Debate, lsv 23 with 350

[Arick]

Arick- are you talking a '14 23 LSV? Or '13 and older?

If your are talking a '14 23LSV, you need a new salesman.... Or you don't plan to run your boat hard.

Anyone getting a '14 23LSV better get the 450 or 555.... Else it's gonna be like those '13 G23s with the 409s, taking $35-$45k hits on depreciation. ...

And even the '13 450 G23s on the older tranny to some extent. Malibu will need to follow with the new tranny and 17" props to get premier performance on this new huge 23 and MXZs.

If you don't run much over stock ballast and plan to keep it a long time then rock on with the purchase. Just don't expect a smooth sale or great trade in the near future, Fewer folks will want it with the 350.

I didn't really have a specific year in mind, was just a general conversation with a dealer. I am not looking at purchasing a new boat. Was just at the dealership window shopping and a conversation lead to this debate. He said the 350 was perfect and that the larger motors were over kill. etc.. etc.

Edited May 12, 2014 by Arick

[tn_rider]

I didn't really have a specific year in mind, was just a general conversation with a dealer. I am not looking at purchasing a new boat. Was just at the dealership window shopping and a conversation lead to this debate. He said the 350 was perfect and that the larger motors were over kill. etc.. etc.

He just wanted you to buy a boat. Nobody that has been in the sport will say the bigger motor is overkill.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tims]

His boat also has a narrower beam and is lighter than a '14. Who really wants to push the limits that far with a prop? People are suggesting the 2419 with the 350 - that's a crazy aggressive prop with a top speed (on the rev limiter) of probably 35MPH and a cruising speed of 25.

The 350 (GEN-I SBC) is a solid motor, but it was last updated 18 years ago...technology has moved on, engine design efficiency has moved well past it. An LS3 will burn less fuel, weigh less AND make a ton more power. A worthy upgrade.

Everyone around here who is getting the 23 with LS3 has them equipped with torque props like the 2419 so top speed will not really change between the 350 and 450. If the reason for getting the bigger engine option is top speed AND weighing down with big time ballast then the option really needs to be the supercharged 550 as it has the grunt down low.

[Brett B]

I would agree with Fman... the new LSV is much heavier than the VLX. I could feel it the minute I hooked it up to my Ecoboost. It even tows heavy.

I also agree with TJ when he says, skip some other options and get the LS3. Do you really think you'll regret it?? The only issue is you won't find an LS3 in your dealer's inventory, and at this point a custom build will put you deep into the season.

It's interesting to note that on the Malibu website it lists the VLX as 3,700 lbs. with a capacity of 14 people and the LSV as 4,500 lbs. with a capacity of 15 people. But if you look at the brochure book (I have one in front of me), it lists the VLX as 4,050 lbs. with a capacity of 13 people while the LSV specs are the same as on the website. I wonder what gives??

Malibu's published "dry" weights are so far off that they shouldn't even be up there.

My 2012 VLX (without surfgate) is 6000lbs on the trailer lake ready. When you do the math in terms of gear and fuel that puts the dry weight of just the boat at well over 4000lbs.

[AZ23lsv]

I have the 350 in mine. And with the wedge down and i add 1800lbs of ballast and the stock tanks full i have no problem surfing. Now i did change to the 1235 prop and that made a huge difference. I normally have 7-10 people and it has no problem doing what even i need it to do.

[wakebrdr94]

Why is this debate on related to boats? When we get the "help me pick a tow vehicle" threads, Diesel is the obvious answer, but you get people saying "my eco boost does just fine" or "my 5.7 pulls my LSV". blah blah. Yes those do the job, but an eco boost (or whatever) is not going to pull like a diesel.

No the 350 will not do as well as a 550, but again it goes to how you will use it. Some guys say they live 10 mins from the ramp and never go up hills, or have no grades to climb, etc. But by the logic of "When you need it you have it" for ballast pertaining to a boat, "when you need it you have it" also goes for pulling your toys. so whats the difference?

Edited May 12, 2014 by wakebrdr94

[Tims]

^^^^^^^The reason people ask and debate the subject is because the actual engine upgrade is so expensive and folks want to make sure that they are going to get value out of their purchase. At least when picking out a truck or car there is objective data showing what you get for the upgrade.

