buechsr

jerry, lots of good advice but maybe a call to skidim is in order. They have plenty of 160 thermostats although I'm not clear if you've bench tested a new one. Has anyone ever made a diverter hose for the tranny cooler so as to not restrict fresh water flow to the raw water pump? Jerry, I assume your tranny cooler is not on the pressure side of the raw water pump, correct?

In other words, I'd bet your loose connections fried your alternator, which has damaged battery as well.

14.5 volts? At the battery? That's too high. I'd still test your alternator output but by definition it should be higher than your battery. But you shouldn't see anything that high.

I'm kind of with thager, as op's explanation that (he believes) since the dash pod gauges are lighting doesn't have anything to do with the lanyard switch. I don't think that rules out kill switch at all. But, I don't understand OPs terminology. He says the starter can be "jumped" and then later says it will not "start"...are we talking about a no fire condition or no turn over condition? The screwdriver jump can be used to turn starter over but if its not "firing" then I'd start at the kill switch. I can't speak for sure in nautiques but in many Malibus the kill switch will not keep the engine from turning over, it will only prevent it from running (firing).

Can you post your battery and alternator voltages both before you tightened and after? I'd hazard a guess that you could have been damaging the alternator with the loose connections and thats its output voltage is now deficient.

Must be frustrating. If its a 2019, is your dealer involved or at least aware in case you pop the engine?

@jjackkrash Maybe there was a disagreement as to the verdict form, but it does not treat that question as a predicate to the failure to warn question in the actual form. Perhaps that's an issue for an appeal? https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/documents/404/67553/Batchelder-v.-Malibu-Boats-verdict-forms.pdf Maybe it was written that way for purposes of a High-low agreement depending on the answers? Maybe the questions were designed to preserve product liability insurance coverage (ie, using the word negligence)? But then, does the State of Georgia go away for their (apparent) 75% of $120M? Interesting.

@davemac One is depth and the other temps (water and air). Not related to speed control. One of the switches above the key switches pitots and the other adjusts the speedo. This one predates the switches for controlling the multifunction LCD like on yours. I didn't catch that blue wire at first but am similarly perplexed. It's not going to the throttle linkage and goes astern of the flame arrestor and the goes down. It's too small to be going to the starter and there's no reason it would be going to the distributor or cap. I'm not saying this is a good guess, but I think the transmission shift control bracket is on starboard side and am wondering if someone had to replace the shift linkage cable and either didn't have the right size or couldn't run it in the factory location?

In 2001 Malibu had a factory accu-ski system but the display is not in the pictures. Maybe there's a auxillary square perfect pass display mounted low but that would be odd.

@BraceMaker Interesting observation, but the driver was not a defendant, either, and the jury was allowed to include him in their liability apportionment. A personal injury attorney friend of mine has explained that some states allow a jury to apportion fault to non-parties whether they've settled or not. Don't know about Georgia but would appear the same. Reading between the lines, plaintiffs nor defendants seem like they wanted or needed the Marina involved.

Pics weren't up when I posted last...yes that is a monsoon.

If you post a picture of the engine we can tell you. Likely the monsoon which is a great engine. Sunsetter Lxi is a great boat. I used to have one. There's really nothing "common" except perhaps a bad HDS box (hydrophonic dampening system) which is proprietary to malibu. Even if it is, its not that big of a deal. Lots of info on the malibu crew for solutions. Other than that, nothing unique.

I guess. I just don't see how alignment has any effect on the seal since the shaft is running through the channel that's attached to the shaft. In any event, I think we're in agreement its the opportune time to check the alignment, which is done too infrequently anyway.

