M5 Disappointment

[wdr]

4 hours ago, ahopkinsVTX said:

This. The boats are night and day difference. You can’t compare the early generations to now. There have been multiple hull changes, wedge changes, surfgate changes, ballast changes, etc. all to get a better wave. It would be like comparing a mid 2000’s truck to a 2019 truck. Not even close!

Not so much a comparison as a concern about the “IMO” the stratospheric rpms I am seeing  with just the stock ballast and the factory pnp. If someone would say “yep, normal, you will see the same reliability at 3800 rpm that you saw at 3200 rpm you are just going to use more gas”, then I would be good with that. I don't think that dog is going to hunt.

[gregtay]

I am really curious to hear from the people purchasing the 23MXZ w/ the M5.  I know the 2020 23 LSV and MXZ apparently have a 2:1 + 17" so maybe that helps... but if the M5 is challenged on the LSV then I would think the challenge is even greater for the MXZ.

[IXFE]

31 minutes ago, gregtay said:

I am really curious to hear from the people purchasing the 23MXZ w/ the M5.  I know the 2020 23 LSV and MXZ apparently have a 2:1 + 17" so maybe that helps... but if the M5 is challenged on the LSV then I would think the challenge is even greater for the MXZ.

Not so fast... 17” prop slips less and moves more water on each rotation... so the M5 won’t have to work as hard to produce the same result...

Is it my imagination or have you and I already had this exchange? 

Hmmm...

[gregtay]

18 minutes ago, IXFE said:

Not so fast... 17” prop slips less and moves more water on each rotation... so the M5 won’t have to work as hard to produce the same result...

Is it my imagination or have you and I already had this exchange? 

Hmmm...

ummm... I do think i said that on the new boats "maybe the 2:1 + 17" helps"... which is the whole reason I mentioned it.  I am surprised the M5 isn't delivering better than people expect but if Malibu has it in the new MXZ when I am going to trust they know what they are doing.  So again.. I am curious to hear from those people with the M5 in the new MXZ. 

[IXFE]

2 minutes ago, gregtay said:

ummm... I do think i said that on the new boats "maybe the 2:1 + 17" helps"... which is the whole reason I mentioned it.  I am surprised the M5 isn't delivering better than people expect but if Malibu has it in the new MXZ when I am going to trust they know what they are doing.  So again.. I am curious to hear from those people with the M5 in the new MXZ. 

You said “maybe” which is what makes me think “maybe” you don’t realize what a difference two extra inches make (that’s what she said).

The 17” WILL help... and not just a little. A 17” prop has almost 30% more surface area than a 15” prop. There’s no “maybe” about it.

I’m no fluid dynamics expert, but I have driven 15” and 17” back to back, and I can do math (or at least my iPhone can). 

[gregtay]

21 minutes ago, IXFE said:

You said “maybe” which is what makes me think “maybe” you don’t realize what a difference two extra inches make (that’s what she said).

The 17” WILL help... and not just a little. A 17” prop has almost 30% more surface area than a 15” prop. There’s no “maybe” about it.

I’m no fluid dynamics expert, but I have driven 15” and 17” back to back, and I can do math (or at least my iPhone can). 

YES... 30% more prop surface area that the M5 has to move through the water (better gearing, but that is somewhat offset by using correct prop pitch.)   Sure, maybe you are right and it works great... but the MAYBE is because I don't know how much torque is needed to move that 17" prop (with the correct pitch) w/ a 2:1 ratio through the water.  You seem to think that the 17" prop is always magical but there is a threshold where the prop is simply pushing too much water for what the motor has to offer.  If I remember right the G23 offered the "H5" motor with a 17" prop and they discontinued it and made the "H6" the base motor.  So your math might be missing a few inputs.  You still have a fixed torque curve and a limited amount of power. Either it is going to work or it isn't.  We all thought the M5 hooked up to a 1:76 w/ a power 15" prop would more than enough to move the 23 just fine loaded up but that now seems to be in question.  Do i think the correct pitch 17" prop with a 2:1 ratio might yield better results? it might (I am hopeful!)  Or you might end up in the same corner of the power curve where you need a less aggressive prop because the M5 can't turn the massive 17" prop with the boat loaded... so you have to lower the pitch but now your RPMs come up and you might end up over the sweet spot of the power curve.  IXFE you are a smart guy and I don't believe for a second that you think just swapping for a 2:1 + 17" magically fixes all things and makes any more work.

