Greg Banish

Tangential topic, We're actually looking at selling our property on the ski lake at Thousand Oaks. Ideally, we would sell directly to a skier instead of having to hope that a local realtor knows the difference between a tournament lake and a "waterfront".

It doesn't seem like that long ago that I was there too. A lot of the people in my boat still ski -15/-22 @ 30mph. Stack is absolutely correct. BUT they have to understand WHEN it's important, which is white water to white water as said above. I see a LOT of them give up on the pull/stack as they approach the first wake with fear or immediately as they pass centerline because that's what the pros look like they're doing to them. Getting them to hold the leverage into, through, and a little after the wakes lets them hold the proper speed to make it to the ball with time to turn. It's not until you get past -22 that that you don't have to feel like you're still doing a lot of pulling past centerline to get all the way across as a newbie who doesn't make tons of speed coming out of the ball like @Horton can in the video above.

I used to own a DD214 and my neighbor has an X14V (same hull, v-drive config) and can tell you that even with the same hull, moving the engine back pretty much ruins the slalom wake at 30 and 32 mph. If you are a beginning or intermediate skier running slower boat speeds and longer than -28, I think you're going to have a hard time honestly saying ANY V-drive feels as nice as the average DD. Just because the ads showed a pro skier at 36mph and shortline behind it doesn't mean it will work for you.

At 28mph, your narrow ski is more "IN" the water than "ON" the water. It's not doing you any favors operating in the wrong position, creating drag where it isn't designed to. I usually ski 32mph, and going down to 30mph on my Connelly GT (narrow, like your Vapor) makes it feel very sluggish and "draggy" to me compared to my older Carbon V (wider) at that speed. The reality is that the narrow ski IS a rocket, but not at such slow boat speeds. With less surface area in the water, they also feel unstable at slow speeds, similar to what you feel as you're getting pulled up to speed from a deep water start. Until you're ready to go 30+mph, I would bet any pro would recommend the wider (but still shaped) skis, even in the course for you.

On my 2003 (TSC2) 196, I find that also opening the opposite filler cap enough to create a vent allows me to run any gas pump handle at full boogie into the tank.

I went from double high wrap boots to a hard shell and R-style and found it quite comfortable and familiar. The other small benefit of the R-style is a closed toe in cold water at the beginning/end of the season.

I'm with @75Tique on the swimming recommendation. I am a competitive US Masters swimmer, so waterskiing is actually my "off season". I can tell you that after swimming regular 1500-2500m workouts 4-6days/wk, I am the only one in the boat not sucking wind after the first set each spring.

They used 2,4D in our lake (in Michigan) as well with decent results. It has to be applied at a specific water temp in spring to be most effective. It only affects dichots, so it's safe on grass. Our biggest challenge is that some homeowners refused to let them apply it to the beds in front of their homes, which makes eradication across the entire lake almost impossible.

VP's from two different auto makers are regulars on our ski course. I ski with one, and see the other at work regularly.

@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.

Agreed on running a fresh (fused) connection direct to the battery. It is very unlikely that your accessory power leads are robust enough to supply the current that amp needs. Just run a dedicated power line.

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

@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.

@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.

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?

I recently ran my 2003 SN196 against my neighbor's new 2018 200 (5.3L DI engine). I got about 3/4 length lead from the holeshot and we were frozen there all the way to 42mph together.

@Horton "MPI" = Multi Port Injection (NOT a GenV DI engine). You can see the fuel rail crossover above the middle of the intake manifold in the pictures, confirming that it's based on the older (GenIV) engine. Still, not a bad engine though. They have proven super durable in their OEM truck applications over the years.

Only happens when we have to work... Day jobs are overrated. At this rate, Wade is going to have his work cut out trying to fix my skiing next month.

I did the same research several years ago and landed on TSC2 as the winner for slalom-only duty. I now have a 2003 (TSC2) and it's a solid favorite amongst my crew who normally skis at 30-32mph 22-28 off. 34mph only gets better/flatter. I can definitely notice the difference between my TSC2 and my neighbor's 2017 SN200. Really, the only compromise on my older boat is Stargazer vs ZO and interior creature comforts.

Are any of you Detroit area guys interested in joining us for a day of coaching with Wade. We're on Pine Lake in West Bloomfield. No date yet, just gauging interest for him.

@Than_Bogan I would argue that a "good" skier might sand some of the acceleration spikes off the edges compared to someone just barely making the same pass. So I would find it believable that even lower skill levels see elevated G's during a run, just not intentionally or necessarily to make that particular pass.

Bummer. Website link for registration wouldn't work for me. I checked back a few days later and it's "sold out" here in Michigan. I had a GREAT time skiing with Jeff and Nate last year, so it sucks to miss it this time.

@Golfguy 330hp requires roughly the same engine airflow either way. The benefit here is that the turbocharger gets to use a VERY efficient water-to-air intercooler that has an infinite supply of cool water under the boat to keep actual inlet temps to the cylinders in a safe range, regardless of what's going on under the engine box.

Keep in mind that Ford also puts the 2.3T in the new Ranger pickup. It is plenty capable of pulling. I'm not advocating this engine for a 5000#+ballast surf barge, but it IS ideal for our slalom tugs. The biggest hangup will probably be getting used to a new "home" on the tach. If you trade engine torque for RPM, you deliver the same POWER to the propeller to accelerate the boat. This engine has just as much power as the 5.7L V8 that most here are used to. Who cares if the tach needle points to 4000 instead of 3600 during a run if the engine is still quieter and has enough power to keep up with the demands of ZO? Until you ski one, you won't really be able to complain. And I suspect that if we did a true blind test, many here could be completely satisfied with the pull of this engine in a lightweight boat.

Put me in, coach! If I ever have to repower my SN196, an engine like this is my FIRST CHOICE. I have decades of experience in turbocharging modern automotive gas engines and doing calibration work on torque control and emissions. Anyone whining about lag, torque delay, or cooling has little or no first hand experience with this application.