Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

[NYBo]

Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

remember though... more power=more gas...

Not exactly, surprisingly. In the June 2010 edition, Boating Magazine compared two boats with the base and optional powerplants. In both cases, fuel economy at cruising speed was best with the greater/greatest horsepower!

 

[JCMINIS]

Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

I can say that I own a chap 19ft bowrider w/4.3 V-6. The 4.3 has decent power for what you describe.We're a family of 5 and have never felt underpowered for watersports.Cant comment on the 4 cyl.

BUT we want more power + more room. The chap will be replaced with a V8 tritoon soon.......

 

[45Auto]

Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

The one nice thing about the 3.0 -- which is what I have -- is that it is very thrifty on gas.

I have owned a MCM 140 3.0 liter for 26 years and it does everything I want it to do. I can pull 2 skiiers. If I want more top end I'll change props. I had the option of a V-6 but declined. Glad I did. I laugh every time I go to the gas pump.

Glad you can appreciate the humor in the fact that you have less power and have been burning more gas than you needed to for 26 years!

Have any 4 cylinder owners ever done ANY research comparing their boat to an equivelent V6, or do you just ASSuME that since you have less power you're burning less gas??? There is real-world data available if you'll take the time to look for it.

It appears that very few people realize how much POWER it takes to push a boat through the water compared to rolling a car down the road. Do you really think that a semi-trailer would get better mileage with a Honda Civic engine in it???

Here's two tests on identical Sea Ray 185 Sport boats, one with the entry level 3.0L (lowest possible bottom line to suck in first time buyers) and one with the optional V6.

3.0L:

http://www.boattest.com/boats/Boat_video.aspx?ID=968#Test-Result

4.3L:

http://www.boattest.com/boats/Boat_video.aspx?ID=286#Test-Result

Here's a graph of the fuel mileage versus speed just to make it easier to compare. Notice how the 4.3 gets BETTER gas mileage over about 22 MPH? Maybe if you spend all your time below planing speed you can save gas with the 3.0L. The 4.3 is also over 10 MPH faster on top speed, which means cruising at 25-30 MPH is MUCH more comfortable. Kind of like the difference between cruising down the freeway in your car at 70 MPH in overdrive or second gear .....

 

[wca_tim]

Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

Glad you can appreciate the humor in the fact that you have less power and have been burning more gas than you needed to for 26 years!

Have any 4 cylinder owners ever done ANY research comparing their boat to an equivelent V6, or do you just ASSuME that since you have less power you're burning less gas??? There is real-world data available if you'll take the time to look for it.

It appears that very few people realize how much POWER it takes to push a boat through the water compared to rolling a car down the road. Do you really think that a semi-trailer would get better mileage with a Honda Civic engine in it???

Here's two tests on identical Sea Ray 185 Sport boats, one with the entry level 3.0L (lowest possible bottom line to suck in first time buyers) and one with the optional V6.

3.0L:

http://www.boattest.com/boats/Boat_video.aspx?ID=968#Test-Result

4.3L:

http://www.boattest.com/boats/Boat_video.aspx?ID=286#Test-Result

Here's a graph of the fuel mileage versus speed just to make it easier to compare. Notice how the 4.3 gets BETTER gas mileage over about 22 MPH? Maybe if you spend all your time below planing speed you can save gas with the 3.0L. The 4.3 is also over 10 MPH faster on top speed, which means cruising at 25-30 MPH is MUCH more comfortable. Kind of like the difference between cruising down the freeway in your car at 70 MPH in overdrive or second gear .....

I LOVE YOUR POSTS!!! You give me all the justification and rationalization I need to continue to add power. Looking at blowers now...


to the OP. 4.3 is just fine in that size boat, but you won't feel overpowered by a bit. I suspect if you ran the same boat with a v-8 in it for comparison, you would want the v-8. It won't burn more gas unless you run it faster.. which of course you probably will... I don't know aobut prices there, but here you could by a couple nice set-ups for those prices...

to bring home the point regarding the huge amount of power it takes to push a boat through the water, two of my vehicles:

2000 corvette, ca. 375 hp LS1 350, 6spd manual, 3300 pounds curbside, top speed about 190

1988 17 1/2 ft checkmate (balsa cored, stepped hull with a pad), ca. 450+ hp 383, running a merc alpha ss drive, ca. 2700 pounds dockside, top speed probably mid 80's when I get it back together this week.

the boat is very comfortable cruising at 50-60, the car, doesn't matter... I can't afford those kinds of tickets...

