2003 182 BR? 3.0L big enough???

[dpvandy01]

A gentleman that works for my wife is looking to purchase his firts boat and is looking at a Sea Ray 2003 182 Bow rider. He has two you kids and will be a lake boater. I'm wondering if anyone has any exposure to this boat with the 3.0L 130HP Alpha 1 package. Seems like an awful small motor. Am I wrong? He is also currently looking at a Glastron SX 195 with a 5.0L GL Volvo Penta.. any thoughts??

 

[Mr Happy]

My second boat was a Sea Ray 175, about the same boat. It had a 3.0 also. The boat did fine for tubing and for skiing on 2 ski's. I had a hard time getting up on one ski and I weigh 180 lbs. Did get great gas mileage.

What size lake is he going to be on? If it is fairly big and busy he may get pushed around a lot. It was not fun to be on my lake when it was busy or the holiday weekends. The boat I have now takes a great beating and I do not have to back off the throttle.

 

[dr.j]

the 4 cyl 3.0 compared to a 4.3 V6 is significant and the V8 combination is a world of difference. A lot depends on the useage; skiing and tubing vs lake cruising. I have ad all three engines and would never go back to the 3.0; their is no replacement for displacement.

 

[springer3]

I have owned a 3.0 and just purchased my 4.3 L. Power is up a little. Fuel consumption is up a lot. I towed skiiers and towables for 8 years on the 3.0, with zero complaints and amazing fuel economy. Just get the right prop, and you can pull just as well as a bigger engine. What you give up is top speed.

Relaibility was excellent with the 3.0, and service was easy and cheap. I regret selling the 3.0, but a divorce four years ago forced it. I would buy it back without regrets, but I do like the extra top speed and lower NVH (noise, vibration, harshness) of the 4.3.

 

[berth control]

Never heard anyone regret having too much power...

 

[springer3]

Never heard anyone regret having too much power...

What you regret is the fuel bill.

 

[ehaze]

at my lake house we have a ~18' seaswirl with a 75hp honda motor. i tip the scale around 190lb and the boat is able to get me up on a wakeboard and pull a good sized tube.



back in the day we would put a medium sized fat sac, 25 gallon cooler, and all the old boat batteries would could find in the boat. all this extra weight in hopes of creating a larger wake. it's a miracle we didn't sink the boat.

 

[Nehalennia]

182? A 185 maybe? My unlce has a 2004 185 with a 4.3 and that's a nice setup. The 3L is too light duty for the 185 in my opinion.

 

[berth control]

What you regret is the fuel bill.

The bigger engine will use little to no more fuel than the smaller one. Some times the bigger engine will use less fuel. The 3.0 at WOT going 40mph will prob. use more fuel than the 4.3 at 3500rpm's going 40mph. It takes very close to the same amount of fuel to make the same amount of horsepower from any gas engine. If you were to run the 4.3 at less throttle to make the same HP and same speed as the 3.0, it would use about the same fuel. The reason it may use more is because you chose to, and can go faster.

 

[springer3]

The bigger engine will use little to no more fuel than the smaller one. ....

This is a very complicated topic, but here is the Cliff's Notes version: Assuming both engines are well-engineered, a larger engine will always burn more fuel. Thermal efficiency improves with higher power settings, and the small engine is always at a higher percentage of full power. Another factor unique to Otto engines is the throttle. The engine does work to pull air in. Since the small engine always has the throttle more open, it does less work to pull in the same amount of air. The manifold pressure is always higher in the smaller engine if both are producing the same power.

I do not doubt there are examples where a modern computer-controlled, MAF-equipped large engine is more efficient than a carbureted engine in poor condition. Equal engine technology and condition, and the laws of physics and thermodynamics apply. My 3.0 was carbureted. So is my 4.3. Compression is equal, as best I recall. The 4.3 burns noticeably more fuel even at the same cruising speed.

 

[keokie]

Berth Control is spot on. I, and many others, have spent a bit of time over the years debunking the myth of "smaller engines use less fuel" in planing boats. I have run enough flowmeters in enough boats with enough different engines to recognize the fallacy.

I even sent a letter to a boating mag that once published an article about 2 different motors in the same boat. The article stated the bigger motor gave better performance and was quieter, but used more fuel. I pointed out that the accompanying speed vs fuel flow graph they published directly contradicted this. They challenged this by refering me back to the fuel consumption versus rpm differences. I responded that they were not taking into account speed. If you looked at the miles per gallon at any given speed, mileage was as good (sometimes even better) with the larger engine. They responded again by saying. "We were going on the assumption that most owners will run their boat in the "sweet spot" of rpm, say 3400 rather than according to speedo, and that would mean the biger engine would get worse mileage." Their own chart showed them to be wrong on that account as well. All they had to do was look at the mpg section of their own chart. Once on plane, the smaller engine never had an advantage in mpg.

