PDA

View Full Version : Prostar 205?


Footin
08-11-2004, 09:38 AM
I have taken the step of selling my Barefoot 200 and I am now looking for a Prostar 205 to take its place in the garage. I need more of a family boat for a growing family. I will still be barefooting, but also teaching the kids to ski and wakeboard. From my research and talking to various people, I am leaning tword a 1994 or 1995 205 with the LT1.
I have heard more than once to stay away from the 1996 thru 1998 models as they are not as good of a barefoot wake and the quaility is not as good. I have read the old threads on the difference between the model years, but I wanted some opinions on the differences and also if I should avoid the LT1 for any reason.

MarkP
08-11-2004, 09:45 AM
I dont know about the LT1 but Besides the newer 197 and 209 it sounds like your looking for my dream boat:headbang:

Footin
08-11-2004, 09:50 AM
I agree the 197 would be great, but I need to stay under 20k.

Ben
08-11-2004, 10:25 AM
We have '94 205 LT1 and love it. The only thing I don't like is the observer seat. 2 people don't fit very well. Center jump seat is on my project list, similar to what Doug did. The sacrifice is easily worth it for the open bow though. I also agree, the 197 / X-7 seems to be the winner for the future used boat purchase, but for current monetary restrictions, 205 is great. Plan to have 5-10 years longer.

The engine runs great as far as I can tell, we have put about 170 hours on it so far. Definitely think EFI is the way to go, I don't know much / care to learn much about carbs, I'm too young...

I don't barefoot, but a friend who does did comment on how nice the slalom wake was at 32 (for an open bow). I don't know enough to comment on barefoot wake / speeds. Slalom wake seems good to me.

I see you are relatively close, I can offer a pull if you're up this way. We have family in C-bus (were there last weekend), but doubt we'll be pulling the boat down there yet this year. If we do, I'll let ya know. May be worth it to get a little warmer climate.... Cold year so far, still waiting for summer to kick in.

NSXBill
08-11-2004, 10:56 AM
When I was considering boats of the LT-1 era, at first I wanted an LT-1 because it had more power and just looked cool.

To give you an idea of how much I studied this, I am the one who authored the "Prostar 205 changes by year" post.

After hearing about some of its peculiarities, like two thermostats...and hearing of some of its pitfalls, like its inability to take slight overheats without warping the aluminum heads, I decided to steer clear of the LT-1.

Because of my perceived maintenance issues with the engine, an LT-1 ultimately became a deal-breaker for me. No flames intended. This is just my opinion. ICBW

Footin
08-11-2004, 11:02 AM
Ben, Thanks for the offer. Give me a shout if you come down this way.
Also how many hours do you presently have on your LT1? any problems to speak of?

Bill, I agree with the potential problems with the LT1, however I need 43-44 mph for one foot wake crosses. Thats my reason for looking for the LT1 top speed. I have also though of a powerslot with a higher pitch prop to increse the top end.

east tx skier
08-11-2004, 11:04 AM
Footin, I can offer you a bit of a comparison of the two hulls you're looking at in the 205. I regularly ski behind my 93 and my father in law's 98. However, bear in mind that I do not barefoot, so I don't know exactly what kind of wake you're looking for.

Both hulls have a good slalom wake, but the 92-95 205s were a little flatter. The 96 and up boats handle the chop much better, track like a freight train, have a much higher profile, have less shortline spray, and have more room in the bow.

Even with the loss of the ski locker in 96, the side panel storage and storage under the observer seat is better in the later models.

I agree with the above that the 197 is my dream boat for many reasons, among them being the full observer seat. I'd be happy to repost the deminsions of my jump seat if you'd like. It's a considerably less expensive alternative to buying OEM (and that assumes you could still get one for a 94-95 boat. But it was nice to be able to get six people in the boat last weekend and still be able to ski.

As for the carb, I think you'll be better off going with EFI. As I've reported time and time again, the 4010 carbs that were in the 92s and 93s has many qualities which are less than desireable, and which led me to retrofit a 4160 carb on my boat. If the difference in price isn't an issue, go for the fuel injection. That being said, my Ford engine has been 100% trouble free apart from the carb (knock on wood) and that's a good thing. My father in law has the 308 hp TBI Chevy 350. I think it has been trouble free as well. However, for barefooting, as I understand it, you might get a little more top end out of the LT1, as opposed to a little more low end out of the TBI.

If I had my choice right now, I'd still go with my 93 205 over the 98 205, carb and all. The 98 205s are great boats, but I sure do like my wake. My boat will get 45.5 mph at WOT. I don't know if the power slot would decrease or increase your top end (I figured it would decrease it, but ICBW).

My $.02.

Footin
08-11-2004, 11:17 AM
Bill, I also wanted to thank you for the year by year comparison as I have printed it and I am useing it for a guide.

NSXBill
08-11-2004, 11:40 AM
Footin, you're welcome.

I would think any of these boats/engines can get 43-44 mph. If not, it should only be off by 1 mph or so and a prop giving up bottom end for 1-2 mph should be able to get you there.

As for a 197 being current 205-owner's dreamboat, I find it strange. I got a 209 over a 197 because I was previously considering a 205 for the space. The 197 is definently a better skiing boat, but is no comparison for space in the front, the back ski locker the area around the engine and the back seat is extremely uncomfortable. I would expect that most 205 owners wanted space, or they could have gotten a 190 or 195. The way I looked at it was for those with lake houses or land sites, or for those who go out for short periods at a time, the 197 is the way to go. For those with a family that have to carry everything they need for a full day on the boat, the 209 was the way to go.

