Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21
  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Minneapolis MN
    Posts
    835
    +1
    127

    How does Kawasaki get away with this?

    Since I'm not happy with the FZR that I traded a '12 RXP-X for, I was at the boat show looking around and the salesman suggested a 300X. I had never considered one before. I spent hours gathering information from this forum and one glaring difference appears when comparing the engines of the big three and that is the specific output of them. Consider that all have superchargers and are designed to run on pump gas of various octanes:

    Kawasaki 300X 200 HP/liter 90 octane minimum
    Sea-Doo RXP-X 173 HP/liter 91 octane suggested for optimum performance, 87 octane can be used
    Yamaha SHO 117 HP/liter 87 octane

    I'm suggesting that one of the variables that predict an engine's lifespan is the power output per unit of displacement. Considering this, how does Kawasaki build an engine with this output that can survive the everyday variation in the environment that the engine is used in? I would think that the warranty costs of premature failures would be outrageous. Surely the engine designers at all three of the brands have the same knowledge and expertise so are the Kawasaki engineers just high rollers? Or maybe the company has a big insurance contract to cover warranty related expenses. Any thoughts?

    P.S. I think the 300X is a very cool boat and would be a riot to ride.


  2. #2
    Moderator #985 lasportsmn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Pierre Part, Louisiana
    Posts
    4,780
    +1
    358
    The 300 requires 91 octane but I actually suggest 93 when possible.
    As far as the warranty claims go talk to the dealerships. They hate warranty work. They will gladly tell you how many warranty claims they have. This engine for the most part has been in use since 2007 and they have made improvements every year and upping the power to 300. There are quite a few 2011 I know of personally being used recreationally with 200 hours. We also have 250s with MANY hours. Yes there were some issues in the beginning as well stated here. The other thing you have to realize is this is a performance forum so we all mod our skis.
    I have many race hours on my ski and love it.
    As long as you treat it properly it will treat you well. It does require more TLC can the others BUT two 300s here locally are abused. Check the oil add gas and go. At the end of the weekend or rental abuse they are thrown on the lift and left there. Never blown out or anything. They are still going strong. VERY SUPRISINGLY.

  3. #3
    Vman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    4,363
    +1
    339
    Quote Originally Posted by pro1200 View Post
    Since I'm not happy with the FZR that I traded a '12 RXP-X for, I was at the boat show looking around and the salesman suggested a 300X. I had never considered one before. I spent hours gathering information from this forum and one glaring difference appears when comparing the engines of the big three and that is the specific output of them. Consider that all have superchargers and are designed to run on pump gas of various octanes:

    Kawasaki 300X 200 HP/liter 90 octane minimum
    Sea-Doo RXP-X 173 HP/liter 91 octane suggested for optimum performance, 87 octane can be used
    Yamaha SHO 117 HP/liter 87 octane

    I'm suggesting that one of the variables that predict an engine's lifespan is the power output per unit of displacement. Considering this, how does Kawasaki build an engine with this output that can survive the everyday variation in the environment that the engine is used in? I would think that the warranty costs of premature failures would be outrageous. Surely the engine designers at all three of the brands have the same knowledge and expertise so are the Kawasaki engineers just high rollers? Or maybe the company has a big insurance contract to cover warranty related expenses. Any thoughts?

    P.S. I think the 300X is a very cool boat and would be a riot to ride.
    Your assessment Imo is correct. As far as how they do it... the manufacturers play the odds, walking a fine line between product durability and the ability to excite the consumer into a purchasing frenzy!

    The odds are also in their favor as far as duarbility goes... most watercraft owners only tally a fraction of the use that true enthusiasts like the forum members here will.

    That said, if you are looking for longevity- you have answered your own question, the big fun factor of the Kawi does not come without a price...

    Heck, you had the FZR, and the PX... might as well make it a trifecta and go for the Kawi this time!

    My opinion: If you were not happy with the FZ or the PX, you may be happy with the Kawi... especially if you are a rough water rider.

    My other opinion: If you were not happy with the FZ or the PX, you prolly won't be happy with the Kawi either...

  4. #4
    r33pwrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sammamish Washington
    Posts
    4,216
    +1
    360
    Quote Originally Posted by pro1200 View Post
    Since I'm not happy with the FZR that I traded a '12 RXP-X for, I was at the boat show looking around and the salesman suggested a 300X. I had never considered one before. I spent hours gathering information from this forum and one glaring difference appears when comparing the engines of the big three and that is the specific output of them. Consider that all have superchargers and are designed to run on pump gas of various octanes:

    Kawasaki 300X 200 HP/liter 90 octane minimum
    Sea-Doo RXP-X 173 HP/liter 91 octane suggested for optimum performance, 87 octane can be used
    Yamaha SHO 117 HP/liter 87 octane

    I'm suggesting that one of the variables that predict an engine's lifespan is the power output per unit of displacement. Considering this, how does Kawasaki build an engine with this output that can survive the everyday variation in the environment that the engine is used in? I would think that the warranty costs of premature failures would be outrageous. Surely the engine designers at all three of the brands have the same knowledge and expertise so are the Kawasaki engineers just high rollers? Or maybe the company has a big insurance contract to cover warranty related expenses. Any thoughts?

