Ordering a 2018 LSV - Anyone on here have the supercharged Raptor engine?

[wbama387]

If it is easy for you to get 91+ octane on your lake, the supercharger is nice to have. I had the 410 in my 2017 23 LSV and I wished it had more power. I have not been in a boat with the 450, but the 575 has plenty of power for any amount of weight you want to run. Like others have said you may want to look at the 25 LSV. For the price you will be paying on the supercharger, you could probably get a 25 LSV with the 450 for the same price as the 23 LSV with the 575.

[Sailvi767]

On 11/28/2017 at 4:24 PM, ibelonginprison said:

I'm PRETTY certain that the marina on Martin around the corner from Chuck's has 91-93. I'm almost certain of it. I ran that last summer while I was there.

Smith, however....... notsomuch. 
90 is all we got from everything I've seen. I don't even know where to get 93 non-eth. around there.... I can ask around, though - since we're making you trailer it up there to hang out with us next summer. ha

And yes, on a forced induction motor, it's just ignorant to not pull timing. 

 

I am sure the motor will pull timing. The problem is that the engine is not designed to pull timing full time. Pulling timing is designed to momentarily protect the engine from detonation. If you pull timing full time you change the combustion event in the cylinder which changes internal cylinder pressures among other factors. This can lead to damage over time. 

[wbama387]

1 hour ago, Sailvi767 said:

I am sure the motor will pull timing. The problem is that the engine is not designed to pull timing full time. Pulling timing is designed to momentarily protect the engine from detonation. If you pull timing full time you change the combustion event in the cylinder which changes internal cylinder pressures among other factors. This can lead to damage over time. 

Pulling timing all the time will not cause damage to the engine. 

[SBriscoe]

I just bought a 2018 23 lsv with the 575. One thing that has not been mentioned is that the 575 is quieter than the 450. 

When I tested a boat with the 450, there was a lot of gear noise and it took a bit to get to speed. Not so with 575. It sounded amazing  and got to speed really fast. It is a great option. I  didn’t want a 25 lsv, I liked the looks and size of the 23. I have no regret, as my boat as a blast to drive👍

[shenard]

10 minutes ago, SBriscoe said:

I just bought a 2018 23 lsv with the 575. One thing that has not been mentioned is that the 575 is quieter than the 450. 

When I tested a boat with the 450, there was a lot of gear noise and it took a bit to get to speed. Not so with 575. It sounded amazing  and got to speed really fast. It is a great option. I  didn’t want a 25 lsv, I liked the looks and size of the 23. I have no regret, as my boat as a blast to drive👍

Good to hear!   Thanks for the feedback.  Which prop are you using?

Edited November 30, 2017 by shenard

[tjklein]

I regretted my supercharged motor when I traded it in!  Ouch.  $$$  :-)  Other than that I loved it.  I went base raptor with my current boat as the 450 was no real difference.  

[SBriscoe]

 I do not know which prop I am using. I can look later and get back with you. I did not change from the one the dealer wanted to use, which is a higher elevation prop. 

 I do think you will lose on resell value, but if you keep it for a long time I do not think that will be a problem. 

It is definitely funner to drive a supercharged boat, and that is one thing I do not think it’s debatable.

[Sixball]

8 hours ago, minnmarker said:

If local rules allow it get your own tank.  I get gas delivered 280 gallons at a time and don't have to pay road tax.  Non Oxy and any octane I want.

I never look at local rules. It was my insurance agent who was upset! Ended up moving or racing gas to another site. Good old racing days!. 

[The Hulk]

I lived my old SC engine, but I love my 25 a LOT more. 

It's been discussed here in depth with different gear ratios your not gaining much difference as you did in years past with the SC. Basically your just getting lower rpms. Now high elevation will be a bigger difference if that's your case. But torque at prop is hardly any different with the new gear ratios, ask @IXFE. 

Now I'm comparing a 2013 23 lsv with SC to a 2016 25 lsv w 450 ... But.. I'll say the 25 seems to handle way more weight with moderately working. Yes higher rpms but it gets on plane easy and I personally believe due to the longer running surface ..dispersed weight.. and  has less bow rise than my 23.. I know it's not apples to apples. I'd be willing to bet equal weights the 25 would do better than a 23 due to longer running surface.

Have u tested a 25? Boating with a crew that size on the norm would be a little silly in a 23 especially if all adults.. u can get a way better wave with the 25 with 4-5+ in the boat.

The 25 scares ppl right off the bat for whatever reason but everyone on here who was on the fence like you who pulled the trigger will never probably go back to a 23. The SC is a 90-95% PURE loss on resale I took that burn...ouch. it was worth less than $1k on resale. Now  with new gears I'd be willing to say it could be a complete loss starting in 2017 forward (yet to really be seen).

