Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34
  1. #1
    husadan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Australia,NSW
    Posts
    75
    +1
    6

    FZS vs FX HO 1.8 Fuel consumption

    Hi all,After being given the advice (not from here) that i would need a sc ski to do tubing and associated things I found that i would of been able to do all of this on a FXHO wich i was first going to buy.(wish i had found this site first).I would sell my FZS if i was going to make a decent saving in fuel and get the HO.I have found that i can do most of what i need to do in L mode as my kids are only young.Seems a bit of a waste having a sc ski.
    Would there be much of a saving in fuel?


  2. #2

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    West Des Moines, Iowa
    Posts
    206
    +1
    7
    The HO ski is quite a bit more efficient, but I would keep the FZ as it is a fine machine. You will lose more money than the fuel issues will save, not even close. Enjoy what you have. Nice stoppy by the way

  3. +1 by:


  4. #3
    Yes the HO engine is better on gas than the SHO engine. But what I find is that if you are not on the SC hard, the SHO engine does get very decent mileage (for a SC engine). As far as savings go, I don't think it's a "night and day" Savings situation. Remember, you are already realizing Savings because you can run 87 octane fuel in your Ski (which you should be doing anyway for optimized performance).

    In your case, I thing you have a better case getting onto an FX HO due to how you are using the Ski. Most people shy away from the FX HO (as compared to the FX SHO) because it has a much slower top speed.

    Net Net: I wouldn't think of it that the SC is a waste. Rather look at "what and how" you are using the Ski and make the decision based on that criteria (not the negligible gas savings between the two models). JB

  5. #4
    YoYamma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    21,589
    +1
    4,796
    JB and VXRBlue are giving you good advice;
    personally if you already pulled the trigger I would hesitate to go back to an HO.
    How many hours a month are you using it? Sure, fuel would be saved, especially if you ride like a 100 mile trip twice a month or something, but with the highly restrictive stock airbox setup these Yamahas will tend to lose power after a while, the impellers tend to get worn over time from sand and rocks, etc, and you're gonna appreciate that supercharger as that happens.

  6. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    West Des Moines, Iowa
    Posts
    206
    +1
    7
    I agree with the 87 octane thing-------its a huge deal breaker for me because when I get caught out on the lake I never have to worry about trying to find higher octane which is usually unavailable at marinas and nearby gas stations, and no carrying extra gas cans in the truck and all that crazy waste of time stuff. I just want to ride. Even a lot of the newer higher performance cars and trucks tuning for 87 octane same idea. I feel other watercraft makers are just taking the easy way out and not giving the consumer the best deal on the octane thing

    Also remember that when you are not towing, then you have an FZ and not a plainer HO. Much more fun IMHO.

  7. #6
    AWA MEMBER
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Currituck, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    4,616
    +1
    247
    Im getting [email protected] 5800rpm with 93 octane.......with a stage 2 Vtech, I was getting 5.34mpg with stock ecu and regular gas with same rpms





    I have a FZR/S

  8. #7
    Yes, it is possible to increase the MPG with some Mods to various parts of the Ski. But then the question becomes "does the Mod void the Warranty if there is one in effect". And if the answer is yes, are the Cost Savings realized from the fuel savings worth the risk of voiding the Warranty due to unforseen engine failure? Even if the fuel savings Mod had nothing to with a potential engine failure . . .

    For me, I play the Warranty Card close to my vest. I don't want to do anything which could cause a Warranty issue; perceived or otherwise. If I were racing my Skis then I would be more likely to step oustide the Warranty Box. But for the kinds of recreational riding I am doing right now, the risks outweigh the benefits if the Warranty becomes questionable for whatever reason. JB

  9. #8
    AWA MEMBER
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Currituck, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    4,616
    +1
    247
    Quote Originally Posted by john belton View Post
    Yes, it is possible to increase the MPG with some Mods to various parts of the Ski. But then the question becomes "does the Mod void the Warranty if there is one in effect". And if the answer is yes, are the Cost Savings realized from the fuel savings worth the risk of voiding the Warranty due to unforseen engine failure? Even if the fuel savings Mod had nothing to with a potential engine failure . . .

    For me, I play the Warranty Card close to my vest. I don't want to do anything which could cause a Warranty issue; perceived or otherwise. If I were racing my Skis then I would be more likely to step oustide the Warranty Box. But for the kinds of recreational riding I am doing right now, the risks outweigh the benefits if the Warranty becomes questionable for whatever reason. JB




    I hear that.....but you don't see too many people complaining about R&D R3 and stock boost, or the Vetch and stock boost blowing motors up...... only way the dealer would really know.......that's if someone did not remove the seat and base and scratched the electronics cover up......and it had that shiny R&D sticker on the ECU when they investigated because they saw the cover was scratched up.... Yamaha's scanner tool is not as complex as the seadoo setup......my dealer did not say a word about my reflash when i took it there

  10. #9
    husadan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Australia,NSW
    Posts
    75
    +1
    6
    Thanks for all your info,in approx 3.5 hrs of run time i used about 60litres of fuel all pulling a tube.1.5hrs L mode rest open mode.Does anyone know the ruff amount of fuel that would be saved buy a HO?anyone tow tubers with a HO? how much fuel do you use?

  11. #10
    volltrex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jersey CI
    Posts
    616
    +1
    36
    If you are worried about fuel, you are in the wrong hobby! As the others have said, the difference in fuel consumption between the SHO & HO is not much as long as you go easy on the throttle. I allow a safe cruising range of 80 miles for my FXHO.......95-100 miles is about the maximum I can get. The FX hull will be more stable then the FZ for your sort of use. If fuel is of such great concern, then the MR1 FXHO would be a good choice/compromise.......good for 120 mile range & will easily tow........still miss mine sometimes!

  12. +1 by:


Page 1 of 4 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. FX SHO vs. FX HO?
    By Bostonfan32 in forum Yamaha PWC Performance (4-stroke)
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 04-01-2010, 12:30 PM
  2. pump tunnels FZ vs FX ?
    By GP1500SC in forum Yamaha PWC Performance (4-stroke)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-27-2009, 07:31 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-16-2009, 03:27 AM
  4. FX HO Vs. FX HO cruiser
    By Islandtime in forum Yamaha PWC Performance (4-stroke)
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-26-2007, 06:13 PM
  5. FX HO Vs. FX HO cruiser
    By Islandtime in forum Yamaha Open Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-25-2007, 07:35 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
  •