Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

______________
12" White Stickers
______________
BallOfSpray $5 Donation
______________
BallOfSpray $10 Donation

Any initial impressions of 2016 200 5.3 DI?

swc5150swc5150 Posts: 2,257 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
Are there any promo guys out there running a 200 5.3 yet? If so, what's the verdict so far?
Scott Calderwood
Onside135
«1345

Comments

  • BRYBRY Posts: 585 Crazy Baller
    edited October 2015
    I don't have one but have skied three so far in tournaments and fortunate to get some practice behind two of those. One of them was a couple days in a row. Very, very nice ride. It felt like it had less swing in speed than the 5.7 (I have one of those) but more solid, like the 6.0. I also felt is seemed a little softer than the 6.0, still right there firm, just not as hard. Like it better than the 5.7, hard to say over the 6.0 but maybe. I tried B1, B3 and C1-3 and stayed with my normal C1, what I ski the 5.7 and 6.0 at. Do like it over my 5.7 but not enough to get a new one, not that different. Would really like to try the 450. At 6'1" 220 I like the bigger engine boats, they seem smoother to me.
  • skiinxsskiinxs Posts: 555 Crazy Baller
    I did a back to back comparison between my '15 - 6.0 and a '16 - 5.3 with two very strong 35MPH men 2 jumpers. One jumps in slalom mode, one in jump mode. Both jumping in the 170's. For the one jumping in jump mode, no problem getting 5.19's in the first segment on either boat with a 4 power factor. For the jumper jumping in slalom mode I had to crank the power factor up to a 5 to get 5.20's on the 6-liter. (would probably have gotten to 5.19's with a 6 power factor but didn't have enough jumps to get there) I put the power factor on a 5 with the 5.3, same letter, and also got 5.20's. The 5.3 felt like it had lots of torque as well, way more than a 5.7. There is no way a 5.7 would pull those times with those jumpers, The 5.3 at 35.4 feels pretty close to the 6.0 in torque, so I would expect torque/feel at slalom speeds of 34.2 and 36 to be pretty close to the 6. (I haven't pulled any slalom with one yet and missed the season skiing because of injury, so I can't weigh in there) Before the horsepower numbers came out I had guessed around a 30-40 hp difference between the two based on the top end being around 3 mph lower on the 5.3. When they later published the horsepower at 355, I feel I was pretty close. My gut tells me it is underrated a little in horsepower, probably around 370-375.
    jimbrakeCaleBurdick
  • swc5150swc5150 Posts: 2,257 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    What is the approx. price increase % over last year? I heard some horror stories on that front.
    Scott Calderwood
  • skiinxsskiinxs Posts: 555 Crazy Baller
    Less than the 6.0
  • skiinxsskiinxs Posts: 555 Crazy Baller
    One thing I forgot to mention above. The 6.0 that I was comparing to was by far the strongest 6 liter I have ever had, and it was my 12th Nautique with a 6.0.
  • dbutcherdbutcher Posts: 321 Solid Baller
    @skiinxs what did the jumpers say about the pulls from the 5.3 vs the 6.0?
  • skiinxsskiinxs Posts: 555 Crazy Baller
    @dbutcher - Very good reviews from the jumpers. They felt that the 5.3 got the job done.
  • HortonHorton Posts: 27,770 Administrator
    I have heard that the 5.3 cost approximately $5,000 more than the 5.7

    Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

    Barts ★ Connelly ★  DBSkis ★ Goode ★ Hobe Lake ★ HO Syndicate 

    MasterCraft ★ Masterline ★ Performance Ski and Surf ★ Reflex ★ Radar ★ Stokes

  • dbutcherdbutcher Posts: 321 Solid Baller
    @skiinxs Thanks. One more question. Does the 5.3 have ZO version R or is there a new version for the 5.3?
  • skiinxsskiinxs Posts: 555 Crazy Baller
    Version R so far, not sure if anything else was tested at the boat test this week.
  • darinmontgomerydarinmontgomery Posts: 10 Baller
    I've had my 5.3 for about 3 weeks, it's by far the best pull of any boat. It is smooth like the 6L but creates more whip at 55k. I highly recommend buying the 5.3 if you're in the market.
    RichardDoane
  • h2oskih2oski Posts: 176 Baller
    I've driven one at a couple of different sites in Az. Elevation around 1500. One is a short setup and the 5.3 performed very well, even with 36 mph skiers. I was impressed with the power and it is a lot quieter than the 6.0. Hard for me to compare to the 6.0 as I have only driven them at 4700 ft. Skiers liked it and it drove and tracked great. The new seat is nice, a little too upright for me, probably a adjuster for that somewhere?
    Terry Bandel ezfintool.com AWSA Regular Judge & Driver
  • GhibliGhibli Posts: 69 Baller
    edited October 2015
    What prop is being used with the 5.3? 654?
  • AndreAndre Posts: 1,226 Mega Baller
    What are the rpms at 34 ? Same as a 5.7 ?
  • skierjpskierjp Posts: 740 Crazy Baller
    654
  • HortonHorton Posts: 27,770 Administrator
    Is it an illusion of is the 5.3 a lot wider than the 5.7? I saw a 200 with the engine box up and it looked HUGE

    Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

    Barts ★ Connelly ★  DBSkis ★ Goode ★ Hobe Lake ★ HO Syndicate 

    MasterCraft ★ Masterline ★ Performance Ski and Surf ★ Reflex ★ Radar ★ Stokes

  • wtrskiorwtrskior Posts: 704 Crazy Baller
    @Horton engine box is definitely bigger. Higher for sure but can't say it's wider. Pylon is taller as well.

