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!

TallRedRider

Fresh Air Exhaust - The test results are in!

Recommended Posts

TallRedRider

I have a buddy who bought an FAE for his 2007 Malibu 247. He installed it and promptly went to Lake Powell (an extra 1000 feet elevation compared to here), loaded it up with 15 of his closest friends and claimed that the FAE sucked his power and he returned it. I had an FAE on my Tige and loved it, so I was always disappointed in my buddy's experience since we have nearly identical boats. I then have heard many testimonials since then about the FAE and decided that I would give it a try. I have talked to the founder of FAE, and he is a very customer service oriented individual, and I was sure he would take it back if I claimed it dramatically reduced my power. So I decided an objective test was in order.

I took my boat with full ballast and wedge all the way down, and set the cruise control to 22 MPH. My 2006 247 has a Hammerhead engine with the 1235 prop on it. I then slipped it into gear, had a partner immediately start the stopwatch on my cell phone and then stop the watch when the cruise control beeps.

I repeated this several times without the FAE and then after installation without any variables being changed. Maybe the FAE test was done with 1-2 gallons of gas less, but that is about it. I performed the test without the FAE one day, and then the next time out, I performed the test with the FAE as soon as the boat was warm.

Without FAE: My boat reaches 22 MPH between 7.6 and 8 seconds.

With FAE: Boat reaches 22 MPH between 7.9 and 8.4 seconds.

My conclusion is that at my elevation (2700 feet) in a 247 with the Hammerhead engine and 1235 prop, the FAE has a very small negative impact on the power the engine produces. It could even be due to drag of the FAE in the water, FAIK. I find this tiny drop in performance insignificant, and worth the benefits of less fumes, and decreased noise.

Feel free to discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shawndoggy

exxxxcelllent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pnwrider

Nice review! To clarify, the tests were done on different days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TallRedRider

Nice review! To clarify, the tests were done on different days?

Yes, different days. I didn't have time to install the FAE and retest on the same day. But same lake, same tank of gas, same ballast etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nyryan2001

I am so spoiled with my FAE I wouldnt want to go back without it.

Its worth it for the noise reduction alone, I dont miss the roar of the V8 one bit, able to carry on a conversation while underway. If you surf, its a no brainer. Much less the CO2 bubbles surfacing in a neat trail 20ft behind the surfer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
09vRide

I'm looking forward to getting mine. Should be here in a few weeks. Just the reduced noise benefit alone will be worth it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D-GOOSE

Thanks for taking the time to do a real world test and doing so fast. Not easy to take the time and do this.

I do believe if you are looking for a system the is going to reduce noise and CO2, FAE is the way to go. As I have said before every produce has pro's and con's and knowing what they are is the most important part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrystalSurf

I was thinking of getting this because my kids are wanting to surf (7 and 8 yrs).

However, they also like to tube and I was wondering if the CO2 is now going to be an issue further behind the boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldjeep

I was thinking of getting this because my kids are wanting to surf (7 and 8 yrs).

However, they also like to tube and I was wondering if the CO2 is now going to be an issue further behind the boat.

This is old, but interesting

http://www.boatpipes.com/Reports/USCG-NIOSH-FAE_report.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bunji169

Mine is on it's way!! I'll try to do some tests before and after install on my 2013 LSV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wakedncsu

For those just interested in the FAE part...

