Power Slot "Type" of Mod

[WakeGirl]

Powerslot is still an option. Their standard tranny is 1:1, the new slot is 1.26:1 & comes with a different prop than is indicated in that review (13.7x17.5 OJ). There's no way that they'd pull the prop off & replace it with such a smaller one in a review setting.

[WakeGirl]

MC uses quite a bit of hook in the hull at the rear of the bottom.  That drives the nose down  The faster you go the more it drives the nose down.  The MC DD are not fast boats.  MC is more intereseted in slalom wake than speed.  You will not find many footers that want 44 mph or faster using a MC DD.  They just won't go that fast.  If you are talking about a V drive I would agree they probably have some that will run upper 40's.  Nautique DD's are even slower on top end than MC.  I am not saying that low top speed end is necessarily always bad.  It just is for barefooting. (at least for me)

Bill

OK, are you willing to argue that the Nautique hull is more efficient than the MC's? It's not. Between, spray relief pockets and yadda yadda yadda, it's a complete DRAG. But, nonetheless, it hit the 50mph mark in the tests. The diamond hull, as well as the SSP, does EXACTLY what you are talking about in terms of pressing the bow in the water. The reverse chines lift in the rear and push down in the front. So...malibu, 50mph (or higher), nautique (50mph), and MC 43. Whats the difference? powerslot, plain and simple. You're right that non one wants to use a MC to foot, but not just becasue of the wake, it's just not fast enough. Think about it. It is simply, not fast enough to pull anything but figure 8 tournaments. There's one reason that it's too slow...the powerslot. If you're in an aston martin in first gear, I can still outrun you in a corvette if I'm in second.

I'm curous when the last time you drove an MC was, the new ones that I ahve driven, when wide open, soudn like the motor is going to pop out of the boat and we're going 43! The older carbed MCs with basically the same hull, will run 47-50. I hit 50 in our Rlxi this weekend, same RPM as a new MC that does 43, one thing different...the powerslot. Does it rip you to 36, sure. Is it too slow for any highend footing? yep.

I GUARANTEE you that an MCX 197 will outrun any monsoon Rlxi in the world if it did not have the slot.

One more thing, the CC 196 in the magazine's test that hit almost 49mph has gear reduction stock.

[edwin]

Someone said a while back that their Vdrive served as their reduction.  Just to clear the air, thats not accurate.  There is no reduction in Vdrives or ANY of Malibu's boats.  Actually, there is no reduction in anyone's boats but MC, correct me if I'm wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wkebrdgod - maybe too much time in the sun down in FL? All current v-drive Malibus have a gear reduction transmission, believe the ratio is 1.5 :1. All Correct Craft boats these days have gear reduction trans as well, ratio is 1.23 : 1.

[JohnDoe]

ummmm...yeah they would...they're boats are getting tested for a lot of things. If their performance benefitted from the slot, they would run it. The poweslot made a lot of sense with older motors. But with today's broad torque curves, the slot is merely a selling point for die hard MC fans and provides no benefit.

[JohnDoe]

I don't know whether the slot was in those boats. I assume dthey were because every MCX I have ever seen has it, I thought it was part of the upgrade, but perhaps is just standard in the team boats. In any event, 43 mph is pathetic and MC loses a lot of sales because of it.

[JohnDoe]

FL?

CC has reduction? News to me. Where'd you hear that?

The walter V drives in 'bus have no reduction.

[SacRiverRat]

FL? 

The walter V drives in 'bus have no reduction.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dude - you are getting carried away... better check

Edited May 10, 2005 by SacRiverRat

[WakeGirl]

All of the current Malibu v-drives have gear reduction, they have for many years now. They don't have it listed where I can find it on their website, but if you check the prop size, that will tell you whether or not it has gear reduction (the big props on the v-drives indicate gear reduction). As for CC, check the specs under the 196 on their website. I'd link it in, but it won't allow me to.

[SacRiverRat]

The difference in the v-drive vs dd prop size indicates 1.5:1 gear reduction

[JohnDoe]

I invited a correction and I thank you for it! CC has gear reduction, and it runs 50 with the ZR6. I was incorrect in thinking that it did not. As for the 'bus, where is it? built into the Vdrive gearing?

