Engine options - G23

[TRBenj]

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...

Did you read my post in regards to power curves? Im curious what makes you think the Excal will be a poor choice, if it makes the same power (or possibly slightly more) than the 409 at speeds of 3,000rpm and below. Are typical loaded RPM's well above that? The 409 really doesnt shine until 3500+.

I have been told that on the 450, PCM was able to shift the torque curve up, without shifting it to the right- so peak hp occurs at the same 5600rpm as the 409. Allegedly, holeshot in the lighter boats (200) is on par with the Excal- which is supposedly a tad stronger than the 409. By my seat of the pants feeling, the Excal and 409 run very similarly out of the hole on a 196... but some say the Excal is quicker.

[ironj32]

J, could you convert your costs/set into gallons/set?....

I've been calculating it based on the % of fuel used. I fill up the tank to be at 100% before each outting. After approx 2 - 30 minute sets, we are sitting at about 70%-75% left on the tank...I'll use 70% to be on the high side (expect the worst, right ). The G23 has a 65 gallon tank, that puts the number of gallons at 19.5 gallons total. Divide that by the 2 sets, it's 9.75 gallons per set. Figure the average cost of fuel right now in MN is about $3.65/gallon...that puts it at $35/30 min set. As others have mentioned...we run a lot of weight. Plus I fall a lot, lol.

[ers906]

Ironj, that "I fall a lot comment" was one of the best I have seen in a long time on PN. I am right there with you, but behind a super air instead of a g23. I am on a ten year savings plan to upgrade in the future, but I am sure the wakeboard/surf industry will change 100x over before then

[tdc_worm]

couple of other thoughts/points:

1. beam and wetted surface are mutually exclusive, and their relationship is determine by the flare of the boat hull (the difference between the boat at its widest point and the width of the hull at the waterline). since this is not a constant, it makes predicting how the hull will plow the water based off of beam alone impossible to determine. additionally, running attitude will affect it as well.
2. some architecture notes on the gm marine engines:
---5.7L excal 343is a gen III gm small block, bore 3.898 (99.0mm) x stroke 3.62 (92.0mm)
---6.0L ZR-409 is a gen IV gm small block, bore 4.000 (101.6mm) x stroke 3.62 (92.0mm)
---6.2L 450 and SC is a gen IV small block, bore 4.06 (103mm) x stroke 3.62 (92.0mm)

because the bore of these engines is increasing while stroke is remaining the same, as displacement increases, the engines are becoming more oversquare (a square engine would have a bore equal to the stroke). generally speaking, oversquare engines are designed to produce peak tq and hp at higher rpms. undersquare (bore less than stroke) favor producting peak tq and hp at lower rpms. this explains one reason why you see the peak numbers further right on the y axis of the graphs that gm provides. (not taking into account cylinder/head/intake combos that can move the power left or right).

ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroke_ratio

diesel and stroker gas engines are typically undersquare and produce gobs of torque down low with a flat torque curve when compared to your tyipcal oversquare gasoline engines that have a peaky torque curve...

all that being said, it is my opinion that an extra 25lbs of torque at 5k rpm is worthless for a wakeboat...

[ironj32]

Ironj, that "I fall a lot comment" was one of the best I have seen in a long time on PN. I am right there with you, but behind a super air instead of a g23. I am on a ten year savings plan to upgrade in the future, but I am sure the wakeboard/surf industry will change 100x over before then

[Bri93SN]

I rode the G23 on the Proving Grounds tour with Adam Wensink. That boat had the 450 hp.
Adam said he'd consider the 409 to be the baseline.

I'm not really used to the big V-drives, but it's a different effect than a small direct drive. The boat was really doing high rpms, even at low speed. It was kind of like being on a train pulled by a diesel electric locomotive. The engine really spools up, then the boat gradually builds speed. So, I'd guess that's it's operating at over 3k much of the time.

