Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

I'm seeing many older jet boats, say the 2000 sea-doo challenger 1800
or 2002 sea-doo islandia for sale locally. What are the fuel economy
on these older ones? Anyone know where you can find the information
out? Someone told me they get 5 hours on a tank, but I see the have
41gal tanks, so they are burning 8 gal/hour?

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

"Mark" wrote in message
...
I'm seeing many older jet boats, say the 2000 sea-doo challenger 1800
or 2002 sea-doo islandia for sale locally. What are the fuel economy
on these older ones? Anyone know where you can find the information
out? Someone told me they get 5 hours on a tank, but I see the have
41gal tanks, so they are burning 8 gal/hour?

Jet boats use more fuel that a similarly sized prop boat. It's less
efficient to push with a jet. I've heard numbers around 30% or so. They
are much safer and also are good if you boat in areas with a lot of shallow
water. But even with a prop boat expect the gas to be expensive. Boats use
a lot of gas. When we take out our 19 1/2' bow rider out on the lake it's
usually a 100 bucks or so if we make a whole day of it. We have a 760cc
yamaha jetski as well and it can run through some gas fast.

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
m...
"Mark" wrote in message
...
I'm seeing many older jet boats, say the 2000 sea-doo challenger 1800
or 2002 sea-doo islandia for sale locally. What are the fuel economy
on these older ones? Anyone know where you can find the information
out? Someone told me they get 5 hours on a tank, but I see the have
41gal tanks, so they are burning 8 gal/hour?

Jet boats use more fuel that a similarly sized prop boat. It's less
efficient to push with a jet. I've heard numbers around 30% or so. They
are much safer and also are good if you boat in areas with a lot of
shallow water. But even with a prop boat expect the gas to be expensive.
Boats use a lot of gas. When we take out our 19 1/2' bow rider out on the
lake it's usually a 100 bucks or so if we make a whole day of it. We have
a 760cc yamaha jetski as well and it can run through some gas fast.


My namesake came up with a winner when he developed the modern propeller.
They are amazingly efficient.

Eisboch

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

On Jun 28, 7:27*am, Mark wrote:
I'm seeing many older jet boats, say the 2000 sea-doo challenger 1800
or 2002 sea-doo islandia for sale locally. What are the fuel economy
on these older ones? Anyone know where you can find the information
out? Someone told me they get 5 hours on a tank, but I see the have
41gal tanks, so they are burning 8 gal/hour?

Both James and Dick have more boating experience in their little
finger than I.... However, I think the answer you are looking for is,
"yes". Yes, the boat you are looking at could burn 8 GPH. That is
probably one of the reasons you are seeing so many of these for sale,
so cheap.

Scotty from SmallBoats.com
RowdyMouseRacing.com
Trip-Reports.com Where did you go today?

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

"Mark" wrote in message
...
I'm seeing many older jet boats, say the 2000 sea-doo challenger 1800
or 2002 sea-doo islandia for sale locally. What are the fuel economy
on these older ones? Anyone know where you can find the information
out? Someone told me they get 5 hours on a tank, but I see the have
41gal tanks, so they are burning 8 gal/hour?

2000 is not that old. But the sea-doo types are very inefficient relative
to the bigger jet drives. The new Hamilton 212's are about 95% the
efficiency of props. And yes, the sea-doo's / jetski motors are famous for
fuel usage.

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 04:27:51 -0700 (PDT), Mark
wrote:

I'm seeing many older jet boats, say the 2000 sea-doo challenger 1800
or 2002 sea-doo islandia for sale locally. What are the fuel economy
on these older ones? Anyone know where you can find the information
out? Someone told me they get 5 hours on a tank, but I see the have
41gal tanks, so they are burning 8 gal/hour?

We have an example of the first jet boats sold in the US, a
turbocraft, SN 10. 1958 I seem to recall. Came with lifting eyes fore
and aft. You attached tow lines to the one and the anchor to the
other. Four clamshell vents at the gunnels. It came with a Graymarine
flathead six, 109 hp. My kid brother swapped in a Buick six that got
us 3700 RPM up from the 3200 we had been getting. Eighteen gallon
tank. Skiing it would go 3 hours or so. Neither engine was big enough
to drive the pump at rated engine speed and you can't change anything
out, like you can a prop or gearbox. So, many jet boats have a
mismatched drive train that may not be especially good for mileage. On
a small lake the actual top speed doesn't really matter much.

Casady

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

(Richard Casady) wrote in
:

you can't change anything
out, like you can a prop or gearbox.

