Cheers! Nice video and I like the production and lots of tech details sprinkled in appropriately. Btw, I'm really into the torch red '24 GP HO! Learning about this 1.9L engine in all the other crafts is enlightening. Thanks for the upload! 💯Cheers from Tampa Bay 🌴🤙🏼
Hey! Thanks so much for the kind words. We have the Yamaha GP1900 on our to-do list but have a few other videos in the queue first. But it should be a great ski, especially with that new engine. Thanks again for the note!
@@BroBob1254 My biggest complaint is at idle I get a ton of water over the “bow” even when I’m trimmed up. I’m a big guy at 350# though. I run mine on rocky rivers, and have already kinda beat the crap out of the hull. 6 hours on it and a whole lot of WOT. Lots of fun.
I love your videos!. I'm in the process of getting a brand new pwc and my main priority is rough water comfort. I know Kawasaki Ultra is the best for rough water, but I have heard pretty bad things about reliability, fit and finish and I don't like the storage at all. Who do you think is the second best for rough water comfort?. Yamaha FX?
Hey thanks so much for the note and the kind words. The Yamaha FX HO is top of our list for ocean or choppy conditions, though the bow bounces around a little more since Yamaha changed the ride plate a couple years ago (2022 model year onwards) to bring the nose up to get a bit of extra top speed. I would consider fitting the flat ride plate from the Yamaha FX SVHO to bring the nose down and carve through chop better. This will reduce top speed by about 5mph or 8kmh but it's worth it. It will be better in the mid-range speeds. I love the Kawasaki Ultra hull but the handlebars are too far rearward and it's not comfortable to ride while standing (which you need to do in the ocean to save your back). Hope this helps and good luck!
Thanks for the feedback. That is our experience as well, however it is not activated as early as before. In our experience the low-fuel buzzer activates with about one-third of a tank remaining (rather than two-thirds remaining). Here's hoping Yamaha fine-tunes this further.
Great Effort on your Video. As these 1.9's are appearing to be thirsty. I think when yamaha used the word "efficient" they mean't.... efficient at producing 200hp in N/A engine. Not fuel economy. From the yamaha site they mention the below: The taper on the new throttle body has been removed for a smoother, crisper throttle response, making the new 1.9L HO engine an honest competitor to other brands’ supercharged motors.
Thanks for the note. You make a good point. We've always interpreted Yamaha's use of the word 'efficient' when describing the new 1.9-litre engine to be about fuel efficiency. It certainly makes more power than before, and it bridges the gap between other brand's non-supercharged and supercharged skis. Interestingly, though, the new 1.9 was barely any quicker than the previous 1.8 in our testing. So we've ended up with a ski that uses more fuel to deliver largely the same result (though the mid-range is stronger). In many ways, it shows what a great job the 1.8 was doing for all those years. We wish Yamaha kept the old 1.8 and just spent some money upgrading the fuel injector wiring harness so they would stop fraying. Surely that would have been cheaper than a whole new engine. For now, Sea-Doo's 1630cc non-supercharged engine has the fuel economy advantage in the large, full-size Jet Ski class (Sea-Doo GTX 170/Fish Pro 170, Yamaha FX HO, Kawasaki Ultra 160). Thanks for the note and thanks for sharing that thought. Appreciate the feedback as always.
Thanks for the feedback. Yeah they’re both pretty thirsty these days. Especially as newer craft have gotten heavier and more powerful over the years. As it stands, though, you’re better off on the SVHO because the new 1.9 naturally aspirated uses just as much fuel but without the SVHO power or acceleration. Crazy times. Happy riding and thanks for leaving a note.
We hope so too. The 2024 fuel reading is much better than the prior model but we know Yamaha (and others) are always working on continual improvements. We are hoping there is even better accuracy possible in future, and more efficiency. As it stands, that 1.9 is very thirsty right now.
Joshua, thanks for the great write up & review of the new 2024 Yamaha FX Cruiser HO 1.9. All pretty spot on from what I have found on my new 2024 FX cruiser HO 1.9 that I currently own. I have got 64+ MPH low on fuel, and currently getting 4.8 MPG best so far waswith just shy of 14 hours. Thanks again for content, love it. Billy D
Hey Billy! Thanks for stopping by and saying hi. The fuel numbers we ran were from multiple rides (and we didn’t include the stunt turns and acceleration runs in the video). So far, everyone here who has switched from a 1.8 to a 1.9 and does ocean riding is finding the consumption higher than the old 1.8 - and basically line ball with the supercharged 1.8. If US riders are getting better economy perhaps it’s because you guys have higher octane fuel. Either way we’ll be keeping an eye on it. That said, 4.8mpg works out to be 58L/100km for us and that’s way thirstier than what I used to get out of the 1.8 (50L/100km usually, or 5.6mpg). Hopefully Yamaha will find a way to squeeze some extra efficiency out of the 1.9 as the model years roll on. Thanks again for the note. Appreciate it!
@@WatercraftZone Anytime, I haven’t had a chance to test my Waverunner with different octanes as of yet. So far all of my testing has been with 87 Octane. I’m also curious once I have the first service including having the oil & filter changed if this will help some using fully synthetic. Probably won’t, but we will see. But my findings in regards to others locally that own exact same model they’re not seeing any improvement on MPG. You’re absolutely correct, most including myself have seen better MPG on the 1.8 SVHO models. I average 5-5.2 MPG on my old 2015 FZR still.
@@LifeBeginsOnTheWater Hello Billy. Local dealer has the FX Cruiser SVHO priced at only 800 more than the 1.9 HO Version. If you had it to do over and the price difference was that small, which would you go for? Thank you.
End result that will be for you to decide. I personally love my supercharged models I currently own. I purchased my 2024 FX Cruiser HO 1.9 knowing I wasn’t keeping her for more than a year or two. From a resale perspective I think it will be easier to sell. The FX HO’s is one of Yamaha number one selling Waverunner in their lineup. I can honestly say the 1.9 was surprisingly responsive and powerful. It’s no slouch! Keep in mind I didn’t buy to save fuel are concerned that it only require 87 octane. Bottom line is if I had to only choose one PWC, it personally would be a supercharged model. Hope this helped. Billy D
@@LifeBeginsOnTheWaterthe specs I found state that the SVHO requires premium fuel which I assume to mean 93 Octane. 93 is only available at gas stations, as the fuel docks here carry 90octane marine (“rec”) gas. Would the SVHo be ok with 90octane on a regular basis?
We hear you. It’s a close call in many ways. But if choosing between the Kawasaki Ultra 160 and the Yamaha FX HO 1.9, we would lean towards the Yamaha. Both are thirsty (for non-supercharged skis) but the Yamaha has a more comfortable riding position, larger bow storage, a larger centre console, a higher top speed, better acceleration, and the FX is also a great hull in the chop.
@@WatercraftZone I am likely a couple years away from purchasing a new pwc, but looking to do a lot of riding and exploring in both fresh and salt water. Reliability, comfort, range and storage are probably my main concerns. Looks like there are a lot of good options out there. The explorer pro and fish pro are good looking options too. Do many people leave Yamaha or Kawasaki to buy a Seadoo?
After several months of looking into buying my FIRST PWC. I've decided on the Kawi Ultra 310. this was a tough choice being I wanted to choose the Yamaha, but I still kept coming back to the Kawai. struggling with personal experiences and brand loyalty over practicality is tough. but the Ultra 310 seems to be the best choice for how and where I'll be riding. I'm in no way knocking the Yamaha, but comparing things by multiple online reviews, the Kawi seems to be MY best choice. some decisions in life sure are a pain in the ASS to chose
Thanks for sharing the insight into your decision. All three brands have strengths and weaknesses. And different riders will have different priorities. The Kawasaki Ultra 310 is a great craft and that hull is a beast in chop. Happy riding!
I have both yamaha and kawi. The yamaha is better. Lighter, has handles to pull it up on the front when on a beach, optimally placed foot wells. The kawi has a 90 degree wall you slam your toe in when if your foot slip and Its heavy af. Kawi does get slightly better fuel mileage. Also the bluetooth is a pain in the ass to connect and turns off after a few min when the ski is off. So listening at a sand bar isnt ideal
The drop in fuel consumption is really disappointing, I wonder if the new intake grate is to blame. If I wanted power I'd get the super charged version, I prefer the FX HO to be an economical long-distance machine.
Yeah it’s a mystery to us as well. Hopefully Yamaha finds a way to make the 1.9 more efficient with further fine tuning of the engine management system. We loved the previous 1.8. All Yamaha needed to do to give that motor a new lease on life was fit a better fuel injector wiring harness that was more resistant to fraying and we’d have been set.
I have one the consumption depends on rpm I can tow a tube with two adults on machine and 2 Person tube with adult and get hours of pulling in as long as I am around 5000 rpm
Thanks for the note. Every insight you can share will help others who may be considering this model. As we say in the video, consumption and performance all vary depending on water conditions, rider weight, riding style and how much stopping and starting you do throughout the ride. Our fuel consumption was in a range of conditions, plus we know a bunch of people who also own them and do huge distances (and who previously owned 1.8L models) so we have a pretty clear picture now that the 1.9L is noticeably thirstier than the previous 1.8L. Thanks for watching and thanks for the feedback on your experience with the Yamaha FX 1.9L.
Looking at buying one shortly still deciding between the fx ho or the cruiser . I’m wondering how people find the tiered seats on the cruiser ?compared to the regular seat on the ho ?
Great question. The tiered seating is really only helpful if you plan to have a passenger or two. That said, even full size skis are not very stable when more than one person is on board. It’s really only suited to one adult and one or two kids behind the driver. If you mainly ride solo, the flat seat will be fine. Hope this helps. Thanks for stopping by and leaving a note.
@@WatercraftZoneyeah I will be taking passengers every so often i just love the look of the standard ho not sure how that seat would be for carrying passengers though, silly question but would it be possible to fit a tiered seat from a cruiser to a standard ho if I decided to do so later?
Do the screens still break at 10 hrs or is it just the 5” screens? Mines just gone blank at 14hrs 22 model apparently a common problem. Apart from this I love my ski!!! 1.8 seems to get me whole day of riding on full tank unreal and I’m a heavy guy 300+ lbs with passengers 😂
Thanks for the note. The 2024s have a new screen and we are not aware of (nor have we personally experienced) the issues you describe. However, if anything does emerge, we will be sure to include it in a future review of Yamaha models. Thanks again for sharing your feedback.
Thanks for the note. We understand why you would say that because the bow storage in the Sea-Doo is way more accessible than it is in the Yamaha, but the Yamaha has by far the biggest bow storage and glovebox in the market today. The figures supplied by Sea-Doo and Yamaha on their specification sheets show this.
If you running around at 7000 you will eat fuel,also with 2 200 pound riders i have hit 96 with a little chop , machine has great torque weight doesnt affect it to much.
Thanks for the feedback. Our fuel consumption wasn't at wide open throttle the whole time but in a range of cruising conditions. Certainly speed and how many times you accelerate and stop a start will all affect consumption. But like for like we found the Yamaha 1.9L to be very thirsty and less efficient than the previous 1.8L. Here's hoping Yamaha can adjust the fuel burn of this engine with future updates. We also love the addition of the scoop grate to the 1.9L. It's awesome that cavitation on take-off is all but eliminated now. Thanks again for sharing your experience. It all helps anyone else considering this model and other Jet Skis.
