Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 67
  1. #1
    It's not the destination, it's the journey!! Rip'nTear SHO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ft. Lauderdale
    Posts
    4,573

    Future Of Pwc Musclecraft: Sho Vs Ultra Vs Rxt-x

    To begin....I think all the companies makes some extreme skis that r giving levels of performance that most ppl never dreamed of. It's interesting to study the fastest skis from each company and see where their gearheads/engineers are leaning to out do one another in the never-ending performance race. Each ski has a very different design philosophy and therefore different performance advantages/disadvantages depending on dynamic conditions encountered on the water.
    The ULTRA has an inherent rough-water advantage over the SHO and SEA-Doo because of its heavier weight.....910 lbs: Thats 81 extra lbs. pushing down to keep that pump and hull planted in the water. But 81 lbs. is a big disadvantage when power-to-weight ratio comes into play.
    So now imagine the SHO with a 829 lb. dry weight and a 5 position Trim System to counteract the rough-water/porpoise effect and plant the hull, and u have a ski that acts heavier than it is.......without the lower power-to-weight disadvantage. Name of the game is keeping ski hooked up.....if a lighter ski with similar power can TRIM to keep the hull down and pump hooked up......power to weight > heavier hull.
    Basically...what I'm saying is....Kawi...with all it's impressive technology....needs to take the next step and create a trim system to deal with variable conditions encountered on the water. Nuff said. Prolly the best-looking ski in the water and most storage.....but the Gas-In-Oil issue is frickin BS....they better fix that quick. BTW...raced a 250 in Biscayne Bay in 6-8" chop.......holeshotted by trimming down and lying over the top of the handlebars tp prevent bow lift/cavitation.....pulled an additional 1/2 ski length on the midrange. When trimmed correctly...SHO handles the rough better thjan most dudes/doos/people imagine........he wasnt happy
    Sea-Doos r a different animal....light hull, 3 cylinder, SOHC, hemi-combustion chamber, high-boost,high-bling low center-of-gravity hull design. Advantages- They run like raped apes,....SD-X's r unquestionably the fastest ski's on the water, great combustion chamber design, huge aftermarket capability. Disadvantages- run like raped apes, questionable reliability, SC washers that go boom, light hull prone to cracks/delamination, BLAH BLAH BLAH (read the forums), inherent advantageous engine harmonics lost in odd-numbered engines...........inline 4, inline/V6, V8, V10, inline/V12 notably more apparent in cars/motorcycle/aircraft vs odd number cylinder engines.....don't see too many inline 3's and 5's, inline/V7/V9's or V 11's. The reason even numbered engines r used is that they have a piston to balance the equal and opposite piston on the crankshaft.....making a big difference n marine applications where conditions consistently push engine harmonics/RPM's/acceleration/deceleration into areas where car engines quiver in fear. Let the bench races begin!!!!!!! Where is each company goin next? Basically....what I'm sayin is....Sea-Doo is going to add an extra cylinder and destroke their motors to SHO size.....forcing Yamaha to unbutton their 1.8L....which has inherent design advantages because of inline-4 DOHC design....and so the chess game/p-ssing contest continues....then Kawi will increase displacement and drop compression to reduce GIO issues....and then the real PWC wars start!!!!!! Subsequent ZO6-type hp increase/weight decrease philosophy will follow. And the person who benefits most?---------------->US!!!!!!!
    OK...I'm gonna STFU....peace my brothas....long live PWC'S!

    OH....and these r the reasons I bought the SHO........
    Last edited by Rip'nTear SHO; 05-01-2008 at 12:04 AM.


  2. #2
    tiffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    cayman
    Posts
    74

    Smile muscle craft comparison

    well the sea doos may be fast but you can be as fast as you want but when you break down and that yamaha comes flying past u what do u do then. The kawasakis are nice but could use a few more "bells and whistles" YAMAHA all the way"

  3. #3
    Whats that whistling noise? jtskier11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Right side of Kansas
    Posts
    4,342
    +1
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by tiffy View Post
    well the sea doos may be fast but you can be as fast as you want but when you break down and that yamaha comes flying past u what do u do then. The kawasakis are nice but could use a few more "bells and whistles" YAMAHA all the way"
    You "bells and whisltes" guys crack me up.

