Jump to content

Welcome to TheMalibuCrew!

As a guest, you are welcome to poke around and view the majority of the content that we have to offer, but in order to post, search, contact members, and get full use out of the website you will need to Register for an Account. It's free and it's easy, so don't hesitate to join the TheMalibuCrew Family today!

Sign in to follow this  
CBMalibu

Fuel Consumption - Monsoon Vs. Hammer Head

Recommended Posts

CBMalibu

Does anyone have information on how much more fuel the Hammer Head 383 uses than the Monsoon 340? 50% general family fun and 50% watersports.

Share this post


Link to post
68Slalom

That's a good question, but I think your going to see more use from the holeshot and starts. Top end shouldn't be that much more depending on how much weight you are going to have in the boat, it all depends on how much power means to you. We went with the Monsoon and it's plenty :)

Share this post


Link to post
skicrave

The difference in fuel consumption in the same boat is almost negligible. I certainly wouldn't let that be a deciding factor (although the Hammerhead's requirement of premium fuel might be). Both engines will use around 6GPH for recreational boating.

Share this post


Link to post
VinRLX

Yup. WOT is where the bigger motor will swill it, not in everyday use.

The HH requires premium??

Share this post


Link to post
WakeGirl
Yup. WOT is where the bigger motor will swill it, not in everyday use.

The HH requires premium??

Yes, & it does make a difference if you don't use it, the HH doesn't like anything less than the good stuff. We see about 5-5.5 gph burn rate with our usage. Of course we don't run it at WOT nearly as much anymore, that makes a huge difference.

Share this post


Link to post
areamike
Yup. WOT is where the bigger motor will swill it, not in everyday use.

The HH requires premium??

nah, 89 octane.

My HH burns anywhere from 6-7 gallons an hour. I figure I spend about 25 dollars an hour just to drive my boat. That kinda sucks.

Edited by areamike

Share this post


Link to post
larrys

I had 07 Monsoon and now have a 08 HammerHead. Both have the ETX/CAT system. I run 89 with both. Go to the Indmar website and thats is what the are recommending. I occasionally run a tank of the good stuff and don't see any difference. Maybe the '08 HH with CATS makes a difference.

As far as consumption, If you run them both easy the HH does not noticeable burn more fuel. But, when you run them both hard, the HH will suck it down. I had an ACME 527 on the Monsoon and 1235 on the HH. When I first got the HH it had a 817 and it did burn more fuel. I wish I had numbers.

Overall the '07 Monsoon was the most economical boat I have owned. Mainly because I didn't have the HH and didn't have the need to go fast.

Monsoon

HammerHead

Share this post


Link to post
WakeGirl

If that's true, then it's changed. In '06 they were recommending 91 octane minimum, & I do see a difference in how it runs. It's subtle, but it's there. Mike, your Hammerhead is a completely different engine (350ci vs. the 383 that we're talking about), so let's not confuse things with that.

Share this post


Link to post
areamike
If that's true, then it's changed. In '06 they were recommending 91 octane minimum, & I do see a difference in how it runs. It's subtle, but it's there. Mike, your Hammerhead is a completely different engine (350ci vs. the 383 that we're talking about), so let's not confuse things with that.

Mine's even more different than that. Bored 30 over and had cast flat top racing pistons and rods put in it. I have to actually run 92+ octane in mine all the time.

All that aside, you will not notice a fuel consumption difference b/w the HH365 and HH383.

Share this post


Link to post
thealy

I was told 89 octane for my RLXI 05 HH. I have been very impressed with the low fuel consumption of the HH but then again I am coming from a 225hp merc outboard. This spring I will try the 91 octane to see if there is any difference. I don’t think fuel consumption should make your decision. Do I think the Monsoon is enough, sure, but do I love the HH, you bet!

Share this post


Link to post
Chef23

I have the Monsoon in my RLX and I don't see a need for more engine. Mostly what we do is ski the slalom course and we do have one end with a short setup but it is no problem. I guess if you were barefooting or had one of the big boats loaded down with ballast I could see the need but for general family waterskiing use I think the Monsoon is plenty of engine.

Share this post


Link to post
areamike
I have the Monsoon in my RLX and I don't see a need for more engine. Mostly what we do is ski the slalom course and we do have one end with a short setup but it is no problem. I guess if you were barefooting or had one of the big boats loaded down with ballast I could see the need but for general family waterskiing use I think the Monsoon is plenty of engine.

I agree 100%...not to mention at almost 4 bucks a gallon? sheesh! Cry.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Willy

i HAD THE MONSOON\CATS ON MY 07 VTX and i was using around 4gph surf\wakeboard combo. Got 3gph one day!!! Love those cats. (disclaimer) my son wakeboards with full ballast no wedge.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...