Hey! Thanks great news. Thanks for the feedback and congratulations on your purchase. That’s a great combination. Let’s know which you prefer between the VX 1.9 and the FX 1.9 once you’ve had time to get acquainted with both skis. Happy riding!
Thanks for the note. Good reminder. We are doing a video on that and other stuff we use. It’s a small Australian company so we are just checking if they ship overseas.
You you said it has a 34 gallon gas tank? 11:56 Well, it doesn’t. But if it does, please let me know where I can get the additional storage so I can install it on my wave runner As far as the update and fix for the fuel gauge, you have 10 bars I rode mine from 10 bars to two bars, thinking that I must be pretty low on fuel when I went to fill it up it still had 8 1/2 gallons in the tank, so I don’t know what each bar equals but it doesn’t sound like it’s working correctly
Apologies. Our graphic at 5:56 is correct but the voice over at 11:56 is the wrong figure. It is of course a 70-litre or 18.5 US gallon fuel tank, as we make clear in the specs panel earlier in the video at 5:56. As for the low fuel warning buzzer, we agree it’s still not perfect and hope Yamaha is working to fine tune this even further. Thanks for the feedback.
If history is a guide we will know what the 2025 Yamaha and 2025 Sea-Doo models look like some time through August 2024. Kawasaki has released its 2025 details already.
Great dilemma to have! I would go for the Yamaha FX HO 1.9 if the budget stretches that far. Better all round ski and the top speed and acceleration are better than the Kawasaki Ultra 160. If choosing between the two Kawasaki models, the audio system on the Kawasaki Ultra 160 LX is not as good as the audio on the top end Sea-Doo models. So if you don’t need audio, the LX-S is great value.
@@WatercraftZoneI’m doing my research now. I've also thought about a supercharged jet ski. This will be my first PWC but I've been riding motorcycles firn34 years now. On and off the track. I know there's a difference. My motorcycle buddies all have the supercharge Yamaha. I'm just not sure yet. Lot to choose from.
Thanks for the note. Yes we were in full power mode and launch mode (performance). Those are the numbers we got on the day. We actually did the test with two different riders on two different days to make sure we got the best out of the example tested. Also we don’t rely on the craft’s speedometer even though it is now GPS based. Our VBox is more accurate (20 GPS signals per second). This difference is the case for all Jet Skis we have tested with GPS speedometers. They are better than a speed wheel in a ride plate but VBox is more accurate.
According to your results, the FX 1.8 2022/2023 and FX 1.9 2024 have the same acceleration and top speed. We have done drag races between FX 1.8 2022/2023 and 1.9, and the FX 1.9 is faster and has more acceleration
6:17 This sucks in simple riding in the winter months. Chose my Yamaha because of the ability to re-route the hot water outlet to the footwell and tee off a hose so that we can flush our wetsuits with hot water. Of course you're going to get wet on a ski, but our older models didn't absolutely dump over the front end. Wish Yamaha would fix this, function needs to be over fashion. SMH
Thanks for the note. Since 2022 the FX HO has had a deeper cut in the ride plate to try to bring up the nose, even in a neutral trim position. But the FX is still a very wet ride versus the Sea-Doo ST3 hull. The trade-off though is that the Yamaha carves better through chop and the Sea-Doo nose gets pushed around more. If you want a dry (ish) ride try the Sea-Doo but it’s better suited to flat-water riding. Thanks for the feedback. Your experience will hopefully help others.
Nice review, thanks Josh. Question: Are the footwell drains really that bad - I assume they do the job for skis stored outdoors, even if they just drain slowly?
Thanks for the feedback. And great question. In our experience the small drain holes in the footwells are ineffective at draining the footwells when cleaning the ski afterwards. When out on the water, a quick blast of the throttle is way more effective at clearing water out of the footwells. The tubing underneath the drain holes is just too narrow to be effective. In early examples, the tubing was elevated in some sections, which also limited the draining potential. I suspect evaporation is more effective than these drain holes. It’s a great idea but not well executed. All three brands should offer hose suction adaptors as accessories. I also use a wet vacuum sometimes and that does the trick too. Hope this helps!
Absolutely, a great suggestion. Most of the Sea-Doo GTX 170 models shipped to Australia get snapped up by customers pretty quickly, so it is hard to jump on a demo model. But we have tested extensively the Sea-Doo Fish Pro Trophy 170 and the Sea-Doo Fish Pro Explorer 170, both of which are essentially a Sea-Doo GTX 170 but with extra gear on them. Even with the extra equipment, both of those Sea-Doo models are way more fuel efficient than the Yamaha 1.8L and 1.9L FX HO models. That said, your note is a good reminder to get on a Sea-Doo GTX 170 to test. Leave it with us. Thanks for the suggestion.
I have a GTX170 and have put about 55hrs on it in offshore riding/fishing. Have nudged 98kmh but easily cruise at 95-96kmh. Often get between 160-180km to a tank of fuel. Just my 2c 👍
Nearly bit the bullet on one to setup for fishing but ended up with a 22 SVHO. I'm glad I did now since the fuel consumption is on par with a 1.8l supercharged ski.
@@t0msie yeah I'm based in Oz. They were talking about releasing the jetfish as a pack that can be applied to any ski for this year but I don't think it eventuated. Happy I stuck with the 22 SC.
Thanks for the feedback. That was the biggest surprise for us, that the new NA1.9 uses as much fuel as the SC1.8. Here’s hoping Yamaha will do further calibrations in future model years to make the fuel burn more efficiently.
