G23 fuel consumption
I heard from a very viable source that a weighted G23 is running about 15+ gallons an hour and wanted to hear others experience. If this is the case, that is absolutely crazy!
|
Too much speculation, too much he said she said, sorry man. This is going to turn into one of "those" threads. To determine what you heard you would have to know what engine and exactly how much weight. As well as speed, prop, etc. A G23 was not designed with a Prius concept in mind and when purchasing one, a buyer should not expect to get great fuel economy (Cruise speed with no ballast is a different story, but still not that of a 21ft direct drive). It's a 23 foot boat with 2800lbs of ballast and no where in that equation is good fuel economy no matter brand or boat.
|
The motor was the LSA 6.2L with full stock ballast and about another 1500 in people. I understand that they do not get great fuel consumption, but a sacked out Star is only 9 gallons an hour. This is twice that if not more. It just seemed crazy when I heard it and wanted to see if anyone else has first had experience.
|
Here's my take on the fuel consumption after putting 85 hours on my G23 with the 450hp engine, last summer. We usually always fill up the tank before each outting. After approx 2 - 30 minute sets, I seem to typically have to put in about 19.5 gallons to top the tank off again. Divide that by the 2 sets, it's 9.75 gallons per set. Figure the average cost of fuel right now in MN is about $3.65/gallon...that puts it at $35/30 min set. Not too much worse than a slammed 230 or XStar.
One thing to note is that I fall a lot, so spend a lot of time getting on to plane. |
G that i rode in had the 450 and the owner told me that if he get $20 a rider it it pretty much exactly covers his fuel cost. He did say however if they need to do alot of driving to find good water that it easily can jump $5 a person. This at cali gas prices of right around $4 gal. I have no idea what his gph is.
|
If someone is fortunate enough to purchase a $100k tow boat, then I would presume the cost to operate it would not be much of a factor.
|
I think this is actually something that needs to be addressed one way or the other. I have been on a kick on the centurion board that Centurion needs to have a fuel totalizer onboard. I had one on my airplane, and it does wonders. You know exactly what the fuel flow rate is, and how changes to weighting and throttle affects fuel consumption. The devices are pretty cheap (less than $250) and would be interfaced to the onboard dash, so no new gauges needed. Could put all this to rest. You would know exactly what weight and speed does to economy. I spend a lot of time cruising around, and I would love to know what the sweet spot is for cruising economy, so I can stop wasting gas.
One possible solution is for the boat manufacturers to agree on a standard weighting and speed, and run tests on fuel economy so there can be some comparisons from boat to boat. And then display that on a sticker, much like an EPA label. In my case, with the Enzo SV233, it is certainly cheaper than the comparable Tige boat. But if the Tige uses 2-3 gallons less an hour to wakesurf with the same weight, then the difference could be made up pretty quick. And without a fuel totalizer, people can make claims about fuel economy that can't really be backed up. I'd like to see these Tige claims of really low use, with a video showing a rider on a big wave, going back to a fuel totalizer showing 4 GPH. Of course, what one boat does with a given weight is going to be different than what another boat does with a given weight. Thats why a fuel totalizer would be great. Once wakes are setup properly, the community can report back that a Malibu, properly weighted to produce the best wave, uses X amount of fuel, and Centurion uses Y, and Tige uses Z. |
Quote:
|
Well, that comment does go to my second part of my response. Do you need 2200 pounds to create a wave comparable to something like an Enzo at 2500 pounds? if so, does it really matter? I think most people here are going to weight the boats to the point where it creates a really good wave. If the G23 wave is subpar at 2800 pounds, then the fact that you need to add to it doesn't really mitigate the fuel consumption issue.
|
In the end, I think the correlation between the size and mass of your wake and your fuel consumption is probably pretty consistent across all boats. I've yet to find a massive wake at 25 miles per hour that is any less expensive that another.
