Carburated VS Fuel Injection
Printed From: CorrectCraftFan.com
Category: General Correct Craft Discussion
Forum Name: General Discussion
Forum Discription: Anything Correct Craft
URL: http://www.CorrectCraftFan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=38104
Printed Date: May-02-2024 at 8:18pm
Topic: Carburated VS Fuel Injection
Posted By: Captain Nick
Subject: Carburated VS Fuel Injection
Date Posted: February-13-2016 at 10:06pm
|
Which do you prefer between Carburated vs Fuel Injection for you Correct Craft? The pros and cons of both? What year did Correct Craft use fuel injection in there boats? ------------- Live life to the fullest! |
Replies:
Posted By: GMacLaren
Date Posted: February-14-2016 at 12:24am
|
FWIW --- I'd go with fuel injection. Benefits: 1. better starting 2. better economy 3. better performance 4. less emissions Negatives: 1. more expensive up-front cost. 2. more complex to repair with the expense that goes with it. New FI engines are very reliable. However it's hard to beat the simplicity of a carb -- think of how many FI engines are running around -- millions and millions of trouble free operating hours. My current, and past three inboards have been carbureted, but I'd go with fuel injection if I had the choice. ------------- -=Grant MacLaren=- Retired Expert http://www.grantmaclaren.com/72skier" rel="nofollow - http://www.grantmaclaren.com/72skier |
Posted By: Orlando76
Date Posted: February-14-2016 at 7:09am
|
Carb is my preference but I wouldn't turn down a GT40. On an outboard EFI is the only way to go IMO. 4160 are practically a dime a dozen, seems like we go average of 7 years without problems. I spend many hours on a gt40 and a X343 as well as my carb'd motors, I don't see any difference in efficiency nor smoothness between the motors. Granted the Excal has more power. A common excuse people give for wanting EFI is bc they want ease of starting for wifey. Maybe it's bc we're in warm Florida or my carbs are a bit rich but my wife has no trouble on cold starts. Plus if you're a gear head, try cranking significant more power and performance mods with EFI. ------------- Please support The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation 1976 Ski Nautique 351 Escort 1993 Ski Nautique purple and black 351 HO PCM |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: February-14-2016 at 7:29am
 Yes, it seems there are some who feel EFI's will start better but I do wonder if they, and or their mechanic are carb challenged? I have never had any starting issues with my carb'd engines even with 20 year old point sets and one with side draft's that many feel are problematic.  Many may feel carbs are "old school" but so am I!!  ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Orlando76 wrote:Posted By: backfoot100
Date Posted: February-14-2016 at 8:48am
|
Carb all day long. I know some will call foul but to me EFI is a band aid for the lazy or mechanically challenged. How many times have you heard this when people are talking about a carb: They're inefficient, messy, leak, clog or gum up, terrible performance, smoke bad, stumble, start like crap hot and start even worse when cold. These are the same people who probably say this about EFI: It's more efficient, better starting, reliable and much better performance and always a big emphasis on what awesome throttle response it has. Yet in the same breath, these same people will say something like: Carbs are so easy and simple. So when I question them about the carb in question they have no idea how much vacuum their engine is pulling, what jets are in the carb, what power valve they have or when the secondaries open. So the million dollar question is this: If carbs are so damn easy and simple, why the f**k haven't you tuned it then?????? Carbs are every bit as good or better than EFI if you take the time to tune it. The ONLY advantage that EFI does have is tuning itself on the fly real time. ------------- When people run down to the lake to see what's making that noise, you've succeeded. Eddie |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: February-14-2016 at 9:22am
Grand, Did you have the opportunity to go back to school? The "new school" that is! Eddie expounded on the subject more than I did but I feel he did say it all. I also feel he's certainly a better at the subject than I am. I have the feeling this thread will continue on with lots more input. Keep the input coming.  ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: Morfoot
