Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

jkust

Rear Admiral
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
4,942
Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

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.

Interesting. The boat I am referring to is a Bayliner Capri. It seems to fit the criteria you mentioned. Obviously value oriented, over 40mph which for 85hp ob is pretty decent in those days. Hole shot is literally instant, on plane in the blink of an eye. Towing is respectible considering the boat and motor weigh 1050lbs. I would love to see the article from back then.
 

JimS123

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Messages
8,234
Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

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.

The data was in separate reports, so I had to put it on a spreadsheet and do a regression on the numbers. I'll summarize:

3.0 4.3
HP 135 190
sec to plane 3.6 3.2
max speed 44.7 56.4
opt. speed 25.5 22.2
MPG at opt. MPH 5.44 5.10
dBa @ cruise 84 84

Test conditions (weight, people, temp, %RH, etc, etc) all the same.

So what do we have:
* The V6 went faster ....duh
* The hole shot was virtually the same
* The 4-banger had better fuel efficiency at displacement speed
* The 4 banger had a higher optimum cruising speed
* The 4 banger had better fuel economy at cruising speed (25-30 mph)
* The V6 had better economy above about 42 mph.

In other words, if you run the 3.0 at near WOT, fuel usage will increase dramatically (another duh). Of course, at WOT the V6 reallyyyyy sucked (pun intended).

So, the moral of the story is that you can't make blanket statements. Different hulls perform differently. The bottom line is do your homework before you buy.
 

JimS123

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Messages
8,234
Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

Interesting. The boat I am referring to is a Bayliner Capri. It seems to fit the criteria you mentioned. Obviously value oriented, over 40mph which for 85hp ob is pretty decent in those days. Hole shot is literally instant, on plane in the blink of an eye. Towing is respectible considering the boat and motor weigh 1050lbs. I would love to see the article from back then.

OMG, now you opened a real big can of worms. Bayliners are not well respected on this forum, so now I'm sure there will be a deluge of posts blasting Powerboat Magazine.

I'm just kidding.....LOL.

I distinctly remember the article you mentioned. I was a subscriber back then. Their data was second to none, and truly honest and tests were conducted in a disciplined manner. They survived on mag sales, and accepted no advertising money.

Their recommended boats were based on hard data. The "Boat of the Year" was the cumulative opinion of the staff.
 

Steve Mahler

Petty Officer 1st Class
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
361
Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

here is one thing no one has brought up, the v6 is much smoother. I have ridden in many 3.0 boats and they are fine, but the vibration of a 4cyl is noticable. My very good buddy has a chap 18 with the 4.3, very quick and fun. I would not buy the 4cyl when the price used is so close...
 

45Auto

Commander
Joined
May 31, 2002
Messages
2,842
Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

Jims123 said:
The data was in separate reports, so I had to put it on a spreadsheet and do a regression on the numbers. I'll summarize:

_________________3.0__4.3
HP-----------------135---190
sec to plane------- 3.6----3.2
max speed---------44.7--56.4
opt. speed---------25.5--22.2
MPG at opt. MPH---5.44--5.10
dBa @ cruise-------84----84

Test conditions (weight, people, temp, %RH, etc, etc) all the same.
Ok, at least we?ve got a single data point on your boat to work with. Although using one point is kind of like trying to say that the 3.0L is better than the 4.3L in the Sea Ray comparison I posted previously because it gets 4.94 MPG compared to 4.86 MPG for the 4.3L. But hey, we'll go with what you've got, at least it's more than most people have!

It would be interesting to see at what speed the fuel consumption curves cross for your boat as compared to the Sea Ray 185 I posted earlier. I find graphs much easier to analyze rather than trying to compare raw data numbers. For example, here's the numbers for the Sea Ray 185 graph in my previous post. As you can see, it's much easier to understand from the graph that although the 3.0L SR185 has a slightly higher maximum MPG (4.94 vs 4.86), the 4.3L SR185 actually has better economy where it matters.


SR185.jpg


SeaRAy185.jpg


I PM?ed you my email address, I?d really appreciate it if you emailed me scans of the articles, or at least your spreadsheets. It?s always interesting to look at comparison data on identical boats, it would be interesting to have more data points at different speeds.

So anyway, using your numbers, let's take a look at how much fuel you've been saving by giving up about 50% in power for 26 years (135HP with the 3.0L versus 190HP with the 4.3L).

