ZR-409 mod

[Nids]

Anyone know an easy mod to up the hp on PCM's ZR-409?

[teamseal]

409 mods

Why?

[Nids]

Hi Jody, read a couple of replies you posted regarding Prop selection on the 200. I'm researching the feasibility of engine mod's in addition to prop selection to push both the cruising and top end speed of my 200 CB (which I will receive in December).

You mentioned you were working with OJ to come up with an alternate to the 422 prop from ACME; did you notice any performance variation?

[teamseal]

So far I have run a 13X15.5 .130 Oj cup and yesterday I ran a 14X14.25 OJ, brought the rpms down and top speed up by over 1mph over the 654. Because of the size of this wheel it was rather noisey under the boat. The 13X15.25 ran nearly identical numbers as the 14 but was very quite. just not able to reach the full rpm potential with eiter two props. Still out performs the 422 on this boat by a few .10's of a mile per hour. The 13 is going back to OJ today for some cup tweeking, droping cup to .90-.100.
As for engine mods unless you want to spend big $$$$ and void your engine warranty their really is only minor gains to be made with the engine. Most of it will happen on it's own after it breaks in good. Synthetic oil, real good alignment, some weight reduction in the boat will help encrease performance at top end and lower rpm at skiing speeds.
So far with this new CB 200 and playing around with props I have seen speeds just over 48mph still a mile and a half slower than the 2010 OB, But then again the OB has 150 hours on it and this closed bow has just had it's first oil change and service. Still would like to hit 50 mph with this boat.

[Nids]

Still would like to hit 50 mph with this boat.

50-51 would be nice on this boat but the hull kinda gets in the way.. Was in touch with Bill W. at ACME and he sent me the results of their in house prop testing; subsequently he recommended I go no larger than the 1490.

Max Spped Max RPM RPM@34 mph
422 12.5 x 15.5 4b .105 43.5, 5380, 3700
654 12.5 x 15 4b .105 43.8, 5540, 3750
668 12.5 x 15.5 4b .150 43.5, 5130, 3650
1490 13.25 x 15.54b .060 43.8, 5400, 3600
1492 13.5 x 16 4b .105 42.5, 4640 , 3340
1598 13 x 14 3b .080 42, 5600, 4050
1868 12.5 x 14.25 .075 42 5600, 3960

Speed at max rpm seems a bit on the low side?

I wonder what would happen if a 1:1 tranny was hooked up to the 409 as opposed to the 1.23:1. Maybe the faster spinning prop would push the boat along quicker...unfortunately I'm not very mechanically minded so that may make no sense at all.

[DanielC]

A higher pitched propeller, turning slower is more efficient than a low pitched propeller, turning faster.

Think about it. The low pitch propeller has to go a farther distance around to move the boat the same distance forward.

[TRBenj]

50-51 would be nice on this boat but the hull kinda gets in the way.. Was in touch with Bill W. at ACME and he sent me the results of their in house prop testing; subsequently he recommended I go no larger than the 1490.

Max Spped Max RPM RPM@34 mph
422 12.5 x 15.5 4b .105 43.5, 5380, 3700
654 12.5 x 15 4b .105 43.8, 5540, 3750
668 12.5 x 15.5 4b .150 43.5, 5130, 3650
1490 13.25 x 15.54b .060 43.8, 5400, 3600
1492 13.5 x 16 4b .105 42.5, 4640 , 3340
1598 13 x 14 3b .080 42, 5600, 4050
1868 12.5 x 14.25 .075 42 5600, 3960

Speed at max rpm seems a bit on the low side?

I wonder what would happen if a 1:1 tranny was hooked up to the 409 as opposed to the 1.23:1. Maybe the faster spinning prop would push the boat along quicker...unfortunately I'm not very mechanically minded so that may make no sense at all.

All that prop testing was done with the 343 Excal, not the 409. Jody is still involved with the factory and has probably tested more props on the 200 than anybody- so if he thinks 50 *might* be attainable, I would believe him. No one is arguing that its a much slower hull than the 196. Ive been over 56mph in a 196/409, per the Garmin GPS in my hand.

