G23 Fuel Consumption Rate- Take 2

[Kmayotte]

There is a thread on wakeworld.com about the fuel consumption rate of a G23. It degenerated into a conversation/argument about fuel flow meters, petroleum usage, G23 owners not being concerned about fuel consumption or running expenses (after all they just bought a 125K boat) which I think is complete b.s.

Suffice to say, I know not everyone is on both sites so, if it appeases the court let's leave all that political and socioeconomic stuff out of it and merely discuss what real world numbers owners have experienced. I hope to own a G one day and am curious what running costs will be as compared to my current 210.

IronJ32 gave some great real world numbers. Here's what he said in the WW thread:

"Here's my take on the fuel consumption after putting 85 hours on my G23 with the 450hp engine, last summer. We usually always fill up the tank before each outting. After approx 2 - 30 minute sets, I seem to typically have to put in about 19.5 gallons to top the tank off again. 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. Not too much worse than a slammed 230 or XStar. One thing to note is that I fall a lot, so spend a lot of time getting on to plane."

I don't think I even burn 5 gallons for a 1/2 set in my 2004 SANTE 210 (running 2200 lbs of ballast plus 4-6 people). I guess double the boat, double the running costs?!?

Anyone else want to share their experience?

[lion90]

Iron also runs 2200 OVER stock.

A G is over 1k heavier by itself. Then the stock ballast is 2800 which is a lot then he adds 2200 on top. That is 5k ballast on top of a boat that is 1k heavier.

If we are going to reopen this can of worms, let's get the facts so it is apples to apples.

My experience is that the wake on a g23 with just half ballast was as good and as big as my 230 with factory (800) and another 1500.

[bsb4fsu]

I just took delivery of my G23. I want to keep track of consumption for myself so I will post what I find.

[Laptom]

Currently own a 230, but always owned a 210 before. With a great wake, we always got 4-5 gallons an hour rate on the 210. Now on the 230 with all standard ballast full we get around 5.5-6 gallons an hour. That is why I love PCM (we owned also an X-star before and with standard ballast the fuel consumption was around 7.5-9 gallons an hour)
I know of friends with slammed VLX's and X-stars running 10-12 gallons an hour, but I don't find it normal anymore when we get to 20gallons an hour... Here in Europe (even when running on LPG) the fuel prices getting rediculous.

Looking at G23 with a 550 in it, but when fuel consumption with standard ballast will be more then 15 gallons an hour, we will pass and ride with the (perfect for us) 230.
If CC could improve the next 3 issues with the new boats; then they would sell one more: Normal 4 legged tower with the ability to put boardracks for 8 boards on it, zero off with paddle wheel (for river wakeboarding) and a fuel consumption which is relatively normal...

I'm with you about the statement of when owning a 125k boat fuel consumption doesn't matter is a bit lost.

Lion, I'm with you.. Should be apples to apples comparison, so hopefully get some time with a G without additional ballast and a wake good enough for us (we don't ride with extra weight in our 210's or 230). I cannot imagine that the fuel consumption will be more then 10-12 gallons an hour with 50% stock ballast in a G.

[vision]

85 hours on G23 with 450. 5 - 5.5 gph with no ballast. 6.5 - 7 full ballast. My xstar with 2500lbs and 5.7 motor was almost identical regarding fuel consumption, but it really struggled. Difference with the G is bigger wake, easier planing, but same fuel consumption.

[1sicknautique]

the G23's a fuel monsters

[Nordicron]

I think another problem is people don't accurately count their hours. Some go boarding for 4 hrs and call it 4hr but actually I they went by engine hours they'd be at 3hrs! Also some of us idle our boats while changing riders and such an some don't which makes a diff. In my 210 with about 1800 over stock I'm right about 6gph using approx time not true engine hour time.

[AirTool]

the best thing to do is keep a chart of the purchases and average the use over time. that's what I do w/my 206.

[ES]

Despite all the advances in technology, I am still amazed how inaccurate the fuel gauges are on our boats. I would have imagined with the newest Linc systems that they would have caught up with the automobile industry with gas measurements by now.
In the meantime, thanks for everyone's input so far...interesting data for a potential owner of a G23 (or G21) down the road...

[vision]

the best thing to do is keep a chart of the purchases and average the use over time. that's what I do w/my 206.

I simply top my tank each time I refuel and track engine hours and gas added.

[pSchwade]

Despite all the advances in technology, I am still amazed how inaccurate the fuel gauges are on our boats. I would have imagined with the newest Linc systems that they would have caught up with the automobile industry with gas measurements by now.
In the meantime, thanks for everyone's input so far...interesting data for a potential owner of a G23 (or G21) down the road...

its a lot easier to measure volume when you dont have to worry about attitude changes - and as far as using some part of the engine control to measure fuel usage, having to have a water separator means that it would be a lot harder to measure the fuel coming/going from the tank. you could use load cells to measure the mass of the tank, but you would also need two to three accelerometers to account for the boats acceleration and anywhere from four to as many as 12 load cells... which will add a significant failure potential when compared to a simple damped float gauge. so it can be done, but it probably isnt worth the cost.

[ironj32]

I simply top my tank each time I refuel and track engine hours and gas added.

Likewise.

[msbowhunter]

"Gotta pay to play"

[AirTool]

I simply top my tank each time I refuel and track engine hours and gas added.

I'm not sure your point. It's not necessary to top the tank to track usage and the more representative average is over the long haul.

[vision]

I'm not sure your point. It's not necessary to top the tank to track usage and the more representative average is over the long haul.

This allows me to track GPH more closely. For example, if we spend a day cruising versus a day with full ballast and people riding, I can calculate the difference in GPH between the different scenarios. In addition, I track GPH to monitor engine function and therefore like to know fuel usage over short periods of time.