Does a Supercharged Ski Really Use a Lot More Gas?

[@Jetwaterrunnerfeller]

Had a ‘22 FX SVHO Cruiser (black/grey/blue) on order since August. With the production cuts, decided to take the ‘21 FX SVHO Limited sitting on dealer showroom floor. Not a big fan of the lava but would rather ride this summer than miss out. Your videos telling us how great the ‘21 is, really helped seal the deal for me. Thx!

[@TheShipsLogg]

That's awesome!! Good luck with the new machine!!

[@brandonmayer2789]

That’s what we just did also

[@airstone1673]

Thanks very much. In the last few days I have listened to many videos and asked who consumed more: Sea-Doo Explorer 170 or Sea Do look Explorer 230. Everyone always replied that if I wanted to do a lot of miles I would have to buy the Explorer 170 otherwise I would have consumed a lot moreover. You're right, at constant speed a supercharged engine consumes a little less than a naturally aspirated engine. This is also the case with cars and trucks. This can be seen especially with trucks which are all turbodiesel, they are so precisely because they always travel at a constant speed and at a constant speed the turbos perform better. 👍🏻

[@ParrotHead1980]

One thing you have to remember, your using 93 octane in a supercharged ski versus 87 octane in a NA ski. The cost of running that high of octane overtime adds up, also the maintanece on a supercharged ski is higher then a Normally aspirated ski, because your dealing with Gears and Very high compression. I ride with a group that has both and the NA skis doing 40 mph in medium conditions always go much further on a tank then any of the SVHO's by a land slide. If you take a SVHO and HO and run them at 40 mph which is considered average cruising speed on a lake in the same conditions, the HO goes way further burns less fuel and your not having to keep a extra gas can on the back of your HO like most long distance riders do on SVHO's.

[@TheShipsLogg]

You are absolutely right about the 91 octane versus 87. From what I've seen so far, maintenance does not bring much of a difference. That of course may be because I don't have my ski moded and I'm actually not a very aggressive rider. I do use the top end of the speedometer sometimes but I'm not doing it constantly.

[@ParrotHead1980]

@@TheShipsLogg I love your ski. I'm still up in the air on my next purchase between a 2022 FX HO or SVHO. I sold my 2016 yamaha VXR which was modded. I just love the looks and hull of the new FXs.😊

[@TheShipsLogg]

@@ParrotHead1980 I went through that same process before I bought mine. I was telling myself that I really did not need a supercharged ski because I'm just not a speed demon and I'm not trying to race anybody. I almost bought an HO and I'm sure I would have loved it had I done so. I ended up with the SVHO, and I got to say I do not regret it. Yep the gas costs more and if I've got throttle pulled all the way in it will get worse fuel mileage. But I'm happy I made the decision I did.

[@ParrotHead1980]

@@TheShipsLogg See now you got me thinking🤔 is the SVHO worth the extra $3,000 over the HO???

[@TheShipsLogg]

@@ParrotHead1980 I think so but that's just me.

[@paulsutherland2638]

Hey Captain great video you're right the SVHO does get fantastic gas mileage when I Simma down on the throttle. Unfortunately most of the time I'm like a dog that sees's a squirrel and off i go. I thought it was a very informative 12 minutes keep up the good work.

[@TheShipsLogg]

Thank you sir!!

[@garrylallan]

Good to see this addressed.. I have a 2020 Seadoo GTR 230 (supercharged). I average: 2.2km/litre = 6.3MPG = 5.3USMPG and 12.1 l/hr = 2.7gall/hr = 3.2 USgall/hr it doesn't shift much from this not matter what the conditions.. i.e. Max 2.5km/l Min 1.9km/l The supercharger itself will introduce efficiency losses, but I suspect consumption is largely a function of throttle use..

[@marcaveli2012]

Went from South end to North end and back on Lake Lanier just about WOT most of the time, put 5 gallons in after reaching the north end. And still just before reaching Port Royal I had to silence the low fuel alarm twice and reached NO bars on the indicator, ZERO percent. I was a little scared, but I made it to the Marina. Put a $20 in the tank and got back to Mary Alice. From experience I do agree, It's the rider. '21 FX SVHO.

[@TheShipsLogg]

I have had the low fuel alarm go off a few times before but never had the gauge read zero percent!! That definitely would have had me puckered up! LOL!

[@charlesprice7790]

Love the videos, keep up the good work. Picking up my 21 svho Saturday. Going to kill me waiting for the weather to break up here on lake Erie. (FYI it's the same color pattern as yours lol)

[@TheShipsLogg]

Congrats on the new machine. If you get tired of waiting, you can always head south!! 😁

[@Dr_Flankensteinn]

Another great video! 2020 GTX230 - Since Seadoo upped fuel capacity on the 2020s from 15.8 to 18.5 I can go an average of 80 miles on one tank. I did the math many times I usually burn about 5mpg - mix riding!

[@TheShipsLogg]

Thanks. Even with 18.5 gals, I have a few trips planned where I will be carrying extra fuel this year. It's hard to stay out of the throttle when the water looks like glass!

[@Dr_Flankensteinn]

@@TheShipsLogg I always bring at least 5 gals - sometimes 10 of extra fuel on my PWC Superrack!