    P.S. I think the 300X is a very cool boat and would be a riot to ride.
    Honestly man you where not happy with a Sea-Doo or a Yamaha from a reliability and quality standpoint, I don't see Kawasaki being any better. Not a knock on Kawasaki but I think most would struggle to say a Kawasaki 300 is any more reliable than a seadoo or Yamaha. If you want reliable go buy a NA ski (of any brand) and forget the forced induction skis.

  5. #5
    Self Confessed Day Dreamer toomanytoys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,932
    +1
    151
    Don't let specific power per litre turn you off. I've owned an RS4 V8 reving to 8250 stock and a Subaru race car running a reliable 450hp+. If it's built right it will last.

    My 300x has 130 hours now with no engine issues. I wouldn't expect many are failing. If they were we would see more than a few failures here over the last couple of years. Of the ones that have failed, I'd say most are environmental (fuel, maintenance and storage conditions) rather than a mechanical failure due to running too much power.

    As for a 300x over the others. It is a lot better than a stock FZR, but the stock PX is pretty good. The 300x is the performance ski to buy at the moment.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by pro1200 View Post
    Since I'm not happy with the FZR that I traded a '12 RXP-X for, I was at the boat show looking around and the salesman suggested a 300X. I had never considered one before. I spent hours gathering information from this forum and one glaring difference appears when comparing the engines of the big three and that is the specific output of them. Consider that all have superchargers and are designed to run on pump gas of various octanes:

    Kawasaki 300X 200 HP/liter 90 octane minimum
    Sea-Doo RXP-X 173 HP/liter 91 octane suggested for optimum performance, 87 octane can be used
    Yamaha SHO 117 HP/liter 87 octane

    I'm suggesting that one of the variables that predict an engine's lifespan is the power output per unit of displacement. Considering this, how does Kawasaki build an engine with this output that can survive the everyday variation in the environment that the engine is used in? I would think that the warranty costs of premature failures would be outrageous. Surely the engine designers at all three of the brands have the same knowledge and expertise so are the Kawasaki engineers just high rollers? Or maybe the company has a big insurance contract to cover warranty related expenses. Any thoughts?

    P.S. I think the 300X is a very cool boat and would be a riot to ride.
    It would be interesting to know what you did not like about the FZR and the RXP-X; these are both very capable Skis. And to just "jump" onto a 300, or any other Ski for that matter, without fully understanding what you did not like about your previous Skis may be another mistake just waiting to be made! I would take a Self Assessment of where you think those Skis fell short, then ask yourself and the members here, "will the 300 be a better Ski for what I am doing / how I am riding". Do that, and I can assure that you will find the answer you are looking for. JB

  7. #7
    I'd love to know what you didn't like about them! I only have experience on an FZR, VX and FX but Seadoo does make a great machine? Whats not to like about them?

  8. #8
    Banned User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    LA/oc
    Posts
    3,911
    +1
    129

    How does Kawasaki get away with this?

    Quote Originally Posted by john belton View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pro1200 View Post
    Since I'm not happy with the FZR that I traded a '12 RXP-X for, I was at the boat show looking around and the salesman suggested a 300X. I had never considered one before. I spent hours gathering information from this forum and one glaring difference appears when comparing the engines of the big three and that is the specific output of them. Consider that all have superchargers and are designed to run on pump gas of various octanes:

    Kawasaki 300X 200 HP/liter 90 octane minimum
    Sea-Doo RXP-X 173 HP/liter 91 octane suggested for optimum performance, 87 octane can be used
    Yamaha SHO 117 HP/liter 87 octane

    I'm suggesting that one of the variables that predict an engine's lifespan is the power output per unit of displacement. Considering this, how does Kawasaki build an engine with this output that can survive the everyday variation in the environment that the engine is used in? I would think that the warranty costs of premature failures would be outrageous. Surely the engine designers at all three of the brands have the same knowledge and expertise so are the Kawasaki engineers just high rollers? Or maybe the company has a big insurance contract to cover warranty related expenses. Any thoughts?

    P.S. I think the 300X is a very cool boat and would be a riot to ride.
    It would be interesting to know what you did not like about the FZR and the RXP-X; these are both very capable Skis. And to just "jump" onto a 300, or any other Ski for that matter, without fully understanding what you did not like about your previous Skis may be another mistake just waiting to be made! I would take a Self Assessment of where you think those Skis fell short, then ask yourself and the members here, "will the 300 be a better Ski for what I am doing / how I am riding". Do that, and I can assure that you will find the answer you are looking for. JB
    That's great advice. I agree.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Minneapolis MN
    Posts
    835
    +1
    127
    [QUOTE=Vman;2101116]
    Quote Originally Posted by pro1200 View Post

    My other opinion: If you were not happy with the FZ or the PX, you prolly won't be happy with the Kawi either...
    Vman-I am a very discriminating (some might say psycho) motorsports enthusiast and it is hard to please me so this is a good observation!

  10. #10
    Banned User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee WI
    Posts
    16,708
    +1
    1,324
    Going by your screen name, nothing compares to a Pro 1200

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. How much can you get away with a stock SVHO
    By Guidoo in forum Yamaha PWC Performance (4-stroke)
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 07-15-2014, 01:10 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-02-2011, 11:10 PM
  3. How are your skis running with this heat wave?
    By RXP-REX in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-24-2009, 08:31 PM
  4. how does air get in/out of our hulls??
    By lextoy in forum 4-Tec Performance
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 11-01-2007, 10:43 PM
  5. How does water get in the VTS box?
    By Shibby1485 in forum 4-Tec Performance
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-18-2006, 01:57 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
  •