Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 131
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by K447 View Post
    BRP acquired the Ficht/OMC assets circa 2000, not 2004. So Polaris was buying Ficht parts from BRP for the last four years of production.

    The Polaris Ficht system was already compliant with the pending 2006 emissions regulations, hence the one star Low Emissions decal on all Ficht models in the last few years of production. So the engines were compliant. Polaris had worked through most of the reliability issues around the Ficht system by around 2003.

    The MSX hull was in production and formed the core of their future model plans.

    The core issue was that clearly the future was in four stroke engines, and the two-cylinder 750cc Weber was just not going to be enough. Seadoo already had the 4-Tec 1500cc engine in production. Not yet supercharged, but clearly a much better foundation for more powerful versions and better reliability. And that 4-Tec engine was designed from the ground up for PWC operation, unlike the Weber engine.
    Quote Originally Posted by K447 View Post
    BRP acquired the Ficht/OMC assets circa 2000, not 2004. So Polaris was buying Ficht parts from BRP for the last four years of production.

    The Polaris Ficht system was already compliant with the pending 2006 emissions regulations, hence the one star Low Emissions decal on all Ficht models in the last few years of production. So the engines were compliant. Polaris had worked through most of the reliability issues around the Ficht system by around 2003.

    The MSX hull was in production and formed the core of their future model plans.

    The core issue was that clearly the future was in four stroke engines, and the two-cylinder 750cc Weber was just not going to be enough. Seadoo already had the 4-Tec 1500cc engine in production. Not yet supercharged, but clearly a much better foundation for more powerful versions and better reliability. And that 4-Tec engine was designed from the ground up for PWC operation, unlike the Weber engine.
    The bugs were never really worked out with the FICHT ECUs. Polaris had no path forward without a 2 stroke fuel injection system they owned and met the pending emissions regulation. Agreed on lack of a four stroke being a big problem. What sucks is they had the MSX hull and the Octane ski wasn’t bad either. The 04’ MSX 150 4-stroke just tanked. Engine sucked and problems problems. But good hull!

    In 2003-2004 BRP / Seadoo was using Orbital DFI on the XP 2-stroke not FICHT. 2003 also saw introduction of the 4-tec 1503 supercharged engine. We racers spent countless hours working on that 4tec POS in 04’-06’, problems, problems. I never want to see that engine again!

    If Polaris would have just perfected the clean direct injection system, they could have kept the lower price point and higher power to weight ratio a 2 stroke power plant offers. A risk at the time with pending regs.

    Orbital was not working for BRP either so they ran with FICHT and made the revisions needed for ETEC to work very well. Keep in mind the best performing snowmobiles are both fuel injected 2-strokes. Polaris and Skidoo. Doo using the ETEC engines which work amazingly well. Four stroke sleds have limited use due to weight problems.

    Also interesting to point out that now repairing any 4-stroke from 2003-2010 is usually more expensive than the PWC is worth. They have become a bone pile in my area. People been hitting me up to repair the 2 strokes. Strange.. times.


  2. #22
    Click avatar for tech links/info K447's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    near Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    43,189
    +1
    2,258
    BRP ended up with the Ficht assets as part of buying the entire OMC business from bankruptcy in 2000. BRP eventually did develop and utilize the E-Tec stuff but that was in 2004, after several years of additional work.

    When 2000 happened OMC was no where near having next generation Ficht ready for Polaris or anybody else.

    My understanding is that BRP was more interested in the outboard motor businesses that OMC had in 2000 and continued the Evinrude brand for a long time. I forget what else BRP got in that OMC assets deal. The Ficht stuff just came along with everything else.

    For Polaris, they just were not interested in developing a 4-stroke engine platform from the ground up for inboard marine markets. The corporate focus was, and still is, on land vehicles. They do now sell several boat brands, but the engines are sourced elsewhere.

    Even BRP is walking away from the E-Tec outboards, leaving only the snow machines.

  3. #23
    Here is the Polaris build..

    MSX 140 hull,
    1200cc triple,
    Liberty twin 800 cc polaris cylinders (x3) from sled. (they had exhaust power valves)
    Factory Pipe triples from matrix project. Would need new cylinder adapters made.
    ETEC DFI Fuel injection system.
    User programable ECU via laptop or blue tooth connection and iphone app.
    use Vipec maybe?

    275-295 HP ?

  4. #24
    Click avatar for tech links/info K447's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    near Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    43,189
    +1
    2,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Mentzel View Post
    ... Polaris build..