[@TheShipsLogg]

@@Dr_Flankensteinn Always a good idea!

[@Rick_Sanchez_C137_]

This was HALF of a GREAT video…. The reason I say “half”is because you started doing the math but didn’t finish…. Lots of people run their jet skis for only 50 hours a year, many more average 100, 150, or 200 hours a year…. Few do more than the 200 so let’s stop there for now. If you are running at the recommended speed, 1.5x the recommended speeds, or WOT, what are your fuel costs in each machine for the whole year. And assuming you paid cash for your skis, what is the total cost of running each in each of those hour categories for the year (and then rework the math to show how much you spent each year if you took out a loan at 5.9%, what I see Yamaha giving near me, for 48 months)…. Again, great first half of a video; maybe you should add a part two using today’s fuel prices where you are at…. Go ahead, say, “challenge accepted.”

[@TheShipsLogg]

I think I would need to do that if my argument was that a supercharged ski is less expensive to own and operate than a NA ski. I am definitely not taking that one on. The reality is if you buy a supercharged ski, you are going to spend more money. I was simply trying to show that they can be efficient and sometimes even moreso than their non-supercharged counterparts. Then again, reality steps back in and reminds us why people buy supercharged skis: They want to go fast. We all know the WOT is not the RPM where any ski will be most efficient, especially a supercharged one.

[@carllashley2234]

Great video. We just got a pair of FX SVHO 2022 just broke the engine in today. So I’ll chime in a little later.

[@TheShipsLogg]

Awesome!! Enjoy that new machine!!!

[@baileyjones5259]

Hi, usage ?

[@JP516]

Mine gets an average of 5 mpg and that's in the ocean ! Good video cap !

[@TheShipsLogg]

That sounds about right. When I am riding in ocean chop, I get about the same thing. Definitely not perfect conditions for fuel economy and I am still probably running faster than best economy cruising speed.

[@Hunter-ex2sw]

Thank you sir for this video. Amazing insight. Keep up the great work!!!!!

[@TheShipsLogg]

You are welcome! Glad you found it helpful!

[@ericburch6847]

I have a 2021 FX Cruiser HO. My fuel mileage usually stays at 5.9. if it fluctuates from that it's lower not higher. My reason for not getting an SVHO is because of the super unleaded gas and higher gas prices. I enjoy your videos are very informative and entertaining. I'm down here in Florida so I plan on going out Thursday. Believe it or not it will be 85° here

[@TheShipsLogg]

You definitely live in a jet ski paradise!! I have gone as high as 6 mph with my SVHO but that is only when I am riding at speeds below 40 mph. The more expensive fuel is one of the downsides. But then again, with a ski, you are just burning fuel for fun anyway!

[@ericburch6847]

@@TheShipsLogg l don't know if you follow Bob Broeking or not but he does quite a few KZbin videos in Florida as well. This spring I'm him and I are putting together a Chain of Lakes ride for Winter Park. Carrot Top lives on that chain of lakes as well as Nick Faldo the golfer. Carrot Top is the most down to earth celebrity you could meet. He participates in a lot of local events.

[@TheShipsLogg]

@@ericburch6847 I do follow him. As a matter of fact, he and I were just discussing recently how we should collaborate and do something together. Hope we can make that happen.

[@michaelfrench1608]

Great video picking up my 22 next Saturday can't wait

[@TheShipsLogg]

Congratulations!! Have fun with it!

[@3-2-1-.]

If you only take into account weight, the supercharged ski has all the extra hardware, and software. That alone will consume extra fuel. The cost of premium versus regular, and the availability of both can be real issues. There is extra maintenance. That's just the facts. I bought a couple FX Cruiser HOs in the spring after much research, and I have zero regret. I live on a long lake, and I can cruise for hours as long as I stay under 35 mph. Stay lower than that and the range increases significantly. It's all about the cruise for me. A motorcycle for the water to just cruise, without all the extra elements of the road. I'm one of the oldest guys riding a ski on the lake, and my buddy who is 75 went with me for a good run in October. There was nobody out there on the water, and with our combined ages we have over 100 years of boating experience between us. Two old farts running the lake on water all to ourselves. We kept them pinned for most of the ride. I should have bought a couple of these years ago. The engine sound is great without the whine of the supercharger or the pop off valve. I'm sure the supercharged are freaky fast.

[@TheShipsLogg]

The weight difference is literally only a few pounds so that really won't make a difference. Also if you run at conservative speeds with a supercharged ski, you can do surprisingly well on fuel mileage. The problem is that most people who buy a supercharged ski didn't get it to be conservative. Unlike older models, the maintenance on today's supercharged pwc's is really not that different from a regular ski. Sure, after several hundred hours, you may have to change a supercharger clutch if you are an aggressive rider but that is minimal for what you get in return.

[@davidszweda4371]

Great video. One item you missed to highlight, is that at the optimal speed, the supercharged ski will go 2 miles farther and get there 1 hour quicker, based on the numbers that you highlighted.

[@TheShipsLogg]

That is true! I did mention that the supercharged ski optimal speed is faster.

