AR & SX 192 - differences 2013-2016?

[dalcini]

I've been looking at a lot of ads for used 192's lately and i'm curious about what changed between '13 and '16. I know that the 16's got a new tower and articulating keels, and updates to the 2017 195's are well documented elsewhere on this forum (thanks @Bruce and @Julian!), but I'm having a difficult time locating any "what's new" info for the first three model years. Can anyone share any info?

 

[Julian]

Typically there are very few differences between 1 year and the next - when a "remodel" isn't done. The color schemes will change each year. Other than that sometimes there are no differences at all. Sometimes they might make minor adjustments or for example, switch out Stereo HU manufacturers.

 

[dalcini]

Thanks @Julian. Do you know how well 2016-17 OEM articulating keel design performs compared to thrust Vectors and other aftermarket products?

 

[Bruce]

If you want a supercharged model I would skip to the 195 as it has an upgraded engine and cooling. If I was going to buy a 19' boat it would be a 2016+ 190.

 

[dalcini]

@Bruce, do you feel the 192 is not worth the extra money? Are you not a fan of the SVHO fuel economy vs the normally aspirated motor?

I guess I found myself gravitating toward it because I wanted to be sure I had ample power for pulling tubes and stuff. Ok, I kind of like speed too.

I think the 2016 tower looks great but I'm trying to keep the price around mid 20's and thought I might be able to find a 2013/2014 around there after July.

 

[Julian]

Is there a reason you are looking at 19' boats? (Perhaps your tow/storage situation)

If my budget was $25K I'd be looking at a used twin engine model (21' or 23') because it will have so much more room/storage/stability.

 

[Ronnie]

Everything I've read supports Bruce's recommendation of the 195 over the 192. That is, the benefit of the 192s/195s over the 190s is the added horsepower from the super charger but the 192s suffer from heat soak so the extra horsepower is really only available in the first few minutes of operation. The problem was resolved in the 195s by replacing the intercooler with a larger one.

If you have to go new and want to stay in the mid 20s cost wise I don't think you have a lot of choices maybe the FSH is an alternative that would work for you.

 

[Bruce]

@Bruce, do you feel the 192 is not worth the extra money? Are yot a fan of the SVHO fuel economy vs the normally aspirated motor?

Fuel economy is my concern with the 192 / 195 series. At 30 mph a 242 gets approximately 3.2 mpg while a 192 gets 3.0 a 195 gets 3.5 and a 190 gets 4.3. Getting into rough water or water sports will bring that efficiency down further. I am less concerned about fuel cost and more so about range. If the 195 had the 52 gallon fuel tank of the larger boats instead of 30 gallons it would be more interesting to me but the improvement in fuel economy over the 192 helps a lot.

 

[haknslash]

I've yet to have the fuel economy be an issue for me on my 192. Granted I boat in lakes and rivers and not offshore where range would be a bigger concern. Most large lakes and rivers will have at least one marina where you could fuel up if you need to. I can stay out all day and not require a fill-up and that's with a lot of riding over 40 mph, mixed with water sports and driving to several swim spots. Only way I could see mileage or range being an issue for me is if I'm boating nonstop all day.

Fixing the heat soak issues on a 192 is as simple as replacing the intercooler with SVHO or aftermarket costing anywhere from $150-500+ depending on what you want. Biggest advantage to the 195 over the 192 is the 160mm pump. If you're buying new a 195 is the no brainer over the 192 but if buying used there are deals out there.

As far as the differences from old 192's to the 2016 aside from the tower it has better interior with the bow pad and nicer upholstery. Also worth mentioning is that the 2016 engines have the revised timing gear, crank; etc. The stereos also changed but all of them are kind of a pain to operate while underway because they are mounted in the glove box, so a wired remote is a must. Models with the M505 stereo can't use the RF remote so you'll need an MW1 or similar compatible remote. The supplied IR remote is useless once you close the glove box and lose line of sight. The older 192's came with a radio that would work with the inexpensive RF remotes you could buy but those don't work with the M505.

I can't comment on the comparison of fins vs articulating keel. I have no issues maneuvering at low speeds with the articulating keel and see no need for fins. YMMV

 

[dalcini]

@Bruce & @Ronnie, thanks for the stats on fuel economy & heat soak. I'm willing to take a hit on efficiency for the extra power, but perhaps I should consider a twin engine if excessive heat diminishes the SVHO advantage in the 192. So that's another point in favor of a 21' model as @Julian brings up.