All of our boats have always been in the 5-6 gallons per set range depending on the length of the set, speed, and the amount of extra people weight we are running that day. The MXZ takes less weight that our other boats, and burns slightly less fuel, but it's not an earth shattering amount. With the added size and weight of the G23, and the amount of water it's displacing, I'm not surprised that it's more expensive to run. |
I am in no way complaining or bragging about the fuel consumption. I don't surf at all, so have no interest in comparing the boat to an Enzo for surf "waves". I strictly wakeboard, and will put as much weight as possible to get the wake as big and hard as I can, regardless of how it compares to other boats.
The original poster was talking about fuel consumption, and that is what my responses have been aimed at. |
Quote:
|
Jay: I know.
But this has struck a chord with me. Fuel consumption issues on boats are real. Companies need to be penalized or rewarded for doing more with less fuel. There is unfortunately not a way to really determine this yet. It also really helps with the total cost of ownership, which is important. Too much of the boating industry is subjective. |
MrPeepers hit the nail on the head. If you can afford a $125K boat.....you don't care how much fuel it burns.
For the OP Iron J is saying about 19.5 an hour with about 5K in ballast, so you probably heard right. Anyone worried about the fuel consumption of a G23 probably can't afford it or would be overextending their credit to own one. Buy a boat within your budget(including gas, insurance, upkeep, etc)..won't be an issue. IronJ is the most vocal G23 owner on here and I don't recall him ever mentioning a problem with the fuel consumption!!! As the saying goes..."If you have to ask....you can't afford it"!! |
CarZin....your kidding, right?????
We all know boats carrying a bunch of water around for no other reason than to make the boat PLOW thru the water are going to burn A LOT of gas. No question there. If you want a fuel flow meeter on your boat, install one. You can find them at just about any marine store and they aren't tough to install. I personally don't see the point . Its a boat..it's expensive. It's a toy..if you can't afford it sell it. Don't lose sight of what boat stands for....Break Out Another Thousand!!! |
Yeah, thats just bogus. I owned an airplane and I still cared about fuel. There is no boat on this forum as expensive as owning an airplane (unless someone on here owns so sea faring boats, and then there is going to be some competition). When you are burning a lot of it, efficiency makes a big difference. It was one of the reasons I wanted to get a Mooney. about 30 more knots an hour at the same flow rate. it absolutely matters.
granted, there are plenty of people that don't care about throwing money away. I'm not one of them. I don't mind spending money on pleasure, but I want to make the most of the money I spend :) With all the gadgets that boats have, and as much as the fuel burn issue comes up, this should not even be debated. |
Well then like I said, by all mean buy and install a fuel flow meter. I don't think you can a marine one for the $250 you stated, but they aren't terrible. They start in the 5-600 range. The problem I see it people ride at set speeds. They WANT to ride as a speed so knowing how much fuel your burning doesn't matter as you can't adjust anyway without changing the riders speed. In a plane or a cruising boat you can adjust to the most efficient cruising speed, in a wake boat Johnny wants to ride at 22.5, not 27 or 29 where the boat is more efficient.
Pick up a copy of Boating Magazine. Every boat the test they have full fuel and efficiency numbers on. Not sure what you mean they aren't tested. Do you mean because they don't have an EPA sticker like a car? Do new airplanes have EPA stickers? What Toy does? Not boats, snowmobiles, motorcycles, 4 wheelers, etc. |
I have friends who own airplanes and you sound like them. If you try to apply your airplane mentality to a boat I'm afraid you are setting yourself up for a very unhappy boat owning experience. You've already experienced one of the 2 happiest days as a boat owner and that was buying it. From your mindset it sounds like happy day number 2 will be the day you sell it.
FYI.. if your worried about fuel economy and it sounds like you keenly are. DON'T ever weight your boat....it will make it use more fuel!!!!!!! |
Actually, the fuel flow meter you are referring to includes an expensive gauge. The gauge isnt needed in the digital dashes for the new boat. Just the totalizer. At that point, its just software. So I have no doubt the manufacturers can do it cheap.