[@therealmitch-a-palooza7262]

David, that is simply not true. Take the Yamaha HO and SVHO for example, and look at the fuel economy curves I linked from BoatTest in my earlier comment. The literal "best cruise" speeds between the two are nowhere near different enough for one ski to get you somewhere faster by a full hour. They're maybe around 3 mph apart at most. The big difference between the HO and SVHO is that once you start getting into the realm of 4,000 RPM, the SVHO is going to start burning more gas. You can maintain a 100+ mile range on the HO up to around 40 knots, where the SVHO's mile range is starting to dip into the 80's at that same speed. All other things held constant, the HO is going to get you farther faster than the SVHO if it's a longer ride where you actually have to adjust your speed and conserve gas. If the destination is within 40 miles, then sure, you can simply pin the SVHO wide open and get there faster than the HO...assuming the fuel dock has 91 octane available. And no, "octane booster" is not an answer to this question, we already covered how bad that stuff is your engine. It's also worthy to note that before 2022, the SVHO weighed around 20 pounds less than the HO. But now that Yamaha has thankfully switched back to SMC fiberglass hulls, the SVHO now weighs 20 pounds *more* than the HO. I don't think anyone can say for certain how much that small difference in weight may have caused the SVHO to have that 3mph faster "best cruise" than the HO, but with the SVHO gaining 40 pounds from the new hull, I'd wager that infinitesimal advantage it had in "best cruise" is gone.

[@davidszweda4371]

@@therealmitch-a-palooza7262 not quite. Look at the chart at the 7:00 mark. When both are cruising at their most optimal cruise rate in conserving fuel, the SVHO will tap out at the 135 mile mark and will do that after 5.4 hours. The HO will tap out at the 133 mile mark and will do that after 6.4 hours. That means in order for both skis to go @133 miles at their best optimal cruising speed, the SVO will arrive @ 1hour ahead of the HO. Both will have consumed their full 18.5 gallon gas tank at the 133 mile mark. While more studies should be done, this is probably because a supercharger is providing better volumetric efficiency at its optimum rpm, than a naturally aspirated. Typically volumetric efficiency is better below the optimum rpm curve for a forced induction motor than for a naturally aspirated motor. Part of the reason why all of the auto manufacturers are throwing turbos on cars to increase fuel economy. A NA motor is limited by air pressure, where as a forced induction motor can increase the VE to 100. That does not mean that a forced induction motor is more efficient at all rpm's, thus why a supercharged ski is not going to get great mileage at full throttle. More fun? Yes, but better fuel economy? No. Everyone just assumes more power is worse gas mileage, but that is not the case in all scenarios, and I think the chart at 7:00 is showing a real world example of how that plays out on our jet skis.

[@TheShipsLogg]

@@therealmitch-a-palooza7262 actually, it is true if you are running each of the skis at their optimal rpm's. For the HO, that is about 20 mph. For the SVHO, the optimal speed is about 25 mph. The SVHO will get you there a bit faster with just slightly better mpg. The problem is that no one wants to run a ski at that speed. We all want to go 60+. The HO will get better mileage when going that fast.

[@davidszweda4371]

@@therealmitch-a-palooza7262 If you look at your curves that you provided, the optimal rpm for each ski is 4,000 rpm. At that rpm, the HO is getting 7.19 mpg, and at that rpm will travel 120 miles. It will do that at 20 mph. For the SVHO, it is getting 7.34 mpg at 4,000 rpm, and will travel 122 miles before the gas runs out. But it will be traveling at a bit above 25mph. That means when each tank runs out, the SVHO will reach 122 miles in 4.88 hours and the HO will reach 120 miles in about 6 hours. For the same fuel amount, the SVHO will have about 1.2 hours to have a nice meal and be back on the ski when the HO just comes in.

[@stotzmitchell]

Just so you know. N\A stands for Naturally Assperarated. Not normally assperarated. Just a heads up

[@TheShipsLogg]

You are correct. Every now and then my brain forgets words and I have to substitute on the fly. 🤣

[@airtylerb]

I think fuel economy is irrelevant on a jet ski. It’s a toy you ride for fun, fuel is part of the cost of said fun. The real reason you avoid getting a supercharged ski is maintenance. Charged air puts more stress on the motor than naturally aspirated, causes more wear and tear, adds complexity, and requires more care to keep it running.

[@Xile0508]

I’m new to the Pwc community and still waiting to take delivery of my 22 fx cruiser svho. Awesome vids Capt

[@TheShipsLogg]

Thank you. You are going to love that machine when you get it!!!!

[@jasonmekush5280]

Ill vouch for if u stay out of the boost it gets good mpg. my 21 gpr has 18 gall tank i easily went 100 miles on it

[@austenonyett5800]

Range aside, you will spend more money on fuel between super versus non-supercharged skis. Supercharged skis require super unleaded fuel while non-supercharged skis require only regular unleaded fuel which is significantly less. Over time, you will pay significantly more to operate a super ski over time for fuel +maintenance.

[@TheShipsLogg]

No I doubt you are correct about the cost of the fuel. Also, no matter what, you will still generally get better mileage with a NA ski. The point is that the difference between the two is not necessarily as big as people generally think.

