PDA

View Full Version : Question about power.


Storm861triple
08-12-2004, 05:49 PM
For those that don't know, I have a '92 Prostar 190. It is bone stock and original except for a 13.5" four blade. It is rated at a whopping 240 hp.

I have several friends that have '00 and newer boats;
'00 Malibu Sunsetter LXI: 13" 4 blade; 320 hp I think
'04 Gekko GTO22: 13" Acme 3 blade; 310 hp I think
'02 Air Nautique: ?? Prop 320 hp PCM

My boat will DESTROY these newer boat out of the hole, and match them up top. I can pull up a slalom skier in 1/4 the time these newer boats will. In a from-a-stop-drag race, it's a slaughter. And after getting up behind mine, getting pulled by these newer boats feels like getting pulled by an I/O! Granted, they are both over propped for this elevation. The Malibu turns 4800 RPM at WOT, when it should be turning 5050, I believe. But look at mine, I'm dogging my engine down w/ that 13.5" prop. I managed like 3999 RPM down at Powell last weekend.

Why does my old boat have so much more punch? Is that old 351 under-rated? Are the newer engines over-rated? I don't think my boat is that much lighter? (I think mine's 3500 lbs) I believe even though the new engines are rated at higher peak power, they still make more (or are rated to make more) low end torque, w/their roller cams, modern heads and combustion chambers (vortec heads) and MPFI. I know the LS1 based engines make 300 lb-ft of torque at 1000 RPM!! Some thing my old windsor could only dream about. So I don't want to hear about how the old engine makes more low end torque.

So what is up here?

Thrall
08-12-2004, 06:47 PM
Did you forget to mention that you punched it out and piped it to match your sled?

JimN
08-12-2004, 08:27 PM
One thing to consider is the efficiency of the hull. Yours may be more efficient than theirs, but I'm just guessing now. I don't have any specs for them. If theirs have more wetted surface, they'll have more drag and it'll be harder to get out of the hole.

Knoxes
08-13-2004, 09:28 AM
3500 lbs?? My 88 PS190 is only 2200.

OhioProstar
08-13-2004, 09:37 AM
My '95 loaded on the trailer is 3400 lbs....I would guess 900 for the trailer so you are more likely in the 2500 lbs range. The newer boats are heavier...that might make the difference.

Storm861triple
08-13-2004, 11:21 AM
Did you forget to mention that you punched it out and piped it to match your sled?
Dude, That made laugh out loud!
"Yep, she's got triple pipes, trail porting, billet heads, and a sick clutch kit."
[reality check/]
"Whoa, uh...I'm stuck in the wrong sport here!" LOL.

You guy's are right, I did a search and found out the boat is lighter than I thought; I guess somewhere in the mid 2500 lb range. I wouldn't think the Sunsetter would be THAT much heavier...

But maybe.

T Scott
08-13-2004, 11:29 AM
Actually, your 1992 might have the 285hp HO engine. The 1991 model had the 240hp and I don't think it passed AWSA certification for slalom that year. (Somebody please correct me if this is inaccurate) In 1992 they re-vamped the heads to give it "High Output" which in turn brought the power up to 285hp. I used to own a 1992 and it was a monster out of the hole. My good friend owns a 1991 with the 240hp engine and my old 1992 was much quicker.

Storm861triple
08-13-2004, 11:36 AM
Well that's interesting. How would I find that out? The sellers told me that it was the 240 hp engine, and it has the "Silent Master" exhaust which I can only imagind is pretty restrictive, but I don't know.

Update, the Sunsetter LXI is 2900 lbs,
The Gekko GTO 22 is 2350 lbs.

Even if I put 4 people in my boat, it would still smoke the others out of the hole. Weird.

-Tom

Bert
08-13-2004, 12:19 PM
The 1991 model had the 240hp and I don't think it passed AWSA certification for slalom that year. (Somebody please correct me if this is inaccurate)

The 91 had AWSA certification.
Can any one answer this question. My Mastercraft manual specs 240HP but the Indmar manual specs 250HP for the 351. Which is it?
My ski partner has a 94 with the 350 TBI and the boats perform identical. His has a 13 x 13 Nibral and mine has a 13 x 13 Stainless.