A previous article on TMC here has proved that a bigger boat will prove to either not be a loss or MUCH less of one and possibly increase in the resale market for consumer cost perception. A minimal few k price increase to a 25 results in a huge resale difference to a 23 in a few years from now...well worth it.. ie NO loss when considering this.. 

in your case your pissing the $ away for a SC compared to a possible huge increase/difference of your resale with a 25. This could easily double or more your cost difference. Example: u pay $15k loss for  SC but a 25 w/ 450 sells for 30k more than yours.. but both cost same price.. resale not even close.. 

Don't get me wrong the SC is always BA! If that's what u want go for it! It's just awesome! On the other hand the reason for getting it is not the same as before due to diff gear ratios. It's basically bragging rights and a 25 w/ 450 is WAY cooler bragging rights on the lake than a 23 w/ SC... And your crew will deff appreciate comfort and larger longer wave far more than the SC..

Did u demo that dealers M235 he informed u of this on? If so and if u rode it u will probably be disappointed going back to a 23. The 25 will be similar or better depending on riding style. 

If your even contemplating just get a 25 w/ SC! I mean after all the 23 is sooooo like #metoo already

good luck it's always a fun problem and or decision!

Edited November 30, 2017 by The Hulk

[granddaddy55]

On 11/28/2017 at 3:24 PM, ibelonginprison said:

I'm PRETTY certain that the marina on Martin around the corner from Chuck's has 91-93. I'm almost certain of it. I ran that last summer while I was there.

Smith, however....... notsomuch. 
90 is all we got from everything I've seen. I don't even know where to get 93 non-eth. around there.... I can ask around, though - since we're making you trailer it up there to hang out with us next summer. ha

And yes, on a forced induction motor, it's just ignorant to not pull timing. 

 

All non ethanol premium is 91

[Brett B]

A few years ago a friend had a 22MXZ with the supercharged LSA motor. It certainly got on plane very quickly but it consumed significantly more gas than any of the other wakeboats in our crew. Don't go into a supercharged engine thinking it will consume less gas over something like the 450.  

Pulling too much timing and/or doing it for too long can absolutely cause damage to the engine. As soon as you pull timing exhaust gas temps rise significantly. You raise the risk of burned exhaust valves/valve seats and cracked exhaust manifolds. Superheated exhaust valves from retarded timing can also be a source of pre-ignition. Detonation and pre-ignition are not the same thing. Many engines can survive sustained detonation (often called knock) at low cylinder pressures, although forced induction engines are obviously much more sensitive to detonation than typical naturally aspirated engines. But nothing can survive sustained pre-ignition without catastrophic failures due to the cylinder pressures involved. Think holes in pistons, cracked ring lands, flattened rod bearings, lifted heads, etc.  

Edited November 30, 2017 by Brett B

[Brett B]

On ‎11‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 10:51 PM, shenard said:

The only thing I can add here is that I would always run 93 in it if I get the SC engine.  My dealer here in Dallas is actually going thru a current claim with Indmar where they have initially denied the claim with one of their customers that has the SC engine claiming they did not run premium fuel in it.  They told me to always use 91+ to avoid any issues with Indmar and to spend a few hundred more a year in fuel is a no brainer to me.  I don’t have same issues as many that have boats in slips with limited availabity of premium at lake marinas.  

 

I would heed this advice. With Indmar no longer being the Malibu engine supplier of the future their attitude appears to have changed. I was extremely surprised at how unwilling they were to help me out when my transmission failed just ~4 months out of warranty on a pristinely maintained boat with 433 hours on it. If anything big ticket goes wrong they will be denying the warranty claim if they can find a way out of it. I plan to break in my new boat by the book and it will be out of my hands before the warranty expires.

[wbama387]

35 minutes ago, Brett B said:

A few years ago a friend had a 22MXZ with the supercharged LSA motor. It certainly got on plane very quickly but it consumed significantly more gas than any of the other wakeboats in our crew. Don't go into a supercharged engine thinking it will consume less gas over something like the 450.  

Pulling too much timing and/or doing it for too long can absolutely cause damage to the engine. As soon as you pull timing exhaust gas temps rise significantly. You raise the risk of burned exhaust valves/valve seats and cracked exhaust manifolds. Superheated exhaust valves from retarded timing can also be a source of pre-ignition. Detonation and pre-ignition are not the same thing. Many engines can survive sustained detonation (often called knock) at low cylinder pressures, although forced induction engines are obviously much more sensitive to detonation than typical naturally aspirated engines. But nothing can survive sustained pre-ignition without catastrophic failures due to the cylinder pressures involved. Think holes in pistons, cracked ring lands, flattened rod bearings, lifted heads, etc.  