[@CrochetNewsNetwork]

@@TheShipsLogg ~plus can you really put a price on such amazing fun? You only live once and I will spend the extra money on fuel

[@TheShipsLogg]

@@CrochetNewsNetwork Exactly!

[@Hunter-ex2sw]

I have always put premium gas in all my boats and jet ski’s regardless if it needs it or not. Canadian regular gas seems horrible when not used on a daily basis.

[@Adogsmate4267]

The difference between the two is much greater when fishing in rough water, trolling etc. All my mates with super skis have had extra fuel tanks installed because their range is considerably less than n/a. Ok on a nice day, but when could anyone ever trust the sea. 98 octane fuel in NZ is very expensive and best avoided if at all possible. 96 octane hear is 2.70 per ltr, that's a bit over 12 good old bucks per gallon. Overall, the supers are expensive to run along side a n/a fishing, and pointless really.

[@maybe5883]

For fishing in open seas, you’re probably correct. Being a lake rider in fresh water I’ll stick with the SVHO.

[@Adogsmate4267]

@@maybe5883 I can fully undetstand your point, blasting across the lake is way different to fishing in the ocean. We have to put up with swells and chops on top, so no comparison really.

[@mcquoidd6917]

Hey Barry! I'm in NZ too. Mostly Auckland salt open riding so thinking I don't need the super ...I don't think I'd be able to hit max speed unless I'm at a lake which would only be few times a year anyway...we know nz open ocean yes is fun.. but ho I'm thinking is enough? I also fish sometimes..

[@mekuranda]

In Australia we pay 10%* for premium fuel...what would be interesting is a comparison cost at the same speed between HO and SVHO...do you guys in the US pay a similar increase in Premium fuel?

[@TheShipsLogg]

Premium fuel does cost more here, so there's no doubt that it would still be more expensive to run a supercharged ski. Although, these numbers do show that the differences between these two are not necessarily as big as most people claim.

[@philby1979]

I never worked out the % however 98 fuel to jump .40c over night is crazy atm. was $2.15 per L the other day :(

[@TheShipsLogg]

@@philby1979 That is definitely the downside of a supercharged ski. No matter what the fuel economy is, you are still paying more per gallon for the gas.

[@philby1979]

@@TheShipsLogg yep I knew that was the case my Holden SS ( look up the Chev SS that was built in Australia ( 10 mins from my House as well ) I have one of them that runs on 98, I didn't get that or the ski ( 2021 FX Limited) for economy ;)

[@TheShipsLogg]

@@philby1979 Oh yes! I am familiar with the Holden SS. Bad ass car. I guess they are gonna make sure that if you want to have the fun, you are gonna pay the money one way or the other. LOL

[@2dthoughts]

I remember reading in my 96 Waveraiders manual that “You’ll get 1.3hrs of Full throttle Fun.” And being worried, but in 2022 it get 4hrs with 1/4 tank left on average With the way I ride and stop for breaks

[@TheShipsLogg]

I bet you are not at full throttle for those 4 hours though! ☺️

[@2dthoughts]

@@TheShipsLogg No definitely not having “Full Throttle Fun” the whole time. Lol

[@martysk8r]

Good article and video explanation. Still on the fence for next ski... HO or SVHO. It doesn't really matter since they stopped making skis this year :(

[@TheShipsLogg]

I had the same struggle before I bought mine. I did not really think I needed the SVHO (and truth be told, I don't NEED it), but after I got the SVHO, I'm glad I did.

[@AlejandroSanchez-dc2ks]

Hello thank you for your videos I like them, I don’t know where you got those charts showing the SVHO can be more efficient !, “NO WAY” because is not what I experienced with my Yamahas I have 2018 Yamaha FX cruiser HO (natural aspirated) and 2019 Yamaha SVHO riding simultaneously many many times with my wife (about same weight) from Long Beach CA to Catalina Island about 30 miles each way plus the extra ridding along the island, same speed, same water conditions, same wind direction. The SVHO will never make it without 5 gallons we have to carry just for the SVHO to cover the same distance of my Yamaha FX cruiser HO. My own opinion since I like to go long distances or anyone who like to do that the SVHO is not the right jet sky regardless slow or fast, plus have to use high octane gasoline the non supercharged is already to fast. SVHO nice jet sky but most if you like to race or just to show it can go a little faster than natural aspirated but not for much, personal opinion am happier with my not Yamaha supercharged

[@TheShipsLogg]

Keep in mind that the video doesn't say that The SVHO is more efficient at all speeds. This is just to point out that in some circumstances the SVHO actually can be more efficient. The problem is we never ride them in a manner which allows us to benefit from that.

[@Logan_Daniels_Photography]

I always wondered this, glad I have a solid answer now. The Seadoo GTX230 locks its self at 5600rpm in eco mode. I wonder if its more efficent to lock in the rpm or mph of the ski.

[@TheShipsLogg]

Yes, it is. WOT means high fuel consumption. If you limit your RPM's/speed, you will conserve fuel.

[@Logan_Daniels_Photography]

@@TheShipsLogg do you think doing the rpm lock or the mph lock would be more efficient?

