2019/2020 Ski Nautique Engine Options

[jjackkrash]

Does anyone have any opinions on the different engine options for the new boat (not the 200) based on personal experience? It looks like for 2020 it is going to come with the 6.0l, 5.3l, or the 6.2l. I am curious where each tops out and if anyone thinks the boat suffers at all with either of the two less powerful engine options.

[TEL]

6.0l is the way to go. Have taken lessons from several pro's in Orlando they all like the 6.0l proven to be very reliable over the years with plenty of power. Top speed the 6.2l is the clear winner with the factory prop

[Jody_Seal]

Ok here is my 2 cents worth,

If you are at elevation 4,000' our higher by all means step up and get the 6.2.

If you are a high end tournament skier the promos out their will be 6.2 so get the 6.2.

Now at sea level the 6.2 in a new ski nautique set up for high end jumping (3 blade prop) the package has stupid power. Set up for normal tournament conditions the 6.2 package is near stupid power!

Now since the advent of the di 6.2 the 6.0 in the 200 seems a bit wimpy but the new 200 is a bit heaftier then the new ski nautique and its 200 predisesser .

Not having any experiance with 6.0 in the ski nautique though I would still think it is capable of high 40s and maybe 50 mph. That relates to adequate and maybe even still more power then really necessary.

If you are pulling older skiers and kids and want state of the art engine package and dont care about the boat running lower 40's maybe 45mph then get the 5.3.

 

[Horton]

As a skier I MUCH perfect the 6L. I have not skied behind a New Nautique with the PCM (ZR4) 6.0L but much prefer the 6.0 over the 5.3 or 6.2 in the 200. I have spoken to a pro skier who tried the 6.0 in the new boat and much prefers it over the 6.2.

 

The 5.3 and 6.2 are direct injection. The 6.0 is multi-port. I suspect the way the multi-port delivers the power is just friendlier for the skier.

[skier2788]

From experience the 6.2 is far more fuel efficient than the 6.0.

[DW]

@Horton - can you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by friendlier (feel behind the boat)?

 

Sounds like some potential consensus on favorite engine for running buoys and related to fuel delivery method and not actual power / torque. Based on that would be interesting to see who calibrated them and what the fuel / timing curves are.

[Horton]

@DW There is a lot of speculation among skiers about why the PMC 6.2 in the new boat feels the way it feels. Not everyone agrees but I find it very unforgiving to ski behind. The assumption is that if i owned one and practiced behind it I would get used to and there were be no issue.

 

One theory is that the 6.2 DI motors respond so faster than the MPI engines and that takes "give" out of the pull. Behind a MPI motor when you get in trouble you can lean on it a little without getting crushed by the boat. With 6.2 DI motor once you make a mistake your margin of error is not there to scrap out the pass. I may be a MC guy but you will never hear me complain about the pull behind a 200 with a MPI 6.0.

 

An analogy would be the feel of Perfect Pass vs ZO. When we got ZO those of us that were accustom to using strength to recover from mistakes were quickly humbled. We learned to ski with it and now most skiers would not want to go back to PP.

 

 

[skierjp]

If you ski tournaments and want at home what you will get at tournaments then get the 6.2. All Ski Nautique promo boats only have the 6.2

[jjackkrash]

I have 2016 200 with the 5.3l. I am pretty happy with the engine. It is is very snappy and fuel efficient, but I also would not mind more juice and a little more top speed just because. Truth be told at 50 hours a year fuel efficiency is not that significant a consideration for me. But IIRC clicking the 6.0l box does save a pretty big chunk of change on a new boat vs. the 6.2l.

[jhughes]

We have the 5.3DI (16 200) and love the power and fuel efficiency. It is fairly unyielding behind the boat, a noticeable difference from a 6L Malibu at the club. I ski the same scores behind it but it it does feel different, no doubt.

[jimski]

Bring back the 5.7

[jjackkrash]

It looks like the up-charge is around $9800 from the base 6.0l to the 6.2l.

[Jody_Seal]

@jimski

The 5.7 is now a thing of the past. No marinizer will will produce it in a form that works in a tournament boat. You can still get a marine carby from summit or jeggs but like the GT-40 the SBC marine engine will soon even be hard to support by the marnizers, Indmar refuses to support their original M5GCP that coexists with zero off.