@Julian, I would actually prefer a 21 for all the reasons you mention. Unfortunately there are few options available in the mid 20's. I can find them, but they are usually '08 or older and I was concerned about the additional risk of buying an older boat. I'm glad you brought it up though as I'm interested in everyones' opinions about the pro/cons of a newer 192 vs an older 212.

Storage-wise, a 192 would fit in my garage which would be convenient for winter storage, but my brother offered to let me keep my boat docked at his house on Lake St Clair during the summer which makes it easier to consider a 21!

 

[dalcini]

@haknslash, thanks for the info. It's also good to know that there is something that can be done about the SHO heat soak if I go with a 192.

 

[haknslash]

SHO is the one with heat soak, not SVHO as it has the better intercooler stock. SHO = 192 and SVHO = 195

If storage is a non issue go with the largest boat you can afford.

 

[Bruce]

Yamaha boats are so reliable that the cost of maintaining and operating a well maintained older boat is similar to the cost of doing so for a new boat.

For example my family purchased a 2007 SX230 in 2013 with 30 hours on the engines. We use her heavily and have taken her out in the ocean for one to two weeks per year for the last four summers. Our maintenance costs have been $80 per year of oil and spark plugs, $350 of steering and shift cables and $150 to rebuild the pump bearings. The additional maintenance cost over a new boat has been $500 which averages to $125 per summer and is very easy to stomach compared to having a boat payment.

 

[dalcini]

@haknslash - thanks for the clarification, I went back and corrected both of my posts to read "SHO"!

 

[swatski]

@dalcini What @haknslash said.
You can not compare the SHO and SVHO, it is NOT just heat soak. Really, heat soak aside, as it is a DIY-fixable $150 issue,
it is like comparing a MR-1 and and MR-1HO. Totally different engines, with different internals that are not up-gradable.
The SVHO engine has much higher compression, forged pistons, larger fuel injectors, intercooler, supercharger, and a 160mm impeller with 8-vein pump. And a 280hp of thrust. It is a beast.
The problem is, IMO, those new 195s are just overpriced, and will not be readily available used probably for a while.

I love my new AR240, but miss my old 190, those are super fun boats with a few mods. But, if I ever go back to a 190, it would be a 195 for sure.

--

 

[dalcini]

@swatski - I didn't know there were so many other differences between the SHO and SVHO. I also thought they were 210 and 250hp respectively. Is 210 correct for the SHO? That seems like a big jump to 280.

Also, am I correct to believe that the MR-1HO are 160hp and the 1.8Ltr HO (for the larger boats) are 180hp?

I've been meaning to post a question asking about a good source of info for the Yamaha engine lineup. I don't understand why Yamaha doesn't post power numbers on their site.

 

[swatski]

@swatski - I didn't know there were so many other differences between the SHO and SVHO. I also thought they were 210 and 250hp respectively. Is 210 correct for the SHO? That seems like a big jump to 280.

Also, am I correct to believe that the MR-1HO are 160hp and the 1.8Ltr HO (for the larger boats) are 180hp?

I've been meaning to post a question asking about a good source of info for the Yamaha engine lineup. I don't understand why Yamaha doesn't post power numbers on their site.

Yes, it is somewhere in the 210-220 and 260-280hp range for SHO and SVHO, it is a big difference.
And yes, correct with MR-1HO and 1.8l HO (N/A) (160 and 180).
(Yamaha does not publish power/torque curves which is really annoying, but they have decided that a long time ago to avoid being drawn into silly competition for numbers with BRP, which publishes what are believed to be inflated numbers. Whatever. )
So, we will never really know, but it is safe to assume that 1.8l engines are more "torquey" that the MR-1s (due to the much higher displacement). But the MR-1HOs are real marvels and I have always thought they stopped producing those due to production costs rather than environmental regulation issues (which Yamaha claimed).

Unfortunately for you, the only MR-1HO or 1.8l 21 footers are the 212 series, which tend to be a lot more expensive than regular 210s. But those are awesome boats, and the fastest in the fleet.

