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!

Interesting video


Recommended Posts

Not trying to start a brand war. Thought you guys may find this interesting. http://www.mmwatersports.com/boat-performance/centurion-vs-malibu-vs-nautique-wakesurf-fuel-economy/

 

apparently my boat is as fuel efficient as my truck. Haha. All in good humour boys! Don’t throw me out to pasture like darkside 

Edited by wheelman
Link to comment

This caught my eye when it started popping up on my feeds earlier today, especially since most comparisons between brands come down to personal preferences and are generally hard to quantify. However, they lost me on this one once they tried to compare fuel burn with the 24 MXZ at max wedge. That may be great info for the two guys out there that run that way, but how about a real world comparison at 2-3 clicks? Seems a bit disingenuous when they're claiming to be doing an objective comparison between the 3 boats, but then tweak one of the boats to run at 4800 or so RPM (completely a wild guess on that).

Edit: I see it's 4,250 RPMs now, so way off on wild guess...

Edited by NWBU
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, NWBU said:

This caught my eye when it started popping up on my feeds earlier today, especially since most comparisons between brands come down to personal preferences and are generally hard to quantify. However, they lost me on this one once they tried to compare fuel burn with the 24 MXZ at max wedge. That may be great info for the two guys out there that run that way, but how about a real world comparison at 2-3 clicks? Seems a bit disingenuous when they're claiming to be doing an objective comparison between the 3 boats, but then tweak one of the boats to run at 4800 or so RPM (completely a wild guess on that).

Power wedge at 1, looks about 3,600 RPM's 12 GPH on Diacomm. Wedge up more (he doesn't say where) 4,250 RPM's and 17.5 GPH

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Dfowkes said:

It would be interesting to see what props all the boats were running, what transmission ratios, and what RPM’s the boats were turning. 

http://www.mmwatersports.com/boat-performance/centurion-vs-malibu-vs-nautique-wakesurf-fuel-economy/

I think he touches on props and transmission ratios in a comment on Youtube

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, skurfer said:

Power wedge at 1, looks about 3,600 RPM's 12 GPH on Diacomm. Wedge up more (he doesn't say where) 4,250 RPM's and 17.5 GPH

Thanks, didn't see the RPMs the first time.

Edited by NWBU
Link to comment
29 minutes ago, NWBU said:

This caught my eye when it started popping up on my feeds earlier today, especially since most comparisons between brands come down to personal preferences and are generally hard to quantify. However, they lost me on this one once they tried to compare fuel burn with the 24 MXZ at max wedge. That may be great info for the two guys out there that run that way, but how about a real world comparison at 2-3 clicks? Seems a bit disingenuous 

About as scientific a comparison as you can get.  Even if it is Max wedge then 2-3 clicks is somewhere between 12-17 gph.  Probably about double the Ri.

 

Impressive numbers by centurion.  Makes me like them a bit more but still not enough to buy one.

  • Like 2
Link to comment

Keep in mind this is regular surf side and from previous experience and I believe most others you run 2 clicks down from stow which would be 1 click from max wedge on the regular side. Goofy side would not be as much wedge and would be lower rpm as well as most boats. 

Link to comment

Went back and watched it again, and agree that I'm mistaken on the max wedge bit that I was quoting. He mentions having the wedge fully engaged, but doesn't say what setting.

Do others consistently run that much wedge on the regular side? It's more than I'm used to seeing when I've been on 2016/2017s.

Link to comment

I just noticed there 2 threads on this video, so I will post this on this one too:

 

You didn't state it, but the question you are really asking is - how can they manipulate the test to produce these results?

I would say a big factor is the attitude of the boat, bow up has to use more fuel.  Also the prop, it dictates engine RPM and loading.  A heavily loaded engine goes richer.  A supercharged engine is richer also during boost.

This is the test I been wanting to do I my boat to test all these same factors. 

 

Link to comment

It doesn't appear that they are testing a 2018 G23 or 24MXZ. The Nautique and Malibu they are in look to be 3-4 years old. It would be nice if they compared 2018 vs 2018 vs 2018. Doesn't the 2018 G23 have the exact same engine as the 2018 RI237? It's a neat comparison but seems skeptical to me. They aren't comparing apples to apples and don't even mention the actual ballast/set up they are running in each of the boats. 

Link to comment

Good observation.  MXZ looks to be a 2016 (ford motor but not the 2017 walkthrough transom).

They do go over the ballast in each.  All 3 were factory full, including rear PNP on the MXZ.  

Link to comment

Also no mention of where the center plate is at on the centurion or the nautique, they did 2 different tests on the Malibu why not the other 2, however both the waves looked good so they must be using decent settings. I also doubt they have all the ballast filled in the ri257 as most do not fill the front bag and only use a bit in the center tank to get the best wave. Not sure if this is a positive or negative for the numbers though. Would more weight in the front bringing the bow down make the gph better or worse for running more weight?

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Cole2001 said:

Hehe:whistle:  3.6GPH. Since we’re comparing brands I had to. 

 

Nice try, not really the same test is it? There is lots of idle time in those hours coming back to pick up riders etc. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Toymanator said:

They aren't comparing apples to apples and don't even mention the actual ballast/set up they are running in each of the boats. 

Seems pretty clear to me in regards to ballast setups. Each boat is running what it produces best with, full factory. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, wheelman said:

Nice try, not really the same test is it? There is lots of idle time in those hours coming back to pick up riders etc. 

Ok so let’s say 16 hours of actual surfing. 70/16 is 4.4GPH. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Cole2001 said:

Ok so let’s say 16 hours of actual surfing. 70/16 is 4.4GPH. 

I will bet you boats that the tige is not getting 4.4 gph while loaded up and surfing connected to the diacom like this test is showing. You’re comparing apples and oranges in calculations. You bring your boat, I will bring my diacom. If I do the calculation of gph from hours to gallons used I am right around 5gph, doesn’t mean that’s what I’m getting when surfing. Hook your boat up to diacom and you will be amazed how many hours under 1500rpm you have even with shutting the boat off between riders etc. 

Link to comment

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...