Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    23
    +1
    1

    Increasing Non SC Fuel Economy

    Some friends and I are starting to plan a ride from Ohio to the Gulf in 2014. As much as I would like to take my RXT 260, I realize that the fuel stops would be frequent. My question is this: Does anyone have any experience setting up a 130 or a 155 for maximum distance per tank? I realize that in order to do this, top speed and hole shot power will be compromised. Suggestions? Impeller, pump nozzle, cone, injectors?


  2. #2
    ProZadoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    351
    +1
    55
    At cruising speeds (35m/hr), Sea-Doo has one of the least fuel efficient N/A engines, except perhaps Yamaha's HO, but very close. Source: http://www.personalwatercraft.com/. You are better off with a 155 than a 130. I did a 100 km treck with a friend who has a 215. I have a 155. Because of the environment/settings, we mostly cruised at 35m/hr and had lower speed runs as well. I used more fuel than he did, but I run on regular and he on premium. If you are going to do that kind of treck, you would need the right machine to do it with, right? Like a... RXT with the S3 hull on ECO mode?

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    23
    +1
    1
    Thanks for the input. I'm surprised that your 155 would use more fuel at a 35mph cruising speed than a 215. Good point about the fuel costs.

    Your right about the S3. I've only had my 2011 260 since this spring and haven't ridden it much yet but I can tell it handles chop a lot better than the 09 FX SHO that I just sold.

    I was thinking about picking up a 155 next year in preparation for the trip and trying some pump mods. I've read that SeaDoo boasts about thier effeciency in ECO but I have not been able to find how that equates to actual gph usage.

  4. #4
    I can confirm what ProZaDox is saying. In our group, the 215 skis burn the same or a little less gas than the N/A skis at normal cruising speeds. If you really get into the boost, the SC skis burn a lot more than NA skis.

  5. #5
    ProZadoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    351
    +1
    55
    ECO mode is essentially the same as Touring mode, except it limits top revs, therefore fuel consumption. At cruising speeds (again about 35mph), it won't make a difference if you are in ECO mode or not. Hard acceleration and high speeds are the factors.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    23
    +1
    1
    Any experience with steeper impeller pitches? Will that allow a lower rpm at cruising speeds or will it just make the engine work harder and lower perfomance without any gph gains?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. '03 GTX SC vs. '04 RXP fuel economy
    By ubernoob in forum 4-Tec Performance
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-18-2011, 09:50 AM
  2. fuel economy with different injectors ??? -- 4 tec SC
    By Turbo Retro in forum 4-Tec Performance
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 12-08-2007, 12:26 PM
  3. GTX non-SC Riders - what oil is being used
    By RXP'in in MI in forum 4-Tec Performance
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-07-2006, 12:43 AM
  4. GP1300 2006 fuel economy compared to a 2004
    By kevski in forum Yamaha PWC Performance (2-stroke)
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-06-2006, 06:28 PM
  5. how does fuel economy compare between 05/06 gpr and Rxp ?
    By dav_dman in forum Yamaha PWC Performance (2-stroke)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-11-2006, 05:59 PM

Posting Permissions

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