PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD USE HIGH OCTANE IN YOUR NEW BOAT

[6balls]

Run record tourneys with premium, call it good. Record skiers put premium in your boats when training, call it good. The rest of us, the vast majority of skiers, won't be able to discern a difference so do what you feel is best.

[DW]

@AdamCord - on an electric boat it won’t just be octane, it will be % of charge, age of batteries, charge recovery time and probably effective magnetic field at given short line distance from said power unit ?.

 

As for gasoline, perhaps brand, age and fuel blend should also be considered. I’ll bet that early spring skiers on premium are still getting winter blend in northern climates based on popularity of various octanes.

[AdamCord]

@DW I believe that battery state of charge and degradation is something that can be accounted for in software. At least based on the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times of the Tesla Model S and the Porsche Taycan, it sounds like they are pretty consistent across a wide state of charge. But I get your point, the debate will probably never end ?

 

Somehow I touched a nerve with this thread. @Horton should just add octane rating to the list of banned subjects like politics and religion ??‍♂️

[dvskier]

@AdamCord From what I have read in Car and Driver Porsche has mastered the consistent 0-60 and 1/4 mile times whereas the Tesla has very good times but after a few runs the Porsche continues to delver exceptional results. The Tesla needs a recharge to continue. I believe that a supercharger would be necessary to run a Pro tournament. Evan a 480 volt charger at the site wouldn’t be enough.

We’ll definitely see e boats in the future. I predict it’s 5 years out for the early adopters.

[Ed_Johnson]

I do believe the future will be the electric boats..As far as Tourneys go, they will have plug in interchangeable battery packs, so not anymore downtime than 6 gallon gas cans.

 

Years ago when gas went over $4.00 a gallon, we had 2 Hummers and a Viper. Gas bill was enormous. We switched to Hybrid SUV's and now Plug in Hybrids. Best move ever. Instant power, and with 48 Panels powering our house, no electric bill and the vehicles get charged. Could not be happier. Just waiting for an electric 200.

 

 

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@AdamCord , I think the nerve you struck was SHOUTING TO THE HEAVENS about something that has zero effect on 99.99% of skiers and the effect is debatable at the elite levels. SHOUTING about a “possible” miniscule issue is a problem of drawing attention to an issue while keeping it in perspective. Its all in how you frame the issue/problem and bring it up – that’s a very common problem us humans have and those with analytical minds in particular.

 

If you do win the lottery and build your electric boat, I’m definitely up for a wager of adult beverages that bringing that technology to common use will have MORE challenges than the ZO/mapping/octane/etc than we are worried about today simply because of where each is on the scale of technological maturity. You can boil down the basic concepts of the ICE and electric engines to a pretty simple level, but maximizing performance is all in the little details. Humans have been improving the ICE for well over 100 years and relatively speaking the electric motor/battery technology is in its infancy. Talking about battery charge levels is equivalent to how much gas is in the tank. What is the equivalent on an electric motor of torque curves, timing, compression ratio and the plethora of things that affect an electric motor’s output? We haven’t gotten to that level of detail and all these little things will need to be worked out.

 

Oh, BTW there is a Catholic Bishop running for Governor of California who is going to make all water “Holy Water” and not allowed to be used for skiing, boating, fishing or anything other than drinking and bathing. Horton will be out of a job in short order so it won’t matter if he bans me or not!

 

[Zman]

@Bruce_Butterfield On a good note, a lot of that holy water will be turned to wine.

[AdamCord]

@Bruce_Butterfield you can’t let a little caps lock rattle you so much ?

 

And I’d love to set up a blind test, especially with larger skiers like yourself, so we can see who is and isn’t effected by octane in these DI boats. I think you’d be blown away. The engine manufacturers don’t highly recommend 93 octane just because they feel like it.

[skierjp]

Nautique already has the electric boat and drivetrain.

[ScottScott]

Suggesting that people should spend more money on gas goes over about as well as telling them they shouldn't buy from Amazon because it ultimately hurts the economy and puts small businesses out of business. (people will go through great lengths to justify putting more money in Bezos pocket.)

[Jody_Seal]

All this analisim for a stupid virtual rankings list score!!

 

 

[S1Pitts]

I am surprised nobody here has touched on fuel additives that boost octane and the economics of adding it to lower level fuels?

I consider myself fortunate. In my community we have a filling station with a marine pump so no road taxes applied to price. Premium no ethanol fuel with the lowest price of all grades. Hope it stays that way for ever.