  4. #4
    yami_rida#26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cayman Islands
    Posts
    2,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Rip'nTear SHO View Post
    To begin....I think all the companies makes some extreme skis that r giving levels of performance that most ppl never dreamed of. It's interesting to study the fastest skis from each company and see where their gearheads/engineers are leaning to out do one another in the never-ending performance race. Each ski has a very different design philosophy and therefore different performance advantages/disadvantages depending on dynamic conditions encountered on the water.
    The ULTRA has an inherent rough-water advantage over the SHO and SEA-Doo because of its heavier weight.....910 lbs: Thats 81 extra lbs. pushing down to keep that pump and hull planted in the water. But 81 lbs. is a big disadvantage when power-to-weight ratio comes into play.
    So now imagine the SHO with a 829 lb. dry weight and a 5 position Trim System to counteract the rough-water/porpoise effect and plant the hull, and u have a ski that acts heavier than it is.......without the lower power-to-weight disadvantage. Name of the game is keeping ski hooked up.....if a lighter ski with similar power can TRIM to keep the hull down and pump hooked up......power to weight > heavier hull.
    Basically...what I'm saying is....Kawi...with all it's impressive technology....needs to take the next step and create a trim system to deal with variable conditions encountered on the water. Nuff said. Prolly the best-looking ski in the water and most storage.....but the Gas-In-Oil issue is frickin BS....they better fix that quick. BTW...raced a 250 in Biscayne Bay in 6-8" chop.......holeshotted by trimming down and lying over the top of the handlebars tp prevent bow lift/cavitation.....pulled an additional 1/2 ski length on the midrange. When trimmed correctly...SHO handles the rough better thjan most dudes/doos/people imagine........he wasnt happy
    Sea-Doos r a different animal....light hull, 3 cylinder, SOHC, hemi-combustion chamber, high-boost,high-bling low center-of-gravity hull design. Advantages- They run like raped apes,....SD-X's r unquestionably the fastest ski's on the water, great combustion chamber design, huge aftermarket capability. Disadvantages- run like raped apes, questionable reliability, SC washers that go boom, light hull prone to cracks/delamination, BLAH BLAH BLAH (read the forums), inherent advantageous engine harmonics lost in odd-numbered engines...........inline 4, inline/V6, V8, V10, inline/V12 notably more apparent in cars/motorcycle/aircraft vs odd number cylinder engines.....don't see too many inline 3's and 5's, inline/V7/V9's or V 11's. The reason even numbered engines r used is that they have a piston to balance the equal and opposite piston on the crankshaft.....making a big difference n marine applications where conditions consistently push engine harmonics/RPM's/acceleration/deceleration into areas where car engines quiver in fear. Let the bench races begin!!!!!!! Where is each company goin next? Basically....what I'm sayin is....Sea-Doo is going to add an extra cylinder and destroke their motors to SHO size.....forcing Yamaha to unbutton their 1.8L....which has inherent design advantages because of inline-4 DOHC design....and so the chess game/p-ssing contest continues....then Kawi will increase displacement and drop compression to reduce GIO issues....and then the real PWC wars start!!!!!! Subsequent ZO6-type hp increase/weight decrease philosophy will follow. And the person who benefits most?---------------->US!!!!!!!
    OK...I'm gonna STFU....peace my brothas....long live PWC'S!

    OH....and these r the reasons I bought the SHO........
    I am a yamaha guru but FYI seadoo fixed the supercharger clutch issues for 08

  5. #5
    Whats that whistling noise? jtskier11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Right side of Kansas
    Posts
    4,342
    +1
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by yami_rida View Post
    I am a yamaha guru but FYI seadoo fixed the supercharger clutch issues for 08
    Big time fixed. The shaft oiling was a big plus!

  6. #6
    Antiguan FZR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Antigua Caribbean
    Posts
    1,107
    +1
    3
    I raced my SHO against an Ultra 250 in 1.5ft chop for about 3 miles then exchanged riders. Guess what? the Ultra won by far each time. I have seen both in action and know that there is no way a stock SHO can beat a stock Ultra in chop ridden by two competent riders. The stock X's would kill them both in the calm but you will need a T-X to get anywhere in the rough.
    Last edited by Antiguan FZR; 05-01-2008 at 04:51 PM.