Date Posted: February-14-2016 at 11:14am
|
I've owned a Correct Craft for 16 years and have driven many years and models since I got involved with this group of Ski Bums. I have never had an issue with a carburetor in those 16 years. I've rebuilt the one in the 88' just because I figured the needles and diaphragms needed replacing after 20 years. (it was running fine when I took the carb apart) They have been nothing but trouble free in both boats that I have. Having said that the only thing I do like about FI is the immediate engine response to throttle movement. 99% of the time it catches me off guard when I drive one. Eddie nailed it above but yet I think having a carburated engine in these old boats just adds to the uniqueness and funability in them. A little preventative maintenance along the way and you shouldn't ever have too many issues with em'. It's motorhead stuff and for many of us its the tinkering/fixing part (if needed) that brings us joy. ------------- "Morfoot; He can ski. He can wakeboard.He can cook chicken.He can create his own self-named beverage, & can also apparently fly. A man of many talents."72 Mustang "Kermit",88 SN Miss Scarlett, 99 SN "Sherman" |
Posted By: DayTony
Date Posted: February-14-2016 at 11:58am
|
I'm with the carburetor crowd, for three main reasons. Upgradeability reliability Diagnostics Even though you can re-map an ECM, it better be getting done real time by the guy that has your engine sitting on his dyno. if power is your main concern your better off throwing out the factory stuff and going with stand alone system running wide band O2. Engine does not start. on a carb its one of a very few things that could be wrong and with a correctly stocked onboard toolbox you could be on your way sooner than you think. EFI good luck if your not 100% familiar with your system and have a multimeter onboard(should always carry one anyways) all too many times I have seen a bad ground be the culprit of a do not start situation, that kind of issue can cause multiple things in an efi to send false readings. which can drive a shadetree mechanic bonkers. That being said EFI does have its perks for the guy who doesnt work on his own boat and its great for the mechanics that that guy brings them to. If it is in a saltwater environment I side with carb 100% ------------- 1988 Barefoot nautique-454 |
Posted By: Gary S
Date Posted: February-14-2016 at 12:49pm
|
You guys are too funny, I suppose you all grow your own hay for your everyday drivers ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS 95 Nautique Super Sport |
Posted By: GMacLaren
Date Posted: February-14-2016 at 1:02pm
| It would have run better with fuel injection, but I was trying to keep it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZHv_Re8wIY" rel="nofollow - |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: February-14-2016 at 1:56pm
Gary, Seriously, what does growing hay have to do with the pros and cons of fuel systems? Are you suggesting that since the carb is old tech that engines should be retrofitted with injection? BTW, how does an internal combustion engine run on hay? ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: Gary S
Date Posted: February-14-2016 at 3:00pm
|
Merely that whenever something new comes along,someone always says it's no good. It was said with the car vs horse, if man were meant to fly, the internet will never catch on,Japanese cars are junk,etc. I have both and both work as intended. If I was buying new and had a choice FI would be the way I'd go. I happen to think PCM has remarkable engines with the horsepower,economy,reliability combined with a warranty that a carbureted engine cannot match. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS 95 Nautique Super Sport |
Posted By: 81nautique
Date Posted: February-14-2016 at 3:34pm
| Hot rods loud, ski boats quiet... Old boats carb'd, new boats FI |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: February-14-2016 at 3:48pm
Alan, This one is old, it's a hot rod and a skier so should it be loud or quiet?  ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: john b
Date Posted: February-14-2016 at 5:08pm
|
