When will this be an engine option?

[shawndoggy]

efficiency needs to account for the relative cost of the fuels too.

I love the idea of diesel, but the cheapness of the gas motors, the ubiquity of gasoline at marinas, etc. says to me that I wouldn't be an early adopter.

[jetskipro550]

Everyone used to say that the price for the diesel upgrade is what will keep them from coming to wakeboats. Now that these boats are 100k + whats the excuse? What's another 10-15k

[Tims]

efficiency needs to account for the relative cost of the fuels too.

I love the idea of diesel, but the cheapness of the gas motors, the ubiquity of gasoline at marinas, etc. says to me that I wouldn't be an early adopter.

'

Nothing cheap about the LSA or LS3 options. By the time I add products to neturalize corn gas issues, fuel cost are close to the same. Marina availability is a good point.

[Bozboat]

efficiency needs to account for the relative cost of the fuels too.

I love the idea of diesel, but the cheapness of the gas motors, the ubiquity of gasoline at marinas, etc. says to me that I wouldn't be an early adopter.

You said ubiquity

[jb 156]

Someone at Malibu told me they shipped a Wakesetter (not sure which model) to some guy in Europe with a Diesel in it. So it has been done. With enough money you can do anything.

[Nitrousbird]

I love chevy V8's, but in my opinion they are old technology vs. direct injected, turbocharged engines (gas or diesel) The engine in my wife's BMW is only 3.0l, gets 30+ mpg on the highway and has more torque than the 6.0 that Indmar offers for out boats. How? Twin turbos and direct injection. (Technology stole off of diesels) As far as pushrod vs DOHC; I would be willing to bet that GM did it for cost reasons, not performance. The new Ford 5.0 is an overhead cam engine, already casted for conversion to direct injection, and is as powerful as the 6.2 chevy. Tons of potential there. I am sorry, but a pushrod engine has limtiations in rpm / performance to an overhead cam design.

Let's not do the displacement comparison, especially the Ford cammer vs. LSx. Take a look at the physical size of the motor. Who cares if a motor is 1.1L or 10.1L, the physical size, power, and fuel consumption are what matter, not how much displacement the motor has. The LSx is a physically smaller motor and that's what honestly matters. For you RPM limitations, the LS7 runs to 7100RPM; Ford's newish Cammer does 6800RPM. LS3 does 6600 RPM. All can rev past that either stock or with valve-spring upgrades.

Who is selling an N/A motor that isn't an exotic motor (such as Lamborghini, Ferrari, etc.) making the kind of HP the LS7 is making? Nothing in the Ford or Dodge camp for sure. Only two motors I can thing of is the E63 AMG's V8, couple more HP but less torque and not the power under the curve of the LS7. Other would be the previous generation's M5 with its V10 making about the same power in a far larger package. And obviously those motors are FAR more expensive.

No one is surpassing the GM top N/A motors without being far more expensive, and less fuel efficient, doing it. For forced induction, Ford is finally going to best the LS9 with their newest 5.8L motor, at least for a year.

People have talked for many years about the "limitations" of the pushrod motor, but where is the proof when the competition is at best meeting its peformance and only beating at a far larger price figure.

As for the boating LSA and LS3 options, you can blame Indmar and/or the boat manufacturers for the crazy option costs. The price difference in crate motors isn't nearly what they are passing off to the boating consumers.

[Cory]

I'm not much of a tree hugger, but I think there is a significant enviromental issue with diesel. Diesel is less refined than gas. When you spill gas on the ground at a gas station, it will evaporate, leaving little or no residue. No so for diesel. Diesel will leave behind an oily resudie that must be cleaned up with chemicals. So, more diesel around lakes may not be a good thing because the residue wont evaporate off the top layer of the lake when spilled. This issue aside, I think the benefits of a high torque diesel engine are obvious.

[khelfrich]

diesel is cheaper than the mid grade for my boat seeing as i could get off road diesel for my boat and not be paying the road taxes. never seen off road red gas

[Tims]

Let's not do the displacement comparison, especially the Ford cammer vs. LSx. Take a look at the physical size of the motor. Who cares if a motor is 1.1L or 10.1L, the physical size, power, and fuel consumption are what matter, not how much displacement the motor has. The LSx is a physically smaller motor and that's what honestly matters. For you RPM limitations, the LS7 runs to 7100RPM; Ford's newish Cammer does 6800RPM. LS3 does 6600 RPM. All can rev past that either stock or with valve-spring upgrades.

Who is selling an N/A motor that isn't an exotic motor (such as Lamborghini, Ferrari, etc.) making the kind of HP the LS7 is making? Nothing in the Ford or Dodge camp for sure. Only two motors I can thing of is the E63 AMG's V8, couple more HP but less torque and not the power under the curve of the LS7. Other would be the previous generation's M5 with its V10 making about the same power in a far larger package. And obviously those motors are FAR more expensive.

No one is surpassing the GM top N/A motors without being far more expensive, and less fuel efficient, doing it. For forced induction, Ford is finally going to best the LS9 with their newest 5.8L motor, at least for a year.

People have talked for many years about the "limitations" of the pushrod motor, but where is the proof when the competition is at best meeting its peformance and only beating at a far larger price figure.

As for the boating LSA and LS3 options, you can blame Indmar and/or the boat manufacturers for the crazy option costs. The price difference in crate motors isn't nearly what they are passing off to the boating consumers.

Not interested in a ford vs chevy match. I like the LS engines, just not what Malibu charges for them. Sounds like you are a GM fan and I am cool with that. Used the ford as an example of new design that has great potential. I think displacement is a relevant discussion as it has an affect on efficiency which was part of my arguement.

