Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: Hull Comparison

  1. #1
    way2fast's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Melbourne Beach, FL
    Posts
    4,009
    +1
    4

    Hull Comparison

    I got my copy of Watercraft Illustrated today. They said Kawi told them the top speed of the 250X is 65mph with a 190 lb rider and a full gas tank. The mag guys recorded 66.5 on a gps they slipped it their pocket. What appears to be disturbing news is when they said the Ultra LX with the 160 hp engine only reaches a max speed of 52mph. This same engine pushes the 15F to 61-62 mph stock. Even the NA 155hp GTX runs in the double nickel range. This means that the new Kawi Ultra hull is much slower than a similiarly powered STX hull.... 9- 10 mph slower to be exact !! If this is fact, the new Ultra 250X will be a "should have been, would have been" ski. Far from being a "King". That hull will make it more of a "DOG". It will probably burn fuel like there is no tomorrow and be a good 10-12 mph SLOWER than a STX would have been with the 250 hp engine.

    Reading the artical put my hopes and dreams for the Ultra in a dumpster !


  2. #2
    mxl16's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    1,590
    i hope they put that motor in a smaller hull. i think my rxp is a tank, riding that new ultra would feel like driving a jet boat. wat a waste of a very very cool motor.

  3. #3
    1FastRXP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Napa Valley, California
    Posts
    91

    250X speed

    Quote Originally Posted by way2fast View Post
    I got my copy of Watercraft Illustrated today. They said Kawi told them the top speed of the 250X is 65mph with a 190 lb rider and a full gas tank. The mag guys recorded 66.5 on a gps they slipped it their pocket. What appears to be disturbing news is when they said the Ultra LX with the 160 hp engine only reaches a max speed of 52mph. This same engine pushes the 15F to 61-62 mph stock. Even the NA 155hp GTX runs in the double nickel range. This means that the new Kawi Ultra hull is much slower than a similiarly powered STX hull.... 9- 10 mph slower to be exact !! If this is fact, the new Ultra 250X will be a "should have been, would have been" ski. Far from being a "King". That hull will make it more of a "DOG". It will probably burn fuel like there is no tomorrow and be a good 10-12 mph SLOWER than a STX would have been with the 250 hp engine.

    Reading the artical put my hopes and dreams for the Ultra in a dumpster !
    I am not surprised that Kawi said the 250x goes 65 mph given the issues with the coast gaurd. As the magazine riders experienced, the ski actually went faster that they said it would. Further, the 250x is supposed to accelerate like crazy meaning that the top speed is going to be slower. I suspect that a few mods (new prop etc) will give you the speed you are looking for. I'm not cancelling my order for a 250x.

  4. #4
    Connecticut CrazyA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    CT.
    Posts
    8,141
    +1
    1,052
    Kit Performance Data
    Stock 67~68 MPH @ 8,100 RPMStage I Kit72 MPH @ 8,100 RPM
    Stage II Kit 75 MPH @ 8,100 RPM
    Stage III Kit 80+ MPH @ 8,400 RPM

    NOTE: All testing was performed with 1/3 tank of fuel and trim in neutral position.



    And when RIVA did their testing on a stock RXP, they got 67-68mph with a third of a tank. The Ultra ain't too shabby then.

  5. #5
    You are making assumptions that the hull has an issue but you failed to consider wieght and pump location.

    Without a doubt this new hull has differences but the wieght, pump location, pump diamiter, and intake have alot to do with its combined performance.

    Im sure Kawi biult this machine with 250 hp in mind, then droped a stock motor in to see what it would do.

    My thought is that Kawi will come out with a 2 seater model. They are the only manufacture to not have one but they have 4 different 3 seaters. I suspect the 12F and 15F will be going away soon.

    The only thing that confuses me is why did they use the Ultra name again for a three seater and not save it for a two seater model

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by way2fast View Post
    I got my copy of Watercraft Illustrated today. They said Kawi told them the top speed of the 250X is 65mph with a 190 lb rider and a full gas tank. The mag guys recorded 66.5 on a gps they slipped it their pocket. What appears to be disturbing news is when they said the Ultra LX with the 160 hp engine only reaches a max speed of 52mph. This same engine pushes the 15F to 61-62 mph stock. Even the NA 155hp GTX runs in the double nickel range. This means that the new Kawi Ultra hull is much slower than a similiarly powered STX hull.... 9- 10 mph slower to be exact !! If this is fact, the new Ultra 250X will be a "should have been, would have been" ski. Far from being a "King". That hull will make it more of a "DOG". It will probably burn fuel like there is no tomorrow and be a good 10-12 mph SLOWER than a STX would have been with the 250 hp engine.

