0-36 times listed in waterski boat issue

[Richard-Howell]

I had questions on why the different 0-36 speeds between

the 196 4.7 secs, 206 6.3 secs and 196 team 5.3 secs 216 5.7 secs

It only minor but why is 206 the slowest?

[skinautique]

The 206 had a 12.5 X 13 prop and the other boats used a 12.5 X 15 pitch. The 12.5 X 15 will provide better exceleration out of the hole. I am not exactly sure why they used the different props but my guess is that the 12.5 X 13 provided a smoother wake on the 206.
Hope that helps!!

I hope it is a typo but the 196 limited and the 196 team should have run at the exact same speed and distance to 36 mph. Goes to show that their testing isn't too accurate. Maybe I should email them about it.

[M3Fan]

Actually, the smaller pitch should provide better holeshot from what I've heard. It's easier for the engine to spin a smaller pitch prop from a stop, but it will have less top end than a higher pitched prop. I would not trust the WSM testing!

[SGY]

The differences in the Team and Limited 196's is the motor. One had the 6.0 PCM vortec while the other had the 5.7 PCM. That 6.0 Ski must be a rocket ship. I hear the really drink the gas. (At least I hope it does. Otherwise, I might start pinning for a new boat.)

I'm looking at my copy of the WSM test. The 196 and 206s tested each have the 12.5 x 15.5 Acme four blade prop. What I'm confused about is the fact that the Ski 206 with exact same prop and motor was slower to 30 and 36 than the Air 206. Seems backwards to me given the extra weight on the Air 206. Am I missing something? Also, the 216 is considerably faster than the 206--with same motor and prop. Why?

[skinautique]

since when does the air 206 weigh more than the ski 206? If it does, it should be very minimal (500 pounds or less). And again, I would not trust the WSM report. If you look online, they say that both the team and the limited 196 had the excalibur in them. The whole report is screwed up.

[SGY]

I was thinking even less than 500 pounds--weight of tower and ballast can't be much more than 200 pounds. That's why I was scratching my head. Yeah, in many respects, the report is screwed up. WSM must have recognized their error because the online report shows the Limited to have the ZR6 and the Team to have the Excalibur 5.7.

The only thing I can think of is they tested the boats on different times or days with different weather conditions. I've seen as much as two mile per hour difference between morning top speed runs and afternoon runs.

Again, who knows. I think my wife is correct--I do need to get a life.

[skiinxs]

My '02 had the Excalibur and my '03 had the 6 Liter. There was no noticable difference in fuel consumption. (both were excellent, about half of what my previous boat from another manufacturer used). Granted, if you run around at wide open throttle all the time, you would likely use a lot more fuel with the 6 liter, but who runs an inboard like that? I will say there was a very noticable difference in power. The Excaliber was great, all you could ever need.......but that 6 liter..........wow....what a rocket!
Dave


The differences in the Team and Limited 196's is the motor. One had the 6.0 PCM vortec while the other had the 5.7 PCM. That 6.0 Ski must be a rocket ship. I hear the really drink the gas. (At least I hope it does. Otherwise, I might start pinning for a new boat.)

I'm looking at my copy of the WSM test. The 196 and 206s tested each have the 12.5 x 15.5 Acme four blade prop. What I'm confused about is the fact that the Ski 206 with exact same prop and motor was slower to 30 and 36 than the Air 206. Seems backwards to me given the extra weight on the Air 206. Am I missing something? Also, the 216 is considerably faster than the 206--with same motor and prop. Why?

[SGY]

Skinxs, would you agree that the Excalibur feels about the same as the ZR6 untill you get into the higher rev range? I've read somewhere, maybe on this forum, such a comparision. And, I know from driving my GMC Sierra with the 6.0 that it really performs in the higher rev range.

Also, I'm curious if you've ever heard any piston slap on early morning/cold start up. It's a noted problem with this motor and the 5.3 GM motor. Just run a Google search on "GM piston slap" and you will receive numerous hits. My 02 Sierra sounds like a diesel on cold start up. :(

[skiinxs]

The ZR6 is much stronger at any rpm, not just the upper range. At any speed, if you give it lots of throttle, it spins a lot more rpm's. Out of the hole it "sounds" like it has an extra 1000 rpm's even before the boat moves. (never really checked the tach on either boat for the "stall" speed rpm at 0 mph, but it certainly is much higher on the 6 liter and immediatly starts climbing VERY rapidly as the boat speeds up.) The prop never loses its bite, it just spins up more rpm's which I am sure puts the engine up higher on its torque/HP curves at any given speed. Remember they ship the boat with the same prop (12.5 x 15.5 Acme) with both engines. My Excaliber at WOT would run 44.8 at 4885 rpm and my ZR6 would run right at 5300 rpms at 50.1 mph. Same hull, same prop. 5 mph on the top end of an inboard takes LOTS of hp!