With boats, all you have is enthusiasts on forums or your buddy saying "So glad I got the LS3" or "My Monsoon planes just fine with 10,000 of ballast + wedge"

[IXFE]

I have the 350 in mine. And with the wedge down and i add 1800lbs of ballast and the stock tanks full i have no problem surfing. Now i did change to the 1235 prop and that made a huge difference. I normally have 7-10 people and it has no problem doing what even i need it to do.

Your LSV does not have Surf Gate, therefore it doesn't require as much weight as a SG boat. Also, your LSV is two generations old which means it weighs significantly less. Those two differences are HUGE.

[Chattwake]

I had the 350 and torque prop on my 13 lsv. I thought it was sluggish when weighed over stock (factory + pnp). I have an ls3 in my A24 with the torque prop. I took it out last night for a bit. It runs like a scalded dog. I would really push you to get the ls3.

Oh, and I have an extra torque prop in my garage that needs to be refinished (I dinged the trailer with it last season), and I'd be willing to trade for a high altitude if someone has one laying around. Pm me.

[Fman]

Chat, A24/LS3 this year? Where are the pics... how did you manage to not inform everyone of this!

[Chattwake]

It literally just happened. It was a demo that I'd been hoping would work out, which did, but I didn't want to talk about it until the ink was dry. There's still work to do.

[WakeSwagger]

I have not seen the exact weights, but doesn't the new 23 weigh as much, if not more, than the 247? The reason I ask is because the L96 is standard in the 247 (for good reason), and Malibu continues to offer the 350 as the standard motor for the new 23. The OP's salesman has every incentive to sell him on a 350 so that he can move inventory. We have a LS3 in our 23 and wouldn't recommend anything less to others in the market for a new 23. This is a bit off topic, but try to get a boatmate trailer with the stepmates. Climbing in and out of the boat without them becomes a chore.

[Nitrousbird]

Everyone around here who is getting the 23 with LS3 has them equipped with torque props like the 2419 so top speed will not really change between the 350 and 450.

#1: Very few people are running the 2419 with the LS3 in a Malibu. That's an extremely aggressive prop. 2313 and 2315 are much more common for those LS3 owners wanting an aggressive prop. 2419 is more for the underpowered folks.

#2: You will get a little more top speed out of the L96/LS3 with an aggressive prop, simply due to the extra RPM the motor can spin. That 400 RPM will likely net an additional 2-3MPH, not that anyone wants to cruise that high, but you have a bit higher margin of RPM to play with. Again, it isn't much but its something.

I have not seen the exact weights, but doesn't the new 23 weigh as much, if not more, than the 247? The reason I ask is because the L96 is standard in the 247 (for good reason), and Malibu continues to offer the 350 as the standard motor for the new 23.

This is a good point. The 247 (which came out in '06 and is still the same hull), was originally outfitted standard with the 383 Hammerhead and optioned with the 8.1L big block ('06 - '09). 2010 looks like it was only offered with the LS3 or 8.1L, then 2011+ was base model L96 with LSA as an option in 2011-12 and LS3 & LSA as options in 2013+. No idea why the new LSV isn't following the same engine requirements as the 247 since it is now in the same weight category. Edited May 12, 2014 by Nitrousbird

[IXFE]

I have not seen the exact weights, but doesn't the new 23 weigh as much, if not more, than the 247? The reason I ask is because the L96 is standard in the 247 (for good reason), and Malibu continues to offer the 350 as the standard motor for the new 23. The OP's salesman has every incentive to sell him on a 350 so that he can move inventory. We have a LS3 in our 23 and wouldn't recommend anything less to others in the market for a new 23. This is a bit off topic, but try to get a boatmate trailer with the stepmates. Climbing in and out of the boat without them becomes a chore.

According the the Malibu web site, the 23 LSV is 4,500 lbs. while the 247 is 4,200 lbs. Not saying that's accurate. But that's how they list it. So your point is valid.

Does anybody remember that when the G23 first launched the standard motor was the PCM 343? I assume that's not the case anymore. But perhaps Malibu is just trying to keep the base price down on the LSV. Maybe in the future they'll make the 409 standard like in the 247.

#1: Very few people are running the 2419 with the LS3 in a Malibu. That's an extremely aggressive prop. 2313 and 2315 are much more common for those LS3 owners wanting an aggressive prop. 2419 is more for the underpowered folks.