Airplanes absolutely do have published fuel flow numbers at various configurations. And yes, I think having some sticker on the boat indicating burn rate with given weight and speed for various sports would be beneficial. Guys, i already own a boat. I just bought a bigger one. I'm not new to this game. I am upgrading from a 21 foot to a 23 foot with a slightly larger engine. I think you are mistaking my desires for the industry as a personal concern or worry. The amount of fuel the boat burns isn't going to really matter much on my bottom line. It doesn't mean that it shouldn't be an issue. If its an issue for cars and planes, why not boats? I drive an electric car as well ;) So, maybe I take fuel consumption a little more personally. |
Quote:
Well said. |
Thank goodness somebody gets it. I felt like I was on an island fighting a bunch of gas drunk sailors ;)
|
While I don't totally disagree with you...you will get no where in the tow boat industry. What people want is a bigger wakeboard or surfing wave. That takes either a heavier boat or ballast, which takes more fuel. The buyer of a towboat cares about the wake produced not the fuel burned. The buyer of a Prius or an electric car cares about fuel burned, not wake boarders or wake surfers. There are a few who do, but not enough for the industry to take notice. If they did we'd be going away from ballast, not to more...more..more!!
|
I think there is a lot of room for improvement and a bigger wake doesn't have to mean more fuel. If you believe the Tige claims, they already have figured out a lot about efficient epic waves.
|
If someone is really concerned about fuel with a newer boat, they should just make sure that they buy a boat with a Gen IV SBC. Provided that Indmar/PCM/Ilmore tuned the engines properly, an LS3 based engine (6.2l) will have the best fuel economy. (This doesn't include the LSA. Indmar runs that engine on the very rich/safe side. They do it for a very good reason, but fuel economy suffers greatly) The 5.7s and 6.0s are not nearly as good as the LS engines..... However, with the upcharge for the LS3, you could run a 5.7 or 6.0 for 10 years before you saved any money......
I don't think any of the marine engine companies run any of the other naturally aspirated Gen IV LS engines, except Ilmore. They run the LSX 454 Small Block, but I wouldn't have high hopes for the fuel economy in that. It will be better than the Gen II 454, but will definitely drink more than a 5.7 or 6.0. It's to bad we can't get the LS7. That would be a killer boat engine, with great fuel economy for the horsepower. These marine engine companies are stuck in the stone age of engine platforms. I am surprised that we have an LS3 available! |
One of the biggest factors is footprint. Narrower boats need less energy to produce taller wakes. Nobody wants a 90" beam boat these days tho.....
|
The worst thing to happen to tow boats fuel economy was the required catalytic converters from 2012+ boats. My uncle's Nautique 200 turns about 1500 to 1800 more rpms vs his 196 with the same motor without cats pulling the same skiers. For wake boats though, if you are expecting some awesome fuel economy, you're in the wrong sport. Most everyone runs ballast and that's going to be your biggest fuel consumption area.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
This is a very odd thread. It starts with a guy who works at a Mastercraft dealer questioning G23 fuel usage compared to the Xstar, and it has people debating fuel efficient in boats that are DESIGNED to created bigger wakes. (and therefore inherently produce more drag) Honestly, you want a huge wake and a boat that has tons of interior space and storage? You are going to have to suffer in the fuel economy department. Want a slight improvement in efficiency? Be prepared to pay even more for the r&d effort that results... Man, it must still be winter... |
"People that can afford a 100k wake boat don't care about mpg" Yea everyone I know that can afford a 100k boat just throw's money in the air and takes a bath with crystal! LOL people you need to pull your pants up and stop watching thoes silly rap videos.