  7. #7
    Beagleman62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia
    Posts
    2,726
    +1
    64
    Rip'nTear,
    You said you raced an Ultra 250X in 6-8" chop but you never told us how it turned out. I don't know about Florida but 6-8" is not much chop
    I am considering an SHO as a 2nd ski but I'm waiting to see how they perform in the real world before making that decision. I have to admit the SHO's 1800cc motor is very tempting.

  8. #8
    chris7613's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Portland, Ore
    Posts
    80
    Funny thing, Yamaha has been running 3 cylinders since what 95 / 96.
    Seadoo with the 2 cylinder considered by many not a true marine engine always lower in CC's than Yamaha's 3 cylinder.

    Seadoo always considered by most yammi riders as low with questionable reliability. When Seadoo goes to the 3 cylinder marine engine. Still the same talk about questionable reliability. Now it's a 4 cylinder better than a 3 cylinder. I have owned a 95 kawi 700cc, 96 Seadoo 800cc GSX that would smoke my 99 Yami 1200 XLT and a 96 Seadoo GTI. Now I own a 04 RXP. All good but differnt rides. I had more problems with the Yamaha than all other water craft I owned. They all had some issue's. But to state that one brand is always of questionable reliability or one brand is always the best rated is silly. Correct me if i'm wrong, Seadoo still out sells all other brands.

    There have been many succesful 3 cylinder motorcycles, outboard motors and cars. There is even a inline 5 cylinder in some mid sized SUV's. Look at the Aircraft radial engines of the past always odd cylinder arrangments of 3, 5, 7 ,9. It's true that even cylinder engine's are smoother. Yet how does that really apply here?

    I'm not trying to start anything here. Just my view point.

  9. #9
    Antiguan FZR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Antigua Caribbean
    Posts
    1,107
    +1
    3
    [quote=chris7613;625569] Correct me if i'm wrong, Seadoo still out sells all other brands.


    Just look at the aftermarket world, Sea Doo has the most available and many wonder why?

  10. #10
    SHO What????? jpack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    720
    +1
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by chris7613 View Post
    Funny thing, Yamaha has been running 3 cylinders since what 95 / 96.
    Seadoo with the 2 cylinder considered by many not a true marine engine always lower in CC's than Yamaha's 3 cylinder.

    Seadoo always considered by most yammi riders as low with questionable reliability. When Seadoo goes to the 3 cylinder marine engine. Still the same talk about questionable reliability. Now it's a 4 cylinder better than a 3 cylinder. I have owned a 95 kawi 700cc, 96 Seadoo 800cc GSX that would smoke my 99 Yami 1200 XLT and a 96 Seadoo GTI. Now I own a 04 RXP. All good but differnt rides. I had more problems with the Yamaha than all other water craft I owned. They all had some issue's. But to state that one brand is always of questionable reliability or one brand is always the best rated is silly. Correct me if i'm wrong, Seadoo still out sells all other brands.

    There have been many succesful 3 cylinder motorcycles, outboard motors and cars. There is even a inline 5 cylinder in some mid sized SUV's. Look at the Aircraft radial engines of the past always odd cylinder arrangments of 3, 5, 7 ,9. It's true that even cylinder engine's are smoother. Yet how does that really apply here?

    I'm not trying to start anything here. Just my view point.
    Most engine builders that I have read about claim an even cylinder in line engine will have better balance & chance for longevity over an odd number one. Just what I have read.....


    Jim

Page 1 of 7 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. Rod and Nicjak (Corey in Thailand discussing the future of PWC s
    By rod_rod in forum Kawasaki How To & FAQs
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-01-2016, 10:08 AM
  2. Gpr-Sho vs Ultra 310x
    By OutlawGPR in forum Conversion PWC Performance Skis
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-25-2015, 08:40 AM
  3. Video: Electric Quadrofoil Claims to Be The Future of PWC
    By Rustymuscle in forum The Watercraft Journal
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-02-2014, 06:48 PM
  4. SHO vs RXT X
    By wolfmad in forum Yamaha PWC Performance (4-stroke)
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 04-13-2008, 03:12 PM
  5. FX-sho vs Rxt vs 250x
    By Brett541 in forum Videos & Pictures
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-02-2007, 09:22 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
  •