[jhughes]

I'd be curious to see with the different marinizations if this is consistent across all 3 manufacturers. PCMs been running these over 5 years at this point, Illmor slightly less time, Malibu is pretty new to the game here, second year.

[lpskier]

Can I run 110 or will I have to use 220?

[JackQ]

There seems to be much confusion of the benefits of high octane fuel are. Higher octane fuel has greater resistance to knocking/detonation, nothing else, not more power or energy. Using a higher octane fuel than your engine requires is just throwing money away.

 

If you use a lower octane fuel than recommend, your engine may retard the ignition to prevent knock, which will reduce max hp, particularly at high rpm, and high load situations. Neither of which applies significantly to slalom skiing, if your monitor the TPS on a engine pulling slalom, rarely does it even approach 50% . Auto magazines have tested the loss of HP due to ECM retardation for knocking and have typically shown for non boosted engines a 2-7% loss of HP in those situations. If you want to learn more, suggest you watch the following link.

[skiinxs]

@lpskier 220, 221, whatever it takes:)

[matthewbrown]

I have the supercharged LT-4 6.2l Direct Injection engine in my 2002 Silverado that I have heavily modified. Makes 1000 HP at the crank. It runs on E85 which has around a 110 Octane rating. When it runs on 91 premium gas I lose about 90HP and this happens because the computer compensates for the loss of octane by retarding timing to decrease the odds of engine detonation. So increasing octane does increase HP and subsequently torque. These numbers were rock solid as it was on a chassis dyno although there is a bigger power gain because of the boosted engine. Interestingly enough, the power gain was seen throughout the rpm curve but was more pronounced from 5500 rpm’s to the max rpm of 6950. There was still a 55HP advantage at 3500 rpm which is more of the boat operating range. I know we are talking about a lot smaller Octane variance (87 to 93) on the 6.2 DI in boats and they are not boosted but based on the numbers that I know there will be some difference in HP and torque when comparing 87 and 93. How much is it? I don’t know. What really needs to happen is a blind experiment showing that slightly more power does make a difference, small or significant and would that difference actually add to my total buoy count and consistency.

[UWSkier]

Last year around the start of the lock down, I found instructions to build a USB cable that would let me read every data point possible off my ECU. I then found software that would let me log several data points per second, including spark advance. My boat has Zbox, so I can see the TPS going up and down as Zbox does its thing.

 

On my old Indmar Monsoon, there is no difference in ignition timing/advance between 87 and 93.

 

Someone needs to repeat this experiment on a modern DI engine. If the spark advance is the same on both fuel types, which below 4k RPM it may be, then this point is kinda moot.

 

Anyone want to loan me a Prostar or TXi for a few weeks so I can settle this? ?

[RAWSki]

Have no problem with the point of the original post but it was presented as a dire need for change and it was vague ----- but ultimately clarified to be pertaining to the DI engines offered as pricey upgrades on most boats and usually found at higher end tournaments.

 

""All of the later model boats have high compression engines that were designed to run on 93 octane (US Octane) fuel.""

Later model could be the last 4-5 years in my book. I would guess the 3 makers sold more 5.7 and 6L units during that time...... These seem to run just fine on 89-90 octane.

 

PLEASE IF 99% of us are there on the dock wondering what octane fuel is in the boat about to provide a pull; you stand defeated

[slow]

It’s all hearsay in terms of what an elite skier feels or performs without a blind test. It maybe true.

[skierjp]

I think when you compare supercharged engines that’s a whole new animal for octane requirements.

[The_MS]

Is it December?

[ToddF]

@matthewbrown

any roots style supercharger can be making 10-15lbs of boost at 3500.

and fuel requirements for a boosted engine vs NA are substantial just to make the same HP .

Boosted injectors need to be 20% larger just to make an equal amount of hp.

 

So comparing boosted and NA engines isn't a very a viable one especially at WOT.

 

Amongst start up enrichment and a few other things.

there are three main tables that modern computerized engines use:

VE

Timing

AFR

and you can put in any values you want, depending on how you want the engine to run.

 

The manufacturers have built in timing retard based on octane rating, the drop in HP is there. But, not because of lack of fuel/octane itself it is because of a computer program written by someone to protect the longevity of the engine.

 

Don't blame the fuel blame the programmers.

 

 

[JAS]

@adamhcaldwell any thoughts on using non-ethanol gas over E-10 E-15. ? My Gt-40 EFI seems to have fewer issues on hot days, and sitting between runs, with non-ethanol.