Just my .02

east tx skier
08-11-2004, 12:01 PM
I agree with you, Bill. From my perspective, I'm guessing that the 197 has about as much bow seating as my 205. As for the back seat, mine is never in the boat except when it's parked in the garage because nobody ever sits back there; they only want to stand on it when getting in and out (and I don't want to buy new skins for it). Like you said though, for all day trips, a 209 is probably a better fit. We go out, ski 'til we drop, then load it on the trailer (or if on my FIL's lake, head for the dock). For the same reasons, I'd go with a 92-95 over a 96+ 205, I'd go with an 03 or later 197 over a 92-95 205. Just a personal preference for me. Everybody's got a right boat.

When I was looking for a boat, I was looking for a closed bow, but bought the 205 because it was in good shape and available (I was shopping in February and the selection wasn't huge). I like having the bow seating, but for me, I'll trade it for wake improvement (which is what I like about the 197 - same hull as the 190-just a different deck for the open bow).

I agree, they all ought to get you close to what you're looking for speedwise. The 98 in our family is probably topping out at 43 or so (guess) because it has a 4-blade. It might be able to get more though, I can't remember.

Ben
08-11-2004, 01:09 PM
Multiple comments to address....

Footin: about 470 hours, bought at end of 2002 with 295 I think. 2 Thermostats are no problem for me, easy to get to & only cost $15 ea. Probably will keep on every other year replacement schedule, impeller every year. I agree aluminum heads could be more fragile than ferrous, but that's why I have 2 thermostats, an impeller and a temp guage to watch. NSXBill, I agree it looks cool too, especially the "corvette" plastic thingys that go over top of the valve covers...

205 vs. 197: This is my 1st ski boat, and the 190 just looked like it wouldn't hold everyone at times. After 1-1/2 years of use (no kids yet), we don't use the open bow too much, probably <10 times. We are like Doug, drop boat in and ski / board until tired, then go home & open the fridge.... If we hung out on the boat more, I think 209 would be a good move, but if we maintain current habits, I think 197 would be a better fit. Although, once kids come along, everyting changes I guess. I'll update on that as time goes on.

Dream goal: Live on lake, have great, clean ski boat to get the "Work" done & old hooptie pontoon boat for party-type activities....

Diesel
08-11-2004, 02:00 PM
I would be interested in hearing if anyone has had a warped head on an LT1. The northstar system will go into limp mode long before the engine will get hot enough to warp the heads.

I have 500hrs on my 95 205 with and LT1. I came really close to buying a 209 this year but decide to wait a few more years simply because I did not like the MCX and the LQ9 was way over priced.

My LT1 has never failed to start in 10 years. I did have to put a new water pump on the engine a few years back. Picked it up at the local chevy dealer and had it changed out in about an hour. I have found it to be one of the smoothest and quitest engines around. I does lack the out of the hole punch of some of the other engines but once you pass 3k it is on!

You will love the LT1 for Barefoot speed. My 95 will easily run 46+- with a few people in the boat pulling an average long line. With that said the table has much to be desired. It is very turbulant and has secondary wakes right at the 100ft range. If you are a good barefooter it won't matter much anyway. The stern roller for back deeps is actually fairly small compared to most other boats I have footed behind.

For boom runs I will warn you the boat throws mucho spray. Arrangement of people will help but not much. I actually had a hard time keeping my left foot planted when learning back deeps on the boom because of the spray.

Don't get me wrong I love my boat and will probably keep it until MC releases a new 209 model. You will be happy with the 205 and I would definately recomend the LT1. Mine just keeps on keeping on..............

Footin
08-11-2004, 02:06 PM
Diesel, As far as the turbulance goes, are you running a 3 or 4 blade prop? I undersatand this can make a big difference.
I think I am sold on the LT1; however if I find a great deal on a 95 with the standerd engine, I will probably buy it and reprop for better top end.

NSXBill
08-11-2004, 02:15 PM
Again, no flames to LT-1 guys. Really a nice motor. I'm glad you have never had a problem Diesel. But, if you research the board (here and other places), the amount of problems on LT-1's FAR out number the venerable TBI 5.7.

Yes there are posts about warping the heads. Do some searches. Speaking of thermostats, there was a recent post about not being able to get the correct thermostats and trying to understand which one went where and how it was to be oriented.

Its not that you can't get parts or work on them, its just that it is harder. And I only think it will get worse. At least they still offered the TBI up until 2005 and still offer the same basic engine with MPI. Nobody has sold an LT-1 since 98 or 99

I'm not slamming LT-1's...just pointing out that after I researched it, I decided against it.

MCPS205
08-11-2004, 02:36 PM
To give you an idea of how much I studied this, I am the one who authored the "Prostar 205 changes by year" post.

Where can I view that? Thanks!

NSXBill
08-11-2004, 02:53 PM
Here:

http://classifieds.mastercraft.com/messages/12640/13042.html

I will update and post here soon!

chris.willman
08-11-2004, 02:57 PM
Footn'

I agree w/ Diesel re: the LT1. I have a '99 190 with the LT1 and it has been perfect. Absolutely no problems. Both hole shot and top end are excellent. 2 footers at 45+ is not a problem. I'm running 4 blade, and I do not have the problem with table like Diesel, but I'm also not doing longline backs.