[jimski]

@Jody_Seal its a good reliable motor with plenty of power hear at sea level. With 1200 hrs on our 200 you can’t beat it. No cats easy maintenance

[jjackkrash]

It is interesting, if you are buying a chevy truck, the upcharge from the 5.3l to the 6.2l is only $2500, whereas on the boat the upcharge is well over $6k. That's a pretty steep premium even by boat standards.

[jjackkrash]

I was talking to my local dealer today. Without dropping names, he said one of our local jumpers thinks the 6.0l starts loosening up and even gets noticeably stronger at about 900 hours and is plenty engine for that boat. I still think I'd like "stupid power" as Jody puts it, but the 6.0l sounds like a very good match for that boat.

 

Also, on the Nautique website, it says the ZR4 is "all new" for 2020 and is now 100% "freshwater cooled."

 

https://www.nautique.com/whats-new-in-2020

 

Does this mean they went to a closed-cooling system like you would have on the salt-water package, or something else?

[RAWSki]

The 6L used to use a heat exchanger to cool antifreeze that ran thru the engine components but not the manifolds I believe. It was a great feature for those of us in the North because the engine was easily winterized and the heater cores always had antifreeze in them. About 3 years ago PCM switched to traditional raw-fresh water cooling. I assume they changed some materials in the engine to allow this. OR they just decided to save money and perhaps weight??

[jjackkrash]

Any thoughts on the rear-view camera? I tow a lot of kids and feel like this would be a great feature, but wonder what people think of this feature in practice.

[dave2ball]

Not a good idea. You should be concentrating on driving. Not looking at the skier. The camera will be helpful when the skier is in the water

[jjackkrash]

I assumed the camera was mainly to check skier status on the platform and in the water without having to turn around or adjust the mirror.

[dave2ball]

Pretty much

[Golson]

EVERYONE I ski with from 15’ off into 39’ at various speeds prefer the 6.2 behind the 200’s and the new 2019 Ski Nautique. The 6.2 feels slower, has more consistent pulls, and maintains constant speed instead of revving up and down, which makes it easier to ski behind.

[JackQ]

Really, A rear view camera! I guess something prosaic as a mirror isn’t sufficient. Another high margin option to maintain or have parts become obsolete.

[Garn]

I'm not sure where you are at but I agree strongly with @Jody_Seal who said if you are above 4000 feet get the 6.2. Here in Utah we are at about 4500 and some of the lakes I ski at are close to 6000. I have to put on a different prop to get it up to the proper rpm. Altitude makes a difference.

[jjackkrash]

I was at the boat crawling around in a 2020 with the 6.0l at the boat show. Man, winterization looks like a snap. There are three hoses that clip on the side of the engine to unclip and let dangle in the bilge that drain everything that needs to be drained, other than the the raw-water strainer. Pull three plugs and unscrew the raw water strainer and you are 100% winterized. I bet it can be done in under 60 seconds start to finish.

[mlange]

@jjackkrash - you grab a picture by chance. Trying to figure out if I could add whatever is missing on my 2012 6.0L next fall to make it easier going forward.

[2Valve]

Skiied behind a 6.2L last summer with Nate S. Acceleration is incredible, and you can never argue with good 'ol cubic inches, but honestly, it was way more than I need. Any of the motors should be fine for everyday skiing.

[jjackkrash]

 

Pic

[2Valve]

@jimski

Agree. Bring back the 5.7, but make mine a LS1. :)

 

 

 

 

[dave2ball]

The 5.7 is no more. Talking with a couple of top drivers it seems to be the 6.0 or 5.3 give a great slalom ride. Where the 6.2 excels is with top jumpers.

[jjackkrash]

The two approved props for the 6.2l on the Nautique are an ACME 668 and ACME 1458. It looks like one is a 4 blade and one is a 3 blade. Anyone know the real world difference? Is one a preferred jump prop or an altitude prop?

[Bruce_Butterfield]

The biggest difference is the pitch. the 1458, 3 blade has a 14" pitch and the 668 4 blade has a 15.5" pitch. In a nutshell, this means that at slalom and jump speeds, the engine with the 3 blade will be turning approximately 10% higher rpm than the 4 blade. This is theoretically higher up on the HP curve so the boat will be "more powerful".

