Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 128
  1. #1
    Moderator #985 lasportsmn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Pierre Part, Louisiana
    Posts
    4,780
    +1
    358

    Honest comparison

    This is not to start a let's bash the new P-X or the Yamahas thread. I am posting this just to show that while so many are wanting to talk down about the Ultra, this member posting about his P-X is a very honest guy and a friend of mine. I like that he did not get on the forum and make up some rediculious numbers.
    We all know that the 300 with only the SCOM sitting on the seat will run between 72 and 73. I documented 73.0 and Jennifer's ski is 72.6 Done at different days and mine is no longer completely stock other than just the SCOM so there is no way to truely do a side by side on the same day so lets just say they are in the 72-73 range that most of the 300s are with only the SCOM. Both skis were in the 7900-7950 range

    This is a post made about a 2012 P-X
    "18 hours, 95 degrees, no longer hiting rev limiter. 8050 rpms quater tank of fuel 71.2 with sponsons down
    72.0 sponsons up. Only mod Riva Scom.

    All my speed runs are done superman. It will not go that fast sittin in the cock pit
    ."

    I am not at all saying we have a superior product just showing that we are finally after all these years riding a comparible ski as far as top speed is concerned with a basically completely stock ski. I think that with lower boost through the same 1.5 liters that the sea doo is impressive also especially with the new better riding hull.

    Here is the Yamaha FZR and FX SHO. They are both an 09 but I did not see a newer one in the speed mod data base. Both are lighter, smaller and we have only 83% of the displacement of the Yamaha engine but yes we have more boost and higher claimed HP.

    The bone stock skis I saw claims of getting the 65-68 range mostly in the higher of the range.
    Here is what is needed to be done to get to the range of the 300 with ONLY the SCOM 72-73.
    [email protected]rpm -'09 FZS, 250lbs, 82air/77water, salt water, 3/4 tank, nuetral trim, Riva Power Filter, Riva Manifold Upgrade, Riva FF Exhaust, R&D R4 Intercooler Kit, HKS BOV, R&D C3-11, R&D Intercooler Cooling Kit, R&D VTS Cam Kit, R&D Steering Nozzle, Skat-Trak 13/24, R&D Anti-cavitation Cone and R&D Sponsons. Stock E.C.U. and STD Fuel System.
    __________________

    72.3 @7750rpms, 09' FX SHO, Stage 1+, 170lbs, 80air/70water (salt), sea level, 3/4tank, Neutral trim, Riva Power Filter, Riva Manifold upgrade, R&D C1-SC wheel, R4 Intercooler, HKS-BOV, 13-23 Skat prop, Anti-cavitation cone, Waterbox mods (bored, not gutted), Riva FF Exhaust, Riva Intake Grate (pump seal kit), R&D Ride Plate (stock), R&D Sponsons, R&D Nozzle, stock ECU/Injectors.

    Again both very good skis and if I rode the conditions these skis were good in I would have one of them.

    Here is what is needed to get the FZR to the speeds I am currently at. Honest consistant 75.5 and with low fuel crouched all the way behind the bars 76+. I will not say what I have done but I am still 100% stock class legal so it is not much. Add one more very simple part and an exactly same ski broke 77 and this I know for a fact. I just can't put that part on due to it not being stock class legal.
    [email protected]+rpm,09 FZR stage 2+,151 pound,fresh water,full tank,1 click up,Riva intake,B1 10.5lbs,Riva powercooler,13/22r,Riva exhaust,83mm,R&D grate and rideplate,foam insert removed,R2 reflash,Riva Engine upgrade kit with Racing Cams...

    75.7 @ 8080 rpms, 09 FZS, over 100hrs on the clock!, 205lb rider, 76 air/65 water (brackish), sea level, 1/4 tank, trim up, Pet 2100DX tach, Riva: manifold upgrade, Air intake, FF exhaust, R&D: Intake grate, PPK, Ride plate, R2 re-flash, WFO Pitch Dynafly 15/22ish
    stock: S/C, I/C, injectors, fuel pump, turn and exit nozzles

    75.5mph @ 7950rpm, 2009 FZR, Stage 2ish, 147lbs, 10 celsius (50), Sea level, 2 bars of fuel, neutral trim, Riva air intake and manifold upgrad, RD c3-11 (10psi), frozen boost type 9 and HKS bov, 160mm 13/23, Riva thru hull, RD intake grate and ride plate (1 shim in back, spacers still in), RD r2 ecu plus powershot

