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!

Gph Comparison


hunter77ah

Recommended Posts

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

At least on the Bu, the two different wedge tests accounted for two different bow rise configurations.  Of course, that is’t relative to the other two boats.  Otherwise, they claim all boat are run stock with full ballast.  Yes, prop and engines are a factor but nonetheless the results are very interesting.  

And not to bring it up again, but the 45O in the Bu is torque not HP.  

Link to comment

I don't know why anyone should be surprised that deploying the wedge results in a substantial decrease in fuel economy.  Even though the engine got real loud, it was "only" 4200 rpms which, while high, is not outside of my experience running a 23lsv with a lot of wedge.  

Part of the answer should be don't run so much wedge, but I know some people really like those shorter steeper waves.  The length and shape of the malibu wave on the first test is more inline with what I like personally.  As @CharlieBeaU astutely pointed out the other day, there's a lid for every garbage can.

I do quibble with the assertion in the video that the smaller centurions get better fuel economy when fully loaded.  It MAY be true, but I'd like to see the numbers.

Also as a technical point, and perhaps @mikeo has some thoughts,  the G23 and Ri were running GM powertrains (MEFI) and the Bu was apparently running a Ford.  Is the diacom GPH measurement (a) that accurate (down to the hundredth of a gph) and (b) reliably comparable between GM and Ford platforms?  My guess is that they are close enough that it shouldn't impact the validity of the conclusions in the test, but a question worth asking.

Basic conclusion -- towing a parachute behind your boat = inefficient.

Of course no mention of the economy of the 3500 series rig you need to tow your Ri, but this is the internet.

  • Like 3
Link to comment

Really was an apple to orange to pear comparison. Not Apple to Apple. The wedge is a huge drag bucket. Surf gates force the boat to yaw adding more drag. An Apple to Apple comparison would have been all 3 on the same lake same day, all 3 hulls with same engine/ trans and prop. 

 

Link to comment

@shawndoggy H6 in Centurion is direct injection. Around town I tow 257 with my 1/2 ton Ram Ecodiesel with 4 corner air suspension. It does great and I give a lot of room. The 257 trailer has 6 disc brakes (electric over hydraulic an option). Call me crazy...I wouldn't say this is a good idea, for a long trip or going over the mountain I'd take the 2500 Ford shop truck. 

Edited by skurfer
Link to comment
3 hours ago, KJKimball said:

Really was an apple to orange to pear comparison. Not Apple to Apple. The wedge is a huge drag bucket. Surf gates force the boat to yaw adding more drag. An Apple to Apple comparison would have been all 3 on the same lake same day, all 3 hulls with same engine/ trans and prop. 

 

With this in mind, does anyone use 750s in a 24mxz without any addl. bow weight?

  • Like 1
Link to comment

I will weigh in on this. I was on @DarkSide ri257 all day in smith lake. And we surfed all day, and everytime we went to a different part of lake w cruised with all extra ballet sill loaded. All he dumped was ram fill. So all extra bags were in rear, and he even had lead back there. Everytime we stopped his swim platform was sibmerged at least 6" and when all full was closer to 12". Always cruising now high. When it was getting dark, I was amazed the boat still had half a tank of fuel!  

My M235 definitely will not touch the ri on fuel efficiency. 

Just my .02 and speaking from experience. Heck my 2014 vlx burnt more fuel than the ri does. 

Edited by spikew919
  • Like 2
Link to comment

The 24 MXZ was also a 2016 before they did the redesign. Not sure if the redesign is more fuel efficient or not. I would also not suggest a 450 at 5,000' of elevation... I'd go for the 575 supercharger. It would have been nice for them to do a test on the Malibu with the wedge in the middle, where most people probably run it. Not at the two most extremes. It went from 12 to 17, so my guess is a normal surf session would be around 14gph.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, DarkSide said:

This "test" is very close to my experience.   I used to get 6-7 hours on a full tank of fuel, in my 24 MXZ's.  (I had a 450 and 572) We would normally surf till the tank was on E and then go home, using 65-67 gallons was normal day,  starting at 7 surfing til 2ish.  On exceptional days we would refill at lunch and burn well over 100 gal.   I now stay til 4 or 5 on a normal day and have almost 1/2 tank left.   My worst day ever I used 62 gallons in the 257.

I did Wake the World with @Willis717 2 years ago.  The tank was empty in the afternoon, and we put an extra $100 in the tank to finish the day.   When I did Wake the World this year,  at 1:30 I was still over 3/4 of a tank.   

These results are spot on based on 400+ hours in MXZ and 160 hours on the 257.

One other note,  the MXZ in this test was NOT using PNP,  only hard tank and wedge! You can tell by how poor the wave was with minimal wedge.

They have 750 pnp bags in the Malibu in test. He says so and even shows them. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, wheelman said:

They have 750 pnp bags in the Malibu in test. He says so and even shows them. 

