Nautique 200 H5 vs ZR4

[mkerzie]

Hey! Ballers... Need some help deciding between the standard ZR4 and the upgraded direct injection H5. Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Also, I read somewhere in the forum about boatmate trailers not being the best choice for the 200 due to damaging the hull?? I may have misread this so please excuse if so.

 

Haven't settled on the Nautique yet as I need to check out the bumblebee but I'm leaning that way.

[Jody_Seal]

Whats a ZR4? you do mean ZR6 right? IMOP the tried and true ZR6 is a bit more powerfull then the H5, the H5 5.3 DI engine rates somewhere between the 5.7 SBC and the ZR6.0. Now if you want HP and a great performing upgrade then go with the H6. As for trailers one has to rethink how they load and unload their 200's with just about any trailer. I floated on and floated off for the most part with my 200's.

[mkerzie]

Jody, thanks for the feedback. I think they call the standard multi port 6 liter a ZR4? at least according the Nautique and PCM websites. But I will admit, you know WAY more than me when it comes to everything about skiing and boats. Legend!

 

I'd love to get an H6, but man, 10k is a steep upgrade

[Kelvin]

Drove a 2018 ZR4 and an H6 this weekend. Both are nice power plants with the ZR4 being tried and true. The H6 has some wicked holeshot.

[pmski]

You can't go wrong either way, personal opinion Nautique PCM have done a great job giving there customers leading technology when it comes to engine choices, I ordered a 2017 last year, I ended up with the 6.2H6 but it is over kill the 6.0 is a great engine but the technology is stating to date itself, cast iron block aluminum heads and port injection, but the engine is a work horse, The 5.3 H5 new design in 2014 aluminum block and heads direct cooling from the lake and direct injection which is more efficient on gas with more power and less weight, the gm marine website would be a great site for you to visit good luck Paul

[Jody_Seal]

I see! They just shortened the identification to ZR4 from ZR409 (duh!), Just looked on the PCM web site. Again the 6.0 would be my preference if the 6.2 was not an option, light is right and there is no substitute for cubic inches. I remember the days of the Python in the Ski Fly Nautiques, Would have loved to have supercharge one of those........

[Not_The_Pug]

I have a very nice 2017 200 OB with the H6 if interested PM me. The H6 is a great motor.

[ntx]

We have both a 2014 & 2017 200. The 5.7 was ok at 34 mph. It struggled to get up to speed at the 55's at 36 on a 2200 foot lake. The 5.7 really was lacking for longer jumpers. (160 plus) The H5 is MUCH improved. Plenty of power at 36 and jumpers up to at least 190's We have not had any experience with the ZR4 ( I think they used to call it ZR6) I would go with at least the H5. If funds are not a concern..... the H6 would be awesome. Get the H5 over the ZR4

[swc5150]

45 more HP and essentially the same torque as the H5, for less money with the ZR4. I see the argument for the H6, not so much for the H5.

[skiinxs]

You can't go wrong with either the 6.0 (409HP apparently now called the ZR4), H5 (5.3 Liter) or H6 (6.2 liter). My first choice is the H6, AMAZING engine in the 200. In my opinion the 5.3 and 6.0 are equals in torque, the 6.0 has a little more top end and runs a little faster. The 5.3 uses less gas and is lighter but is an upcharge from the 6.0. My opinioin on engines for the 200 are H6 best, 6.0 next, 5.3 next (based on cost). All three are light years better than the old 5.7 that is no longer available.

[303Skier]

I agree with @skiinxs, H6 then ZR409. I have a 2015 with the ZR409. However the new ZR409 in the 2017's and 2018's do not come with the closed loop cooling. The 409's are known to run a little on the hot side. Without the closed loop cooling from the factory, this could cause engine failure earlier. Something to think about.

 

If it were me and I was going to buy a brand new boat...I'd go H6! Or find a used 200 with H6 or used 2015, 2016 ZR409.

[lakeho26]

I notice the zr4 being much smoother out of the hole than the h5 both plenty of power. Both good choices!