[IXFE]

27 minutes ago, gregtay said:

YES... 30% more prop surface area that the M5 has to move through the water (better gearing, but that is somewhat offset by using correct prop pitch.)   Sure, maybe you are right and it works great... but the MAYBE is because I don't know how much torque is needed to move that 17" prop (with the correct pitch) w/ a 2:1 ratio through the water.  You seem to think that the 17" prop is always magical but there is a threshold where the prop is simply pushing too much water for what the motor has to offer.  If I remember right the G23 offered the "H5" motor with a 17" prop and they discontinued it and made the "H6" the base motor.  So your math might be missing a few inputs.  You still have a fixed torque curve and a limited amount of power. Either it is going to work or it isn't.  We all thought the M5 hooked up to a 1:76 w/ a power 15" prop would more than enough to move the 23 just fine loaded up but that now seems to be in question.  Do i think the correct pitch 17" prop with a 2:1 ratio might yield better results? it might (I am hopeful!)  Or you might end up in the same corner of the power curve where you need a less aggressive prop because the M5 can't turn the massive 17" prop with the boat loaded... so you have to lower the pitch but now your RPMs come up and you might end up over the sweet spot of the power curve.  IXFE you are a smart guy and I don't believe for a second that you think just swapping for a 2:1 + 17" magically fixes all things and makes any more work.

I don’t think I referenced magic. 

I also don’t concede there are issues today with the M5. Some say there are, others are happy. Who am I to say one way or another?  

All I ever stated was... 17’s slip less than 15’s. A fact I’ve proven with pics. You and I have same engine yet somehow my heavier boat turns fewer RPM’a than yours. Is that magic? 

There’s a precedent for this also... 2016 25 LSV had a 15” prop. 2017 25 LSV got a 17” prop. Major difference between those two otherwise equal boats. 

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?  Or is this just another round of “let’s argue with IXFE?”  I’m really not trying to be argumentative. These are well established facts that have been discussed on this forum in many different threads. Accept it or don’t. I really don’t care. 

Edited July 31, 2019 by IXFE

[eubanks]

5 minutes ago, IXFE said:

I also don’t concede there are issues today with the M5. Some say there are, others are happy. Who am I to say one way or another?  

Back to the topic...Out of curiosity, who is running a M5 in a 2019 23 LSV with at least a 2249 pitched prop that is getting satisfactory or “happy” performance wakeboarding with full ballast and wedge?  Honest question as I would like to hear more from that camp and understand the different perspective. If we are running the exact same boat, ballast, prop, and altitude, then it’s hard for me to understand guys that are getting good results for this setup. My dealership told me a couple of weeks ago I had to dump ballast in the rear up to 50% to get my boat on plane and admitted this to be an issue. This is surprising as I mentioned that all the specs and information I was given at the time of ordering didn’t lend itself to such poor performance with a $2,000 engine upgrade. 

[23LSVOwner]

From what I have heard, you can see a difference of up to 40+ HP when running 87 vs 93 octane, especially in higher elevations.

The tune is optimized for 93 and the system has to pull quite a bit of timing to cover the lower octane in 87.

[ahopkins22LSV]

7 hours ago, eubanks said:

Back to the topic...Out of curiosity, who is running a M5 in a 2019 23 LSV with at least a 2249 pitched prop that is getting satisfactory or “happy” performance wakeboarding with full ballast and wedge?  Honest question as I would like to hear more from that camp and understand the different perspective. If we are running the exact same boat, ballast, prop, and altitude, then it’s hard for me to understand guys that are getting good results for this setup. My dealership told me a couple of weeks ago I had to dump ballast in the rear up to 50% to get my boat on plane and admitted this to be an issue. This is surprising as I mentioned that all the specs and information I was given at the time of ordering didn’t lend itself to such poor performance with a $2,000 engine upgrade. 

How many are “several adults” and how much do they weigh? I think you are under estimating how much weight you actually have in your boat. And how much more boat this is over your old boat. Sounds to me like you have a purely weight distribution issue and not an engine issue. Which has been stated several times in this thread yet has been ignored. 