Jorski
08-11-2004, 03:08 PM
I have a 1993 190 with an LT1 and it was me who didn't know which way the upper thermostat went in (boat didn't come with a manual and Indmar doesn't have copies). That was more of a user problem than an engine problem. That being said, I have 1098 hours on my LT1 thus far and no problems.

It is actually really easy to replace the t-stats once you figure out which way they go in.

I know that others have had some trouble but, I haven't had any overheats or other problems and I find that the block is pretty user friendly
I know it's not a 205 but, I get 47-48 MPH with this engine and great mid range power.

I would buy one again in a heartbeat.

Diesel
08-11-2004, 04:25 PM
At least they still offered the TBI up until 2005 and still offer the same basic engine with MPI. Nobody has sold an LT-1 since 98 or 99

GM stopped making the LT1 in 97 so that makes sense. It was repalced with the LS1 which IS used by another boat manufacture currently.

I have a hard time beliveing a TBI is more reliable than an LT1. The northstar system alone could save your engine from very costly repair should something go wrong. Also the LT1 has much fewer moving parts and is really much more simple than the TBI or its systems. Yes at TBI is much more reliable than the carb engines it replaced but I think it is a far streach to say it is more reliable than the LT1.

I would bet if you compared the matintence expenditure of the average TBI owner to that of an LT1 owner the costs would be much lower for the LT1 owner. To me the LT1 just seems to be built for the long haul. It has roller rockers, Al heads, distributorless ignition, northstar system, multi port injection, and reverse flow cooling to name a few. In reality the TBI system is nothing more than a computer controled carb.

There is only one reason a TBI system is still used and that my friend is price. Don't get me wrong I am not bashing the TBI set up :D

Diesel
08-11-2004, 04:31 PM
Footin,

I have a 3 blade 13x13 and have not experimented with any other prop. I have really grown quite fond of my current table and it does not bother me any more. I have buddies that usually foot behind thier own boats ***** about mine all the time. Look in the link below at the first picture to see what I am talking about..............

http://www.tmcowners.com/teamtalk/showthread.php?t=52

NSXBill
08-11-2004, 04:49 PM
The original post asked if there were any reasons to avoid an LT-1. There are. I named a few. I didn't recommend to avoid it no matter what. I chose to do that. That is my opinion.

When I was looking to buy a boat, I wanted honest feedback, which is what I'm trying to provide.

I don't believe that an LT-1 is more reliable than the TBI. I don't see any reason for anyone to take offense to that. I'm sure there are plenty of folks with 5,000 hours on their LT-1's. And I'm sure there are guys who had 10 TBI's and none of them ever ran right.

BUT, in general, to say the LT-1 has no problems, is as cheap to maintain and repair over the long haul, and is more reliable, is IMHO not good feedback for someone looking to buy a used boat.

Footin
08-11-2004, 05:17 PM
Sorry guys, I didn't mean to get people upset. I just wanted to know your thoughts and I got them for the motor.

Now how about the quality differences in the boat, lets say between 95 and 98 for example.

NSXBill
08-11-2004, 05:22 PM
Define Quality. (this should be fun)

AirJunky
08-11-2004, 05:25 PM
I have a '94 205 with the TBI & it's been a great boat for just over 3 yrs & 500+ hours. I'm using it to ride a Sky Ski behind so I'm not at all looking at barefoot wakes but can certainly appreciate the performance the boat puts out. With the 275 horse motor, a 4 blade SS prop, 800 lbs of ballast & 2 or 3 people in it, I can still get 41 or 42 mph out of it easily. Plus the boat has a nice hard, well defined wake, performs Around the Boats & hot pickups without any trouble at all, and still goes thru less gas in a day than a lot of the newer boats.

http://airjunky.com/temp/rotm2.jpg

I made a spotter's seat for the walk thru so we have 5 or 6 people in it all the time & still have room up front for kids, gear, etc.
-
Bill

Footin
08-11-2004, 05:32 PM
I have heard some nightmares about the interiors in the 1998-1999's.
(please say it ain't soo)

And about how the 1996 (190) almost set a land speed record by hitting the shore during the boat test.

However, I am much more concerned with the wake for long line barefooting. (if there is much of a difference...wake hight,turbulance,width, etc)

I do realize no 205 will match the wake and power of my Barefoot 200.

Which ever model year 205 I buy I want to keep it for a long time, so I want to make the best decision on the model year and motor.

I had owned my Barefoot 200 for eight years and would not have sold it had it not been for the need for more room for my kids and other couple with kids going out with us.

Footin
08-11-2004, 05:36 PM
I almost forgot my other concern, I store my boat in the deep side of my garage (one side is 32 feet deep) and the width in the back is just under 8 feet. The 95's are a few inches narrower in the back arn't they?

NSXBill
08-11-2004, 05:38 PM
The PS 205 never experienced the problems of the 98 (not 96) PS 190. 98 is very much the same as 96-97 for PS 205's. The interior is very different in the 99 and some have complained about thin skins busting in their 2000. 99 and 00 PS 205's are probably beyond the $20K price though.

NSXBill
08-11-2004, 05:40 PM
I almost forgot my other concern, I store my boat in the deep side of my garage (one side is 32 feet deep) and the width in the back is just under 8 feet. The 95's are a few inches narrower in the back arn't they?
See http://classifieds.mastercraft.com/messages/12640/13042.html

for differences, including hull widths

Footin
08-11-2004, 05:45 PM
Do you know the top speed of the 98 verse the 95 with a standard motor?