The short of the reason is planning boats don't coast. It takes a high level of force (BTU's from fuel) to maintain a given speed.

You will also find that fuel economy in vehicles while towing will get much closer between a small motor and big motor than when not towing.

 

[springer3]

It is a myth that power above the minimum needed does not incur a fuel consumption penalty, assuming that both engines and both boats are equally well-engineered and in equal state of repair.

There is a basis for the myth: "power valves" and the secondaries of 4-barrel carburetors dump fuel very inefficiently when carbureted small engines are used at high power settings. Possibly it is the operation of a "power valve" or open secondaries on a 4-barrel carburetor that is the basis for the story that small engines use more fuel when towing or cruising. Running very rich at high power settings is a way to avoid burning the valves in an engine not capable of making the power any other way. Emissions and concern for energy consumption are inconsistent with excessively rich running. Modern engines don't pollute and are engineered to remain efficient even at high power settings.

All factors equal, large-displacement engines burn more fuel at all power settings. There is no way to fix that. Examples to the contrary are due to poorly engineered small engines, or a very-poorly engineered application for the smaller engine. These stories do not apply to the 3.0 debate. Mine had a 2-barrel carburetor, and was very efficient even running flat out (although that was only about 35 MPH). My 4.3 has a 4-barrel, and I am not happy with the fuel consumption. I need a light to come on in the dash when the secondaries open. That way I will know I am making a fuel-purchase decision.

I can believe the example provided, but it is misleading. All factors cannot be equal. Perhaps the boat in this case was engineered and optimized for the large engine. The small engine was later used, but there was no engineering budget to optimize the boat for the different engine.

Perhaps there is a problem with the experiment. When an experiment violates a fundamental scientific principle, there is either a mistake found with the experiment, or else the laws of Physics get overturned. The laws of thermodynamics (study of the relationship between heat and work) have not changed in 200 years. Thermodynamics is the basis for industrial society: work formerly done by human and animal muscle is done by engines designed based on the laws of thermodynamics (try rowing your Sea Ray if you want a taste of the good old days).

Look at the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) data. The CAFE test for highway mileage is the same for all cars (you go the same highway speed regardless of engine rating). Cars that are identical except for engine size always show significantly better economy for the smaller engine. This is a constant speed test - same power used in each case, except perhaps for the small difference due to engine weight. You pay a fuel penalty for boat weight too, so the principle applies.

Consider a more extreme case: Honda Civic and a Ferrari 308 weigh about the same. The Ferrari has better aerodynamics, but let's neglect that advantage. The Ferrari burns premium and therefore the engine can be tuned for slightly greater fuel economy. Let's ignore that advantage too. Both cars have the latest computer-controlled engine technology and are well-engineered in all respects. The Civic gets 35 MPH at steady 70 MPH. The Ferrari gets 22 MPG at a steady 70 MPH. At no speed where the cars can match up does the Ferrari come even close to the Civic's fuel consumption. Why? The Ferrari is 400 HP, and the Civic is 120 HP. You pay for the power of a larger engine even when you are not using it.

The 3.0 liter is the Civic - gets you there just fine. Goes plenty fast enough, but uses much less fuel than a Ferrari. The 5.7 or larger is more like the Ferrari - much faster off the line, and much greater top speed, but at a significant fuel consumption penalty even at speeds that the 3.0 can match.

 

[berth control]

I still think Kieokie and I are right.

Marine engines are much different than automotive. The biggest difference for the fuel argument: you use more of the available power to move a boat than a car. I think the 3.0 will use less fuel than the 4.3 at no wake speeds, but when underway you will see the 4.3 excel. To compare the cars evenly you would have to look at both the civic and ferarri going 130mph so the engines were working. But that is totally different also, they are completely different engines. A closer comparison is my truck with a 5.7vortec versus my truck with a 4.3vortec. Both 2wd half ton chevy's. The 4.3 gets better mileage when just driving at slow speeds by about 1mpg. The 5.7 gets about 3mpg better when both trucks are pulling the same trailer. A boat engine works as hard or harder than a truck engine pulling a large trailer down the highway all the time.

 

[berth control]

You will also find that fuel economy in vehicles while towing will get much closer between a small motor and big motor than when not towing.

:thumbsup: yea, what he said :thumbsup:

 

[dpvandy01]

182? A 185 maybe? My unlce has a 2004 185 with a 4.3 and that's a nice setup. The 3L is too light duty for the 185 in my opinion.