    ...
    1200cc triple,
    ...
    Factory Pipe triples from matrix project.
    ...
    I would expect similar power to the previous Matrix motor, maybe a bit more. The tuned triple exhaust pipes act like a turbocharger (but without intercooling) thereby packing more air density into the combustion chamber than atmospheric. That extra air plus fuel mixture to match would produce a little over 200hp, maybe 220hp? ...

    To get a lot more power the 1200 engine would need (quite a bit) more displacement, or (a lot) more RPM, or something to compress even more air into the combustion chamber (like a turbo?).

    More RPM is possible, but expensive/light weight parts needed. And the tuned pipes would need to be (re)tuned for the higher RPM level.

    The 4-stroke supercharged Yamaha SVHO engines is 1.8 liters and boosted (and intercooled) to about 2 Bar, so roughly twice atmospheric air density is being pushed into the intake manifold. That SVHO engine produces about 300hp with a basic aftermarket ECU tune.

    To get the 2-stroke engine with similar power is going to require a lot more of something. Cost, displacement, complexity ... all three?

  5. #25
    sdlvx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    298
    +1
    11
    I think Polaris could still make a somewhat competitive two stroke performance ski. I don't think it could compete once you start playing with a 4 stroke ECU, but stock for stock I think it could hold up well. A SVHO weighs 818lbs dry, MSX 140 is 685 pounds. That might not seem that much, but that's almost 20% more weight on the SVHO. 20% of 200hp is 240hp. Polaris could match weight to power with less power easily with a two stroke. I don't know the surface area of the hulls, but I imagine the MSX has a lot less drag.

    MSX is 48.3in by 126in and SVHO is 50in by 140in. There's definitely more drag on the Yamaha.

    A triple two stroke makes a lot of torque, way more than a 4 stroke, especially at lower RPMs. That might change with the pipes being tuned how they are. I assume the power band on a 1200 MSX with triple pipes would be like a Pro 785, absolute dog below a certain RPM and then it wants to rip your arms off.

    I don't think you could compare just on horsepower. I think the biggest problem would be out of shape yuppie losers who would cry about the rough ride and violent power curve. That would be a bigger problem than it being fast. It wouldn't be for the Sea Doo crowd, it would probably be a bare bones (no stereos, bluetooth, RIDE, etc lol) ski that just goes fast and gives you a wild ride. I actually think Polaris could kill it by making a fast ski that doesn't cost $15,000+. MSX 140 was a little over $9,000 new.

  6. #26
    Click avatar for tech links/info K447's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    near Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    43,189
    +1
    2,258
    Quote Originally Posted by sdlvx View Post
    ... A SVHO weighs 818lbs dry, MSX 140 is 685 pounds.

    ... MSX is 48.3in by 126in ...
    That is the larger Yamaha FX SVHO weight, 2021 model.

    The Yamaha GP1800 SVHO dry weight is 770 pounds, length 131.9 inches long, 48” wide. Longer and heavier than the MSX 140, but not by a lot. With at least twice the engine power.

    One of the reasons I initially looked at the GP1800 SVHO in 2017 was how close it was in size and weight to the MSX 140 we had.

    The Matrix version is heavier than the MSX 140 since it adds the triple pipes and the cooling water weight filling the pipe water jackets when operating.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    lucca italy
    Posts
    210
    +1
    14
    More and less the same weight as FZ platform
    take in account it has bilge pump and telescopic handlebar

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    lucca italy
    Posts
    210
    +1
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by modesto View Post
    More and less the same weight as FZ platform
    take in account it has bilge pump and telescopic handlebar
    Compare FZ to GP i was thinking about

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by sdlvx View Post
    I don't think personal watercraft were ever a seriously profitable business. The only companies that make them and have been successful make a lot of other things to float themselves. BRP owns a ton, Yamaha owns a ton (I have a Yamaha home theater lol). Kawasaki is bigger than anyone here probably thinks, they make aircraft, heavy equipment, train/subway cars and stuff. They're one of Japan's largest industrial manufacturers.

    Kawasaki is probably the perfect example of a company making watercraft not for profit. I can guarantee you Kawasaki Jet Ski are such a small amount of revenue compared to the rest of Kawasaki that they could just stop tomorrow and it wouldn't phase them. I like Kawasaki skis, but I feel like given their market share, they're only doing it to save face because they are Japanese and they don't want to be the creators of Jet Ski yet step out of the business.