[skier2788]

Fuel consumption is noticeably more with the ZR4 over either the H5 or H6.

[Ed_Johnson]

As the Beach Boys Song said, "She's Real Fine My 409."

 

I Love mine, and can't even imagine more power. With the 668 prop I hit 50mph. A 5gal can is good for at least 3 sets or more. I believe it was a 6 grand upgrade, but worth every penny. My ski partner has a 2016 with the std. small engine and when I drive it, it feels like a dog. Use full power to get him up, plus I feel it vibrate the boat. With the 409 you barely crack the throttle to pull the skier up, and it is sooooo smoooooth.

 

[EricKelley]

ZR4 over the H5 every day of the week.

I have heard of multiple failures of the GM direct injection engines in trucks. The problem is carbon build up on intake valves due to them not being "washed" by the fuel charge. This carbon build up eventually breaks off in significant sized pieces into the cylinders. I really do not know if this will translate into failures with the marine engines but certainly gives some reason for concern. Did not know that when we purchased our GMC with the 6.2.

[jayski]

or you could go with a nice new Prostar with the tried and true 5.7!

[303Skier]

If the H6 isn't in the budget go 409 all day loooooooooonnnggggggg!

[liquid d]

You only live once; get off your wallet!

[escmanaze]

@Ed_Johnson 5 gallons for 3 sets seems like a lot of gas. Am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

 

50 mph does sound really sweet.

[blakeyates]

The H5 has a slightly higher torque rating than the ZR4 with better fuel efficiency, which is noticeable. Lighter, more torque, better fuel efficiency. Hmmmm? If you’re not pulling any heavy, long jumpers, the H5 is my choice. All are very good so we’re splitting hairs here. If money is not a consideration, H6.

[skierjp]

H6, it is now the only engine choice in 2018 Nautique Promo Boats

[Jody_Seal]

Some similarities between the two. GM 5.3 DI does post a few pony's and torque #s over the 6.0

 

Type: 6.0L Gen IV V-8 Small Block

Displacement: 5967 cc

Engine Orientation: Longitudinal

Compression Ratio: 9.7:1

Valve Configuration: Overhead valves

Valves per Cylinder: 2

Assembly Sites: Romulus, MI, St. Catharines, Ontario, and Silao, Mexico

Valve Lifters: Hydraulic roller

Firing Order: 1 - 8 - 7 - 2 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 3

Bore x Stroke: 101.6 x 92 mm

Fuel System: Sequential Fuel Injection

Fuel Type: Regular Unleaded, E85 Flex Fuel

Horsepower: 360 hp (268 kW) @ 5400 rpm*

Torque: 380 lb-ft (515 Nm) @ 4200 rpm*

Maximum Engine Speed: 6000 rpm*

Emissions Controls: Catalytic converter, three-way catalyst, positive crankcase ventilation

Block: Cast iron

Cylinder Head: Cast aluminum

Intake Manifold: Composite

Exhaust Manifold: Cast nodular iron

Main Bearing Caps: Powder metal

Crankshaft: Cast nodular iron with undercut and rolled fillets

Camshaft: Hollow steel

Connecting Rods: Powder metal

 

Displacement (cu in / cc): 325 / 5328

Bore & stroke (in / mm): 3.78 x 3.62 / 96 x 92

Block material: cast aluminum

Cylinder head material: cast aluminum

Valvetrain: overhead valve, two valves per cylinder, variable valve timing

Ignition system: coil near plug, platinum-tipped spark plugs, low-resistance spark plug wires

Fuel delivery: direct fuel injection with Active Fuel Management

Compression ratio: 11.0:1

Horsepower (hp / kW @ rpm): 355 / 250 @ 5600 (gas – SAE certified)

380 / 283 @ 5600 (E85 – SAE certified)

Torque (lb-ft / Nm @ rpm): 383 / 519 @ 4100 (gas – SAE certified)

416 / 564 @ 4100 (E85 – SAE certified)

Recommended fuel: regular unleaded or E85

Maximum engine speed (rpm): 5800

Emissions controls: close-coupled catalytic converter, Quick Sync 58X ignition, returnless fuel rail, fast-response O2 sensor.

