Malibu to marinize own GM engines

[IXFE]

6 minutes ago, DarkSide said:

I think they will have to BECAUSE that is what nautique and MC are offering.   Otherwise,  Malibu would be using "old,  antiquated technology".  which is how MC and Nautique would present it.  

I haven't put enough time in to say DI is better/worse but does show promise from what i have read.  More power and more fuel efficient . ...winning combo

Is Nautique really using an LT4...?  That's 650hp

[Pnwrider]

29 minutes ago, DarkSide said:

They do not need an engine to run forever,  only through the warranty period.  Average user 50 hours a year,  shouldn't be an issue.  However, i would expect more oversight towards Abuse/Overweighting, currently that cost is passed to indmar so oversight has been minimal.    Technically most of us overweight our boat. 

If Malibu had to pick up the tab for new tranny,  i doubt they would have covered it.  They did not cover prop burn in my gel,  any guesses why???  

How did Malibu know how much weight you put in your boat? Seems like that would be a tough thing to prove as a reason to deny a warranty claim. 

[DarkSide]

I think they are still using LSA, but definitely 5.3 and 6.2 DI.  MC has adopted those as well.  Yet MC doesnt do Supercharged they go old school BIG BLOCK!...

[DarkSide]

Just now, Pnwrider said:

How did Malibu know how much weight you put in your boat? Seems like that would be a tough thing to prove as a reason to deny a warranty claim. 

When you go to the lake with the guys from the dealer.... and you leave lead and GIANT PNP bags in your boat.... 

I also tried to make the claim i use ballast instead of people, because i run a small crew... 

So here is my PSA for the day.

Your plaquard weight is ballast and people, the PNP counts against that.  So if you run 750's and a bow bag, you are overweighting your boat, even with a 3 man crew! 

[IXFE]

12 minutes ago, DarkSide said:

When you go to the lake with the guys from the dealer.... and you leave lead and GIANT PNP bags in your boat.... 

I also tried to make the claim i use ballast instead of people, because i run a small crew... 

So here is my PSA for the day.

Your plaquard weight is ballast and people, the PNP counts against that.  So if you run 750's and a bow bag, you are overweighting your boat, even with a 3 man crew! 

Yeah... this is funny. In my case all my ballast bags (incl. bow triangle) were installed by my dealer. 

[TallRedRider]

About Direct Injection....I have owned a 15 G23 and a 16.  Without and with DI. 

I have not noticed any difference in fuel consumption.  I think there is a little more power, but it wasn't like I said 'WOW' look at this power!  

I would not use DI as a real world #gamechanger.  

[DarkSide]

5 minutes ago, TallRedRider said:

About Direct Injection....I have owned a 15 G23 and a 16.  Without and with DI. 

I have not noticed any difference in fuel consumption.  I think there is a little more power, but it wasn't like I said 'WOW' look at this power!  

I would not use DI as a real world #gamechanger.  

TRR,

were they both the same "size"

example 2015 had LS3 450 2016 had H6 450, tranny and prop were both 2:1 17x17 correct?  

[IXFE]

6 minutes ago, TallRedRider said:

About Direct Injection....I have owned a 15 G23 and a 16.  Without and with DI. 

I have not noticed any difference in fuel consumption.  I think there is a little more power, but it wasn't like I said 'WOW' look at this power!  

I would not use DI as a real world #gamechanger.  

I was gonna say... I have both an LS3 and an L86 in my garage as we speak!  I freeking LOVE the LS3, but have been less than impressed with the L86 (for reasons that may or may not translate to boating)

Your experience is way more relevant than mine given you've had both in a G23 application. 

[thtrog]

Darkside, The '15 Nautique would have been the 6.0/450 with the 2:1/17" prop. I was demoing both last fall and with full ballast could not tell a difference in power. I have a friend with the 6.0/409 in a G21, the first time he drove my G23/450 he noted a it was faster to plane than his. FYI - the H6 is now the base engine in the G23/G25 for 2017.