|
Quote:
The concept is extremely simple... basically have a timer that keeps a count when the flow rate is within a particular range, decrease range size for higher accuracy, (calculus :D ) and output a summation....AWESOME. Also gives you the opportunity to see real time fuel economy. Would be pretty simply to program and would be easy to integrate the system into the touch screen systems like TigeTouch and all the others. On a side note, im not sure why this boat doesnt have a monster diesel powerhouse in it, I know that there are threads on WW about diesel all the time....but seriously, there is a reason you dont tow huge heavy trailers with gasoline trucks...why would you power a monster, heavily weighted wake boat with a high HP gasoline engine? |
Quote:
the only way to make vessels of similar beam and weight more efficient is to create the added displacement after the vessel has gotten on place...i.e. by adding auto deploying drag hardware. so to that end, the boat builders are giving us exactly what we are asking for: less efficient hulls. the fuel management strategy by the different marinizers (which i might add all source the same long blocks from GM) is a different argument all together. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I don't understand how rich people buying $70k+ boats can be concerned about fuel consumption. I'm poor, and on a good season I might be able to put 100 hours on my boat. At 6-7 GPH like I get, call it 6.5 GPH that's 650 gallons at 3.75 that works out to $2437.50... That's about 20% of the value of my boat. Still not a lot of money to a poor guy like me. Say you got one of these new boats running a huge amount of weight and you get 15 GPH. So for a expensive new boat that gets 15 GP that's 1500 gallons at $3.75 for $5625. OK for a poor guy like me that's starting to get expensive but still not crazy for the one thing I enjoy doing. A G23 has a sticker price over $116k, and you annual fuel cost for a 100 hour year would be 4.8% of the boat's value. I genuinely cannot comprehend how rich folk running these boats are feeling the pinch from putting gas in them. I think comparing the expenses of a small inboard boat to the expenses of an airplane is comparing two very different things.
|
I don't think the people that own the boats that burn 10-15+ gph are the ones complaining about the fuel economy. It's the people that don't have them that complain about them. Yes, I'm sure everyone would love to be able to only spend $10 on gas for an entire day of wakeboarding (why wouldn't you?), but that just isn't reality. I have yet to hear/read about a G23/SAN 230/XStar owner complain about the fuel economy of the boat they own. I'd guess the ones that do complain about it no longer have that rig.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Thats exactly what I said Jay. I have never heard you make a peep about your boats fuel bill. But the guy who used to have an airplane thinks its about as important as world hunger. These boats are not efficient. WE don't want them to be. We want them to BARGE thru the water to push water to create a large wake. Its quite the opposite of efficiency. if the hull was light and efficient it would skim across the water and leave hardly any wake at all. Who would buy that? Thats why the manufacturers don't invest in it.
If you want a fuel flow meter to watch how much fuel you are burning, get one. But I doubt its an option you will see in a wake boat in the near future. Back to the OP. Breaking news...Wake boats aren't efficient and burn alot of gas. G23 confirmed to burn 15-19 GPH. FYI if you can't afford the couple hundred to fill the tank you might not want to buy the $125,000 G23.:rolleyes: |
Quote:
I keep coming back to the Tige, and I haven't seen a good response to it yet. If Tige has figured out how to make a boat throw a big wake, and do it efficiently, which I hear owners saying, then its just laziness by the other manufacturers to put any emphasis on it. But then again, I don't know if those claims are legitimate or not, because there are no publishing standards for efficiency. Anyway, people are just repeating themselves at this point, so I am going to bow out of this discussion. Ultimately, with the way I fear gas prices are going, the boat industry is going to pay a price sooner than later without getting creative with fuel economy. General aviation has already learned this lesson. They didn't care, and neither did the owners, until AVGas spiked (currently $7.44 a gallon at my airport). When I got my license back in 2004, AVGas would something around $2.50 a gallon. It has tripled now. Now people are flying a lot less, the inefficient planes have tanked in value (because no one can afford to fly them), and plenty of manufacturers have just gone out of business. There are also fewer licensed pilots. Not to mention prices on planes went through the roof, much like how wakeboard boats have been going. Just driving it more and more to an elite only hobby, and I didn't grow up with it being that way (boating). And no, its not a world hunger issue. However. if you actually care about something, you want to foster its growth, not its demise. |
An airplane is the next step in luxury items past a boat. If you have that kind of change laying around I have no sympathy for you. If you can afford the airplane you shouldn't be whining about the gas. Wanna be rich people make me laugh. They want the toys so people think they are rich, but can't afford them because they aren't. My uncle bought a small plane years ago because he wanted to tell everyone he had an airplane. Never flew it much and always complained about how expensive it was. It was never about the airplane as it was about the status.