Diesel
08-11-2004, 06:32 PM
BUT, in general, to say the LT-1 has no problems, is as cheap to maintain and repair over the long haul, and is more reliable, is IMHO not good feedback for someone looking to buy a used boat.

Who said the LT1 doesn't have problems. I even explained the specific problems I have had with my LT1. In addtion I was very candid with footin in describing the performance of my 205 and its wake. My post was not a typical "it's the best boat in the world everythings perfect justification of my purchase."

For the motor issue I guess I just look at the technology and make my decision based on those factors. I would like to hear what it was specifically about the LT1 that turned you off, NSXbill?

Here are a few facts I concidered when choosing my motor:

The LT1 is far and above the winner in the technology department. TBI is old fuel injection technology and is a modern day variation of a carb. A distributor is also old technology that is more succeptable to corrosion in the marine enviorment. Also a distributor has moving parts that will require repalcement. The LT1/Northstar system use twice as many sensors to monitor timing, fuel, and air to provide a near perfect combustion in each cylinder. I could go on and on stating these kind of factual tidbits for hours but these are some of the highlights.

When I set out to buy my boat I also did a fair amount of research as well. I choose the LT1 because I wanted to keep my boat a long time. 500 hours later is still think I made the right decision.

lakes Rick
08-11-2004, 07:52 PM
I have a 94 Maristar 225 with the TBI engine.. Neighbor purchased a 99 230 Maristar with the LT1.... He really rubbed it in my nose, in a fun way, personally I really didn't care... When we raced I beat him out of the hole and he could not catch me.... You tell me...... He has been real quiet since.... :steering:

I am with NSX.. I rarely read about TBI on here, but alot of LT1 problems crop up... Sure I agree, maybe not the engines fault, pilot error shall we say... But the thing here is less maintenance and easier to work on.. Not as complicated, and from MY racing results ( lookout everybody they must be going 46-47 miles an hour) not alot of difference performance wise.......

chico
08-11-2004, 09:48 PM
I Have A 94 205 With The 275 Efi Engine.this Boat Does It All Hands Down.i Barefoot Longline And Off The Boom,shortline Slalom,there Is Plenty Of Room,power,and Performance.just My Two Cent's.

chico
08-11-2004, 09:52 PM
I Have A 94 205,275 Efi.this Boat Does It All,shortline Slalom,longline Barefoot,off The Boom.there Is Plenty Of Roomand Performance.i Will Probably Have This One For A Long Time.just My Two Cent's.

Stritt
08-11-2004, 10:08 PM
Had a 96 205 and loved it! Std 275 EFi engine. Pulled 3 people deepwater
longline without a problem. With that said, the 96 is a different hull than the 92-95's. FYI......the 1996 190 did not almost hit the shoreline....the 98.....that's a different story.

Quality.....(interior)

94-97 good
98- not as good
99- awful......really cheap looking.
00-present....getting better every year.

east tx skier
08-11-2004, 10:35 PM
Diesel, my father in law has not had the least bit of trouble with his TBI engine on his six-year-old boat. I know nothing about the LT-1, just relating his positive experience with the TBI engine on his 98. Footin', with what I would describe as minimal care, his interior remains pristine on the 98 205. The quality of both boats is good in my opinion. One is a significantly larger-feeling boat (the 96+ boat). The beam on the 98, if memory serves is only 2" wider than the 85" beam in 92-95. I would guess that if you have a 32' deep garage, you could accomodate either boat.

Stritt
08-12-2004, 12:08 AM
I should clarify my remarks...The build quality is pretty much the same throughout the years, hand laid, all fiberglass, backing plate........What I am referring to is the "look" and "creature comforts". 98 interiors have less sewn seams and color swatches, more exposed fiberglass than the 96 or 97 205. 99 is well....terrible. 2000 + HUGE improvement asthetically.

NSXBill
08-12-2004, 10:41 AM
I would like to hear what it was specifically about the LT1 that turned you off, NSXbill?

See above in at least three of my posts. It wasn't any one specific thing.

Here are a few facts I concidered when choosing my motor:

The LT1 is far and above the winner in the technology department...

I agree, but so what?

TBI is old fuel injection technology ....

Not for ski boats in the era under discussion. TBI is still used in MC's through 2004 and currently in other ski boats. The LT-1 was discontinued seven model-years ago. So which motor is really old technology?

...and [TBI] is a modern day variation of a carb..

This is simply a ridiculous statement.

A distributor is also old technology that is more succeptable to corrosion in the marine enviorment. Also a distributor has moving parts that will require repalcement. The LT1/Northstar system use twice as many sensors to monitor timing, fuel, and air to provide a near perfect combustion in each cylinder. I could go on and on stating these kind of factual tidbits for hours but these are some of the highlights.

I agree, but the bottom line is that the TBI is tried and true and the LT-1 is more problematic...not terribly so, but it is. You're correct about the distributor, but I would rather replace a cap and rotor (I can do that) than trouble-shoot a crank trigger or ignition module. Again, the guy asked a question and I think he deserves the wisdom of those on the board.

Look I love technology, but for a boat, I was going to go with what I considered to be the safest bet. Others may want technology for technoloy's sake. Look at me. I have an NSX with arguably one of the most complex engines of any production car. I could have gotten a Corvette with a simple LT-1 :D

When I set out to buy my boat I also did a fair amount of research as well. I choose the LT1 because I wanted to keep my boat a long time. 710 hours later is still think I made the right decision.

