PDA

View Full Version : Comparing MCX to the 8.1


MCtowtroy
04-22-2007, 09:14 PM
Does anyone have any advise for a potential 1st time new owner of a X30. I am looking at 2 potential finalist and one is the 350 and the other is the 450 horse. Details... 2003 with the 8.1, has 28 original hours and is $6,000 less than the 2004 MCX with 150 hours. Note - the 04 has a trailer and the 03 does not. I am primarily interested in the dependability factors. I live in SC so altitude does not play a role in my decision.

Thanks for any feedback.

TMCNo1
04-22-2007, 09:26 PM
Does anyone have any advise for a potential 1st time new owner of a X30. I am looking at 2 potential finalist and one is the 350 and the other is the 450 horse. Details... 2003 with the 8.1, has 28 original hours and is $6,000 less than the 2004 MCX with 150 hours. Note - the 04 has a trailer and the 03 does not. I am primarily interested in the dependability factors. I live in SC so altitude does not play a role in my decision.

Thanks for any feedback.

Check this beauty out in Southern GA, http://www.tmcowners.com/market/showproduct.php?product=1362&cat=6

Sodar
04-22-2007, 09:30 PM
Does anyone have any advise for a potential 1st time new owner of a X30. I am looking at 2 potential finalist and one is the 350 and the other is the 450 horse. Details... 2003 with the 8.1, has 28 original hours and is $6,000 less than the 2004 MCX with 150 hours. Note - the 04 has a trailer and the 03 does not. I am primarily interested in the dependability factors. I live in SC so altitude does not play a role in my decision.

Thanks for any feedback.

Search through the threads for posts from Pendo and MYMC regarding the need for the 8.1L in the bigger MC's. Both have stated that buying a boat of this size, with the MCX is like buying a Corvette with a V-6. The MCX will do the job, but will do it at much higher RPM, with much more fuel consumption and much more of a struggle.


BUMP for Pendo or MYMC!!!

MCtowtroy
04-22-2007, 09:41 PM
Thank you, I'll look them up. Thanks again...

erkoehler
04-22-2007, 11:35 PM
If either was used in salt water I would not recommend buying t.

MCtowtroy
04-22-2007, 11:37 PM
both are exclusive fresh water boats

erkoehler
04-22-2007, 11:44 PM
I would negotiate on the newer boat with MCX engine and trailer.

A new MC tandem axle trailer isn't cheap!

MCtowtroy
04-22-2007, 11:53 PM
Truth is I don't need a trailer. I am fortunate enough to live on the lake and have an enclosed boat "house" with lift. Any feedback on dependability of the 8.1 vs the MCX? This will ultimatley drive my final decision. I truly want to avoid any issue with repairs short of the standard maintenance stuff.

mhsb1029
04-23-2007, 12:59 AM
Big Boat & Small Engine = Crappy Experience

We have an 04 X-Star with the 8.1 and I could not imagine pushing that big of of boat with the MCX. We only have 350 hrs on our 8.1 so I can not comment on the longevity but the boat has run perfect thus far. Do not get an X-45 with the MCX, you will not be happy.

Let me repeat, do not get an X-45 with the MCX.

djhuff
04-23-2007, 07:53 AM
Personally, I would not put all of the decision on the engine. I had an '03 with an MCX and it wasn't that bad. I ran the stock prop also. It got up fine, even with alot of weight in it. Now it didn't yank you out of the hole, but it wasn't unbearable.

Now a new style X30, those are 1000# heaver and really need the bigger engine.

Chalk this up as one option and weight the other aspects of the boats equally (color, other options, condition). Hours shouldn't even come into play, those are both pretty low hour boats, even though the 8.1 only has 28 hours on it, it's been sitting for 3 years too. I've found that not using an engine regularly is just as bad as putting ALOT of hours on one.

Jim@BAWS
04-23-2007, 08:06 AM
http://www.bayareawatersports.com/searchengine/Details.aspx?diid=1007770&bvdid=3121&type=AN&indid=1&site_type=template&sortCol=Length&sortDir=DESC&

Jerseydave
04-23-2007, 09:03 AM
I had an '03 Maristar 230 (same as X30) with the MCX engine, when propped correctly would pull very well even with ballast and 10 people on boat. Fuel consumption was not an issue, and the engine does not require premium gas!