    Arctic Cat couldn't make it, they just make other man toys. Mastercraft couldn't make it, they mostly just make boats. Maybe making PWC has some profitable times, but it seems like you need a lot of other industries to float your PWC division. But, I can see Polaris coming back given the market. I've never seen it like this, new skis are on backorder and you can't find a decent used one at a decent price because there's too much demand. COVID has changed people's spending habits, they're not spending money on vacations, they're spending money on toys. And it's probably going to stay that way for a long time. Even if the world went back to normal tomorrow, I think a lot of people have seen the value of spending $10,000 on toys instead of taking a couple family vacations, and they'd be less likely to travel. You also have these paranoid as **** liberals who think Wuhan Flu works like the bubonic plague and can be spread super easily and is a guaranteed death if you get it.

    It's possible in this new day and age, PWC can become profitable. And that's probably why Polaris is betting on the next election, Trump is so friendly towards American businesses that Polaris could easily get all sorts of perks for making PWC in the USA. Though Polaris did shift a lot of production to Mexico, and their quality has suffered a bit for it.
    We have more traffic at my local lake than in several years. The PWC market really peaked here in 95-97 but I do believe this year has that beat. More wake boats, barges, etc than I have ever Seen as well...

  10. #30
    sdlvx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    298
    +1
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by K447 View Post
    That is the larger Yamaha FX SVHO weight, 2021 model.

    The Yamaha GP1800 SVHO dry weight is 770 pounds, length 131.9 inches long, 48” wide. Longer and heavier than the MSX 140, but not by a lot. With at least twice the engine power.

    One of the reasons I initially looked at the GP1800 SVHO in 2017 was how close it was in size and weight to the MSX 140 we had.

    The Matrix version is heavier than the MSX 140 since it adds the triple pipes and the cooling water weight filling the pipe water jackets when operating.
    Fair enough, but GP 1800 is speed limited by the computer. I have a feeling that 4-stroke having a narrower power-band is trying to be offset by making high power engines and then throttling them down with the computer. Yamaha has a big weight advantage over SeaDoo and Kaw though because of nano xcell. I imagine a 200hp Polaris would be competing with a GTR at 800lbs. Kaw doesn't really have something that would fit in that range, it's either 160hp or 310hp. But the Ultra 310 is over 1,000 lbs. That's enough weight and the Ultra hull cuts through deep water so much there's probably a ton of drag. I bet a follow up Matrix could compete.


    So you'd be about equal in weight, GP 1800 has 180hp and GP 1800 SVHO has 250, right?

    I don't know, I feel like they would be a lot closer than people think. Matrix was speed limited too because it was going too fast for the coast guard. Realistically though, that isn't where Polaris would make their money. As we saw with Spark, you can make a killing selling cheap PWC. They are probably higher margin too. Realistically Polaris could probably shove the old 800 injected engine (with a different injection system) into an MSX hull and sell it for around $7k and make a ton of money. Hell, they'd probably have a pretty popular ski if they changed the old SL hull around and put an 800 in there. It'd probably be pretty popular looking at how well the Spark has done. I think there is a big untapped market for people who want smaller, more agile skis, even if they're not as fast as the big 4 strokes. You couldn't sell it in Cali but all the californians who aren't nuts and fruits are leaving en masse.

    I don't think this could be answered very easily, but I'm 2-stroke biased. I'd like to see them come back, I think people would buy a bad ass two stroke ski, even if it were a little slower. I know if I had $12k+ to drop on a ski, I'd take a slower two over a faster four. I think there are some people who would agree with me. Probably not many though, lol.

    It doesn't have to be the fastest, it can be very fast and have a good value.

    Quote Originally Posted by OutlawGPR View Post
    We have more traffic at my local lake than in several years. The PWC market really peaked here in 95-97 but I do believe this year has that beat. More wake boats, barges, etc than I have ever Seen as well...
    My lake has been so busy they actually flew drones around and counted boats to see if the lake was at capacity and limits needed to go into place. I've seen a lot of skis out here too. On days when usually I'd be the only one out there in years past.

Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-08-2020, 11:53 AM
  2. Back In The Game
    By Mik72e in forum Conversion PWC Performance Skis
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-21-2015, 09:06 AM
  3. Back in the GAME !!!!!
    By 1_Fast_SHO in forum Yamaha Old School Skis
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-22-2010, 10:16 PM
  4. I'm back in the game
    By codemanrose in forum Yamaha Old School Skis
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-19-2010, 01:22 PM
  5. Considering Getting Back In The Game
    By OKRedline in forum Sea Doo Open Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-19-2009, 01:49 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
  •