I wanted to keep my boat for a long time as well, and that's why I was going to go with what I considered to be tried and true. In the end, I chose a boat which was out of the LT-1 era anyway. But I was originally considering boats in that time frame and had, as I've stated, decide against the LT-1...with (and this is important) all other things being equal. Again, I'm not saying the LT-1 is bad or terrible. YMMV

Diesel, I appreciate your point of view and I wish you well.

east tx skier
08-12-2004, 11:49 AM
35th, can you be more specific as to the exposed fiberglass on the 98?

I'd agree with the fewer seams comment. I can't decide if that's a good thing or not. My FIL's 98's interior doesn't get the kind of love mine does (to be specific, he just finally started putting the cover on the boat this year, and when he's at the lake, it's stored outside), but even so, seems bullet proof. Not a rip, tear, or fade anywhere on it. It amazes me.

More seams seems like more to rip to me?

Ben
08-12-2004, 01:07 PM
Does anyone have tickets to Diesel & NSXBill throwing their engine blocks at each other until one dies yet? Let me know when available, I either want to get Diesels engine, since it will run forever, or NSXBill's boat, to see how the 209 skis.

At the end of the day, it seems both engines are fairly reliable. The LT-1 may have a bit more power and be more technically advanced, but if GM quit making it (according to above), I would completely understand why it is not offered anymore.

Seems as if another good focus would be to validate the seller believed routine maintenance was something to partake in. Given the actual potential usage of the motor, I would believe both setups are somewhat equally reliable if they are taken care of, unless you are planning to have the boat for a few thousand years. You scan find examples of either the TBI or LT-1 with over 1000 hours on them.....

Not trying to offend anyone above, just having fun at lunch, crying since it is in the low 50's here, was planning to take morning off to ski, but determined that a "4" in the 1st digit of the thermometer was a bad thing....

NSXBill
08-12-2004, 01:41 PM
Ben, you should have used the popcorn guy. :popcorn: Pretty funny. I appreciate your input when I was first looking for my boat.

east tx skier
08-12-2004, 01:44 PM
I heard the match was cancelled because when Diesel picked up the LT-1, it fell apart and the thermostats exploded. I'm kidding! I'm kidding!

What's up with this weather. Woke up to 60 degrees in August, in TEXAS?!?!? Wife suggested I take a wetsuit this weekend. Ha! But she doesn't like the least hint of cold in the water. I'm quite sure I'll be okay in trunks :D We don't know what cold is around here (in August anyway, but probably not at all compared to you guys in Michigan.

Diesel
08-12-2004, 03:48 PM
I agree, but the bottom line is that the TBI is tried and true and the LT-1 is more problematic...not terribly so, but it is. Again, the guy asked a question and I think he deserves the wisdom of those on the board.


As long as that wisdom does not conflict with your opinion right??? :rolleyes: Let's try to keep the discussion on track and state facts not opinions or hearsay.

You keep saying the LT1 is more problematic but you have no facts to back it up?? Is this first hand experience from a problematic LT1 you owned? A few guys tell you the LT1 is problematic and you jump on the band wagon.

I listed a few systems and features of the LT1 that make it a more advanced motor. I gave my experiences with the motor, because I OWN one, and stated FACTUAL information about the engines themselves. If you reread my posts I kept my personal opinion out. So far all you have been able to spew is "the TBI is tried and true, blah, blah, blah......................

For the record the last time GM used a TBI on an 350 block was 1995. The only reason the manufactures keep it around is because it is cheap and overly simplistic. IMHO this is not something we should celebrate. Why are the leading manufactues standard engines 10 years behind the automotive industry??

The TBI very well might be a a long lasting engine (I don't own one and never will so I will refrain from spewing my opinion). If you reread my posts I have only pointed out the differences in the two engines and never knocked the TBI. I can tell you from a hardware standpont the LT1 is built to last longer, run more efficiently, and require less mantinence. This is fact.

BTW prove me wong on the carb issue??

NSXBill
08-12-2004, 04:36 PM
Wow dude! You're pretty rude.

"Spewing my opinion?" In case you didn't notice, Footin's original post ASKS for opionions.

If everyone here could only talk about things they actually owned, it would be a pretty small and dull board.

Maybe Jim can explain the difference between a carb and EFI to you. I'm done feeding the trolls.

DanC
08-12-2004, 05:11 PM
"Cheap and overly simplistic". I like that, kinda like me :purplaugh

Expensive and complicated are what I try to avoid in my life, in both motors and women.

(now waiting for reply from Rick)

Diesel
08-12-2004, 05:17 PM
Wow dude! You're pretty rude.

"Spewing my opinion?" In case you didn't notice, Footin's original post ASKS for opionions.

If everyone here could only talk about things they actually owned, it would be a pretty small and dull board.

Maybe Jim can explain the difference between a carb and EFI to you. I'm done feeding the trolls.

The exact response I expected to see.................more drivel while you dance around the subject at hand :rolleyes:

H20skeefreek
08-12-2004, 05:41 PM
The exact response I expected to see.................more drivel while you dance around the subject at hand :rolleyes:

Diesel, instead of insulting our regular members, one that has given more research and quality information than most, why don't you just stop.

You are both giving opinions, you are just wording them as if they are fact. Bill has stated it has it's advantages, but he doesn't like the disadvantages. The only way you could give facts only is if you were quoting numbers only. Saying "I haven't had problems, so it's good" is an opinion.

