Engine tests (RIVAs ballistics) - Page 5

Jono · 13 January 2006, 18:00

Here's a link to a Swedish boat magazine, with pretty much that data. Suzuki, with larger prop running 57l/hr at 5000 RPM.. pretty much identical to Suzui's published data....which is pretty much in line with what us Suzuki 250 owners are finding.... Yes I can improve a bit... but 24L/Hr...? http://www.thehulltruth.com/forums/t...rt=26&posts=41 ...and I've seen a video of some Swedes in action and believe me they knew were their elbows were.....

Searider · 13 January 2006, 19:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jono

.... Yes I can improve a bit... but 24L/Hr...?

I think you're probably right - 24 does look very low

- but what matters is the boat speed vs. consumption.

Journalists

Cookee · 14 January 2006, 10:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Searider

The 24l/h for the Suzuki could be correct - we don't know what the boat speed was. If the propeller that was fitted had a short pitch, the boat speed would be low, the engine lightly loaded and it could well not be using much fuel.

I don't need to own a Suzuki to work out that figure is wrong - if you read all of the information you will see that the engines were run with the manufacturers supplied prop, so that's that theory out of the window! Besides the rev limit of a 4 stroke (I think we're all agreed that's a misprint as well) would be lower than the 2 strokes, so that would mean the Suzi would be higher up its rev range - hence the results could actually be worse for the 4 strokes making the 24 l/h even more suspect!

All of the above IMHO of course!

Searider · 14 January 2006, 15:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cookee

I don't need to own a Suzuki to work out that figure is wrong - if you read all of the information you will see that the engines were run with the manufacturers supplied prop, so that's that theory out of the window! Besides the rev limit of a 4 stroke (I think we're all agreed that's a misprint as well) would be lower than the 2 strokes, so that would mean the Suzi would be higher up its rev range - hence the results could actually be worse for the 4 strokes making the 24 l/h even more suspect!

All of the above IMHO of course!

Agree- ish - but my main point was that the way the data was presented we can't take any useful information from it.

Jimbob · 14 January 2006, 16:36

yes we can,,,the price, all far too expensive

TIM · 15 January 2006, 12:38

I think the RIB international , test is good to compaire the engines together, but the fuel consumption is way off ....... yeaterday at 5000rp our opti was drinking 60l/h and we can get it to to go to 90l/h

if we abuse the laughing stick enough

Roy Smith · 15 January 2006, 14:27

I hope i am not repeating any thing but having been to the Boat Show
and spoken to all the engine people it seams this Rib Int test is now famous
if nothing else its got the makers at each other throats i/e how good there product is ,so mybe this error as been a good thing also look at the coverage
JBT as got . I would like to agree with the post that said roughly,
We spend any where beteen 30k and 60k on this type on boat/engine package and we are nit picking about wether its going to cost £50 more for a days outing.

Jono · 15 January 2006, 20:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy Smith

......also look at the coverage JBT as got . ....

Yeah.....RIVA.... has shown what a knowledgeable and pleasant chap he is......

codprawn · 15 January 2006, 21:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jono

Yeah.....RIVA.... has shown what a knowledgeable and pleasant chap he is......

Well when I went to Ribex I was treated better by him than anyone else there - he has also been great on this forum apart from ONE momentary lapse!!!

Mollers · 15 January 2006, 22:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy Smith

I hope i am not repeating any thing but having been to the Boat Show
and spoken to all the engine people it seams this Rib Int test is now famous
if nothing else its got the makers at each other throats i/e how good there product is ,so mybe this error as been a good thing also look at the coverage
JBT as got . I would like to agree with the post that said roughly,
We spend any where beteen 30k and 60k on this type on boat/engine package and we are nit picking about wether its going to cost £50 more for a days outing.

I totally agree Roy, the constant wittering about how much fuel an engine burns. We spend £1000's on our Ribs, £100's on running costs and then start whinging over £20 worth of fuel. In my view if your chucking fuel in the thing then your using it, the more it's used the more value your getting out of owning it. Big engines burn lots smaller engines burn less.

Cookee · 16 January 2006, 10:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by codprawn

Well when I went to Ribex I was treated better by him than anyone else there

Did you come and see us? And did you go to everyone at the show?

Jono · 16 January 2006, 10:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by codprawn

Well when I went to Ribex I was treated better by him than anyone else there -

When he was trying to sell you something....

Quote:

Originally Posted by codprawn

he has also been great on this forum apart from ONE momentary lapse!!!

When someone had the audacity to question some figures published in a magazine.....

Ain't seen no apology to Dave yet... have you?

Rogue Wave · 16 January 2006, 10:41

I am not hypocritical enough to claim I am trying to reduce Global warming. I burn fuel for pleasure and work .

Those however who plan on having non amphibious great grandchildren might be concerned how much fuel they use.

RIVA · 16 January 2006, 11:00

listen i wont apolagise for what i said my coment was made because someone presumed they knew how it was done prior asking .

the old thing of ask first

second i was very clear in my wording that all info was supplied by the manafacturer and not a dealer

and i think you should realise by now i treat every one the same .
past presant or future customer

and thats quite a few thousand people now

Jono · 16 January 2006, 11:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIVA

listen i wont apolagise for what i said my coment was made because

That is entirely up to you but as you are fond of "old things" try.. "Manners maketh the man"...

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIVA

second i was very clear in my wording that all info was supplied by the manafacturer and not a dealer

So why did you become rude and defensive, when someone pointed out that the figures were blatantly wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIVA

and i think you should realise by now i treat every one the same .
past presant or future customer

..and therefore after you display of manners when asked to explain technical inaccuracies, "Caveat Emptor" should fit nicely...

RIVA · 16 January 2006, 11:42

manners have theier place , and are usualy recipricated , except when the first statment is your time and effort are not appricated and no faith should be placed in the things gained from it .

and i wont evan ask how you conducted it . and evan when told all facts are supplied by manfactures . think its my job to question it , its up to the manafacture to supply facts . to a journalist .

so i think we should leve it there dont you .

voducko boda cha as you say

moresauce · 16 January 2006, 13:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Searider

How far I can go for a litre is what is important.

Dunc, is that because your tight as a duck's behind!!!!

moresauce · 16 January 2006, 13:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Searider

PS I think Rogue is great - have a Brownie point from me

And one from me too!!!

codprawn · 16 January 2006, 15:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cookee

Did you come and see us? And did you go to everyone at the show?

It was the show in 2004 - BEFORE that wow boat of your was available!!!

codprawn · 16 January 2006, 15:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jono

When he was trying to sell you something....

That's as maybe but so was everyone else!!!