I have never driven a FI boat. Are there a lot boat owners who replace a carb with FI or vice versa? Unless there is an issue with reliability or performance with a specific make and model I can't imagine why anyone would deviate from the manufacturers design unless you are racing your boat. In that case I can think of better boats than these inboards to accomplish the task. There is not a lot of performance to be gained from an older NA engine by just changing to FI.. We do a lot of tweaking in my car club and it requires FI at that level, but these are forced induction engines that run 24-38 psig boost, were designed with FI, have data logging capability, and produce up to 7hp per cu in. Many have stand alone systems. It is the last thing I would want to power my ski boat. Tim and Joe have shown that there is plenty of performance in the carbed engines and to date I havent seen anything equal to their performance in a ski boat converted to FI. ------------- 1970 Mustang "Theseus' paradox" If everyone else is doing it, you're too late! |
Posted By: Donald80SN
Date Posted: February-14-2016 at 5:21pm
|
You asked when Correct Craft changed over to FI. It was in the early 90's and it was with the throttle Body injection and the Pro-Tec Ignition. With the Pro-Tec, in most cases you were likely better off to have the old carb set up and that is the cure for the old Pro-Tec problems is to go back to a Carb and a DUI ignition. However, new technology can be problematic at the start and things seemed to work out nice after the Pro-Tec and the throttle Body went away for more of a direct injection system. With the help of TimB. and Joe NY, my carbed 80 ran great, but I do love my 2002, FI GT40 and so does my wife. She just pushes the start button and you are ready to go with a warm engine, to a point. I do fear the day I need to trouble shoot the GT 40, with the dual fuel pumps that can be problematic and all of the relays and sensors and such. You can not just pour a little gas in the carb to eliminate the am I getting fuel part of the trouble shoot with a fuel rail. I just could not pass up the opportunity to own a 2002 Master's pickup boat. JMO, Donald ------------- 1980 Ski Nautique SOLD Back to Cypress Gardens 2002 Sport Nautique, GT-40, FCT2, Cover Sports, Tower Bimini, Inc., Wet Sounds Audio System, Star Gazer Wake Edition S. 1968 Ski Nautique, Project. |
Posted By: 63 Skier
Date Posted: February-14-2016 at 6:28pm
|
I'm in the "both" school of thought. I like the carbs in my old CC and my jet boats. I like the injection in my '98 GT-40. All of them run very well. ------------- '63 American Skier - '98 Sport Nautique |
Posted By: DayTony
Date Posted: February-14-2016 at 7:31pm
|
What it all comes down to is personal preference and experience. Same as it goes for cars and trucks. The truth of it all is under the right light, EVERY car, truck or boat is a piece of junk. some are just more glorified than others. They are ALL going to have issues, they are ALL going to give you grief at some point during its life, and they are ALL going to require maintenance. Someone's always going to know someone else who had a horrible issue and blamed it on EFI and equally, someone else is always going to know another person who had a nightmare of a boat that happened to have a carb and they blamed it solely on that. in a perfect world those two people would never meet and never have this conversation. But this is the internet. And here we are haha. Proceed with can of worms  ------------- 1988 Barefoot nautique-454 |
Posted By: ScottZ
Date Posted: February-14-2016 at 10:02pm
|
I have 3 carb Ski Nautiques, a GT40 Sport Nautique, and an efi outboard. I like them both.......old school and new school. I am not interested in updating old fuel systems to new. I like to keep as close to original as I can. If I do update something it is something that can be easily changed back to original and is not obvious (points to electronic ignition, for example). I do need more education on tuning carbs. Slowly but surely I will get there. ------------- Scott Zuelzke Lake Mitchell , AL 1984 Ski Nautique 1972 Skier |
Posted By: Captain Nick
Date Posted: February-14-2016 at 10:46pm
|
I myself like them for different reasons. The carbureted have a better rumbling sound then the fuel injection. For instance my next door neighbor's boat is a Mustang 17. That boat sounds like a Scarab. Just an awesome sound to it. The fuel injection is nice because if you happen to use the boat all the time. For instance watersports or long boat rides. The fuel is a bit more of a sipper. What's been mentioned before keep the boat looking as stock as possible. I think it'll come down to the looks and ride of the boat more so then carb vs fuel injection. Thank you all for your input. ------------- Live life to the fullest! |
