Engine options - G23

[MCM]

I'm considering engine options for a G23. Everyone is saying the ZR450 is the only way to go, even though CC puts a 343 in as the base engine. I am currently running a 343 (with an ACME 1235) in my 09 SANTE 230 and it performs just fine. We do not slam the boat with weight, typically just the factory ballast for wakeboarding (which is what we primarily do). I'm told the G23 with no ballast will throw a better wake than a 230 with factory ballast.

Take a look at the attahced chart and tell me if I'm looking at this correctly. I'm looking at boat pounds per HP of each engine. Currently, I'm at 14 with my 230/343 combo. Seems to me a ZR409 in a G23 at 14.5 would do just fine. Is it worth the extra $$$ to get a ZR450 just to go to 13.2?



Another factor is torque, which PCM will not publish. I think they don't publish torque specs because there isn't much gain above the 343. For wakeboarding/surfing, torque is probably a better indicator the HP.

That's for the input!

[ironj32]

I'm considering engine options for a G23. Everyone is saying the ZR450 is the only way to go, even though CC puts a 343 in as the base engine. I am currently running a 343 (with an ACME 1235) in my 09 SANTE 230 and it performs just fine. We do not slam the boat with weight, typically just the factory ballast for wakeboarding (which is what we primarily do). I'm told the G23 with no ballast will throw a better wake than a 230 with factory ballast.

Take a look at the attahced chart and tell me if I'm looking at this correctly. I'm looking at boat pounds per HP of each engine. Currently, I'm at 14 with my 230/343 combo. Seems to me a ZR409 in a G23 at 14.5 would do just fine. Is it worth the extra $$$ to get a ZR450 just to go to 13.2?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]18242[/ATTACH]

Another factor is torque, which PCM will not publish. I think they don't publish torque specs because there isn't much gain above the 343. For wakeboarding/surfing, torque is probably a better indicator the HP.

That's for the input!

My opinion (I have the 450hp)
*343 - not an option
*409 - would probably be fine, if you plan to NEVER run more than factory ballast (meaning, if you have friends and family you will be emptying ballast)
*450 - performs awesome with just factory ballast, don't notice any struggle. does pretty well with with full factory ballast, plus an additional 2200 pounds (could be extra ballast, or just people, or combo). it takes a little time to get out of the hole, and will take a little bit of time to get back onto plain after a tight turnaround. there seems to be a fine line with what the engine/prop combo can handle...i've noticed that if i have an extra 300-400 pounds in the back (so about 2600 pounds vs the 2200) it will struggle a lot, and basically won't get past 15 mph. the threshold for max wake seems to be about 2200 extra pounds (talked a lot with the pros, and they've tried nearly every setup possible), anything above that doesn't make the wake any better. with that said, i have Acme sending me two other props to test out (currently have the 2313)...one will be the 2315 (same as 2313, just less cup), the other will be a 5 blade. with this engine she will drink some gas if you're running the extra weigth in it. with the super slammed (like 4200 pounds ballast) 230 w/409 we we're at about $25 dollars per 30 minute set. with the G23 w/450 and about 5200 pound of ballast, it's about $35 per 30 minute set.

*550 Super Charged - i've heard it's an awesome engine has no problem at all with the extra weight. i'd have to assume it would drink gas like a mofo though.

Hope that helps.

[MCM]

My opinion (I have the 450hp)
*343 - not an option
*409 - would probably be fine, if you plan to NEVER run more than factory ballast (meaning, if you have friends and family you will be emptying ballast)
*450 - performs awesome with just factory ballast, don't notice any struggle. does pretty well with with full factory ballast, plus an additional 2200 pounds (could be extra ballast, or just people, or combo). it takes a little time to get out of the hole, and will take a little bit of time to get back onto plain after a tight turnaround. there seems to be a fine line with what the engine/prop combo can handle...i've noticed that if i have an extra 300-400 pounds in the back (so about 2600 pounds vs the 2200) it will struggle a lot, and basically won't get past 15 mph. the threshold for max wake seems to be about 2200 extra pounds (talked a lot with the pros, and they've tried nearly every setup possible), anything above that doesn't make the wake any better. with that said, i have Acme sending me two other props to test out (currently have the 2313)...one will be the 2315 (same as 2313, just less cup), the other will be a 5 blade. with this engine she will drink some gas if you're running the extra weigth in it. with the super slammed (like 4200 pounds ballast) 230 w/409 we we're at about $25 dollars per 30 minute set. with the G23 w/450 and about 5200 pound of ballast, it's about $35 per 30 minute set.