As far as a TBI being a modern day version of a carb being a ridiculous statement: it is b/c all injection systems are modern day versions of carbs. The do you same job, just in a more efficient and controlled manner.

We know you love your LT1 and you'll never own anything else, and NSXBill chose against the LT1. As far as Chevy engines go, the LT1 is viewed as a weak piece of junk. Camaro/Firebird/Vette owners rejoiced when the LS1 was introduced. Unfortunately 'bu has exclusive rights to use the LS1 in a boat, hopefully that will change some day.

Footin
08-12-2004, 05:43 PM
I'm begining to wonder if i should have asked the original questions......Next time I will ask opionions for a non controvertial subject like religon or abortions.

I do appreciate all the opionions posted and I have made the decision to look for a 1995 with the LT1 but not to rule out the standard motor if it is a good deal. Keeping in mind the boat will used 50% family boating and 50% barefooting.

"The meek may inharit the earth...but I can walk on water"

JimN
08-12-2004, 06:03 PM
If I have to turn this thread around and go home, someone's gonna get a fresh one!

Seriously, let's keep it civil here.

The TBI is a replacement for the carb and is a definite improvement. It does have a distributor, which is not as trouble free as the Northstar, nor is it capable of the high percentage of spark events(TBI has about 18% miss rate at WOT), but in most applications, it's not noticeable since it's not a true performance motor and they are short duration failures. It also has some air turbulence issues at around 4500 RPM that the MFI don't.

The LT-1, however, doen't have twice the sensors of the TBI. It has crank position sensors instead of the distributor to tell the ECM where the crank is and it has the ignition control module under the coil packs to provide spark. The rest of the sensors are the same, other than the TPS. If you put the TBI TPS on an LT-1, the ECM sees WOT- same for putting the LT-1 TPS on a TBI motor. The LT-1 has a dry intake and obviously, individual injectors on each cylinder. The heads are aluminum and the water circulating pump sends water to the heads first, unlike the rest of the cast iron motors. Oh, yeah- the LT-1 has 2 thermostats and a bit of confusion to go along with them.

I may be wrong, but the perception of the LT-1 being a less reliable motor could be from the fact that some people who own boats don't always get the information about the proper care and feeding of their motor or don't really know that there is a difference between the LT-1 and the cast iron motors. A TBI motor will tolerate an overheat better than a motor with aluminum heads. I'm not saying it's OK to overheat any motor, but the heads on an LT-1 really hate excessive heat and they are expensive. The TBI has a bit of a hump in the torque curve in the low RPM range that the LT-1 doesn't, but the LT-1 has a wider, smoother torque curve and no air turbulence issues at high RPM's. Other than Thrall, who had a bad ECM, the rest of the LT-1 problems seem to be from not keeping the oil cooler clear of blockage, and fuel issues- ususally pumps going out because of debris in the tank or old gas filters, which isn't different from any other motor. All of the boats have the potential for the fuel sender to go nuts.

Both the TBI and LT-1 are good, dependable motors. If they weren't, MC wouldn't have changed to them from the Ford motorswhen they decided to go to injection. They do have some maintenance and design differences. The TBI was never intended to be a hot motor. The LT-1 is really supposed to be for barefooters, who like/need/want to go faster than slalom and trick skiers during their event. The LT-1 and TBI should both last for a couple of thousand hours of use. Neither will if they aren't maintained properly. Neither motor is rocket science.

Footin
08-12-2004, 06:09 PM
OK one more dumb question about the LT1, do those of you with LT1's run high octane gas, or does it call for 93 octane? I am assuming the standard motor will perform well on 87.

This would make a difference to me only because of the lack of avalibility of 93 octane on the water.

JimN
08-12-2004, 06:13 PM
If you can get the 93, you'll have less detonation(and burned valves, if it's bad enough) since the LT-1 does have higher compression than the TBI motor. If the gas on the water is only 89, I would bring my own.

Thrall
08-12-2004, 07:26 PM
Might as well get my .02 in on this. I have a LT-1 in a '96 PS 190. Jim mentioned the problem I had w/ the ECM. It was frustrating to diagnose and an expensive repair, but in all fairness, it was an issue that the previous owner could have rectified under warranty if they had looked after the issue when the problem began. I've had plenty of Chevies w/ TBI engines and they are rock solid. The LT-1 in my boat also appears to be a very good motor (although it only has 350hrs on it, so I can't boast about longevity yet).
My perception is that the LT-1 is better suited for someone that is an "enthusiast" and doesn't mind meticulous maintenance. They are good turn key motors, but must be looked after more closely, especially in the cooling water department, because they will self destruct quicker when overheated than a good old iron motor.
In the power department, I have no basis for comparison, as I have never been in a TBI 350 MC. What I do know is that even though I am running a stock 3 blade OJ Legend w/ several "love marks" in it (inflicted by the prev owner, of course). It still tops out at 43-44 mph an will flat pull your arms off, off the line.
One other good note about the LT-1 is I think it is very fuel efficient. I can run for 5-6 hrs of recreational boating (part time skiing/boarding, part time cruising) with a full load of people and it will only burn about 15 gal.


One other note, Diesel you need to chill! This is a very friendly, helpful site and if you're so bored that you want to start an argument just to get responses, post somewhere else.

lakes Rick
08-12-2004, 07:53 PM
"Cheap and overly simplistic". I like that, kinda like me :purplaugh

Expensive and complicated are what I try to avoid in my life, in both motors and women.