Posted By: aupatking
Date Posted: February-15-2016 at 1:23am
|
I don't know carbs. Pretty much it. I'm good with Legos, is my basic description of my mechanic skills. I'm real good at pulling off injectors and putting new ones on. Rich versus lean? I hope to find a wife that's both. Just don't tell my wife that joke. ------------- 02 SN 196 TSC2 ZO 01 SN 196 TSC1 98 SN 196 TSC1 97 SN 196 TSC1 93 SN 196 NWZ |
Posted By: Hussler
Date Posted: February-15-2016 at 1:29am
I lol'd |
Posted By: john b
Date Posted: February-15-2016 at 2:43am
|
Made my day aupatking! ------------- 1970 Mustang "Theseus' paradox" If everyone else is doing it, you're too late! |
Posted By: quinner
Date Posted: February-15-2016 at 10:05am
|
What surprised me the most moving from a carb to EFI in a CC was the increased fuel efficiency. It was a noticeable difference and that was even going to a bigger boat with more HP. Reliability I have experienced with EFI has been very good, put about 500 hrs on a GT-40 and never changed a single component including ignition/tune-up. Have about 600 hrs on the Excal and have only replaced the LP fuel pump. Gone thru 3 caps and 1 set of plugs and a rotor. For a regular workhorse ski machine EFI is tough to beat!! ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1143" rel="nofollow - Mi Bowt |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: February-15-2016 at 10:17am
|
All other things being equal modern computer controlled fuel Injected engines last longer, get better fuel economy, and have better performance between idle and wot. How much longer and how much better depends on a lot of factors, but don’t kid yourself into thinking a carb is better in any way other than cost. That being said they are more than good enough for day to day ski boat use and my daily driver summer vehicle is carbed and also serves me nicely through 3 seasons. But I do appreciate the crap out of my fuel injected commuter in the winter. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: February-15-2016 at 10:37am
Nick, The rumbling is all in the exhaust system and not the fuel system. You may have noticed that newer injected boats are quieter but that's because the exhausts have some form of mufflers. ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: 63 Skier
Date Posted: February-15-2016 at 10:38am
|
Glad you guys chimed in on efficiency, I meant to comment on it. I am fine with whatever anyone likes, and as I said I like both carbs and efi depending on the application, but I don't buy claims that carbs are as efficient as efi. Like Eddie said above, efi tunes "on the fly" for optimum fuel delivery. With a carb I'm having someone drive while I look at the carb to see what kind of rpm/speed I can run without getting into the secondaries so I know what the efficient speed to run at is. And if you run a 2 bbl carb set up for efficiency, you can't get the power you want. Efi is a great way to maximize power and efficiency. ------------- '63 American Skier - '98 Sport Nautique |
Posted By: backfoot100
Date Posted: February-15-2016 at 11:21am
LOL... More Horsepower??? Really???? HP numbers are so inflated it's not even funny. Not saying that old numbers aren't either but I've driven new high tech 400+HP cars as well as 350+HP classic muscle cars. There is no way that you can convince me that new 420HP Mustang or 375HP Ram is truly the rated HP. Watch vids of a 340 Six-pack Challenger whipping the s**t out of a new 425HP SRT8 not once, but six different times and everyone immediately screams the 340 was modded and the SRT8 driver didn't know what he was doing. How can new technology get toasted so bad???? Economy? Reliability? Warranty? Carbed engines never got 25MPG, ran for decades untouched or were warrantied???? Go to any enthusiasts forum you want, doesn't matter what ones, I'll wait...... Still waiting..... OK, there you go. Look at the predominant discussions about guys wanting to mod their brand new rides to add more HP (I defer to the above HP response that 425HP isn't enough???), cold air intakes, dual exhaust, headers, bigger tires, Blah, Blah, Blah......You get the