Simply not true. There are the same kinds of impeller pitches as there are
props.

http://solas.com/products/pwc/impeller/impeller.htm

Older jetboats also have different impeller pitches available but are
getting hard to find. Try a prop shop in your area...

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:46:08 +0000, Larry wrote:

In a Sea Rayder 16' jetboat,
the 175hp, 6-cylinder Sport Jet will guzzle around 14-20 gallons a day,
especially if you drive it like you stole it or pull skiiers for hours.

That statement is useless without a time factor better than 'per day',
Eight hour day would be maybe 2 gallons per hour. I don't think that
is what you meant.

Casady

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:46:08 +0000, Larry wrote:

In a Sea Rayder 16' jetboat,
the 175hp, 6-cylinder Sport Jet will guzzle around 14-20 gallons a day,
especially if you drive it like you stole it or pull skiiers for hours.

That statement is useless without a time factor better than 'per day',
Eight hour day would be maybe 2 gallons per hour. I don't think that
is what you meant.

Casady


Really, and 14-20 gallons wouldn't be that much for any boater with an
engine around that size who ran at a high cruise or was pulling tubes or
skiers.

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

HK wrote:
Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:46:08 +0000, Larry wrote:

In a Sea Rayder 16' jetboat, the 175hp, 6-cylinder Sport Jet will
guzzle around 14-20 gallons a day, especially if you drive it like
you stole it or pull skiiers for hours.

That statement is useless without a time factor better than 'per day',
Eight hour day would be maybe 2 gallons per hour. I don't think that
is what you meant.

Casady


Really, and 14-20 gallons wouldn't be that much for any boater with an
engine around that size who ran at a high cruise or was pulling tubes or
skiers.

You don't pull skiers, wakeboarders or tubes at high cruise.

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:46:08 +0000, Larry wrote:

In a Sea Rayder 16' jetboat, the 175hp, 6-cylinder Sport Jet will
guzzle around 14-20 gallons a day, especially if you drive it like
you stole it or pull skiiers for hours.

That statement is useless without a time factor better than 'per day',
Eight hour day would be maybe 2 gallons per hour. I don't think that
is what you meant.

Casady


Really, and 14-20 gallons wouldn't be that much for any boater with an
engine around that size who ran at a high cruise or was pulling tubes
or skiers.

You don't pull skiers, wakeboarders or tubes at high cruise.


Try reading the sentence again, braindead.

"...ran at high cruise *or* was pulling tubes or skiers."

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:46:08 +0000, Larry wrote:

In a Sea Rayder 16' jetboat, the 175hp, 6-cylinder Sport Jet will
guzzle around 14-20 gallons a day, especially if you drive it like
you stole it or pull skiiers for hours.

That statement is useless without a time factor better than 'per day',
Eight hour day would be maybe 2 gallons per hour. I don't think that
is what you meant.

Casady


Really, and 14-20 gallons wouldn't be that much for any boater with
an engine around that size who ran at a high cruise or was pulling
tubes or skiers.

You don't pull skiers, wakeboarders or tubes at high cruise.


Try reading the sentence again, braindead.

"...ran at high cruise *or* was pulling tubes or skiers."




My experience is that pulling a skier/tube at 3000 rpm, or a wakeboarder
at 2200 rpm would burn about the same or maybe slightly more than
running at 3400 without towing anyone.

What have you noticed when you are pulling skiers/wakerboarders and tubers?

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:46:08 +0000, Larry wrote:

In a Sea Rayder 16' jetboat, the 175hp, 6-cylinder Sport Jet will
guzzle around 14-20 gallons a day, especially if you drive it like
you stole it or pull skiiers for hours.

That statement is useless without a time factor better than 'per day',
Eight hour day would be maybe 2 gallons per hour. I don't think that
is what you meant.

Casady


Really, and 14-20 gallons wouldn't be that much for any boater with
an engine around that size who ran at a high cruise or was pulling
tubes or skiers.

You don't pull skiers, wakeboarders or tubes at high cruise.


Try reading the sentence again, braindead.

"...ran at high cruise *or* was pulling tubes or skiers."




My experience is that pulling a skier/tube at 3000 rpm, or a wakeboarder
at 2200 rpm would burn about the same or maybe slightly more than
running at 3400 without towing anyone.

What have you noticed when you are pulling skiers/wakerboarders and tubers?



What I noticed is you cannot properly decode a simple sentence.

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:46:08 +0000, Larry wrote:

In a Sea Rayder 16' jetboat, the 175hp, 6-cylinder Sport Jet will
guzzle around 14-20 gallons a day, especially if you drive it
like you stole it or pull skiiers for hours.

That statement is useless without a time factor better than 'per
day',
Eight hour day would be maybe 2 gallons per hour. I don't think that
is what you meant.

Casady


Really, and 14-20 gallons wouldn't be that much for any boater with
an engine around that size who ran at a high cruise or was pulling
tubes or skiers.

You don't pull skiers, wakeboarders or tubes at high cruise.


Try reading the sentence again, braindead.

"...ran at high cruise *or* was pulling tubes or skiers."




My experience is that pulling a skier/tube at 3000 rpm, or a
wakeboarder at 2200 rpm would burn about the same or maybe slightly
more than running at 3400 without towing anyone.

What have you noticed when you are pulling skiers/wakerboarders and
tubers?



What I noticed is you cannot properly decode a simple sentence.

So are you saying there is no appreciable difference between cruising
at 3400 rpm and pulling water toys at 2200-3200?

If so, we do agree. Who says pigs can't fly.

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:46:08 +0000, Larry wrote:

In a Sea Rayder 16' jetboat, the 175hp, 6-cylinder Sport Jet
will guzzle around 14-20 gallons a day, especially if you drive
it like you stole it or pull skiiers for hours.

That statement is useless without a time factor better than 'per
day',
Eight hour day would be maybe 2 gallons per hour. I don't think that
is what you meant.

Casady


Really, and 14-20 gallons wouldn't be that much for any boater
with an engine around that size who ran at a high cruise or was
pulling tubes or skiers.

You don't pull skiers, wakeboarders or tubes at high cruise.


Try reading the sentence again, braindead.

"...ran at high cruise *or* was pulling tubes or skiers."




My experience is that pulling a skier/tube at 3000 rpm, or a
wakeboarder at 2200 rpm would burn about the same or maybe slightly
more than running at 3400 without towing anyone.

What have you noticed when you are pulling skiers/wakerboarders and
tubers?



What I noticed is you cannot properly decode a simple sentence.

So are you saying there is no appreciable difference between cruising
at 3400 rpm and pulling water toys at 2200-3200?

If so, we do agree. Who says pigs can't fly.


Third time is the charm.

You looked up *or* !

Good for you.

Maybe you aren't loogy's daddy.

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:31:08 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

Who says pigs can't fly.

Pigs?

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

On Jul 3, 2:31*pm, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here
wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:46:08 +0000, Larry wrote:

In a Sea Rayder 16' jetboat, the 175hp, 6-cylinder Sport Jet will
guzzle around 14-20 gallons a day, especially if you drive it
like you stole it or pull skiiers for hours.

That statement is useless without a time factor better than 'per
day',
Eight hour day would be maybe 2 gallons per hour. I don't think that
is what you meant.

Casady

Really, and 14-20 gallons wouldn't be that much for any boater with
an engine around that size who ran at a high cruise or was pulling
tubes or skiers.

You don't pull skiers, wakeboarders or tubes at high cruise.

Try reading the sentence again, braindead.

"...ran at high cruise *or* was pulling tubes or skiers."

My experience is that pulling a skier/tube at 3000 rpm, or a
wakeboarder at 2200 rpm would burn about the same or maybe slightly
more than running at 3400 without towing anyone.

What have you noticed when you are pulling skiers/wakerboarders and
tubers?

What I noticed is you cannot properly decode a simple sentence.

So are you saying there is *no appreciable difference between cruising
at 3400 rpm and pulling water toys at 2200-3200?



Could be IMO. Depends on the boat and how it is powered.

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

JimH wrote:
On Jul 3, 2:31 pm, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here
wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:46:08 +0000, Larry wrote:
In a Sea Rayder 16' jetboat, the 175hp, 6-cylinder Sport Jet will
guzzle around 14-20 gallons a day, especially if you drive it
like you stole it or pull skiiers for hours.
That statement is useless without a time factor better than 'per
day',
Eight hour day would be maybe 2 gallons per hour. I don't think that
is what you meant.
Casady
Really, and 14-20 gallons wouldn't be that much for any boater with
an engine around that size who ran at a high cruise or was pulling
tubes or skiers.
You don't pull skiers, wakeboarders or tubes at high cruise.
Try reading the sentence again, braindead.
"...ran at high cruise *or* was pulling tubes or skiers."
My experience is that pulling a skier/tube at 3000 rpm, or a
wakeboarder at 2200 rpm would burn about the same or maybe slightly
more than running at 3400 without towing anyone.
What have you noticed when you are pulling skiers/wakerboarders and
tubers?
What I noticed is you cannot properly decode a simple sentence.
So are you saying there is no appreciable difference between cruising
at 3400 rpm and pulling water toys at 2200-3200?