Since you want to keep talking about your airplane on a wakeboarding site I suspect it's the same with you. When we used to put avgas in our racing motorcycles and snowmobiles it was more than that and that was back in High School. I graduated in 1993. |
"I don't get gas on the mainland."
What is this Hawaii 5-0?? What do us mainlanders know anyway!!!:confused: |
Quote:
You are correct about the price of AVGas having an impact though. GA airports have much less traffic because many recreational pilots have stopped flying and the young guys can't afford to get licensed. If it wasn't for Corporate traffic, many airports would just shut the fuel farms down. |
I need the little icon with the yellow happy face shrugging.
If you don't get it, then you don't get it. To care about operation costs and to own a toy that has a lot of operation costs are not mutually exclusive. I am not going to make this a d*ck measuring thread. I am not going to make it personal, even though you have just attempted to make it personal. Quote:
This topic has gone a bit deeper than I wanted :) Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All this discussion does remind me of a story I heard, that is likely not true, about a Bugatti Veyron owner. Apparently the cost to operate that car is so high, one owner purportly has the car trucked to his destination, then flies in to drive it :) The story being that its cheaper to fly a jet than to drive the Veyron ;) At I think 50,000k just for new tires on that car, I could believe it.
|
This is a strange world we're living in. Manufacturers are lauded for "innovations" like underwater LED lights and convertible seating, but someone who would like a factory-installed fuel totalizer is made out to be a lunatic. I, for one, think it would be great. I could find my optimal cruising speed. I could make more informed decisions when trying out props. I could more accurately assess my crew's fuel bill. If I wanted to get really crazy, I could even try to drive in a more fuel efficient manner. I went through more than 1500 gallons of gas last season, and I'm sure many of you did as well. To me, a fuel totalizer would be at least as useful as, say, factory-installed window vents.
|
Quote:
Now as for people not caring about gas costs for these boats I think that's somewhat untrue. When boat shopping I think it does factor a small part in people's decisions. Now the OP is trying to say that potential G owners should consider a star because its twice as efficient and no way I believe that. Even the old stars loaded down with only 3k ballast used upwards of 12 gal and hour. Let's hear some real world honest guys like J report on their experience with the new star. Also this whole thing the Tige had figured something out? Please! They use the same motors as everyone else for the most part. If a Tige gets such great GPH then it's simply because they aren't putting as much weight in it! An therefor it ain't gonna throw as big a wake, period. |
My fuel totalizer is the gas pump a couple miles down the rode from the ramp! Always accurate, tells me exactly how much my fun cost me!!!
|
Quote:
Along with owning a gas guzzling boat, I also own a gas guzzling SUV so that I can tow the gas guzzling boat. Call me an environmental terrorist if you want, but it would be kind of foolish of me to complain about gas usage when I knew full well going in that this wasn't going to be cheap. |
This world obviously lacks in people that have good reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.