@@WatercraftZone I'm averaging 5.4 MPG on my 24 GP HO (lake riding 1900-3000 ft). This is with 20-30 minutes of WOT per tank. If I just held her at 35-40 MPH I think I can get 6+ MPG and a range of 100+ miles, I would be pushing it though. If I take the check valve out and squeeze another gallon in her I think 100+ miles is doable but you would have no reserve. Dash shows I hit 73.5 miles on 13.6 gallons used on my last trip. Not trying to test for range or get the best fuel economy just having fun riding around the lake. The last 15-20 minutes was essentially 100% throttle buring 15 GPH. Forgot to hit the trip reset as well so I had total of 14.1 total gallons burned, at about 77 miles. I'm not questioning your results. I believe you, and I appreciate your content. It's great!!! Just shocking how much more fuel the FX is using over the GP with the same engine. I mean I will get 4 MPG at WOT using 15 gallons per hour going 60. My ski goes over 60 BTW phone GPS showed 62 top speed at 3k elevation (dash said 63). At lower elevation I'll get to 64 MPH no problem that's 4.3 MPG at 100% throttle. Are you talking about full throttle? Yamaha claimed 25% more efficient at 40 MPH. If so I should be burning around 4 gallons per hour at 40 the 1.8 was 5.2 ish at 40 MPH. I can get 6 MPG while I'm cruising around at the start of a ride warming her up and checking out the area for hazards.
The prices of skis from all three major brands -Sea-Doo, Yamaha and Kawasaki - went through the roof over the past few years and are yet to settle back down. Fingers crossed they all come back to earth soon.
Thanks for the feedback. We are sure there is room for further finessing of this engine. As it stands, however, the 1.9 is less efficient and no faster than the 1.8 it replaced, based on our testing.
My 2024 vx cruiser ho sucks a full tank of gas in 4 hours of moderate use, worse than my 2004 fxho.. not noticeably punchier either. But overall happy with it once I hit 67mph 😅
Thanks for the note. That is Yamaha’s claim. But we have the fuel bills (and consumption and GPS distance data) that prove otherwise. Testing the new 1.9 FX HO over hundreds of kilometres over several riders has demonstrated to us at least that the 1.9 is not only thirstier than the previous 1.8, it’s as thirsty as a supercharged 1.8. So it will be interesting to see just how thirsty a supercharged 1.9 is when it is eventually released. We sincerely hope Yamaha is over-fuelling the new 1.9 engine in its early phase to mitigate any dramas. Over time we hope Yamaha finds ways to make it run more efficiently.
Still piss poor bow design on all ski’s. Build it like a deep V Force Marine so it doesn’t try to submarine every chance it gets. They’re still designed for flat lakes…
Fair observation. The Yamaha FX and Kawasaki Ultra hulls at least give you a sporting chance in rough chop. But they’re all much nicer to ride in flat water that’s for sure.
@@WatercraftZone yes this was the best move yamaha made. Nanoxcell hulls flex and since all yamaha hulls use automotive paint, when the hulls flex the paint cracks causing chipping and easy scrapes. The newer SMC hulls are stronger, don't hardly flex at all and are much easier to repair cost wise than Nano. Yamaha needs to make all their hulls out of SMC and use Gel coating not auto paint on their hulls.
Joshua, thanks for the great write up & review of the new 2024 Yamaha FX Cruiser HO 1.9. All pretty spot on from what I have found on my new 2024 FX cruiser HO 1.9 that I currently own. I have got 64+ MPH low on fuel, and currently getting 4.8 MPG best so far waswith just shy of 14 hours. Thanks again for content, love it. Billy D
Awesome review….thank you.
Hey! Thanks for stopping by. Appreciate it.
Cheers! Nice video and I like the production and lots of tech details sprinkled in appropriately. Btw, I'm really into the torch red '24 GP HO! Learning about this 1.9L engine in all the other crafts is enlightening. Thanks for the upload! 💯Cheers from Tampa Bay 🌴🤙🏼
Hey! Thanks so much for the kind words. We have the Yamaha GP1900 on our to-do list but have a few other videos in the queue first. But it should be a great ski, especially with that new engine. Thanks again for the note!
My 2024 GP 1900 HO NA is a rocket ship and is easy on fuel. I’m more than pleased with it.
Thanks for your feedback. That 1.9 should really suit the GP. We are getting on one soon. Congratulations on your new ski.
I have a 2021 GP 1800 HO and I love it. I'm wondering how much better can a 2025 GP 1900 HO be?
@@BroBob1254 My biggest complaint is at idle I get a ton of water over the “bow” even when I’m trimmed up. I’m a big guy at 350# though. I run mine on rocky rivers, and have already kinda beat the crap out of the hull. 6 hours on it and a whole lot of WOT. Lots of fun.
I love your videos!. I'm in the process of getting a brand new pwc and my main priority is rough water comfort. I know Kawasaki Ultra is the best for rough water, but I have heard pretty bad things about reliability, fit and finish and I don't like the storage at all. Who do you think is the second best for rough water comfort?. Yamaha FX?
Hey thanks so much for the note and the kind words. The Yamaha FX HO is top of our list for ocean or choppy conditions, though the bow bounces around a little more since Yamaha changed the ride plate a couple years ago (2022 model year onwards) to bring the nose up to get a bit of extra top speed. I would consider fitting the flat ride plate from the Yamaha FX SVHO to bring the nose down and carve through chop better. This will reduce top speed by about 5mph or 8kmh but it's worth it. It will be better in the mid-range speeds. I love the Kawasaki Ultra hull but the handlebars are too far rearward and it's not comfortable to ride while standing (which you need to do in the ocean to save your back). Hope this helps and good luck!