Could be IMO. Depends on the boat and how it is powered.





There are a considerable number of variables here, which you picked up
on but were lost on Reggie. Could be is the right answer.

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

On Jul 3, 3:58*pm, JimH wrote:
On Jul 3, 2:31*pm, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here



wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:46:08 +0000, Larry wrote:

In a Sea Rayder 16' jetboat, the 175hp, 6-cylinder Sport Jet will
guzzle around 14-20 gallons a day, especially if you drive it
like you stole it or pull skiiers for hours.

That statement is useless without a time factor better than 'per
day',
Eight hour day would be maybe 2 gallons per hour. I don't think that
is what you meant.

Casady

Really, and 14-20 gallons wouldn't be that much for any boater with
an engine around that size who ran at a high cruise or was pulling
tubes or skiers.

You don't pull skiers, wakeboarders or tubes at high cruise.

Try reading the sentence again, braindead.

"...ran at high cruise *or* was pulling tubes or skiers."

My experience is that pulling a skier/tube at 3000 rpm, or a
wakeboarder at 2200 rpm would burn about the same or maybe slightly
more than running at 3400 without towing anyone.

What have you noticed when you are pulling skiers/wakerboarders and
tubers?

What I noticed is you cannot properly decode a simple sentence.

So are you saying there is *no appreciable difference between cruising
at 3400 rpm and pulling water toys at 2200-3200?

Could be IMO. * Depends on the boat and how it is powered.

It also depends on many other factors such as number of passengers
aboard when doing 3400 rmp and pulling water toys at 2200 rpm.

All things being equal, I doubt pulling folks in water toys and in the
boat at 3200 rmp is the same fuel burn rate as cruising with with
those folks at 3400 rpm.

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

On Jul 3, 4:03*pm, JimH wrote:
On Jul 3, 3:58*pm, JimH wrote:



On Jul 3, 2:31*pm, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here

wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:46:08 +0000, Larry wrote:

In a Sea Rayder 16' jetboat, the 175hp, 6-cylinder Sport Jet will
guzzle around 14-20 gallons a day, especially if you drive it
like you stole it or pull skiiers for hours.

That statement is useless without a time factor better than 'per
day',
Eight hour day would be maybe 2 gallons per hour. I don't think that
is what you meant.

Casady

Really, and 14-20 gallons wouldn't be that much for any boater with
an engine around that size who ran at a high cruise or was pulling
tubes or skiers.

You don't pull skiers, wakeboarders or tubes at high cruise.

Try reading the sentence again, braindead.

"...ran at high cruise *or* was pulling tubes or skiers."

My experience is that pulling a skier/tube at 3000 rpm, or a
wakeboarder at 2200 rpm would burn about the same or maybe slightly
more than running at 3400 without towing anyone.

What have you noticed when you are pulling skiers/wakerboarders and
tubers?

What I noticed is you cannot properly decode a simple sentence.

So are you saying there is *no appreciable difference between cruising
at 3400 rpm and pulling water toys at 2200-3200?

Could be IMO. * Depends on the boat and how it is powered.

It also depends on many other factors such as number of passengers
aboard when doing 3400 rmp and pulling water toys at 2200 rpm.

All things being equal, I doubt pulling folks in water toys and in the
boat at 3200 rmp is the same fuel burn rate as simply cruising with
those folks (no water toys) at 3400 rpm.

edit

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

I've read that the jet boat's impeller system is about 30% less efficient
than a similarly powered outboard. Does that mean that a jet boat will get
beat by an outboard, or just use more gas?

I've got a Whaler Rage 14, and skipping along at 25-30mph it seems efficient
when lightly loaded.
It will go through 5 gallons of gas after several hours of mixed running,
but I haven't done any extended runs that would allow me to measure the mpg.

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 08:15:19 -0400, "Floyd"
wrote:

I've read that the jet boat's impeller system is about 30% less efficient
than a similarly powered outboard. Does that mean that a jet boat will get
beat by an outboard, or just use more gas?

The jet will have a lower top speed. It will burn more fuel at any and
all lower speeds.

Casady

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 08:15:19 -0400, "Floyd"
wrote:

I've read that the jet boat's impeller system is about 30% less efficient
than a similarly powered outboard. Does that mean that a jet boat will
get
beat by an outboard, or just use more gas?

