Re-power

[Jody_Seal]

Hi all

Thought I might start a discussion about re-power of older ski boats.

There has been a lot of chatter across the forums about hanging on to older ski boats and running them til they need new engines. This ideology is not uncommon in the outboard world and many outboard owners actually change out their engine every few years.

On the inboard side though this Re-power ideology has really not taken off until now where perfectly good beautiful ski boats are skiability wise obsolete due mostly to speed control. Lets be real as Zero Off is a far different pull for most skiers and most competitive skiers that utilize PP in practice are at a disadvantage to those that own and practice behind ZO boats.

Also over the years the manufacture emphasis has been bigger more expensive ski boats. Bigger is not always better. nearly 75% of all tournament slalom skiers go through 22 and 28 off and these new bigger heavier ski boats dig a bigger hole in the water that reflects at those line lengths.

Many tournament boat owners of older units are now starting to really think about re-power and its financial benefits over purchasing a newer ski boat. Pros and cons of this are wide spread but as always seems to boil down to cost and accessibility of the project, whether it be sell the old and purchase the new or how accessible to someone to do the re-power work.

 

For those of you starting to consider the Re-power option here are some knowns:

1. PCM has done a marvelous job with adapter parts to install a E-control engine where and GT or Carb motor was.

2. The above statement does not always transfer to all boat manufacture and when doing a Re-power creativity and workmanship/ fabrication will be the norm.

3. Now the Big one!! How long the 5.7 will be available for re-power is unknown. At this time PCM will no longer sell what are called a "Base" engine (long block) and will only sell Excalibur 343 in complete configuration. how long this will last is unknown. Maybe 1 year maybe 2 years but the fact still remains the 5.7 is obsolete and soon will be gone.

4. In the very near future non Cat engines for re-power will be unavailable so if one waits to long refer to statement #2.

 

There are still very many more questions and thoughts on this subject but the fact still remains that the inboard industry is moving fast and our sport is shrinking. obsolescence is the norm where perfectly good hulls and equipment will be very hard to repair or economically replace.

Food for thought!

 

 

[UWSkier]

Alternative thought. There are still tons of long blocks available and each SG+ZBox iteration is better than the last and closer to ZO pull. If those guys keep revving their software and there's enough of a market for them to continue to do so, maybe full repower isn't necessarily required for a certain subset of the market.

[Sethro]

Would a re-powered "old" boat still be a training disadvantage for the competitive skier? How much difference is there in the pull/wakes/etc. even though the speed and reaction to the skier is now the same.

[escmanaze]

@Jody_Seal Thanks for the post.

 

It begs the immediate question: if the excalibur is already becoming obsolete itself, what kind of future, if any, might exist in regards to placing the newer engines in the older boats? Does the catalytic converter just make it darn near impossible? Or might this become a reasonable solution?

[BrennanKMN]

I previously had a 1997 SN bubble butt and it was and still is the best slalom boat I have ever skied behind. I sold it because I wanted to get into a ZO boat. I considered doing a re-power for about 6 months but ended up deciding against it. The main reason I didn't re-power it was resale. Once you re-power a slalom tug you have basically limited your market to hard core slalom skiers. For the average joe there are just so many unknowns with a modified boat. For every 1 guy out there running the course and actually caring about speed control there are 20 more than don't give a rats ass about it. I have seen several re-power boats come up on here and SIA for sale and they often take MUCH longer to sell than a fairly priced 2008+ ZO boat.

 

For those that will run their hull into the ground then a re-power is probably a good idea. If you are not that type of person I would consider alternatives. Not to mention the cost of affordable factory ZO boats has come way down now that they are 10+ years old.

[swc5150]

I totally agree with @BrennanKMN. It seems like a good option for the person who plans on running until it dies, but not for resale.

[Dano]

@Jody_Seal i'm not up to speed on the subject. but if an older boat already is running a 5.7 is it not possible to swap just the E controls onto it? Much the same as converting a carbed engine to EFI?. May be cheaper than swapping complete engine?

 

 

[Jody_Seal]

@Dano

Yes provided the 5.7 is a "vortec" sbc. There are enough aftermarket parts that will coexist and with the right formula it can and will remain accessible for a long while to convert even a vortec carby motor to dbw and zo.

6.0 not cat engines will be available for a number of years but like the GT40 engine the excalibur and other dbw renditions of the 5.7 sbc from the other marnizers will soon be unavailable.

 

To the guy that posted that pp is getting closer to zo I would have to disagree. There is no way electronicly that a servo motor attached to a string will react as fast as a dbw controlled throttle body, the lag and mechanical delay is why.

As much as I prefer the PP feel over the zo the realization that zo is what is utilized and the norm in the sport as well as the future has become apparent to the vast majority of competitive skiers.

[BraceMaker]

From what I see Econtrols patents have dates of 2004-2005 with expirations mostly by 2025. (and have somewhat been assigned to PNC bank?

 

PP has continued to provide updates and in my opinion is likely thinking about what comes next.

 

Who gets to sell integrated speed controls for electronic motor controllers and or hybrid power plants? (not just for the 3 event crowd but think of the wake barges who also buy ZO and PP units)

 

 

Perhaps as the power plant availability shifts or patents change someone would look at a ZO controlled TBI unit that could be bolted into an existing carbed boat.

[markn]

Sethro, you ask a very good question regarding potential disadvantage training behind older boats for tournament skiing.

Did my first two tournaments in 10 years this season. Have skied behind my old ZO converted 2004 Nautique 196 the majority of the time over those 10 years. Have also skied behind the Nautique 200 and the two tournaments I did were behind the new 2019 Ski Nautique.

Also just skied behind a 2019 Master Craft (first time behind any boat but a Nautique for 10 years) My boat has single puck REV S and I find the pull is very similar to the new boats.

In my opinion, if the boat has ZO REV S, old boats are no disadvantage. I run C2+ on my boat and used C2 on the Nautiques and the Master Craft. I skied within 2 or 3 buoys of my practice average....skiing at Swiss, Eden and Ski Fluid...all different lakes and drivers.

Jody Seal converted my boat in 2009 and it continues to work flawlessly. (Thanks again Jody!!)

2 years ago I had to decide to re-power or buy a new boat. I opted to re-power rather than spend $50K plus on a newer boat. My boat, with new engine and tranny has 300 hours on it, and is still, at 15 years old, a reliable slalom tug with great wakes and a ZO pull.

[JackQ]

I have not felt any disadvantages to practicing behind my 2009 Nautique 197. My scores are virtually identical 3-4@39, behind my boat in practice, a CC 200, MasterCraft ProStar or Malibu in tournaments. Having challenges behind the new Nautique, but would be no better if I practiced behind a new MC or Malibu.

 

 

[sunperch]

@Jody_Seal

We re-powered our 98 Nautique 4 yrs ago and did a single puck conversion upgrade over the weekend. We could not be happier!!! The wake for slalom is great. We considered upgrading, but as hulls continue to change, if you upgrade to the latest and greatest, you will be continually chasing your tail (if you bought an older '15 200 you would still would not have the same hull you will get in a tournament). Will we be able to get the $$ we spent on the conversion if we sold it?? NO, but the $$ we have and will save in taxes and insurance on a converted boat will save us that money in the long run.

[ozski]

Comment was made this season that the pull from my 196 6.0 was more like the new ski nautique than the 200 so there is some food for thought.

[eleeski]

I repowered my 79 American Skier. It skis great!

 

But modern boats do offer some creature comforts that are very nice. Even my 11 MC is much more comfortable. New boats are even cooler. I'm not sure you get what you pay for but new boats sure are nice.