The power was very good, but definitely not neck snapping with the 450. Of course, there were 10 of us on the boat, 8 of them being adults, and 4 of that 8 being over 200 pounds. Maybe 1,600 - 1,800 pounds of passenger weight, plus full ballast much of time. I would definitely try to demo the boat before choosing.

[MCM]

I rode the G23 on the Proving Grounds tour with Adam Wensink. That boat had the 450 hp.
Adam said he'd consider the 409 to be the baseline.

I'm not really used to the big V-drives, but it's a different effect than a small direct drive. The boat was really doing high rpms, even at low speed. It was kind of like being on a train pulled by a diesel electric locomotive. The engine really spools up, then the boat gradually builds speed. So, I'd guess that's it's operating at over 3k much of the time.

The power was very good, but definitely not neck snapping with the 450. Of course, there were 10 of us on the boat, 8 of them being adults, and 4 of that 8 being over 200 pounds. Maybe 1,600 - 1,800 pounds of passenger weight, plus full ballast much of time. I would definitely try to demo the boat before choosing.

A test drive with the 409 and 450 would be ideal, the problem is finding a 409. It seems the 450 has become the go to engine in the G23, but I haven't heard of anyone trying the 409 (I wander if the 409 would have performed just as well for Adam). Everyone assumes the 450 is the only way to go, but CC spec'd the 343 as the base engine. Interesting, the 409 is the base engine in the G25 and it only weighs 500lbs more than the G23. Unfortunately, until we have both to test drive or PCM/CC publishes the torque curve of their engines, it will be tough to make a decision.

[ironj32]

One would want to consider resale, when making their engine choice, as well. IMO, I think it'd be much much easier to unloade a 409/450 than a 343. Hard to say, but my guess is that it will probably be easier to unload a 450 vs a 409...who knows though.

[Miljack]

J,
have you re-fueled the boat after riding and checked the consumption that way? I don't have much faith in ANY fuel gauges...

[ironj32]

J,
have you re-fueled the boat after riding and checked the consumption that way? I don't have much faith in ANY fuel gauges...

Yep, I have, and that's what prompted me to start paying attention...the numbers are pretty close with both methods. Right about $65 after two sets. I'm probably gonna hit the water in a few hours again today. I'll keep track.

[MCM]

Yep, I have, and that's what prompted me to start paying attention...the numbers are pretty close with both methods. Right about $65 after two sets. I'm probably gonna hit the water in a few hours again today. I'll keep track.

Just curious why you're riding with so much extra ballast. The wake is pro level with the factory ballast, even the video and photo shoot with the Nautique team was done without adding more. Not criticizing, just curious. Seems like all that extra ballast is killing your wallet at the pump.

[robertsmcfarland]

I heard second hand from the pros in the shoot that the g23 was weighted.

[Miljack]

Same here, +1400# not including the passengers...

[ironj32]

Just curious why you're riding with so much extra ballast. The wake is pro level with the factory ballast, even the video and photo shoot with the Nautique team was done without adding more. Not criticizing, just curious. Seems like all that extra ballast is killing your wallet at the pump.

I've talked directly with the pros and I'm running the same setup that they are. Miljack is correct about the setup for the release shoot...was told the same thing, first hand. With that said, I've had a few people out and let them ride with stock ballast only, and they said that that is even more than they need. My personal preference is to get as big as wake possible...I'm not complaining about the $ at the pump, just part of the game

[MCM]

I've talked directly with the pros and I'm running the same setup that they are. Miljack is correct about the setup for the release shoot...was told the same thing, first hand. With that said, I've had a few people out and let them ride with stock ballast only, and they said that that is even more than they need. My personal preference is to get as big as wake possible...I'm not complaining about the $ at the pump, just part of the game

Thanks for clarifying. Would you say the factory ballast is plenty for the average intermediate and advanced riders? One of the appeals of the G23 is to not have to add additional weight. I'm currently adding about 1200 lbs to my 230, hoping if I make the switch I can just run factory ballast.

Have you calculated fuel costs with just the factory ballast? And I agree, cost of fuel is part of the game. I know my gas guy too well!