Hoff1
08-13-2004, 03:32 PM
Bert, you have a good question. My manual on my 90 Maristar quotes 250 as well, but all indications here are 240. I agree that the engine seems to have more power than what you would expect.

east tx skier
08-16-2004, 12:14 PM
Not that this is 100% accurate, but the plastic cover on my 351 HO has a sticker on it that says "285."

From the information I have from the AWSA,

87-92,94-96 model years of the Prostar 190 (1:1) are approved without designation of engine.

The way this stuff is listed is pretty confusing though. Which is to say that I'm not saying that later 190s are not approved (there are several different listings).

east tx skier
08-16-2004, 12:18 PM
This will be easier. This is what the document I have from AWSA lists as approved towboats through 2004.

91-99 MasterCraft Barefoot 200
83-84 MasterCraft Direct Drive
84-85 MasterCraft Geared Drive
86 MasterCraft O/B 150hp,200hp
83-86 MasterCraft Power Slot
87-88,94-04 MasterCraft ProStar 190 1.5:1
87-92,94-96 MasterCraft ProStar 190 1:1
89-93 MasterCraft ProStar 190 Power Slot
00-01 MasterCraft ProStar 195
02-04 MasterCraft ProStar 197
87-91 MasterCraft ProStar 200
92-98,00 MasterCraft ProStar 205
01,03-04 MasterCraft ProStar 209
01 MasterCraft 19 Skier
98-00 MasterCraft Sportstar
99 MasterCraft Sportstar 1.5:1 Open Bow
99 MasterCraft Sportstar 1:1 Open Bow

Also, the 1993 Prostar 190 1:1 was also approved according to an email I received from MC (no idea why it's not listed).

Storm861triple
08-16-2004, 08:50 PM
Has anyone ever seen a stock 351w run on a dyno? Has anyone seen a stock marine Vortec motor run on a dyno?

-Tom

JimN
08-16-2004, 09:09 PM
If the manufacturer shows a HP rating in their brochure, it has to at least match it. If it doesn't it's false advertising.

milkmania
04-30-2007, 01:18 PM
bump

blast from the past http://www.rejectsworld.co.uk/forum/images/smiles/tumbleweed2.gif

Storm861triple
05-08-2007, 03:19 PM
LOL I can't believe this thread got bumped after three years! I was just looking back at my old threads and saw this.

Never did figure out my "preformance discrepancy". I think the 351w is just underrated.

-Tom

milkmania
05-08-2007, 04:38 PM
LOL I can't believe this thread got bumped after three years! I was just looking back at my old threads and saw this.

Never did figure out my "preformance discrepancy". I think the 351w is just underrated.

-Tom



you probably don't want me to dig up any of my old threadshttp://www.freewebby.com/action-smilies/shark.gif

Thrall
05-09-2007, 04:29 PM
Fuuny thing is I started reading it again and was going to make some smart aleck comment about not coming clean w/ your mods and telling your buddys "it's bone stock"..........................but I see I already did!

How ya doin?
Good riding this year?
We live in NM now and had great snow all year just until a couple weeks ago.

Storm861triple
05-09-2007, 08:16 PM
LOL. Yep, you did already get me on that one. It's bone stock though, I swear...right doen to the original Silent Master Muff! :P

I've been good. Didn't ride a bit this year though! No snow!! At one point in February, it snowed for about a week. I thought to myself, "NOW we have enough snow to go ride". Then it warmed up to 60* and that was the end of my motivation to ride. :(

I'm glad to hear that you got some good snow, because we definitely didn't!

-Tom

mrG
05-09-2007, 08:27 PM
Actually, your 1992 might have the 285hp HO engine. The 1991 model had the 240hp and I don't think it passed AWSA certification for slalom that year. (Somebody please correct me if this is inaccurate) In 1992 they re-vamped the heads to give it "High Output" which in turn brought the power up to 285hp. I used to own a 1992 and it was a monster out of the hole. My good friend owns a 1991 with the 240hp engine and my old 1992 was much quicker.