 

Absolutely repower and upgrade your boat. The utility of your boat is so enhanced that it makes sense even if it costs a bit. It will build adaptability into your slalom skill set and might even improve your tournament scores.

 

Tricks are best behind the current year boat. Older wakes and tables might be far superior to the current offerings but you will only get current boats in tournament. Old boats for training just add another adverse variable to your tournament performance. On the other hand, the wakes are so good on the old American Skier (and the 11MC) that I become used to making the hard tricks and can rock the harder run even with some adversity (new boat wakes are an adverse condition in comparison). So repower the old trick boat too! Just get some rides behind the current boats to figure out rope length and settings.

 

Upgrade your old boat - it's worth it in utility even if the resale isn't there (did you buy the boat to sell it?). But buy the new boat if you can - the value is there too.

 

Eric

[bojans]

Is it, with reasonable effort, possible to put a cat engine in a non cat boat?

[thager]

Problem will be getting it to fit under the cover.

[gregy]

I put a cat engine in a 99 Malibu Rlx. It fit under the engine cover. The engine was an Indmar conversion out of a 2012 Sanger V-drive. I had to flip the exhaust manifolds around. The engine came with an E-control ECM. I'm very happy with the results.

[gregy]

@Gloersen the cat exhaust are one piece so I had to take them off at the heads and swap them to the opposite sides. I hooked up everything ran a communication cable up to the ZO head. Used a single puck. The ZO head I got off Ski-it-again used. I called ZO and told them what I had and they sent me a program to upload. The only issue I wasn't sure of was the throttle, but the potentiometer I used was for an old Nautique and it worked out.

 

https://www.ballofspray.com/forum#/discussion/20143/zo-is-working

[Lars]

@Jody_Seal assuming a sbc in the old boat, what is required to convert then? For example, I have the 2004 indmar MCX. Of course versions of that engine after 2008 had ZO, but what does it take to get one like mine there?

 

[gregy]

@Lars, my friends 08 Mastercraft has ZO. The two basic requirements for ZO are 1). E-control ECM and 2) Drive by wire (really throttle by wire). You'd need a DBW throttle body and potentiometer throttle control. You need an E-control computer to control engine. You might need a different distributor. New wiring harness or modify existing harness. The E-control computer has to have the proper calibration to match up with the motor and everything associated with it. There was a boat mechanic on here a few years ago that said he had figured out what he need to convert the mastercraft to ZO. not sure what years though. I think he was from the west coast. You might be able to use the PCM stuff Jody was talking about. Not sure what all is available for that.

[gregy]

I bought a brand new GM long block, 5.7 vortec, 4 bolt main for my pickup a few months ago for about $1900. I think they are making them in Mexico.

[disland]

Can you buy a GM long block and then transfer the marine parts ZO parts etc. to the new engine?

[Lieutenant Dan]

@Jody_Seal I second @Lars question above. I’ve got a 2001 Malibu Sunsetter LXI with the 5.7l Vortec sbc based Indmar Monsoon II with just over 1000 hours. I don’t ever want another boat as this one is still in great shape and meets my needs. What would it take to “upgrade” this power plant to ZO?

[UWSkier]

@Lieutenant Dan probably a lot. I don't think there are E-Controls ECM images that will work for non-cat MEFI engines that don't use a crank position sensor. Your Monsoon already has that sensor with no wires connected to it, which is good, but it doesn't have cats and the associated monitoring and cooling capabilities.

 

I'm sure the experts on here will know better than I but from what I'm reading, it looks like:

Cats

Updated tstat housing and cooling routing for the cats

O2 sensors, temp sensors for the cats

A TBW throttle body

Potentiometer

Custom potentiometer mount like @gregy used

Lots and lots of custom wiring probably

Any other missing sensors

I'm sure there's more.

 

Probably easier to find a second-hand engine with all that stuff included than converting yours over.

[DanE]

@UWSkier Plenty of non cat 343s out there w/ ZO.