[@TheShipsLogg]

@@Logan_Daniels_Photography absolutely. On my Yamaha, there is the option to set a max speed. It's designed for inexperienced riders but I have used it on long trips where fuel economy is important in

[@mcquoidd6917]

@@Logan_Daniels_Photography depends on what the ski can do. Rpm lock or speed lock is the same thing really. Just make sure your under say 6k revs and should be fine..

[@mikeprzlomski2092]

Thanks Captain

[@airstone1673]

Furthermore, I believe that it is always better to talk about hourly consumption (gallons per hour) at a constant rpm, what comes next is a consequence of other factors (distance traveled and time which can be different based on sea conditions and currents ). At constant rpm the turbo always wins 👍🏻

[@TheShipsLogg]

@@airstone1673 Good point. I also agree that turbos are great for a ski. I wish there was a manufacturer that still used them. Honda was the last one that did it I remember correctly.

[@robertleal1863]

Makes total sense. Good job.

[@TheShipsLogg]

Thank you!

[@Aaron.Davis56]

Good morning Captain Frank. OG on a Ski-in CT checking in. I wished they put the best speeds for the skis on the chart so we know where we should be riding for the economy. One thing that's important and they didn't mention is at what weight the test was done. I'm sure a 120-pound female and a 250 pound would get different numbers. So far I'm 90% heading to Florida for the FL Ski Rider ride on 3/12. Looking forward to meeting you

[@TheShipsLogg]

I agree. The speeds and weights would have been nice. Glad to hear you will be making the trip. We already made our hotel reservations. Just have to be patient now.

[@donaldwest9103]

Hello Aaron. I was wondering if you made it down to Florida with your ski. I'm thinking of doing the same trip from Rhode Island next March and would love to hear about the logistics of your trip and any insights you may have to share. I live in Rhode Island on Narragansett Bay. I would love to get together for a ride this summer. Let me know. I ride a GTX 230.

[@Podchynok]

Both points may be true, I think it’s is counter intuitive to get supercharger for cruising around and then complain about fuel efficiency. This is my dilemma right now as I’m trying to de side which machine to order. I like to have fun but I have bunch of kids so cruising around will be a more likely thing, I’m torn.

[@TheShipsLogg]

Mine is supercharged and I do a lot of cruising. Obviously, it drinks fuel at high speeds but it's really not that bad when just cruising around. I'm glad I made the decision I did. Of course, I do have to pay for premium fuel. Not everyone wants to do that

[@kkutube1972]

Great way to dissect the information.

[@TheShipsLogg]

Thanks!

[@CrochetNewsNetwork]

Man you are awesome. Just subscribed yesterday. My dilemma is between 2022 supercharged Yamaha FX (top of the line )or a 2022 supercharged Sea Doo GTX 300 LIMITED . There are pluses and minuses to both. This is a very hard decision. I hear a little better stories about Yamaha’s being a very solid machine with few mechanical issues. The Sea Doo GTX has a few features I like. May I ask a couple of questions about your Yammy? 1) small storage in front of handle bars. Enough space or would you prefer how the Sea Doo’s entire storage is accessible with handle bars that go up with lid? 2) how smooth of a ride from your hull & seat? Can you ride for hours with some chop here and there ? Do you feel fatigued the next day? 3) do you think sea doos Intelligent Debris Clearing system is a big deal or a new gimmick? Has your Yammy ever been stuck? 4) how many hours can you ride before getting super charger rebuilt? And do you know the typical costs of rebuilding SC? Thanks much Captain.

[@TheShipsLogg]

The storage in the front of my ski is pretty large. I have actually fit a rolling duffle bag in it with no problem and that was with a few other items as well. I can say that the Sea Doo setup does seem to make it easier to get to the storage compartment when on the water. The ride of my ski is pretty good in my opinion. I often ride for several hours at a time with no problem. Obviously, the rougher the water is and the more aggressive you are, the more likely you are to feel it the next day. A good hot tub soak will take care of that. 😂 I think the Sea Doo debris clearing technology is a great idea. It seems that they are still working out the kinks in the system but in a few years, I think they will have it working consistently well. I have had one incident where my intake got clogged with seaweed and it was pretty easy to clear out. I did have to get wet though. The newer supercharged skis no longer need routine rebuilds of the supercharger. Obviously, if you mod your ski, that may change as some mods put more stress on the entire power train. Good luck with your search.

[@bufordlife9781]

Also with that all power don’t forget the hull - w high speed in your future assuming you may hit rougher waters so you may look at other brands such as Yamaha or Kawi

[@EdoardoCaristi]

What's the most efficient range of speed for these jet skis

[@TheShipsLogg]

I have an FX Cruiser SVHO and the most efficient speed is around 25 mph. The only problem is that when you have a supercharged machine, it's hard to go only 25! 🤣

[@EdoardoCaristi]

@@TheShipsLogg it's tiring going always full throttle lol....in many moments i prefer to relax. But don't get me wrong, if provoked i can ride as fast as possible ahahahahah....so i need those extra hp

[@adrianalcazar3496]

4:03 noticed the range on ultra lx(na) miles at WOT is less than the range of ultra 310r (supercharged) !