*550 Super Charged - i've heard it's an awesome engine has no problem at all with the extra weight. i'd have to assume it would drink gas like a mofo though.

Hope that helps.

This helps a lot, thanks for the insight. I really doubt we would ever exceed factory ballast, whether its adding ballast or people. I was at the G25 launch and was talking to Rattray about this. In his G23 he will run 1200 pounds on top of the factory ballast if its just a driver and rider. He said if he has 6-8 people in the boat, he will only run factory ballast and the wake is awesome. It echoes what you said about the wake not improving above 2200 lbs of additional ballast. I'm thinking the 409 would be plenty for me, if we do not plan on exceeding the 2850 lbs of factory ballast.

I am very interested in how the different prop options you mentioned perform............

[Quinner]

Interesting info, What are the up-charges for the various motors?

[robertsmcfarland]

ex343 standard,409$ 6,526.....450,$10,873...... 550$23,093...

[tdc_worm]

if you want torque curves, start here:

http://gmpowertrain.com/MarineEngine...Portfolio.aspx

PCM, Indmar, Merc, Ilmor, Volvo-Penta all source their long blocks from GM. They then massage them to achieve certain power numbers. while i have no experience w/ the g23, i have plenty of experience w 210s, 220s, and 230s w/ both the excal and zr engines as well as other brands with different engines size engines.

To use your numbers, my fueled 230 would weigh 4808lbs, add 900 stock ballast, 2x 750lb sacks in the rear, 650lb sack in nose, 8x72lb batteries, 5 amps and 2 x 15" subs and that puts us at 7884lbs completely slammed. my zr6 with the correct prop doesnt have a problem getting 4 tons (before passengers) on plane.

my opinion is this:
1) a company that has a reputation like CC is not going to offer an option (i.e. excal 343) on their premier, flagship vessel that contributes to under-performance.
2) if PCM is not offering torque curves/numbers, i suspect it is because they do not want savvy consumers to see through their horsepower numbers
3) propping the boat correctly will result in satisfactory performance
4) there is no replacement for displacement when it comes to low end torque, except for forced induction (which in the case of the 550 makes it cost prohibitive)...which is why MC has offered the 7.4L big block for the new X star. the difference between the rotating assembly of the 6.0l zr409 and the 6.2l 450 is negligible, so the low end torque difference will be neglible as well.
5) i wouldnt spec a g23 with anything over the zr409 regardless of how much weight i was throwing at it.

another point: the zr409 is fine with regular fuel, the 450 and 550 recommend premium due to the higher compression ratios/forced induction.

[TRBenj]

The ZR-450 is not a 6.2L engine, its based on the same 6.0L that the 409 is. Only the 550SC gets the LS3.

If you look closely at the power curves (which do not take into account all of the PCM specific details, like exhaust, ignition, tune, etc), you'll notice that the 350 and 6.0L based motors dont have tremendously different peak torque values (~30 lb ft difference). The 6.0L peaks about 1000rpm higher (3k vs. 4k RPM). This allows it to build hp well beyond where the 350 runs out of breath, and thus, makes impressive horsepower numbers. In my experience, the advantage of the 409, as compared to the Excalibur, lies completely above 3k RPM (really more like 3500 and up). If youre not running RPM's beyond that, then the Excal will do just fine coming out of the hole and for watersports. It will definitely give up some top end though, as it will hit the rev limiter much sooner.

[MCM]

if you want torque curves, start here:

http://gmpowertrain.com/MarineEngine...Portfolio.aspx

PCM, Indmar, Merc, Ilmor, Volvo-Penta all source their long blocks from GM. They then massage them to achieve certain power numbers. while i have no experience w/ the g23, i have plenty of experience w 210s, 220s, and 230s w/ both the excal and zr engines as well as other brands with different engines size engines.