According to Eboat Loans, average boat engine hours is 30-40 hours a year. Seems about right to me, my 1987 Searay I bought last year has 650 hours on it. I?ve put 180 hours (60 hours/year) on my 2003 Crownline in 3 years and I use it a LOT!

http://www.eboatloans.com/loan.php

Items to consider are insurance, dockage or moorage, fuel, minor maintenance and winter storage. Generally speaking, the cost of all of these items increases with the size of a boat. For example, a 17-foot powerboat with 150- to 175-horsepower stern drive engine that is trailered will probably cost under $1,000 a year to operate.

Hull and liability insurance will run about $300 to $500 annually; lower figures reflect West Coast and Great Lakes area premiums ranging to higher costs in the Northeast and Southeast. Maintenance and upkeep will cost about $100 for a new boat, with any major repairs likely covered by warranty through at least the first year of ownership. You don't have to pay for dockage if the boat is trailered, so the major cost remaining is fuel.

One of the misconceptions about power boating is that fuel bills are high. They can be, but the reality is that people don't actually operate their engine for as many hours per year as it seems. In fact, most power boaters use their engine an average of only 30 to 40 hours per year. Much of the boating enjoyment is at anchor, fishing, at the marina or cruising at idle.

A 17- to 19-foot stern drive boat with 30 hours of actual engine running time will require about $500 in fuel. Of course, family make-up and usage and water conditions will determine how much fuel is actually used. Families with teenage water skiers will obviously use more fuel, while devoted anglers will use less. In any event, using our example, the cost to operate and maintain this average boat divided by the number of days in a season's use, is reasonable.

Let?s figure IBOATERS use their boats more than average. We'll use 50 hours/year for engine hours and do a best-case for the 3.0L using your boat performance numbers.

At 50 hours/year, your 26 year old boat has 1300 hours on it. If you happen to have an hour meter, we can use real hours here.

If you averaged 25 MPH and 5.5 MPG for those 1300 hours, you used (1300 x 25)/5.5 = 5909 gallons of gas in those 26 years.

If your neighbor had bought an identical boat with a 4.3 and averaged 5 MPG with the same amount of use at the same speed, he would have burned (1300 x 25)/5 = 6500 gallons of gas.

So you have possibly saved (6500-5909)/26 = 23 gallons of gas per year.

If you use your boat for any kind of recreation, you?ll find that approximately half of your engine hours are idling (picking up skiers & tubers, idling around docks and no wake zones, etc). So your real fuel usage is about half of the numbers above. In other words, using your data, you?ve maybe been saving about 12 gallons of gas a year (which is one gallon per month) for 26 years.

If saving the price of one gallon of gas per month (or two if you don?t believe half your time is at idle) is that important to you, you made the right choice. My feelings are that if the price of one or two gallons of gas per month is that critical to your finances, you have no business wasting ANY money on a boat.

If an additional 10$ per month in fuel will not break you financially, my experience has been that people prefer the extra 50% in power from the V6. That translates into 25% more top speed and much more pulling ability that the 4.3L offers over the 3.0L in exchange for the cost of a gallon or two of fuel per month. And remember, we used your numbers for the comparison. As you said, "Different hulls perform differently. The bottom line is do your homework before you buy". Depending on the boat and usage, the 3.0L and 4.3L are so close that the 4.3L can easily be getting better economy (see Sea Ray 185 performance above), thereby costing LESS in fuel than the 3.0L

Just as a side note, I don't have a horse in the 3.0 vs 4.3 debate. Never owned either one, although I used to have a 120HP 2.5L in a 16' Mark Twain. Just trying to get comparison data out to people that ask for help. I looked at lots of data and did all kinds of comparisons a couple of years ago before I bought my Crownline and came to the conclusion that bigger was better for me. There's lots of data out there, you just have to dig through it and make your own decision. You'll find that very few make that decision rationally and analytically. The general thought process seems to be "I'm giving up 50% in power and displacement, therefore I must be getting 50% better fuel economy!", which is unfortunately not true.
 

JimS123

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Messages
8,234
Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

I PM'd you my data. I DID generate the same graphs you had for your Searay...I was just too lazy to convert the xls file to something I could easily post, so I just sumarized the data.

So, let me do some calculating as well....

As we speak my hour meter shows 1250. OK, I'll agree that the 23 gallons of gas savings is in the ballpark. OK to use $2.00 average gas cost since '84? So, 598 gallons savings is 1196, round up to $1200.