As far as piston slap, yes, if you open the motorbox you can hear a little at idle. Not nearly as loud as fuel injector clicking on a non-sequential injected engine. Definitly not a disturbing noise, not noticeable with the box closed. Not any louder on cold start up. This engine sounds very pleasant to listen to, in my opinion this piston slap issue is a non-issue. There are hundreds of thousands of engines in this family being sold each year (in trucks). I can tell you from experience that GM maintains warranty data and knows down to the penny per vehicle the warranty costs. If it were a durability issue, it would be fixed due to warranty costs.

As a side note, I ordered the 6 liter on my '04 (which will be my 19th inboard). I REALLY like this engine! LOTS more horsepower and torque with NO weight penalty. It doesn't get any better than that!
Dave



Skinxs, would you agree that the Excalibur feels about the same as the ZR6 untill you get into the higher rev range? I've read somewhere, maybe on this forum, such a comparision. And, I know from driving my GMC Sierra with the 6.0 that it really performs in the higher rev range.

Also, I'm curious if you've ever heard any piston slap on early morning/cold start up. It's a noted problem with this motor and the 5.3 GM motor. Just run a Google search on "GM piston slap" and you will receive numerous hits. My 02 Sierra sounds like a diesel on cold start up. :(

[Tony-M.]

skinxs.....Which boat do you have? I am going to test ride the 216 this spring and I am definitely thinking about upgrading to the ZR6 engine.

[SGY]

Thanks Skiinxs. I was afraid you were going to say that about the ZR6. That thing really romps. I wonder why CC didn't get the 206 approved with the ZR6.

I'm way over the piston slap issue. GM, despite a huge uproar by over picky truck customers, has stuck to their guns that the slap is normal.

Tony, some dealers I've spoken with have indicated that while the 196/206 are fine with the Excalibur, the 216 needs the extra horsepower of the ZR6. Of course if you read the WSM review, the 216 is faster and quicker than the 206--with the Excalibur. Wierd.

[skiinxs]

I run 196's, hate open bows. Don't want anyone sitting in front of me when I drive, and definitly don't want the capability of MORE PEOPLE (read more weight) in the boat when I ski. If there's more room, there is always the temptation of someone asking "hey can I ride along too while you ski". Much easier to not have a seat than to tell them no.
Dave




skinxs.....Which boat do you have? I am going to test ride the 216 this spring and I am definitely thinking about upgrading to the ZR6 engine.

[skiinxs]

I seem to remember seeing an extra lifting strake on the 216 bottom, could be wrong though. It it does have an extra strake, that could account for it being faster.
Dave



Thanks Skiinxs. I was afraid you were going to say that about the ZR6. That thing really romps. I wonder why CC didn't get the 206 approved with the ZR6.

I'm way over the piston slap issue. GM, despite a huge uproar by over picky truck customers, has stuck to their guns that the slap is normal.

Tony, some dealers I've spoken with have indicated that while the 196/206 are fine with the Excalibur, the 216 needs the extra horsepower of the ZR6. Of course if you read the WSM review, the 216 is faster and quicker than the 206--with the Excalibur. Wierd.

[skinautique]

Both the 206 and the 216 have an additional lifting strake on each side in the front of the boat. As far as the WSM results, I am 99.9% positive that the greater speed in the 216 is a typo. It is a bigger boat and would therefore be slower overall.
Also I am not positive but I think the boat is slightly wider. How else would you fit the 68" slalom in the trunk unless you are putting it in diagonaly.

[Edwin]

The 216 is able to accept a 68" as it carries it's width all the way to the rear of the boat. The 206 is the same width midship, however it tapers more as you move aft.

The added depth (front to rear) of the 216 trunk helps when loading gear. On a down side, the 216 truck is definitely curved on the long sides. The irregular shape is fine for smaller items (anything smaller than a ski or a board) but the center floor space is quickly consumed by a ski or two.

[AbunDiga909]

(somebody may have said this already) I haven't read all of this topic yet, however, from the last couple posts, about the storage space in the 216...

Does anybody know how the amount and "shape" of storage differs with rear ballast tanks in the 216 between the '03 and '04 models?

That may and probably does sound a little confusing. What i mean is that i know in the 03s, the ballast tanks curved up on the edge of the boat, making the width of the storage decrese enough to make a 68" slalom ski barely fit, on its side, diagonal, in the trunk. I've heard of a guy who was a hardcore slalom skier, was totaly a CC guy, and had like a 72" ski. He was about to buy a ski nautique, but bought a MC 197 ( i think, or whatever comproble to Ski Nautique) because he could only fit his ski in the back of the MC, oppose to the CC.

I know the 216 ballast tanks are different in 04 from the previous year. Does anyone know if the new tanks will allow a 68" ski to fit easily into the back area? Any info on these new tanks would help. Thanks.