Yamaha 2024 line up …

[Michal]

Okay, not their best test in my opinion… I’ll review it and come back to this, however, if I remember what Capt Shelly said in the video part correctly was the the mpg was 1.9 but that could have been a result of the hot humid conditions which was different from the graph. @Ziess21 reported figures were 2.5-2.6 mpg in the 222 FSH.

sorry for intruding on the back and forth convo, this video you are referencing, is this something we can see? or is this a video from the event?

 

[HangOutdoors]

Look up higher in the thread, someone was at the event and report the data they saw. That was all we were referencing.

 

[HangOutdoors]

Wondering if a 4 blade impeller pitched the same would benefit being dropped into the 1.8's at all? Unless I am seeing it wrong, I believe the pumps are still 155mm. Since it is fixed shaft without gearing, 5000 RPM's with the same impeller as well as same size pump is same thrust, regardless of HP.

 

[FSH 210 Sport]

sorry for intruding on the back and forth convo, this video you are referencing, is this something we can see? or is this a video from the event?

Here you go…

https://boattest.com/boats/yamaha/222-fsh-2023

 

[HangOutdoors]

Looks like SC 1.9L won't be released till next year.

I really think the SC1.9L with 4 blade impeller and the 160mm Pump are going to be a big game changeer.

 

[2kwik4u]

Still the MPH at 5000 RPM's doesn't work out. The only change would be the 4 blade impeller. More HP would not create more thrust at RPM's in the same size pump at that RPM, unless the pump was moving faster or there was substantial weight difference or some other factor such as hull etc., I don't believe...... Of course there are those on here that are far smarter than I am about the dynamics and physics of jet pump...... It would be awesome if in fact that was the case, the math just doesn't work out.

More blades will move more water per rev, but require more torque to do so. Keep in mind on our boats revs generate water flow and head pressure to the nozzle, the nozzle generates thrust that moves the boat.

It is NOT the same as a prop calculation where pitch is directly related to speed with a slip factor.

5k rpm could be moving 11-12% more water based on HP increase alone. We're note sure if they're still 155mm pumps. The 195's use 160mm pumps already, so that tech exists and is available off the shelf for Yamaha. That's another 3.5% or so increase in throughput on geometry alone. Add another blade to the impeller and we could expect 15% (guesstimate) additional flow due to the added length (or increased pitch to fit 4 blades in 3 blades space). Add in some nozzle changes and I could see a significant increase in thrust at lower revs being totally possible........This is a complex system we're bench racing here with multiple changes across multiple pieces of the puzzle. I wouldn't completely rule it out.

 

[HangOutdoors]

5k rpm could be moving 11-12% more water based on HP increase alone.

I am looking at the math and curves and I don't show this. Impellors turning at the same revlolutions regardless of hp, are still turning at the same baseline. They are both moving the same amount of water and creating the same pressure, as long as the pump diameter and components are equal. Now keeping them turning at the same rate may require different amounts of HP depending on load. So It appears that if the 4 blade impellers would have a noticeable difference on the 1.8L's as well.

 

[ezrider]

Our dealer has a new 2023 252SE for $87k that we're considering upgrading to. Is it worth the extra $6-7k to get the 2024 model? Other than the 1.8 vs 1.9 engines, I don't really see any other reasons to not go with the 2023.

Personally, I would go with the 2023. I am a believer in what is tried and true.

 

[FSH 210 Sport]

More blades will move more water per rev, but require more torque to do so. Keep in mind on our boats revs generate water flow and head pressure to the nozzle, the nozzle generates thrust that moves the boat.

It is NOT the same as a prop calculation where pitch is directly related to speed with a slip factor.

5k rpm could be moving 11-12% more water based on HP increase alone. We're note sure if they're still 155mm pumps. The 195's use 160mm pumps already, so that tech exists and is available off the shelf for Yamaha. That's another 3.5% or so increase in throughput on geometry alone. Add another blade to the impeller and we could expect 15% (guesstimate) additional flow due to the added length (or increased pitch to fit 4 blades in 3 blades space). Add in some nozzle changes and I could see a significant increase in thrust at lower revs being totally possible........This is a complex system we're bench racing here with multiple changes across multiple pieces of the puzzle. I wouldn't completely rule it out.

I’ve only seen one graph that talked about horsepower requirement vs. Pump rpm. It was a Berkeley jet graph, at 5000 rpm it required 350 hp, at 6000 rpm it required 725 hp.

Typically with more blades comes less pitch, more blades with less pitch taking smaller bites, again, typically, hopefully Capt Steve will do the test and give us that dope.

 

[FSH 210 Sport]

Wondering if a 4 blade impeller pitched the same would benefit being dropped into the 1.8's at all? Unless I am seeing it wrong, I believe the pumps are still 155mm. Since it is fixed shaft without gearing, 5000 RPM's with the same impeller as well as same size pump is same thrust, regardless of HP.