The engine upgrade was $900. 12% interest for 3 year loan....I'm too lazy to figure it lets just round out to $1100. (let's not forget that the base was $10,200 so 900 was a whopping 9% price increase)

13 tuneups.....$5 savings in spark plugs....another $65 savings.

I forget the weight difference...probably a few hundred pounds...so how much better mileage did the car get pulling the boat all those years.

The riser was replaced once and will need to be done again. The V6 has 2...double the cost. Only 1 fan belt...doesn't the V6 have 2?

Anywayyyyyyy......I think we're up to a savings of $2500 give or take....doesn't really matter to me because I bought the boat I wanted and it saved me money. Did the savings make me rich? Hell no. But did it cost me MORE money to go with the 4-banger? Hell no again.

If you buy used, then the engine cost is probably washed out by depreciation.

The point of all this was to answer a guy's dilemma about which to buy. No amount of data can justify the answer one way or the other. My boat meets ALL of my requirements, and the V6 fell short (for me). Nuff said.
 

45Auto

Commander
Joined
May 31, 2002
Messages
2,842
Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

Thanks for the files, Jim - glad you're happy with your boat!

Here's your 3.0 vs 4.3 data in a graph:

JS.jpg


Not really relevent to this thread, maybe I'll start another one about this article since it only has V6's, V8's and outboards in it. I was browsing through the magazines today at the boat shop and the June 2010 issue of Boating magazine has a comparison of a Stingray 235 and a Grady White 230 with different size engines. Summary is:

Stingray 235
--------4.3L-----5.0L-----5.7L
MPG----3.92-----4.42-----4.84

Grady White 230
--------F250 OB-----F300 OB
MPG-----2.78---------3.15

In both cases, the 23' boats got better mileage with the bigger engine. The bigger engine on the Stingray saved about $1,000 in fuel cost over 300 hours, but listed at an additional $4,000 over the sticker price of the V6. Maybe that's why I lean towards bigger engines, I've never bought a new vehicle in my life. I prefer to let someone else eat the "instant depreciation" off the showroom floor!

BT.jpg
 

tschmidty

Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
462
Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

Not to disagree entirely, but one caveat is that these are all calculations done on steady state (cruising) speeds which is not where the the size of the motor is going to make all that much difference. The difference will come from the amount of fuel burned during acceleration. Say your out waterskiing with a few people and let's say you do 20 hole shots that day. I know the v8 is going to burn a lot more fuel that day than a 3.0. As to how much that difference is, I'd like to know. It's the difference between highway mileage and city driving.

So yes the differences in fuel consumption are not as big as people assume, but it also depends on how you use your boat. Let's not all pretend we can go out with a 7.4 and burn the same amount of fuel in a day as the 3.0.
 

45Auto

Commander
Joined
May 31, 2002
Messages
2,842
Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

tschmidty said:
As to how much that difference is, I'd like to know.

Look at the graphs I posted on the Sea Ray 185 previously and JimS123's boat above. Pay attention to the mileage between 0 and 20 MPH or so. As you can see, in JimS123's case the 4.3L actually has BETTER fuel economy (thus uses less fuel on hole shots) than the 3.0L. In the case of the Sea Ray, the 3.0L shows a little better fuel economy under 22 MPH. However, the 4.3L won't need as much throttle as the 3.0L to provide equivelent acceleration so it would probably be hard to see any difference in the real world.

tschmidty said:
Say your out waterskiing with a few people and let's say you do 20 hole shots that day. I know the v8 is going to burn a lot more fuel that day than a 3.0.

You're must be lucky to automatically know things like that. Unfortunately, I don't. I have to look at actual tests and data before I can tell you which one is going to burn more fuel. It takes the exact same amount of power to pull a skier up in a given amount of time (say 3 seconds) no matter what size engine you have. Obviously the less powerful motor will need more throttle to deliver the same amount of power. How much throttle it takes versus how much fuel each motor uses isn't inherently obvious to me. Too many variables for my little bitty brain to handle.

tschmidty said:
but it also depends on how you use your boat. Let's not all pretend we can go out with a 7.4 and burn the same amount of fuel in a day as the 3.0.

True statement there. I can't count the number of times I've been out on my 8.1L and burned less fuel than my friends with smaller engines in their boats. Pretty much depends on the nut behind the throttle. Nice thing about the big motors is that the power is there if you want it, and it costs you very little (if anything!) to have that option!
 