Im not sure the 1:1 would be faster than the 1.23 up top... the hulls Ive run with both transmissions (2001, No Wake Zone) had nearly identical top ends. Holeshot with the reduction is improved though. Ive heard the argument that the reduction is slower up top, but that seems to hold more weight with respect to the MC Powerslot... its commonly accepted that the 1.5:1 is a mph or 2 slower than the 1:1... but I just havent seen that with the 1.23.

[Nids]

All that prop testing was done with the 343 Excal, not the 409.

Bill Weeks (@ ACME) confirmed they were using a 6.0L when they ran their prop tests; but the top ends seem to point towards, as you said, the 343 Excal..

Interesting note on the tranny comparisons; what I'm thinking now is that with the slower turning 1.23:1 a larger slower spinning prop can be used leading to an increase in operational efficiency (and less slippage?)...

Think I'll stay tuned to whatever revelations Jody can come up with in working with ACME and OJ. I'm still convinced that with 409 horsees and loads of torque the Nautique 200 can hit 50mph with the right prop and without compromising 'good enough' holeshot for non competitive skiers.

[j2nh]

Sure looks like the 6.0L to me. 5.7 turns more rpm's at 34. The new SN 200/5.7 I drove maxed out at about 40-41.

At 5400 RPM's my 196 runs 50-51 mph, gate up, stock prop, waxed bottom, two people. Compared to the SN 196 the 200 has a heck of lot more wetted surface to push through the water. When you look at the testing that was done with the Acme 1492 (13.5 X 16) the prop has the pitch to get the boat up to 50 but the 409 can't turn the prop.

If you don't mind my asking what is the magic of 50 mph?

What sets the 409 apart in my mind is its ability to adjust speed for footing in the 38-43 mph range. Easy to go up from say 39 to 41 and even a couple of big guys can't pull the speed down. Also a stronger pull out of the hole. Not necessarily faster acceleration than the 5.7 but with a larger load the 5.7 will drag and the 6.0 powers through (show ski stuff).

[teamseal]

Sorry Guy's dont want to burst anyones bubble but those stats are for a 5.7. The fastest speed shown is 43.8!! nearly 4.5 mph slower than my new 6 liter 200CB! Dont care what Bill told ya!
Yes the magic 50 mph...Well why did man climb the mountain? Why did the chicken cross the road?
I will put on my all seeing Karnack hat and predict that in 2011 (maybe even before the end of this year) someone will report that a Ski 200 will eclipse the 50 MPH barrier and run nearly 53 mph in a ski 200.....

[OldFart]

zr-409 mod

thanks karnack!

[Mikeski]

Do you guys see any difference in the wake with those prop changes? On my SV211 the ACME 1234 threw golf ball sized water pellets right at my midsection at 28off, not fun at all. Otherwise that prop worked well but I couldn't live with the prop wash unless I wanted to start wearing a cup when I skied.

The 200 seems to bury most of it's nose at top end, I would be interested to see how it reacted to strapping a 500lb fat sack on the swim platform. My guess is that it would push another 3-4mph if you could get some of that nose out of the water.

With respect to the 409, there is quite a bit of untapped horsepower available from that powerplant. To get at it you will need to scrap the OEM program in the MEFI controller and install something you can tweak yourself. Arizona speed & marine or Larry's engine & marine can get you started with a baseline off the shelf program and new controller for about $800. In my opinion PCM gives a fairly conservative engine management program in all of these motors.

[teamseal]

Hi Mike,
From 2007 to current engine models both from PCM and Indmar are utilizing the E-control ECM Hardware and associated control software programs. MEFI was last used in 2006. We are stuck with the parameters that PCM and Indmar run in their programs as they have the devlopmental software and it is propritary.
But!! Their is more hp to come in the near future!! But as with every thing there will be an up charge.