Powerboat Forums at SpeedWake banner

What is the most popular block with current gas prices?

  • 3.0 liter

    Votes: 2 3.1%
  • 4.3 liter

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • 5.0 liter

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • 5.7 liter

    Votes: 12 18.5%
  • 6.2 liter

    Votes: 10 15.4%
  • 454ci

    Votes: 8 12.3%
  • 496ci

    Votes: 17 26.2%
  • 502ci

    Votes: 4 6.2%
  • 525ci

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • 575ci and above

    Votes: 9 13.8%
1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,291 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
After reading another post, I see a lot of people talking about weather or not its a good time to buy a big block or sell a small block. So was wondering what everyone thinks is the most popular motor right now with gas prices the way they are. Remember lets not sacrifice all power for a 3.0.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,212 Posts
Yup,,going by the mpg results on many boat tests on both performance and regular boating magazines the 496s seem to get some pretty damn good mpg numbers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,762 Posts
496's seem to be pretty good on fuel. I think it depends on the boat. Generally speaking a SBC uses less fuel than a BBC. But, not if your boat is underpowered.
 

·
Platinum Member
Joined
·
1,495 Posts
3wood said:
Im getting between 2.5- and 3 mpg at about 55-60 mph in my boat, t/454mag mpi's
per motor or combined? I've never calculated more than 2.5MPG in a tank on my 242.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,212 Posts
your not gonna get 10mpg in a performance boat,
not even a normal boat with a diesel gets 10mpg
at idle where they usually score their highest mpg.
Highest I have seen on anything outside a low hp
diesel in a displacement hull is around 6mpg.
I have seen boat tests where 496s in mid size
performance boats are getting 2.5-3mpg at speeds
of 30-40mph, that pretty good for a big block
performance boat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,039 Posts
Most of the small block guys in the Microboat thread get decent mileage. Low weight, small hulls displacing less water, and decent cruise speeds equal pretty good fuel mileage.

We are saving fuel by going to a hang out spot about 10 miles away. Total trip about 20 miles. Spend all day there and get a good ride in to boot. Only problem is if we run hard, the 10 mile trip is too short, so it forces you to slow down for most of it and just enjoy the scenery.

However, the weather around here has substantially decreased fuel mileage. O miles per hr = 0 mpg. On the flip side, fuel usage has also gone down drastically 0 mph = o engine run time = 0 gallons used. :dead:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,212 Posts
cfm said:
We are saving fuel by going to a hang out spot about 10 miles away. Total trip about 20 miles. Spend all day there and get a good ride in to boot. /B]

Yup,, for me the local hotspots are all within 3-5 miles, not bad
considering its a 60+ mile lake. I have idled over to the Devils
Cove a bunch of times when I am not in any hurry, listen to
tunes and bs with friends for 30-40minutes and only burning
a gallon or two is not bad at all.
Sounds like I need a pontoon boat with a 15hp whacker as a second boat doesnt it..
:laugher: :laugher: :laugher: :laugher: :laugher:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,762 Posts
HTRDLNCN said:
I have seen boat tests where 496s in mid size
performance boats are getting 2.5-3mpg at speeds
of 30-40mph, that pretty good for a big block
performance boat.
I can get close to 4 mpg at cruise out of my 496. I can cruise 55 MPH @ 3500 RPM. I'm burning about 14 GPH at that RPM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,212 Posts
light boat+efficient hull+efficient engine
Not a bad combination at all.
:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,759 Posts
If you have 2 of the same boats and put different motors in them. Cruise @ 50 mph, your higher HP do not use more fuel than lower HP motors. Cruising @ 50 mph, it only takes X-amount of HP to cruise at that speed for that given hull. It wouldn't matter if you had 496's or 525's. At cruise the 496 boat will consume the same amount of fuel as the 525 boat.

Now WOT is a different story.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,297 Posts
I dont have exact figures, but since my head cam upgrade my SBC gets better MPG now then it did with the stock 260 HP. Maybe more efficient heads and since you can spin a better prop at a lower RPM your saving money right there. In all honestly it all comes down to boat size and how you drive.
 

·
I've Survived Everything!
Joined
·
12,273 Posts
I'm going to throw another factor into this conversation as to lower fuel burn. I have made this statement here in other threads with lots of skeptical replies but here it comes again!

My old 251 Liberator with a single 460 Cobra burned more fuel than my current Formula with two 496 magnums! The Formula is twice as heavy, wider and longer than the Libby. The Libby averaged 18 GPH when measured over time. I owned the Libby for 3 years.

I've had the Formula for two seasons, when I divide the total fuel burned by the hours operated I get 13 1/2 gallons per hour over two years, that is not per engine, that is total fuel consumption.

I will tell you I rarely run WOT and when I do it is for short bursts. My average cruise speed falls between 35 and 50 MPH. The boat tops out at 62 MPH. The Formula weighs in just under 12,000 pounds wet. I operated the Libby the same way.

I have been very happy with the performance of the 496 power and the low fuel expense but I know there is one other fact with this boat that lowers the fuel burn dramatically, that is the drives.

The boat has Duo Prop Bravo 3 drives. The "grip" of the Duo Prop drive is nothing short of amazing. My boat will get on plane in 4.5 seconds from a dead start. Formula publishes that spec in their literature and it has been tested by a number of independent boat test organizations and has been confirmed as being accurate.

I'm of the opinion the economical operation costs for my 330 SS comes from the 496 Magnum power and the Duo prop drives equally.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,878 Posts
I liked the B3 on my PQ too.

The 260hp 5.0 seems to get used by ALOT of different builders lately. I am guessing initial cost has alot to do with that. But 260 out of a 305 seems pretty interesting.
I am always wondering about the effiecency of the 6.2s also...What are those now 350 hp?
If I were buying new, I would probably look at those.
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top