Maximum Fuel Efficiency between SeaDoo RXP-X 300 vs. GTX 230 at Ideal Cruising Speed

[edmvapors]

Looking to get a new SeaDoo, and am currently debating between the RXR-X 300 (or GTX 300) and the GTX 230. For the sake of PWC comparison, I'd like to ignore any differences in cost.


I was originally going to go with the RXR-X 300 until I looked at specs on just how much fuel it consumes at WOT. However, I could not get any specs on fuel consumption at ideal cruising speeds (say ~35 mph, being light on the throttle) as compared to simply running WOT. I frequently do a ~60 mile cruise straight out into open ocean and want to get some more stats on fuel consumption between the GTX 230 and RXR-X 300 (or GTX 300) when riding at max efficiency. I always carry extra fuel, but want a PWC that can reliably make that trip without having to dip into the extra fuel unless in case of emergency.


Essentially, I am wondering if the fuel consumption between the 230 and 300 is similar if you're being careful on the gas (obviously they are quite different at WOT) or if by choosing the 300 I'll always be getting less range even if accelerating no more aggressively than a 230? Thanks!

[711jrp]

In my experience at cruising speed the use very similar amount of of fuel for a given speed, even the 130s are not that much better. The reason I say that is I have a couple of 300s and the rest of our group is a mix of other 300s, 230s and a couple of 130s, if we all stick together on a 50/60 mile ride which is predominantly the type of riding we do now our ranges are very similar.

[guybb3]

Plus the new 300s have the bigger tank. I'm going to put the bigger tank in my 300, this Winter, for exactly this reason.

[conroe]

Factor in the fuel cost, 130 or 155 and the 230 use 87 octane The 300, 91 octane required

[Martin RXT-X]

I can get around 75 miles on a modified RXPX 300 at cruise speed.

[badm0t0rfinger]

I think I saw your post on reddit, and I don't have a ton of first hand experience but through friends and the salesman* (yes I know he is biased and trying to sell a product) that the real difference is only at WoT. At cruising speed (between 30 and 40) the supercharged engines will drink fuel at about the same amount, and same for the naturally aspirated engines. The big difference is the potential for the engines to start chugging fuel.

Live near open ocean/high traffic harbor so having as much power on hand means more to me than potential fuel savings, and the difference in 91 vs 87 is 18 cents last time I checked.

[edmvapors]

Thanks for the reply; I was hoping to hear that the main difference in fuel consumption is at WOT; that way one could get a supercharged engine and just cruise gently when needing to maximize range for that particular trip I was referencing. Not too concerned with the fuel cost between 87 and 91 since like you say its minimal, moreso was afraid that the tank size didn't "scale" enough on the 300hp engines, but if the cruising consumption is similar then that's not a big deal.

[edmvapors]

Thanks, appreciate the input! I was hoping that would be the case so that I could get a larger hp and just drive it less aggressively when I need to maximize range and keep up (in range) with buddies on GTX 230 and 130s.

[1tommygunner1927]

In my experience at cruising speed the use very similar amount of of fuel for a given speed, even the 130s are not that much better. The reason I say that is I have a couple of 300s and the rest of our group is a mix of other 300s, 230s and a couple of 130s, if we all stick together on a 50/60 mile ride which is predominantly the type of riding we do now our ranges are very similar.

LOL....the guys with the faster skis cant help themselves. They will squeeze the trigger.......

[Team Bilford]

When cruising, stay off the SC and they all are normally aspirated 4tecs. My 18 300 has a SC gauge. I don't know if the 19 and up cluster has it or not. Stay below 6,000 rpm to maximize cruise. You could always buy a DI machine, nothing has the range of those units!