Let me rephrase. The amount of timing needing to be pulled between a 91 and 89 octane fuel should not cause damage. It would just be stupid for a factory engine manufacture to design their engines on the edge like that. I know if you start pulling too much timing you do not get complete combustion before the valves open, hence increased EGT. PCM is running their xs7 on 89, but it does help that their engine is DI.

[ORMailbuboater]

I have a 2016 23 LSV with the ROUSHcharged Raptor 575.   Awesome power!   2 seasons now.  I plan to keep 2016 23 LSV for many years so quick depreciate on the engine choice was not really a concern.  Been told only 1% of customers opt for the 575.   I skipped the 450 since to me it was only a software change and thought Indmar was soaking us.  Should be standard or less expensive than$7500 option price.   Nothing wrong with either 410 or 450 choice.  Personally Demo'd a 410 and was underwhelmed with the power. The engine does not work as hard to get up on plane as the 410.   Did not have a 450 to demo so cannot speak to the difference.   I went for it and spent the additional $$ for the SC motor.  No regrets here.   

Fuel consumption has been better than I expected.  IMO the 575 SC with full ballast showcases the higher torque characteristics of the Raptor SC motor.  It effortlessly comes up on plane.  I even went up on the prop to an Acme 2367 prop (15 x 17.75, 0.150 cup) .  The engine makes easy work of it.  Lower RPM at my typical cruising speed (28-32MPH).  Hammer down if I want and get up to 40+ (That does drink some fuel!).  Then surf with full crew and ballast 10-11mph <3000 RPM.  Love the torque.

Reliability has been excellent.  Did have trouble codes when 1st got the boat.  Indicated O2 sensors out of range.  Fixed by my awesome local dealer (Active Water Sports) with sensor replacements and engine software update.  No warranty issues with Malibu or Indmar on ROUSHcharged Raptor 575.  

In Oregon my local Chevron station supplies 92 Octane Clear Premium (no Ethanol).   ~50-75 cents more per gallon but worth it to me.  No issues with meeting the 91 octane minimum required.  93 is what is recommended by Roush but the 92 works great.  When I travel to California lakes where only 89 octane is available I do use Torco Accelerator octane booster.  Known race fuel additive company makes a high quality additive.  Of course its available on Amazon. Followed the suggested concentration table with no problems.   Never a hint of detonation or power loss noticed.     

Difficult decision for sure.  Think there is no wrong decision which to me makes the choice harder.  Good luck which ever way you choose.    All are good engines.  Just a matter of personal taste really.  

[KJKimball]

16 hours ago, wbama387 said:

 PCM is running their xs7 on 89, but it does help that their engine is DI.

XS7 and XR7 are not DI engines.  Those are the snazzy and plain jane versions of the LSA.

[shenard]

11 hours ago, ORMailbuboater said:

I have a 2016 23 LSV with the ROUSHcharged Raptor 575.   Awesome power!   2 seasons now.  I plan to keep 2016 23 LSV for many years so quick depreciate on the engine choice was not really a concern.  Been told only 1% of customers opt for the 575.   I skipped the 450 since to me it was only a software change and thought Indmar was soaking us.  Should be standard or less expensive than$7500 option price.   Nothing wrong with either 410 or 450 choice.  Personally Demo'd a 410 and was underwhelmed with the power. The engine does not work as hard to get up on plane as the 410.   Did not have a 450 to demo so cannot speak to the difference.   I went for it and spent the additional $$ for the SC motor.  No regrets here.   

Fuel consumption has been better than I expected.  IMO the 575 SC with full ballast showcases the higher torque characteristics of the Raptor SC motor.  It effortlessly comes up on plane.  I even went up on the prop to an Acme 2367 prop (15 x 17.75, 0.150 cup) .  The engine makes easy work of it.  Lower RPM at my typical cruising speed (28-32MPH).  Hammer down if I want and get up to 40+ (That does drink some fuel!).  Then surf with full crew and ballast 10-11mph <3000 RPM.  Love the torque.

Reliability has been excellent.  Did have trouble codes when 1st got the boat.  Indicated O2 sensors out of range.  Fixed by my awesome local dealer (Active Water Sports) with sensor replacements and engine software update.  No warranty issues with Malibu or Indmar on ROUSHcharged Raptor 575.  

In Oregon my local Chevron station supplies 92 Octane Clear Premium (no Ethanol).   ~50-75 cents more per gallon but worth it to me.  No issues with meeting the 91 octane minimum required.  93 is what is recommended by Roush but the 92 works great.  When I travel to California lakes where only 89 octane is available I do use Torco Accelerator octane booster.  Known race fuel additive company makes a high quality additive.  Of course its available on Amazon. Followed the suggested concentration table with no problems.   Never a hint of detonation or power loss noticed.     

Difficult decision for sure.  Think there is no wrong decision which to me makes the choice harder.  Good luck which ever way you choose.    All are good engines.  Just a matter of personal taste really.  

