4.3 vs 3.0 opinions please

[Quid]

Re: 4.3 vs 3.0 opinions please

Okay, so I went to the Four Winns website and sorted through the archives, which was sorta surprising.
My '89 18 footer weighs in over 2400 lbs with 150 prop hp from the 4.3. The 98 17 footer weighs in 400 lbs less with 135 prop hp. The kicker is the '98 has only 6" less length but 3" more width, which if my fuzzy math is correct makes it a bigger boat than the 18'er, correct? So to be 400 lbs less is great.
So, I know apples for apples, the same boat with the two engines would be worlds apart, but it SEEMS in my case the newer, smaller engined boat is at least on par, maybe even better than what im used to, not a step down.
Did I miss something? I have a shot at a '98 Horizon QX in immaculate shape for $5500..

 

[Quid]

Re: 4.3 vs 3.0 opinions please

Now that I think about it isn't it sorta pathetic that it used to take almost 50% more displacement to make only 15 extra HP compared to a newer engine? Kinda glad I'm out of the '89 now.
Puts a little twist on that no replacement for displacement thing....

 

[Bigprairie1]

Re: 4.3 vs 3.0 opinions please

Now that I think about it isn't it sorta pathetic that it used to take almost 50% more displacement to make only 15 extra HP compared to a newer engine? Kinda glad I'm out of the '89 now.
Puts a little twist on that no replacement for displacement thing....

Don't forget the other very important part of the power deal....torque. The 4.3 has quite a bit more of it I think. Think of car/truck specs...with the trucks, the biggest requirement is torque at a low rpm. Hp is just a higher speed benefit...if you ever get there. A little food for thought.
That said, I can not imagine the 135hp (prop?) as being immensely underpowered. I have no experience with either motor but people have been skiing for decades with less power than either one of these choices. Unless we all got big and fat suddenly or attained a very high caliber of skiing skill (which lets me out) requiring nothing short of 200hp. Hmmm.
Keep us posted.
BP

 

[fishdog4449]

Re: 4.3 vs 3.0 opinions please

ive skied behind as low as 28 hp, but i would still go with the 4.3
you could live with the 3, but you'll be happier with the more torque from the 4.3

 

[amynbill]

Re: 4.3 vs 3.0 opinions please

I would always buy a boat with the biggest engine it takes. When I bought mine, the FIRST option I looked at was engine sizes/hp and immediately took the biggest one for my boat

 

[QC]

Re: 4.3 vs 3.0 opinions please

A couple of more things here Quid:

1) Who says that the weight specs are correct? Does it include the interior? Steering? Other stuff? Did the '89 include that stuff and the '98 not? We don't really know do we . . .

2) The 150 out of the 4.3 was only the rating they chose for that displacement that year. I am guessing without looking it up it was a 2 barrel carb, the 4 barrel put out more. Remember, just because an auto or marine manufacturer chooses to sell an engine at 135, 170 or 1722 bhp, it does not mean that is the limit of that particular engine model's capability. I would submit that unless we are talking some sort of unlimited racing circuit that it never is . . .

3) Despite the typical mantra, do not get hung up on torque. Marine manufacturers do not even provide that info as it is somewhat irrelevant to a marine application. Unless the throttle is wide open then peak torque is not even in play. If you have one engine with the same gear ratio, same prop pitch in the same hull and it will only pull up one skier, then you have another with all of those the same except it will pull up two skiers, then the latter has more torque . . . But it is very important to remember that a 1:1 gear ratio will apply half the torque to the propeller compared to a 2:1 ratio with the SAME engine . . . Soooo while torque is very important, particularly in automotive applications, this is muddier and very misunderstood in marine. Prop curves are linear, that is they go straight up with RPM. Peak torque curves have a big hump in them, so if the prop does not need the hump to turn it (straight/linear "curve") then why do we have to have high peak torque numbers? Generally speaking, we don't . . .