I just bought it and is awesome.
Hey great to hear it! Enjoy!
The fuel issue still present on FX 2024 HO & VX HO models. Great skis super powerful very impressive.
Thanks for the feedback. That is our experience as well, however it is not activated as early as before. In our experience the low-fuel buzzer activates with about one-third of a tank remaining (rather than two-thirds remaining). Here's hoping Yamaha fine-tunes this further.
So amazing, I want to try one too.
Great Effort on your Video.
As these 1.9's are appearing to be thirsty. I think when yamaha used the word "efficient" they mean't.... efficient at producing 200hp in N/A engine. Not fuel economy.
From the yamaha site they mention the below:
The taper on the new throttle body has been removed for a smoother, crisper throttle response, making the new 1.9L HO engine an honest competitor to other brands’ supercharged motors.
Thanks for the note. You make a good point. We've always interpreted Yamaha's use of the word 'efficient' when describing the new 1.9-litre engine to be about fuel efficiency. It certainly makes more power than before, and it bridges the gap between other brand's non-supercharged and supercharged skis. Interestingly, though, the new 1.9 was barely any quicker than the previous 1.8 in our testing. So we've ended up with a ski that uses more fuel to deliver largely the same result (though the mid-range is stronger). In many ways, it shows what a great job the 1.8 was doing for all those years. We wish Yamaha kept the old 1.8 and just spent some money upgrading the fuel injector wiring harness so they would stop fraying. Surely that would have been cheaper than a whole new engine. For now, Sea-Doo's 1630cc non-supercharged engine has the fuel economy advantage in the large, full-size Jet Ski class (Sea-Doo GTX 170/Fish Pro 170, Yamaha FX HO, Kawasaki Ultra 160). Thanks for the note and thanks for sharing that thought. Appreciate the feedback as always.
Having 2020 FX SVHO i was hoping for better fuel efficiency on the natual aspirated 1.9 machine. Awesome. Dependable. >4mpg
Thanks for the feedback. Yeah they’re both pretty thirsty these days. Especially as newer craft have gotten heavier and more powerful over the years. As it stands, though, you’re better off on the SVHO because the new 1.9 naturally aspirated uses just as much fuel but without the SVHO power or acceleration. Crazy times. Happy riding and thanks for leaving a note.
Yay a new one!!!
You should do a video of Yamaha vx deluxe 2024
Thanks for the note. We agree. It’s on our ‘to do’ list but still some time away unfortunately.
I'm looking at the 2025 Yamaha FX HO 1.9. hopefully by that time and model year they will have the fuel guage issue fixed.
We hope so too. The 2024 fuel reading is much better than the prior model but we know Yamaha (and others) are always working on continual improvements. We are hoping there is even better accuracy possible in future, and more efficiency. As it stands, that 1.9 is very thirsty right now.
Joshua, thanks for the great write up & review of the new 2024 Yamaha FX Cruiser HO 1.9. All pretty spot on from what I have found on my new 2024 FX cruiser HO 1.9 that I currently own. I have got 64+ MPH low on fuel, and currently getting 4.8 MPG best so far waswith just shy of 14 hours. Thanks again for content, love it.
Billy D
Hey Billy! Thanks for stopping by and saying hi. The fuel numbers we ran were from multiple rides (and we didn’t include the stunt turns and acceleration runs in the video). So far, everyone here who has switched from a 1.8 to a 1.9 and does ocean riding is finding the consumption higher than the old 1.8 - and basically line ball with the supercharged 1.8. If US riders are getting better economy perhaps it’s because you guys have higher octane fuel. Either way we’ll be keeping an eye on it. That said, 4.8mpg works out to be 58L/100km for us and that’s way thirstier than what I used to get out of the 1.8 (50L/100km usually, or 5.6mpg). Hopefully Yamaha will find a way to squeeze some extra efficiency out of the 1.9 as the model years roll on. Thanks again for the note. Appreciate it!
@@WatercraftZone Anytime, I haven’t had a chance to test my Waverunner with different octanes as of yet. So far all of my testing has been with 87 Octane. I’m also curious once I have the first service including having the oil & filter changed if this will help some using fully synthetic. Probably won’t, but we will see. But my findings in regards to others locally that own exact same model they’re not seeing any improvement on MPG. You’re absolutely correct, most including myself have seen better MPG on the 1.8 SVHO models. I average 5-5.2 MPG on my old 2015 FZR still.
@@LifeBeginsOnTheWater Hello Billy. Local dealer has the FX Cruiser SVHO priced at only 800 more than the 1.9 HO Version. If you had it to do over and the price difference was that small, which would you go for? Thank you.
End result that will be for you to decide. I personally love my supercharged models I currently own. I purchased my 2024 FX Cruiser HO 1.9 knowing I wasn’t keeping her for more than a year or two. From a resale perspective I think it will be easier to sell. The FX HO’s is one of Yamaha number one selling Waverunner in their lineup. I can honestly say the 1.9 was surprisingly responsive and powerful. It’s no slouch! Keep in mind I didn’t buy to save fuel are concerned that it only require 87 octane. Bottom line is if I had to only choose one PWC, it personally would be a supercharged model. Hope this helped.
Billy D
@@LifeBeginsOnTheWaterthe specs I found state that the SVHO requires premium fuel which I assume to mean 93 Octane. 93 is only available at gas stations, as the fuel docks here carry 90octane marine (“rec”) gas. Would the SVHo be ok with 90octane on a regular basis?
Looks great. Hard to choose between Yamaha and Kawasaki.
We hear you. It’s a close call in many ways. But if choosing between the Kawasaki Ultra 160 and the Yamaha FX HO 1.9, we would lean towards the Yamaha. Both are thirsty (for non-supercharged skis) but the Yamaha has a more comfortable riding position, larger bow storage, a larger centre console, a higher top speed, better acceleration, and the FX is also a great hull in the chop.
@@WatercraftZone I am likely a couple years away from purchasing a new pwc, but looking to do a lot of riding and exploring in both fresh and salt water. Reliability, comfort, range and storage are probably my main concerns. Looks like there are a lot of good options out there. The explorer pro and fish pro are good looking options too. Do many people leave Yamaha or Kawasaki to buy a Seadoo?
Good jet ski model😊
After several months of looking into buying my FIRST PWC. I've decided on the Kawi Ultra 310. this was a tough choice being I wanted to choose the Yamaha, but I still kept coming back to the Kawai. struggling with personal experiences and brand loyalty over practicality is tough. but the Ultra 310 seems to be the best choice for how and where I'll be riding. I'm in no way knocking the Yamaha, but comparing things by multiple online reviews, the Kawi seems to be MY best choice. some decisions in life sure are a pain in the ASS to chose
Thanks for sharing the insight into your decision. All three brands have strengths and weaknesses. And different riders will have different priorities. The Kawasaki Ultra 310 is a great craft and that hull is a beast in chop. Happy riding!
I have both yamaha and kawi. The yamaha is better. Lighter, has handles to pull it up on the front when on a beach, optimally placed foot wells. The kawi has a 90 degree wall you slam your toe in when if your foot slip and Its heavy af. Kawi does get slightly better fuel mileage. Also the bluetooth is a pain in the ass to connect and turns off after a few min when the ski is off. So listening at a sand bar isnt ideal
@@WatercraftZone75% of my riding is in the choppy bay off the Florida panhandle
@@Mr.LightGuywhich kawi year and model do you have?
The drop in fuel consumption is really disappointing, I wonder if the new intake grate is to blame. If I wanted power I'd get the super charged version, I prefer the FX HO to be an economical long-distance machine.
Yeah it’s a mystery to us as well. Hopefully Yamaha finds a way to make the 1.9 more efficient with further fine tuning of the engine management system. We loved the previous 1.8. All Yamaha needed to do to give that motor a new lease on life was fit a better fuel injector wiring harness that was more resistant to fraying and we’d have been set.
I have one the consumption depends on rpm I can tow a tube with two adults on machine and 2 Person tube with adult and get hours of pulling in as long as I am around 5000 rpm
Thanks for the note. Every insight you can share will help others who may be considering this model. As we say in the video, consumption and performance all vary depending on water conditions, rider weight, riding style and how much stopping and starting you do throughout the ride. Our fuel consumption was in a range of conditions, plus we know a bunch of people who also own them and do huge distances (and who previously owned 1.8L models) so we have a pretty clear picture now that the 1.9L is noticeably thirstier than the previous 1.8L. Thanks for watching and thanks for the feedback on your experience with the Yamaha FX 1.9L.
Looking at buying one shortly still deciding between the fx ho or the cruiser . I’m wondering how people find the tiered seats on the cruiser ?compared to the regular seat on the ho ?
Great question. The tiered seating is really only helpful if you plan to have a passenger or two. That said, even full size skis are not very stable when more than one person is on board. It’s really only suited to one adult and one or two kids behind the driver. If you mainly ride solo, the flat seat will be fine. Hope this helps. Thanks for stopping by and leaving a note.
@@WatercraftZoneyeah I will be taking passengers every so often i just love the look of the standard ho not sure how that seat would be for carrying passengers though, silly question but would it be possible to fit a tiered seat from a cruiser to a standard ho if I decided to do so later?
@@aidenfoster5432 which one did you get? I drove the cruiser and found annoying that you can’t sit a little farther back because of the “backrest”
Do the screens still break at 10 hrs or is it just the 5” screens? Mines just gone blank at 14hrs 22 model apparently a common problem. Apart from this I love my ski!!! 1.8 seems to get me whole day of riding on full tank unreal and I’m a heavy guy 300+ lbs with passengers 😂
Thanks for the note. The 2024s have a new screen and we are not aware of (nor have we personally experienced) the issues you describe. However, if anything does emerge, we will be sure to include it in a future review of Yamaha models. Thanks again for sharing your feedback.
I’d confidently say Seadoos GTX models have more storage.
Thanks for the note. We understand why you would say that because the bow storage in the Sea-Doo is way more accessible than it is in the Yamaha, but the Yamaha has by far the biggest bow storage and glovebox in the market today. The figures supplied by Sea-Doo and Yamaha on their specification sheets show this.
If you running around at 7000 you will eat fuel,also with 2 200 pound riders i have hit 96 with a little chop , machine has great torque weight doesnt affect it to much.
Thanks for the feedback. Our fuel consumption wasn't at wide open throttle the whole time but in a range of cruising conditions. Certainly speed and how many times you accelerate and stop a start will all affect consumption. But like for like we found the Yamaha 1.9L to be very thirsty and less efficient than the previous 1.8L. Here's hoping Yamaha can adjust the fuel burn of this engine with future updates. We also love the addition of the scoop grate to the 1.9L. It's awesome that cavitation on take-off is all but eliminated now. Thanks again for sharing your experience. It all helps anyone else considering this model and other Jet Skis.
Best crusr Hak soeed 3500 rom maxoum ful rsbge
These 1.9L are VERY thirsty.