    Reading the artical put my hopes and dreams for the Ultra in a dumpster !

    Try and put that 250 motor in a STX and sell it to the average consumer and youll have a Liebility nightmare. Ask any one that has a 15FSC and they will tell you its a bear to handle. For one it needs a 160mm pump, massive intake scoop, aggresive sponsons and arm muscles of an ape to hold on. The SC 15F are dangerous and are in no way safe for average riders. Ask PapaDawg. I sold him my 15F and he break his neck. "cracked a vertibrae" He's over 6' and wieghs around 250 and its all muscle.

    You are dumping your dream boat in the dumpster over one article. Come on man dont jump off the boat just because someone said fire. Beter yet go ahead and jump. If your that easy to fall off then why stick around. Articles are often proved wrong.

    Your theory of hull and being a could have are way off but if you think this is a DOG then go buy yourself a RXP and then sit back and watch the rest of us have a good-O-time.

    This machine is going to hang with RXP the whole way, stage 1 thru 3 it will show the same numbers. Dont throw it away because its limps out the the box 2 mph slower then a two seat model. Also dont forget it has to push more wieght. Ill bet it handles better then an RXP making it win every time in chop or rippled water. Rarely do you find glass conditions.

    Back in the day my STXR stock would smoke a stock GPR, only because the stock GPR couldnt hold to the water. The STXR would suck down and haul a$$ though choppy water. Just an egample.

    Man I spell like a 5yr old...

  7. #7
    ph2ocraft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Campbell, Ca.
    Posts
    14,100
    +1
    105
    Rich, I see your point about the hull BUT what if what they say is true and they really do have the Ultra buried in the water until some minor changes are made?
    What if it's as simple as the sponsons (you have to see the bottom of these platforms) are forcing that nose into the water?
    Hell, the first thing I'd do is remove the sponsons and just see what difference it makes in nose attitude. If the nose does indeed raise you know you're going to gain speed.
    Of course the next question will be, how does that affect overall handling?

    All I know is I need an awesome cruiser that will start with no chokes, primers, love, luck or hope. This is my baby, in red of course, right here.

  8. #8
    way2fast's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Melbourne Beach, FL
    Posts
    4,009
    +1
    4
    I'm not jumping ship. I know the Ultra will handle much better in rough water than does the gut pounding STX hull. I'm just a little discouraged that when equipped with 160 hp, the hull is 9-10 MPH slower than the STX hull (15F). That is a significant loss of speed. True, the Ultra pump might be optomized (sp) for the 250 hp engine and not for the 160. Only time will tell !

    Richard

  9. #9
    Good dont give up.

    As Im boo hooing.

    Im also discoraged at the numbers but true to Kawi they always come out under. Thats why they last so long in stock form. Biuld it fast for the Team then tune it down for reliability. Sucks for us speed freaks. Gotta pay to put something on that Kawi probably took off.

    I was also sure that it needed premium but it only needs 87. Thats awsome for the regular consumer and me. This means I have more room to make modifications safely.

  10. #10
    Hey Skips is that Poppa Dog that you referred to racing in Texas? Region 5

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. A quick comparison of hull design the FXSVHO,Ultra 310 and VXR
    By jetdave56 in forum Kawasaki PWC Performance (4-stroke)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-27-2016, 12:05 AM
  2. Thru hull shaft size comparison?
    By skigolfnut in forum 4-Tec Performance
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-06-2012, 07:50 PM
  3. Unscientific hull comparison
    By imaginate in forum Kawasaki PWC Performance (4-stroke)
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-24-2008, 10:15 PM
  4. Un-Scientific F 15X Hull Comparison
    By Honda Guy in forum Honda Open Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 04-21-2008, 08:11 AM
  5. Maintain hull and body topic?
    By sprchrgd89gt in forum Sea Doo Open Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-20-2005, 11:38 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
  •