Edited November 15, 2016 by thtrog

[DarkSide]

Throg, 

Thank you that answers the question perfectly.  So based on TRR and Throgs useage, really no real benefits to H5/6 other than marketing...

 

[thtrog]

1 minute ago, DarkSide said:

Throg, 

Thank you that answers the question perfectly.  So based on TRR and Throgs useage, really no real benefits to H5/6 other than marketing...

 

I've heard the same with fuel consumption, the H5 supposed to be better if you can get by with it. The H6 does have a simple winterization, just pull 8 blue plugs...but on the other hand I like that the prior engines were half close cooled. I have a friend at the MC dealer and he said the '17 DI Ilmors are close cooled and have a new proprietary raw water pump with a drop-in impellor.

[TallRedRider]

1 hour ago, DarkSide said:

TRR,

were they both the same "size"

example 2015 had LS3 450 2016 had H6 450, tranny and prop were both 2:1 17x17 correct?  

 

27 minutes ago, thtrog said:

Darkside, The '15 Nautique would have been the 6.0/450 with the 2:1/17" prop. I was demoing both last fall and with full ballast could not tell a difference in power. I have a friend with the 6.0/409 in a G21, the first time he drove my G23/450 he noted a it was faster to plane than his. FYI - the H6 is now the base engine in the G23/G25 for 2017.

What he said.  Both were the 450 with same tranny and prop.  

Having the G23 with the H5 as the base motor was just a bummer for resale for the guys who bought one.  So it makes sense the H6 450HP should be the base motor.  

[85 Barefoot]

2 hours ago, shawndoggy said:

Not to mention that Indmar is usually a customer service bright spot for malibu.

Looking at 85's hypothesized $1700 per power unit of "gravy," it'd be pretty easy to make a counterargument that it's ONLY $1,700.  How many visits to the dealer till that $1,700 gets lost in warranty claims and diminished good will?

Shoot, while they're at it, why not insource the electronics manufacturing too?

Most people don't care who takes care of warranty claims or whose problem it is.  Look around for people who blame (manufacturer x) for engine issues.  To me, it simplifies the warranty process.  

[skyskier]

19 hours ago, Bill_AirJunky said:

Wonder how many Malibu owners get warranty work done by other Indmar dealerships. Doesn't effect me at all, but it could be an issue for some small number of customers.

Exactly what I was thinking. My Malibu dealer is four hours away (and they are AWESOME) , but I have an awesome Indmar certified shop 5 miles away. It's nice to have options. This is also going to stir up the whole dealers refusing to service out of territory boats issue again. If your new boat with the Malibu engine has to be serviced by a Malibu dealer but your local dealer refuses, then what? Btw, I am not looking for a fight, so please don't engage.

[The Hulk]

7 hours ago, IXFE said:

The hardware is the easy part. The software mapping and integration with speed control is where this thing gets screwed up if they're not careful. I don't think it's as easy as just "outsourcing it." 

These were the type of issues with the Marine Power LS3. They need to get this critical piece right. If memory serves, Marine Power issue only affected aprox. 500 boats. If Malibu gets this wrong it will impact EVERY SINGLE BOAT they sell until they get it right. 

i'm sure the new boats will have their own SIM card so Malibu can automatically update your software when you fire up! then it will monitor you location and elevation and give you the correct "tune" for your day! ....(or in case they screwed up the tune) hah

[The Hulk]

21 hours ago, IXFE said:

Jokes aside... @DarkSide and I are assuming they will successfully execute this transition; we're dreaming about life 3-4 years from now.  Your concerns are valid.  But I offer a counterpoint.  Look what happened when Malibu decided to build their own trailers.  They nailed it on year 1.  My 2016 Malibu trailer was without question the best boat trailer I've ever owned, and it's not even close.  This is coming from a guy who is a BIG fan of Boatmate too.  The Malibu trailer is just so much more robust.  Did Malibu know how to build trailers?  No, but I'm sure they decided it wasn't rocket science, so they invested in a plant, studied other trailers on the market, hired some key talent to bring the skillset in-house, and away they went!  I can tell you that I saw a slight decrease in price too with the Malibu trailer, so they did pass some of the savings on to the customer.

Marinizing engines is a bit more complex than building trailers, but it's not exactly rocket science either.  I see them following the same pattern as their trailer integration...  They're investing $18M to build a new facility and bring in new talent (likely a few key hires from Indmar, PCM, or the like).  They have allowed themselves a couple of years to get it perfected; I bet they probably already have working prototypes... they're at least far enough along to be confident in making a public announcement.  

So yeah... I think this is a good thing!  And based on track record I'm guessing they'll get it right.  They can't aford not to.  They know this all too well after the Marine Power fiasco of 2014.

they should hire some folks from lingenfelter!!! we need more power! and the engine covers would look sweet.. 

[IXFE]

Just now, The Hulk said:

they should hire some folks from lingenfelter!!! we need more power! and the engine covers would look sweet.. 

By far my favorite Hulk post evar!

[The Hulk]

5 hours ago, shawndoggy said:

 

Shoot, while they're at it, why not insource the electronics manufacturing too?

very easy to do: simple 100-300k investment for an SMT/solder line and one or two key person hire to run it and now you can make all your PCB/Electronics in house, chump change for them. for what they need they could probably get what they need for 250k

i'm getting ready to buy a small setup myself, for the simple fact i'm not limited to MOQ's, or companies charging an arm and leg to run prototypes etc.. simply make a design whatever you want, load the machine up and watch it spit out your finished circuit boards! you can change/update/fix on the fly....quite easy... but mostly cool fun stuff! 

to me this would be an easy move for them...and smart... 

Edited November 16, 2016 by The Hulk

[DarkSide]

I have a great idea....use an android tablet for the dash, cheap disposable and an update every 3 months.  (anything Samsung puts out now is really HOT). .. BOOM DONE!

[The Hulk]

1 hour ago, DarkSide said:

I have a great idea....use an android tablet for the dash, cheap disposable and an update every 3 months.  (anything Samsung puts out now is really HOT). .. BOOM DONE!

Tablet is good idea.. cheaper and easy to update...I thought the WT-1 had that?

Edited November 16, 2016 by The Hulk

[23LSVOwner]

16 hours ago, DarkSide said:

I think they are still using LSA, but definitely 5.3 and 6.2 DI.  MC has adopted those as well.  Yet MC doesnt do Supercharged they go old school BIG BLOCK!...

New School Big Small block.

Bored and stroked LS based motor. You should see how Ilmor builds it. Pretty impressive.

Edited November 16, 2016 by 23LSVOwner

[67King]

I have mixed thoughts on this.  Straight up hardware wise, it is a no brainer.  I don't know what GM/Ford sells the base engines to the conversion companies for, but to put it in perspective, we had the Ford 4.6L 2V Modular down to around $1000 to build, excluding plant overhead and development costs (both of which were spread out over nearly 1M units/year).  The newer stuff (6.2/Raptor) is certainly more expensive, and GM has to spend tons of money on their valvetrain to make it competitive with OHC types of engines.  But figuring the engines are between $1500-2000 is not unreasonable.  Of course there will be mark up.  But even with, there are thousands sitting on the table right there.

The flipside is the development costs.  That is a whole lot more involved than most people realize.  And given that the boats have to be emissions compliant, you are adding that much more to it.  To put it in perspective, when I did calibration, it was on the 2004 Explorer V8, that had only a change from a mechanical to an electric throttle body.  Our section had 6 people, 5 development trucks, and took about a year.  And that was just the engine, the transmission guys had their own section.  Now, none of that includes any mapping work.  Mapping is done on engine dynos, a bit analogous to "lab" environments.  Completely optimized with stable conditions, temperatures, etc.  Involves mapping multiple configurations (intakes, cams, exhaust manifolds all drive major maps, even a water pump can drive some verification work).  Once the engine's base map is done, then it goes to the vehicles for calibration.  If it is major, it'll be more vehicles with more people for longer periods of time.  

When you sell 100,000-250,000 units annually (per vehicle line), that cost is spread out pretty far.  Now you are talking about spreading it out over say 2000 units for the base engine, and 500-1500 for the optional ones?  That's a lot of coin.  From that perspective, it really makes sense to have entire powertrains developed by fewer supplies, and used across multiple brands.

That said, this is an intriguing development, personally.  Plant is 30 minutes away.  Hmmm.........

Edited November 16, 2016 by 67King
Clarification

[Woodski]

@67King:  Looks like an opportunity for you!  Sale price on the crate stuff to the marinizers for the older, read capital amortized, was roughly double your build cost number.  Agree on the hardware part, that will simply be a purchase pass through item, doubtful any hardware from the engine source will happen, simply no economy for that and everything needed is readily available.  The whole OHC discussion for an engine that spends all its time under 4k rpm, not really a technology advancement that provides a performance gain.  You do hit the key element on the challenge and also where the differentiator in performance will come from and that is the calibration.  Interesting time to spin off and vertically integrate as the duty cycle, specifically for the heavily loaded boats, does appear to approach the performance envelope.  It will be interesting if Malibu actually does that internally or outsources that function, similar to what some other marinizers currently do.

[67King]

1 hour ago, Woodski said:

@67King:  Looks like an opportunity for you!  Sale price on the crate stuff to the marinizers for the older, read capital amortized, was roughly double your build cost number.  Agree on the hardware part, that will simply be a purchase pass through item, doubtful any hardware from the engine source will happen, simply no economy for that and everything needed is readily available.  The whole OHC discussion for an engine that spends all its time under 4k rpm, not really a technology advancement that provides a performance gain.

Actually the lower RPM is where it is most advantageous.  Ramp rates, which drives the roller cams and all the associated hardware, allows a higher lift cam with lower duration and overlap, which allows better tuning, which allows better torque.  Of course, it isn't really that relevant, since GM has to make the things for the passenger cars, and it would be both expensive and ridiculous to rebuilt the LS engines down to flat tappet cams and their associated hardware.  Plus the whole marketing thing is a very big factor.  But don't forget that we keep having to deal wiht more and more EPA related regulation.  Overlap is going to hurt both emissions and fuel economy, so the older (capital amortized) stuff may not be compliant forever.

I think the best thing for Malibu to do would be to somehow work with the other guys to do the development work to keep that spread over 10,000 boats.  GM and Ford have done some work together in transmission development, maybe take a page from that.

[Woodski]

21 minutes ago, 67King said:

Actually the lower RPM is where it is most advantageous.  Ramp rates, which drives the roller cams and all the associated hardware, allows a higher lift cam with lower duration and overlap, which allows better tuning, which allows better torque.  Of course, it isn't really that relevant, since GM has to make the things for the passenger cars, and it would be both expensive and ridiculous to rebuilt the LS engines down to flat tappet cams and their associated hardware.  Plus the whole marketing thing is a very big factor.  But don't forget that we keep having to deal wiht more and more EPA related regulation.  Overlap is going to hurt both emissions and fuel economy, so the older (capital amortized) stuff may not be compliant forever.

I think the best thing for Malibu to do would be to somehow work with the other guys to do the development work to keep that spread over 10,000 boats.  GM and Ford have done some work together in transmission development, maybe take a page from that.

@67King:  True, except it is so much cheaper to substitute OHC gains via displacement as fuel economy is not a high priority and displacement is not taxed in the USA.  EPA issues can and will certainly drive development direction.  The use of the GM engineering staff has been very successful to date.