My 92 PS has the HO 285 HP Indmar 351W with the Holley 4010. I don't know if this configuration was an option for that year or it was standard.

Just a thought: the Holley 4010 dual feed config may be a tip-off to it being a 285 HP.

bells197
05-12-2007, 04:52 PM
Here's the deal... They don't have a Mastercraft... And you do...

Storm861triple
05-12-2007, 08:41 PM
LOL... Since I started this thread, A friend of mine bought an '01 MC PS 190, w/the 310 hp TBI engine. I can annihilate that boat, up one side and down the other, while getting about 50% better fuel economy. He has verbally told me, that he wished his boat performed as well as mine. And he has 70 hp on me!

JimN
05-12-2007, 08:52 PM
I would bet that if you put your motor in his boat, the performance would drop. THESE AREN'T MADE FOR SPEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There, I feel a little better now. Your boat is probably lighter and the hull is a different shape, which makes it need less power to move it. You yakking about how your boat is so much faster is like having a light car with a good motor going up against a '67 Bonneville with a bigger motor. Apples and oranges. Yeah, they're both MasterCraft boats but Corvettes and that Bonneville sled are both made by GM.

Has he made sure his is tuned up properly, has the right prop, clean flame arrestor, etc? What have you done to your motor that might make it non-stock?

east tx skier
05-12-2007, 09:00 PM
LOL I can't believe this thread got bumped after three years! I was just looking back at my old threads and saw this.

Never did figure out my "preformance discrepancy". I think the 351w is just underrated.

-Tom

I think you had the weight a little wrong (or it was a typo). Yours weighs about 2,400 lbs. dry. Wetted surface is the reason it is nimble out of the hole if I had to guess. That, and the old Fords are great on hole shot.

WTRSK1R
05-12-2007, 09:46 PM
The 285 HP engine was an option in '92. If it is the stock engine I believe it was rated at 240 HP IIRC.

JimN
05-12-2007, 10:05 PM
The 351 is a really good motor- torquey and good power for the displacement. I suspect the reason Indmar and MC went with Chevy motors is that they didn't get out of the marine market, like Ford did.

Storm861triple
05-13-2007, 10:52 AM
I would bet that if you put your motor in his boat, the performance would drop. THESE AREN'T MADE FOR SPEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There, I feel a little better now. Your boat is probably lighter and the hull is a different shape, which makes it need less power to move it. You yakking about how your boat is so much faster is like having a light car with a good motor going up against a '67 Bonneville with a bigger motor. Apples and oranges. Yeah, they're both MasterCraft boats but Corvettes and that Bonneville sled are both made by GM.
I know that they aren't built for speed, but speed is a direct measure of hp, and it's not subjective. The boats are however, built for pulling up skiers, getting skiers up to speed in short order, and recovering speed after a turn around. My boat will pull a skier up in about 1/2 the time as the '01 and get to skiing speed in about 2/3 the distance. The "top speed" was just another performance measure that is objective, so I inserted it into the list. Having owned an 85 - 90 mph speed boat prior to my MC, I understand that these boats will never go fast no matter how much hp you throw at them, and as long as they hit 40 mph (quickly) that's good enough. Incidentally, the '01 will not get to 40 mph at this elevation.

Has he made sure his is tuned up properly, has the right prop, clean flame arrestor, etc?
The '01 engine did just receive a tune up, and appears to run great. Smooth, consistant, starts instantly, etc. Like most newer comp ski boats I've experienced it's just a dog, compared to mine. I think it must boil down to weight, as some have mentioned. I hear what you're saying about comparing a 'Vette to a '67 Bonneville, but I was comparing comp ski boats to comp ski boats. And PS 190 to PS 190. I wasn't comparing my boat to an X-80. Unfortunatly, unlike 'Vettes, same model MC's have gotten progressively heavier with time and technology. That's backwards, and it's too bad.
What have you done to your motor that might make it non-stock?
Not much. Content wise, it's 100% bone box-stock, right down to the original (and restrictive) Silent Master muff. The only "mods" I've done to it is rejet it for this elevation (not really a "mod" since the '01 does the same thing all by itself), optimize the ignition timing at WOT (it liked some additional advance), replace the prop that came on it w/a 13x13 Cutlass SS 4 blade, iinstall a PSS frictionless seal, and get the drive train pointed in the correct direction. The last two things were also done to the '01 by me, BTW.