[@TheShipsLogg]

Yeah, that really is unexpected. Of course you are burning more per hour with the supercharged machine but the additional speed more than makes up for it .

[@edwardbowles8613]

Must be typo. The lx numbers have to be for the 310lx. Look at the 15f consumption numbers. Yes Ultra is a bit heavier (and before anybody talks about weights do your research and know that Kawasaki lists curb weight with gas, fire extinguisher, oil and battery. Sea Doo and Yamaha list dry weight without all that stuff. True weight differences are not that much. Especially since Yamaha went back to real fiberglass). But the Ultra lx numbers have to be for the 310lx. The gph for the lx and 310R are identical on the chart.

[@gerardotorres9963]

I like always excellent video also I am 100% agree on everything that you say Keep the good work thank you

[@TheShipsLogg]

Thanks for the kind words Will do my best!

[@therealmitch-a-palooza7262]

I love the premise and think there's a lot of truth to it, but the part about best cruise speed needs some expanding upon. Yes, it is true that the "best cruise" speed on the HO is a hair slower than the SVHO, but the HO remains fuel efficient enough to run 100+ statute miles over a wider RPM range. The HO can retain a high level of fuel efficiency (100+ mile range) up to around 40 knots. Whereas the SVHO's fuel endurance curve is considerably narrower, losing that 100+ mile range at around 30 knots. Basically, if you're going on a longer ride, the HO will get you farther faster, assuming the distance to the next fuel dock is around 60-65+ miles away. From a purely numerical standpoint, that figure is 70-80 miles, but it is prudent to plan your trip with an adequate fuel reserve. Another complicating factor is that most fuel docks do not have 91+ octane fuel. I found the charts and tables that BoatTest generated when they tested the 2019 FX's to be especially helpful when deciding which one to get: boattest.com/review/yamaha/2600_fx-cruiser-ho boattest.com/review/yamaha/3241_fx-cruiser-svho

[@TheShipsLogg]

No doubt you are correct, especially about the 91 octane. I do actually take octane booster with me for those times that I have to fill up at a fuel dock that only has 89 octane fuel. I think the point is that the differences do not have to be as great as everyone claims.

[@markadler8968]

Why pay $1000s more for the machine and $1000s of dollars more at the pump over the lifetime of the machine buying premium gas only to baby the throttle. You are better off buying an HO in that case. I have a 21 VXHO and it still keeps up with the supercharged machines and is only 3 mph slower than the stock SVHO. Far cheaper to buy and far cheaper to run. If you are buying a supercharged machine fuel economy should be the last thing you are concerned about.

[@TheShipsLogg]

You do have a good point. I think that idea will work for a lot of people. My most recent ride was in rough water down in Tampa Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. I definitely did not need my supercharger then. Some of my rides on Lake Lanier are with guys who just like to run. I'm glad I have a supercharger when riding with them. I have noticed that whenever a NA guy shows up, they don't come back because they don't like being left behind. It all depends on your riding style.

[@bufordlife9781]

Mark not sure if your argument can apply to luxury/non-necessary purchases such as PWC. Fuel mileage concerns are for cars where one can argue .A to .B like how you are going. Heck, I can argue my sons VW GTI can also at keep up w M3 and is thousands cheaper and more fuel efficient. Going through my own experiences with my recent Kawi 22 LX-S (as I’m sure other PWC purchasers), it was based in irrational emotions rather than something practical - though I did have to justify the extra spend on a larger heavier and powerful PWC for safety reasons w the wife 😂 😂 😂…. If I cared about fuel economy or price I would have gotten a kayak.

[@winstonsmith4003]

As a life long boater, the $ of gas can’t even be a worry. Its pointless. It’s going to cost a lot. It’s all about how far you can go under what conditions to safely get to your destination. For us it was SVHO all the way and then we just operate according to our day’s plan!

[@keving1774]

After 200 hrs you have to rebuild your super charger, buy higher octane fuel, ski is $5,000 more

[@TheShipsLogg]

Seems like you have some outdated and incorrect info here. Of course, premium fuel does cost more. A supercharged ski also costs more but not $5000 more, unless you are dealing with a dealer who is just trying to ream you. The price difference is more like $2300. Also, the clutches do not have to be rebuilt at 200 hours. Some of the older models did require this, especially if you had a Sea Doo but the newer ones do not require that. Sounds like you are trying to justify buying a NA ski to save money. Keep this in mind. If you are buying a ski, you're doing so to have fun. If you are trying to be frugal, then you shouldn't be buying a ski at all.

[@MrGman129]

I Love your videos. I was out last Saturday meeting with the new FXHO 1.9 2024. We did a 56 mile trip, I did a video if you're interested, and he used more fuel than I did. I'd like to ride with you, are you always doing wake church? Or with your permission I'll stop by your selling dealer and have him call and ask permission for your number, for me to call you. Soon I'll be posting videos of traveling the world's fresh water chain of lakes and going through Deaths Door, where there's been 275 confirmed ship wrecks. Thanks for posting.

[@TheShipsLogg]

Thanks for the compliment. I would love to check out your videos. Feel free to hit me up at [e-mail]. I do Wake Church sometimes but not every week. It's a fun ride and a great bunch of guys.