idea. The one and ONLY thing they're ever concerned about is if it will void their precious warranty. Science has proven that A/F ratios of 16 or 17/1 provide the best economy however it gets dangerously close to being way too lean. On the other end of the spectrum, science has also proven that the most power is generated with A/F ratios in the 12 or 13/1 range. Manufacturers have settled on splitting the difference at 14.7/1. so they don't have these engines coming back on warranty. Contrary to popular opinion, these new EFI engines are still nowhere near perfect. They can be more economical or provide more power but they can't do both. Sounds like a carb doesn't it? C'mon Gary, you're retired now and have lots of time on your hands. Go tune your carb for more power or more economy or even split the difference but please go tune your carb and stop this old school denial stuff. ------------- When people run down to the lake to see what's making that noise, you've succeeded. Eddie |
Posted By: Riley
Date Posted: February-15-2016 at 11:32am
| I bought a new boat in 2003 and opted for the carb engine. I could have had the top of line efi for $1800 upcharge, but actually wouldn't have taken it for free. No regrets, the boat has always run well. And I don't know how to tune a carb like Eddie suggests. I've never understood the hard start argument. What ski boat owner has trouble starting their carb engine? And I always let the boat get up to normal temp before going faster than an idle, so efi compensating for cold running does not matter to me one bit. That said, if I was buying a new boat now, I would accept efi as that is all you can get now due in part to federal clean air regulations. |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: February-15-2016 at 11:36am
|
Gary, How many years "into the future" did it take you to dump your POTS? Wait, you still have it for the Uverse! (at least the drop!!) ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: halfnelly
Date Posted: February-15-2016 at 1:38pm
I would respectfully disagree. The horsepower ratings are more accurate today than the old days. For example, the new 5.0 Mustangs you mention regularly put down 380+hp on a chassis dyno, which is easily over 420hp at the crank. Conversely. most performance motors were usually underrated in the old days for insurance reasons. There have been countless engine builds using factory parts to duplicate the original specs that show how grossly underrated they were back then. I'm not surprised a 340 Six Pack Challenger would beat a new 425hp SRT-8. A new Challenger/Charger weighs as much as an F-150, and that "275hp" 340 probably makes somewhere closer to 350hp with a decent tune up. Power to weight ratio advantage goes to the first gen.
How many how many blown, carbureted 426 Hemis do you see that can make 707hp with turn-key reliability, pass an emissions test, idle smoothly, still make decent vacuum, and get 20+ mpg on the highway like a Hellcat? None, because EFI and modern technology make that possible. True, carbs usually make better power numbers in dyno tests, but EFI wins hands-down in enabling efficiency AND power production. It really just comes down to how much you're willing to deal with as far as tuning goes. My boat has a Holley on it and I'm perfectly fine with it here in FL. But for someone who isn't as mechanically inclined, skis in an area that has a wide variation in temperature or altitudes, EFI has an advantage. |
Posted By: Gary S
Date Posted: February-15-2016 at 1:42pm
|
Pete I use my cell for everything. Turned off my land line when I left, uverse distance limitations were 3K feet,up north we are 5K. Down here since we are only here for 5 months didn't want to pay for the other 7. If we get low we just buy extra data for the cells. As to FI I'm not advocating to take a carb engine and convert it or to buy a FI engine and put a carb on it. But I am not afraid of change and FI is here to stay. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1711&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970" rel="nofollow - 69 Mustang HM SS 95 Nautique Super Sport |
Posted By: john b
Date Posted: February-15-2016 at 3:21pm
|