The data speaks for itself...

 

[Philster]

Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

^More cubic inches can buy more efficiency at various speeds/conditions.^ The idea around efficiency is real-world usage. There are test conditions in labs that show smaller engines to be more fuel efficient, but real-world use is something else. Something happens to little 4 cyl, 4-strokers when they need torque to pull heavy loads: They rev and rev and have prop slippage. The bigger engine has a bigger prop and can dig out without revving it's brains out.

OVERLOOKED: Keep this in mind. A 2-stroke 150 HP outboard might be the better choice when all choices here are considered. 2-strokers light up fast (rarely can a 4-stroker match them) and rev happily up and down. With fewer moving parts, they are more reliable. To get the feel of a 150 HP outboard, you probably need closer to a 200 HP I/O and a really good prop.

Read my tag line.

 

[haulnazz15]

Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

I can say that I own a chap 19ft bowrider w/4.3 V-6. The 4.3 has decent power for what you describe.We're a family of 5 and have never felt underpowered for watersports.Cant comment on the 4 cyl.

BUT we want more power + more room. The chap will be replaced with a V8 tritoon soon.......

Have fun with your DOWNGRADE! Freakin pontoons . . . go buy a deckboat if you want floor space!

 

[PitchFork]

Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

I have a 19' 1930SS Chaparral that was supposed to have a 5.0L in it but unfortunately was repowered to a 5.7L poor me. From what I have seen my buddy has a 2007 18' 3.0L Sea Ray that has plenty of power but it is a small boat and he gets beat to hell when running in water that is less than flat. I would not and glad I did not get a 18' non Deep "V" Hull. If I were you I would step up to the higher 19' Chaparral with a Deep V Hull with at least a 4.3L in it.

Chaparrals are hard to find for a reason they are great boats that have lots of storage and perform well. My next boat will be another Chaparral just a little bigger 21' or 23'.

 

[jkust]

Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

Chaparrals are hard to find for a reason they are great boats that have lots of storage and perform well. My next boat will be another Chaparral just a little bigger 21' or 23'.

x2 but the 180 ssi more along the lines of the Sea Ray 175. Very light and should hardly wear the Chap name. If you can find a 190SSI or 183SS (both are 18'3" and 19'11" with the swim platform, can accept 270hp and are 40% heavier than the 180) you'd see what PitchFork means. Also, then if you can find an outboard powered, newer similar boat, I'd at least consider it. They are a blast to drive and you can get away with a lot less HP and still get great performance. A few brands of bowriders still offer OB power.

 

[mcgolfpro]

Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

One thing I noticed about the Chaparral 180ssi we were looking at with the 3.0 is that is was pretty light (2100 lbs) compared to some others in the same class... The Reinell we looked at was 2450, a Glastron was 2700... I would think that the Chapparal being lighter would make a significant difference? i.e. Better ability to pull tubers and/or wakeboards, but the downside being getting beat up on less than smooth water?

 

[45Auto]

Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

Overall weight can possibly make a significant difference in boat performance IF EVERYTHING ELSE IS EQUAL. But when looking at different brands of boats, everything else is NOT equal!

Basically additional weight means that the boat must displace more water. This translates to additional wetted surface area which finally gets us to the important part, more wetted surface area means more drag.

Unfortunately, hull configuration (deadrise, steps, etc) can make a bigger difference between brands than total weight. A heavier boat with a more efficient hull can outperform a lighter boat with a "draggier" hull. And on top of that, weight distribution (where you put the weight in the boat, up front, in back, etc) can also easily have a bigger effect than total weight difference.

That's why it's hard to compare engines in different brands of boats. Especially in the lower-powered boats, the hull form probably has as much to do with the performance as the engine.

That's what I thought was enlightening about the tests I linked to in my previous post. The exact same boat (Sea Ray 185) demonstrated much better performance (both speed and MPG) with the 4.3L V6 than with the 3.0L I4.