[@Inpreesme]

Thank you

[@TheShipsLogg]

You are welcome!

[@kkutube1972]

My 2nd time watching this video. Would it be hard to find gas with the high octane at dock?

[@TheShipsLogg]

That depends on where you ride. In some places, it is harder to find premium fuel. You can use 89 octane during times when you are in a pinch but I would not use it regularly. If you plan to ride a lot in an area where premium fuel is hard to find, I would recommend you use a good quality octane booster such as Boostane.

[@ericsmith6677]

its basic mechanics with. SC theres more air and more fuel which means more fuels consumption. how much more? i don't objectively know. i know this 4 hours on my GP H.O i have about 6 gallons left and i ride it hard im not just cruising

[@gfire369]

they do, and you have to use 93 octane on top of that, we ride double with people alll the time and go to same places. every single time they are out before us and they riding single

[@nojabformeeducateyourself3393]

I get 126 miles to a tank on my Explorers just going easy around 45 to 50 mph

[@TheShipsLogg]

@@nojabformeeducateyourself3393 That's pretty good. I think that was part of the idea for that ski. It was designed to be a long distance ski so fuel consumption is extremely important.

[@bodiejones4844]

This is true!! I have the 21 fx limited and avg. 5.1 miles per gallon. My buddies fx ho avgs. 5.4. 😂😂😂. It’s very very close

[@bodiejones4844]

And I’m MUCH faster

[@Briandswinford]

Here is my view on the subject, if you have a 180 hp ski and run it full throttle for 1 hour vs a 250 hp supercharged ski run at full throttle for 1 hour its not going to take a lot to understand that to make more hp for the same given example will have to take more fuel. The argument you only burn more fuel if you ride it hard, then what is the point of having the power if you never use it? lol its really a pointless discussion, but remember you cannot make more power with less fuel and leave it at that.

[@AdamGow-e4l]

It’s always nice having the option. Fuel is still cheap these days so I wouldn’t worry about how much you use.

[@zxvixen5299]

NA = naturally aspirated…. Thank you for the content though.

[@robertperry8360]

Your also supposed to use 93 octane fuel as well, way more expensive, an good luck finding that on the water.

[@TheShipsLogg]

Actually, 91 for my ski. I never have an issue with finding it because I just fill up prior to riding and I rarely use a whole tank in one ride. The only time I have to fill up on the water is when I am long distance cruising. It's okay to use 89. You just won't get peak performance like you would with 91, but if I'm on a long distance cruise, I'm going to be running at more conservative speeds anyway. It all works out perfectly.

[@bufordlife9781]

How about another way to look at this (with less math) Captain Frank? I was riding 55 to 65+ on Lake Lanier recently despite chop, and filled up at Costco and saved over 40 cents a gallon for premium for my 21 gallon tank 😂 😂 😂

[@TheShipsLogg]

Absolutely!! I rode yesterday and filled up at Costco as well. Purchased premium fuel at 3.59 a gallon. Some of the guys I rode with filled up at the marina for 6.82 a gallon! 😳😳

[@ianashmore9910]

This is an exercise in "how to lie with math". The critical thing being ignored here is typical usage. The efficiency graph (second shown) is only applicable if you're doing a long tour without stop/starting. Is that how you typically ride your ski? I would wager not.

[@TheShipsLogg]

Actually, it was not ignored. If you remember, I mentioned that we don't buy a supercharged ski to ride at those speeds and that your economy is based on several factors. Can you get better economy with a supercharged ski? The answer is yes. WILL you get better economy with a supercharged ski? Probably not .

[@ianashmore9910]

@@TheShipsLogg You may have mentioned it once, but the vast majority of your video ignores it. Which makes the video as a whole, completely misleading. Almost no one, in real world conditions, will get better fuel efficiency from a FI engine vs an NA engine.

[@TheShipsLogg]

@@ianashmore9910 Well, I guess we all have our stance on things. I'm guessing you have a NA ski.

[@ianashmore9910]

@@TheShipsLogg Yeah, and 2 forced induction cars. My supercharged car absolutely guzzled fuel, getting 10mpg. Lol

[@TheShipsLogg]

@@ianashmore9910 I bet you don't drive it slow either!! 😂

[@teachingrounds]

You’re absolutely right with all this …. 4000 rpm’s is the sweet spot for both engines. They’re both on plane, 20 miles per hour (ho) and 25 (svho). The numbers from boat test showed the range to be 120 miles (ho) vs 122 (svho).

[@TheShipsLogg]

The question is can you buy an SVHO and ride at 4000 rpm? 🤣🤣

[@Yu-dp5hp]

the rxp has more milage than the rxtx as well

[@TheShipsLogg]

RXT-X is a bigger machine and has better performance.

[@Yu-dp5hp]

@@TheShipsLogg I've heard that the rxp-x has better performance though

[@cowlumbus]

Our supercharged skis use TWICE as much fuel as our base model skis. TR-1 vs. SVHO...it's not even fair. Human nature and an engine twice as big. Plus if you need a higher octane for a supercharger...your dollar per mile is just silly compared to a base engine. Don't buy into his PR.