 You are correct I did not see them in the locker, post edited

Edited by DarkSide
Link to comment

Not to dispute the findings in the comparison at all, but the 24MXZ is a hull designed in 2012 with a 15" prop where the G and Ri are new(er) hulls with 17" props.  So I agree, a bit of an apples to oranges to pears comparison, but interesting nonetheless.

 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, KJKimball said:

Really was an apple to orange to pear comparison. Not Apple to Apple. The wedge is a huge drag bucket. Surf gates force the boat to yaw adding more drag. An Apple to Apple comparison would have been all 3 on the same lake same day, all 3 hulls with same engine/ trans and prop. 

 

I fail to understand how doing the test on the same day would make a difference.   As if temperature makes all that much difference, all were done on pretty smooth water.  

I am not sure why you mention the surf gate creating more drag and the wedge being a drag bucket.  Are you suggesting they should have done the test without those things?  It is clear from this test that the Malibu uses more gas.  

Someone said the G had the 450, but it had the supercharged motor.  

Real work fuel consumption is going to be much less, as others have pointed out.  Between switching riders, idling back to get a fallen rider and cruising, it is going to be a lot less.  

Let's do a few quick calculations.  Most of us can fuel up on the way to the lake, so let's assume $3 per gallon, 100 hours per year and 10 gallons per hour.   It comes out to a whopping $3000!  Or if I just buy me an Ri 257, maybe I could whittle that down to $1500.  When making a decision on a boat that costs 130K+ like all of these do, saving myself $1500 a year is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard.  Seriously, people.  And high hour folks will lose on depreciation more than they lose in gas costs.  

The only time there is a rational argument here is if you boat all day and need to go refuel in the middle of the day, that sucks.   I have never had to do that in my G23, as time to idle back to my rider, swim around, relax and listen to music usually cuts down on some fuel consumption. 

Doesn't the Ri have a 92 gallon tank, and the others have somewhere around 65 gallons?  I miss my 247 and X45 that had 90 gallon tanks.  I could go days without refueling.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, TallRedRider said:

I fail to understand how doing the test on the same day would make a difference.   As if temperature makes all that much difference, all were done on pretty smooth water.  

I am not sure why you mention the surf gate creating more drag and the wedge being a drag bucket.  Are you suggesting they should have done the test without those things?  It is clear from this test that the Malibu uses more gas.  

Someone said the G had the 450, but it had the supercharged motor.  

Real work fuel consumption is going to be much less, as others have pointed out.  Between switching riders, idling back to get a fallen rider and cruising, it is going to be a lot less.  

Let's do a few quick calculations.  Most of us can fuel up on the way to the lake, so let's assume $3 per gallon, 100 hours per year and 10 gallons per hour.   It comes out to a whopping $3000!  Or if I just buy me an Ri 257, maybe I could whittle that down to $1500.  When making a decision on a boat that costs 130K+ like all of these do, saving myself $1500 a year is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard.  Seriously, people.  And high hour folks will lose on depreciation more than they lose in gas costs.  

The only time there is a rational argument here is if you boat all day and need to go refuel in the middle of the day, that sucks.   I have never had to do that in my G23, as time to idle back to my rider, swim around, relax and listen to music usually cuts down on some fuel consumption. 

Doesn't the Ri have a 92 gallon tank, and the others have somewhere around 65 gallons?  I miss my 247 and X45 that had 90 gallon tanks.  I could go days without refueling.  

This 1000%, basing your decision on fuel consumption is crazy.   It's an anecdotal write-up but really not a make or break type thing.  I doubt there are many 130k boat buyers who will buy a boat over anothet because it uses an extra $60 a weekend.  

And to answer your tank size yes,  24 MXZ 72 gallon, RI257 92 gallon, no idea G23 size.

Edited by DarkSide
  • Like 3
Link to comment

No offense to @DarkSide, but @TallRedRider point about depreciation is certainly valid on the RI, regardless of hours.  And to be fair, the M235 seems to be taking a pretty big hit too from glancing at OIB, etc.  No amount of fuel savings will make up for those hits after a year.  

Bottomline, I think we all agree that better fuel economy is always nice, but is probably so far down the list on deciding what to buy it doesn’t matter.  The G, the RI, the MXZ - all fantastic boats!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, hethj7 said:

No offense to @DarkSide, but @TallRedRider point about depreciation is certainly valid on the RI, regardless of hours.  And to be fair, the M235 seems to be taking a pretty big hit too from glancing at OIB, etc.  No amount of fuel savings will make up for those hits after a year.  

Bottomline, I think we all agree that better fuel economy is always nice, but is probably so far down the list on deciding what to buy it doesn’t matter.  The G, the RI, the MXZ - all fantastic boats!

on the flipside, could mean that a year or two old Ri could be a good buy.

  • Like 2
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...