EFI/DI always performs better given everything else is the same. It seems many attempt to return to a golden age of muscle cars that was never a reality as far as performance is concerned. 1970 HEMI 'CUDA ENGINE / 425 HORSEPOWER 426 HEMI 2x4 BARREL AS TESTED / 4 SPEED TRANSMISSION AND 3.54 REAR PERFORMANCE / 13.10 @ 107 DRAG TEST PUBLISHED / CAR CRAFT 11/69 2015 Mustang Engine: 5.0 liter/ 3.7 liter/ 2.3 liter Horsepower: 435/ 300/ 300 Torque: 400 lb-ft. 0-60 mph: 4.5 seconds 1/4 mile: 12.9 seconds @ 112 mph EPA: 15 mpg city/ 25 mpg highway Energy Impact: 17.3 barrels of oil/yr CO2 Emissions: 7.8 tons/yr There are other factors that influence the result here, the biggest being tires, but it still stands that the 2015 Mustang (standard, not a Shelby) beats the 426 hemi Cuda. The Hellcat is only good at melting tires without upgrades. Here ------------- 1970 Mustang "Theseus' paradox" If everyone else is doing it, you're too late! |
Posted By: Captain Nick
Date Posted: February-15-2016 at 11:24pm
|
I'm looking more towards a 90 to 93 Ski Nautique. What were the engines like in those? Are parts for the engine easy to find? Again I have to wait for my boat to get sold. Also need a tow vehicle and boat lift as well. ------------- Live life to the fullest! |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: February-15-2016 at 11:32pm
| No fuel injection until '94. Multiport EFI debuted in '95. |
Posted By: GlassSeeker
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 5:19am
|
Carbs every once in while, some more than others, need you to put the control in nuetral and open the throttle wide open or pump it or some such fiddling to start the boat...fuel injection you just turn the key to start. ------------- This is the life |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 5:49am
Andy, In all honesty, If this is a problem with your carb'd boat or any others starting, please read Eddies (backfoot) post. It's the fifth into the thread. I feel a carb rebuild and tuning is needed. You're giving the carb'd engine a bad reputation! If the "fiddling" you mention is to get the engine to crank, then cable adjustment is needed to close the NSS (neutral safety switch) in neutral. Both carb'd and FI'd engines have NSS's. ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: Orlando76
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 6:47am
------------- Please support The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation 1976 Ski Nautique 351 Escort 1993 Ski Nautique purple and black 351 HO PCM |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 9:04am
| Protec came out in '91... Very few boats built 91-93 without it. |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 9:23am
|
Nick, I'd like to back up what Todd and Tim have said about the Protec. If you really want a 90 to 93 CC and it still has the Protec, do plan on a conversion. It's not too hard if you are mechanically inclined. There are several members here who have done it and there's even a couple threads on it. Why are you looking at those years? Are you mechanically inclined? Unless you have lots of extra $$$, (and time) you do not want Watercraft to do it. Sorry John and Ryan! ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 10:21am
| The NWZ was cc's first "great" slalom boat... Not quite on par with the tsc hulls but still very good. It's also a very spacious boat as that is when they went to the 19'6"/91" hull. 90-93 are the best looking (IMHO) with the classic bold stripe gel scheme. The NWZ hull in general is a pretty good value, but the 90-92 boats (pre-composite) often get overlooked and bargains certainly exist on those years... Just gotta do your due diligence as with all wood structure cc's that preceded them. |
Posted By: 63 Skier
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 10:59am
|
The way prices have dropped on those year boats, I'd have a hard time justifying not going with a '93, think if you're patient you can find one in a similar range to the '90-'92. If you plan to keep a boat long term it's a great comfort to have a no-wood 20 plus year old boat. If you see a non-runner, don't discard it out of hand, if it's otherwise OK but the Protec crapped out you can get quite a discount for a non running boat with a pretty inexpensive fix. Of course always a risk buying something that doesn't run ...... ------------- '63 American Skier - '98 Sport Nautique |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 11:09am
Your line thinking (while somewhat flawed, imho) seems to be common, and is the exact reason why the 90-92 boats are such great values. 
