Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Abu Dhabi , United Arab Emirtaes
    Posts
    42

    Post rxt-x and rxt-x(rs)

    Hi

    i have heard that their will be 2 edition of rxt-x 2010 the rxt-x and the rxt-x rs is that true ? and if yes any difference between them ?



    Thanks


  2. #2
    Petron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    923
    +1
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by adrider View Post
    Hi

    i have heard that their will be 2 edition of rxt-x 2010 the rxt-x and the rxt-x rs is that true ? and if yes any difference between them ?
    Thanks
    - Hope this helps

    2010 Sea Doo RXT-X 260

    2010 Sea Doo RXT-X 260 RS

  3. #3
    YoYamma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    21,573
    +1
    4,790
    I give up; they look the same to me. What's the difference...

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by YoYamma View Post
    I give up; they look the same to me. What's the difference...
    RS is international edition. No speed limiting devices. I know for the RXP-X a couple years ago the RS model was fitted with what looked like a Riva intake grate which allowed it to achieve speeds above 70mph.

  5. #5
    Banned User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Havasu
    Posts
    2,924
    +1
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by YoYamma View Post
    I give up; they look the same to me. What's the difference...
    Ya think?? SeaDoo won't be coming out with the 2 liter engine anytime soon because of the economy, and a lot of other factors, I'm guessing.

    Also, in case you didn't know it, manufacturers are allowed to state horsepower ratings that are within 10% of actual horsepower.
    So, the Seadoo RXT-X 255, and the Seadoo RXT-X 260, actually have the same horsepower....are you ready for this?? 238hp!!! Yep, that's it.

    Now I'm not bashing them, since I own one, and really like it. Seadoo's have some great bottom end pull, and the new S3 hull handles very well, even in the rough stuff.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by iflyems View Post
    Ya think?? SeaDoo won't be coming out with the 2 liter engine anytime soon because of the economy, and a lot of other factors, I'm guessing.

    Also, in case you didn't know it, manufacturers are allowed to state horsepower ratings that are within 10% of actual horsepower.
    So, the Seadoo RXT-X 255, and the Seadoo RXT-X 260, actually have the same horsepower....are you ready for this?? 238hp!!! Yep, that's it.

    Now I'm not bashing them, since I own one, and really like it. Seadoo's have some great bottom end pull, and the new S3 hull handles very well, even in the rough stuff.
    238HP depends on the dyno. For the 215 motor I've heard reports as low as 195HP and as high as 210HP. For the Riva Stage3 kit I've heard as high as 290HP and as low as 250HP. mrracing said the 2L motor has been thrown out. They were having issues with it. I've heard rumors that the 4tec motor was just a stepping stone. SD never wanted to leave the 2 stroke market, but needed time to develop their Etec motors. We might be seeing them in skis soon. The only reason people think a 2L was supposed to go in the S3 hull was because of all the extra space in the RXTX-260, but that space was designed around the suspension system on the iS skis.

  7. #7
    Banned User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Havasu
    Posts
    2,924
    +1
    27
    Good point. But, that is the number that the manufacturer submitted for approval. It is within 10% of 255/260.

    And no, I don't remember where I got that information, but I know it came from the manufacturer. I probably saw it somewhere on the internet, so you know it's true....LOL

    There are many many factors that effect the actual/final horsepower. The type of dyno, weather conditions, etc, all effect the final number. And really, it's just a number.

    Where the "rubber meets the road" is; how fast/quick is it, and how well does it handle.

    I could care less if they said it had 300hp. If it handled like crap, or was sluggish of the line, I wouldn't be that happy with it.

    I think people get way to "wrapped around the axle" about a horsepower number. Who cares what it did on a "happy" dyno?? I want to see how it handles/rides, fuel mileage when cruising, comfort, styling, maintenance, etc. I think it's great when guys can build a 600+??HP boat. But then, it lasts one lap, or less, and explodes. What's the point of that??

    What I would like to see is a smaller, lower horsepower engine, in a much lighter package. Better fuel efficiency, lower maintenance, better handling, etc.

    You don't need 300+ Hp. What you need is 150hp, in a machine that weighs in at 400lbs, or less. Think about that for a second.....

    The newer boats are tipping the scales in the high 800lb range, with 230 + or - horsepower, and can do speed in excess of 65mph.
    Well, if you cut the weight by half, but still had 2/3rd's of the horsepower(230/.66=151hp), then you could have the same, or even faster speed/acceleration.
    And, when you just wanted to cruise upriver, you would use a whole lot less fuel. Not to mention burning less gas to tow the boat around.

    Yea, I know...I'm crazy. What was I thinking.

  8. #8
    Moderator #985 lasportsmn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Pierre Part, Louisiana
    Posts
    4,780
    +1
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by iflyems View Post
    Good point. But, that is the number that the manufacturer submitted for approval. It is within 10% of 255/260.

    And no, I don't remember where I got that information, but I know it came from the manufacturer. I probably saw it somewhere on the internet, so you know it's true....LOL

    There are many many factors that effect the actual/final horsepower. The type of dyno, weather conditions, etc, all effect the final number. And really, it's just a number.

    Where the "rubber meets the road" is; how fast/quick is it, and how well does it handle.

    I could care less if they said it had 300hp. If it handled like crap, or was sluggish of the line, I wouldn't be that happy with it.