|
Quote:
Of course the burn rate in a plane is vitally important. Run out and you die. Run out in your boat and you have to get towed in....maybe even by a Mastercraft.....how embarrassing would that be!! ;-) |
Somehow I bet many of the people that think fuel economy isnt an issue, go out of their way to find the cheapest gas on the lake, or tow their boat onshore to fill it with cheaper ethanol based fuels to save a few bucks :) A lot of dishonesty in this thread :)
And I'd be amazed if the people with the big towing rigs haven't complained about what it costs to fill their SUVs. And for the record, for me, this has nadda to do with the environment. I am also a registered Republican. So you can bark up a different tree if you want to paint me as some tree hugging hipster. man, from the way some of you are reacting, you'd think I called your wife ugly and kicked your kids in the face. |
Quote:
Boating and flying are probably two of the best ways ever to burn through disposable income! Throw in horses and you have the trifecta of ridiculous spending.....and yet here we are :D |
Quote:
|
My original point was wanting a totalizer on the boat, so I can figure out the most efficient cruising speeds, and decide if that extra 1000 pounds of ballast to make the wave 1 foot longer is worth at extra 2 gallons an hour. It also helps at fillup not to overfill knowing what you've burned, and from personal experiece, seeing fuel flow issues can help diagnose engine issues. Its really that simple. All the rest of this stuff has just been silly extensions of that feature, which are personal, and not needed to give me a damned totaler.
I know I can buy them aftermarket, but I don't want to junk up a clean dash with aftermarket gauges for something that should be an option anyway. For heaven's sake, if I can spend $500 on LED speaker rings, a totalier for $500 isn't exactly out of line. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I bought (in this case leased) a big SUV. It would be silly to complain about the mileage. I knew full well going in. Just as you knew full well going in that an airplane was going to be more expensive than flying commercial, yet you made the purchase anyway. If we didn't allow our hearts to overrule our brains, there would be no boating industry! No man on this board wants to arm his wife with information like fuel burn rate. Not ever!!! Before you know it, she's looking in my golf bag adding it all up. NOTHING good can come from that!! Ever!!! :D |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
This is not the forum for those discussions. But in short, it has everything to do with diversifying away from a single fuel sourced economy and giving the consumer substitution from a purely oil driven society. It has to do with reducing our FTD. It has to do with insulating us from the repeated economic pains we have repeated time after time with high oil prices. It has to do with not needing to send our troops overseas to protect foreign oil infrastructure. Suffice it to say, for my personal motivations, it has nothing to do with the environment.
Am I going to live my life in total sacrifice of those beliefs? No. Am I going to do what little I can? Sure. |
I get what Zin is saying. If all else is equal I think fuel usage does play a part. I know on my last wakeboard search I wanted a boat with a PCM because on average they were known to be slightly more fuel efficient engines than indmar.
Same goes when I bought my suburban, I looked at ford expedition but everyone knew at the time that the suburbans got better mpg. Now if it comes down to a new star or new G for some folks I do think that 19gph vs 9gph(which I don't believe) will have some factor in people's decisions. But again this is only a small small factor in many. |
If fuel consumption were that important, then he would find another sport or stick to cable parks. It is simply silly to say you are concerned about fuel consumption while justifying a private plane and wakeboard boat. Those two things are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Like I said, it's like some celebrity greenie driving a Prius to get on the G5. A complete lack of self awareness. The only thing sadder is standing there, pointing fingers at everybody else. Seriously????
Now, are some people going to get priced out of wake boarding? Absolutely. It's a really expensive sport. Is the guy buying a G23 going to get priced out? Not very likely. If they are, then they are making a bad decision to begin with. Guys here that are hardcore are looking for a specific wake size or shape. Most often, they spend serious money to make their boats LESS efficient to achieve it. I probably put 70 hours a year on our boat (northern climate - what are we thinking?) at $5-6 a gallon at the marina. It's cheaper to put it on the trailer and buy gas down the road but if we want fuel on the lake, we have to support them. If I know I am pulling the boat, I will fill up on the road. That's just common sense. |
I deal with this all the time having an electric car. The people on opposing side trying to put words in your mouth to make their argument look better. When did I point fingers, exactly? hehe
Is there an ignore function on this forum? |
Quote:
|
I just like the fact the guy arguing about oil/fuel consumption got a boat with 4300 lbs of ballast.