2003 182!!! not the 185.

 

[springer3]

I still think Kieokie and I are right.

I think we are both right. You will find specific examples of poorly-engineered small engines or small engine applications where the large engine will consume less fuel. That does not overrule fundamental science and engineering principles that leave no doubt that if both engines are pulling the same load, and both engines and both applications are equally developed, the small engine needs less fuel to get the job done. If the small engine cannot do the job, there is no point in arguing which will burn less doing that job. Obviously that is an application where only the big engine will do.

The Civic/Ferrari example does apply - it is a case where the engineering is quite good in both cars. The Civic cannot match the Ferrari top speeds any more than a 3.0 boat can match top speed with a bigger engine boat. For any speed where they run together, the car or boat with the smaller engine will use considerably less fuel. That is the theory, and that is my experience. YMMV (and evidently does).

 

[Sluggo33]

I have the 175 Sport with the 3.0L with the factory 14.5 x 19P prop.

That said, I was out this weekend at a local lake. There were a total of 7 people on the boat. There were 4 adults, 3 children, and a small cooler. I weigh about 235 lbs and the boat had no real problem pulling me on the wakeboard. Sure it don’t jerk you out of the water like a Malibu, but it’s more than sufficient. I’m sure it would pull much better with a 4 blade 17P but haven’t felt the need to get one really. Also, we pulled people on the tube a lot of both days. In two days and about 4 hours (by the hour meter), I had only burned about 3/4 of a tank of fuel.

Also, with 7 people on the boat at WOT and the motor trimmed I was getting between 42 and 45 MPH (by the speedo). That’s plenty fast for me.

No complaints at all with the 3.0L here. Although I will admit I’ve never owned something with a larger motor so I can’t compare. I’m just saying I’m VERY happy with the performance of the 3.0L so far.

 

[berth control]

The Civic cannot match the Ferrari top speeds any more than a 3.0 boat can match top speed with a bigger engine boat. For any speed where they run together, the car or boat with the smaller engine will use considerably less fuel.

I still think that at the same speed they will use similar amounts of fuel. As the speed, and power required decreases, the smaller engine will get better economy. As the speed, and power required increases, the bigger engine will start to get better economy.

Engines are most efficient around their peak torque curve, and as the smaller engine leaves it's most efficient working range and moves closer to it's less efficient WOT it will burn more fuel to make each HP. The larger engine will still be in it's most efficient range and burn less fuel to make each HP.

Another case in point: my Dad has a 2004 toyota highlander with a 4cyl. in it. To pull his boat at 75mph the thing works it's ass off and gets 10.2mpg last we checked. On the trip home I pulled it with my heavier and bigger pickup with a 5.7 in it and got 12mpg.

 

[springer3]

I will try one more time: if all factors are equal, the smaller engine is more efficient at any load it can handle. The examples you provide are cases where the small engine is suffering because it is operating outside its design or is not properly designed to carry the load. WOT is not inefficient if the engine is designed to run there. If it is getting gross enrichment for protection while it is abused, efficiency suffers. The same will happen if you overload a poorly-designed larger engine.

The 3.0 is not poorly engineered for the boat application. It can run WOT and still burn way less fuel than a larger engine. This is theoretically correct, and my experince after owning a 3.0 and a 4.3 LX.

 

[keokie]

Springer,

The examples I can provide do not involve an engine operating beyond it's capabilities. I have done more than one direct engine swap without changing anything else other than the propeller. Very precise measurements of performance and fuel consumption have been measured. The fuel economy was always the same.

I associate closely with very successful marine engine builders who all have proven it in countless engine swaps.

The comments you make about the efficiency of smaller engines comes into play primarily under light loads. Under heavy loads, it takes a certain amount of fuel to generate a certain amount of horsepower. Dynos show this as well. There is a noticeable (although not astounding) difference in fuel flow spinning a small block Chevy at 2000 rpm, versus a big block Chevy at 2000 rpm. But if you make the requirement something like 400 ft lbs of torque it requires very, very similar fuel burn with both big block and small block Chevy's. A planing boat requires energy in this matter. It won't coast, so the fuel is being used for energy that is needed

It takes a specific fuel burn rate to maintain a given speed on plane. Look at boat test results and you will see this even in the charts of those who claim the smaller engines are more efficient.

In full disclousre, I used to believe as you did, and I remained unconvinced the first time I saw a boat get the same economy with a larger engine. I made a number of excuses, but I have seen it so many times now, and listened to those who build engines and test them in boats and on dynos for a living to have accepted a reality that is obvious after it is understood.