[WakeGirl]

I don't have a v-drive & never have, so someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the ratio has to be determined in the transmission. The v-drive unit, that's all it is, a unit to make that "v" in the drive line.

[SacRiverRat]

the V-drive is basically two gears, cut so they open up into a V-angle. The v-drives in the 'bus can be setup to run as much as 3:1 reduction..

for general detail http://www.marineparts.com/mpf/mpf199.aspx

.. edited for web site

Edited May 10, 2005 by SacRiverRat

[edwin]

This taken from the Mercury Marine website, transmission options on their inboard powerplants. They come in all shapes, sizes, and ratios:

Transmission Options/Ratios: Velvet Drive 71C: 1.0:1

Transmission Options/Ratios: Velvet Drive 72C: 1.0:1

Transmission Options/Ratios: Velvet Drive 5000A: 1.25/1.5/2.0/2.5/2.8:1

Transmission Options/Ratios: Velvet Drive 5000V: 1.5/2.0/2.5:1

Transmission Options/Ratios: ZF Drive 63 A: 1.5/2.0/2.5/2.7:1

Transmission Options/Ratios: ZF Drive 63 V: 1.5/2.0/2.5:1

[BillFooter]

Wakebrdgod you assume a lot of things. We assume that sometime or another you will actually know what you are talking about. That just goes to show how wrong assumptions can be.

Bill

[WakeGirl]

the V-drive is basically two gears, cut so they open up into a V-angle. The v-drives in the 'bus can be setup to run as much as 3:1 reduction..

for general detail http://www.marineparts.com/mpf/mpf199.aspx

.. edited for web site

I stand corrected, thanks Troy.

[Rip6@36]

I GUARANTEE you that an MCX 197 will outrun any monsoon Rlxi in the world if it did not have the slot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know I am digressing a bit in this thread, but I have quite a bit of actual experience between the new 197 and the Monsoon in my RLXi. Two of my ski buddies just purchased new 197s. One last fall and one this spring. Side by side on the trailer you can clearly see the more aggressive scallop in the rear of the MCs creating more lift at the transom. The faster you go, the further the nose gets driven down and thus less top end. You can see that every additional MPH requires significantly more horsepower to offset the hull inefficiency. But as it has been said before, the focus is on the wake not the top end.

One of the guys with the 197 is a serious footer and her went through three different engines just to get 46 mph out of the Hull. He finally paid almost $10,000 for the Northstar engine upgrade to get the speed he wanted. My stock RLXi with the Monsoon blew the MCs out of the water with every engine/trans option he tried and still will take the 197 even with the Northstar motor (we ran each one off side by side). He wanted the BU, but his wife loves the MC dealer and our closest BU dealer is 3 hours away.

Also, I traded my 96 MC Prostar 190 LT1 in on my RXLi. The Prostar was a nice boat, but the Monsoon RLXi beats it in every category (top end, hole shot, etc) and my neighbor who skis with us has a 94 Prostar with the powerslot and it is a totally different boat. He gets about 41 or 42 mph.

So my practical experience blows away the hypothesis above.

FWIW.

Edited May 10, 2005 by Rip6@36

[mrothwell]

Well, you're right that nothing in that test mentions it, nor does any other MC test, nor does MCs website.  The 190 went less than 43, the 197 went 43 (with the MCX) and the 209 did 43 with the MCX.  My monsoon runs 50 with a 4 blade, with less horsepower than the MCX, and even waterski calls the MC hull drag-less.  So, a 42 mph 190 makes perfect sense because it has the little motor.  Slow nonetheless, and while I think that there is a chance that it has the powerslot, I have no proof.  All MCXs (to my understanding) come with the slot.  So, by bumping up 40 horsepower, you pick up 1 mph of top end, which is still significantly slower than a lesser-powered monsoon.  The nautique has 25 more horses, but outruns it by 7 with practically a tractor tire for a hull.  hmmmmm...

Ok, look, while I think that the slot is bad, I'm not saying that some people won't or shouldn't like it.  I got involved in this because a barefooter on another thread was looking for a boat.  Whatever the case, a boat with 350 hp should go 50 in DD ski boat. 