Yes, you truly are "doing what little you can." |
Considering I bought a car that prevented me from using 1,000 gallons of fuel in the first year alone, I think I am. Its called offsetting. Heard of it? I also keep the boat stored at the marina, and don't have to waste money hauling it back and forth with a big tow vehicle (I live 1.5 hours from the lake). So I've more than made up for my guilty pleasure.
|
Quote:
Justify it how you want, but no one in the boating community should be touting their decisions as "eco-conscious".... |
You may be familiar with those words, but you clearly don't know what they mean as they don't relate to my argument at all.'
Find one spot up there where I was talking about being ecoconscious? oh, wait... YOU CAN'T> So shut up |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
No, you're just an idiot.
Done with you all. I mean this in the kindest way. Screw off :) |
Quote:
|
if I owned a G, the last thing id be worred about is fuel consumption. If you have a 125k boat and complain about fuel........ well you made a very unwise investment.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Children Children
|
Quote:
I'm sorry.... ;) |
All you guys need to open your eyes up a little bit. There is room in the market for a wakeboard that uses less fuel. And I can guarantee you there are people out there that will buy the boat that uses less fuel for a number of reasons.
Just think about if you lived on a lake that had no fueling and you had to haul every gallon down to your boat! |
Quote:
The 205v and Nautique SS/SANTE 210 both were very fuel efficient for wakeboats. They are almost constantly knocked for storage space, interior room, rough water ride, and simplicity. (Although some of us prefer a simple boat) Can a more fuel efficient boat be designed? Yes, but again sacrifices will need to be made, and I don't see the people currently putting money down on the 100k+ machines willing to sacrifice the very things they feel justify the price. Another thing to consider, care to take a guess at how many 23Es Epic sold compared to the regular 23V? I am guessing not many, considering we have't seen one pop up here, and it is no longer listed on Epic's site. |
I strongly believe the free market should determine what people buy not government. I would prefer government not mandate gallons per hour rates, but maybe government should develop a standard and require a sticker. Standard could be as simple as stock gallons used per hour used at 10 mph, 25 mph, and 35 mph. And maybe that's it or same 3 with extra 2500 lbs or something.
|
The norm here is the riders pay for gas not the boat owner, if you have the choice of riding a similar wake for half the cost is that not important? Most riders I know are broke 16 to 25 year olds. I don't get how running cost are not important.
|
I would say the G23 and G25 probably get a bit better gas mileage than say this surfing machine.
http://mowake.com/Mastercraft%20300%20Photoshoot.html |
To Matties question about sacrifice. I'm not saying sacrifice any of that at all! I'm saying the boat manufacture that figures out how to do all that and substantially beat the competition in GPH will have something.
That is what the OP was suggesting, his post was getting at why buy a G when you could buy a Star and burn half the fuel. And epic! Really how many ugly boats do they sell a year anyway? |
Man I was really interested in the fuel consumption rate of a G23. Any owners want to offer up some real world numbers they've experienced and get back on topic?
|
Please keep in mind that the OP is talking about a G23 with a 6.2LT super charged engine that runs only on premium octance fuel. This engine has a "super charger" and high performance heads among tons of other high performance components. No buyer purchases a super charger when they are primarilly concerned about fuel consumption, that's just crazy and if somebody ever did they were making a very uninformed decision. The argument could be the same in regards to a hybrid or electric boat. Is our electricity and power consumption not as concerning as fuel? How much would it take to charge an electric G23? How much would it COST to charge an electric based G23? My utility bills are enough as it is, last thing I need is to add an electric wakeboat to that bill. I do think it would be awesome for more manufacturers to make fuel efficient boats, I just don't know why we expect a 23' supercharged boat with 2800lbs of stock ballast to fit in that category. C'mon haha
|
There isnt enough energy density currently in battery packs to allow for a true wakeboarding boat. But if there was, you would be thrilled to use it to power your boat. Electricity is super cheap compared to gas. Its the storage costs which are high. With electric cars, you essentially pay for the storage up front, and the energy is dirt cheap. For a gas burner, storage is dirt cheap, but energy prices are high.
