metla100 said:
I have an Adventure 208 with a 2006 F225 with about 675 hours. Just bought second-hand with about 650 hours. My performance is much less than any data sheet that I can find online. The speed is right on, but the fuel consumption is about 2 - 2.5 GPH more than what is published. For example, at 4000 RMP performance sheet says 29.1 MPH (mine is 29.5), GPH is 6.99 (mine is 9.4) and MPH is 4.2 (mine is 3.1).
Does anyone have any insight about the difference? Do the engines get worse performance with age/hours? Anyone else care to share their actual performance with this rig and setup?
Appreciate any insight!
First of all, there are so many variables that direct comparisons are meaningless. For example, the sweet spot for fuel consumption in the test data may be different than your sweet spot. Most performance tests are done with no bottom paint and for the 208, no hardtop or bimini down. The goal of the manufacturers tests is to get the max economy, speed,time to plane etc. depending on the market targeted.
Of course, your prop selection(and condition) can make a big difference as will trim etc.
The measurements are not intended nor should they be used as absolute numbers. They should be used as guidelines for comparison over time to see if performance changes which might indicate an issue that needs attention.
If you want to experiment, make a list of the numbers at several rpm levels under similar trim and water/weather and boat conditions to see where your sweet spot is for economy (if that is your concern). Then make a few runs changing trim but at the same revs. The data should be interesting.
One other comment. I didn't see what model year your hull was but the F225 is a lot heavier than the older SXs were. Later model hulls have weight added to the bow to help compensate for the extra weight off of the transom. In addition without the weight, optimal trim may not be possible. On the down side, later hulls weight more and that used more fuel.
Have fun and enjoy.