[ToddA]

@JAS , I would say the same of our GT40 in our 99 SN. Runs much "happier" on non-ethanol, and, it wasn't until I started using an ethanol unleaded that I started having fuel system issues the very next season (fuel pump failure). Maybe coincidence, maybe not.

[skiinxs]

Another point to consider is gas aging. If you have a few hundred gallons of 87 octane gas delivered to your lake tank and it takes you a few months to use it all, your octane on the last of the fuel will be less than 87. I don't know how accurate it is, but I have heard a common estimate of losing one octane point per month when stored. Easy solution here is not have more delivered than you can use in a few weeks, but the costs of delivery per gallon will be higher with more frequent fills.

[Alberto Soares]

I ski at 4500' with a 6.0 200 with 1800h, still strong WOT 5500/43mph, the only gas available here in Brasil is 27% ethanol. Besides the normal maintenance, ie plugs, cables, impellers, oil and filters, I only changed an air sensor, water pump and the rpm gauge.

 

I also ski with 5.7's MC 190, Response LXI and a local MB boat. All those 5.7 boats are terrible to ski due to the lack of power and consequent speed variation at 4500'.

 

I don't think a better octane fuel would change anything, as I read here before, HP, love and money, the more, the best.

 

[ReallyGottaSki]

<, some tool on Amazon is selling a bilge blower painted grey and calling it an electric supercharger!

:s

 

 

[chrislandy]

@Alberto Soares have you got LPG / Propane available? with a propane only setup you can get the same if not more power out of it and you get a 110 octane fuel

[Alberto Soares]

@chrislandy - Unfortunately GLP/Propane is not allowed for cars and boats here.

[chrislandy]

that's a shame :(

[Wish]

 

[UWSkier]

Almost? Been over $3 here since late Feb. :neutral:

[Hockdog]

I saw premium posted for $5.19 in a small town less than 2 hours north of San Francisco yesterday...

[chrislandy]

When it hits $8, then you're allowed to complain!!!

 

@Alberto Soares have you anyway of monitoring for any knock retardation? eg lead and software to plug in or anything on the diagnostic screen? if you have "knock"/detonation/preignition then using an octane booster might help, if no or minimal knock then it's just a factor of the elevation i.e. how much o2 you can get into the engine per stroke.

 

My understanding is modern ECU's don't/can't measure the octane in the fuel, they just listen for "knock" and retard timing on a per cycle basis, they back off to stop it then add advance until they can hear it again, then back off and repeat.

[Cnewbert]

This is a very enlightening discussion, but not having any meaningful background in engines and mechanics, much of it is above my pay grade. I’m pretty much limited to oil, filters and plug changes with my meager knowledge. Because it’s available locally and because my owner’s manual says it’s the best, I’ve been using 93 octane non ethanol gas in my Ilmor 6.0L MPI engine. My thinking was, why skimp on gas with a new and expensive motor. But I had no idea what octane was actually for and naively believed if some was good, more must be better since it cost more. I simply thought it would provide better performance and be somehow better for the engine in ways I didn’t understand.

 

Based on this discussion/debate, this is what I now believe to be true. I’d appreciate any correction to my understanding as applied to my particular motor:

 

The purpose of octane is to reduce or eliminate harmful engine knock. The tendency for knock is increased in high compression DI engines, and these engines receive the greatest benefit from high (93) octane gas. The Ilmor 6.0 MPI with its 9.6:1 compression ratio is not a high compression engine, so 93 octane gas offers no additional performance or knock protection benefits over and above what 90 octane provides, so I’m wasting my money buying the more expensive fuel.

 

Do I have this pretty much right? 90 non ethanol is presently $0.15/ gallon cheaper than 93 non ethanol where we live. Not a dramatic difference, but the savings on a full tank is worth a couple of decent IPAs at the store, so it’s not to be sneezed at.

 

[AdamCord]

@Cnewbert even the modern engines that do not have very high compression use what's called adaptive learn technology or adaptive timing depending on the brand. This allows these engines to advance the timing further, which creates more power, when using higher octane fuel. These engines are not at risk of damage like the higher compression engines, but they still will have more power and ski better with higher octane fuel. That's why Mastercraft still highly recommends using 93 octane even in their 6.0L engines.

 

I know they did a back to back test using 87 and 93 octane behind the 6.0L Mastercraft down at trophy lakes a few weeks ago and everyone skied better with the 93 octane gas. Some people gained an entire pass.