There probably isn’t enough torque/ hp to run the same pitch 4 bladed impeller with the 1.8L.. just guessing…

Typically, running a 4 or 5 blade bladed prop on an I/O outboard will give greater hole shot or lower speed performance but will sacrifice top speed when compared to a 3 blade prop. Granted that is a prop and not an impeller.

 

[HangOutdoors]

solas has 4 blade impellers as well as their Twin Impellers that are being used on 1.8's already, so I have read.

 

[FSH 210 Sport]

Okay, not their best test in my opinion… I’ll review it and come back to this, however, if I remember what Capt Shelly said in the video part correctly was the the mpg was 1.9 but that could have been a result of the hot humid conditions which was different from the graph. @Ziess21 reported figures were 2.5-2.6 mpg in the 222 FSH.

Okay, re watched the test.. Capt Shelly reported the 2.2 mpg with 35% fuel (26.25 gallons or 157# of fuel) and three people on board =4802 pounds test weight on a hot and muggy day down in FLA and she mentions that would be a poor running time, inferring that with cooler less humid temps performance and mpg would be better. So if we take the 4802-157# of fuel that leaves 4645#-the dry weight of 3863# with batteries =‘s 782# for three people(!!!??) or 260# per person.

@Ziess21 said that on their test boat the fuel load was 100% or 75 gallons / 450#, so 3763# plus 450# =‘s 4,213#, add in 6 adult men, I’ll use 180# avg weight (instread of the BT 294#) for an additional 1080# and you have a test weight of 5,292#, lets just call it 5300#. So, if you base this test weight against the BT test weight @Ziess21 test weight was 500# heavier, significant to say the least. I don’t know about your experiences, but there is a pretty big difference in mpg in my boat with just me and the difference between a full fuel load and 20% fuel load.

If you look at the 2023 boating magazine test the mpg for the 222 fsh sport E was 1.25 mpg, at best cruise, again, not their best test either. While the 2022 test showed 2.5mpg, and both test state that the results are certified… so splitting the difference puts the mpg at 1.8 mpg?

2023 Boating Magazine test mpg. 2023 Yamaha 222 FSH Sport E | Boating Mag



2022 Boating magazine test: 2022 Yamaha 222 FSH Sport E Boat Test, Pricing, Specs | Boating Mag

The lay out was a bit different so I had to do two screen shots.





So, if @Ziess21 test boats’ connext screen was giving him accurate information there was a huge gain in efficiency over the 2023 model when using both the BT and BM test articles. Hard to say.. sure would be nice if one of our members who owns a 2023 model year 222 FSH Sport E could chime in with with some real world results.

 

[HangOutdoors]

Okay, re watched the test.. Capt Shelly reported the 2.2 mpg with 35% fuel (26.25 gallons or 157# of fuel) and three people on board =4802 pounds test weight on a hot and muggy day down in FLA and she mentions that would be a poor running time, inferring that with cooler less humid temps performance and mpg would be better. So if we take the 4802-157# of fuel that leaves 4645#-the dry weight of 3763# =‘s 882# for three people(!!!??) or 294# per person.

@Ziess21 said that on their test boat the fuel load was 100% or 75 gallons / 450#, so 3763# plus 450# =‘s 4,213#, add in 6 adult men, I’ll use 180# avg weight (instread of the BT 294#) for an additional 1080# and you have a test weight of 5,292#, lets just call it 6000#. So, if you base this test weight against the BT test weight @Ziess21 test weight was 1200# heavier, significant to say the least. I don’t know about your experiences, but there is a pretty big difference in mpg in my boat with just me and the difference between a full fuel load and 20% fuel load.

If you look at the 2023 boating magazine test the mpg for the 222 fsh sport E was 1.25 mpg, at best cruise, again, not their best test either. While the 2022 test showed 2.5mpg, and both test state that the results are certified… so splitting the difference puts the mpg at 1.8 mpg?

2023 Boating Magazine test mpg. 2023 Yamaha 222 FSH Sport E | Boating Mag

View attachment 206506

2022 Boating magazine test: 2022 Yamaha 222 FSH Sport E Boat Test, Pricing, Specs | Boating Mag

The lay out was a bit different so I had to do two screen shots.

View attachment 206507

View attachment 206508

So, if @Ziess21 test boats’ connext screen was giving him accurate information there was a huge gain in efficiency over the 2023 model when using both the BT and BM test articles. Hard to say.. sure would be nice if one of our members who owns a 2023 model year 222 FSH Sport E could chime in with with some real world results.

I am not doubting, if accurate, the gains in efficiency. I question that at 5000 RPM's with the fuel and weight of passengers that the boat was cruising at 30 mph. Which would be an MPH @ RPM's of three times.

 

[FSH 210 Sport]

I am not doubting, if accurate, the gains in efficiency. I question that at 5000 RPM's with the fuel and weight of passengers that the boat was cruising at 30 mph. Which would be an MPH @ RPM's of three times.

I was, and stated so here, and am still non plussed with the BT and BM tests of the 222 FSH Sport E, I think the BT was the best, as both tests in my opinion left out some key details that make these boats, as well as all Yamaha boats special, namely cruise assist and no wake mode combined with the TDE position of the throttles.