“Fresh Air Exhaust (FAE)”™ CO Study
The manufacturer of “Fresh Air Exhaust (FAE)”™ collected data to better understand the
potential risks for CO exposure on boat occupants and towed persons, and to evaluate the
performance of FAE in reducing CO exposures. Their experiments evaluated CO concentrations
near two ski boats: a 1988 Correct Craft Ski Nautique with a 351 CID carbureted gasoline engine
4
and a 2001 Tiger 20i with a 351 CID throttle body fuel injected engine.
Measurements were collected on ToxiUltra CO monitors located 21” above the swim platform,
on the transom, and on the back seat of each boat. Other monitors were mounted on a 16’ Hobie
Cat sailboat, at approximately 10’ aft (off center to stimulate the position of a wake surfer) and
100’ aft at locations 2’ and 5’ above the water level. If the wind speed exceeded 5mph
measurements were not taken.
Results from the Ski Nautique measurements indicated that at 5mph the CO concentration near
the rear seat of the boat was 1 ppm average / 3 ppm peak, while at 10 mph measurements in the
same location were 10 ppm / 50 ppm peak. CO measurements near the transom were
significantly higher. At 10 mph, average CO measurements 100 feet behind the boat and in the
“wake surf” zone were approximately 1 ppm. During wake surfing, boat occupants had a greater
risk of CO exposure than the wake surfers. CO measurements near the 2001 Tiger 20i at 10 and
20 mph at distances 60’ and 80’ feet behind the transom consistently reported CO concentrations
of 0 ppm.
The FAE manufacturer concluded that at 5mph, FAE greatly reduces the risk of CO exposure
within and on the swim platform of the boat, with a reduction up to 98% at the transom and
minimal CO concentrations within the boat. At the same speed, the FAE increased some of the
CO concentrations behind the boat. At 10 mph and 20 mph CO concentrations were minimal at
all measured locations inside and behind the boat. The FAE manufacturer theorized that wet
scrubbing may reduce the overall levels of CO released into the air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnnyDefacto

Thanks for doing this. I love real tests like this. Curious, what is your "full ballast" setup. 8 seconds to 22 is really fast...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bunji169

Tracking number says I'll get it Friday. I'm excited to install and try it out.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fman

Kevin, do you have turn down tips for exhaust? If yes, how do you plan an on removing them? Did you go with black or polished stainless?

Edit: After doing some research on installs, removing the stainless tips seems like it's the most difficult part of the process.

Edited by Fman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fman

If you did not see my other post on different thread, nyryan sent me a few videos via cell phone... The sound difference was substantial, the fae really made the boat quieter.

Looking forward to hearing your review Kevin on how you like it. I'm getting the itch to order one up myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TallRedRider

Thanks for doing this. I love real tests like this. Curious, what is your "full ballast" setup. 8 seconds to 22 is really fast...

My boat has stock rear tanks which are 250 pounds each, then a center tank that is 500 pounds. I did not have a front tank, so I plumbed in a 400 pound sack in the walkway that is connected to the front ballast switch on the dash. Just 3 people in the boat and 2/3 tank of gas. I posted a thread on my front ballast somewhere if you want to see it. I think it works excellent for folks who did not get a front ballast tank.

With the 1235 it gets up and goes pretty fast. My top speed is almost 40 MPH empty, and it usually feels like I am whining the engine too hard if I do extended cruising any more than 30 MPH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
justgary

Thanks for doing this. I love real tests like this. Curious, what is your "full ballast" setup. 8 seconds to 22 is really fast...

The PP won't beep at 22, it will beep before that. It beeps when it decides that the driver has shown intent and given enough throttle for it to control 22. It should be repeatable, but only if the throttle is moved the same each time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnnyDefacto

My boat has stock rear tanks which are 250 pounds each, then a center tank that is 500 pounds. I did not have a front tank, so I plumbed in a 400 pound sack in the walkway that is connected to the front ballast switch on the dash. Just 3 people in the boat and 2/3 tank of gas. I posted a thread on my front ballast somewhere if you want to see it. I think it works excellent for folks who did not get a front ballast tank.

With the 1235 it gets up and goes pretty fast. My top speed is almost 40 MPH empty, and it usually feels like I am whining the engine too hard if I do extended cruising any more than 30 MPH.

thank you, I was thinking you were running a bit light with that planing time, but wanted to make sure. I do not recall your ballast install, but I am sure i have seen it, can you link it for me when you have a moment? thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnnyDefacto

The PP won't beep at 22, it will beep before that. It beeps when it decides that the driver has shown intent and given enough throttle for it to control 22. It should be repeatable, but only if the throttle is moved the same each time.