[@TheShipsLogg]

@@cowlumbus That is not a fair comparison. The TR-1 is a much smaller engine in addition to not being supercharged. If you want to be fair about it, compare your SVHO to a machine with the 1.8. you will find that the fuel consumption is much closer.

[@billwhittenberger]

This chart cannot be accurate. I have a 24 FX Cruiser HO and get 4mpg cruising at about 40mph. No way I am getting 4.6 at wot

[@TheShipsLogg]

@@billwhittenberger I have an SVHO and I definitely get better than 4 mpg at 40. If that is all you are getting, you may want to check your machine

[@tappandatass8157]

Naturally aspirated

[@Blue-wv1rg]

No way I had both and the supercharger sucks more gas ⛽️ for shore

[@TheShipsLogg]

In most cases, yes. But not always.

[@stevenhill7614]

This video is Not realistic. Supercharged ski uses a lot more fuel. Especially the Kawasaki 310.

[@TheShipsLogg]

Guess you did not pay much attention to the video.

[@joef2504]

I've owned both SC & NA, I could watch the gas gauge deplete while riding the SC FX because when you have a SC you are going to ride it hard, this means spins and cornering where you go from low speeds to maxed out speeds over and over again... I switched to a NA FX because I can live without the SC and I wanted the better gas limage and not needing to buy Premiuim fuel. Don't get me wrong, the SC is a thrilling ride, but you're going to pay for it at the pump...nobody who has a SC pwc is going to baby the throttle...

[@TheShipsLogg]

And that is the challenge. You don't buy a supercharged ski to go at conservative speeds so its hard to get good fuel economy. 🤣

[@sharonbraselton4302]

suoeè charg fryser 25 moh vs 2⁰ moh ñon turbo charged

[@songiv850]

Two stroke have the worst gas mileage

[@TheShipsLogg]

I would definitely agree with that!!

[@sharonbraselton4302]

180 mile eabré 204,jóle gidcweàth too soed inly 30 mleß too 52 mile ragé

[@sharonbraselton4302]

93⁰ túrbo ßam fari langhí

[@sharonbraselton4302]

koie like tdi jet ski 166 mile eabfé 199 mike rabfe 2⁰2 mióe eabge go dusel jet skies

[@sharonbraselton4302]

hit gas cet 6 mog soo tdi fet àbot 9 mogs disel 5⁰ oerçt moré efçt then gas ski engune

[@sharonbraselton4302]

6¹8oévewñge same whàer ¹5 fiter full soedd top speedcsane ràbgé

[@sharonbraselton4302]

gkad shop ranfevtop spred and maxoum ecomy egecy not too sped demjn mode

[@sharonbraselton4302]

85 moé tàbgé topß soeed beßt soeed 133 mile rañge 135 mile rañge crúse ful ecomy

[@stevez9764]

Oh yes . The difference is huge !!! Unless you're going slow

[@sharonbraselton4302]

boats hyñreed yaght batery rwàbge gaß dusél ràñge too

[@sharonbraselton4302]

there still reßt7bg tdi jet skí nitvteady reaàß fule éçomy or ràng but rught nów hiwy shit lotß less lóút stóóßvtyé gaß jet ßki

[@jcbenson01]

Literally 12 min of rambling with no point or practicality

[@TheShipsLogg]

You are more than welcome to stop watching.

[@jcbenson01]

@@TheShipsLogg it’s just really annoying clicking on videos and being mislead for 12 minutes.

[@TheShipsLogg]

@@jcbenson01 I get it. I don't think it's misleading though. We often claim that just because a ski is supercharged, it will be less efficient no matter the rpm or speed that we are riding and that is simply not true. I'll admit that a supercharged machine rarely does do better because those folks (including myself) that bought one chose it over a NA ski for a reason. We want to ride fast. That in itself is not efficient.

[@jcbenson01]

@@TheShipsLogg if you want to make an informative video, I say take two identical hulls with identical engines, both with no bottom damage and equally healthy pumps and props. One forced induction and one N/A. Top them off and ride them 50 miles side by side and refuel. Do it 3x in varying conditions. That would actual have some merit to it. The N/A ski will win every time against a SC boat.

[@TheShipsLogg]

@@jcbenson01 while I did not do that, that is pretty much what the researchers that created the numbers did. There were several models on the list both supercharged and NA. The comparison I used was between an FX Cruiser SVHO and an FX Cruiser HO. Same model- one supercharged and one not

[@Mph200plus]

Spend the money get a mic you sound like your in a tin can.

[@TheShipsLogg]

Actually, I just did that a few weeks ago. Thanks.

[@dougnicholls3719]

I have a super charged ski and it is incredibly thirsty. Greta is not happy

[@TheShipsLogg]

You could ease up on the gas but who wants to do that with a supercharged ski? 🤣

[@stevez9764]

I have 2 SVHO and my neighbor has HO. Im going through whole tank while he still has over 1/3 of tank and his Honda Aqutrax still have 1/2 left . Yeah SVHO is faster but at what $$$ . It sure sucks ! And It takes 92 octane fuel !!

[@sharonbraselton4302]

your range 111 mile range on 1⁸.5 galooiñ rañk