Heard a rumor that 2014 is the last year of the 5.7

[skiray]

I'm sure one of you know the scoop. Sounds like we can look forward to closed loop cooling...

[allycat]

bugger spose it was good while it lasted

[Nick Sullivan]

I sure hope this isn't true. I just don't like the idea of adding several thousand more to the cost of these boats.

[Inboardfix]

There is a difference between when GM stops production and the last year the 5.7 will be available in an inboard boat. GT40 production ceased in '98 but were available until mid '02.

 

According to GM officials at one of largest boat shows in the country, the 5.7 will stop being produced after the 2014 model year. Since there is a proven, albeit more expensive, alternative to the 5.7 I don't know whether or not an inboard manufacturer will buy up a warehouse full of 5.7s to keep them available for years after production has stopped like PCM did with the 5.8.

 

Also, it is possible GM will change their mind. Doubt it but it is possible.

[jackski]

You can have open loop cooling on any size motor. The closed loop cooling is usually done for either salt water or to aid in control of emissions equipment.

[kmenard]

Wow, no more 350? I hadn't heard that. :(

[ForrestGump]

Rumor has it that there are some marinized Ford Coyote 5.0s running around as a test.

[skier2788]

Gm hasnt used the 5.7 for a very long time. Wouldnt be surprised if boat manufacturers didnt drop to the 5.3 like all the gm's did. Same block as the 5.7 just different bore but Higher compression same power output. Been driving gmc trucks for a lot of years never liked the 6.0 in a truck. Love it in a boat. I bet most wouldnt notice the difference bewtween a 5.3 and a 5.7

[GregDavis]

5.3 wouldn't be my preference. One thing I liked about the 351 Ford, it had a longer stroke than the 350 Chevy. i.e. more torque. A 5.3 might put out same HP, but at a higher RPM. OK to decrease Cubic In. on cars, but not boats. Remember the Toyota ski boat, Their V8 had HP, but lacked torque. Just didn't work.

[kmenard]

Interesting...the only thing I don't like about the 6.0 is the gas mileage...love it to tow with. The 5.3 does good, but not great.

[A_B]

I have the 6.2 in my Yukon, it is a beast. I thought that was the 350 block. What's the difference between the 6.0?

[jdarwin]

The difference between the 6.0 and 6.2 is the cam is slightly bigger from the factory, the heads flow way more, the valves are 2.16 intake and 1.59 exaust and the runners are 260 cc intakes and 90 cc exaust and the intake manifold is different, and the intake rocker arms are offset to the side, the bore of the motor is bigger and the compression ratio is 10.5 to 1, and it has a 58X reluctor wheel vs. the 6.0s 24X reluctor wheel. I had a 6.0 in a Trailblazer SS that was a rocket due to the 4 speed and 4.10 rear end. My Denali has a 6 speed and 3.92 rear and is not near as quick but it is a beast when towing.

[E_T]

I know MasterCraft has a warehouse full of 350's somewhere... If you dont like what the options are just pull it and stroke it and you will have more torque

[Texas6]

@jdarwin I completely agree that the rear end on the Denali makes it a stellar tow vehicle. I will add that GM did a good job with the shift points in tow mode. 120k miles and still running strong on my Denali

[Waternut]

The 350 and 351 are very old technology. Granted they are proven and work well but they are definitely dinosaurs that have had slight adjustments to keep up with the times. With the relentless war on emissions and noise, I don't think we're that far from supercharged V6's. I would certainly miss the throaty sound of a big V8 but I seriously doubt that anyone would notice a difference in performance when propped correctly. Might notice a slight decrease in fuel consumption and weigh less actually...

 

Heck, the newer boats don't really even have the throaty V8 sound anymore.

[Jody_Seal]

60 year old technology! Bound to end some time!

[kmenard]

That 6.2 is amazing...decent fuel mileage and big numbers.

[DW]

Actually, today any Internal Combustion engine can be considered "old technology" or a dinosaur. The reality is most all of them have pistons, rods, crankshafts, camshafts and then some form of electronic fuel injection and an ignition system and in reality a boosted engine has been on this planet for several decades. The basic Otto cycle and the reciprocating components have been around for more than a century! Sure, the small block has been around since the mid 50's and the 5.7 under discussion is not one of the newer LS series.