(now waiting for reply from Rick)


Nice breasts, tight rears, life is good!!!!!!!

Diesel
08-13-2004, 10:51 AM
[QUOTE=This would make a difference to me only because of the lack of avalibility of 93 octane on the water.[/QUOTE]

Footin,

I have run 91 and/or 92 in mine with no noticeable detonation. The ECM will adjust timing to compensate for slight variations in octane but 89 might be too low. 91 is the lowest octane I have run in my boat so I am unsure of how the 89 or less will perform.

JimN
08-13-2004, 11:05 AM
91 and 92 being only 1 point away won't make a difference. The ECM will only pull the timing back to base timing(10 deg BTDC), so if the octane is too low from the pump or it has dropped over time, under the right conditions, there will still be detonation. If you're running it hard when it's hot and dry, there's a good chance of having detonation.

Diesel
08-13-2004, 11:08 AM
One other note, Diesel you need to chill! This is a very friendly, helpful site and if you're so bored that you want to start an argument just to get responses, post somewhere else.

Did you read the whole thread?

I think I contributed more first hand knowledge and facts to this thread than anybody. I was very candid and upfront of both the likes and dislikes of the exact boat footin is looking to buy because I have owned one for the past 9 years. If I was in his shoes I would be very happy to hear both the good and the bad and not the usual "its the greatest thing in the world because I own one" junk.

Also, I do not like missinformation from someone who does not own the particualr boat/motor in question. Footin and the entire boad deserves to hear factual information and not just opinions that are hearsay.

MarkP
08-13-2004, 11:16 AM
Hey


Whats the best motor??:wavey:

MarkP
08-13-2004, 11:17 AM
OOps


Wanted to use this one:uglyhamme

JimN
08-13-2004, 11:27 AM
Deisel- if I posted anything that's incorrect, by all means, let me know what was wong.

Diesel
08-13-2004, 11:56 AM
Deisel- if I posted anything that's incorrect, by all means, let me know what was wong.

Most of your posts were okay........................ :D

JimN
08-13-2004, 11:57 AM
I would like to know specifically, if you don't mind.

I noticed you asking in a previous post, why the marine engines are so far behind the cars in technology. Money. The car industry does the initial development and takes the hit for the high cost. Considering the fact that there are still a lot of boats with carbs on the motor, it has to be money. Why add to the already high cost of boats with R&D? They take a motor design that exists, make the needed mods so it works reliably in a boat, and send it to market. You said the TBI was last used in a GM car in '95. The main reason the motors keep getting more efficient is the EPA. They mandate that the emissions not be higher than a certain limit by a set date. Many times, the manufacturers are well on their way to a completed design/testing phase and the EPA changes their limits or gas formulation requirements.

Yes, the LT-1 is more efficient and higher powered. LS-1 is even more so, because it's newer. But, even though it is newer, Malibu sent them out without the proper calibration and they paid dearly for it. At MC training, we discussed the LS-1 and the fact that there were 75 catastrophic failures in the first year, then they stopped using them till they could get it right. Efficiency- the newer coil-near-plug motor is another leap in that direction. They have a coil for each cylinder and burn even more of the fuel, as well as giving the ECM the ability to advance/retard timing on individual cylinders if needed. If they ever start using exhaust gas temperature sensors on these, they'll be able to adjust the pulse width for each injector, too. Longer lasting- the cast iron GM small block V-8 as used in passenger cars and trucks till recently has been around since about 1953. They still make them for marine and the Central/South American vehicles. These motors are no longer made in the US.

Diesel
08-13-2004, 12:30 PM
[QUOTE=JimN]I would like to know specifically, if you don't mind.[QUOTE]

I was trying to bring some funnay into the thread Jim :D .

I was not making reference to your post and I will compliment you on your factual posts void of biais or opinion. The board could use more posts like yours and mine :D .

I agree with you on the money issue when it comes to motor technology. I was set to buy a new boat this year and was completely appaled by MC choice of motors. Actually I fell in love with the LQ9 when I first heard about it. After further research, seeing the motor on paper, and hearing the price I was quite disgruntled. The MCX in MHO is a joke. Yeah its got the #s and everyone talks about how great it is but I just do not see it making the long haul. As a result I chose to wait to see what MC has in store for the next generation of motors.

IMHO I think Malibu has taken the lead with thier offering of motors. I was glad to see the switched to Indmar and they have put together a very strong set of motor options. And the upgrade prices seem to be reasonable. It's a shame the boats are so ugly. I will happily continue using my 205 for a few more years and hope MC gets it together.

By the way why do boats cost so much as compared to cars? They have a 1/3 of the parts and require much less capital investment to mfg. Yeah I know they don't sell as many boats as cars but a 70k boat is a little rediculous. Your thoughts??

JimN
08-13-2004, 12:56 PM
Re: the LQ-9 and MCX- specs don't tell you how it works. They tell how it tested. If you haven't been in a boat with either of these, look for posts by people who have them. A joke? Do you honestly think MC or any other boat maker would send a motor to market that was a joke? They test the crap out of these things. On dynos and in boats, on the water. Theory and objective testing only get you so far. It's not as if these 2 motors just came out in the past couple of years(in boats, maybe but not in cars or trucks).