I pulled the trigger and ordered an '18 23LSV with the SC motor and will have it by then end of January.  Interesting choice on the prop.  That was the one item I wasn't exactly sure about because my dealer said the torque prop (2249) with the SC motor gives an even better surf wake the prop you you got but the difference is you can get 5+ more top end.  I chose to torque prop because my dealer is great and said anytime I wanted to swap or try the prop you have I could just swing by the dealer and they would just swap them out in 5 mins.

 

Regarding boats, alot of members have asked if considered the 25LSV instead for the same price.  I did and they were very comparable in price.  While I liked the roominess of the 25LSV, the surf wake wasn't even comparable to the '18 23LSV when you only have 2-3 people on the boat.  It is longer and more bouyant than the 23 and needs more weight to achieve the same results. Coming from a '15 23LSV I am shocked that the stock wave with 2-3 people was probably at least a foot bigger.  The 25LSV also did feel quite as nimble as the '18 23LSV.  Both are great boats, but 90% of the time we will have 5-6 adults, 5-6 kids or less.  Occassionally we load up the boat and the 25 would be nice in those occasions but the 23LSV is a really good size all around for us.

 

Thanks for all the replies and feedback.  I'll try and post some pics later of my actual build and specs. 

[SCMike]

On 12/1/2017 at 4:41 AM, shenard said:

I pulled the trigger and ordered an '18 23LSV with the SC motor and will have it by then end of January.  Interesting choice on the prop.  That was the one item I wasn't exactly sure about because my dealer said the torque prop (2249) with the SC motor gives an even better surf wake the prop you you got but the difference is you can get 5+ more top end.  I chose to torque prop because my dealer is great and said anytime I wanted to swap or try the prop you have I could just swing by the dealer and they would just swap them out in 5 mins.

 

Regarding boats, alot of members have asked if considered the 25LSV instead for the same price.  I did and they were very comparable in price.  While I liked the roominess of the 25LSV, the surf wake wasn't even comparable to the '18 23LSV when you only have 2-3 people on the boat.  It is longer and more bouyant than the 23 and needs more weight to achieve the same results. Coming from a '15 23LSV I am shocked that the stock wave with 2-3 people was probably at least a foot bigger.  The 25LSV also did feel quite as nimble as the '18 23LSV.  Both are great boats, but 90% of the time we will have 5-6 adults, 5-6 kids or less.  Occassionally we load up the boat and the 25 would be nice in those occasions but the 23LSV is a really good size all around for us.

 

Thanks for all the replies and feedback.  I'll try and post some pics later of my actual build and specs. 

Congrats man!  Looking forward to see the build pics and real life pics. 

[hethj7]

One more thought - I don't know the closest dealer to Tahoe, but call them up and see if they order most boats with the SC engine or not.   Or find another lake at elevation and seek out that dealer - even browsing their stock inventory online may give you a little insight.   

[Gavin17]

On 11/29/2017 at 0:34 PM, minnmarker said:

If local rules allow it get your own tank.  I get gas delivered 280 gallons at a time and don't have to pay road tax.  Non Oxy and any octane I want.

That's awesome, tell me more.  Do you fill up on the trailer or on the water. Do you have a hose at your dock?  Do you have to use gas cans?  Can you save any money doing this or is it just for convenience? 

[minnmarker]

48 minutes ago, Gavin17 said:

That's awesome, tell me more.  Do you fill up on the trailer or on the water. Do you have a hose at your dock?  Do you have to use gas cans?  Can you save any money doing this or is it just for convenience? 

I've got a 280 gallon fuel tank.  Very standard size.  It's installation is grandfathered in.  If I wanted to put it in now I would have to have a berm built berm around it to contain the fuel if it leaks.  Anyway, the way it is, if it leaks it will not drain into the lake or against a structure.  It was all done professionally and legally but you have to have the right lot for it..  Many farmers have a similar setup for fuel.

So anyway there's a buried copper pipe from the tank (which is up near the road so the tanker can fill it) to a stand with a rubber fuel hose on shore near the docks.  The hose is long enough to reach the Malibu, pontoon, etc.  I fill up on the lift.  Yes, I save a lot of money vs marina prices and +/- break even with gas station prices.  Minimum purchase for delivery in my area is 200 gallons.

One year we forgot to lock the valve at the tank and some snowmobilers drained it.  Maybe lost a hundred gallons.

It is SO much easier than going to the marina and waiting if its busy and banging against the dock if its rough.

[ConnollyCrew]

On 11/28/2017 at 3:30 PM, wbama387 said:

Are you talking about Blue Creek? Grant thought they did, but that looks like the only Marina that would if they do. It would be a good haul for us to get there, we are all the way in Parker Creek. If they do that may be my only option.

There is another Marina between Chucks and Blue Creek, thats the one he is referring too I believe.