Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1
    nvgtrsprt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Edmonds, WA
    Posts
    124
    +1
    27

    2013 SHO vs 2014 SVHO?

    Looking at boattest.com performance specs, the SVHO apparently has better fuel economy over the 2013 SHO. Anybody have real world info on this? Looking for the most fuel efficient supercharged ski on the market. Even 1 mpg makes a difference.

    The numbers they put out are pretty impressive. 2013 SHO at 36 MPH getting 5.53 MPG versus 2014 SVHO at 38 MPH getting 6 MPG. Dial that back to 35 and you're probably close to 6.25 MPG.

    Curious what some of you Yammi guys think about these numbers? I know supercharged means more at the pump but just a bit better range is what I need.


    2014 FX SVHO
    Range
    RPM MPH Knots Total GPH MPG NMPG Stat. Mile NM KM KPH LPH KPL dBA
    1200 3.7 3.2 0.40 9.25 8.04 154 134 248 6 1.51 3.93 0
    2000 5.4 4.7 0.95 5.68 4.94 95 82 153 8.7 3.6 2.41 0
    3000 8.4 7.3 1.90 4.39 3.82 73 64 117 13.5 7.19 1.87 0
    4000 24.6 21.4 3.35 7.34 6.39 122 106 196 39.6 12.68 3.12 0
    5000 38.1 33.1 6.35 5.99 5.21 100 87 161 61.3 24.04 2.55 0
    6000 49.9 43.4 9.75 5.12 4.45 85 74 137 80.3 36.91 2.18 0
    7000 63.7 55.3 16.50 3.86 3.35 64 56 103 102.5 62.46 1.64 0
    7700 69.6 60.5 21.15 3.29 2.86 55 48 89 112 80.06 1.4 0

    2013 FX SHO
    Range
    RPM MPH Knots Total GPH MPG NMPG Stat. Mile NM KM KPH LPH KPL dBA
    1000 3.7 3.2 0.6 6.08 5.29 101 88 163 6 2.27 2.58
    2000 5.2 4.5 1.1 4.95 4.31 82 72 132 8.4 4.16 2.1
    3000 7.4 6.4 2.4 3.08 2.68 51 45 82 11.9 9.08 1.31
    4000 24.3 21.1 4.2 5.77 5.02 96 84 154 39.1 15.9 2.45
    4500 30.1 26.2 5.1 5.96 5.18 99 86 159 48.4 19.31 2.53
    5000 36.8 32.0 6.7 5.53 4.81 92 80 148 59.2 25.36 2.35
    6000 50.6 44.0 11.0 4.60 4.00 77 67 124 81.4 41.64 1.96
    7000 61.7 53.7 16.7 3.71 3.22 68 54 109 99.3 63.22 1.58
    7500 66.7 58.0 19.2 3.47 3.02 58 50 93 107.3 72.68 1.48


  2. #2
    nvgtrsprt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Edmonds, WA
    Posts
    124
    +1
    27
    Maybe not that impressive an increase, but enough to make me consider this ski over my 300...

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Central North Carolina
    Posts
    3,846
    +1
    527
    These numbers seam to be pretty close to what I see on my fzr as far as MPG at that rpm. One reason the SVHO is just a little better mpg is the fact that the prop pitch/dia. is a little taller and it gives you a little more speed for the same rpm. Tommy Jordan

  4. #4
    Ale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    ITALY
    Posts
    825
    +1
    57
    Come to Italy
    1,80 euro 1 liter

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    14
    +1
    1
    Australia, Brisbane, 1 liter *91 Octane $1.40 to $1.60

    1.60 AUD = 1.07065 EUR

  6. #6

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Nashville, Tn
    Posts
    788
    +1
    90
    Was out for the first time last week with my SVHO and noticed the mileage was at least as good as my previous SHOs. Was pleasantly surprised about that.

  7. #7
    zone5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    West of Blue Mountains, Australia
    Posts
    373
    +1
    36
    I am running the SVHO in same situation as SHO was, if your not hammering it I agree, consumption is a bit better...

  8. #8
    nvgtrsprt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Edmonds, WA
    Posts
    124
    +1
    27
    Thanks for the response. Still up in the air which ski I'm going to buy. Can't get too tempted by the SVHO when the reason I sold my 300X was strictly because of fuel consumption.

    If I could get concrete numbers where my 300X was in that regard, I could compare it to the numbers on boattest because they've always been real close to mine on different boats. If I could get 2 MPG better at 45 MPH than my 300, I'd buy it today.

    Might consider the FX HO but it's a downgrade in every way (other than consumption) from my 300X and that's not my style....

    Looking specifically at the FX series and not FZ.

  9. #9
    Ya Boy Trevor bajaeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tampa
    Posts
    1,083
    +1
    19
    intercooler is better than old one. still not a great one but engine running cooler is gunna get better mileage. 2013 with air intake, ribbon delete and better intercooler is night and day difference than stock. its all about efficiantcy of the motor. it goes for either ski.
    Last edited by bajaeater; 05-02-2014 at 01:40 PM.

  10. #10
    nvgtrsprt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Edmonds, WA
    Posts
    124
    +1
    27
    What is ribbon delete? Searched for it but didn't find out why people do it or what it is? Just that people say mod it with ribbon delete.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Rematch: 2014 svho fzr (deans team flash) vs 2013 SHO Fzr ET 15.5
    By Slamdcoop0428 in forum Yamaha PWC Performance (4-stroke)
    Replies: 244
    Last Post: 03-08-2016, 12:33 PM
  2. My 2013 sho fzr vs 2014 svho fzr
    By Slamdcoop0428 in forum Yamaha PWC Performance (4-stroke)
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-05-2015, 09:32 AM
  3. Stock (SHO) VS Stock (SVHO) comparison (Speed/quickness)
    By Toobold in forum Yamaha PWC Performance (4-stroke)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-05-2014, 05:47 PM
  4. 2013 FX SHO or 2014 FX SVHO?
    By Randy G. in forum Yamaha PWC Performance (4-stroke)
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-06-2014, 03:34 PM
  5. 2013 SHO or SVHO Cams vs Pre 2012?
    By WP3223 in forum Yamaha PWC Performance (4-stroke)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-05-2014, 08:37 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
  •