    5.3 is quieter than any boat ive been in before and it probably has pull/power characteristics inbetween the 5.7 and 6.0.

  • bigtex2011bigtex2011 Posts: 478 Crazy Baller
    Wonder why it would be significantly more expensive than the 5.7. That block has been used for 15 or so years in Chevy trucks. I get the 6.o and 6.2 being more costly.
  • GOODESkierGOODESkier Posts: 1,107 Crazy Baller
    Excited to ski behind the 5.3 I have a theory that I ski my best tournaments behind the 6.0 because it never has to work really hard to keep pace. I am hoping the 5.3 is going to have that sort of feel at shortline. If so, that might become my next big purchase............
    2003 Nautique 196 LE Star Gazer & ZBox - GOODE NANO OneXT 66.75" - Powershell 5 (LFF) - Tournament PB: 2 Balls @ 39.5' OFF (34.2 MPH) on 7/18/2015 at BIG DAWG BROHO!
    CaleBurdick
  • wtrskiorwtrskior Posts: 704 Crazy Baller
    DI hardware is expensive. 5.7 is a gazillion years old too.

    I'd still take a carb 5.7, 310hp for 10k+ less than anything else today.
  • HortonHorton Posts: 27,770 Administrator
    5.3 = about 5k more than. 5.7

    Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

    Barts ★ Connelly ★  DBSkis ★ Goode ★ Hobe Lake ★ HO Syndicate 

    MasterCraft ★ Masterline ★ Performance Ski and Surf ★ Reflex ★ Radar ★ Stokes

  • slowslow Posts: 355 Solid Baller
    some dude mentioned that earlier in the thread
    Horton
  • skierjpskierjp Posts: 740 Crazy Baller
    Yes the engine box is about 3 inches wider. It is also taller, along with the pylon. Much quieter. You will find the 5.3 is almost the direct replacement for the 6 liter. I have a 6.2 and it's a beast. I feel it skis the same as the 5.3. The engines are also lighter due to all aluminum.
    This may be the first time that the engine and technology in a ski boat is exactly what you will find in your 2016 Chevy and GMC trucks.
    Horton
  • skihartskihart Posts: 499 Solid Baller
    How is he gas consumption vs the other engines? Also what rpm is it running at speed?. I think Andre may have asked this earlier in the thread.
  • GregDavisGregDavis Posts: 274 Solid Baller
    Have had 5.3 for about a month. Absolutely LOVE IT. better gas consumption than 5.7, quiet, very powerful, and smooth. Can't believe how much more power it has than a 5.7. Have owned 20 New Nautiques, and 17 new Master Crafts. Pulled CP the other day 4 at 41. My 2016 Nautique 200, is BY FAR, the best tug I have ever driven or owned. Nice job NAUTIQUE.
    RichardDoanerockdogCaleBurdick
  • GOODESkierGOODESkier Posts: 1,107 Crazy Baller
    @CParrish43 sounds like you have some sets behind the 5.3? Thinking you are a GREAT judge of the new engine. What do you think?
    2003 Nautique 196 LE Star Gazer & ZBox - GOODE NANO OneXT 66.75" - Powershell 5 (LFF) - Tournament PB: 2 Balls @ 39.5' OFF (34.2 MPH) on 7/18/2015 at BIG DAWG BROHO!
  • rockdogrockdog Posts: 563 Crazy Baller
    @GOODESkier are you asking a Nautique skier how good a Nautique boat is?
    DanEBroussardkpickettdrewski32
  • bkreisbkreis Posts: 299 Baller
    the 5.3 feels amazing, could be the newer zo with faster response time as well..hard to tell..seems to use less fuel and it's hard to believe, but every the handling gets better. it is a bit more $, small in the big picture, but it's what we're going to get at tournaments
    www.skyfitness.com
  • MISkierMISkier Posts: 2,589 Mega Baller
    @bigtex2011, the 5.3 might be more expensive in the boats this year because they are now all aluminum (as @skierjp mentioned). I believe that, prior to 2014, the 5.3 in the trucks was available in several incarnations - as cast iron or aluminum. Now, I think the aluminum is the only option and might be the cost differential over the legacy 5.3 that was prevalent in the trucks. I would expect the trucks to also show that cost differential this year.
    The worst slalom equipment I own is between my ears.
  • GOODESkierGOODESkier Posts: 1,107 Crazy Baller
    @rockdog yes. Figuring of anyone out there, he might have the most time on the new engine. Better than asking Horton or you?
    2003 Nautique 196 LE Star Gazer & ZBox - GOODE NANO OneXT 66.75" - Powershell 5 (LFF) - Tournament PB: 2 Balls @ 39.5' OFF (34.2 MPH) on 7/18/2015 at BIG DAWG BROHO!
Sign In or Register to comment.