Of course, the 8.1L will give you a better holeshot. Keep in mind your going to need premium gas for it, and sounds like your buying gas on your lake $$$. Do they even offer premium at the dock, or will you have to carry gas cans?

No need for a trailer? What about winterizing/storage? What if you want to tow your boat to a different lake? I couldn't live without a trailer, but I don't live on a lake either.

My 2003 230VRS is still for sale at Hern Marine in Cinncinatti. www.hernmarine.com look under used boats. It's a nice clean fresh water boat that I've owned since it had 6 hours on it, now has 125 hours.

JohnE
04-23-2007, 09:08 AM
So you save $6K and get the bigger engine? Seems like a no brainer. If the 2 were the same price it might be more of a decision. Athough I don't know what that trailer is worth. Must be close to the six thousand though. Still seems like the older one is the right choice.

I was considering buying a boat recently without the engine that I wanted. Everyone here confirmed my suspicions that I would be nuts to buy a boat in that price range that didn't have exactly what I wanted.

PendO
04-23-2007, 10:33 AM
......................................

PendO
04-23-2007, 10:37 AM
.......................................

PendO
04-23-2007, 10:46 AM
The old 6.0L (LQ9) and the new 6.0L (LY6) - both require premium octane fuel

The MCX and L18 have the same fuel requirement (89 Octane Minimum)

If you want go to this page and look at the owners manual for both years

http://www.mastercraft.com/index.php?znfAction=Manual

Also, you can try www.waterskimag.com (http://www.waterskimag.com) and look at what others have had to say:

http://www.waterskimag.com/product.jsp?ID=66263 2003

http://www.waterskimag.com/product.jsp?ID=1559 2004

Andyg
04-23-2007, 10:49 AM
The old 6.0L (LQ9) and the new 6.0L (LY6) - both require premium octane fuel

The MCX and L18 have the same fuel requirement (89 Octane)

If you want go to this page and look at the owners manual for both years

http://www.mastercraft.com/index.php?znfAction=Manual

Also, you can try www.waterskimag.com (http://www.waterskimag.com) and look at what others have had to say:

http://www.waterskimag.com/product.jsp?ID=66263

Pendo
The LY6 requires 89 octane also. The MC owners manual is incorrect. If you go to Indmar's site they have the correct information on the engine.

LY6 Indmar (http://www.indmar.com/ProductLine/MasterCraft/LY-6/index.html)

PendO
04-23-2007, 10:55 AM
Pendo
The LY6 requires 89 octane also. The MC owners manual is incorrect. If you go to Indmar's site they have the correct information on the engine.

LY6 Indmar (http://www.indmar.com/ProductLine/MasterCraft/LY-6/index.html)

Thanks Andy - just can't trust the proof-readers anymore:) So, have you slammed the throttle down on your new toy yet:)

FlatBoard
04-23-2007, 11:06 AM
I have a 2004 X-30 with the MCX. Plenty of power, good fuel consumption, no complaints. I told the dealer when I bought the boat please do not under power me... I was willing to buy the bigger motor if needed to get the performance I wanted. Again, no complaints. The boat runs and performes great. Power has never been an issue

Good luck in your decision.

PaulW
04-23-2007, 11:21 AM
I had an 01 X30 with the ltr330 hp and thought it was a good fit. I would think the mcx would be a better fit for that boat. The new one 06, 1000lbs more weight, might need the biger size, but I did not need, or want it for the X30 I had. If I had to chose between the two engines I would take the MCX over the larger one. I would think it would take more fuel, and for that boat 3300 lbs you just don't need it. We ran stock balest and an additional 1000 lbs and the 330 was ok, the MCx would of been just right.

Kummer
04-23-2007, 11:32 AM
Personally, I would not put all of the decision on the engine. I had an '03 with an MCX and it wasn't that bad. I ran the stock prop also. It got up fine, even with alot of weight in it. Now it didn't yank you out of the hole, but it wasn't unbearable.