|
Posted By: Hollywood
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 11:16am
| damn whoever started this thread |
Posted By: 63 Skier
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 11:21am
Can't remember, what was the original subject? ------------- '63 American Skier - '98 Sport Nautique |
Posted By: 63 Skier
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 11:26am
Flawed as in, find a '90-'92 with stringers in good shape and if you take care of it you'll never have a problem? I get it, but my take is that stringer inspection is not always a science. I'd buy an older boat with wood stringers in a heartbeat if it was what I was looking for, but when you get that close to a year with no wood just seems like a good choice. I meant to mention that I 2nd your comments on the NWZ, every time I'm in one I look around at it and think what a terrific boat they are. ------------- '63 American Skier - '98 Sport Nautique |
Posted By: Riley
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 11:32am
| NWZ are nice boats, but that sloped transom seems pretty impractical. Form over function? I can see paying more money for a composite as if you find out a year or two later that you've got a rot problem in your non composite boat, there goes $3-4k in value down the tubes. If I were buying a 15-20 year old boat, I'd only go for efi if it was one that had a good track record for dependability. Main characteristic I would look for is overall condition of the boat and not fuel system. |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 11:39am
|
Stringer inspection is also not brain surgery. If wood stringers were such a death sentence then no one would ever buy a 2001 or a Barefoot Nautique, let alone a classic from the 60's or 70's. My point is that stringer jobs on wood structure boats are not a foregone conclusion- they can last indefinitely if properly cared for. On cradled boats (80+ for the SN), they can last a loooong time without major issues even WITH pervasive rot. While deals do exist, 93 SN's, generally speaking, command a premium over 90-92's because of the composite stringers. That premium may be worth it to some buyers for the peace of mind, whether the perceived advantage is real or not. I contend that a reasonably well taken care of wood stringered boat (as verified by a simple inspection at purchase) is unlikely to cause any issues for many, many years if it's continued to be taken care of.... And certain savvy buyers may be better off taking the money they save and put it into the gas tank (or Protec replacement). |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 11:47am
| Bruce, the angled transom may have been done for looks, but it doesn't give up anything in terms of practicality, imho... No wasted space under that slope, the fuel tank goes in the same place it always does. The distance to the cockpit is the same, but less of a rear deck to step over. No lifting rings, vents or gas caps preventing you from sitting down... Up until they added an upholstered sunpad/trunk in '02, it seems to have been as practical as anything in practice. Looks are subjective though! Personally I like it, certainly more attractive than the bubble butt TSC1. |
Posted By: Riley
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 11:52am
| I've grown to like them all, bubble butt included, but that NWZ is a stretch for me. Good for the hamstrings I guess. No doubt a very well maintained non composite NWZ is a very good value. |
Posted By: JPASS
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 12:08pm
|
We loved the slant back look of our '92. It made a comfortable back rest when chilling on the platform relaxing. ------------- '92 Correctcraft Ski Nautique |
Posted By: Orlando76
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 12:10pm
Well said. The slope transom is awesome to me. My '93 was ordered without a back seat making it a simple short swing with a leg to get in and out. On the 2000 and 2007 I ski it feels like I'm leaping the Mississippi River to get to the platform (at least the 07 has a practical trunk). I prefer the look of the slant back over the bubble butt and I feel 28' off drills are better on my NWZ over the TSC3. Sure am glad I chose the carb'd NWZ over the TSC1's I was looking at for nearly the same $$, mine's a keeper. ------------- Please support The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation 1976 Ski Nautique 351 Escort 1993 Ski Nautique purple and black 351 HO PCM |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 1:30pm
Step over distance is the same Bruce, LOL. Just less transom there to step over. If making a step from the platform to the rear seat, the distance is the same NWZ/tsc1/tsc2(3). NWZ gives you step plates at platform and gunnel level though. You have the option to step on the sun pad with the tsc2/3, which is also a nicer place to sit- but I don't know many people who step on their vinyl as a regular practice so the hamstring workout would be the same if stepping over. The earlier boats (2001, bfn) with square transoms were the same. Arguably a better place to sit if you didn't mind sitting on gas caps, lifting rings and scoops or vents. More gel to step on if you like, same hamstring workout if you don't. |