The jet will have a lower top speed. It will burn more fuel at any and
all lower speeds.

Casady

It will burn more fuel. May or may not be faster. There are different type
pumps. There are axial flow, low pressure pumps that are slower speed, but
handle white water better at reloading up after losing intake water, and
there are the high pressure pumps that are faster. Kodiak and Hamilton are
examples of the first, Berkeley and American Turbine are examples of the
second. Jet ski pumps are probably the most inefficient of all the pump
designs. Small engine and high RPM's trying to move lots of water through a
small impeller pump. The newer Hamilton 212's etc are about 95% efficiency
of props.

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 15:19:27 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"Richard Casady" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 08:15:19 -0400, "Floyd"
wrote:

I've read that the jet boat's impeller system is about 30% less efficient
than a similarly powered outboard. Does that mean that a jet boat will
get
beat by an outboard, or just use more gas?

The jet will have a lower top speed. It will burn more fuel at any and
all lower speeds.

Casady

It will burn more fuel. May or may not be faster. There are different type
pumps. There are axial flow, low pressure pumps that are slower speed, but
handle white water better at reloading up after losing intake water, and
there are the high pressure pumps that are faster. Kodiak and Hamilton are
examples of the first, Berkeley and American Turbine are examples of the
second. Jet ski pumps are probably the most inefficient of all the pump
designs. Small engine and high RPM's trying to move lots of water through a
small impeller pump. The newer Hamilton 212's etc are about 95% efficiency
of props.

Our Turbocraft is axial flow, and in fifty years has never sucked air
into the intake. Weeds once. Once the ski tow rope. Had to turn the
engine and pump backwards, with a pipe wrench on the driveshaft, to
get it out. The pump is a licenced copy of a [New Zealand] Hamilton.

Casady

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 15:19:27 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"Richard Casady" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 08:15:19 -0400, "Floyd"
wrote:

I've read that the jet boat's impeller system is about 30% less
efficient
than a similarly powered outboard. Does that mean that a jet boat will
get
beat by an outboard, or just use more gas?

The jet will have a lower top speed. It will burn more fuel at any and
all lower speeds.

Casady

It will burn more fuel. May or may not be faster. There are different
type
pumps. There are axial flow, low pressure pumps that are slower speed,
but
handle white water better at reloading up after losing intake water, and
there are the high pressure pumps that are faster. Kodiak and Hamilton
are
examples of the first, Berkeley and American Turbine are examples of the
second. Jet ski pumps are probably the most inefficient of all the pump
designs. Small engine and high RPM's trying to move lots of water through
a
small impeller pump. The newer Hamilton 212's etc are about 95%
efficiency
of props.

Our Turbocraft is axial flow, and in fifty years has never sucked air
into the intake. Weeds once. Once the ski tow rope. Had to turn the
engine and pump backwards, with a pipe wrench on the driveshaft, to
get it out. The pump is a licenced copy of a [New Zealand] Hamilton.

Casady

Mine is a Kodiak 3 stage that is a licensed copy of an older hamilton. I
have sucked weeds several times and sticks a couple times. Does not take
much of a stick stuck in the impeller to cause cavitation. Makes me think
a lot of prop boats with small dings in the prop are effecting performance
huge amounts.

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in
m:

Mine is a Kodiak 3 stage that is a licensed copy of an older hamilton.
I have sucked weeds several times and sticks a couple times. Does
not take much of a stick stuck in the impeller to cause cavitation.
Makes me think a lot of prop boats with small dings in the prop are
effecting performance huge amounts.




Jetboat Economy.....ha ha ha....you guys are too funny!

Isn't that an oxymoron??

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

"Larry" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in
m:

Mine is a Kodiak 3 stage that is a licensed copy of an older hamilton.
I have sucked weeds several times and sticks a couple times. Does
not take much of a stick stuck in the impeller to cause cavitation.
Makes me think a lot of prop boats with small dings in the prop are
effecting performance huge amounts.




Jetboat Economy.....ha ha ha....you guys are too funny!

Isn't that an oxymoron??


I did not buy an aluminum jetboat for the economy. I bought it to run
shallow and tree filled rivers. Better economy than a jetski. My 351W
engine got me about 2 mpg, 3400# 21' boat. The newer 5.7L mpi gets better,
but have not really checked on the mpg yet.