[Dacon62]

Direct injected, high compression, aluminum block/heads, VVT, AFM, it's in cars now am looking forward to all this stuff being mainstream in boats. Think the 5.3 and the 6.2 will be the weapons of choice.

[kmenard]

It is all excellent technology...but also adds to the cost.

[Waternut]

@DW I agree that the internal combustion engine is old technology. However, calling a newer engine a dinosaur that has high compression, 4-5 valves per cylinder, and variable valve timing is like calling mud and straw composite the same technology as prepreg carbon fiber.

 

I do enjoy that parts are fairly easy to find for these old V8's but during my rebuild this winter, I found that a marinized reverse drive 351w has very few parts standard to the automotive 351's so swapping to a newer engine that isn't as popular probably wouldn't change the price that much.

[Jody_Seal]

With the new Technology comes new higher pricing! Are $100K tournament boats are right around the corner? The MSRP on my 13 with the 450hp option and the boat loaded up with the stereo extras and some bling on a bling tandem went better than $70K, AGAIN That is MSRP!

[Jody_Seal]

With the new Technology comes new higher pricing! Are $100K tournament boats are right around the corner? The MSRP on my 13 with the 450hp option and the boat loaded up with the stereo extras and some bling on a bling tandem went better than $70K, AGAIN That is MSRP!

[MattP]

I hope not if our sport is "dying" that's one quick way to kill it off completely

[MattP]

I hope not if our sport is "dying" that's one quick way to kill it off completely

[estrom]

agree with @MattP

 

[estrom]

agree with @MattP

 

[DW]

@waternut: trust me, I certainly love advancing technology, but there is a limit in terms of what the application needs and the cost to implement advanced technology. BTW, I had the pleasure of developing engines that were turbocharged, 4 & 5 valve VVT, ceramic coatings, DI in 1978. Automobiles are actually very late adopters of advanced powertrain technologies.

 

I would say the reverse rotation 351W really is a specialty engine rather than a base engine with a simple marinization. The now market dominant SBC is dirt cheap and plentiful not only for OEM replacement parts but also aftermarket parts (which tend to be offered at cheaper proces). Any shift away from the SBC will significantly increase the MSRP of a tourney ski boat.

[DW]

@waternut: trust me, I certainly love advancing technology, but there is a limit in terms of what the application needs and the cost to implement advanced technology. BTW, I had the pleasure of developing engines that were turbocharged, 4 & 5 valve VVT, ceramic coatings, DI in 1978. Automobiles are actually very late adopters of advanced powertrain technologies.

 

I would say the reverse rotation 351W really is a specialty engine rather than a base engine with a simple marinization. The now market dominant SBC is dirt cheap and plentiful not only for OEM replacement parts but also aftermarket parts (which tend to be offered at cheaper proces). Any shift away from the SBC will significantly increase the MSRP of a tourney ski boat.

[BraceMaker]

I also agree - but I think that it would open the market again to a true tournament style boat. It is as if the boats are so loaded with features that they moved away from ski boats, which of course brings back the "ski-boat" segment.

[BraceMaker]

I also agree - but I think that it would open the market again to a true tournament style boat. It is as if the boats are so loaded with features that they moved away from ski boats, which of course brings back the "ski-boat" segment.

[Waternut]

@Bracemaker I'm totally with you. I would love to see the true ski boat back in the market instead of a very capable but luxurious family boat for considerably more money. Unfortunately, I don't see that ever happening. About the only way that will happen in my eyes is if one of us starts a small company in our homes making specialized boats.

[Waternut]

@Bracemaker I'm totally with you. I would love to see the true ski boat back in the market instead of a very capable but luxurious family boat for considerably more money. Unfortunately, I don't see that ever happening. About the only way that will happen in my eyes is if one of us starts a small company in our homes making specialized boats.

[dave2ball]

I doubt if you will ever see that again. The numbers are not there for the companies to build a hard core ski boat. Not enough turn around to make it cost effective.

[dave2ball]

I doubt if you will ever see that again. The numbers are not there for the companies to build a hard core ski boat. Not enough turn around to make it cost effective.

[BraceMaker]

I don't get who else is buying these boats.

 

Of all the options at your local marina if you don't ski why but a ski boat at all?

[BraceMaker]

I don't get who else is buying these boats.

 

Of all the options at your local marina if you don't ski why but a ski boat at all?