Posted By: john b
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 1:35pm
|
The slope transom boats are distinctive and attractive. Sounds like I can add practical although I've never been in one. ------------- 1970 Mustang "Theseus' paradox" If everyone else is doing it, you're too late! |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 1:46pm
| I'm not sure I would call them any more practical... But I wouldn't call them impractical either. Purely a style choice. |
Posted By: Hollywood
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 1:52pm
| The slant isn't as bad of a step as you might think. It might even be easier than the bubble butt... Where's M3Fan? |
Posted By: TRBenj
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 1:54pm
| ^^^closet NWZ fan^^^ |
Posted By: Hollywood
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 1:59pm
| I wrestled with the thought of posting that all morning. |
Posted By: lcgordon
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 2:47pm
| This has gone a long way from carb vs FI |
Posted By: Hollywood
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 2:55pm
| This is CCF |
Posted By: tryathlete
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 3:15pm
Where the moderators are the perpetrators! |
Posted By: quinner
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 3:18pm
My only complaint was the slant back makes it almost impossible to sit while putting your ski or board on or have a kid sit while you are helping them get in the bindings. Also made it a bit of a reach to assist from the boat. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1143" rel="nofollow - Mi Bowt |
Posted By: Hussler
Date Posted: February-16-2016 at 9:48pm
They just use carbs in dynos because of the lack of tuning they need to get the engine going. A lot of places will have a selection of 2 or 3 really nice carbs that they use on all their engines to keep quality and dyno numbers consistent |
Posted By: Captain Nick
Date Posted: February-17-2016 at 12:19am
Pete, I really like the styling of the 90 to 93's quite a bit. The interior layout especially the observers seat which folds up and can put ski's and rope underneath the bow area. The angled transom gives it that distinctive look to it. Plus the straight windshield. The graphics as well. From what I've heard they make for awesome boats to slalom ski behind. I would like to do wakeboarding as well. I would like to be more mechanically incline. I would need to ask for help. I'm willing to learn how to work on an inboard. ------------- Live life to the fullest! |
Posted By: DayTony
Date Posted: February-17-2016 at 2:40am
|
We would almost always used the customers Carb when running their engine on the dyno.It allowed us to properly tune it and eliminate any issues of a customer trying to tune their own stuff. (TIP: always clean a brand new carb before bolting it up) Thats how we keep things consistent. nothing worse than a loose chip or something from the factory finding its way inside the metering blocks. once we are done we just remove the carb and box it back up and give it to them ready to bolt back up and run. it eliminates any misunderstanding on the customers end and headaches on our end. The only thing we use to use that was our own were the headers, (unless requested by customer or if it was a strange engine we didnt have headers for) Coil/ignition, wires, thermostat housing, and sometimes flywheel. We started using our own ignition components after watching a brand new set of accell 8.5 wires leaking. could literally see it happening. ------------- 1988 Barefoot nautique-454 |
Posted By: terminaldegree
Date Posted: February-21-2016 at 3:42am
|
The slant back is surely sexy (see my avatar), though it doesn't add anything in the practicality department... Comparatively, it's the only aesthetic aspect of the subsequent '97-99 generation that I don't like (I assume the "bubble back" is more useful, though). ------------- 1996 Sport Nautique GT40/Acme 422 |
Posted By: 8122pbrainard
Date Posted: February-21-2016 at 5:50am
This is even sexier!!  ------------- /diaries/details.asp?ID=1622" rel="nofollow - 54 Atom /diaries/details.asp?ID=2179" rel="nofollow - 77 Tique 64 X55 Dunphy Keep it original, Pete < |
Posted By: davidg
Date Posted: February-22-2016 at 1:44am
|
I always had mixed emotions about the slant back on the NWZ boats. But, I watched this video on youtube (link below....not sure how to convert to youtube), In the the first 10 seconds of the video, as the 90 takes off, the back looks like poetry in motion and it just seems to work aesthetically. Maybe the mixed emotions come from looking at the boat on a trailer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar6dvDXra-c |