--

 

[swatski]

@dalcini You didn't say what you want to do with your boat!
The top speed really doesn't mean anything, you are looking for family fun and towing/water sports. We just tend to pay close attention to max RPM and speed numbers here simply as a measure of a boat/engine performance, as those numbers are expected to fall within certain ranges, that's all.

--

 

[Ronnie]

As i recall the $150 cost to address the heat soak issue in the 192s is a best case cost not an average cost. riva sold 15 on eBay at that price but currently don't have anymore available, at least not in eBay. The one I just saw one eBay is $600, new they are $1,900.

Yamaha stated that the 1,052 hp mr1 ho engines put out 160 hp. To calculate the hp of the subsequent Yamaha engines you have to convert from kW to hp. The 1.8l n/a engines non carb and carb produce 132 kW and 122 kW, respectively. The sho engine in the 192s produces 154.5 kW and The svho engine of the 195 produces 184 kW. The kW to hp conversion multiplier is 1.341 so the n/a 1.8l produce 177 hp (non carb), 163hp (carb), the sho produces 207hp and the svho produces 247hp.

By the way, the 160hp mr1s max out at 10,200 rpms and make a high pitched noise starting at about 9,200 rpm. It's not a noise that is easily absorbed / reduced. The n/a 1.8 liter engines like those in the 190 series boats max at 7,700 ish rpms so the noise noise isn't nearly as bad/ high pitched at wot. Just more to think about when selecting a boat.

@ dalcini, your profile indicates that you already have a boat so I assume you already know that there is more to a boat than hp, acceleration and top speed. That said, I recommend that you not put too much focus on these factors and do your best to test drive each boat you are seriously considering before making a purchase decision, I'd bet many members here would be willing to give you a test ride. Lastly, for the cost of a new 190/195 you could get a really nice used twin engine Yamaha 232 LS and 242 LS if you have to have the reverse arch tower.

 

[swatski]

As i recall the $150 cost to address the heat soak issue in the 192s is a best case cost not an average cost. riva sold 15 on eBay at that price but currently don't have anymore available, at least not in eBay. The one I just saw one eBay is $600, new they are $1,900.

$150 is an good deal on an OEM intercooler recycled from an SVHO and those come up for sale all the time, on greenhulk.

Yamaha stated that the 1,052 hp mr1 ho engines put out 160 hp. To calculate the hp of the subsequent Yamaha engines you have to convert from kW to hp. The 1.8l n/a engines non carb and carb produce 132 kW and 122 kW, respectively. The sho engine in the 192s produces 154.5 kW and The svho engine of the 195 produces 184 kW. The kW to hp conversion multiplier is 1.341 so the n/a 1.8l produce 177 hp (non carb), 163hp (carb), the sho produces 207hp and the svho produces 247hp.

I know, this can be a bit confusing...
Most modern engines have to meet emission requirements to be sold in various places. The agencies which certify the engines as passing emission requirements generally assess the emission output on the basis of horsepower. Therefore, those numbers (according to their EPA certifications) may or may not have much to do with the actual power output. Not to mention the allowance for manufacturing tolerances (which forever provided a leeway in NMMA advertised horsepower from actual horsepower for outboard manufacturers to fit into neat categories in nice, round horsepower ratings, etc. etc.), blah, blah. Bottom line, those EPA numbers can not be taken literally as an actual power output.

The numbers I cited above are the best estimates currently available, not the EPA.

By the way, the 160hp mr1s max out at 10,200 rpms and make a high pitched noise starting at about 9,200 rpm. It's not a noise that is easily absorbed / reduced. The n/a 1.8 liter engines like those in the 190 series boats max at 7,700 ish rpms so the noise noise isn't nearly as bad/ high pitched at wot. Just more to think about when selecting a boat.

Trust me, nothing is louder (or more annoyingly louder!) than a stock 2012 SX190, the first year they made 19fters. Riding that boat at 7,800 RPM -- you are in real danger of actually damaging your hearing. I have been in many 230s, never felt that way.

The new "Quiet ride" technology has made a big difference, but the older boats, including all the 230s, have thicker hulls and a lot more plush/thicker upholstery which may be offsetting the engine noise.

All those jet boats are still effing loud though, LOL (so a test ride is highly recommended for anyone who is not familiar).

--