Any perf mods for the Seadoo Challenger 1800
mrl
anyone know if there are any
performance mods to get this thing moving a little faster? With twin 110 hp
engines in this light boat I would have expected a little more top end.
hkr...@capu.net
Check with Wily Coyote
--
Harry Krause
------------
Some days it's not worth chewing through the restraints
RBStern
>anyone know if there are any
>performance mods to get this thing moving a little faster? With twin 110 hp
>engines in this light boat I would have expected a little more top end.
>
There are plenty of go-fast mods you can make.
I would look into high performance impellers first, since that will be the
least expensive and least troublesome upgrade. A Solas impeller improved the
performance of my Polaris jetski dramatically over the stock stainless prop. I
don't know what the intake grates look like on a Challenger, but there are high
performance versions of those as well in the jetski world.
Next, there are a number of PWC motor hop-up companies. Check www.groupk.com.
There are others as well. Hang around rec.sport.jetski and ask for advice on
where to go for Rotax high performance kits.
-- Rich Stern
Curtis CCR
"mrl" <som...@micro.com> wrote:
> Just bought a '98 seadoo challenger 1800, top speed is about 50-51.
> anyone know if there are any
> performance mods to get this thing moving a little faster? With twin
110 hp
> engines in this light boat I would have expected a little more top
end.
Such is the inefficiency of the jet drive. You have two 110 hp
engines, but the effective horsepower with the jet drives is less than
half of that when compared to say a prop on an outdrive.
Changing props may help top end, but you'll be trading off low end to
get it.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Eric
> Such is the inefficiency of the jet drive. You have two 110 hp
> engines, but the effective horsepower with the jet drives is less than
> half of that when compared to say a prop on an outdrive.
I don't think that 50+% loss due to jet drive is accurate.
I've heard 20% loss was common for the big Berkeley pumps. I've heard that
the newer jet-ski style pumps are more efficient than the Berkely pumps.
I've also heard that the power loss through a Mercruiser is about 15%. If
what I've heard is true (and I'm not saying it is), then jet pumps are not
that much worse than a Mercruiser as far as power loss is concerned.
Does anyone know what the true losses are for jet pumps and I/O's?
- Eric
Chris
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 8:43 AM?? Try being helpful instead of an ass
once in a while. Just because it has pwc engines, or because Mr MRL decided
to purchase a smaller "play" boat is no reason to be a troll...
BTW, yes the boat can be modified. Don't get deeper than exaust and intake
mods. (imo) It will save you time and lots of money. I would also try
trimming the pump (with shims) also a prop and possibly a nozzle swap.
Despite what HK says, the rec.sport.jetski NG is full of a group of very
talented tuners. Of course the usual trollers will follow, or oops, will be
there.
I'm glad to help, but avoid posting b/c of people and harry in particular.
I don't need anyone to tell me about my grammar or spelling. I have better
things to do than that!
Good luck with the boat, and don't take any stuff from HK....
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: <hkr...@capu.net>
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: Any perf mods for the Seadoo Challenger 1800
> mrl wrote:
> >
> > Just bought a '98 seadoo challenger 1800, top speed is about 50-51.
Does
> > anyone know if there are any
> > performance mods to get this thing moving a little faster? With twin 110
hp
> > engines in this light boat I would have expected a little more top end.
> >
David Smalley
I have been led to believe that when you remove a propped lower end and
replace it with a jet drive you typically loose somewhere between 20-30%
power.
--
DAVe
hkr...@capu.net
>
> Jeez Krause, you hit this one BEFORE he even sent it!!!
> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 8:43 AM?? Try being helpful instead of an ass
> once in a while. Just because it has pwc engines, or because Mr MRL decided
> to purchase a smaller "play" boat is no reason to be a troll...
Obviously, the Wily Coyote response went about five miles over your head.
--
Harry Krause
------------
A red nose can be the result of sunshine or moonshine
Chris
<hkr...@capu.net> wrote in message news:396BC15C...@capu.net...
RBStern
>get it.
Maybe. Maybe not. The geometry of the Solas impeller I now use is radically
different than the stock Polaris impeller. Less pitch, far more blade area,
smaller and different hub shape. I picked up top speed and acceleration (a lot
of both) with the change.
-- Rich Stern
Larry W4CSC
wrote:
>
>I have been led to believe that when you remove a propped lower end and
>replace it with a jet drive you typically loose somewhere between 20-30%
>power.
>
>--
>DAVe
That was, at one time when jet pumps were converted farm pumps with
impellers that looked like washing machine parts, true. But it isn't
any longer. The modern jet pump has a MUCH shorter water path through
the pump, impellers that look like truncated, 3-bladed, props and much
more efficient stator and nozzle structures, due to the extensive
research done by PWC companies trying to gain the upper hand on SPEED
at the race course and braggin' rights at the showroom. Bill O'Neill
of Watercraft Magic has 2-cylinder Seadoo watercraft running over 80
mph! This is no small feat!
In a comparison between my 175hp Mercury Sport Jet powering my 16' Sea
Rayder jet boat and a 17' Bassboat of similar weight powered by the
same, exact, 175hp V-6 Mercury outboard, the difference between the
awful DRAG of the underwater appendage and the drag of the very short
water path through the pump is quite small. At the same speed, my RPM
on the Sport Jet is about 100 RPM higher at 40 mph than the bassboat.
This is no where near the 20-30% quoted here. The BIG difference, of
course, is obvious. When I drive over a log, nothing gets knocked off
my drive system INSIDE the boat, unlike the stranded bassboat. No
swimmer has been cut to pieces by the impeller in a Sport Jet.....
larry....
Last weekend a jetski got careless. He was parallel to my course to
starboard, which was fine. But, suddenly, he veered to port directly
into my course just ahead of my bow. The bassboat would have run
right over him. The jetboat went into Emergency Astern, driving it's
bow into the water, stopping forward motion almost instantly. The
accident was avoided by applying the BRAKES my jetboat affords me.
I think the jetskier had something mushy in his wetsuit....(c;
hkr...@capu.net
>
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 20:51:51 -0400, David Smalley <dr...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >I have been led to believe that when you remove a propped lower end and
> >replace it with a jet drive you typically loose somewhere between 20-30%
> >power.
> >
> >--
> >DAVe
>
> That was, at one time when jet pumps were converted farm pumps with
> impellers that looked like washing machine parts, true. But it isn't
> any longer. The modern jet pump has a MUCH shorter water path through
> the pump, impellers that look like truncated, 3-bladed, props and much
> more efficient stator and nozzle structures, due to the extensive
> research done by PWC companies trying to gain the upper hand on SPEED
> at the race course and braggin' rights at the showroom. Bill O'Neill
> of Watercraft Magic has 2-cylinder Seadoo watercraft running over 80
> mph! This is no small feat!
>
> In a comparison between my 175hp Mercury Sport Jet powering my 16' Sea
> Rayder jet boat and a 17' Bassboat of similar weight powered by the
> same, exact, 175hp V-6 Mercury outboard, the difference between the
> awful DRAG of the underwater appendage and the drag of the very short
> water path through the pump is quite small. At the same speed, my RPM
> on the Sport Jet is about 100 RPM higher at 40 mph than the bassboat.
>
> larry....
I'm glad your setup is so efficient. Perhaps you might explain why my boat, with
a Merc of 40 less horsepower and all that lower unit drag, pushing a boat that
is larger and heavier than yours, manages to have approximately the same top
speed of around 53-54 mph, as measured on radar and GPS.
--
Harry Krause
------------
The only time the world beats a path to my door is when I'm in the bathroom
Curtis CCR
"Eric" <er...@dontspam.rcs100.com> wrote:
> Curtis CCR <curt...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:8kfij4
> > Such is the inefficiency of the jet drive. You have two 110 hp
> > engines, but the effective horsepower with the jet drives is less
than
> > half of that when compared to say a prop on an outdrive.
>
> I don't think that 50+% loss due to jet drive is accurate.
>
> I've heard 20% loss was common for the big Berkeley pumps. I've heard
that
> the newer jet-ski style pumps are more efficient than the Berkely
pumps.
> I've also heard that the power loss through a Mercruiser is about
15%. If
> what I've heard is true (and I'm not saying it is), then jet pumps
are not
> that much worse than a Mercruiser as far as power loss is concerned.
>
> Does anyone know what the true losses are for jet pumps and I/O's?
We may be talking about two different things. The loses in brake
horespower to the prop/impeller of a jet drive may only be in the
15-20% range. But when it comes to actually pushing the boat through
the water, jets are really inefficient.
My 96 Speedster engines are 85 HP. Sea-Doo's specs say the effective
pump horsepower is 39 (I think - I know its less than 40).
Charles
I owned a 98 Challenger 1800 as well and found it to be a fine boat. We got
into wakeboarding in a pretty serious way so I traded it for a Nautique. I
learned a lot about the boat and like yourself, would be happy to share it
here but Harry and his buddy Larry pretty much keep any talk of jetboats
firmly in the flames. Too bad, really. I think we could really have some
good discussions but these two are hell-bent on keeping that from happening.
Harry hates everything that he doesn't own. Larry's position is a bit more
interesting. He hates every jetboat except his. Jetboat owners of all
types are in a minority and why he would pick fights with his "kin" is
beyond me. He lobbied for years to get someone, anyone on the forum to buy
the Rayder and join him in praising it. He was so successful at this that
Sea Ray discontinued production of the boat.
"Chris" <bad442@musc a net.com> wrote in message
news:smnfunh...@corp.supernews.com...
> Jeez Krause, you hit this one BEFORE he even sent it!!!
> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 8:43 AM?? Try being helpful instead of an
ass
> once in a while. Just because it has pwc engines, or because Mr MRL
decided
> to purchase a smaller "play" boat is no reason to be a troll...
>
mrl
are [a s s h o l e s] like Harry Krause on it.
<hkr...@capu.net> wrote in message news:396B2470...@capu.net...
mrl
Thanks for the information on the boat. I have owned many boats and
purchased this type due to
my time contraints and its price. Why but an expensive boat when I can only
use it 20 hours (if I'm lucky)
a summer.
Marc
Charles <char...@NOSPAM.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8M9b5.5007$%35.1...@news1.southeast.rr.com...
Charles
If you have any questions, email me. I'll be more than happy to help you
out with the 1800. I put about 200 hours on mine before I traded it so I
know the boat pretty well. Just like any other boat, if you take care of it
it'll take care of you.
Charles
"mrl" <som...@micro.com> wrote in message news:396e3...@nntp2.nac.net...
bosee...@gmail.com
This may be an old thread, but does anyone know of any performance parts other than an impeller for a Seadoo Sportster with the Merc M2 V6? It is the carb not EFI.
Wayne.B
>
>
>This may be an old thread, but does anyone know of any performance parts other than an impeller for a Seadoo Sportster with the Merc M2 V6? It is the carb not EFI.
There's some information here:
<http://www.seadooforum.com/showthread.php?38283-Buying-1999-Challenger-1800-advice>
Tim
Good luck to the thread revivor on your quest.
bosee...@gmail.com
Cheers,
Justin
Tim
slamm...@gmail.com
> Just bought a '98 seadoo challenger 1800, top speed is about 50-51. Does
> anyone know if there are any
> performance mods to get this thing moving a little faster? With twin 110 hp
> engines in this light boat I would have expected a little more top end.
>
> Marc
> mlo...@bigfoot.com
bosee...@gmail.com
>
> I wouldn't waste money on a Sea Doo that old in the first place. They're only good for a set period of time before they need serious work. I'd be satisfied with what you have. Remember, 50 MPH on water seems like 70. Be satisfied with what you have, and hope the engines dont blow up.
bosee...@gmail.com
slamm...@gmail.com
> Well no one will accuse you of looking at the world through rose tinted glasses! lol It will be a boat I likely dote over and continue to tinker with for quite some time, as being my first boat I likely hold a lot of sentimental value in keeping her up and looking new. Plus, there is something to be said for a boat that is and has been paid for for quite some time...
Rotax engines are only good for a set amount of time. They're made cheap.
bosee...@gmail.com
Username
> Well good thing for me our boat has a Mercury 2.5L V6 and not a Rotax engine. I have had similar fears (many friends with blown rotax engines in snowmobiles) and having the Merc engine has given me piece of mind, though that is not to say later 4-Tec motors haven't made strides in design. In my experience, Mercury engines have been bullet proof, which is why I don't have many qualms owning a 15 year old boat. Since I have had it, I have only had 1 carb rebuilt since new at that, with nothing but a starter having failed.
>
>
bosee...@gmail.com
> That's a small V6. It should purr like a kitten!