My car costs me 2 cents per mile to drive at my electrical rates. Compare that to something like an F-150, and its about 22.5 cents per mile. Even a car that gets 23 MPG costs about 17 cents per mile at 3.80 a gallon fuel. Even a Prius is about 7 cents a mile, so my car is 1/3 the cost to drive than a Prius. Put another way, I drove 22,000 miles last year for about $370 in electricity. No, I don't want to get in the discussion of electric cars. but since he mentioned electric boats, I thought I would opine. |
reposting for Keith :)
Man I was really interested in the fuel consumption rate of a G23. Any owners want to offer up some real world numbers they've experienced and get back on topic? |
Quote:
When I stay on the lake for a few weeks I will sometimes bring the cans to town and get gas a bit cheaper there, but I usually get gas at one of the places on the water because it's more convenient. Cheapest place on the lake has MTBE gas, the two others (significantly more expensive) have E10, and are also farther away. So where I go, E10 is more expensive than straight gas with MTBE. When I run the MTBE gas my boat will run a little rich since I'm jetted for the E10 I normally run. I'd rather run a tad rich than a tad lean and worry about detonation or driveability issues. I assume you keep your boat in the water and that's why you buy gas there at higher prices, for the convenience. If you trailer and get gas on the water, well it's your money to spend as you see fit but you're not getting any benefit from it. As for me buying a new boat, or what's new in 10 years... No thanks. I will never own any fuel injected vehicles. Newest I'd ever go in a wake boat would be mid-late 90s because the styling on most is still pretty good, gauges are still normal gauges, and the fuel injection and wiring on those boats is still simple and easy to convert to a carb without major changes and electronics to worry about. So for me, the GPH of a new boat is irrelevant both now and later. |
Quote:
|
the g23 is heavy on gas but the plus side is it makes a big wake, i know the 2011 xstar was heavy on gas but Harleys new 2013 model with the 7.4lt engine is way better than the old boat. The old boat with it loaded was about 40lt per engine hour and the new boat is about 32lt per engine hour. Back on the g23 now big boat big wake = lots of gas, its just a fact of life with any big boat regardless of brand.
Im sure the guys that own them are not really worried about gas consumption, but i do understand the point of view about the cost of gas. Harley nearly sent me broke over the years with the amount of gas we used in our boats. |
"I don't understand how rich people buying $70k+ boats can be concerned about fuel consumption."
Most "rich" people GET that way BY being concerned about expenses which includes fuel consumption.... The idea that (most) folks with money don't give a damn how they spend it is a fallacy by those who don't know many people with money. The other thing is that one time expenses like a boat purchase are forgotten, but the pain of paying $6/gal goes on over and over and over, so it's in your face every time you go out. It's a partially psychological thing. |
Keith, Iron J who is a G23 owner posted towards the top he burns about 19 Gallon/hour(2-30 minute sets he stated) with stock ballast plus about 2000 lbs., so over 4K ballast total. He ran a G23 most of last year and is about the most experienced on here with that boat, IMO!
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
What quantifies a significant amount of money is relative to income.$2500/yr for fuel isn't a big deal for me. Maybe half of that is paid by my crew, the ones who always throw some cash my way and are regulars. So even out of pocket 10% of value of the boat spent annually on fuel is, by that measure, still more significant than the 5% for the brand new gas guzzler. I see if as penny wise and pound foolish to buy a new $70k+ boat, or $100k+ in this case, and worry about a few thousand a year in fuel. If total cost is more of a concern, buy a used boat for $30k and still have something quite new and quite capable. Or if fuel costs are a major conern, buy a SN2001, sack it out. You'll have a great wake, well under $10k in the boat and burn anywhere from 4-6 GPH from what I've heard.Or just get a new but smaller boat and run less weight. It's play money, disposable income already budgeted for. I don't imagine anyone, rich or poor, is dipping into the retirement fund or mortgage payment to pay for boat gas this weekend. |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:07 PM. |