Now a new style X30, those are 1000# heaver and really need the bigger engine.

Chalk this up as one option and weight the other aspects of the boats equally (color, other options, condition). Hours shouldn't even come into play, those are both pretty low hour boats, even though the 8.1 only has 28 hours on it, it's been sitting for 3 years too. I've found that not using an engine regularly is just as bad as putting ALOT of hours on one.


I would have to agee with Huff - I would have driven several 03 X30's with the MCX and they are not underpowered. Plus a boad engine is just like your car. They are not good to sit that long. I look for boats that have had 50 - 100 hours a year. So i would go with the 2003 from what you have told us. so far -

RobertT
04-23-2007, 12:13 PM
I truly hate the fact that the larger engines need premium fuel.

I would buy one in a second, but that would exclude me from fueling up on the lake.

Grrrrrr

Andyg
04-23-2007, 12:39 PM
I truly hate the fact that the larger engines need premium fuel.

I would buy one in a second, but that would exclude me from fueling up on the lake.

Grrrrrr

The only engine that Indmar makes (2003 - Present) that requires premium, 91 octane fuel was the Anniversary Malibu LS7. Here is a copy of the fuel info from Indmar's owners manual. Here is the link to Indmar's Manauls (http://www.indmar.com/ProductLine/index.html) also.

Vegas X-Star
04-23-2007, 12:45 PM
I had an X-10 with the 330 hp LTR and it did fine. My current boat, an X-Star, needs more power and it has the 385HP engine. My next boat will have the big block. Just think about having the ballast tanks full, 8 people in there with a big cooler...you will never plane.

The weight of the X-30 will definitely strain the MCX...I think bigger is better in this case. The other option is to get a new prop but then you will top out at 35 mph.

Sodar
04-23-2007, 12:46 PM
Bigger is always better.... Right!?!? :D

rick s.
04-23-2007, 02:01 PM
I have an x45 with the mcx and I, my family, and all my friends families that boat with us are perfectly happy.



Big Boat & Small Engine = Crappy Experience

We have an 04 X-Star with the 8.1 and I could not imagine pushing that big of of boat with the MCX. We only have 350 hrs on our 8.1 so I can not comment on the longevity but the boat has run perfect thus far. Do not get an X-45 with the MCX, you will not be happy.

Let me repeat, do not get an X-45 with the MCX.

Doug G
04-23-2007, 02:47 PM
I have the MCX in my 06 X-30. Regularly ride with 6 or more people stock ballast and no problems. When loaded it definately takes more throttle out of the hole and eats the fuel with the ballast full but it still performs fine. I have no complaints.

Our use is mixed wakeboarding and cruising and we have no complaints. If I was a hard core, many day a week, extra ballast rider I would want more but then I would probably have an X-Star.

Ryan27r
04-23-2007, 05:35 PM
Get the 8.1 you will be amazed by the torque. Nothing phases it ran up to 4000 LBs of ballast without to much hesitation while a smaller motor would have begged for forgiveness.

MYMC
04-23-2007, 05:54 PM
No matter what anyone here posts or says you cannot compare 450hp to 350hp and expect the 350 to come anywhere close in performance (unles the L-18 has a plug wire off)! Is the MCX adequate sure...but so are a lot of things, is adequate what you are looking for when buying a toy?

The REALITY is the 450hp engine works less and is stressed less than the 350hp...Further in resale value look in the NADA, the 450 is still a $10,000 add to the boat where the MCX is not as a matter of fact it is the engine that was considered standard so it adds nothing even though it was an added cost option...game, set and match...enjoy your big block!

rstitson
04-23-2007, 06:27 PM
I got a x-15 with a mcx, considerably lighter, it has plenty of get up an go but supposedly will top out around 43. I would not get a heavier boat with the mcx as I would be afraid of top end. A boat that expensive is worth spending a bit more for more that the base engine. For the x-15 the base is the 315 horsepower.