Someone said a while back that their Vdrive served as their reduction.  Just to clear the air, thats not accurate.  There is no reduction in Vdrives or ANY of Malibu's boats.  Actually, there is no reduction in anyone's boats but MC, correct me if I'm wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

WB - you really need to do some math before you make some statements. I'll do some for you.

Assuming no prop slip (bad assumption, but making everything equal)

1.00 : 1.00 turning a 13x12 prop at 5000 rpm = 5000 x 12 / 12 = 5000 ft/min

1.26 : 1.00 turning a 14x17 prop at 5000 rpm = 5000 x 17 / 12 / 1.26 = 5621 ft/min

with ZERO prop slip - the powerslot will run faster than the 1 to 1 tranny.

The reason the PS gets out of the hole faster is because it is pushing a 14" prop rather than a 13" - so it gets more "traction" (Not sure if MC still uses a 14" prop on the PS equiped boats, but they used to when they had a 1.5 : 1 tranny).

Also to add into this equation is that the faster the prop turns, the more drag is induced on the prop it'self, so a gear reduction will have less "prop drag" than a 1 : 1.

Now to go back to the car analogy that you keep bringing up.

Let's say that you have car A with a 1 to 1 final drive ratio and 3.0 to 1 rear end. You also have car B with a 1 to 1.26 final drive ratio (overdrive) with a 3.8 to 1 rear end. Both cars have 17" diameter tires.

The calcs follow:

Car A at 2000 rpm: 2000 x 1 / 3.0 x ( 2 x 17 x pi ) / 12 * 60 / 5280 = 67.4 mph

Car B at 2000 rpm: 2000 x 1.26 / 3.8 x ( 2 x 17 x pi ) / 12 * 60 / 5280 = 67.1 mph

So, even tho B has a higher final gear ratio, it is off-set by the differential ratio.

I've spent a lot of time behind a MC with the PS and it is a nice pull but dont blame it's slowness on the PS - the calculations show otherwise.

[UWSkier]

Jeez, it's the thread that won't die.

Malibu V drives ALL have 1.5:1 reduction. That's why they all come with 13.5x16 or 13.5x17.5 props on them. Try running one of them on an RLX with Monsoon and see what happens. Your RPMs at WOT will be WAY low.

[vette-ski]

Malibu V drives ALL have 1.5:1 reduction.  That's why they all come with 13.5x16 or 13.5x17.5 props on them.  Try running one of them on an RLX with Monsoon and see what happens.  Your RPMs at WOT will be WAY low.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I believe that is true. I didn't bother reading all of the posts, so somebody may have already mentioned this, but the 1.5 ratio is in the Vdrive, not the transmission. I believe in the Indmar manual there are different model numbers for 1.5:1 and 1:1 ZF transmissions. I got concerned after buying my SS VLX that I didn't have the 1.5 ratio because the model number of my trans matched the 1:1 number. Both Malibu and my local dealer confirmed the 1.5 ratio is in the V-drive and they are equipped with 1:1 transmissions. But there is a 1.5:1 ZF transmission model number for those wanting a powerslot equivalent in a direct drive boat.

[maliboo]

Don't know if it matters to anyone, but the new promo 197's have the MCX and the 1:27 powerslot combo. It's actually a good compremise.

The MC has way to much hook in the hull to go fast. There are 2 differant versions of the current 197. The Tournament Team 197(TT) which actually is a nice boat that skies well and drives about half as good as a RLXi and then theres the 197 that everybody else gets to buy, skis like crap, drives like crap, is crap, but is a little faster.

I did a side by side demo against the normal 197 a couple of months ago.

The RLXI beat the 197 in a drag race but only at the very end. The RLXi had the sea level prop. Acme 515 13 x 12.5, come to find out the MC had a 12.5 x 11.5 Acme. I'm at 5500 feet so they had propped way down. I would have beat the snot out of that 197 had I propped down.

The MC is a slow boat no two ways about it.

[Malibuman]

My buddy had a 99 Prostar w/power slot and that pup would yank you out of the box with 2000# in it. The 8.1 in the LSV is very comparable.

[Lakenut]

CC has gear reduction, and it runs 50 with the ZR6.

Huh????? Explain that. A nautank that breaks the 45 mph barrier?

[JohnDoe]

Wakebrdgod you assume a lot of things.  We assume that sometime or another you will actually know what you are talking about.  That just goes to show how wrong assumptions can be.