    I think people get way to "wrapped around the axle" about a horsepower number. Who cares what it did on a "happy" dyno?? I want to see how it handles/rides, fuel mileage when cruising, comfort, styling, maintenance, etc. I think it's great when guys can build a 600+??HP boat. But then, it lasts one lap, or less, and explodes. What's the point of that??

    What I would like to see is a smaller, lower horsepower engine, in a much lighter package. Better fuel efficiency, lower maintenance, better handling, etc.

    You don't need 300+ Hp. What you need is 150hp, in a machine that weighs in at 400lbs, or less. Think about that for a second.....

    The newer boats are tipping the scales in the high 800lb range, with 230 + or - horsepower, and can do speed in excess of 65mph.
    Well, if you cut the weight by half, but still had 2/3rd's of the horsepower(230/.66=151hp), then you could have the same, or even faster speed/acceleration.
    And, when you just wanted to cruise upriver, you would use a whole lot less fuel. Not to mention burning less gas to tow the boat around.

    Yea, I know...I'm crazy. What was I thinking.
    I completely agree and wonder the same quite often. Why do the skis have to be so huge and heavy. Even the 2 seaters have no real benifit of being a 2 seater when the size and weight is just about the same as a 3 seater. I would love to see someone come out with the "hayabusa" of PWC. Small, lightweight, severly overpowered. Actually I would really like to see a smaller lighter hull that could get high speeds with a N/A engine.

  9. #9
    Banned User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Havasu
    Posts
    2,924
    +1
    27
    It's coming........
    And the reason I say that, is this; The average consumer can no longer afford a 15+ thousand dollar "toy". Just 3 short years ago, if you could fog a mirror, you could buy a ski, on credit. Not anymore. And, the rates are going to go up, along with much stricter credit requirements. The manufacturers demographic are shifting(just my opinion).
    What we need, is an under 10 thousand dollar "rocket". I think that's the new, affordable, price point.

    I think the days of electronic Gee Wizardy are gone. Kiss cruise control, electronic throttle, and no wake mode, buh bye.
    Don't need them, and it's just something that will break down the road, and require an $$$ dealer visit, so they can hook up there SeaWizz computer up to it, to fix.

    They need to get back to the basics. Like an XP(L), on steroids. Keep it simple.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by iflyems View Post
    Good point. But, that is the number that the manufacturer submitted for approval. It is within 10% of 255/260.

    And no, I don't remember where I got that information, but I know it came from the manufacturer. I probably saw it somewhere on the internet, so you know it's true....LOL

    There are many many factors that effect the actual/final horsepower. The type of dyno, weather conditions, etc, all effect the final number. And really, it's just a number.

    Where the "rubber meets the road" is; how fast/quick is it, and how well does it handle.

    I could care less if they said it had 300hp. If it handled like crap, or was sluggish of the line, I wouldn't be that happy with it.

    I think people get way to "wrapped around the axle" about a horsepower number. Who cares what it did on a "happy" dyno?? I want to see how it handles/rides, fuel mileage when cruising, comfort, styling, maintenance, etc. I think it's great when guys can build a 600+??HP boat. But then, it lasts one lap, or less, and explodes. What's the point of that??

    What I would like to see is a smaller, lower horsepower engine, in a much lighter package. Better fuel efficiency, lower maintenance, better handling, etc.

    You don't need 300+ Hp. What you need is 150hp, in a machine that weighs in at 400lbs, or less. Think about that for a second.....

    The newer boats are tipping the scales in the high 800lb range, with 230 + or - horsepower, and can do speed in excess of 65mph.
    Well, if you cut the weight by half, but still had 2/3rd's of the horsepower(230/.66=151hp), then you could have the same, or even faster speed/acceleration.
    And, when you just wanted to cruise upriver, you would use a whole lot less fuel. Not to mention burning less gas to tow the boat around.

    Yea, I know...I'm crazy. What was I thinking.
    I believe the 238HP number was provided by Franco Detori from Rotax Racing if memory serves me correctly. mrracing has the dyno sheet somewhere. It was this graph that first showed everyone that the X skis made the most power at 8000 RPM versus the 8100 that we were used to.

    Quote Originally Posted by lasportsmn View Post
    Why do the skis have to be so huge and heavy.
    People wanted it. Larger crafts more suited to cruising. More stable platforms for riding 2 and 3 up. If you want to go fast just squeeze the throttle.

    Quote Originally Posted by iflyems View Post
    It's coming........

    They need to get back to the basics. Like an XP(L), on steroids. Keep it simple.
    Couple years ago at the SeaDoo demo Jerry said they had blueprints for a new XPL. I've heard that idea was trashed. Had they stuck with it and put a 800cc Etec motor in it you would have a damn good ski. I think it was the development of the Etec motor that pushed the other manufacturers out of the 2 stroke market too. From what I've been told BRP has a few patents on that motor that prevent other manufacturers from continuing to develop 2 stroke technology.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. RXT 260 RS with error code 1550??
    By ExciterGPR in forum 4-Tec Performance
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 06-26-2013, 09:28 PM
  2. seadoo rxt-x rs problem 84 mph
    By fantasma pr in forum 4-Tec Performance
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-26-2011, 09:20 PM
  3. RXT-X RS vs RXP-X slightly modded
    By CrispyX in forum 4-Tec Performance
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-26-2011, 11:31 AM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-17-2010, 08:04 PM
  5. RXT-X RS vs FZS and Ultra 260 Video
    By Phil in forum Sea Doo Open Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-23-2010, 09:58 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •