fuel consumption in g23 and prop question

[ironj32]

What are you seeing for fuel consumption differences between the 450 and 550? I am curious if fuel consumption is a little better with the 550 since it isn't working as hard to move all that weight as the 450 was?

I have yet to actually do an apples to apples comparison. The 550 engine can easily handle another 1000+ pounds of ballast, so that weight configuration has made it's way into every outting.

I can tell you that with the 550 with the factory Acme 2247 @ 24mph, running a total 6300 pounds of ballast burns about $45-$50 per 30 minute set (give or take a couple of minutes). Again, myself and everyone that comes out usually do a fair amount of falling. Since we seem to be about $10 more per set with the extra weight, I'd guess that the 450/550 would have equal fuel consumption when both weighted equally. I could see the 550 being a bit more efficient with just stock ballast, but I'm not too knowlegable with the mechanics, so could be very wrong.

Oh yea, the extra weight that the 550 can handle is loads of fun . I know that in my first review of the 550, last fall, I didn't think that was the case. However, after dialing in the wake with the extra weight, there definitely is a difference. My friend has the 450 in his, and has commented a number of times on the difference as well. Don't get me wrong the wake with the 450 is no slouch, and is better than anything else out there (just my opinion)...we're just wake snobs.

[DanielC]

This is going to sound harsh.

You know those big wakes you throw off to both sides of your boat, and the rollers you leave behind you? It takes a lot of energy to make those.

I am averaging about 3 gallons per hour on my Ski Nautique.

[bsb4fsu]

I have yet to actually do an apples to apples comparison. The 550 engine can easily handle another 1000+ pounds of ballast, so that weight configuration has made it's way into every outting.

I can tell you that with the 550 with the factory Acme 2247 @ 24mph, running a total 6300 pounds of ballast burns about $45-$50 per 30 minute set (give or take a couple of minutes). Again, myself and everyone that comes out usually do a fair amount of falling. Since we seem to be about $10 more per set with the extra weight, I'd guess that the 450/550 would have equal fuel consumption when both weighted equally. I could see the 550 being a bit more efficient with just stock ballast, but I'm not too knowlegable with the mechanics, so could be very wrong.

Oh yea, the extra weight that the 550 can handle is loads of fun . I know that in my first review of the 550, last fall, I didn't think that was the case. However, after dialing in the wake with the extra weight, there definitely is a difference. My friend has the 450 in his, and has commented a number of times on the difference as well. Don't get me wrong the wake with the 450 is no slouch, and is better than anything else out there (just my opinion)...we're just wake snobs.

Wow, that is 22-25 gallons an hour vs. 8-10 per hour with a stock ballast 450. I know its not apples to apples, but that is 3 times the fuel with double stock ballast. Jay, take one for the team and check out fuel consumption one day with stock ballast. lol

[bsb4fsu]

This is going to sound harsh.

You know those big wakes you throw off to both sides of your boat, and the rollers you leave behind you? It takes a lot of energy to make those.

I am averaging about 3 gallons per hour on my Ski Nautique.

That doesn't sound harsh to me... it depends on badly you want to play. Wakeboarders and surfers realize we are going to pay for the big waves.

[ers906]

On sunday, we went through 40 gallons (91 octane) in 7.8 hours of run time. The breakdown on weight is as follows:
13 people on board, with probably 200-250 pounds in coolers and gear.
Approximately an hour at full wakeboard ballast, pulling at 23.5-23.9 in near perfect water (no wind, no chop). Experienced riders, but falling multiple times (the Gs wake causing us to increase our learning curve)
Approximately 3.5 hours at no ballast, pulling between 20.5-22.0, with two riders who had never ridden before (approximately 20+ times getting out of the hole for these riders). Variable wind conditions and variable water conditions.
Over three hours of surfing, with full ballast, NCRS at 5 and NSS at 1-2. Pulling at 11.5-11.8. Including two surfers who had never ridden before (the same 20+ times getting out of the hole, etc.). This was in approximately 8-14 mph winds and fair amount of chop.
Maybe 20 minutes of empty ballast running at 25 mph getting from one spot to another.

So that is approximately 5.1-5.2 gallons per hour of run time. I do think that 550hp is more efficient than the 450 (based on the posts here), but there are a ton of variables.

[bsb4fsu]

On sunday, we went through 40 gallons (91 octane) in 7.8 hours of run time. The breakdown on weight is as follows:
13 people on board, with probably 200-250 pounds in coolers and gear.
Approximately an hour at full wakeboard ballast, pulling at 23.5-23.9 in near perfect water (no wind, no chop). Experienced riders, but falling multiple times (the Gs wake causing us to increase our learning curve)
Approximately 3.5 hours at no ballast, pulling between 20.5-22.0, with two riders who had never ridden before (approximately 20+ times getting out of the hole for these riders). Variable wind conditions and variable water conditions.
Over three hours of surfing, with full ballast, NCRS at 5 and NSS at 1-2. Pulling at 11.5-11.8. Including two surfers who had never ridden before (the same 20+ times getting out of the hole, etc.). This was in approximately 8-14 mph winds and fair amount of chop.
Maybe 20 minutes of empty ballast running at 25 mph getting from one spot to another.

So that is approximately 5.1-5.2 gallons per hour of run time. I do think that 550hp is more efficient than the 450 (based on the posts here), but there are a ton of variables.

Thanks for the breakdown. Based on that, it definitely sounds like the 550 is more fuel efficient.

[ers906]

Thinking about the boat and being on the lake was much more enjoyable than actually being productive at work so not a problem.