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

5.7 or 6 Liter?

HortonHorton Posts: 27,604 Administrator
edited February 2012 in Boat Talk
If money was not a factor would you order your new slalom boat w/ 5.7 or 6 L? Why? (I know what the jumpers want)
Looking for a healthy snack? Try SuperFat

Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

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

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

Comments

  • 6balls6balls Posts: 5,108 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    6L in the SN for sure to get the lower rpm's and what felt like softer pull.
    Dave Ross--die cancer die
  • animalanimal Posts: 89 Baller
    Isn't the 6 liter a little lighter than the smaller engine?
  • GloersenGloersen Posts: 908 Crazy Baller
    edited February 2012
    Re SN 200; 6L preferred, perhaps the bigger prop, but pull feels better (C1), unquestionably more buoys in my case.

    I heard the Big Dawgs preferred the 5.7/Okee, if true, not sure why; maybe Roger can chime in.

    6L 40 lbs lighter & more fuel efficient; might take a few tanks to make up for the xtra $$$ up front. :)
  • BroussardBroussard Posts: 370 Solid Baller
    5.7, thats what I would be likely to get in a tourney
    Andre Broussard - Louisiana
  • RichardDoaneRichardDoane Posts: 4,117 Mega Baller
    my 2011 MC was a 6.0, and was great for Jump (helped me set a new PB), but really not necessary for slalom since most of the Pacific NW tournament sites are near sea level. The 2012 will have a 5.7 when it gets here in May. 6.0 for sure if you're at any altitude.
    BallOfSpray Pacific Northwest Vice President of Event Management, aka "Zappy"
  • GMCGMC Posts: 99 Baller
    edited February 2012
    We might want to get used to that 6L. 5.7 might not be made forever.
  • Nick SullivanNick Sullivan Posts: 676 Baller
    5.7!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I dig it in my 2012 WTT. Lighter than the 6.0 by about 100lbs if I remember correctly. The only time I can tell is once the boat is up on plain and heading towards the course. 6.0 would go from 15 to 36 mph in a fraction of a heart beat.
  • I would go 6L. Because I still barefoot and the extra 2-4 mph really makes a difference. Talked to Greg over at Nautique said the 6L is hands down more efficient the 400 HP not the 450 HP.
  • RichardDoaneRichardDoane Posts: 4,117 Mega Baller
    my 6.0 MC used way less gas less season than Goodman's 200
    BallOfSpray Pacific Northwest Vice President of Event Management, aka "Zappy"
  • Phil2360Phil2360 Posts: 367 Baller
    Our boat is a 1997 local Aussie built boat from a small manufacturer & running a Carby 6.6 litre (Spelling correct). Probably less than 20 built. Wakes Great at 22 & shorter.

    We average 10.9 Litres (correct spelling again), (2.9 US gal/hour) over the past 15 years.
    Bit of slow stuff in that, but if it's a slalom only 32+ outing we burn about 14 Litres/Hour max.

    Baselines for 34 & 36 are 2890 & 3070 rpm. Think our consumption is so good because the big cubes of the 400 Chev is doing it so easy.

    They guy that built it has done a few 350's & recons they are lucky to get below 15 litres/hour & run about 600 revs higher at 36.

    Bigger is working easier in my books.
  • swc5150swc5150 Posts: 2,236 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    I'd go 6.0 in a 200. The extra top end would be nice, and I wouldn't have to go through the block draining drill every night in the early spring / late fall, with closed cooling system. The heater works better too:-)
    Scott Calderwood
  • Nick SullivanNick Sullivan Posts: 676 Baller
    Would you pay the extra cash for a 6.0 though? Its expensive.
  • swc5150swc5150 Posts: 2,236 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    If money was not an obstacle, I would. Since it is, no.
    Scott Calderwood
  • HortonHorton Posts: 27,604 Administrator
    Here on the west coast most promo boats are 5.7 but last time I was in FL I tried the 6L and thought it felt way better.
    Looking for a healthy snack? Try SuperFat

    Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

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

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

  • Jody_SealJody_Seal Posts: 2,709 Mega Baller
    Of the three boats I ski with all have 6 liters.
    Cory's has a 197 with a six liter, we put a 5.7 cupped prop on it it ski's very nice.
    Regina's 6 liter Malibu TXI skied really nice till it got sent up for the Malibu open and came back with the jump prop.
    And My 200 with a 6 liter is very impressive with the OJ wheel on.

    In Florida you have about a 50% chance of getting a six liter in tournament. I have had 5 six liter's now in my Nautiques with many of them pulling a number of National slalom records in a number of divisions.
    Great modern design and better power to weigh ratio over the old 50's design SBC. I give it another 5 years and the SBC will be like the 5.8 and the modern LS design engines will be the norm. Look for Indmar or Ilmor to offer a Hemi!
    Hobby Boats can be expensive when the hobbyist is limited on their own skill and expertise.


  • EricKelleyEricKelley Posts: 282 Crazy Baller
    edited February 2012
    I had an 05 SN 196 with a 6 liter and it was not as quick to speed as the 5.7 liter. Really the boat with the 5.7 felt better. That was a long time ago, but it felt like most of the torque came in at too high of an rpm. We have used the 5.7 liter on the Big Dawg exclusively, why I don't know for sure, could be just for continuity for the skiers. Most are slalom specialists who don't need the 6 liter for jump.
    When I ordered my 2011 SN, I contemplated it, but I believe it was 6K option, was not worth it to me.
    I did like the closed cooling of the 6 liter, I think all marine engines should have this and it was a smoother, more well balanced engine. The 6 liter is a nice piece, but hard to justify if you are just a slalom skier and not a high end jumper or barefooter. The 343 Cat engine in my 2011 SN 200 feels much stronger than the 2010. I heard rumors that it is actually stronger due changes in the DBW/zero off. I run the 422 prop on a short lake and it works very well.
  • ski4xtcski4xtc Posts: 182 Baller
    Didn't they use the 6.0 CC200's when the Big Dawg was at Laku in Colorado a couple of years ago? I am sure they used at least one. You have to have a 6.0 engine in the 200 at altitude. This is especially true if you have any kind of a short setup.
  • h2oskih2oski Posts: 176 Baller
    Yes, 6.0's for the Big Dawg at Laku.
    Terry Bandel ezfintool.com AWSA Regular Judge & Driver
  • RogerRoger Posts: 1,551 Crazy Baller
    @Gloersen - I can't say if any of the Big Dawg skiers prefer the 6 liter or not. At the finals, we only had one 6 liter 200, so it was ruled out from the start due to the head to head format. Personally, I ski better behind the 6 liter 200 (or at least feel better) for some reason.
    Roger B. Clark - Okeeheelee skier. Senior driver, Senior Judge
  • EricKelleyEricKelley Posts: 282 Crazy Baller
    Thanks for the correction, didn't go to LAKU. I haven't spent enough time behind the 6 liter to have an opinion. The only times I have skiied behind one I was at a different site, different driver. Couldn't really tell much difference in the boat. Greg Davis told me at least last year he or(they Nautique) intended on using the 5.7 at the Big Dawgs.
Sign In or Register to comment.