 

Secondary differences are the 3 blade is suppose to have less turbulence, hence more efficient.

 

The 6.2l engine has plenty of power. Unless you are pulling jumpers on the high side of 220', the 668 is the better all around prop.

 

To quote Jody Seal at the start of this thread "Now at sea level the 6.2 in a new ski nautique set up for high end jumping (3 blade prop) the package has stupid power. "

[skierjp]

The 3 blade is the jump prop. All Promo boats have the 668.

[skiinxs]

The 3 blade is the jump prop, I really don't like it for slalom. My boat will always have the 4 blade(668) on for slalom in tournaments. If there are really strong jumpers at a tournament I ask them for a consensus on their preference. If they want it, I put the 3 blade on for jump. As has been mentioned, the 3 blade on the new Ski Nautique with the 6.2 has crazy power .

[jjackkrash]

Thanks folks. I assumed that was the jump prop or altitude prop but wasn't sure. I've also got a few extra 654s (IIRC) lying around for my H5/'16/200 but I'm guessing those won't work on the new boat with the big engine.

[skierjp]

Not much difference between the 668 and 654. Most skiers would not be able to tell the difference.

[jhughes]

We have the 6.2DI in our club TXI this year and it’s bonkers. Definitely a difference from my 5.3, that entire liter (almost) of displacement more is no joke! Feels great to ski behind and on our short setup it’s a difference maker. In all these years we have never had a boat settled in at speed so far before the greens.

[jjackkrash]

@jhughes, I can't wait to get in the seat and try it out. I'm told early Christmas at my house comes sometime in the first 2 weeks in July.

[Andre]

@jjackkrash

Congrats! What colors and other options did you end up ordering?

[jjackkrash]

@Andre, thanks! It has got black flake for the main stripe, the rest of the gel is red, and the interior is tungsten grey with red and black accents. I clicked yes on every option except the coastal package, nav maps, and duel battery. It has the 6.2l, black tandem axle trailer, black travel cover, and black bimini. Me and my family are pretty stoked right now. I was told it hit the production line last Saturday and could be here as soon as July 5 (but understanding these are crazy times). And it is a 2021 MY.

[Andre]

That thing is gonna be amazing both skiing and looking!

We're all expecting july 5 with you!

[coach3]

For slalom and a long set up, the 5.3 looks interesting using less fuel and about 200 lbs lighter. Any thoughts?

 

[jjackkrash]

I have a 5.3l in my '16 200 and no complaints. It is a really snappy engine and more fuel efficient than all my previous 5.7l boats. It tops out around 45 with the standard prop. I have never had anyone complain about a lack of power out of the hole or a slow setup for slalom.

 

 

[jhughes]

@coach3 5.3DI is an awesome engine. The only thing that will make it feel even remotely slower is a 6.2DI. IMO the 5.3 is even significantly snappier and faster than the 6.0. DI makes a big difference, modern technology.

[skiinxs]

Torque in the ski range is very close between the 5.3 and 6. The 6 has more horsepower at top end, resulting in a couple more mph top end. Barefooters may notice. The DI engines have an amazing flat torque curve, I thinkthe the variable valve timing contributes heavily.

[skierjp]

The 5.3 and 6.2 should weigh the same. Fuel usage is irrelevant, almost the same.

[coach3]

Got weights on these two different engines? The 6.0 is 70 lbs heavier than the 5.7. Just looking a volume and size I would guess the 5.3 is 180 to 200 lbs lighter than the 6.0?

[skiinxs]

I would think the 6.0 is lighter than the 5.7 because the 6.0 has aluminum heads vs cast iron for the 5.7. The 5.3 and 6.2 have aluminum blocks and heads, should be significantly lighter, but have never seen published weights. As @skierjp mentioned, 5.3 and 6.2 should be the same weight.

[jjackkrash]

Welp. The new Prostar is out. It looks like a nice boat, but, thankfully I don't feel the urge to run out and cancel my order. Which is good 'cause I have been told the boat is out of the mold and in the rigging line and I don't feel like I could take waiting any longer than I have to wait now for a new boat. Ugg. :)

 

[jjackkrash]

 

Still in the wrapper, but getting closer. :)