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!

Malibu bought Pursuit


23LSVOwner

Recommended Posts

On 8/22/2018 at 9:13 PM, robbennett said:

Actually yes when it's as bad as some of these boats get. I went 40 miles offshore in a 40ft pursuit last weekend and we burned 78 GPH. Those triple Yamaha V8 350's were very thirsty. Can't do that every weekend. 

I find that really hard to believe. MAYBE at full throttle running through rough water, but the majority of fishing time is sitting at idle or lower than 10 mph. Even if you had 600 gallon fuel tanks, you'd be dead in the water before 8 hours was up.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, boardjnky4 said:

I find that really hard to believe. MAYBE at full throttle running through rough water, but the majority of fishing time is sitting at idle or lower than 10 mph. Even if you had 600 gallon fuel tanks, you'd be dead in the water before 8 hours was up.

WOT for Pursuit's biggest express (OS 385 with trip Yam 350s) is right at 78 GPH.  Best cruise is 27GPH @ 25 mph.  You're right about the trolling though.  Burn a ton to get out n back then burn about 6 GPH trolling @ 9 mph.  Either way, that's a pretty stout fuel bill.  That being said, it's still a slightly worse fuel burn at cruise than some of the comparable diesels in the older SF or open express models.

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Cap305 said:

WOT for Pursuit's biggest express (OS 385 with trip Yam 350s) is right at 78 GPH.  Best cruise is 27GPH @ 25 mph.  You're right about the trolling though.  Burn a ton to get out n back then burn about 6 GPH trolling @ 9 mph.  Either way, that's a pretty stout fuel bill.  That being said, it's still a slightly worse fuel burn at cruise than some of the comparable diesels in the older SF or open express models.

27GPH @ 25 MPH is more what I would expect. Unless the water is flat, it's hard to run WOT offshore.

Either way, just like with a car, you need to discuss GPH in terms of average use. If you take the boat offshore, fish for 6 hours and then drive back, what's the average throughout the trip?

Edited by boardjnky4
Link to comment
2 hours ago, JeffC said:

Motley Fool really likes the move too, as well as Malibu in general.     Reading this, Im wondering if I should be buying a little more...

 

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/08/23/malibu-boats-stock-upgraded-what-you-need-to-know.aspx

If you want to geek out on this a bit, what nobody mentions (Wells, Motley, etc.) is that MBUU's current P/E of ~35, which shows up on most financial sites and the iPhone app for the ticker, is being skewed by the impact of the December 2017 tax law change on their deferred taxes and the loss they took that quarter. Adjusting for the net non-recurring/non-cash charges they took in their Q2 for the tax law change, MBUU's P/E would be fairly close to MCFT's P/E of ~15 (MCFT's earnings weren't significantly impacted by the tax law change).

I'm not recommending a buy, and the stock price shows that others have figured this out too, but the math is interesting in relation to their earnings and valuation at first glance. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, NWBU said:

If you want to geek out on this a bit, what nobody mentions (Wells, Motley, etc.) is that MBUU's current P/E of ~35, which shows up on most financial sites and the iPhone app for the ticker, is being skewed by the impact of the December 2017 tax law change on their deferred taxes and the loss they took that quarter. Adjusting for the net non-recurring/non-cash charges they took in their Q2 for the tax law change, MBUU's P/E would be fairly close to MCFT's P/E of ~15 (MCFT's earnings weren't significantly impacted by the tax law change).

I'm not recommending a buy, and the stock price shows that others have figured this out too, but the math is interesting in relation to their earnings and valuation at first glance. 

Very interesting observation  :biggrin:

Link to comment
On 8/24/2018 at 10:36 AM, boardjnky4 said:

27GPH @ 25 MPH is more what I would expect. Unless the water is flat, it's hard to run WOT offshore.

Either way, just like with a car, you need to discuss GPH in terms of average use. If you take the boat offshore, fish for 6 hours and then drive back, what's the average throughout the trip?

We were in an S408 and were running wide open all the way out and back. It was a little rough but that boat handles it extremely well. It's much easier to cut through the chop in one of those than the smaller 25-32 foot boats like we would normally take. Idling around fishing didn't take much fuel but we were out 40 miles offshore and took a detour for bait to get there. I'll never complain about fuel consumption in my Axis again. 

Link to comment
On 8/22/2018 at 8:13 PM, robbennett said:

Actually yes when it's as bad as some of these boats get. I went 40 miles offshore in a 40ft pursuit last weekend and we burned 78 GPH. Those triple Yamaha V8 350's were very thirsty. Can't do that every weekend. 

Go 80+ miles in a single engine inboard with people and gear and see what you burn, 78 seems very reasonable for 3 v8 engines in a go fast boat going sort of slow, medium speed

Edited by granddaddy55
Link to comment
On 8/28/2018 at 8:29 AM, granddaddy55 said:

Go 80+ miles in a single engine inboard with people and gear and see what you burn, 78 seems very reasonable for 3 v8 engines in a go fast boat going sort of slow, medium speed

It would get better if we weren't running wide open or close to it the whole time. Very good boat and the Yamaha v8's are awesome. Definitely were spoiled on that trip. What would the inboard burn on a trip like that? I'm assuming diesels on an offshore boat.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, robbennett said:

It would get better if we weren't running wide open or close to it the whole time. Very good boat and the Yamaha v8's are awesome. Definitely were spoiled on that trip. What would the inboard burn on a trip like that? I'm assuming diesels on an offshore boat.

From: https://www.sportfishingmag.com/pursuit-boats-s-408-sport#page-10

---

Turning Yamaha XL 17-inch-pitch stainless-steel three-blade propellers, the triple Yamaha 350 hp outboards vaulted the S 408 to 30 mph in eight seconds and achieved a top speed of 51.4 mph at 6,000 rpm, where the three engines burned 101 gph for 0.51 mpg in the sheltered bay waters off Fort Pierce.

The most efficient cruising speed came at 4,000 rpm and 32.7 mph. Here the triple F350s burned 39.1 gph for 0.84 mpg, which translates to a cruising range of more than 300 miles.

---

So yeah, HUGE difference between running WOT and cruising speed. You literally burn more than twice the fuel at WOT vs Cruising speed, which is only 35% reduction in MPH. As the writer points out, the MPG is significantly increased. Not quite double, but around a 64% improvement. It's fun to run WOT, but you're literally just burning money. If it's a charter boat and you're obligated to get your clients to the fishing spot as fast as possible, maybe that's worth it. Or maybe you just don't care. But the boat only has a 370 Gal fuel tank, so you've got to be decently cautious on fuel burn too. I know that certain ports here on the NC Coast, you're looking at nearly 2 hours of cruising to hit the Gulf Stream. At WOT, you wouldn't make it there and back, let alone the fishing time.

Edited by boardjnky4
Link to comment
  • 1 month later...

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...