Go Back   TeamTalk > General MasterCraft Topics > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 03-27-2013, 11:29 AM
east tx skier's Avatar
east tx skier east tx skier is offline
MC Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Boat: 1998 Ski Nautique
Location: End of my rope.
Posts: 25,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim@BAWS View Post
These new tests really level the playing field. No more overstating what is really there or not there. Doug..with all due respect. Your boat does exacly what you want it to do. Just like me you have approx a 20 year old boat and motor and it does everything you want it to and more.

We are talking about todays standards...not yesterday. PCM exagerates there HP rating. They are the only ones that still do that. With the chart it really shows who is playing by the NEW equal rules. No more 10% over or under...it is what it is!. Until recently ILMOR would not talk HP. They wanted to only be compared in the TORQUE department. Well now everyone can see for themselves what is real and what is fake. I am all for it. Your GT-40 is a great motor. My LT-1 SLOT is a great motor. The problem is the cannot push todays boats and what are required of them. We own smaller faster ski boats than what are available today in ref to the new market!
For starters, I agree with you that your and my older motors (mine is 15 yrs old and still does exactly what I need it to do) and the boats they push. Wonderful as they are, they are not a good fit for the high drag people carrier ski boats of today.

I have little experience with the current crop of PCM motors. My previous statement was explicitly directed at the older stuff (I believe I used the word "traditionally") with which I have a bit more familiarity. I'll let someone with more familiarity with these newer motors argue the counterpoint if there is an argument to be made.

If Indmar is hitting stated hp exactly these days, this seems to be a more recent trend for them, correct? I have seen varying "actual" numbers on some Indmar engines over the years, and, for the record, this is not based on CC marketing materials.

You hear anything about the rumored cease in production of Chevy 350s in the coming years? Are we going to start seeing 5.3s in the near future?
__________________
Previous: 1993 Prostar 205

Red 1998 Closed Bow Ski Boat, Ford 351, 310 hp, Acme 4 blade, Perfect Pass SG.

FAQ


Tyler Ski Club


To me, this forum is about love of inboard boats. It is about the sharing of information and, on a good day, some humor. It is not about post count, brand of boat, or any other superfluous labels that lend themselves to a false sense of superiority. Please, respect one another, try to pass on accurate information, and keep your eye on the ball.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 03-27-2013, 12:46 PM
TRBenj TRBenj is offline
MC Devotee
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Boat: 1990 Ski Nautique
Location: NWCT
Posts: 1,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim@BAWS View Post
We are talking about todays standards...not yesterday. PCM exagerates there HP rating. They are the only ones that still do that. With the chart it really shows who is playing by the NEW equal rules. No more 10% over or under...it is what it is!.
I still didnt see anyone answer the question I asked... who conducted the CARB testing? Is this something that all manufacturers are required to do, and then an independant agency certifies the results publicly? The attached chart on page 1 is the only version Ive seen, and it does not look official to me- correct me if Im wrong, but isnt that a piece of Ilmore marketing material? I couldnt find any reference to CARB testing on PCM's website.

If the hp numbers were consistent across the different marinizers, then I would be a bit more inclined to believe them. With Ilmore claiming a 20-50hp advantage across their lineup, I would expect to see a performance advantage on the water... which just doesnt seem to be the case. The 343 Excal (350) SN 200's run about 43-44, which is consistent with the 350 based motors when installed in a 197. Same goes for the 6.0L, top ends seem to range from 47-49 on both the 200 and 197. There is no way anyone could convince me that the 200 hull is significantly faster than the 197 in order to make up the 20-50hp that PCM is losing vs. Ilmore. If anyone would dispute the numbers above, I'd love to hear them- data points can be tricky to find, but what Ive found has been pretty consistent.

I wont even touch the TSC3 196 vs. 197, as the 196 is 3-5mph faster with a comparable engine... which I would attribute primarily to the hull.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 03-27-2013, 02:35 PM
PT 1999 ProStar's Avatar
PT 1999 ProStar PT 1999 ProStar is offline
TT Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Boat: Mastercraft ProStar 190 1999 330HP Powerslot - 1st MC 1987 ProStar Current 2012 ProStar 197
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 349
[quote=TRBenj;919615]I still didnt see anyone answer the question I asked... who conducted the CARB testing? Is this something that all manufacturers are required to do, and then an independant agency certifies the results publicly? The attached chart on page 1 is the only version Ive seen, and it does not look official to me- correct me if Im wrong, but isnt that a piece of Ilmore marketing material? I couldnt find any reference to CARB testing on PCM's website.

Tim - since I brought this to the forum (Damn why did I do that ) and as you know my "gear head" capabilities are very weak to say the least all I can say is that the dealer who presented this to me is a very reliable dealer (down south) who stated clearly to me that this is NOT Imor language but performed independently and representatives from each company where there. The reason you didn't find anything on PCM's website is possibly because they don't want to get this known. But this dealer basically had the same comments BAWS did and backed it up with the study. In the whole scheme of these does it really matter?? I just want the ice to melt!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 03-27-2013, 02:45 PM
TRBenj TRBenj is offline
MC Devotee
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Boat: 1990 Ski Nautique
Location: NWCT
Posts: 1,147
Those are all nice warm fuzzies, but until I see the report presented from an independant source, or verified by a rep from PCM/Indmar on their involvement, I'll treat it the same as all the advertised numbers that show up in all the shiny brochures. Marketing is fine and dandy, but the proof is in the pudding!

Bad news on the ice melting situation... things were looking encouraging a 2-3 weeks ago- ice was receding in the cove and open water seemed imminent! I was tempted to dump a little boat in and do donuts! Geese were even showing up. Now, the whole thing has a thin layer back over it... we're heading in the wrong direction.

Makes me want to head back to FL! From last weekend:
Attached Images
 
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 03-27-2013, 02:50 PM
PT 1999 ProStar's Avatar
PT 1999 ProStar PT 1999 ProStar is offline
TT Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Boat: Mastercraft ProStar 190 1999 330HP Powerslot - 1st MC 1987 ProStar Current 2012 ProStar 197
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 349
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRBenj View Post
Those are all nice warm fuzzies, but until I see the report presented from an independant source, or verified by a rep from PCM/Indmar on their involvement, I'll treat it the same as all the advertised numbers that show up in all the shiny brochures. Marketing is fine and dandy, but the proof is in the pudding!

Bad news on the ice melting situation... things were looking encouraging a 2-3 weeks ago- ice was receding in the cove and open water seemed imminent! I was tempted to dump a little boat in and do donuts! Geese were even showing up. Now, the whole thing has a thin layer back over it... we're heading in the wrong direction.

Makes me want to head back to FL! From last weekend:
Damn you!! Great pic! Wish that was us up here in CT! I'm heading to FL in two weeks but no ski boat just dad's Grady White!! Can wait for the warm air!! Hopefully when I get back you will have your lift and dock in and I will be getting ready to put mine in.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 03-28-2013, 07:46 AM
FourFourty's Avatar
FourFourty FourFourty is online now
MC Devotee
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Boat: 2014 X30 with a lightly tickled LS7
Location: Northeast
Posts: 1,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRBenj View Post
I still didnt see anyone answer the question I asked... who conducted the CARB testing? Is this something that all manufacturers are required to do, and then an independant agency certifies the results publicly? The attached chart on page 1 is the only version Ive seen, and it does not look official to me- correct me if Im wrong, but isnt that a piece of Ilmore marketing material? I couldnt find any reference to CARB testing on PCM's website.

If the hp numbers were consistent across the different marinizers, then I would be a bit more inclined to believe them. With Ilmore claiming a 20-50hp advantage across their lineup, I would expect to see a performance advantage on the water... which just doesnt seem to be the case. The 343 Excal (350) SN 200's run about 43-44, which is consistent with the 350 based motors when installed in a 197. Same goes for the 6.0L, top ends seem to range from 47-49 on both the 200 and 197. There is no way anyone could convince me that the 200 hull is significantly faster than the 197 in order to make up the 20-50hp that PCM is losing vs. Ilmore. If anyone would dispute the numbers above, I'd love to hear them- data points can be tricky to find, but what Ive found has been pretty consistent.

I wont even touch the TSC3 196 vs. 197, as the 196 is 3-5mph faster with a comparable engine... which I would attribute primarily to the hull.

If you want to see the "official" results, consult this page..... You are right, that sheet, on page 1, was made by a MC dealer. However, the data was pulled from CARBs application and test data. You can find that here- http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad...ts.php?order=0


Ilmore has no association with the California Air Resources Board. Suggesting that it is a conspiracy, seems a bit far fetched to me..... CARB conducts the tests with their own technicians, on randomly selected engines. And yes, the CARB tech selects them himself. If you go to the section that describes test procedures, it is all there. Being as it is a government agency, the test procedure material is long, and full of barely understandable paraphrasing. Took me about 2 hours to read it all.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 03-28-2013, 09:11 AM
east tx skier's Avatar
east tx skier east tx skier is offline
MC Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Boat: 1998 Ski Nautique
Location: End of my rope.
Posts: 25,299
Meh, these boats are fuel injected. Carb testing unreliable.





__________________
Previous: 1993 Prostar 205

Red 1998 Closed Bow Ski Boat, Ford 351, 310 hp, Acme 4 blade, Perfect Pass SG.

FAQ


Tyler Ski Club


To me, this forum is about love of inboard boats. It is about the sharing of information and, on a good day, some humor. It is not about post count, brand of boat, or any other superfluous labels that lend themselves to a false sense of superiority. Please, respect one another, try to pass on accurate information, and keep your eye on the ball.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 03-28-2013, 09:13 AM
FourFourty's Avatar
FourFourty FourFourty is online now
MC Devotee
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Boat: 2014 X30 with a lightly tickled LS7
Location: Northeast
Posts: 1,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by east tx skier View Post
Meh, these boats are fuel injected. Carb testing unreliable.






Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 03-28-2013, 12:41 PM
dihrdskir's Avatar
dihrdskir dihrdskir is offline
TT Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Boat: PS 197
Location: Australia
Posts: 132
Isn't the purpose of this thread to determine whether the engines on the market actually produce the numbers that manufacturers claim? To compare speeds of boats from different era's with different power plants tested on different days in different locations seems irrelevent and proves little. Ultimately the speed of your boat will be determined by the extent of the friction between the water and the size of the wetted surface of the hull. I was surprised to read elsewhere that a SN 200 could crack 43. In many cases I have heard they struggle for 40. The trade off is an excellent wake. Compare that to many australian ski boats of the 60's 70's and 80's. With 260 hp direct drives you could do 50 mph easily, however you would purpoise like michael Phelps doint the 200 fly, have kidneys that rattled, couldn't turn and would have a ski wash that would launch you to the moon. The choice is yours.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 03-29-2013, 07:05 AM
TRBenj TRBenj is offline
MC Devotee
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Boat: 1990 Ski Nautique
Location: NWCT
Posts: 1,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by dihrdskir View Post
To compare speeds of boats from different era's with different power plants tested on different days in different locations seems irrelevent and proves little.
I'm not sure it "proves little" as enough data points can establish pretty clearly which set ups perform better. I know my boats don't perform drastically differently on different days or locations. Regardless, the direct comparison I spoke of earlier was a same day, same place scenario. PT's '12 197 6.0l ilmor vs '09 196 with a cat PCM 409. Not cc's current offering but a boat that ran concurrently with the 197 for years and the same 6.0l still offered in the 200 so I'd still say "same era." Top end of the 196 should still be much greater, but something may be learned by the holeshot and midrange performance side by side, if the boats are propped comparably.

I'm one of the biggest critics of the 200 being a slug, but you're the first person I've heard claim that the Excalibur won't push it 40. Lots of reports of boats running 42-43... Which doesn't quite cut it for me, but no one has said it's "un-barefootable" which sub 40mph unloaded would be.

I don't think that you have to go so far to extremes like the Australian bare bones hot rods they call ski boats in order to get decent performance. I've seen 196's run into the mid 50's.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:37 AM.