 

 

And if any one wants this I am sure I can install it!!

https://www.indmar.com/engines/raptor-460/

 

 

 

 

 

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@Jody_Seal maybe when I wear out my 343 in my '97. Think I'll need a bigger prop?

 

Am I reading the spec sheet correctly - it has more power with E85 than normal gas?? That seems backwards from everything I understood about ethanol producing less energy per gallon.

[dbutcher]

I am confused. Page 22 of PCM's owners manual (found on PCM's website) states that the H5 and H6 DI engines are calibrated to operate on 87 octane fuel, that E10 or less is acceptable, that fuel rated higher than E10 should not be used, and that premium 93 octane fuel should be used for optimal performance. To me these statements exclude the use of E85. Perhaps PCM has not updated its website owners manual. If so, that does not speak highly of PCM, and I am and have been a PCM engine advocate for many years.

 

What fuel are you owners of the DI engines actually using in your boats, and what does your written owners manual say regarding fuel use?

 

Like @Bruce_Butterfield, I would be shocked if E85 produces more power or economy than normal gas. Apparently PCM engines now are able to use E85, but I wonder if the rest of the fuel system in boats will tolerate it. I am just interested in what is happening in the real world?

[BraceMaker]

@dbutcher trouble is that while you need more fuel volume for the same horsepower e85 is 2 buck racing fuel with rated octane of about 105 or possibly higher depending on the fuel. So if you take an engine that is capable of running it to its potential it is capable of producing power in droves.

 

I'd be very reluctent to store or run it near water and I think those are auto engine specs?

[303Skier]

For reliability and longevity, stay away from E85. Also E85 is hygroscopic and running it in a boat could mean a lot of oil dilution. I run E85 in my 700 HP turbo 4 cylinder and it's hard on the internals.

 

With E85 you have to run a lot more fuel to produce the same HP. But it's far less prone to detonation than pump gas. In Turbo applications this means you can run heaps of boost and get away with it.

 

Like @BraceMaker said, it's 2 dollars racing fuel! Pretty amazing stuff but has some cons.

[BraceMaker]

@303Skier what is interesting is that if you had a modern fuel vapor recovery type sealed fuel system I think you coulf get away with e85 in a boat pretty easily

[303Skier]

@BraceMaker Pehaps! It's very weird fuel! I have to change my oil in my car every 1000 miles because of oil dilution. After running it for a few years in my race car my valves look very, very bad! It also doesn't play well with certain hoses and rubber.

[ski6jones]

Some of the hypercars advertise they make more HP on E85 than regular pump gas. Never understood why. Still don't.

[RAWSki]

Indy cars have been running the 'pure renewable fuel' ethanol (partly as a marketing push for the ethanol industry) for 10 years at basically "E98". The mixture is actually 98% ethanol and 2% gasoline for races held in the United States. The 2% satisfies the U.S. government's requirements that the alcohol be unfit for human consumption. Outside the US they run 100% with crazy high octane, I'm guessing @DW can explain why some cars can make more HP on E85 and the long term effects.

[BraceMaker]

@ski6jones its an octane thing. Too little octane = predetonation/pinging/knocking, too much octane doesn't necessarily cause problems, but you're spending money you don't need to.

 

You can engineer a car such that it has mechanisms to deal with fuel that doesn't have good octane, such as having variable valve trains that can vent some pressure by leaving an exhaust valve open a smidge during the early bit of compression to blow out some pressure, or reducing the turbo pressure, or retarding the spark. These engines may be able to then maximize the fuel and make more power on higher octane, something that makes more power on E85 would also make more power running leaded race gas. It simply is reading that the octane is there and getting more aggressive on compression/advance.

 

[DW]

As noted by @BraceMaker , ethanol blended fuels have a higher octane rating. Additional benefits include a faster burn, oxygenation and a cooling effect. All that adds up to being able to run a higher compression ratio for improved power output, less heat soak and a cleaner burn.