Boat vs Car prices- cars built the same way as these boats are called CUSTOM. At the very least, they would be called limited production. There is very little automated production on boats, the parts seldom come from third-world countries, the parts aren't just stamped out and the economy of scale alone creates a huge difference. If it costs $10M to design/develop/retool for a particular motor and they make 2M of them and they attribute the cost to each unit, they cost $5 per unit manufactured. I know this isn't the GAAP method, but you can see where I'm going with this. MC makes under 3000 boats per year. Everything they do costs more $unit.

If Malibu wants to shave $ off of the upgrade price, you can rest assured that they aren't losing money on them. They just make it look like a great deal, but since they don't show how much the base model costs, they have just shifted some of the price difference to that one so they can sell more upgrades.

Diesel
08-13-2004, 01:52 PM
A joke? Do you honestly think MC or any other boat maker would send a motor to market that was a joke?

IMHO a 10 year old ignition system that has been all but abandoned by the automotive industry is a joke. Yes it gets the job done but for the money we are spending on these boats I think we should demand more. This applies to more than MC.

Also if the MCX is so great why is it not a MC exclusive? It looks like MC bought a prepackaged engine from indmar.

If MC launched a boat next year that had a 1970 vinyl interior and shag carpet this board would be in an uproar. I do not think the above scenerio is very far off when it is applied to MC's current engines. The problem is most people do not know enough about an engine to know the difference. Most people only see the #s and not the technology or lack there of.

MC lead the way in inboard power for many years and unfortuantly the competion has caught up and surpassed.

Warning: Many of the above statements are my opinion and nothing more. This is specifically for those of you who cannot distinguish between cold hard facts and opinion :D

Ben
08-13-2004, 02:12 PM
I thought the manual said 89 or midgrade. Whe're I'm at midgrade = 89, so that's what I use. Seems to run fine. Have never tried 87. Used 93 for a few tanks when refueling on the water and that was the only option.

Data point: 175 hours (minus 2 tanks) using 89 octane w/no immediate problems.

Opinion: I think this is ok, so I'll keep using 89 unless JimN tells me I'm trashing my engine.....

JimN
08-13-2004, 03:16 PM
I don't think you'd trash the motor unless the 89 octane had been sitting for a long time.

Indmar makes engine packages, based on what their customers tell them that they want to offer. The LTR was a MC exclusive but after testing, the MCX was chosen because it does what MC wanted it to. The LS-1 is a go-fast motor. It also wasn't able to live through the wrong calibration, even though the whole situation could have been avoided. MC doesn't just have Indmar's technical staff working on them. They have their own, along with others, who are extremely capable. The Mercruiser motors Malibu and others use are prepackaged, maybe with a few very minor changes. Indmar, Volvo-Penta, Mercruiser, PCM and the others get the motors from GM as assemblies. Then they make the desired changes, paint them up and ship them to the boat manufacturer. If there is a special run of models that are prepared differently, they get a premium for them.

A 10 year old ignition system that was "all but abandoned by the automotive industry"- refer back to my last post about the EPA. They're the reason the car makers need to constantly increase the efficiency of their motors. Ultimately, if the motors are drastically more efficient, we all win. However, there's a huge difference between a carb'd motor and a new aluminum block/head, 4 valve per cylinder, coil-near-plug, best-lean-burn higher operating temperature motor, especially when you factor in the changes in the gas over the years. Now add the exhaust manifolds with water flowing out the back end and a raw water system that can get clogged, cutting off the flow of coolant to the motor. You don't have these on a car and most people don't work on their own cars when they're new, because they don't know what to do with them if there's a problem, let alone routine maintenance.

Over the years, I have heard people ragging about not being able to work on their car/truck, acting as if the car makers "did it so they can't do the service". More complex engine control does remove a lot of people from the loop when it comes to working on their own vehicle and the car dealers stand to grab more money from their service dept. It's still due to the strict emissions standards that this was done.

BriEOD
08-13-2004, 04:12 PM
Yeah man lets keep the peace on here. :smile:

Diesel thanks for all the good info on the LT-1. Sounds like it's working well. Also, welcome to the site. Where in the US are you? Twelve posts keep em' coming. Also, don't be to hard on NSXBill. Bill has helped a lot of us out over the years (found me a part) and has contributed a lot to this and the old site. I'm sure he didn't mean to offend you or knock your boat. As I'm sure you weren't attacking him. That's the trouble with written correspondence sometimes, you lose some of the meaning, non-verbals and can't ask questions. People take things the wrong ways sometimes, it snowballs and then we have a high-order detonation. :eek: Again, welcome to the site keep the good info coming.

Diesel
08-13-2004, 04:30 PM
Where in the US are you?


I already have stakers, lol................................ :D











Actually I am in Tulsa.

east tx skier
08-16-2004, 12:48 PM
Agree with Brian. And I'll just throw it out there again, skied behind a TBI 308 HP Prostar all weekend. That thing nearly ripped someones arms out of the socket when the driver, who wasn't as used to it gave a little too much throttle. This boat's motor has had the minimum maintenance done to it and runs like a clock, with nary a sputter. It should not be ridiculed any more than my 11 year old 351 HO, which apart from carb issues now solved, keeps on plugging. Glad you're enjoying your LT-1 as much as I/we are enjoying our 351s and TBI 350s. Rock on, all!

AirJunky
08-16-2004, 02:02 PM
I run the 87 octane fuel in my '94 205 with the TBI. Never pings in the least. 560 hours & runs like a champ.

And I have a buddy who had an LT1 replaced in the warranty on a 1996 PS190. He said it had something to do with the engine overheating but didn't remember all the details. The boat was a year old at the time.