You realize that 50% ballast in the rears in the new boats monitor your plug n play too right? That means your hard tanks are still 100% full and the bags are about half full. With 6 adults, I’m not surprised to hear this at all. Especially if you have no addition bow weight. 

Look at pro wakeboard videos closely, they almost all have additional weight in the boat. I’ve been in 24 MXZ’s setup by pros that had lots of lead stashed in bow. It’s physics man. If you want to run full rear ballast with a bunch of adults and gear in the boat I suggest running a lot of extra weight in the bow. 

[bamaboy]

7 hours ago, IXFE said:

Or is this just another round of “let’s argue with IXFE?”

Coke is horrible.  Pepsi is terrific

[Pnwrider]

Which of the current motors do not require 93 octane? I can only get 89 on the lake. 

[Sparky450]

How much of this power issue could be a fuel "quality" issue. I know in California I have to watch where I fill up. I stay with the big name brand stations, even if it cost me more. 

[eubanks]

4 hours ago, ahopkinsVTX said:

How many are “several adults” and how much do they weigh? I think you are under estimating how much weight you actually have in your boat. And how much more boat this is over your old boat. Sounds to me like you have a purely weight distribution issue and not an engine issue. Which has been stated several times in this thread yet has been ignored. 

What is being ignored?...that I have too much weight in the rear of the boat?  I don't think that is the consensus here nor the problem, and I mentioned running lead in the bow plus adults in the bow often as well.  I have 100 lbs hidden behind the speakers and keep another 200-300 pushed all the way forward in the walkway.  Forget my old boat's setup.  My whole issue here is the assurance that the M5 was plenty of power to run full stock ballast (including PNP 500's) plus wedge.  Perhaps this was implied that the setup is sufficient for 1 adult driver but not 5-6 150 lb adults??

 

So what would you recommend @ahopkinsVTX?  Just ride with rear tanks at 25-50%?

[ahopkins22LSV]

5 minutes ago, eubanks said:

What is being ignored?...that I have too much weight in the rear of the boat?  I don't think that is the consensus here nor the problem, and I mentioned running lead in the bow plus adults in the bow often as well.  I have 100 lbs hidden behind the speakers and keep another 200-300 pushed all the way forward in the walkway.  Forget my old boat's setup.  My whole issue here is the assurance that the M5 was plenty of power to run full stock ballast (including PNP 500's) plus wedge.  Perhaps this was implied that the setup is sufficient for 1 adult driver but not 5-6 150 lb adults??

 

So what would you recommend @ahopkinsVTX?  Just ride with rear tanks at 25-50%?

I think you need a full bow bag. You aren’t offsetting the rear weight with a few hundred pounds of lead. I also think you are on the right path of maybe there is a better prop out there for your specific setup. 

Your friends are only 150lb too? I haven’t met an adult that is 150 in awhile lol. I’m “skinny” 6’1” and weight 175 and I’m by far the smallest of my adult friends, none of which are overweight. 

[eubanks]

On 7/10/2019 at 9:34 AM, MFknK said:

When we are really loaded up with people, we have this type of issue. When the boat broke 13-14 mph, it appeared that the wedge being in lift mode plus the bow weight was forcing the bow down too hard and the engine was not able to force enough speed to plane.

The same day, we tried running without the wedge first, but with all the extra passenger weight, it wasn't happening fully loaded. When we added wedge in lift mode, it help the boat with the initial jump, but then at a certain speed, stopped gaining.

I realize this is the opposite of what has been said prior, but it may be worth a shot...

So some people think I have too MUCH bow weight and others that I have too LITTLE bow weight.  I just need to document my exact weight, configuration, and get a video trying to plane out and go from there as I know it's hard to communicate the issue entirely over a forum.

[eubanks]

23 minutes ago, ahopkinsVTX said:

I think you need a full bow bag. You aren’t offsetting the rear weight with a few hundred pounds of lead. I also think you are on the right path of maybe there is a better prop out there for your specific setup. 

We are still tweaking, but I don't think that this is a bow weight issue.  The boat should be riding bow high if this was an issue with not having enough weight in the bow which is not the case.  So let me get some video for you guys, but I do appreciate very much the points of view here.

[Ronnie]

 

When we are done surfing and push "Go Home". There's no way my boat will plane out right away. As you know, Go Home pulls in the gate and pulls up the wedge. With all the ballast in the boat still, my boat isn't going to plane out. I doubt I could even get to wakeboard speed until I have time to dump some ballast. 

I think this discussion needs some examples of properly weighted boats for wake boarding. I'm not saying Eubanks is overweighted but I suspect it.

What are you wakeboard guys running for ballast in these later model boats?

 

[05hammerhead]

26 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

 

When we are done surfing and push "Go Home". There's no way my boat will plane out right away. As you know, Go Home pulls in the gate and pulls up the wedge. With all the ballast in the boat still, my boat isn't going to plane out. I doubt I could even get to wakeboard speed until I have time to dump some ballast. 

I think this discussion needs some examples of properly weighted boats for wake boarding. I'm not saying Eubanks is overweighted but I suspect it.

What are you wakeboard guys running for ballast in these later model boats?

 

'19 22mxz.  Stock ballast + P&P.  300 lead stashed in anchor storage + 300 in center for balancing out.  Typically only ride with a driver.  M6 and it takes all the motor Ive got to get to 22.5, (engine diagnostics say 100% usage).  I know I need more bow weight or less rear weight to get there.  Wedge position is negligent as it doesnt deploy until we are planed and at speed.  That being said, if people are riding much heavier than that, theyre gonna need fresh knees.

I doubt I could plane out with less motor, but if I threw another 300 up front, it wouldnt be an issue.  

[spikew919]

Add this 😁😁

[jjackkrash]

You guys are doing it wrong.  Move the engine to the middle, pull the rear seat out, run an 1/8 tank of gas, strip the boat of any non-essential part, leave everyone but the driver and all the gear at the dock, then go skiing.  Lots of related problems solved.  

[eubanks]

42 minutes ago, jjackkrash said:

You guys are doing it wrong.  Move the engine to the middle, pull the rear seat out, run an 1/8 tank of gas, strip the boat of any non-essential part, leave everyone but the driver and all the gear at the dock, then go skiing.  Lots of related problems solved.  

They still sell water skiis?!  

[eubanks]

1 hour ago, Ronnie said:

 

When we are done surfing and push "Go Home". There's no way my boat will plane out right away. As you know, Go Home pulls in the gate and pulls up the wedge. With all the ballast in the boat still, my boat isn't going to plane out. I doubt I could even get to wakeboard speed until I have time to dump some ballast. 

I think this discussion needs some examples of properly weighted boats for wake boarding. I'm not saying Eubanks is overweighted but I suspect it.

What are you wakeboard guys running for ballast in these later model boats?

 

You running the 409 in your boat?  What prop?  No way Malibu better be calling my stock ballast "overweighted"!

[Ronnie]

PCM

2277

I wouldn’t call PnP “Stock” ballast or it would come from the factory with sacks. 

[gregtay]

1 hour ago, 05hammerhead said:

'19 22mxz.  Stock ballast + P&P.  300 lead stashed in anchor storage + 300 in center for balancing out.  Typically only ride with a driver.  M6 and it takes all the motor Ive got to get to 22.5, (engine diagnostics say 100% usage).  I know I need more bow weight or less rear weight to get there.  Wedge position is negligent as it doesnt deploy until we are planed and at speed.  That being said, if people are riding much heavier than that, theyre gonna need fresh knees.

I doubt I could plane out with less motor, but if I threw another 300 up front, it wouldnt be an issue.  

Same story with the 23LSV and the M6.  I can get on plane with everything (inc PnP) at 100%  and a good sized crew but I have to bury the throttle for 10-15 seconds or so and it is clear I am right on the edge (and sucking down gas!) Once it planes all is good. So no, I won't expect a motor with 50 less TQ to get it done.  I tend to agree with others that the "acceptable performance criteria" would be rear tanks full and PNP empty for wakeboarding (I guess with the new L shape tanks that is whatever % that makes the main part of the tank full with the upper L area and PnP empty.  My previous 23 with the 5.7/340 surfed fine with everything full but much like what people are experiencing with the M5 there was no way I was going to plane that thing out with the sacks full.  Just the 4 tanks at 100% (default factory wakeboarding config) was no problem.