In point of fact, the ACME 2419 is the factory supplied "torque prop" on 2014 boats.

My LSV w/ LS3 was optioned with the "torque prop" and it arrived from the factory with a 2419 (I have already switched to the 2315). And every new Malibu/Axis at my dealer with the "torque prop" is sporting the 2419.

So... I bet the LS3 / 2419 combo might not be as rare as you may think.

[nyryan2001]

No, the lowest engine avail on a G23 was the 6.0 409hp. And they've been straight wrecked on resale. Good for stock ballast only and a small crew at sea level.

Bought for $110-$120k.... Then hard to sell for $80-85k a year later. Seems folks want to treat them like entirely separate, no correlation.

Wait till the first '14 23 LSV owner weighs his on a scale and it comes in at 7800lbs with 1/3 tank of gas and light gear.

[Tims]

No, the lowest engine avail on a G23 was the 6.0 409hp. And they've been straight wrecked on resale. Good for stock ballast only and a small crew at sea level.

Bought for $110-$120k.... Then hard to sell for $80-85k a year later. Seems folks want to treat them like entirely separate, no correlation.

Wait till the first '14 23 LSV owner weighs his on a scale and it comes in at 7800lbs with 1/3 tank of gas and light gear.

How come PCM does not offer the LS3 and only a "hopped up" version of the 6.0? That being the case it's a good thing Natique changed the gear ratios on their transmissions since the tq on the 6.0 is not all that great.

You guys are going to need the prop from the Titanic soon!!

Edited May 12, 2014 by Tims

[IXFE]

No, the lowest engine avail on a G23 was the 6.0 409hp. And they've been straight wrecked on resale. Good for stock ballast only and a small crew at sea level.

Bought for $110-$120k.... Then hard to sell for $80-85k a year later. Seems folks want to treat them like entirely separate, no correlation.

Wait till the first '14 23 LSV owner weighs his on a scale and it comes in at 7800lbs with 1/3 tank of gas and light gear.

Hmmm... I could swear the base G23 was originally the 343. At least that was the commentary on WW when it launched. Maybe just some Nautique uninformed haters. LOL.

[ccwakerider]

G23 was originally offered with 343hp, but there were transmission issues. I don't believe there was one ever produced with a 343 from what I was told.

[nyryan2001]

What I am getting at here is the prospective '14 23LSV buyers need to be aware of what just happened a year prior on a similar setup on a large expensive perceived underpowered boat.

Undisputed fact folks don't wanna pay $110-120k for an underpowered boat that struggles with a large crew and extra ballast. They got punished hard with 80k residual values, while the 450 and 550 held values within 5-10k of purchase price. My 450hp sold for 2k less than I bought it after 6 months and 80hrs of use. No hook ups or deals, that was straight market value at the time. Well powered premium boats hold value.

It's not like when you drop price for a '14 23LSV 90-105k all of a sudden you are into a pool of leisurely folks content with small crews and stock ballast only for sunset cruises with wine. Just don't fool yourself into thinking you won't get slammed on the 350 1-3yrs later, we just saw this happen in a very similar scenario. Especially once folks see how capable this new 23 will be.

[DarkSide]

In the weight topic, I have a 24 MXZ, I have a company with scales right next to my house so I weighed it the other day on the way to the lake, so lake ready....full tank of gas, ice chest 1/2 full, 1 wakeboard, 2 surfboards, 4 jackets, etc...so light on gear side. Weight was 7340! The MXZ is published at 300 lbs heavier than LSV, but even so this puts the LSV over 7,000 lbs. Scary part is trailer only rated for 7500! So when I am on the boat while my son pulls it up the ramp, we are over weight!

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[DarkSide]

Also +1 on LS3, while you may not plan to add sacks, odds are the next guy will. These new BU's need weight, lots of weight, I run 4000+ and the wedge to surf, and it still wants more weight.... I am adding another 1100 lbs next week.....

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[teamerickson]

Including trailer?

[Afun]

Guys....please don't order this boat with the 350....it just doesn't work well...I have first hand evidence on this. Maybe last years hull you could get away with it.

[DarkSide]

Yes, boatmate tandem...

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[augie09]

So are there any owners with current '14 lsv with 350's on this forum? Do you surf with pnp full and stock only? Can you get to 11mph with acceptable sluggish-ness? Most close out lsv's are 350 equipped this time of year.