Doug G
04-23-2007, 09:41 PM
No matter what anyone here posts or says you cannot compare 450hp to 350hp and expect the 350 to come anywhere close in performance (unles the L-18 has a plug wire off)! Is the MCX adequate sure...but so are a lot of things, is adequate what you are looking for when buying a toy?

The REALITY is the 450hp engine works less and is stressed less than the 350hp...Further in resale value look in the NADA, the 450 is still a $10,000 add to the boat where the MCX is not as a matter of fact it is the engine that was considered standard so it adds nothing even though it was an added cost option...game, set and match...enjoy your big block!

Yoda: "hmmm, powerful in the force he has become. Yet he is still too old. ... A great Jedi Knight he will become..."

My MCX and I respectfully request you leave reality out of this. :eek: Anyone have any recommended treatments for blocktile disfunction? I just learned I have a small block :(

I am sure I will adjust and can lead a normal life given time to heal.

PendO
04-23-2007, 10:56 PM
Anyone have any recommended treatments for blocktile disfunction? I just learned I have a small block :(

What's your budget:)

Truly, I think the stepped hulls with more wetted surface are where you will really notice the hp ... when I look in the waterskimag.com buyers guide the older style x30 (not stepped) get up near 50mph with the MCX, which is adequate top end for me ... I think you should get 1mph for the first 50K, after that the curve becomes somewhat exponential IMO (chrome costs $$)

here is some info I ripped from waterskimag ... also, here is what BigMac had out of his 230vrs with a prop swap:

1. Max RPM at Wide Open Throttle-------------5250
2. Max Speed at Wide Open Throttle--------------49
3. Year of Boat--------------2004
4. Manf. & Model---------------MC 230VRS
5. Engine--------------MCX
6. Transmission gear ratio----------1.5:1 V drive
7. Prop dimensions (# of blades and pitch)---------------Acme 847 4 blade 13.5x17.5
8. Octane of fuel------------91
9. Normal operating Elevation-------------2000ft

PendO
04-23-2007, 11:47 PM
Bigger is always better.... Right!?!? :D

there are so many inappropriate ways to answer this question, and yet, you already know the answer:)

djhuff
04-24-2007, 07:34 AM
Mike, what's your take on an engine that is 3 years old and has only 28 hours on it??? That's alot of sitting, what should be looked for?

RobertT
04-24-2007, 09:49 AM
How on earth can a 23 foot Vdrive top out at 48mph, while my lean and mean 197/X7 top out at 44-45mph?

Yes, I have the MCX.

MYMC
04-24-2007, 01:53 PM
Mike, what's your take on an engine that is 3 years old and has only 28 hours on it??? That's alot of sitting, what should be looked for?
Change the fluids, filters and you should be okay. If you want to sleep better at night have the compression checked and a leak down performed. I wouldnt worry too much, but better safe than sorry.

MYMC
04-24-2007, 01:54 PM
How on earth can a 23 foot Vdrive top out at 48mph, while my lean and mean 197/X7 top out at 44-45mph?

Yes, I have the MCX.
Flat bottom boat VS. a true V-Hull...your 197 never gets the "boat" up and out of the water, where the V-hull actually begins to ride on the "pad" in the rear. Short answer? Less wetted running surface at WOT.

RobertT
04-24-2007, 02:44 PM
MYMC,

Any idea the top speed on the X1 with the MCX?

If you were to recommend that boat to me, would it be with the Powerslot????? I hope not, but want to check.

ecelis
04-24-2007, 02:59 PM
We have an 2006 X-Star with MCX. Most of the time we run with 3000+lbs of ballast. We had to reprop and performance is OK now, but we are constanly running at around 4000 rpm. We have to reprop for cruising or skiing, as we will overrev at about 32mph.
If you will use the boat with standard ballast only, the MCX will do, if you plan on doing serious wakeboarding and will add ballast, get the 8.1.
We are perfectly happy with every aspect of the X-Star, but we would get the 8.1 if we would get a new one.

MYMC
04-24-2007, 03:29 PM
MYMC,

Any idea the top speed on the X1 with the MCX?