@BS74 Driver was found 75% at fault, and 75% of the punitive verdict appears to go to the state of Georgia. If Malibu paid every nickel awarded to the parents, it is a total due to them of $50M before legal expenses. Let's assume for discussion sake that if the son was 7 at the time, that his parents were 40 at the time. Let's also assume they have a 40 year life expectancy, and got all $50M from Malibu. That's $625,000 per parent a year....to live the rest of your life knowing your son's last memory was his leg getting chopped off, the rest of his body so deformed and massacred that it stalled the boat, and whatever life he did have left was taken as he drowned. They're also asking themselves, "Did he suffer? Was it instant? God I hope it was instant. But what if it wasn't, what if he was alive? How long did he suffer? Did he cry out our names? Is this our fault? Why did we go to the lake for this family reunion? This is my fault." Every day, likely every hour, those thoughts will be in their brains. And every hour they're also going to be reminded that a boat company didn't even test their own design (per reporting on Alkema's testimony), but at a minimum failed to warn of any limitations. Do you really think they'll be happy trading $625,000/yr for the rage and despair that they will never ever escape? Think their marriage will ever be the same? Sure this was an uncommonly large verdict even at $50M, and is of course no replacement for him, but don't kid yourself, it ain't "stupid".

Tom, How would bad alignment contribute to a dripless system failing? I can't just wrap my head around that?

John, I think you're accelerating past the set speed too far which is why it won't come back down. Now, if it's truly locked in (you'll know by the top banner staying highlighted black) and surges, that's a little weird. I'd actually suggest doing a master reset and starting over, using a more judicious approach to the intended set speed. To reset you hold 2 buttons down when keying up but I forget which 2. Also, trying running in wakeboard mode and see if it behaves the same.

I second that you shouldn't need to remove the rudder. At worst you can remove the prop (before you disconnect from coupler) which should allow (has on the 2 boats I've done this) the shaft to come out completely by sliding past the rudder. That's my recollection, at least. I agree it's a perfect time to replace your strut bushing. They really might not "need" to be done, but you'd have to go through the same process to do so later. I used the plastic (vesconite?) bushings last time on a Barefoot Nautique. Your dealer can either send the strut off or if you have access to a puller (can be had through skidim) then you should be able to do it while installed without removing it but don't quote me on that. I do have some recollection of having to mounting a strut to a board that I put in a vice to get the bushing out. But that may have been removed for another reason. And while you're at it! You should check the alignment. IF you don't know how, say so and I or someone else can explain process. Alignment is one of those things that should really be done more than it usually is.

OP, definitely upgrade to 3 event. Secondly, can you describe your "surge"? Under load, as in a reaction to a pull, or just even cruising? How big of a speed swing? If significant, I'd recommend a new (or second) return spring. Yours is 20 years old and it does need to be a strong counter to the servo.

It can take many key up cycles to reprime the whole fuel system. Did you test the pressure on the fuel rail on key up? I have a diacom (the handheld version) I could send you to use. I have no experience with Ilmor, but would assume that diacom is the requisite diagnostic language. I don't know if I have an Ilmor harness. If you want to ask your PCM tech friend which one it requires or take a picture I'll see if I have it or not.

@aupatking I’d disagree that Response LXs were designed to break world records. They were designed to be sold, and their ability to be sold relied on their ability to break world records, or at least perform like their world breaking brother with a closed bow that WAS designed to break world records. Big difference in paradigm, especially when the open bow does not contribute to “breaking world records”, the bow was cut out simply to sell more boats, as confirmed by Bob Alkema. No reasonable person would assume that a Malibu Response was intended as an off shore fishing boat, just like no reasonable person would have the expectation that an off shore boat should draft 4 inches of water and get into creeks like a flats boat. However, a reasonable person could easily expect that because there are seats in the bow of a response LX, that they can be used by kids while they toodle around at around 10mph. At a minimum…it’s reasonable for someone to expect a warning if there is a weight limit or speed window to avoid.