 

[H8tank]

Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

You'll find that it's human nature to defend what you own. Lots of people with 3.0's will tell you that their's are great, will do 50 MPH and pull 6 or 7 225 lb skiers out of the water at once with ease.

This is sooo true.

I've got a 3.0 on a 19' i/o....it has PLENTY of power for watersports! I slalom ski with 6 guys in the boat, no problem.

AHHHH! LOL! Thanks bro, you just made me shat myself I am laughing so hard! That is awesome comedy gold sarcasm right there!

 

[25thmustang]

Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

A friend of mine has an 18' Sea Ray with a 4.3. Even with that motor a decent load of people made the boat feel underpowered. I couldn't imagine a 3.0.

 

[JimKW]

Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

I had a Mercruiser 4.0 years ago and it ran fine, but always wanted more power. Decided not to get the V8 because of gas consumption. So I got a smaller boat with the 4.3 V6. It's just what I wanted, an 18' boat that will do about 53 mph easily.

I bought this boat last year for $10,500. It's a Crownline 186 and it runs great and does not seem small at all. The guy was asking $12,600 and I just would not pay that much. I looked at several 4 cyl, but really wanted the V6, and I like red.

 

[JimS123]

Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

Glad you can appreciate the humor in the fact that you have less power and have been burning more gas than you needed to for 26 years!

Have any 4 cylinder owners ever done ANY research comparing their boat to an equivelent V6, or do you just ASSuME that since you have less power you're burning less gas??? There is real-world data available if you'll take the time to look for it.

As a matter of fact, I DO know for a fact. The year I bought my boat it was one of the models that was listed by Powerboat Magazine as one of the recommendations. They tested that particular model with each of the engine options offered that year. It was funny....LOL. The opening remark by the editor was "how could a company justify selling that particular boat with a 4 banger between the stringers". After testing the boat and running the numbers, his concluding statement was "Oh thats why".

I personally would never put down money on a factory ordered boat without perfoamance curves. And if the data is not available, move on to another manufacturer.

 

[JimS123]

Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

Have fun with your DOWNGRADE! Freakin pontoons . . . go buy a deckboat if you want floor space!

Wow! Tell us what you really think.

Pontoons have their place, just like jetskis and rowboats and Scarabs. You don't have to be a snob about it.

 

[25thmustang]

Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

I have a 3.0 in a 21' cuddy, I can pull one wake boarder, but only if I keep the passengers in the front of the boat. If my primary purpose was watersports, I would opt for the 4.3. The 3.0 is great for us, as we only ski a few times a year. It is great on gas, 3,000 RPM, approx 18 MPH and approx 5 gal/hour fuel burn

18 mph in a 21'er? Seems slowish to me, although you can't argue the mpg!

 

[45Auto]

Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

The year I bought my boat it was one of the models that was listed by Powerboat Magazine as one of the recommendations.

I don't suppose you have any links to the article or a hardcopy you could scan, do you?

 

[JimS123]

Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

I don't suppose you have any links to the article or a hardcopy you could scan, do you?

I don't believe they had "links" back in '84, but I'm pretty sure I still have the hard copies somewhere. I'll scan and post as soon as I find them.

 

[jkust]

Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

was listed by Powerboat Magazine as one of the recommendations.

Thats funny. One of my other boats was the 1984 Powerboat Magazine 'Boat of the Year'. There are actually decals on it to this day that denote the designation. I don't know their selection criteria back then but the competition must have been very different in those days.

 

[JimS123]

Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

Thats funny. One of my other boats was the 1984 Powerboat Magazine 'Boat of the Year'. There are actually decals on it to this day that denote the designation. I don't know their selection criteria back then but the competition must have been very different in those days.

If you know of the magazine you'll remember that the publisher personally evaluated each boat and he was a former boat racer. So, "performance" was very important. They evaluated hole shot, time to plane, top speed, etc, but they also put a skiier aboard and evaluated towing performance.

Now, they had some pre-conceived idea about what the minimum speed a boat should be capaable of, so if it didn't at least go that fast it didn't make the cut. If you had to use a single word, I guess the the #1 criteria was "value". Sure, a Fountain with 800 HP has more top speed (rich guys might say perfomance)than a 190 V6, but that would not be cost effective.