If you were to recommend that boat to me, would it be with the Powerslot????? I hope not, but want to check.
All our V-drives are 1.52:1 so you need not worry, you already have a PowerSlot. The X1 should run 45 to 47 with the MCX.

djhuff
04-24-2007, 04:33 PM
THanks Mike, I was just curious with your knowledge and all, if you had any feelings one way or another. I DEFINATELY don't have a problem with a low hour boat (mine turned one year old yesterday and I'm at 180).

I asked because I have had issues with older cars in the past where they were extremely low mileage, but things kept breaking on it (mainly the rubber parts had dried out).

sand2snow22
04-24-2007, 07:32 PM
MYMC,

Any idea the top speed on the X1 with the MCX?

If you were to recommend that boat to me, would it be with the Powerslot????? I hope not, but want to check.

I hit 49 MPH at WOT with the MCX in a 05 X2 last year. No GPS to confirm, tho.......Must get the speedos dialed in with GPS this year.......

MCtowtroy
04-25-2007, 06:59 PM
:)
I want to thank everyone for their advise and support. Particullarly, I would like to recognize "Pendo" for the extra effort. Not only did he support this thread with some great data, but he emailed me more. Made my decision last evenig an easy one to purchase my 2003 Mastercraft. That is correct, the 03 X30 with the 450 horse 8.1.

I highly recommend Team talk and the folks that make it happen. Any future newbies need only read this thread to understand the real value.:)

MYMC
04-26-2007, 09:41 AM
:)
I want to thank everyone for their advise and support. Particullarly, I would like to recognize "Pendo" for the extra effort. Not only did he support this thread with some great data, but he emailed me more. Made my decision last evenig an easy one to purchase my 2003 Mastercraft. That is correct, the 03 X30 with the 450 horse 8.1.

I highly recommend Team talk and the folks that make it happen. Any future newbies need only read this thread to understand the real value.:)
Congrats...enjoy the HP!

milkmania
04-26-2007, 09:46 AM
Congrats...enjoy the HP!


and the gas pumphttp://www.freewebby.com/action-smilies/wall.gif

Norris
04-26-2007, 10:25 AM
This is our 3rd year with the 245 (x45) and the MCX engine. I can say filling up 90 gallons of fuel and running all weekend is nice with the small block. After 3 years with the MCX we are still very happy with the choice to stay at 350 hp. Sure 100 horses would be nice to add but all I would do is run faster to the gas pump. We will top $3.50 a gallon on the lake this year ($315 per fill-up) and savings will be good to have. The 245 is a very heavy boat in addition to the tower and with the MCX the boat does extremely well with a full tank and up to 8 plus people on board. Sure I want win any speed records at 40mph but that is not what the boat is made for.

MYMC
04-26-2007, 10:52 AM
Sure 100 horses would be nice to add but all I would do is run faster to the gas pump.
As I have posted NUMEROUS times before this is not the reality of owning a big block.

Norris
04-26-2007, 03:39 PM
As I have posted NUMEROUS times before this is not the reality of owning a big block.

OK I agree to disagree.

MYMC
04-26-2007, 04:03 PM
OK I agree to disagree.
Agreed....

Thrall
04-26-2007, 04:13 PM
Basing off of truck consumption, a 6.0 chevy 2500 and an 8.1 chevy 2500 will get similar mileage running unloaded, 6.0 maybe 2mpg better.
Pulling a load, the 8.1 will get better mileage. I've pulled a 7klb trailer w/ a 6.0 and gotten about 8mpg. Similar load w/ an 8.1, 10 mpg.
I don't think the 8.1 would use any more fuel than the 6.0, considering these boats are running "under load" most of the time but don't have any real world boat numbers.

MYMC
04-26-2007, 04:37 PM
Basing off of truck consumption, a 6.0 chevy 2500 and an 8.1 chevy 2500 will get similar mileage running unloaded, 6.0 maybe 2mpg better.
Pulling a load, the 8.1 will get better mileage. I've pulled a 7klb trailer w/ a 6.0 and gotten about 8mpg. Similar load w/ an 8.1, 10 mpg.
I don't think the 8.1 would use any more fuel than the 6.0, considering these boats are running "under load" most of the time but don't have any real world boat numbers.
Thank you sir!