At this point, I'm thinking it all boils down to hull weight, which has gone the wrong direction over time.

east tx skier
05-13-2007, 11:06 AM
The 285 HP engine was an option in '92. If it is the stock engine I believe it was rated at 240 HP IIRC.

At some point (either 92 or 93), the stock 351 was bumped to 250 hp.

JimN
05-13-2007, 04:00 PM
Storm- speed is a great indicator of power if all other things are equal, but they aren't. Hull weight is only part of the equation. Weight of the contents, passengers, prop pitch, diameter and cup, hull shape and wetted surface all come into play, too. He may have the wrong prop for that altitude, since he wouldn't need to re-jet a carb but if your altitude is high enough, I would tell him to call MC and ask if they have a better high altitude calibration for his motor.

Storm861triple
05-13-2007, 10:55 PM
You'll have to trust me when I say I know that "Weight of the contents, passengers, prop pitch, diameter and cup, hull shape and wetted surface all come into play, too." As I mentioned above, having owned an 85+ mph boat prior to this one for 12 years, I know ALL about weight, gear on board, component and weight placement, hull shape, props, etc.

It's not like we "lined 'em up" one time, and I formed a conclusion. We go boating together ALL the time. I drive his boat, he drives mine. I ski behind his, he skis behind mine. The older PS 190 is a better performing boat hands down, and he, and all our friends agree. It's also better than the other boats I mentioned at the beginning of the thread by a similar margin as well. Now if the HULLS changed as they have, but power had NOT, or if I had a 300 hp engine, then I'd expect the discrepancy in performance that I've seen and felt. But jeezus...all these guys have 70 more hp than me....minimum.

Forget about my comment on top speed all together. Why does my boat get to 36 mph about 5 seconds and 100' quicker than modern counterparts, w/a 70+ hp deficit? I say it must be weight, at this point.

Good point you made about DL'ing a different program for elevation though. If it was done right from the factory it wouldn't need it, but I'm well aware how much the factory leaves on the table w/a stock tune. Both our boats get run at 3700' (Lake Powell) and also at 6500' (Jordanelle in Park City) elevation.

JimN
05-13-2007, 11:28 PM
I know there are programs for higher elevations but any boat company spending a lot of time on such a limited market's needs would be great for those customers but of no value to the rest, who would have to share the cost of development. If your friend hasn't inquired about this and his boat was made for sea level, it's like a car- sure, it runs well but it's hard to get high performance with normal aspiration in thin air. Yours was re-jetted and his is bone stock. I would still look into the prop- there have been other threads about high altitude operation and what is needed to get the desired speed. His may have more pitch than what the current calibration is for, in thin air.

The problem with more power in a heavier boat is that the prop is still pushing water against water.

6ballsisall
05-14-2007, 09:16 PM
Storm- speed is a great indicator of power if all other things are equal, but they aren't. Hull weight is only part of the equation. Weight of the contents, passengers, prop pitch, diameter and cup, hull shape and wetted surface all come into play, too. He may have the wrong prop for that altitude, since he wouldn't need to re-jet a carb but if your altitude is high enough, I would tell him to call MC and ask if they have a better high altitude calibration for his motor.


Jim, you make great points coming from your vast experience and knowledge with MC's. You've probably forgot more about inboards than the rest of us will learn.
Some battles aren't worth fighting though dude........ :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Don't ya'll feel like going out and selling your inferior rides and buying a 92' now?????:rolleyes:

milkmania
05-14-2007, 11:50 PM
LOL I can't believe this thread got bumped after three years! I was just looking back at my old threads and saw this.