To use your numbers, my fueled 230 would weigh 4808lbs, add 900 stock ballast, 2x 750lb sacks in the rear, 650lb sack in nose, 8x72lb batteries, 5 amps and 2 x 15" subs and that puts us at 7884lbs completely slammed. my zr6 with the correct prop doesnt have a problem getting 4 tons (before passengers) on plane.

my opinion is this:
1) a company that has a reputation like CC is not going to offer an option (i.e. excal 343) on their premier, flagship vessel that contributes to under-performance.
2) if PCM is not offering torque curves/numbers, i suspect it is because they do not want savvy consumers to see through their horsepower numbers
3) propping the boat correctly will result in satisfactory performance
4) there is no replacement for displacement when it comes to low end torque, except for forced induction (which in the case of the 550 makes it cost prohibitive)...which is why MC has offered the 7.4L big block for the new X star. the difference between the rotating assembly of the 6.0l zr409 and the 6.2l 450 is negligible, so the low end torque difference will be neglible as well.
5) i wouldnt spec a g23 with anything over the zr409 regardless of how much weight i was throwing at it.

another point: the zr409 is fine with regular fuel, the 450 and 550 recommend premium due to the higher compression ratios/forced induction.

Excellent points......I suspect the same about the torque curves on a ZR409 vs. ZR450. Both are probably very similar, which is why for wakeboarding/surfing I think the ZR409 would perform just fine. The cost difference between the 450 and 409 pays for my Z5 bimini!!! One question, isn't the Zr409 and 450 both built on the 6.0L platform? I thought PCM just put a hotter cam in the ZR450 to bump the HP.

[Miljack]

J, could you convert your costs/set into gallons/set? All great comments on the engines, I would agree somewhat on the torque curves between the excal and the ZR engines, however having experienced both with different and the same props on an Excal (210), and a ZR390 (230), I can say honestly that the ZR pulls better on the heavier 230 than the Excal on the 210 (both w/ 1235 props + stock ballast). I won't take credit for the statement, but somebody else here said the GM dyno plots are taken at a constant speed, and load applied against the engine, not the engine running, or accelerating the load up to speed. I know a little about this, but I have somebody here I trust that I CAN get a good explanation for this.

Thanks Robert for the option $$, that 550 hp is EXPENSIVE! Cool engine though, and I bet it pulls like a mule.

[robertsmcfarland]

knowing very little about torque or power curves all interesting and useful information, what I have experience, is area water surface on different boats Our 230 with same motor and prop, extra ballast performs much better than our 210 which was much lighter, have to contribute to amount of hull surface thats actually in contact with the water, with that said the g23 is 2 inches wider which should throw in more numbers to try to compare apples to oranges in coming up with the right motor.

[shag]

I really like the 343, but in that boat, I just feel it would be underpowered, if any additional weight was added.... I have heard it is slow with full stock ballast. I think next year you will see the G23 with the 409 as standard. And yes, you can prop it low, but then you might risk higher RPM's. I wish they would make a larger raw water engine...

[jimmyj]

lil off topic, but am i the only person that calculated the gph will riding ont he g23 according to ole boys experience.. ~20gallons an hour!?!?! holy smokes...

[MCM]

knowing very little about torque or power curves all interesting and useful information, what I have experience, is area water surface on different boats Our 230 with same motor and prop, extra ballast performs much better than our 210 which was much lighter, have to contribute to amount of hull surface thats actually in contact with the water, with that said the g23 is 2 inches wider which should throw in more numbers to try to compare apples to oranges in coming up with the right motor.

I think this is a very valid point. The G23 has a shallower draft than the 230, but how much surface area is in contact with the water between the two boats is something to consider. Given what we know, I would agree the 343 is out as a viable option. The question is between the 409 and 450. Is the extra 41 ponies going to make a difference, especially if you make the assumption that the torque curve is similar between the two engines?

[robertsmcfarland]

wow those figures put things in perspective, 20 gallons an hour, I guess CC know this since they went from a 230 that holds 51 gallons to the g23 which holds 65 and the g25 a whopping 83!!

[OKWAKEBDR]

wow those figures put things in perspective, 20 gallons an hour, I guess CC know this since they went from a 230 that holds 51 gallons to the g23 which holds 65 and the g25 a whopping 83!!

lil off topic, but am i the only person that calculated the gph will riding ont he g23 according to ole boys experience.. ~20gallons an hour!?!?! holy smokes...

His 20 gallons per hour estimate is with 5200 lbs of ballast. Add that to a 5400 lb boat and probably another 1000 lbs of fuel, gear, and people weight.

Surely 20 gallons per hour doesn't surprise you when you realize you're moving nearly 12,000 lbs (6 TONS)!!