Bill

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for your deep thoughts Bill, but the only people making assumptions about their arguments are the ones saying that MC runs a 13x17 prop! They tested a 12.5 x12! So, all this math lecturing that people are having a good time throwing at me is pointless because they didn't even use that prop!! Hence, they make the assumptions, not me. But, there is a big assumption which I already dislosed and thats if we KNEW the MCXs had the slot. I already said that I assumed they did because all of the ones that I have seen have had it, so don't get on my case about making assumptions. I was clear about the ones I was making and none of the physicists here have corected me. In any event, the math class I got proves my theory that the slot INDEED reduces forward movement for the same revolutions. You do remember my aston martin vs corvette exmaples right?

I do base my opinions on what I have a reasonable basis for believeing, which is that every person I have encountered thats serious about their footing hates the MC cuz of the top end which they attribute to the slot.

As for the arguement that the slot is "the cat's meow" becasue it gets the revolutions into the steepest part of the torque curve which translates into better holeshot, can someone please explain to me why the RLx was the FASTEST boat to 36 of this year's test?

[WakeGirl]

Wakebrdgod you assume a lot of things.  We assume that sometime or another you will actually know what you are talking about.  That just goes to show how wrong assumptions can be.

Bill

Thanks for your deep thoughts Bill, but the only people making assumptions about their arguments are the ones saying that MC runs a 13x17 prop! They tested a 12.5 x12! So, all this math lecturing that people are having a good time throwing at me is pointless because they didn't even use that prop!! Hence, they make the assumptions, not me. But, there is a big assumption which I already dislosed and thats if we KNEW the MCXs had the slot. I already said that I assumed they did because all of the ones that I have seen have had it, so don't get on my case about making assumptions. I was clear about the ones I was making and none of the physicists here have corected me. In any event, the math class I got proves my theory that the slot INDEED reduces forward movement for the same revolutions. You do remember my aston martin vs corvette exmaples right?

I do base my opinions on what I have a reasonable basis for believeing, which is that every person I have encountered thats serious about their footing hates the MC cuz of the top end which they attribute to the slot.

As for the arguement that the slot is "the cat's meow" becasue it gets the revolutions into the steepest part of the torque curve which translates into better holeshot, can someone please explain to me why the RLx was the FASTEST boat to 36 of this year's test?

Okay, first of all I said that MC uses that bigger prop on their boats that are outfitted with the Powerslot. 3 things tell me that the boat used in the review had a 1:1 ratio:

* The prop used is the one that they put on their 1:1 ratio boats. If you don't believe me, fine. But I've done a ton of reading on this & this is a fact.

* The Powerslot is not listed as one of the powertrain options, & Waterskimag always lists that as part of the review.

* The rpms at WOT are right where they should be with that prop mated to a 1:1 tranny. If it was a Powerslot with that combo, it would be revving much higher than that (hitting the limiter which is at 5250)).

A final note on this. If that boat had a Powerslot & Waterskimag actually changed the prop, then they severely handicapped the boat. I don't tend to believe that given the rpms at WOT, they're right where they should be & if anything have a little room to work with. The point is that either way, you cannot say that the Powerslot is to blame here.

As for the RLXI being fastest, it's not. Check the specs on the Nautique 196, it's faster to 30 & 36 with less power & a gear reduction tranny (375hp vs the Hammerhead 400). The 196 is a smaller, lighter boat than the RLXI so maybe a better comparison would be with the RLX. The RLX performs slightly better at those mid range levels according to the review, but is equipped with the Monsoon & thus has a little less top end. My whole point with this is that the gear reduction in the 196 obviously doesn't limit that boat.

Edited May 11, 2005 by WakeGirl

[mrothwell]

Thanks for your deep thoughts Bill, but the only people making assumptions about their arguments are the ones saying that MC runs a 13x17 prop!  They tested a 12.5 x12!  So, all this math lecturing that people are having a good time throwing at me is pointless because they didn't even use that prop!! Hence, they make the assumptions, not me. 

If the boat had the Slot, it would have had a much higher pitched prop, not a 12. That is the prop that they use on the 1 : 1 tranny. The Slot is an option, and it would have been listed on the test specs.

I stand by my math.