    This is the only way I can figure to use accurate information from this forum without people just throwing things out there. Yes I agree that there are plenty more aftermarket items to make both of those brands have a much faster top speed ski so we are not in that category. I am wanting to use a true comparison of what is needed to achieve certain speeds that the Ultra 300x is capable of and what is needed to get there. All this Yamaha vs Kawasaki fighting should actually have the Sea Doo guys fighting with us Ultra guys. That is a MUCH closer comparison because as I have seen the Sea Doo is a much more similar ski to the capabilities of the 300. I do not want this to be a lets talk bad about the other brands but I just wanted to use proof from this very forum that the 300 is not the pig all the other brand's fans claim. This is why the 300 is performing so well in the races where they are using close to stock boats in and we FINALLY have a reliable ski doing it. This is all my opinion and when I say reliable I am speaking my Ultra.


  2. #2
    Moderator beerdart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    25,930
    +1
    1,407
    2004 Polaris MSX with a bone stock 2007 RXPX motor. 75 @ 8100rpm.

  3. #3
    This will definately be a worthwhile thread.

    Thank God a moderator is watching closely...

    BTW, fwiw, my stock 2011 vxr, 71.2mph, 1/4 tank, normal seating position, stock 2011 300, 1/4 tank, normal seating position 66.1.

    Both in calm water, same day (yesterday).

    No SCOM, so I can't comment on that. Haven't had a chance to try the PX, but will be able to this weekend. Hope it is rough so I get a good test of the machines in big water.

  4. #4
    SAL08HO's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    L TOWN FL
    Posts
    941
    +1
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by beerdart View Post
    2004 Polaris MSX with a bone stock 2007 RXPX motor. 75 @ 8100rpm.
    Awesome..Always fun to have a sleeper ski

  5. #5
    Moderator #985 lasportsmn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Pierre Part, Louisiana
    Posts
    4,780
    +1
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by beerdart View Post
    2004 Polaris MSX with a bone stock 2007 RXPX motor. 75 @ 8100rpm.
    Anything you show up with would scare me. Expecially that Jet mate

  6. #6
    Moderator #985 lasportsmn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Pierre Part, Louisiana
    Posts
    4,780
    +1
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by dukenyc View Post
    This will definately be a worthwhile thread.

    Thank God a moderator is watching closely...

    BTW, fwiw, my stock 2011 vxr, 71.2mph, 1/4 tank, normal seating position, stock 2011 300, 1/4 tank, normal seating position 66.1.

    Both in calm water, same day (yesterday).

    No SCOM, so I can't comment on that. Haven't had a chance to try the PX, but will be able to this weekend. Hope it is rough so I get a good test of the machines in big water.
    Duke I am very familiar with the VXR since I am very good friends with Jerry and have been there every single step of the way on both his skis. I know exactly what a VXR can do. The reason I did not include the VXR in this comparison is while it is the fastest out the box ski on the market it is very limited in keeping up in any kind of chop as Chuck (maxadrenaline) and I found out a few months ago. He has the fastest VXR I have seen without boosting it and he could not even keep up with Jennifer's 300 bone stock across the lake. I am not talking negatively about the VXR. I like the ski for a go fast Bayou boat. Heck well into the 70s for less than the cost of just the 300. Not what I ride though. I was just comparing the 3 skis that seem to usually get compared against eachother. I saw it this past weekend in my endurance race that the Sea Doo can very much handle and stay hooked up in typical lake chop from racing. Suprised me.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by lasportsmn View Post
    Duke I am very familiar with the VXR since I am very good friends with Jerry and have been there every single step of the way on both his skis. I know exactly what a VXR can do. The reason I did not include the VXR in this comparison is while it is the fastest out the box ski on the market it is very limited in keeping up in any kind of chop as Chuck (maxadrenaline) and I found out a few months ago. He has the fastest VXR I have seen without boosting it and he could not even keep up with Jennifer's 300 bone stock across the lake. I am not talking negatively about the VXR. I like the ski for a go fast Bayou boat. Heck well into the 70s for less than the cost of just the 300. Not what I ride though. I was just comparing the 3 skis that seem to usually get compared against eachother. I saw it this past weekend in my endurance race that the Sea Doo can very much handle and stay hooked up in typical lake chop from racing. Suprised me.

    LA, please forgive my previous sarcasm, I hope this thread does remain productive. I also hope the 300 is reliable, for personal reasons. You are correct, the VXR is not good in any chop, it really is a calm water ski. It's light weight and nimbleness make it alot of fun in big water, 5-8', just because you can really throw it around for a sit down.

