Fuel Efficiency Question
Printed From: CorrectCraftFan.com
Category: General Correct Craft Discussion
Forum Name: General Discussion
Forum Discription: Anything Correct Craft
URL: http://www.CorrectCraftFan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30853
Printed Date: May-03-2024 at 4:36pm
Topic: Fuel Efficiency Question
Posted By: samudj01
Subject: Fuel Efficiency Question
Date Posted: July-21-2013 at 11:51pm
|
While I don't think any of these boats are exactly fuel efficient, which engines in the 97-02 range were most fuel efficient? I always read great things about the GT-40's on other threads. Thanks, David ------------- 78 Ski Tique, 72 Skier w/302's, 93 SN w/351 & 17 GS22 w/zr409 Previous - 99 Sport Nautique w/GT40 and 87 Martinique w/351 |
Replies:
Posted By: cooperlacy
Date Posted: July-22-2013 at 12:25am
|
My boat is just slightly out of your date range (1995 Ski), but has the GT-40 engine. I have kept pretty detailed logs on fuel usage since 2010. The boat runs 90% slalom between 32 to 36 mph, 5% barefoot runs, and very infrequently a joyride. Very rarely is the boat just idling for any period of time. With that in mind, here are my numbers (approx. 50 hours per year). I'd be curious to see what others are getting. 2010: 3.89 gph 2011: 4.37 gph 2012: 5.16 gph (one faulty spark plug most of the year) 2013: 4.47 gph Cooper |
Posted By: samudj01
Date Posted: July-29-2013 at 12:41am
|
No one else is willing to weigh in on this? Would love some feed back. Maybe I should rephrase my question...what engines are the worst on fuel efficiency in the 98-01 time period. Or does bigger = less efficient? ------------- 78 Ski Tique, 72 Skier w/302's, 93 SN w/351 & 17 GS22 w/zr409 Previous - 99 Sport Nautique w/GT40 and 87 Martinique w/351 |
Posted By: gun-driver
Date Posted: July-29-2013 at 12:44am
| I have a '95 ski with the GT-40 EFI and I have noticed that when the little pointy thingy points to E, I fill it up and smile ear to ear again. |
Posted By: phatsat67
Date Posted: July-29-2013 at 12:47am
|
Haha I like your fuel usage Paul. It seems to me like my dad's 98 uses less fuel than my 86 when you are beating it to death but I haven't calculated either. ------------- |
Posted By: SNobsessed
Date Posted: July-29-2013 at 12:50am
|
When you add up all that goes into boat ownership, the fuel cost is a minor item. ------------- “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” Ben Franklin |
Posted By: Gary S
Date Posted: July-29-2013 at 1:54am
We spent more at the Goose and Nortons than I did for gas last weekend  ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS 95 Nautique Super Sport |
Posted By: 63 Skier
Date Posted: July-29-2013 at 12:31pm
|
I have no idea on gph on my boat. As mentioned above, when the gauge gets low I add more. Not to be flip about it, but I just don't care. For a ski boat, I would never choose the engine based on efficiency, just whether it's a good fit for the boat and my use. As far as I know, the 351's will all burn about the same amount under the same load at same rpm. Carbed, injected, not sure there is a major difference in fuel burn. ------------- '63 American Skier - '98 Sport Nautique |
Posted By: panda
Date Posted: July-29-2013 at 3:07pm
|
Never calculated my fuel consumption, but cooperlacy's sounds pretty accurate to my 95's GPH. ------------- 95 Ski Nautique GT40 |
Posted By: quinner
Date Posted: July-29-2013 at 3:13pm
|
Not that easy to answer because everybody's use may vary. Fuel Injected EI motors will be more efficient than Carb EI If you are primarily running heavy loads or barefooting a Big Block could be more economical. The year range noted won't have many motor choices, most common will be small block efi (GT-40/Apex/Excalibur) the Big Block Python was available but pretty rare and the carb'd motor was a Pro Ski IIRC. |
Posted By: peter1234
Date Posted: July-29-2013 at 9:08pm
|
i was amazed (thread jack non cc) bought a carbed 454 25 ft formula and have used it 4 times some full throttle some cruising and lots of no wake and have used $170 or so in fuel with the fun its been i would have paid 400.00 just find the boat you love and enjoy it ------------- former skylark owner now a formula but I cant let this place go |
Posted By: 74Wind
Date Posted: July-29-2013 at 9:11pm
|
Seems the 351 in my SW is more efficient than the 360 in my Century but that may be a function of use...the Mark II is a little hot-rod and just begs to be driven as such. Anyone know any gph figures for 70's era engines? Fuel cost is also an overall use figure. I calculated the to and fro fuel cost for a tow vehicle would exceed my monthly rack storage bill. Plus, it's hassle-free, and everytime I arrive at the lake to see it sitting at the dock, all ready to go,I'm like a little kid on Christmas morning  ------------- 1974 Southwind 18 1975 Century Mark II |
Posted By: 75 animal
Date Posted: July-29-2013 at 9:48pm
| 4-4.5 gallons per hour for my snob 99 with gt 40. Average crew of 4 men all around 90 kilograms. Half the time footing and the other half free-skiing.sorry about the kilograms, but that's how we measure it in Australia ! |
Posted By: 63 Skier
Date Posted: July-29-2013 at 10:13pm
Peter, mechanical or vacuum secondaries? Sounds like a fun boat! I drove behind a newer Formula today on the highway, beautiful boat, looked to be about 35 ft. ------------- '63 American Skier - '98 Sport Nautique |
peter1234 wrote:Posted By: peter1234
Date Posted: July-29-2013 at 11:03pm
|
david , quadrajet carb , and pre fastech hull design but it sure is comfortable so far going in and out of newburyport harbor which as you probably know doesnt need explaining. it doesnt run as fast as i expected , and need to check out the prop pitch on it . it does run 1:100 but i expect 55 at 4800 with the bb chev. i will hope to move to a 37ft fastec in a couple of yrs. ------------- former skylark owner now a formula but I cant let this place go |
Posted By: 63 Skier
Date Posted: July-30-2013 at 12:30am
|
I meant the Formula I saw looked to be 25 ft., not 35, can't see well enough on my phone! Curious what you find with your prop. I wouldn't have thought a stock 454 would get a 25 ft. Formula up to 55, I believe that's a fairly heavy boat. As you know better than me, more HP is pretty easy to find on a 454! I'm beginning to catch the bug to do some salt water boating, I'm about an hour from the coast so well within easy trailer range. ------------- '63 American Skier - '98 Sport Nautique |
Posted By: peter1234
Date Posted: July-30-2013 at 10:01am
|
Im hoping it was repropped for the winnipesaukee speed limit by the previous owner . It is beautiful off shore on a smooth sunny morning for sure. ------------- former skylark owner now a formula but I cant let this place go |
Posted By: Uncle Donny
Date Posted: August-01-2013 at 4:24pm
| ummmm... when it's empty, I fill it back up http://www.correctcraftfan.com/forum/smileys/smiley2.gif |