I have provided the numbers with RPM and displacment and your observations are dead on.

Matt L.
04-26-2007, 05:02 PM
Ditto Thrall's post.

I've run identical 2001 3/4 ton suburbans, 1 w/ 6.0L and the current 8.1L. Both ran great. The 454 was designed by Chevy to last 100K miles in a heavy work truck. The 8.1L was designed and tested to last 200K miles in same. It is also one of the most extensively tested engines ever built, according to them.

Get the 8.1L

Later,

Matt

sand2snow22
04-26-2007, 06:51 PM
Basing off of truck consumption, a 6.0 chevy 2500 and an 8.1 chevy 2500 will get similar mileage running unloaded, 6.0 maybe 2mpg better.
Pulling a load, the 8.1 will get better mileage. I've pulled a 7klb trailer w/ a 6.0 and gotten about 8mpg. Similar load w/ an 8.1, 10 mpg.
I don't think the 8.1 would use any more fuel than the 6.0, considering these boats are running "under load" most of the time but don't have any real world boat numbers.

Makes sense to me, our Tundra only gets 11 MPG when pulling the boat and it only has around 240 hp :( Must have to work hard!!

TMCNo1
04-26-2007, 07:18 PM
Makes sense to me, our Tundra only gets 11 MPG when pulling the boat and it only has around 240 hp :( Must have to work hard!!

15.6mpg over 29,950+ miles, towing a '89 MC with a '88 4.3 ltr, 160hp, V6 Astro makes me feel good.

djhuff
04-27-2007, 07:51 AM
What's that saying... "There's no replacement for displacement"

Yes, unloaded the bigger engines don't get as good gas mileage as smaller ones, but once you put a load back there...

I'm getting the same mileage with my 6.8L V10 as I did with my 5.8L 12 yr old V8, but with a WHOLE lot more giddyup with the boat back there.

NORTHERN LIGHTS
04-27-2007, 08:19 AM
What A Minute....can I Put 89 Octane In My Lq9? My Thoughts...if You Got The Money,,,get The Horsepower. Its Always Nice To Have It Than Come Up A Little Short...no Really...can I Put 89?

X45owner
04-27-2007, 09:47 AM
It is also one of the most extensively tested engines ever built, according to them.

Then why does it burn soo much oil?

MYMC
04-27-2007, 10:14 AM
It is also one of the most extensively tested engines ever built, according to them.

Then why does it burn soo much oil?
Have not seen that in any of the boats I have sold or owned.

The answer may be in the low tension ring package used by all manufactuers to comply with fuel economy mandates. When you combine low tension rings and large bore diameter (in other words a heavy ring) you set yourself up for what is termed ring flutter. Lastly as I posted in the LS1/MCX thread the "net build" model vs the old "select build" may have even more to do with it.

Matt L.
04-27-2007, 11:29 AM
It is also one of the most extensively tested engines ever built, according to them.

Then why does it burn soo much oil?

Please clarify the context of your question. In trucks it is almost universally due to a really crappy intake manifold gasket / bolt up design. They have integrated o-rings that oil passes through. If you look the bolts are vertical vs. the mating surfaces that are diagonal. So as you tighten it (pathetically small bolts too) you can drag the gasket causing an oil leak on the intake side where it rolls the o-ring. This causes you to spray oil into the intake. I suspect this in my burb due to minor oil consumption and carbon fouling (80K miles) on the front side plugs. There have been several changes to the heads, studs and gasket design over the past few years in the truck engine that have apparently solved this. I suspect the Marine version may use the same intake. Relatively easy DIY fix from what I hear. No Distributor to remove and re-time.

Later,

Matt

PS 100,000 miles 01 8.1L. Other than normal maintenance I've spent $53.00 on a cam shaft position sensor. Un-engine related $165.00 on rebuilding the ABS electronic brake control module. Pretty good I'd say.