    It is not good, and will DEFINATELY not keep up in 1-3' waves, it simply bounces to much, and is a handful at best.

    I can't wait to try out the 300, and hopefully the px, in big water, that is what interested me in it.

  8. #8
    Moderator #985 lasportsmn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Pierre Part, Louisiana
    Posts
    4,780
    +1
    358
    As far as reliability, I will say this. If you could have been there to see all those Ultras running WOT for hundreds of miles at the Mark Hahn. Plenty of skis to break down. Also watching all the skis running all those offshore races and finishing them. Personally my ski will be breaking 100 hours very soon. Most all of those hours were race hours and quite a few at WOT for extended periods. My ski was wrecked and sunk. Still running the same everything only a new hull. There are many locals who know first hand everything there is to know about my ski and several are looking at the Kawasaki as their next purchase. I know there were others with problems. Not saying all are great because mine is, but can't say all are bad because a few that are mentioned on here. Several of the problems were self inflicted.
    I haved been reading all over this forum and even with as good as this new product is it is still being bashed all over the place. Many lies being stated to defend why the Ultra is so bad to buy. This is not the 250 of 07. While this is not the perfect ski for everyone it is not the worse either and the other sections of this forum like to claim.

  9. #9
    Self Confessed Day Dreamer toomanytoys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,932
    +1
    151
    I agree with everything that's been said.

    Two good mates I ride with; one with an FZR the other with a P-X. All stock. The FZR needs quite a few mods to catch up and then honestly the slightest ripple it's all over. The P-X on the other hand is like watching a 300X dressed in yellow and black. The 300X is a tiny bit faster and hooks up a little bit better. There is basically nothing in it.

    For those that haven't seen this, here is a little fun we had a couple of months ago.


  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by lasportsmn View Post
    As far as reliability, I will say this. If you could have been there to see all those Ultras running WOT for hundreds of miles at the Mark Hahn. Plenty of skis to break down. Also watching all the skis running all those offshore races and finishing them. Personally my ski will be breaking 100 hours very soon. Most all of those hours were race hours and quite a few at WOT for extended periods. My ski was wrecked and sunk. Still running the same everything only a new hull. There are many locals who know first hand everything there is to know about my ski and several are looking at the Kawasaki as their next purchase. I know there were others with problems. Not saying all are great because mine is, but can't say all are bad because a few that are mentioned on here. Several of the problems were self inflicted.
    I haved been reading all over this forum and even with as good as this new product is it is still being bashed all over the place. Many lies being stated to defend why the Ultra is so bad to buy. This is not the 250 of 07. While this is not the perfect ski for everyone it is not the worse either and the other sections of this forum like to claim.
    I am not sure the jury is out just yet, GL, on the SCOM and running the 300 hard for alot of miles and alot of hours. The fastest non Turbo Ultra at the MH300, who was running in 4th place on lap 11, blew his engine to bits on lap 11. 12 hours total on the engine. His SCOM had been on since day one. I am not drawing any conclusions from this. Both he and his partner were very light guys (this may help explain why they were about 1 mph faster than the other SCOM Ultras). As you correctly point out, I think the 300 needs the SCOM to run with some of the faster Skis it encounters. If I had a 300 would I be running the SCOM? Absolutely; for races. What I am telling my people in my Group out West here is "no need to run the SCOM on normal Sunday rides". Why??? 67 MPH on a Sunday ride should be good enough for most fun rides / training rides.

    If you want to start an Honest comparison thread, I think it should include these 3 key Items: Performance, Reliability, Cost to Maintain and Run. I think what we will find is not one single Ski or Brand will finish at the top of each Category. Like you say, If people can stick to the facts and first hand observations I think this can be a "civil thread". I for one would like to hear more about the P-X. I know a good friend who has one, I think I can get him one here.

Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Fuel consumption comparison?
    By lawracing in forum 4-Tec Performance
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-26-2007, 09:25 AM
  2. (PIC) All I want for christmas is my 2 front teeth..honestly
    By MPower in forum Yamaha Open Discussion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 06-05-2006, 10:37 PM
  3. Side-by-Side shots of ICs for technical comparison
    By Shibby1485 in forum 4-Tec Performance
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-18-2006, 12:45 PM
  4. Rideplate comparison/XL Limited Stage II update
    By Smitty in forum Yamaha PWC Performance (2-stroke)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-11-2006, 01:37 AM
  5. IC comparison pics
    By Franko in forum 4-Tec Performance
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 08-03-2005, 10:19 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
  •