@@collinskidooallday18 I just went tubing for 4 hours 2 on machine 2 adult in tube ,2 person big Mable and only ate a half tank
@@collinskidooallday18 how many hours on yours and fuel type
This review helped me pull the trigger. Got a FX HO and VX Cruiser HO for the wife, so they both have the 1.9.
Hey! Thanks great news. Thanks for the feedback and congratulations on your purchase. That’s a great combination. Let’s know which you prefer between the VX 1.9 and the FX 1.9 once you’ve had time to get acquainted with both skis. Happy riding!
Can you link to the suction hose adaptor that you show?
Thanks for the note. Good reminder. We are doing a video on that and other stuff we use. It’s a small Australian company so we are just checking if they ship overseas.
@@WatercraftZone Thanks! looking forward to the video and link ;)
@smhgator It will be fine using 90 octane rec gas for sure!
Good call. More octane, more range. And more power : ))
excuse my ignorance, im new jumping into the jetski world and my question is whats he doing at 14:41?
Thanks for your query. That is footage of the ski being flushed with fresh water after riding in salt water. Hope this helps!
You you said it has a 34 gallon gas tank? 11:56 Well, it doesn’t. But if it does, please let me know where I can get the additional storage so I can install it on my wave runner
As far as the update and fix for the fuel gauge, you have 10 bars I rode mine from 10 bars to two bars, thinking that I must be pretty low on fuel when I went to fill it up it still had 8 1/2 gallons in the tank, so I don’t know what each bar equals but it doesn’t sound like it’s working correctly
Apologies. Our graphic at 5:56 is correct but the voice over at 11:56 is the wrong figure. It is of course a 70-litre or 18.5 US gallon fuel tank, as we make clear in the specs panel earlier in the video at 5:56. As for the low fuel warning buzzer, we agree it’s still not perfect and hope Yamaha is working to fine tune this even further. Thanks for the feedback.
@@WatercraftZone
Hopefully the new 2025 year models address the fuel buzzer issue and have it fixed so when your 1 bar left on the ski it buzz's.
When do you think 2025 yamaha will be released ? Late August ish ?
If history is a guide we will know what the 2025 Yamaha and 2025 Sea-Doo models look like some time through August 2024. Kawasaki has released its 2025 details already.
I'm trying to decide between this and the Kawasaki Ultra 160 LX or LXS. Help me out here
Great dilemma to have! I would go for the Yamaha FX HO 1.9 if the budget stretches that far. Better all round ski and the top speed and acceleration are better than the Kawasaki Ultra 160. If choosing between the two Kawasaki models, the audio system on the Kawasaki Ultra 160 LX is not as good as the audio on the top end Sea-Doo models. So if you don’t need audio, the LX-S is great value.
@@WatercraftZoneI’m doing my research now. I've also thought about a supercharged jet ski. This will be my first PWC but I've been riding motorcycles firn34 years now. On and off the track. I know there's a difference. My motorcycle buddies all have the supercharge Yamaha. I'm just not sure yet. Lot to choose from.
Same exact dilemma I have. What did you get?
Do you reach 100 km/h at 7700 rpm? I have reached 105 km/h at 7800 rpm. Did you select in the menu full power?
Thanks for the note. Yes we were in full power mode and launch mode (performance). Those are the numbers we got on the day. We actually did the test with two different riders on two different days to make sure we got the best out of the example tested. Also we don’t rely on the craft’s speedometer even though it is now GPS based. Our VBox is more accurate (20 GPS signals per second). This difference is the case for all Jet Skis we have tested with GPS speedometers. They are better than a speed wheel in a ride plate but VBox is more accurate.
According to your results, the FX 1.8 2022/2023 and FX 1.9 2024 have the same acceleration and top speed. We have done drag races between FX 1.8 2022/2023 and 1.9, and the FX 1.9 is faster and has more acceleration
6:17 This sucks in simple riding in the winter months. Chose my Yamaha because of the ability to re-route the hot water outlet to the footwell and tee off a hose so that we can flush our wetsuits with hot water. Of course you're going to get wet on a ski, but our older models didn't absolutely dump over the front end. Wish Yamaha would fix this, function needs to be over fashion. SMH
Thanks for the note. Since 2022 the FX HO has had a deeper cut in the ride plate to try to bring up the nose, even in a neutral trim position. But the FX is still a very wet ride versus the Sea-Doo ST3 hull. The trade-off though is that the Yamaha carves better through chop and the Sea-Doo nose gets pushed around more. If you want a dry (ish) ride try the Sea-Doo but it’s better suited to flat-water riding. Thanks for the feedback. Your experience will hopefully help others.
Nice review, thanks Josh. Question: Are the footwell drains really that bad - I assume they do the job for skis stored outdoors, even if they just drain slowly?
Thanks for the feedback. And great question. In our experience the small drain holes in the footwells are ineffective at draining the footwells when cleaning the ski afterwards. When out on the water, a quick blast of the throttle is way more effective at clearing water out of the footwells. The tubing underneath the drain holes is just too narrow to be effective. In early examples, the tubing was elevated in some sections, which also limited the draining potential. I suspect evaporation is more effective than these drain holes. It’s a great idea but not well executed. All three brands should offer hose suction adaptors as accessories. I also use a wet vacuum sometimes and that does the trick too. Hope this helps!
Need to compare them with the Sea Doo GTX offerings. The 170 is priced less than the FX HO and the 230 is less than the Cruiser HO.
Absolutely, a great suggestion. Most of the Sea-Doo GTX 170 models shipped to Australia get snapped up by customers pretty quickly, so it is hard to jump on a demo model. But we have tested extensively the Sea-Doo Fish Pro Trophy 170 and the Sea-Doo Fish Pro Explorer 170, both of which are essentially a Sea-Doo GTX 170 but with extra gear on them. Even with the extra equipment, both of those Sea-Doo models are way more fuel efficient than the Yamaha 1.8L and 1.9L FX HO models. That said, your note is a good reminder to get on a Sea-Doo GTX 170 to test. Leave it with us. Thanks for the suggestion.
