Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by GRADS View Post
    That's a lot of H.P. but honestly with that I kind of speed I thought it would be more.
    RPM's seem to get more speed out of less horsepower than any other comparable boat. Its pretty amazing what one will do with 700HP. They seem to have the bottom figured out.

  2. #12
    Senior Member She's Mine's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Huntington Beach, CA/ Lake Havasu City, AZ
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotboat View Post
    RPM's seem to get more speed out of less horsepower than any other comparable boat. Its pretty amazing what one will do with 700HP. They seem to have the bottom figured out.
    x2.

    Their boats are extremely fast and solid in the water. Watch the video again and see how fast the speedo goes from 100-120. That is what is impressive. That would be one hell of a ride!

    Great Job RPM!

    They are also working with IMCO and redesigning the SCX lower unit. I hope they do something with it because I doubled my slip number going from a SC to the SCX and lost 15mph. But at least I'm bullet proof.
    Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out and smokin, shouting "Holy Shit ...What A Ride!"

  3. #13
    GRADS
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by She's Mine View Post
    x2.

    Their boats are extremely fast and solid in the water. Watch the video again and see how fast the speedo goes from 100-120. That is what is impressive. That would be one hell of a ride!

    Great Job RPM!

    They are also working with IMCO and redesigning the SCX lower unit. I hope they do something with it because I doubled my slip number going from a SC to the SCX and lost 15mph. But at least I'm bullet proof.
    From what I've been told its how the lower on the scx buldges out and is actually pushing the water away from the prop.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by GRADS View Post
    From what I've been told its how the lower on the scx buldges out and is actually pushing the water away from the prop.
    The new SCX lower is supposed to be thinner. The original SCX lower was fat, that's why most people used a SC lower.

  5. #15
    GRADS
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotboat View Post
    The new SCX lower is supposed to be thinner. The original SCX lower was fat, that's why most people used a SC lower.
    That's not what I've seen but I could be confusing my ex's.

  6. #16
    Senior Member She's Mine's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Huntington Beach, CA/ Lake Havasu City, AZ
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotboat View Post
    The new SCX lower is supposed to be thinner. The original SCX lower was fat, that's why most people used a SC lower.
    Yes that is correct. The original SCX lower had a very stubby bullet and the new one is between the SC and #6 lower. Even though they have redesigned the lower 3 times it is still larger than the SC because of the bearing size. This is why the slip is so much higher than a SC. If I was to run the SCX -4 with the larger cleaver prop I wouldn't notice but I am not running that setup because of my kiddos.

    Quote Originally Posted by GRADS View Post
    That's not what I've seen but I could be confusing my ex's.
    I don't think you're confused GRADS, maybe a little sheltered. Lol. I think you have only seen the newer lower which is called the 1300 lower.
    Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out and smokin, shouting "Holy Shit ...What A Ride!"

  7. #17
    Senior Member rschap1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Murray Lake Lowell MI
    Posts
    756
    Pretty wild speed ! ! !
    RSCHAP1

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •