:18 PM Reply   
"Little 409". Now you are making fun of my manhood. I guess those with the 343 and 350's are little girls to you, huh?

P.S. I don't think he was full throttle, I think he just eased it up. You can tell by the engine sound. Which is fine, that is my point, you can't compare on plane speeds. That is how I run mine, I pretty much ease it up got on plane in 15 or 20 seconds - i guess, never timed it - and never get over 3,700ish rpm.

Last edited by scottb7; 01-08-2018 at 8:21 PM.
Old     (Fixable)      Join Date: Oct 2012       01-09-2018, 3:40 AM Reply   
Haha, no offense intended, Scott. We’ve been running that 409 for 5 years now, and it’s never failed to do anything that was asked of it. It’s got plenty of power.

And it seems like you picked up on the pitch change from the supercharger when they were accelerating too.....
Old     (jhartt3)      Join Date: Jan 2012       01-09-2018, 4:57 AM Reply   
its made by centurion of course the outcome is going to say they win - if it was made by an unaffiliated 3rd party then i'd listen. - i shut the video off as soon as the guy started talking wearing a centurion jacket. then realized it was a centurion site.
Old     (malibu23lsv)      Join Date: Feb 2012       01-09-2018, 8:11 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkside View Post
Wedge position does play a huge roll, on the 1st gen 24 MXZ I found 3-5 To be sweet spot with PW2, any more and wave lip washed out any less and wave was too flat.
Current gen MXZ is a new hull, and has steeper prop angle, larger prop, but also has more ballast and weighs more, so likely a wash. The MXZ hull is very similar to the M235 and the M235 is not fuel efficient at all.

Keep in mind the greater the prop angle the less efficient the prop becomes as the angle causes the prop to push up vs forward. This is why I/O trim enables phenomenal fuel economy.

You obviously have never did any testing with 15" props vs 17" props and have no idea what you're talking about. 18 degree strut with a 17" prop can be more efficient than a 16 degree strut with a 15" prop. That is why the 257, G23 and a NEW generation 24MXZ have the 17"+ size props. I urge you to go find a 2013 G23 with a 15" prop and give it a try. Why do you think they changed it? You also have no data to support hull running surface efficiency. NONE!

It's all a "system" that has to work together. People on this thread have already called BS on this study because they are not equally equipped boats. This seems to be the most common way for a dealer to claim advantage over Malibu and that is to compare a 4-5 year old system (the 24MXZ in this case) to a new system (the G23 and 257 in this case). If I made a video comparing a 2013 Duramax to a 2018 Powerstroke or Cummins, most people would be outraged and I would loose all credibility. This is the same thing.

Now, because of this thread and a video by an incompetent dealer, people are going to be mislead and misinformed.
Old     (simplej)      Join Date: Sep 2011       01-09-2018, 8:13 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottb7 View Post
Pretty nice. Thanks. Interesting that the centurion and nautique were at 3000 rpm, and the malibu was 3600, and 4200 depending on the wedge setting.

That malibu was so loud. Let me be the first to say it: If you can afford the malibu you can afford the ear plugs.
I hate indmar and Ilmor powerplants they are too damn loud.

Thank god for PCM.
Old     (Darkside)      Join Date: Apr 2015       01-09-2018, 8:20 AM Reply   
Larger props are absolutely more efficient, but nothing is free is my point. You gain a Ton of efficiency in prop slip, etc, and lose a little in prop angle, it is absolutely worth the trade. However it is not going to be the same as simply swapping the 15" to 17" prop. There is a bit of loss. Overall a huge net positive though. Also MXZ has 15" prop, RI257 has 16" prop and G23 has 17" prop.... So all 3 have different prop diameters...

4-5 year old system the MXZ was a 2016? The RI is unchanged since launch in 2017, so one year delta in hull and powertrain.

Dispute time to plane if you will however how do you dispute fuel consumption while on plane at 23.5 MPH? No way to fake that number....

Last edited by Darkside; 01-09-2018 at 8:26 AM.
Old     (BoardCo)      Join Date: Mar 2010       01-09-2018, 9:13 AM Reply   
Ok, since I am apparently an "incompetent dealer" this may not matter but a few things that will hopefully help:

1. We are at high elevation (approx. 5,500 feet) which does have a factor. Obviously, if you are at sea level the results will be different, though the differences between the boats should remain similar.

2. The Centurion had a 16x13 prop, the G23 was running a 17 inch prop (17x14 I believe but not 100% positive) and the Malibu a 15x14.25. You can make an argument that it isn't the ideal props for power but then you enter into the issue that they would be less fuel efficient. Either way, making a change from these propellers isn't going to reduce fuel consumption by 50% and at the same time improve power. We didn't choose the props for the boats, we ran the props that the current owners had on them which were the props that were put on by the dealership when they purchased the boats. Whether they were ideal I have no clue as I don't own the boats and haven't used any other props. We had no idea what the fuel consumption, time to plane or anything else was until we put the boats in the water. Are they bulletproof? No, but they also could have been less flattering should we have chosen to try to pull the wool over people's eyes.

3. The point of the video was in no way to bash on the Malibu or Nautique, but rather to highlight the technology of the new Centurion hull the best way we could arrange.

4. All boats were complete full throttle to speed. None of this was doctored in any way.

5. If someone has a 2017/2018 G23 or G25 or MXZ or any other boat we are happy to do the same test. Shoot, I'll even let you drive and pick the prop configuration. The only reason we didn't use these boats is that they aren't available to test.

6. Time to plane is a measurement of how effectively a motor can push a boat. If you can plane out with a boat fully weighted then the motor works ideally, if you can't then you are forced to do things like drain ballast. This doesn't mean the motor doesn't work, it just means that more power can have a tangible benefit. I think everyone can agree that having better fuel efficiency and enough power to plane out properly. Here in Utah, most dealerships tell customers that unless they get the largest engine available, typically a 550 supercharged engine (Supra, Nautique, etc.), that the boat will not perform properly. The primary goal of this video is to display that with the right hull design, surf system, etc. that you can have the reliability and fuel efficiency of a smaller engine and also have enough power to do all of the things you want to do.

7. In the videos, in our blog post on it and in all of the information we have put out I think it is fair to say that we are not trying to hide anything or lead anyone to be misinformed. If you don't agree with what was put out, that's totally fine but the way we did it was legitimate. Do we have an agenda? Of course we do - our goal is to sell boats but that in and of itself does not invalidate the information or mean that it is improperly skewed.
Old     (Fixable)      Join Date: Oct 2012       01-09-2018, 9:54 AM Reply   
Well that makes some sense on the G23 Times..... that is a terrible prop choice for a G23 with a 1.5:1 gearbox, and I have no idea why the owner would have that prop on the boat. A 17” diameter prop works well on a 2:1 gearbox G, but it is terrible on a 1.5:1. It should have a 15-16” diameter, max.
Old     (scottb7)      Join Date: Oct 2012       01-09-2018, 10:31 AM Reply   
Yeah, i am doubting it is 17x14 on a late model g23 with a 550. nope.
Old     (Darkside)      Join Date: Apr 2015       01-09-2018, 11:25 AM Reply   
I would say that #5 is a fair response. If you question the results that much, provide access to a current model, with YOUR ENGINE and PROP CHOICES!

I can tell you at lower elevation the 16x13 is TOO MUCH on a 257, the 16x15 lowers fuel consumption even more.
Old     (BoardCo)      Join Date: Mar 2010       01-09-2018, 12:18 PM Reply   
I could be wrong on the prop configuration on the G23 - I am going off of what the owner said it was but haven't been able to verify. The prop that is on it is the prop that it was configured with at the dealer here in Utah.

The prop on the MXZ is definitely a 15x14.25.
Old     (onetogofast)      Join Date: Jun 2012       01-09-2018, 4:13 PM Reply   
PCM for the win!!!
Old     (nailem)      Join Date: Apr 2011       01-09-2018, 5:31 PM Reply   
Sounds to me that BoardCo is being 100% transparent but yet posters still want to act like something is being hidden intentionally. I would have expected nothing less on WW.
Old     (onetogofast)      Join Date: Jun 2012       01-09-2018, 6:11 PM Reply   
true^
Old     (infinitysurf)      Join Date: Apr 2017       01-09-2018, 7:47 PM Reply   
Too many people with googles on and are either die-hard brand loyal, or have not looked at too many of the new boats to know how bad-ass they ALL are. I also see the point of being distrusting since there are so many scammers out there, but this video is just "proving" what us Centurion guys have been talking about all summer (not that other brands burned more fuel or are worse....but that ours are so efficient its awesome. Again, I love ALL boats equally). Video looked spot on to me from my personal experience as well. But, if you love your boat and are playing on the water in your toy, most people could care less how much gas it burns. It DOES mean something to me since I know where every one of my dollars go, luckily I have a Centurion that averaged 4.5-5GPH for the last 100hrs of this summer running almost 5k of ballast 90% of the time, so guess I get best of both worlds (average mine thru-out entire day...so definitely higher when surfing under load)....love it when it costs me less to have a blast! Honestly when I bought boat, which is a 2014 SV hull, not Opti-V, I figured it would burn double that, so also a pleasant surprise.
I wont lie, when it comes to buying the next new boat, while fuel will not be #1 at all on list, it will be a factor in overall decision because that is the way my brain works... I also happen to think that PCM is the best out there (disclaimer: that's a personal opinion, I am not a mechanic). I don't like the Raptor engine for a couple reason, which makes me sad since I love the look of 2018 Supra SL.
Old     (skiboarder)      Join Date: Oct 2006       01-10-2018, 6:51 AM Reply   
Boat fuel economy discussions are for boat-geeks, not riders. Real riders know there are too many variables to make a good apples to apples comparison. Every. and I mean every, boat fuel economy discussion turns into this. It was a good attempt though.
Old     (xxrb2010)      Join Date: Jan 2014       01-10-2018, 7:07 AM Reply   
I like this one:

"highlight the technology of the new Centurion hull the best way we could arrange."

Men, are you really thinking this through? This is screaming looking for the setup that will magnified whatever you want, so the opposite of an unbiased review or comparison.

I am not saying it is what you were trying to do, but this is how this sentence can be interpreted.
Old     (dakota4ce)      Join Date: Oct 2015       01-10-2018, 7:38 AM Reply   
Not liking the Raptor doesnít make a lot of sense. It has been unreal for us. Right around 5 GPH slammed for surfing in a 2016 Supra SE450. So much low end grunt.

I am sure the PCM direct injection stuff is also extremely sweet. Raptors are damn sweet too.
Old     (simplej)      Join Date: Sep 2011       01-10-2018, 7:58 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakota4ce View Post
Not liking the Raptor doesnít make a lot of sense. It has been unreal for us. Right around 5 GPH slammed for surfing in a 2016 Supra SE450. So much low end grunt.

I am sure the PCM direct injection stuff is also extremely sweet. Raptors are damn sweet too.
Thereís too much NVH and too much exhaust noise.


Leave it in the truck. I want to be able to talk in my boat and hear my stereo.
Old     (malibu23lsv)      Join Date: Feb 2012       01-10-2018, 8:25 AM Reply   
I like the fact that companies are innovative and make boats better than the previous model. And the 257 may in fact have a more efficient powertrain system. The point that this is not an apples to apples comparison still stands. And people new to tow boats that read this forum need to know that. It was a comparison video setup by a salesman with an agenda. It was a nice try but someone has to come on here and call it out for what it is as a warning to those who watch it.
Old     (Darkside)      Join Date: Apr 2015       01-10-2018, 9:09 AM Reply   
I personally applaud the attempt. I also found the results ACCURATE, as I have owned 2 of the 3 hulls tested.

As there seams to be a great number of people bothered by this. Replicate the test! Bring out a 2018 Malibu, Roll out a 2018 G, 2018 X23, and so on. Load it up, show the RPM and surf wave/wakeboard wake and publish your results. How much fuel do you burn underway? Simple, instead of whining provide an alternate source of data.

I applaud fixable for questioning the prop and providing data to support his objections. This is productive, complaining that it was a 2016 hull , and not latest, not so much.
Old     (dakota4ce)      Join Date: Oct 2015       01-10-2018, 9:17 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplej View Post
Thereís too much NVH and too much exhaust noise.





Leave it in the truck. I want to be able to talk in my boat and hear my stereo.


Huh. Mine is very quiet. You must have heard a poorly insulated one.

To your point, my friends Raptor/Tige RZX is loud. My Supraónot at all. Has to do with the boat IMHO.

Last edited by dakota4ce; 01-10-2018 at 9:20 AM.
Old     (malibu23lsv)      Join Date: Feb 2012       01-10-2018, 11:39 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkside View Post
I personally applaud the attempt. I also found the results ACCURATE, as I have owned 2 of the 3 hulls tested.

As there seams to be a great number of people bothered by this. Replicate the test! Bring out a 2018 Malibu, Roll out a 2018 G, 2018 X23, and so on. Load it up, show the RPM and surf wave/wakeboard wake and publish your results. How much fuel do you burn underway? Simple, instead of whining provide an alternate source of data.

I applaud fixable for questioning the prop and providing data to support his objections. This is productive, complaining that it was a 2016 hull , and not latest, not so much.

Umm...ok. You can have "accurate" data and still not be comparing apples to apples. No one is disputing that the DIACOM reading is inaccurate.

But, I have a better idea. find a 2013 G23 with a 450 / 1.5:1 gear/15" prop, a 2015 Enzo FS44 with a 450 / 1.5:1 gear / 15" prop and a 2018 24MXZ with a SC575 with a 1.75:1 gear/17" prop. Sound like a reasonable and HELPFUL test to you?
Old     (Darkside)      Join Date: Apr 2015       01-10-2018, 12:02 PM Reply   
Actually yes that data would be helpful too as I am sure there are still buyers for 2013 G23, 2015 Enzo, and 2018 24 MXZ. It would be fantastic to see this type of data on everything! NOT every person is looking for a NEW boat! Again it would be great if they had access to 2018 models for this test, but it's 3 samples.

After this maybe a Malibu dealer will come forward and produce 2018 24MXZ results and any others, this is good information. It would also allow Malibu a chance to show improvement. Our 2016 was here, our 2017+ is "X" much better.

Regardless of the intent of the original test, this is interesting data.
Old     (nailem)      Join Date: Apr 2011       01-10-2018, 5:06 PM Reply   
I use to follow these guys that tested new pickup trucks hauling ability. They would ask Chevy, Ford, Toyota and Ram to send a new crew cab 4x4 for a tow test. The manufactures would supply a truck. The trucks would be tested. The 100s of post that one truck had 17" wheels another truck had low geared rear end, and so on.
Point is the testers did the best they could to test what was provided. You can't change what you don't have.
Old     (Darkside)      Join Date: Apr 2015       01-10-2018, 5:47 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by nailem View Post
I use to follow these guys that tested new pickup trucks hauling ability. They would ask Chevy, Ford, Toyota and Ram to send a new crew cab 4x4 for a tow test. The manufactures would supply a truck. The trucks would be tested. The 100s of post that one truck had 17" wheels another truck had low geared rear end, and so on.
Point is the testers did the best they could to test what was provided. You can't change what you don't have.
Exactly, take the data for what it is, and go from there. I have a 450hp RI257 now, and had a 572 24MXZ and a 450 24MXZ, these results actually match my experience EXTREMELY well.
Old     (fman)      Join Date: Nov 2008       01-10-2018, 9:00 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoardCo View Post
Since I was the one talking in the video I can shed some light on a few things:

The MXZ we ran was a 2016 and the Nautique was a 2015. The Malibu did have lift mode on the wedge, however, that doesn't matter at surf speed as you would never put it in lift mode to surf. To see what it does for wakeboarding and planing the boat out you can see our 2nd video here:

http://www.mmwatersports.com/boat-pe...d-performance/

The reason we ran a 2015 and 2016 boat wasn't that we wanted the results to be slanted but because those were the boats that we had access to. Both of the boats were boats that belonged to customers or team riders and they understood why we were taking them out. We would be more than happy to run 2018 boats as a direct comparison, the most difficult part is getting the boats to run. That is also the reason you don't see a MasterCraft or Supra in this test as well. There is no question that a 2017 or newer Malibu would have better fuel economy compared to a 2016 with the change in gearing, though I can't imagine anyone making the case that it would cut the fuel consumption in half.

The point of the videos isn't to degrade a Malibu or Nautique - they are fantastic boats that perform great. Rather, the idea was to showcase the benefits of the new Opti-V hull design in the best way we could. If any other dealers would like us to run the boats side by side at the same elevation we are more than happy to be a part of it.

In the videos we tried to be as objective as possible which is why we ran stock ballast, only had 3 people in the boat, used each boat with the optimal prop setup for elevation and made sure that each boat had the engine that is most commonly put in it at our elevation (roughly 5,500 feet). This is part of the reason we ran a Ri257 with max ballast instead of a Ri237 with 3,000 lbs. to match the other boats.

If anyone has any questions about the specifics we are more than happy to provide it.
What prop were you running on the 24 mxz? It sounds like the RPMs were excessively high, what were the rpms reading? Did that boat have a surf pipe on it?

The 2018 24mxz has a 2:1 trans along with a 17" prop. Not even close for comparison to a 2016 model. In 2017 Malibu also changed some of the rear insulation to help quiet down the interior noise which is noticeably quieter than a 2016.

Just to clarify my 2017 LSV with Raptor 410, 1.72:1 trans, 15" 2277 prop uses about 7-8gph surfing. My rpms are 3300-3500. Variables are crew size, altitude, wedge settings, speed. This is after 100 hours of use last season. Interior cabin noise is nowhere close to what that video is showing.
Old     (Darkside)      Join Date: Apr 2015       01-11-2018, 7:23 AM Reply   
With a 450 at elevation likely a 2419 on the MXZ, I used to run 4100 RPM.
There are so many variables, that you can't account for everything. Even with averages, they will be different person to person. Wakeboard/surf ratio, do your riders marathon ride, or fall a lot, cruise time, etc.
This is a single data point, the test used boats they had access to. So this is the configuration those owners run them in. Good, bad or indifferent, that's what it is. It would be great to see what these numbers are for new MXZ, I suspect roughly 20% improvement. I could be WAY WRONG, but you gain prop efficiency, but boat is heavier, and has more ballast.
Keep in mind M235 uses same setup and it is not fuel efficient.
Old     (fman)      Join Date: Nov 2008       01-11-2018, 8:37 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkside View Post
With a 450 at elevation likely a 2419 on the MXZ, I used to run 4100 RPM.
There are so many variables, that you can't account for everything. Even with averages, they will be different person to person. Wakeboard/surf ratio, do your riders marathon ride, or fall a lot, cruise time, etc.
This is a single data point, the test used boats they had access to. So this is the configuration those owners run them in. Good, bad or indifferent, that's what it is. It would be great to see what these numbers are for new MXZ, I suspect roughly 20% improvement. I could be WAY WRONG, but you gain prop efficiency, but boat is heavier, and has more ballast.
Keep in mind M235 uses same setup and it is not fuel efficient.
People need to be educated that that video is not completely accurate. As you and others mentioned there are way too many variables to take into consideration. Unfortunately they don't clarify this inaccurate gph reading on the mxz in the video and make it sound like the Centurion is a prius hybrid on the water. And who really knows if they were running the correct prop on the mxz. It's very common for people to run way too much transom weight on the Malibus because of the wedge capabilities.

For people interested in a Malibu when properly weighted and setup correctly expect 7-8gph fuel consumption for real world use. This was also my average consumption on my 2015 22vlx with the 409 after 200+ hours on that boat.
Old     (Darkside)      Join Date: Apr 2015       01-11-2018, 8:59 AM Reply   
The fuel burn in the video is 100% ACCURATE, but that is the usage underway, your average usage also has idle time at less than 1 GPH

My average in the MXZ's both my 2014 w/450 and 2015 w/PW2 and 572 both averaged well over 10GPH. I now average 7 GPH, unlike the video I normally have 6 people and 1000 pounds of lead on board. So my peak burn is likely 13ish. However I know people who put 200+ hours on and averaged sub 5...

Again this is single sample and personal results will vary, based on prop, ballast, people on board, elevation etc. However for the setups provided to the dealer, by the owners of those boats, this is what they get.

Based on my experience, the 24 MXZ burns a minimum of 50% more fuel than my RI257. Based on 400+ hours in 2 different 24 MXZ, and 150+ hours on my RI.

Malibu may have figured out a way to make surfgate and wedge fuel efficient in 2017, someone needs to provide the results.

Last edited by Darkside; 01-11-2018 at 9:06 AM.
Old     (Darkside)      Join Date: Apr 2015       01-11-2018, 9:15 AM Reply   
One more note on this, I do Wake the World every year. In 2016 we had to refuel early afternoon because the 24 MXZ was down to 12%, and I knew we would not be able to finish the day. So we put an extra $100 in the tank to finish the day. This year at Wake the World I was shocked by how little fuel I was using. So I sent this picture to my buddy who did the event with me in 2016. Note the time is 1:34 and 7/8 tank. We had to fuel at roughly 2:00 in the 24 MXZ.
Old     (malibu23lsv)      Join Date: Feb 2012       01-11-2018, 10:34 AM Reply   
so with a 90 gallon tank and a claimed 8.5 gph, I guess you started running the Ri257 after noon (7/8 of a tank is 80 gallons)? So in the same amount of time, you ran a 24MXZ with a 77 gallon tank out of fuel? Dude, the math doesn't add up. Even if the 24MXZ was 50% more, you would still have 55+ gallons left. I think this just means that the fuel gage isn't working on the Ri257.
Old     (Shakarocks)      Join Date: Mar 2013       01-11-2018, 10:39 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by malibu23lsv View Post
Now, because of this thread and a video by an incompetent dealer, people are going to be mislead and misinformed.
You wrecked your credibility with this comment. M&M (BoardCo) is fantastic in every way. They are great to those who are buying new and are great to those of us who like to keep our older boats in the water. I couldn't imagine a better experience with a dealer.

Mitch has been very forthright with this test. He admits to the obvious flaws but still presents good information in a way that few dealers would. I hope this sparks similar tests with newer models.
Old     (malibu23lsv)      Join Date: Feb 2012       01-11-2018, 10:54 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shakarocks View Post
You wrecked your credibility with this comment. M&M (BoardCo) is fantastic in every way. They are great to those who are buying new and are great to those of us who like to keep our older boats in the water. I couldn't imagine a better experience with a dealer.

Mitch has been very forthright with this test. He admits to the obvious flaws but still presents good information in a way that few dealers would. I hope this sparks similar tests with newer models.
I don't know them and was only going off a misleading video of a test that wasn't well designed. Hopefully someone can put together apples to apples data soon.
Old     (Darkside)      Join Date: Apr 2015       01-11-2018, 10:58 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by malibu23lsv View Post
so with a 90 gallon tank and a claimed 8.5 gph, I guess you started running the Ri257 after noon (7/8 of a tank is 80 gallons)? So in the same amount of time, you ran a 24MXZ with a 77 gallon tank out of fuel? Dude, the math doesn't add up. Even if the 24MXZ was 50% more, you would still have 55+ gallons left. I think this just means that the fuel gage isn't working on the Ri257.
I average 7 GPH with my normal use, fully slammed surfing. Wake the World is cruising, wakeboarding (only lead No water ballast) a little surfing, and a bunch of tube pulling. (Using quick launch so tabs fully deploy works great for tubing) So fuel efficiency goes way up. I ended the day using 1/4 tank, 22 gallons. MXZ used over 70. (72 gallon tank) again I have started repeatedly my 24MXZ are 10+ GPH.

Fuel gauge is fine, it just moves slower
Old     (Darkside)      Join Date: Apr 2015       01-11-2018, 11:16 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by malibu23lsv View Post
I don't know them and was only going off a misleading video of a test that wasn't well designed. Hopefully someone can put together apples to apples data soon.
For someone like myself going from 1st gen 24MXZ to RI257, this would be dead on what i would want to see. That does not make this test deceptive, inaccurate, poorly designed, or misleading. Would I love to see other 2018's tested absolutely, but that does not invalidate the results here.

Aside from not having access to 2018's, how was the test flawed or misleading? The other boats were not thiers, they did not modify them, they simply used them the way the owners of said boats use them. Filled ballast and took readings, strait forward and simple. No smoke, no mirrors, just data readings. So again aside from using 2018's where is the flaw?

Honest question why did a dealer have to do this? Why don't the manufacturers produce this?
Old     (Shakarocks)      Join Date: Mar 2013       01-11-2018, 11:18 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by malibu23lsv View Post
I don't know them and was only going off a misleading video of a test that wasn't well designed. Hopefully someone can put together apples to apples data soon.
Hardly misleading. He was up front about the flaws. He also complimented the other boats. Furthermore you have someone posting on this thread who has owned two of the boats and he's corroborating the test.

Could it be you're Malibu homerism is leading you to be a contrarian and making dumb accusations about a great dealer?
Old     (Darkside)      Join Date: Apr 2015       05-11-2018, 6:59 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by malibu23lsv View Post
I don't know them and was only going off a misleading video of a test that wasn't well designed. Hopefully someone can put together apples to apples data soon.
Here is update. Someone traded a 2017 24MXZ on a Ri257 so they have access to current hull, they also repeated centurion test with similar engine as malibu, as the MXZ has 575. Although you won't like this test any better. https://www.instagram.com/p/BiqKwvvBJKv/

Last edited by Darkside; 05-11-2018 at 7:02 PM.
Old     (Darkside)      Join Date: Apr 2015       05-11-2018, 7:22 PM Reply   
https://www.facebook.com/boardcoboat...5934852765686/

This link should work better
Old     (BoardcoJack)      Join Date: Jan 2018       05-12-2018, 10:17 AM Reply   
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxVcBRFtYKw&t=118s

28gph on Malibu with the wedge in vert mode!?
Old     (simplej)      Join Date: Sep 2011       05-12-2018, 5:27 PM Reply   
Meh, super chargers...

Small changes in load translate to big changes in boost, which means big changes in fuel consumption.
Old     (infinitysurf)      Join Date: Apr 2017       05-12-2018, 6:05 PM Reply   
No surprises there

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 9:14 AM.

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

 

© 2016 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us