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

You are welcome! Glad you found it helpful!

Congratulations!! Have fun with it!

Thank you sir!!

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.

@@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.😊

@@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.

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

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

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

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!

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

@@Dr_Flankensteinn Always a good idea!

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

That’s what we just did also

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!

Thanks!

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.

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

Thanks for the kind words Will do my best!

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.

Awesome!! Enjoy that new machine!!!

Hi, usage ?

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!

@@TheShipsLogg l don't know if you follow Bob Broeking or not but he does quite a few KZfaq 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.

@@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.

Thank you!

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.

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.

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.

You are welcome!

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

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.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

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

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

@@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

@@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..

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

@@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

@@CrochetNewsNetwork Exactly!

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.

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.

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

@@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.

@@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 ;)

@@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

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 .

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.

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

@@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.

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..

And that is the typical experience. As you see on the video, the supercharged ski is only more efficient at lower speeds. Who buys a ski to go slow?

Awesome info I am looking at an Explorer pro myself and was wondering whether I should get the 170 or the 230... Trying to get a ride of both motors in an ST3 hull for comparo. ALso wonder how the 170Seadoo feels against the 1.9 Yammy N/A...?

@@jodyhodgson3397 I think you can expect the Yammy 1.9 to have a bit more punch. HP is said to be around 200 which is 30 more than the SeaSoo. Still they are gonna have different feels because of the hulls and ergonomics of the seats and controls

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

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! 🤣

@@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

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

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! 😳😳

And I’m MUCH faster

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.

@@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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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 .

@@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.

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

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

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

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

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

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. 🤣

In most cases, yes. But not always.

@@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

I would definitely agree with that!!

Guess you did not pay much attention to the video.

You are more than welcome to stop watching.

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

@@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.

@@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.

@@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

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

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

While nautical miles is the more accepted method for vessels on the water, most skis do not measure distance in nautical miles or speed in knots.

That depends. If your vessel is using GPS for speed then mpg is definitely affected by current.