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

On Jul 3, 4:03*pm, JimH wrote:
On Jul 3, 3:58*pm, JimH wrote:





On Jul 3, 2:31*pm, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here

wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Richard Casady wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:46:08 +0000, Larry wrote:

In a Sea Rayder 16' jetboat, the 175hp, 6-cylinder Sport Jet will
guzzle around 14-20 gallons a day, especially if you drive it
like you stole it or pull skiiers for hours.

That statement is useless without a time factor better than 'per
day',
Eight hour day would be maybe 2 gallons per hour. I don't think that
is what you meant.

Casady

Really, and 14-20 gallons wouldn't be that much for any boater with
an engine around that size who ran at a high cruise or was pulling
tubes or skiers.

You don't pull skiers, wakeboarders or tubes at high cruise.

Try reading the sentence again, braindead.

"...ran at high cruise *or* was pulling tubes or skiers."

My experience is that pulling a skier/tube at 3000 rpm, or a
wakeboarder at 2200 rpm would burn about the same or maybe slightly
more than running at 3400 without towing anyone.

What have you noticed when you are pulling skiers/wakerboarders and
tubers?

What I noticed is you cannot properly decode a simple sentence.

So are you saying there is *no appreciable difference between cruising
at 3400 rpm and pulling water toys at 2200-3200?

Could be IMO. * Depends on the boat and how it is powered.

It also depends on many other factors such as number of passengers
aboard when doing 3400 rmp and pulling water toys at 2200 rpm.

All things being equal, I doubt pulling folks in water toys and in the
boat at 3200 rmp is the same fuel burn rate as cruising with with
those folks at 3400 rpm.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I find that pulling people tends to burn more fuel than cruising at
any speed. It's the getting up on plane quickly a lot that eats up
the gas. Also because it's often my teenager and her friends and they
tend to explore the limits. Which means they end up not on the end of
the rope anymore a lot.

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in
m:

I did not buy an aluminum jetboat for the economy. I bought it to run
shallow and tree filled rivers. Better economy than a jetski. My
351W engine got me about 2 mpg, 3400# 21' boat. The newer 5.7L mpi
gets better, but have not really checked on the mpg yet.



What's really unfortunate is the unscrupulous American dealers for the
Mercury Sport Jet-powered boats and PWC dealers who purposely DON'T tell
new owners their jets will be destroyed if they suck up a rock the diameter
of a quarter and get it wedge between the whirling impeller and the stator
1/8" behind it in the flow. Many PWC and jetboats are destroyed here
because owners don't know the difference between Australian-style flats
boats powered by filtered jets with no stator and what's being sold as
jetboats in the USA....never made to handle a rock.

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

"Larry" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in
m:

I did not buy an aluminum jetboat for the economy. I bought it to run
shallow and tree filled rivers. Better economy than a jetski. My
351W engine got me about 2 mpg, 3400# 21' boat. The newer 5.7L mpi
gets better, but have not really checked on the mpg yet.



What's really unfortunate is the unscrupulous American dealers for the
Mercury Sport Jet-powered boats and PWC dealers who purposely DON'T tell
new owners their jets will be destroyed if they suck up a rock the
diameter
of a quarter and get it wedge between the whirling impeller and the stator
1/8" behind it in the flow. Many PWC and jetboats are destroyed here
because owners don't know the difference between Australian-style flats
boats powered by filtered jets with no stator and what's being sold as
jetboats in the USA....never made to handle a rock.


You need to look at the Hamilton and Kodiak pumps online. They have
stators. Most have stainless impellers and aluminum stators. And the grate
only filters to about 1/2". The clearance is close enough that the rock
does not lodge between the impeller and the stator, but will ding both.

Fuel economy of older jet boats
 

I just outfitted my Yamaha with a Garmin 545s, and on the next fill-up, I'll
report what my MPG is with the twin MR-1s. I don't expect anything
outstanding, but I thinl it will be better than expected.

--Mike

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...

"Larry" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in
m:

Mine is a Kodiak 3 stage that is a licensed copy of an older hamilton.
I have sucked weeds several times and sticks a couple times. Does
not take much of a stick stuck in the impeller to cause cavitation.
Makes me think a lot of prop boats with small dings in the prop are
effecting performance huge amounts.




Jetboat Economy.....ha ha ha....you guys are too funny!

Isn't that an oxymoron??


I did not buy an aluminum jetboat for the economy. I bought it to run
shallow and tree filled rivers. Better economy than a jetski. My 351W
engine got me about 2 mpg, 3400# 21' boat. The newer 5.7L mpi gets
better, but have not really checked on the mpg yet.