@swbca I understand that. But a lot is being conflated between the news stories and the posts herein, some of which are seemingly just flat incorrect (if the reporting is accurate). But I can’t keep from responding since I’m a former Response LX owner and interested in some of these issues. Your Prostar is similar of course, but still not quite the same as a Response LX. Unless I’m forgetting about a prostar era, the Response LX is unique in that in a bow swamp, water can’t move (quickly) to the stern because there is no walk-through. Nonetheless, you’re aware of how your boat drives, its limitations, and its dangers. MOST owners (or drivers) are. I still own a Response built in the era of the boat involved (closed bow now though :) ). The DISTINCTION IS: you, I, and many with years of experience appreciate those dangers. That was not the case here, which is precisely why there are duties to warn people who have no other way of knowing. While the verdict would have likely been much different if one of “us” were driving, ask yourself, is it really that unreasonable for a sober adult to have 3 very young kids in a bowrider and (reportedly) cross your own wake at 10 mph? We as a group might have handled things different, but it’s not like the description of what took place was in any way reckless or egregious, or for that matter in any way not totally predictable use by an owner or renter. And yet, here we are, unfortunately. I’m sure the boy’s parents would rather just have him back. As to your Audi analogy, if Audi’s engineers were deposed about an RS7’s top speeds, rest assured they’d have answers about their testing and why the limits are what they were. Product liability does not arise simply because a product can be dangerous. However, the more appropriate analogy would be a 7 year old boy killed by a an RS7 towing a trailer using a factory available hitch at the speed limit if Audi had not provided information from which owners can appreciate that which Audi engineers think they can safely tow. The paradigm is a little different there, isn’t it?

@unksskis Probably first looking at the statutes of repose state by state. Interestingly, the internet says 75% of punitive damage awards in Georgia GO TO THE STATE! See at the bottom: https://www.haddenfirm.com/Georgia-Defective-Products-Damages-Time-Limits So, Georgia is actually going to get more than the parents.

@swbca Cars are built to mitigate injuries in the foreseeable collisions that will occur, or at least not be excessively dangerous. Bikes are built with appropriate components for their foreseeable use. Bob Alkema testified that they cut a hole in the bow to sell more boats and (as it's reported anyway) did no testing, could produce no records that they did, nor provide a warning on the limitations for using the bow. Was it totally foreseeable that owners (and renters) would put people on the bow? Obviously. Is it totally foreseeable that with a sufficient amount of weight a swamp condition is a matter of time? Obviously. Is it totally foreseeable that if that occurs, people fall out? Of course. No one, not even the jury, said the driver was without fault. But I don't know that I can criticize a jury after they heard what they did and conclude he is ONLY one at fault. I'm a many time and current Malibu owner btw. I assume you appreciate that if Malibu had shown some interest in testing it, put a sticker on the windshield that limited bow occupants or weight, this would be a much different issue for Malibu, right?

Come to right place! I'd recommend a Radar Union, Katana, or Butterknife. A year ago my wife got a Butterknife to keep boat speed lower since she now skis less and isn't chasing buoys. It's much wider and softer than most traditional skis which helps on starts but will also flex in the turn without feeling like a plank. I think there is a video of this site's owner on a Katana which is almost as wide as a butterknife getting up the rope pretty good. Hard to go wrong with the current skis available.

Here's what we know from reporting: Former CEO Alkema testified that the design of the boat was not changed to accommodate bow-riding passengers or weight, no seaworthiness testing done to take into account or limit or recommend what a reasonable bow capacity should be, apparently no warnings provided, another Malibu executive testified that no such testing was done until 2011 (for new boats), and that was for purposes of liability mitigation as a result of a case against Mastercraft...with no mention (as reported) that it was motivated by actually giving consideration for the safety of their users. Some of you might not know that the open bow of an LX is not part of the main cabin like in walk through designs. It is its own "bowl". I've owned one, and when I did, even I questioned the safety of its design. We also know: a boat with a hole cut in the bow (again, with no objective testing or warning) took on so much water that it was close to total swamp, driver makes a reasonable attempt to save it, yet a 7 year old gets so badly entangled in the prop that a crane was needed to recover the boat and remove his body. His parents, who were not on the boat and not driving (unlike what has been said in this thread), are obviously overcome with emotion and anger and want to understand how that could have happened, which doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure it out. The law provides them recourse, they pursued it (understandably), the jury was so overcome that it concluded that it was so egregious for there to have been no testing nor recommendations that it said Malibu should be assessed significant punitive damages. System worked exactly as intended. Just like in Pinto litigation, Firestone, breast implants, etc. If you don't like the result, run for office and change the law. Until then, it's not fair to shoot messengers who did exactly what this boy's parents hired them to do. It's surprising (or maybe not) that I haven't heard anyone yet acknowledge it's pretty stupid to cut a hole in the bow of a boat with just a few inches of bow freeboard and then not provide people a bow capacity. I digress.