I know what you mean… I have done a few tests with different props posted over at the axis forum and during my tests I would just use 2 separate guys using stop watches and they would watch the speedo (analog). I would do each test 2 or 3 times, and take the average of all 4 or 6 times from the 2 stopwatches. I thought of using the "beep" but was not confident in its consistency. One test I had the PP set at the desired test speed of 23, did everything else the same, hammered down at WOT and waited for the "beep". I noticed how the PP reduced throttle input right around 20 mph and even more as it approached 23… so I nixed that method. It would work, I think, if you did it the same way every time as I am sure TallRedRider did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TallRedRider

The PP won't beep at 22, it will beep before that. It beeps when it decides that the driver has shown intent and given enough throttle for it to control 22. It should be repeatable, but only if the throttle is moved the same each time.

The throttle was just fully hammered each time, so this was not the way I would pull up a rider of any sort, except maybe an aggressive slalom skier or barefooter. I can say that the acceleration is pretty brisk, and I actually was awfully close to 22 when it beeped, and would obviously overshoot by a fair amount if I allowed it to.

I figured that by burying the throttle, that was the only way I would do it exactly the same every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TallRedRider

thank you, I was thinking you were running a bit light with that planing time, but wanted to make sure. I do not recall your ballast install, but I am sure i have seen it, can you link it for me when you have a moment? thanks.

http://www.themalibucrew.com/forums/index.php?/topic/39452-tallredriders-front-ballast-install/?hl=%20tallredrider

I could load it up heavier and repeat, but I really don't feel like removing the FAE. Maybe one of you guys can do this same experiment with more than stock ballast? That is one limitation here. It is possible that the difference in power is magnified as you get closer to the boat's maximum output, so a small difference now is much larger when the boat is loaded up much more than stock. But for my use, this is fine. My days of uber wakeboarding ballast are behind me, and I have never been able to get my boat heavy enough to affect my ability to get to surf speeds. But I have put enough weight that I couldn't reach wakeboarding speeds in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnnyDefacto

http://www.themalibucrew.com/forums/index.php?/topic/39452-tallredriders-front-ballast-install/?hl=%20tallredrider

I could load it up heavier and repeat, but I really don't feel like removing the FAE. Maybe one of you guys can do this same experiment with more than stock ballast? That is one limitation here. It is possible that the difference in power is magnified as you get closer to the boat's maximum output, so a small difference now is much larger when the boat is loaded up much more than stock. But for my use, this is fine. My days of uber wakeboarding ballast are behind me, and I have never been able to get my boat heavy enough to affect my ability to get to surf speeds. But I have put enough weight that I couldn't reach wakeboarding speeds in the past.

Thanks for the link… great stuff.

It would be an interesting test to do for sure. I know when I am running super heavy I can not plane if my rider is pulling on the line at all, doing inside outs or slashing, while I am trying to get up to speed…. at that point, they need to just turn their board sideways and slide until we are on plane, or get outside the wake immediately and "surf" the whitewater. This is rare but we do sometimes run across this. So it makes sense that if you are fully loaded and then drag a 1" pipe behind the boat, that can be just enough to keep you from planing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnnyDefacto

yes, I remember that thread now. That is a nice set up. I almost bought a Vride a few years back and was going to have to do something like you did. Looks good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
formulaben

Yes, different days. I didn't have time to install the FAE and retest on the same day. But same lake, same tank of gas, same ballast etc.

More importantly, were the temperatures (and atmospheric pressures) vastly different? This would make a difference in the power output of the engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shawndoggy

Did you weigh yourself before the test? Were you wearing a drag reducing skin suit at all times? Were tests conducted both directions and windspeed accounted for?

(tongue firmly in cheek)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


×
×
  • Create New...