I have a GTX170 and have put about 55hrs on it in offshore riding/fishing. Have nudged 98kmh but easily cruise at 95-96kmh. Often get between 160-180km to a tank of fuel. Just my 2c 👍
@@TheLogicprouser I have raced 170 with 2024 fx 1.9 ,it was not a race ,I pulled away
Nearly bit the bullet on one to setup for fishing but ended up with a 22 SVHO. I'm glad I did now since the fuel consumption is on par with a 1.8l supercharged ski.
They come set up down here in Australia & New Zealand [jetfish]. Saving my pennies.
@@t0msie yeah I'm based in Oz. They were talking about releasing the jetfish as a pack that can be applied to any ski for this year but I don't think it eventuated. Happy I stuck with the 22 SC.
Thanks for the feedback. That was the biggest surprise for us, that the new NA1.9 uses as much fuel as the SC1.8. Here’s hoping Yamaha will do further calibrations in future model years to make the fuel burn more efficiently.
@@WatercraftZone That's mind boggling to be honest, can't imagine what the fuel consumption will be when they eventually release a 1.9 SC version. 😱
@@WatercraftZone I'm averaging 5.4 MPG on my 24 GP HO (lake riding 1900-3000 ft). This is with 20-30 minutes of WOT per tank. If I just held her at 35-40 MPH I think I can get 6+ MPG and a range of 100+ miles, I would be pushing it though. If I take the check valve out and squeeze another gallon in her I think 100+ miles is doable but you would have no reserve.
Dash shows I hit 73.5 miles on 13.6 gallons used on my last trip. Not trying to test for range or get the best fuel economy just having fun riding around the lake. The last 15-20 minutes was essentially 100% throttle buring 15 GPH. Forgot to hit the trip reset as well so I had total of 14.1 total gallons burned, at about 77 miles.
I'm not questioning your results. I believe you, and I appreciate your content. It's great!!! Just shocking how much more fuel the FX is using over the GP with the same engine.
I mean I will get 4 MPG at WOT using 15 gallons per hour going 60. My ski goes over 60 BTW phone GPS showed 62 top speed at 3k elevation (dash said 63). At lower elevation I'll get to 64 MPH no problem that's 4.3 MPG at 100% throttle. Are you talking about full throttle?
Yamaha claimed 25% more efficient at 40 MPH. If so I should be burning around 4 gallons per hour at 40 the 1.8 was 5.2 ish at 40 MPH. I can get 6 MPG while I'm cruising around at the start of a ride warming her up and checking out the area for hazards.
Smoking crack on the prices
The prices of skis from all three major brands -Sea-Doo, Yamaha and Kawasaki - went through the roof over the past few years and are yet to settle back down. Fingers crossed they all come back to earth soon.
Like anything new you should never buy first gen engines , I’ll definitely wait awhile before jumping into a brand new engine
Thanks for the feedback. We are sure there is room for further finessing of this engine. As it stands, however, the 1.9 is less efficient and no faster than the 1.8 it replaced, based on our testing.
My 2024 vx cruiser ho sucks a full tank of gas in 4 hours of moderate use, worse than my 2004 fxho.. not noticeably punchier either. But overall happy with it once I hit 67mph 😅
@@WatercraftZonethats mad. Yamaha claims its more efficient that the 1.8. Nuts
Yamaha claims better fuel economy on the 1,.9 over the 1.8.
Thanks for the note. That is Yamaha’s claim. But we have the fuel bills (and consumption and GPS distance data) that prove otherwise. Testing the new 1.9 FX HO over hundreds of kilometres over several riders has demonstrated to us at least that the 1.9 is not only thirstier than the previous 1.8, it’s as thirsty as a supercharged 1.8. So it will be interesting to see just how thirsty a supercharged 1.9 is when it is eventually released. We sincerely hope Yamaha is over-fuelling the new 1.9 engine in its early phase to mitigate any dramas. Over time we hope Yamaha finds ways to make it run more efficiently.
Still piss poor bow design on all ski’s. Build it like a deep V Force Marine so it doesn’t try to submarine every chance it gets. They’re still designed for flat lakes…
Fair observation. The Yamaha FX and Kawasaki Ultra hulls at least give you a sporting chance in rough chop. But they’re all much nicer to ride in flat water that’s for sure.
Wring
Trim up 😂 just went on a 30 mil ocean riding & trim up (comfort mode) seems to work good. Fx does feel it slaps any small wave.
@anthonyjohnson100 wrong. 16 feet waves
Too bad the hulls crack easy.
There were issues with the NanoXcel FX hull from 2019 to 2021 but Yamaha switched to SMC fibreglass from 2022 onwards.
@@WatercraftZone
yes this was the best move yamaha made. Nanoxcell hulls flex and since all yamaha hulls use automotive paint, when the hulls flex the paint cracks causing chipping and easy scrapes. The newer SMC hulls are stronger, don't hardly flex at all and are much easier to repair cost wise than Nano. Yamaha needs to make all their hulls out of SMC and use Gel coating not auto paint on their hulls.
Joshua, thanks for the great write up & review of the new 2024 Yamaha FX Cruiser HO 1.9. All pretty spot on from what I have found on my new 2024 FX cruiser HO 1.9 that I currently own. I have got 64+ MPH low on fuel, and currently getting 4.8 MPG best so far waswith just shy of 14 hours. Thanks again for content, love it.
Billy D