Where is the proof that the overhead cam design is more expensive than the LSx design? Do you know the Standard Cost (cost of manufacture) of a GM LS engine? Crazy rabbit hole to go down. I believe that the LS7 has some pretty exotic internals allowing it to rev to 7100? Not sure how far past that you have to go to see the limitations of the pushrod design and dont really care. If the 4.2TDI engine was a pushrod design and still had the same performance and efficiency, then I would still want it; but I am sure that Audi had their reasons for not going with the pushrod design.

However, back on topic for a great wakeboard boat engine, I would rather have something with more torque and efficiency than the LS options which is why I started the post. I have not heard one good arugement except for fuel availability at the Marina so far.

[85 Barefoot]

For those who have suggested more turbos I'm thinking space has always been the issue until gm for the first time squished a blown v8 into

A mass produced sized engine bay in cts. Am I wrong? As for diesel since all

Engines now mefi 6 for integration purposes except response for zero off I think electronics would be harder to

Integrate than what it may seem

[LS-One]

I'm sure that is a fantastic engine. VW and Diesel have left a bad taste in my mouth. In 1982 I was given (no choice) a VW Diesel Rabbit for a company car. What piece of excrement for a motor. The darn thing vibrated itself to death.

[Bill_AirJunky]

I'm sure that is a fantastic engine. VW and Diesel have left a bad taste in my mouth. In 1982 I was given (no choice) a VW Diesel Rabbit for a company car. What piece of excrement for a motor. The darn thing vibrated itself to death.

Hehe, come on, that was 20 yrs ago. The MPGs it got back then are probably pretty close to what a $20k Prius gets today.

VW has worked out a few of the bugs in their newer cars. Maybe they need to try making a 1/2 ton truck??

Edited August 22, 2012 by Bill_AirJunky

[RTS]

Actually, it was 30 years ago, and my best buddy had one of those things to drive in high school in the mid 80's. I remember him having to wait for some glow plug light to go out on the dashboard before he could fire it up and we could get going.

But he did get some good MPG out of theat thing.

[MLBurns]

I looked at a 40' Baja a few years ago that was for sale, the owner had the gas engines removed and installed 7.3 powerstrokes in their place. He said it had a better holeshot with more top end and got almost twice the fuel economy. Just cost a bundle to have done. Didn't MC offer a diesel in the X55 last year? If they did, I wonder how that worked out for them?

[shawndoggy]

What car from 1982 from any manufacturer would you want? I think that was just about the point of maximum suckage.

Later in the 80s there were some sweet rides --Svo mustang, iroc, mustang gt, gti, mr2, crx si -- but not 1982.

[dlb]

I had a 80 diesel Rabbit, drove it from Burlington VT to LA for less than $100 in fuel. Stopped in Yelowstone on the way. I don't think your hybrids of today could do that.....

[Tims]

I'm sure that is a fantastic engine. VW and Diesel have left a bad taste in my mouth. In 1982 I was given (no choice) a VW Diesel Rabbit for a company car. What piece of excrement for a motor. The darn thing vibrated itself to death.

If that VW left a bad taste in your mouth, I am glad you did not have to drive the GM diesel in 1982. It was converted from a gas 402 Olds engine to run diesel. It was such a POS that many argue it was responsible for killing the diesel engine in America. Many of those engines lost their main seals on the way home from the dealership.

Drive one of the new Audi/VW diesels and it is hard not to be impressed. I drove an Audi with the 4.2L turbo diesel while on business in Germany and could not get enough.

[UWSkier]

I think you guys are overlooking something. In a boat application, you're always going to be on the boost whereas on the road, you're really only on boost when climbing hills, towing, or accelerating. A 50% increase in MPG isn't going to translate to the same type of increase on the water if the turbos are always spooling. Yes, a turbo-diesel option will give you a nice broad torque curve but it's not going to save you the type of coin you think it will.

[Tims]

I think you guys are overlooking something. In a boat application, you're always going to be on the boost whereas on the road, you're really only on boost when climbing hills, towing, or accelerating. A 50% increase in MPG isn't going to translate to the same type of increase on the water if the turbos are always spooling. Yes, a turbo-diesel option will give you a nice broad torque curve but it's not going to save you the type of coin you think it will.

The efficiency savings are based on Marine applications. You are correct that more fuel will be burnt when on the boost, but still less than a N/A gasser at the same percentage of throttle/load. According to the MerCruiser literature, up to 50% less.

[Tims]

Well at least I know it will fit in a Master Craft. Pretty cool.

[srintx]

Yeah I have a 2007 jeep grand cherokee diesel. Absolutly love it and pulls my bu like a champ. Would be great to have it in my boat.

I want one of these!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TallRedRider]

Well at least I know it will fit in a Master Craft. Pretty cool.

I think there are no excuses any longer. I fill up at the dock only when at Lake Powell. And because of the big cruisers, I can get diesel there. That would be awesome. IIRC, it was/is a 30K option for Mastercraft. Why so much, I am not sure. Because of that markup, I think it has sold poorly.

[jeeper92]

Banks has been installing Duramax motors in boats for a while now. COULD ALSO LOOK AT Yanmar, Cummins, Cat, or John Deere all have marine Diesels used in mainly commercial boats bu they do have some smaller 4 or 6 cylinder motors. I do not believe it would be that hard for Indimar to use the Duramax motor because they are familiar with the GM electronics for the ECM.

[Big Jay D]

If I could drop my 5.9 CTD into my Bu I would in a heartbeat. Maybe when I have too much money and time on my hand I'll look into it.

[nyryan2001]

They'd have to go back and redo/beef up the trannys and Vdrives...everything related to handle the increased torque.

I just don't want black diesel soot or smell on my boat like you see along the rear panels of most every diesel truck. Wakeboats are used in avery different manner than the large cruiser diesels...our fun area is less than a foot from the engine and exhaust.