[dave2ball]

Some people may just want to be on the water. Or they just want to tow there kid on a tube. The recreational skier may not want a hard core ski boat. They go out for the day and party with friends. If it was not for the recreational skier there may not be sport for us.

[Nick Sullivan]

You guys are talking about the Carbon Pro. Why are you not buying one of those?

 

Why are you not buying a closed bow 200? Is this not a hard core enough boat?

[6balls]

@sully not buying a CB 200 cuz of cost...and even if I could justify would buy the open bow...why limit passenger space or ability to sell the darn thing later if the ski performance is identical? Same reason I bought an 8 yr old 180 mph 4 door w/a manual tranny instead of a vette...I can pick my kids up from school.

For those wanting a die hard slalom tug from today's offerings I 100% agree with you...quit complaining and buy a Carbon Pro...even better a used and slightly depreciated Carbon Pro. If that's not today's version of a die hard slalom tug, what is?

@bracemaker, I agree...I don't know who is buying these boats. I make a nice living, I'm passionate about skiing but $50K plus or up to $70K or more for a ski boat????? Not gonna happen.

[Nick Sullivan]

Yeah I brought up both boats to cover both price ranges. Bottom line is.....there are hard core slalom boats being made today.

 

BTW, what does this have to do with the 5.7?

[6balls]

@sully, correct, sorry thread hijack of sorts...apologize for getting off the 5.7 topic. To get back on track, I lament the end of the 5.7 if it occurs due to cost increases inherent in new power technology to an already expensive and in my case not justifiable new boat market.

[ral]

@6balls, we buy 200 CB for our ski lake. OB costs more (base cost + cover + extended seat), more difficult to clean, riskier (someone stepping in the covered boat), more wind entering into the cabin. Same reason for not buying LE boats. Does not make any sense for a ski lake club boat. We buy 5.7 for the same reason, 6.0 more expensive and not more fuel efficient. And we buy Nautique and not MC because anyone stating that the wake is comparable for slalom has had too much Kilo Kai...

[ForrestGump]

A 6.0 is most certainly more fuel efficient than the 5.7. LOT less rpm. At least 15% more fuel efficient based on # of pulls at tournaments with 6.0 in comparison to same # of pulls with the 5.7 from what I logged.

[ral]

@ShaneH, which propeller? What speed?

[ForrestGump]

34 and 36. 1868 on 5.7 vs 654 on 6.0. In all actuality, the number was closer to 20% than 15%.

[Waternut]

Can anyone tell the difference in pull between the 5.7 and the 6.0? If not, then it starts to make more sense to go with a more efficient but even smaller V8 or possibly a supercharged V6. If you saved $1000 or more in gas every year, wouldn't it make a slightly more expensive engine justifiable? I don't see a V6 option being more expensive but hypothetically speaking.

 

I'm probably going to sound like a whiney kid but here goes... I agree that the Carbon Pro is the hardcore boat of today and if I didn't have to eat or make a house payment, I'd probably own one. I think it's awesome that carbon fiber has finally entered the arena of ski boats. However, I also think it's a little depressing that with all the technology behind carbon fiber, they've only managed to make the boat slightly heavier than a chop fiberglass and wood boat from 20 years ago. I know fuel injection and cruise add a little extra weight over carbs and airguides but not that much. There are a lot of cool "standard features" that are driving weight and cost up out of our reach like counter ballast, tilt wheel, locking rear deck hatch, stainless steel drink holders, stainless windshield frame, and foam floor instead of carpet. I looked into Seadek this winter and found it was going to cost over $2000 instead of $300 for my carpet. Even if all of this stuff was optional, we all still pay the cost of R&D going into tilt wheel, underwater LED lights, heated seats, battery management systems, backboard storage, etc. whether we buy the options or not.

[ForrestGump]

FWIW...... there's really no carbon in the structural hull of the carbon pro. It's just in the applique on the side inset.

[Waternut]

@ShaneH Awww my bubble hasn't been popped....it's been nuked. The fact the hull was carbon was the one redeeming feature in my head and now that's not even true.

[6balls]

Yep, very little carbon. My '91 Centurion Falcon Barefoot has a sticker on the side that says carbon fiber...really? Where? It's a fiberglass boat.

I'm know nothing of structural integrity, but have to imagine if a manufacturer came out with a true carbon fiber hull that yes it would be lighter and stronger, but also ridiculously expensive.