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  
The Hulk

Transmission Ratios 2017 vs 2016 vs earlier Upgrade Questions.

Recommended Posts

The Hulk

Looking at upgrading to a 2016 ....after discussing with the sales rep here is what i gather. (Note) please correct if my years or info is wrong this is just from what i could gather and remember in a short period. 

2015 (i think) or perhaps its 2014 and under, all the gear boxes are 1.48 for the 450hp and under and 1.25 for the LSA beast.

2016 all went to the 1.78 for base motors, except the big boy SC engine which gets a 1.48 now instead of a 1.25.

2017s Malibu is changing the strut/shaft angle steeper to throw on larger props, they are changing to a 2:1 like Nautique for all base motors, but from what the rep said they will keep the 1.48 for the SC motor. Their plan is to start swinging 16" props with the 2:1, so i wonder how much clearance there will be because the G-boys are running 17" on those 2:1, so i am wondering if anyone has taken delivery of a 2017 Bu yet to see if they have enough room for 17" under there with the new strut/shaft angle? 

so am i right in that i suspect the Supercharged Motors would exceed the torque of the 1.78:1 or 2:1 transmission and or don't need it due to the extra hp? So while everyone will loose quite a bit of top end on the 2:1 those with the SC engines would be the same.. (not including the older with the 1.25) I was told with the 2:1 its pretty much impossible to even get to 40mph it will be 37-39 depending on configuration. (not huge deal breaker) but throwing a bigger prop will sure help "for surfing". but the steeper angle transfers less fwd force to the boat so more is wasted shooting down but obviously a bigger prop hopefully makes up for it in the surf area. 

This also makes the base engine much more attractive with a 2:1 as that is a ton of torque on the prop with even the base engines.. so from what i gather the upgrade to the SC engine is only just going to gain you around roughly 10mph top end speed if thats correct?

so the question is on the 2017 boats with the SC engines are they going to hopefully still go with the steeper shaft/strut angle or would those SC boats still be left at lower old style like the 16s? i would hope not... as the SC with a 1.48 i think can still throw a 16 or larger depending on pitch easily, as i know the 1.25 with the older boats and 1.25 was still very powerful. 

 

so now i'm pondering between a 2016 with the 1.78 gear box 450hp or waiting for a 2017 with a 2.1. 

not sure if these outputs are correct but just roughly speaking Hp * output yes i know its not exactly like below but just for a quick reference let me know if its anyway accurate or not or please chime in and provide correct info. 

Earlier years

410hp * 1.48 = 606

450 * 1.48 = 666

555 & 1.25 = 693

.........................

2015-2016

410hp * 1.78 = 729

450 * 1.78 = 801

555 & 1.48 = 821

..............................

2017

410hp * 2.0 = 820

450 * 2.0 = 900

555 & 1.48 = 821

 

maybe i'm wrong but that means if you want to swing the biggest prop you can then the SC is NOT worth the money in 2017 and the 450hp wins for torque? (excluding top end speed), where in 2016 there is little difference between 450hp and the SC? if thats correct then perhaps the 2016 with 1.78 gearbox + 450hp would be worth pulling the trigger on?

Edited by The Hulk
correction

Share this post


Link to post
shawndoggy

are they really just going to steepen the output shaft angle?  I thought the nautiques actually had a longer tranny to shaft intereface so that the angle stayed the same but you just got more clearance?  Seems like pointing the prop towards the bottom of the lake is going to defeat the purpose a little bit (making boats more sensitive to bow rise).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
The Hulk

that is exactly what i was thinking but again that may just of been the dealers way of trying to explain that it would have more clearance... but if it gets any steeper it would start to get crazy with bow rise your prop would be starting to just shoot straight down.. so i suspect your correct or i hope so.. all things i'm interested in knowing though... 

 

just trying to decide if going from a 

2013 23LSV with 555hp and 1.25 (currently around 2900-3100 rpms heavily loaded) 

to

2016 25LSV with 450hp and 1.78 (as this boat is 4000-4100 rpms surfing with factory ballast)

Loose my current crazy awesome all around performance, but hopefully make it up with larger wave and more room and newer boat...just seems like its a quick change from 2016 to 2017 already which makes me wonder if its a good investment over waiting on a 2017 or newer. 

Share this post


Link to post
shawndoggy

in a 25 the prop shaft angle is probably less of a concern because so much boat is in front of the drivetrain.  On a 22vlx tho....

Why are you sure that you'd still be turning 4100 rpms with a 2:1?  Bigger prop should move more water all things being equal, and then you are also going to probably be running a completely different pitched prop than you are running now.  I think you'd lose top end for sure, but not sure surfing RPMs would change quite as much as you think.

Share this post


Link to post
The Hulk

the 2016 25 lsv has the 1.78, and a 14.5 Pitched prop since its a 2016, but they are all changing to a 2:1 for 2017 (so i'm told) so a 17 model would reduce top end for sure but would then go to a 16" diameter prop x "?" pitch... my guess is a 16x16 or 16x17 depending on users but would guess the factory will bein the 16x16 range (just a guess) seeming how some nautique guys are throwing 17x17 with  a 2:1... 

 

2013 23 LSV with 555hp and a 1.25:1, with a 14.5"x16" pitch @ 2900-3100rpm - surfing heavily loaded: (great all around performance , i may try a 14.5x17 in fact) not sure where the tipping point is at. or if i could find a 14.75x16.5 perhaps. 

2016 25 LSV with 450hp and a 1.78:1 with a 15"x14.5" pitch @ 4000-4100rpm - surfing factory loaded which is total proably what im at above since factory is more these days and bigger wedge on this, and larger factory soft bags in the lockers..

* the 2016 25LSV would have higher top end for the 2016 model

* the 2017 25LSV would have less top end but will be able to swing a much bigger prop, and could possibly load the crap out of it even with a 450hp.. obviously at the sacrifice of the top end of course.. 

* just wondering if i'm guessing right but is the 2017 worth the gear reduction wait and bigger prop at expense of a boat that will top out sub 40mph?   similar to the G23 first year or two and now they are not worth as much compared to the 2nd or so year when they switched to the 2:1. so thats what i'm wondering if people will find out the 2:1 is wroth it and thus why the 1.78 is only on 2016 models and there was a QUICK change to the 2:1....seems like a quick change which makes me wonder....

Edited by The Hulk

Share this post


Link to post
ahopkinsVTX

@The Hulk did you ever find out what actual model number prop is on the 16 25 LSV?

Share this post


Link to post
store934
19 minutes ago, ahopkinsTXi said:

@The Hulk did you ever find out what actual model number prop is on the 16 25 LSV?

High Altitude/Torque 17 x 14 - 2755 is what I have on a quote for 2017.   2016 I am looking at has a High Altitude 15 x 1425 - 2249

Edited by store934

Share this post


Link to post
DarkSide

Hulk,

For what it's worth, even with LSA and 15 x 15.75, I still can't hit 40 in the 15 MXZ.  I looked under the 17 and there is a ton of room to go even larger than 17 if needed.   There was roughly 3-4 inches of clearance with the 17" prop on there.   

I think the SC will still have some merit, the M235 gets a 17x20, which would run much lower RPM than 17x14, and generate higher top end.  

I think the 2:1 and 17" makes the 575 an option, not a requirement for running heavy in the larger boats.

Share this post


Link to post
85 Barefoot

hulk, what is your desired result.  You speak about top speeds and then about slamming the boat.  It's hard to suggest anything when I can't even understand what you're asking?  what is worth what to wait for?

Edited by 85 Barefoot

Share this post


Link to post
APoko
1 hour ago, DarkSide said:

Hulk,

For what it's worth, even with LSA and 15 x 15.75, I still can't hit 40 in the 15 MXZ.

Really? Dosen't yours have a 1.25 trans same as my '13 24MXZ.  Must be all that lead on your bow ;)... Mine is LSA, 1.25:1 trans and with 15x15.75 Acme 2277 prop and I can easily push it to 49 MPH, 50 on a good day :yahoo:

Share this post


Link to post
shawndoggy
Just now, APoko said:

Really? Dosen't yours have a 1.25 trans same as my '13 24MXZ.  Must be all that lead on your bow ;)... Mine is LSA, 1.25:1 trans and with 15x15.75 Acme 2277 prop and I can easily push it to 49 MPH, 50 on a good day :yahoo:

pretty sure they went to the 1.48 tranny on the LSA in 14?

Share this post


Link to post
APoko
4 hours ago, shawndoggy said:

are they really just going to steepen the output shaft angle?  I thought the nautiques actually had a longer tranny to shaft intereface so that the angle stayed the same but you just got more clearance?  Seems like pointing the prop towards the bottom of the lake is going to defeat the purpose a little bit (making boats more sensitive to bow rise).

 

 

A steeper shaft angle will actually work to lift the stern and to force the bow down more... If they did in fact change the angle that may have been part of the intended outcome in order to minimize bow rise and probably help reduce the need to run as much bow weight for surfing.

8 minutes ago, shawndoggy said:

pretty sure they went to the 1.48 tranny on the LSA in 14?

That explains a lot then... I'm very interested to find out for sure... Ive been benchmarking a lot of my setup off@DarkSide and if his trans ratio is different than mine that would deffinitly reinforce my idea that I may want to try a 15x14.25 prop on mine.

Edited by APoko

Share this post


Link to post
shawndoggy
4 minutes ago, APoko said:

A steeper shaft angle will actually work to lift the stern and to force the bow down more... If they did in fact change the angle that may have been part of the intended outcome in order to minimize bow rise and probably help reduce the need to run as much bow weight for surfing.

I hear what you are saying, but it's belied by a lot of practical experience.  If what you were saying worked, the cure to too much stern weight would be more stern weight to create an even more ridiculous angle.  The problem is that the steeper the angle the more the boat wants to push up to the sky not bring the bow down.  At least that's how it works on every boat I've ever surfed.

Share this post


Link to post
NAW

Keep in mind that different models will have different a different gear ratio in 2017, even though it will be the same engine.

410 will be 1.46 in the 20-21, 1.76 in the 22-23

450 will be 1.76 in the 20-23's, 2:1 in 235-25LSV

575 will be 1.46 in the 22-23's, 1.76 in 235-25LSV

 

Share this post


Link to post
APoko
18 minutes ago, shawndoggy said:

I hear what you are saying, but it's belied by a lot of practical experience.  If what you were saying worked, the cure to too much stern weight would be more stern weight to create an even more ridiculous angle.  The problem is that the steeper the angle the more the boat wants to push up to the sky not bring the bow down.  At least that's how it works on every boat I've ever surfed.

I dont think were talking on the exact same premise.... I'm only speaking to the angle of the driveshaft relative to the planning surface of the boats hull.  On an inboard that angle is a function of the boats design and can not be easily altered.  I think what your reffering to is the practice of changing fore-to-aft weight bias which will affect the entire boats running attitude and alter the angle of the driveshaft relative to the water surface but not the angle of drive shaft relative to the boats hull.

Edited by APoko

Share this post


Link to post
85 Barefoot

poko, good thought but the more the wash is shot "down" not "out",  yes it will run flatter but it's also lifting the rear.

Share this post


Link to post
shawndoggy

boat is at rest, floating, unweighted.  Shallower propshaft angle will have shaft closer to parallel with boats running surface.  Steeper angle will have shaft closer to perpendicular with running surface.   Weight the back of the boat heavy, effective angle of prop to surface of water gets steeper.  At some point the angle gets too steep for boat to maintain forward progress or increase speed.  Solution is generally either bow weight or less stern weight, each of which results in a shallower effective prop angle (making boat more "level" just deeper in the water).

 

^^^ shadetreee folk engineer logic

Share this post


Link to post
85 Barefoot
13 minutes ago, NAW said:

Keep in mind that different models will have different a different gear ratio in 2017, even though it will be the same engine.

410 will be 1.46 in the 20-21, 1.76 in the 22-23

450 will be 1.76 in the 20-23's, 2:1 in 235-25LSV

575 will be 1.46 in the 22-23's, 1.76 in 235-25LSV

 

Is this confirmed?

Share this post


Link to post
The Hulk
3 hours ago, ahopkinsTXi said:

@The Hulk did you ever find out what actual model number prop is on the 16 25 LSV?

spec sheet says Acme 2249 which is a 15"x14.25"

1 hour ago, APoko said:

A steeper shaft angle will actually work to lift the stern and to force the bow down more... If they did in fact change the angle that may have been part of the intended outcome in order to minimize bow rise and probably help reduce the need to run as much bow weight for surfing.

That explains a lot then... I'm very interested to find out for sure... Ive been benchmarking a lot of my setup off@DarkSide and if his trans ratio is different than mine that would deffinitly reinforce my idea that I may want to try a 15x14.25 prop on mine.

yes i'm curious too as i was benchmarking mine lat year as well until i found my 2013 has a 1.25, i think it was 2014 or late they did it on the larger model boats?

Share this post


Link to post
NAW
23 minutes ago, 85 Barefoot said:

Is this confirmed?

Yes.

 

*unless there are mid production changes or engineering revisions.

Share this post


Link to post
DarkSide

I believe I am 1.46:1

Share this post


Link to post
The Hulk

if thats true a 575 with a 1.76 might need an 18x18 prop!! glad there is room!

 

Share this post


Link to post
shawndoggy
Just now, The Hulk said:

if thats true a 575 with a 1.76 might need an 18x18 prop!! glad there is room!

 

 

Man what's an 18x18 gonna cost? that's a lot of nibral!

Share this post


Link to post
The Hulk
2 hours ago, 85 Barefoot said:

hulk, what is your desired result.  You speak about top speeds and then about slamming the boat.  It's hard to suggest anything when I can't even understand what you're asking?  what is worth what to wait for?

lower surf rpms which also should be slightly better top end due to being able to run an increased pitched prop. obviously this is a fine line that sways either way when crossed ... at this point spending a ton of money on a boat that cant even hit 40mph is IMO getting to a depressing point in terms of boating. I understand the surf big prop, ton of weight movement... just to me if a boat cant even hit 40 and it cost $150k+ its getting somewhat depressing. maybe we just need bigger HP!!!!

6 minutes ago, DarkSide said:

I believe I am 1.46:1

 

3 hours ago, DarkSide said:

Hulk,

For what it's worth, even with LSA and 15 x 15.75, I still can't hit 40 in the 15 MXZ.  I looked under the 17 and there is a ton of room to go even larger than 17 if needed.   There was roughly 3-4 inches of clearance with the 17" prop on there.   

I think the SC will still have some merit, the M235 gets a 17x20, which would run much lower RPM than 17x14, and generate higher top end.  

I think the 2:1 and 17" makes the 575 an option, not a requirement for running heavy in the larger boats.

M235 which year and which trans ratio are they able to run a 17x20 prop? that pitch is very high is that with the 2:1 and what engine? or is that being run with a SC engine and a 1.76? (if these higher gear ratios are allowing higher pitches with bigger diameters then it might make sense)

Share this post


Link to post
IXFE
17 minutes ago, The Hulk said:

spec sheet says Acme 2249 which is a 15"x14.25"

In a 2016 Malibu the solution to 4k rpm's is NOT to get the torque prop (2249).  Standard prop (2277) will do just fine with the new transmission.  I run this prop and it's great.  We surf with 4k in ballast in the 23 LSV and RPM's are mid 3's.  And that's with the standard 410 engine and I've got plenty of throttle left.

Edited by IXFE

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...