[Greg Banish]

Once again, I'm throwing it out there... 2.3L turbo.

 

It works great in the Mustang and Ranger, proven reliability, less weight (300# lighter!), should be compatible with an upgrade to ZO, more fuel efficient, probably quieter, potential to make an even smaller engine box but it will easily fit anywhere a 5.7 used to reside.

 

If you can get over the "OMG doesn't have 8 spark plugs" and just realize that 300+HP gets the job done (especially with less weight), these become a serious contender. All it takes a a different prop pitch trade make up the ~15ft-lb difference in torque and you easily have another 1000RPM at the engine to give, so who cares once you're on plane?

[UWSkier]

@DanE interesting. Wonder if that ECM image would work on an Indmar-marinized engine.

[UWSkier]

@Greg Banish lightweight engine would be cool but to get to the torque and HP figures you're saying, you'd need to have the turbos spun up constantly to give you the instant response that ZO requires. I don't think it'll be any more fuel efficient.

 

Compare a GM 5.3L to an EcoBoost 3.5L Ford towing and you'll see what I mean. The turbo gulps fuel at same speeds with similar load compared to the NA V8 doing the same amount of work. (data set: 2 5.3L GMs and 1 3.5L EcoBoost on annual trip towing similar size, same make boats from WI to Lake Erie. The GMs usually average around 11.5 MPG, the EB around 9.)

[Jody_Seal]

You can only dream about some of the ideas presented as most of them don't exist in this topic. Custom marine engine builds are fairly normal in other aspects of the marine industry . However our application is truly one of minor significance even importance in the industry's monetary bottom line. Hence part of the reason why we have $125K ski boats!

Where one decides how bad they want to eccanomicly participate in even at both ends of the participation levels of our sports spectrum will dictate how much they are willing to spend both money and time! Hence the decline of our sports active population.

Repower is an economic option when one is faced with one or either of those two statements.

Be reminded that the cost of all parts engines are every year getting higher.

Every year all the marnizers are making older parts obsolete. The Vortec generation SBC is 23 years old in the automotive industry. Trickle down effect plays into this.

I would go out on a limb and guesstimate that the cost to repower will escalate over the next 10 years at least 10% per year if not more from here on out.

 

[Gar]

2.3 Ford is a great motor

[Greg Banish]

@UWSkier the difference here is that boats have access to an infinite supply of a cooling media (the lake) that can absorb far more heat than airflow on the road. The 3.5EB runs rich on the highway while towing because it needs to control exhaust (turbine) temps. If you use a much more efficient water/air intercooler in the boat and water jacketed exhaust components (as required by USCG), the need to use extra fuel for colling goes down dramatically. Modern engines are also capable of running at stoichiometry under load/boost and they routinely run boost at cruising conditions. This means relatively quick throttle response in our application *IF* the calibrator does their job right.

 

Total thrust at the prop is the only measure that really matters. So trading torque/speed through engine design, trans ratio, and prop pitch isn't a big deal as far as "ability to tow in the course". Making 300HP in a modern turbo DI 2.3L with the guarantee of infinite cooling capacity isn't that difficult.

[TEL]

As far as I know there is no way that a turbo charged engine could ever work in a slalom course. Turbo boast can not be that smooth to react to ZO for that matter hand driving. Turbo's have their place just not in this sport. But we could talk electric, my GF TESLA has a smooth linear acceleration with plenty of torque. One electric motor and batteries to last hour of run time can not weigh more than the current engine and transmission plus gas. Now that's the re-power we should be talking about

[BraceMaker]

@TEL large variable geometry turbo with a controller, zoom zoom.

[Greg Banish]

@TEL with all due respect, you are completely unfamiliar with modern torque based throttle (and boost) controls. I do this for a living, it's completely doable. I would bet I could calibrate it smooth enough that even the pros would not complain about torque delivery time. It's not 1982 anymore.