[Keith_Menard]

Was at the marina yesterday...guy pulls in with a brand new Super Air Nautique and gets the cheap stuff. I thought maybe he had the 5.3, but he let me know it had 450hp. It's like getting a trophy wife and giving her a walmart gift card to pick out her ring.

 

I will be over here in the sexist smoking section waiting for my Panda.

[Cnewbert]

@AdamCord well hell, there goes my beer fund. Back to 93 octane I guess. Not that I need any extra power for my level of skiing, but right or wrong it seems to me that if the engine has more power available, it won’t have to work as hard at whatever demands are made of it.

[MillerTime38]

I have learned so much from this thread, apparently engines can learn and it’s easier to ski when there is more expensive gas dumped into the tank, how did the folks ever ski back in the day before all this “knowledge” came to light. Anyone else feel like this whole thread is just click bait? I am kind of embarrassed that I got sucked into it

 

@chrislandy thanks for letting us know when we can complain ?

[skierjp]

Yeah it's like how did Bob LaPoint ever run 39 with 250 hp and that wicked MasterCraft Ski, LOL

[liquid d]

Well!...i put the good stuff in this morning, and my ski partner didn't even shorten the rope......friggin wasted money! OOOH...i'm working on my form he says! my neck is a little sore! shoulda told me that BEFORE i went to get gas!

[DW]

I find it interesting that this thread is focused on 'feeding the beast' high octane juice so it produces best power output while over on the (or any) ZO thread people are asking for the system to be a kinder, gentler (ie: less power) option...

[Jody_Seal]

 

[bigtex2011]

@DW totally agree. Not sure to many pro's or commoner's really are or should be that worried about octane and getting every last pony out of their motor. It's not drag racing.

 

Coaching, technique, physical fitness would seem to be higher on my list.

 

Not once during a lesson has a coach ever ask me what grade of fuel do i use in my boat.

 

 

 

[kurtis500]

The science and dyno work on octane is WAY over 30 years old with multiport or tb injection. Carburated motors? its older than your grandparents. The variables that go into this are so many its hard to count. Anyone have a weather station to tune with? Thats just the start.. if not let the computer do its thing.

 

If the computer senses knock it will retard the timing..thats how it works. This will lose power..... but when have you ever noticed in a heavy ski boat?

[Mastercrafter]

Since lowly-old-me’s PB is a -22 pass at 32, I’ll likely never get to the “need higher octane” level. But.. I’ll ask anyways.

 

When skiing faster speeds and real short line lengths, does the extra horsepower help accelerate you across the wakes and get wider, quicker?

 

I know I’m missing something but it seems less HP would fight you less and make skiing easier, but I’m assuming it must take every ounce of power to keep up with the skier a d get them to the next buoy.

[jayski]

#fakenews

[kurtis500]

Octane doesnt make horsepower.. Octane is the fuels resistance to detonation

 

Motors have no idea what octane you put in it. Today they are setup by computer and follow a specific timing curve and are advanced at a degree that follows the computer. I've set these up in my own high HP applications. Its complex and risky messing with the computer timing setups and the OEM's lock you out so you cant screw it up and void your warranty. The computer has sensors mounted to the engine that "listen" for knock or detonation. When the computer senses it the ignition is retarded per the computers pre-set instructions to avoid detonation. Otherwise the motor follows the exact same timing curve with 87 octane or 93 octane or 100LL. The motor doesnt know.

 

If a motor is designed with higher compression or boosted applications that require a 91 or 100 or 110 octane as a starting point than you have to use the minimum. If the motor REQUIRES the 91 and you put 87 in it you risk the motor retarding the timing on its own to stop detonation. If you put 91 in it and it runs fine why would you put 110 octane in it? More power? NOPE!

 

Unless things have changed all the crate motors in these boats are run on an open loop setup with the ECU for the injection. That means it doesnt use an o2 sensor. O2 sensors are a royal pain in a butt, I tried and burned up 8 over the years from inversion off the exhausts. You need headers and a long distance from the transom to even think about using them. By using the MAP and other sensors the motors run just fine and dont need it. Unless your running high elevation and gas thats been sitting around forever the motors are designed to NOT run on the edge and detonate themselves leaving you a bilge full of hot metal.

[Mastercrafter]

@kurtis500 pretty sure all modern towboat engines used closed loop controls with O2 sensors. We’ve come a long ways.