All fun stuff here! It will be cool to see what comes out in the wash!

 

[2kwik4u]

.......Impellors turning at the same revolutions regardless of hp, are still turning at the same baseline. They are both moving the same amount of water and creating the same pressure, as long as the pump diameter and components are equal. Now keeping them turning at the same rate may require different amounts of HP depending on load. So It appears that if the 4 blade impellers would have a noticeable difference on the 1.8L's as well.

Working under the assumption the pitch and blade count is the same. You're correct.

Additional blades, or additional pitch will change the torque required to rotate at a given pressure.

Same reason you have to reduce pitch at altitude because the engine doesn't produce enough torque to spin them to the proper speed.

*edit*, at the 5k rpm in the "old" setup, you are precariously close to planing speed. If you can get over that hump and get on plane at lower revs, it's not a linear usage between displacement speeds and planing speeds.

 

[tkeru408]

Okay, re watched the test.. Capt Shelly reported the 2.2 mpg with 35% fuel (26.25 gallons or 157# of fuel) and three people on board =4802 pounds test weight on a hot and muggy day down in FLA and she mentions that would be a poor running time, inferring that with cooler less humid temps performance and mpg would be better. So if we take the 4802-157# of fuel that leaves 4645#-the dry weight of 3763# =‘s 882# for three people(!!!??) or 294# per person.

@Ziess21 said that on their test boat the fuel load was 100% or 75 gallons / 450#, so 3763# plus 450# =‘s 4,213#, add in 6 adult men, I’ll use 180# avg weight (instread of the BT 294#) for an additional 1080# and you have a test weight of 5,292#, lets just call it 6000#. So, if you base this test weight against the BT test weight @Ziess21 test weight was 1200# heavier, significant to say the least. I don’t know about your experiences, but there is a pretty big difference in mpg in my boat with just me and the difference between a full fuel load and 20% fuel load.

A couple comments on your numbers...

In the first paragraph, that would be 882# for the people plus gear, not just for the people. Dry weight of the boat doesn't include the safety gear on board or the batteries, which could total another 200 pounds or more so you're probably dividing 6XX by 3.

In the second paragraph, you rounded 5292# up to 6000#. >700lbs is a pretty large rounding, wondering if you were thinking 5992# or similar when you rounded that up to 6000#.

 

[suke]

The "wake" models still can't (legally/safely per the USCG capacity plate) carry near enough ballast (from the brochure, emphasis added)...

"22FT X Models - 2,050 LBS is the maximum total weight of persons and cargo shown should include the weight of the ballast (if equipped), which is 1,100 LBS, when calculating weight."

"25FT X Models - 2,350 LBS is the maximum total weight of persons and cargo. Include the weight of the ballast (if equipped), which is 1,600 LBS, when calculating weight."

They need to figure that out. Especially with the price point being nearly comparable after discounts to other legit tow boats. The Yamahas used to be budget friendly which would draw families in where tow sports weren't a huge priority. Now if I was new to the market and could get 20-30% off a new tow boat putting it in the range of some of the Yamahas I'd likely go with a tow boat. Now if you're close on ballast you'd be in the game at least.

 

[FSH 210 Sport]

A couple comments on your numbers...

In the first paragraph, that would be 882# for the people plus gear, not just for the people. Dry weight of the boat doesn't include the safety gear on board or the batteries, which could total another 200 pounds or more so you're probably dividing 6XX by 3.

In the second paragraph, you rounded 5292# up to 6000#. >700lbs is a pretty large rounding, wondering if you were thinking 5992# or similar when you rounded that up to 6000#.

DOH! My bad! 5300# .. I’ll fix that. I had a moment..

But, safety gear on a test boat would be life jackets being worn by three people, and batteries? So I’ll go 100# for safety gear and batteries. but in my mind, dry weight is the boat complete without gas.

 

[tkeru408]

DOH! My bad! 5300# .. I’ll fix that. I had a moment..

But, safety gear on a test boat would be life jackets being worn by three people, and batteries? So I’ll go 100# for safety gear and batteries. but in my mind, dry weight is the boat complete without gas.

I was trying to up the safety gear weight to make the people not seem so overweight!

You're probably right that in a test boat they didn't have the same quantity of gear that a regular boat would have. But my understanding is that Yamaha's reported dry weight doesn't include anything other than the boat. Batteries, anchor and rode, etc., none of that is included in Yamaha's number.

 

[FSH 210 Sport]

I was trying to up the safety gear weight to make the people not seem so overweight!

You're probably right that in a test boat they didn't have the same quantity of gear that a regular boat would have. But my understanding is that Yamaha's reported dry weight doesn't include anything other than the boat. Batteries, anchor and rode, etc., none of that is included in Yamaha's number.

Probably about right when it comes to dry weight.. dirt bikes have been doing that stuff for years, as well as the RV industry.

Have you seen those boating people? They haven’t missed many meals LOL!