[swc5150]

Just from a layman’s point of view, I remember my mom’s ‘89 Saab turbo with lots of lag. My wife’s current X3 twin turbo has zero lag. In fact, if you didn’t know it was a turbo, you wouldn’t know. Seems like a modern turbo would work fine in a boat?

[Greg Banish]

@swc5150 this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about!

[UWSkier]

@Greg Banish go for it m8! Would love to nerd out following a 2.3L turbo towboat build thread! :)

[swc5150]

@Greg Banish You can use our '86 MC Skier to experiment:)

[TEL]

I just don’t see it. I have driven several new turbo cars and I can always feel the turbos coming in A non-power boosted engine seems to always be smoother unless you’re running some kind of crazy aftermarket cam profile

[gregy]

@disland the gm long block should work. I think you might have to change, I think they use special marine head gaskets, Brass freeze plugs. Maybe a few other gaskets? Not sure about the cam profile but the engine I got was for 3/4 or 1 ton so good chance it would work.

[gregy]

@DanE @uwskier. I think the ecm for the non cat 343 would work on an Indmar engine. I thought about pursuing that avenue before I found sanger engine.

[Jody_Seal]

Modern turbo equals excessive heat somewhere under a engine box!! No bueno!

 

 

I have done a mock up in the shop, mcx non cat and PCM 343 wire harness and ECM. would have had to change either the injectors or modify the injector harness and build some brackets but a doable scenario.

[Greg Banish]

@Jody_Seal it's my understanding that USCG regulations require that no enclosed component be allowed to get over 200* surface temp. This is why ALL marine exhaust systems are water cooled. (The catalyst is actually MUCH hotter than the turbo) Running a turbo would just require a water cooled turbine casting, which has already been done before. Let's not forget that we have access to an infinite supply of coolant. Actual air charge temps entering the engine on a water cooled boat engine will be significantly cooler than what we already tolerate on road vehicles.

[DW]

@disland : Yes but as noted, a specific marine cam is used (although a ZZ4 cam works quite well), and core plugs are brass, head gaskets, water pump and if mechanical fuel pump, they marine version. Ancillaries are also marine version.

[Jody_Seal]

"#3. Now the Big one!! How long the 5.7 will be available for re-power is unknown. At this time PCM will no longer sell what are called a "Base" engine (long block) and will only sell Excalibur 343 in complete configuration. how long this will last is unknown. Maybe 1 year maybe 2 years but the fact still remains the 5.7 is obsolete and soon will be gone."

 

On July 12 I posted this , today I received a letter from PCM stating that all base and complete 5.7/350ci engine packages are now NLA!

Followed up with a verbal conversation with PCM sales and verified this.

 

This means that the only non cat E control repower option is a 6.0 / 409 and the cost to repower has gone up significantly.

Food for thought for those considering this conversion.

 

[dbutcher]

How much longer will the 6.0/409 survive?

[Keith_Menard]

@dbutcher they are still putting them in gmc 2500s

[Orlando76]

@dbutcher I just shook my Magic 8 Ball and it said “Better not tell you now”.

[escmanaze]

Oh boy. This is quite the news. I suppose it's also good news as OMG would it ever be amazing to have 409 horses in my boat. Buuuuut then I'll look at the price tag and say the same OMG but with different intonation this time.

 

@Jody_Seal I can't help but notice that the new chevy colorado has an option of a 308 HP 3.6L V6 on it. My boat has the pro-ski 5.7 engine from back in the day that I think was marketed as a 310 HP engine? Anyway, if so, it seems from a dummie's perspective that maybe if somebody marinizes this engine used on the colorado, that potentially it could fit in the box even with a catalytic converter?

 

That's a dummie's perspective. I would love to hear your non-dummie's perspective. Sorry if you've already covered this and I've missed it.

[escmanaze]

Any estimates on just what kind of price tag we are talking about now that it is 409 or nothing?