-Tom

looks like the bumpin' of the old thread was good for business;)




(meaning, it looks like someone's getting some use out of it)

Storm861triple
05-15-2007, 10:50 AM
Some battles aren't worth fighting though dude........ :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Don't ya'll feel like going out and selling your inferior rides and buying a 92' now?????:rolleyes:
Instead of being sarcastic, why not offer your theory to explain my observation(s).

I just asked a question about why a boat w/at least a 30% deficit in power can not only match but out perform similar models from different companies. And the same company. Not an unreasonable question, nor is it unreasonable to analyze. One would assume that a product would berform better as time and technology passes. Especially when you can see a significant power rating increase. That I've observed performance go the opposite direction, in more than just one example, and on more than one occasion, caused me to ask questions. Not unreasonable, I don't think.

Jrandol, why do you bash all my posts w/worthless sarcasm? Why not read and consider the data I've posted, and comment with useful input? Or perhaps not comment at all.

To break this thread down, the comments made in this thread that are relevant are:
Hull efficiency/wetted surface, JimN (has a greater impact as speed increases)
hull weight increasing over time, Ohioprostar & east tx skier
ECM Calibration, JimN
Propping was mentioned but I don't believe it's relevant to my data as we've messed w/propping on both my boat, and on the newer MC. The Malibu had also had a prop change for elevation.

Here is an update on the various boats weights if anyone cares...:
'92 PS 190: 2450 lbs
Source: Owners Manual

'07 PS 190: 2620
Source: waterskimag.com

'01 Sunsetter LXI: 2900 lbs

Gekko GTO 22: 2350 lbs.

Ryan
05-15-2007, 11:52 AM
Ok an engine run down as I remember it.
(IIRC disclaimer - I can confirm tomorrow)
91-92 240hp Ford Standard
91-92 250hp (maybe 93 but I don't think so) optional GM 350 engine (a 454 was also available according to my owners manual)
93 285hp Ford Standard with GT40 Heads distinguished by the verticle three bars on each end of each head - if they aren't there then you have 240hp I do not think this was an option for 92
(of course if you have 4 bars like mine does now then you have GT40p heads wich kick in a mysterious extra amt of hp)
93 310hp LT1 optional GM engine
94 + all GM and the hp range is all over the place starting at 275hp I believe

MC could have had some overlap in production features where some GT40 heads were installed on a boat built late in 92. Look and see if you have the bars.

PS this isn't my engine - it's from a 93 Cobra.

Storm861triple
05-15-2007, 12:03 PM
Good info, Ryan. I'll check my heads. If they ARE GT-40 heads that would explain a lot. I doubt that they are, but I'll check tonight.

BTW, those are sexy looking rockers you've got there! :love:

Ryan
05-15-2007, 12:10 PM
Ooh, why thank you!

Again, that's from a Mustang. Even my old heads looked better as far as surface rust than that pic.

Last chance anyone need one good GT40 head? If I don't hear back in the next hour I'm going to turning it and the cracked on to a shop for a few bucks.

butter
05-15-2007, 12:59 PM
The 285hp was an option in '92, according to my '92 owner's manual.

I bought my '92 thinking that it had the 240/250hp motor, and was pleasantly surprised to later learn that it has the 285hp HO motor.

As Ryan mentioned, the heads are the primary difference (look for three raised bars on either ends of the heads, instead of one or two raised bars). The carb is different too (look for two fuel inlets, instead of one), though I understand it is not uncommon for the carb to have been switched.

Ryan
05-15-2007, 01:13 PM
The 285hp was an option in '92, according to my '92 owner's manual.

I bought my '92 thinking that it had the 240/250hp motor, and was pleasantly surprised to later learn that it has the 285hp HO motor.

As Ryan mentioned, the heads are the primary difference (look for three raised bars on either ends of the heads, instead of one or two raised bars). The carb is different too (look for two fuel inlets, instead of one), though I understand it is not uncommon for the carb to have been switched.


Hmm, I was not aware of that. No wonder there is so much confusion on the HP. I think I have a 92 owner's manual I'll have to look through it when ever I unpack it.

Do you know what time of year it was built?

butter
05-15-2007, 01:49 PM
Do you know what time of year it was built?
I'm not sure what time of year it was built. I suppose that info is in the HIN #, if I could remember how to decipher it...

east tx skier
05-15-2007, 02:38 PM
the 351 HO a/k/a GT40 carbed 351 was an option in 1992 and 1993. 1994 had the TBI 350 at 275 hp or the LT-1 at 310 hp. Base 351 was 250 hp in 93 and might have been in 92.

JimN
05-15-2007, 05:59 PM
I would like to do some objective testing on these boats to see why there's so much of a difference. All we can do here is guess. Too bad torque/power curves are so hard to come by.

Storm- what ratio are the transmissions? Even with the normal 351, there's a bunch of torque.

Storm861triple
05-16-2007, 01:02 AM
I would like to do some objective testing on these boats to see why there's so much of a difference. All we can do here is guess. Too bad torque/power curves are so hard to come by.

Storm- what ratio are the transmissions? Even with the normal 351, there's a bunch of torque.
Best post on this thread, IMO! I agree and am willing to participate in any objective test. I know the '01 owner would be willing too. He's just as perplexed/curious as I am. Next time we go out, perhaps he and I can run some 0-20, 0-30, and 0-36 runs?

I would also like to find some scales and weigh our two boats. I have a very hard time believing that there is a 170 lb weight difference between the two boats. Aside from the acceleration difference the '01 turns "heavy" as well. And it tows "heavy".

My trans is a 1:1. (and so is my friends '01, FYI)

Any other tests we can run practically? I agree that it's a bummer dyno graphs aren't available, and other info like cam specs.

I just looked at my heads a couple minutes ago. There are what looks like TWO vertical bars, cast into the head in the location shown in the picture in Ryan's post. I can't tell from Ryan's small pic if the head in that Cobra has three verticall lines or two. There is a boss just to the left of the lines that almost looks like another line, but it's not...

-Tom

east tx skier
05-16-2007, 10:09 AM
Best post on this thread, IMO! I agree and am willing to participate in any objective test. I know the '01 owner would be willing too. He's just as perplexed/curious as I am. Next time we go out, perhaps he and I can run some 0-20, 0-30, and 0-36 runs?

I would also like to find some scales and weigh our two boats. I have a very hard time believing that there is a 170 lb weight difference between the two boats. Aside from the acceleration difference the '01 turns "heavy" as well. And it tows "heavy".

My trans is a 1:1. (and so is my friends '01, FYI)

Any other tests we can run practically? I agree that it's a bummer dyno graphs aren't available, and other info like cam specs.

I just looked at my heads a couple minutes ago. There are what looks like TWO vertical bars, cast into the head in the location shown in the picture in Ryan's post. I can't tell from Ryan's small pic if the head in that Cobra has three verticall lines or two. There is a boss just to the left of the lines that almost looks like another line, but it's not...

-Tom

I think my average 0--36 time was about 7.5 seconds, which is about a second slower than the 197. No real pertinence to the thread other than it is a number and that's the direction we've taken.

Thrall
05-16-2007, 04:54 PM
Tom, sorry to hear about the "no snow" year. Hope the lakes are up enough w/o a good runoff. Here, the lake I went to this wknd was about 6' below the overflow gates....sweet!
Back on topic, did you say you switched props w/ your buddy and had the same results? (DOn't even know if the shafts are the same between the 2 MC's) Your prop may be making the diference.
My boat, w/ the stock 13x13OJ is hurting a little at altitude. In AZ, low alt, mine would run right up to 5krpms, and quickly.
Here, at 4kft elev, I only get about 4700 rpms WOT, and at 6500ft elev, I only get to 4400-4500 rpms. I think the boat feels like a slug (comparably) at altitude, although noone else seems to notice. It'll still pull hard, but doesn't accelerate nearly as quick, IMO.
Thinking about splurging on a new prop this year.

Bert
05-19-2007, 10:01 PM
This post has been edited by a moderator.

6ballsisall
05-19-2007, 10:11 PM
..........................................

Bert
05-20-2007, 10:52 AM
This post has been edited by a moderator.

Storm861triple
05-20-2007, 02:43 PM
I've got a little more objective data here but like E Tex skier, it's not complete yet. We took the '01 out Friday and ran 3 different props on it. We timed 0-36 runs, 5 times for each prop to get a reasonably accurate average, and the best prop (from our test) was a Stainless 13x13.5, 4 blade Cutter. The time obtained w/that prop was 9 seconds flat to 36. This was in Park City, so 6500' elevation, two people on board, full tank of gas, and "normal" ski gear on board (1 ski, rope, towls, vests wetsuit). Engine maxed out at 4500 RPM w/a top speed of 42 indicated on the PP gauge. The boat is at Lake Powell today w/it's owner ("parkcityeric") and he is going to run the same tests there too, at 3700' elevation, so I'll have more to post when he gets back tonight or tomorrow.

This data will be more meaningful when I run the same tests on the same lake in my '92. More data to come.

Thrall, yes this winter was bummer, both sledding wise and skiing as well. Our local reservoirs wll be LOW by August. I hope the snow pack makes a "come back" next year.

Archimedes
05-20-2007, 03:37 PM
I'm confused by this thread. An old PS190 is 800-1000lbs lighter than any of those other boats and it has a hull designed to move as cleanly as possible through the water. The weight difference alone will override that HP difference. My 94 PS (275. 1:1.5) was WAY faster everywhere than my 06 X-1 with a 310. Not even comparable they're so different and it's mostly because of the weight difference. I can feel every pound in my X-1, whereas I could really feel how incredibly light my PS 190 was. It was almost toy like. I really miss that feeling.

Storm861triple
05-20-2007, 05:22 PM
I'm confused by this thread. An old PS190 is 800-1000lbs lighter than any of those other boats and it has a hull designed to move as cleanly as possible through the water.
You're confused about this thread because based on your post, you're confused about two elements;
1. the weight of the boats in question, and
2. the boats in question.

I'm not asking about the '92 PS 190 vs. X-boats. I'm comparing (or trying to) the PS 190 to current (or at least newer) comp ski boats...including the PS 190.

According to Mastercraft and Waterski magazine, the weight difference between a '92 PS 190 and a '07 PS 190 is 170 lbs. -which I find a little hard to believe. But it's no 1000 lb weigh difference, either. All the weight specs were posted in post number 34 by me, but here they are agin for your review...
Here is an update on the various boats weights if anyone cares...:
'92 PS 190: 2450 lbs
Source: Owners Manual

'07 PS 190: 2620
Source: waterskimag.com

'01 Sunsetter LXI: 2900 lbs

Gekko GTO 22: 2350 lbs.
Source: Gekko web site

Archimedes
05-21-2007, 12:10 AM
You're confused about this thread because based on your post, you're confused about two elements;
1. the weight of the boats in question, and
2. the boats in question.

I'm not asking about the '92 PS 190 vs. X-boats. I'm comparing (or trying to) the PS 190 to current (or at least newer) comp ski boats...including the PS 190.

According to Mastercraft and Waterski magazine, the weight difference between a '92 PS 190 and a '07 PS 190 is 170 lbs. -which I find a little hard to believe. But it's no 1000 lb weigh difference, either. All the weight specs were posted in post number 34 by me, but here they are agin for your review...

Well as far as the Gekko goes, I skipped over that one and have no idea except to assume that it's not exactly an award winning hull design.

As for the other two, I would have pegged the Sunsetter LXI above 2,900 lbs, so I stand corrected. The Air Nautique however has got to be another 4-500 lbs over that.

Sodar
05-21-2007, 10:26 AM
Just a reminder. While discussion and debate are encouraged, personal insults are not appropriate on this forum. Please review the posting guidelines and remember to be polite to your fellow team talkers, even when you disagree.