JimS123

Fleet Admiral
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Messages
8,234
Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

Pay attention to the mileage between 0 and 20 MPH or so. As you can see, ....the 4.3L actually has BETTER fuel economy (thus uses less fuel on hole shots) than the 3.0L.

Many posts ago someone commented about real world data. You mentioned it yourself. The data assembled thus far can be used to support both arguments. It just depends how you spin the data. I'm not trying to spin anything. I used it to help me make my decision.

The hole shot statement above is true. However, my analysis is that under normal usage and operating conditions, the 3.0 has better economy.......and it is better throughout the entire operating range......except....I would say that the 4.3 only shines for a hole shot.

For cruising canals or wherenever displacement speed is maintained, the 3.0 is better. At normal cruising speed it is better. That's what the graph shows. The section that demonstrates the transition from displacement to plane is the only contention.

We are measuring in gph or mpg. So, what would be a hole shot measure?....milliliters per hour? The hole shot takes 4.6 seconds!

One thing I leaned here. Searay hulls don't perform well with low HP.
 

tschmidty

Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
462
Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

+1 ^^^

Again, not really disagreeing on the numbers, but again they do not show hole shot/acceleration consumption.

I'd be curious to see something like gas consumed to accelerate from 0-20mph. The above graphs do not chart acceleration, again they are grabbing data points at steady speeds, which makes this a non sequitor.

between 0 and 20 MPH or so. As you can see, in JimS123's case the 4.3L actually has BETTER fuel economy (thus uses less fuel on hole shots) than the 3.0L

They don't actually show any data to suport that since there is nothing to show they tested acceleration.

Even looking at the article in boating world, there is absolutely no way that going from 0-30 in 8.6 (4.3) versus 5.1 (7.4) consumes the same amount of fuel. Yes, you don't have to accelerate that fast, but what about the fact that the 5.7 wieghs 150-250 lbs more? Even accelerating at exactly the same rate the additional weight will increase fuel consumption. by some margin.

As I said the numbers are not as different as people think, but they are not going to be the same.

But really, we are both saying the same thing when you sum it up here.

Pretty much depends on the nut behind the throttle.
 

45Auto

Commander
Joined
May 31, 2002
Messages
2,842
Re: Chaparral 3.0 - Underpowered? HELP!

I'd be curious to see something like gas consumed to accelerate from 0-20mph. The above graphs do not chart acceleration, again they are grabbing data points at steady speeds, which makes this a non sequitor.

That's true, it would be nice to see the real data. I guess I was just figuring that identical hulls would require identical power at a given speed, so whichever engine was most efficient at applying that amount of power would be proportionately efficient throughout the acceleration period, IF you hold the acceleration period constant (less throttle on the more powerful engine). If you don't hold it constant the higher powered engine that can accelerate the boat quicker should use more fuel since it's doing more work.

Yes, you don't have to accelerate that fast, but what about the fact that the 5.7 wieghs 150-250 lbs more?

Does the 5.7 weigh that much more? GM lists the shipping weight of the 4.3L as 449 lb and the shipping weight of the 5.7L as 432 lb. That's complete engine, including flywheel, but no exhaust manifolds. You really think there's a couple hundred pound difference in the exhaust manifolds?

4.3:

http://www.gm.com/experience/technology/gmpowertrain/engines/specialized/marine/2010_4300_Marine.pdf

5.7:

http://www.gm.com/experience/technology/gmpowertrain/engines/specialized/marine/2010_5700_Marine.pdf

EDIT:

Just looked at Mercury Marine, they list the weight of the 4.3 w/Alpha at 865 lbs, 5.7 w/Alpha at 946 lb. (81 pound difference).

Stingray list the dry weight of the 235CR at 4175 dry. Figure wet will be around 5000 lbs. 81 pounds out of 5000 is 1.6%, so theoretically the 5.7 should use at least 1.6% more fuel per hole shot. I would bet that if you tried to measure it you couldn't tell the difference between the engines due to variables like outdrive gearing and prop pitch due to different engine torque curves, smoothness of throttle application, etc, which would easily make more difference than the 1.6% due to weight dfference.

Hopefully I'll get a chance to take my boat out this weekend. I'll try to remember to bring a video camera, and do a few full-throttle take-offs with the video camera recording the flow meter, GPS, and tach compared to some steady state runs at the same speeds.
 
Top