Volvo IPS improvements

Well, if swallowing IPS and the troubles that come with them every other month means making room for a wine cooler, who am I to argue?
That's by far the best argument in favour of IPS so far!

The IPS boat I dealt with, did some traveling. To and from Key West from Baltimore, Exumas, etc........it went almost 5 years before it had 1 pod come apart. Was still under extended warranty (barely). A $30k repair after almost 5 years of use isn't the end of the world......it saved enough fuel to pay for the repair.

Only one pod wasn't something done as scheduled preventative maintenance, obviously.
Sounds much more like a ruined holiday for someone, after noticing emulsionated oil, which according to VP is a show stopper, requiring immediate haulout, oil flush, etc.
That's in fact what IPS typically brings to the table, together with the bells and whistles.

Ref. the saved fuel, that's largely marketing BS, a myth which I already debunked in several occasions in another forum.
I could link threads with facts and figures, but when I did in the past, Carl explained in not unclear terms that he doesn't like that.

Mapism I suggest you don't get a boat with IPS. Problem solved. Still don't understand your hatred of all things Volvo, nor do a lot of people who love them.

This is just factually untrue. I have the performance curves of several boats with multiple propulsion options and in all cases, the fuel efficiency of IPS is superior to shafts. In some cases it's 10%, in some it's 20-30%. It varies based on speeds run. But IPS definitely has advantages. No, Carl likely doesn't like your total BS on the subject. However, it is not a marketing myth that IPS is more fuel efficient. The magnitude may be exaggerated on some boats.

It shredded gears. It was being delivered back North on a delivery, no owners/guests on board, no water in the oil. Stuff breaks.......I would say Volvo IPS is less dependable compared to a similar shaft boat, but not that much less dependable. Not by the huge margin you're talking about. Plus you gain several other attributes in exchange. And, yes the fuel savings are real. They do vary from boat to boat, but are very real. I've seen 20-30% generally but 40% on one fast boat.

You clearly speak from a clear lack of experience with IPS, and it's obvious.

Fine, then man up, folks. Stop aiming at posters rather than contributing with content.
If you have any factual evidence supporting what you are saying, post it.

I just said elsewhere that I'm here for the wheat and I don't care about the chaff.
Post or link any numbers REALLY proving the fuel efficiency of IPS and you'll get my apologies.

But mind, comparing the very same boat powered by shafts and IPS is NOT a meaningful comparison by any stretch of imagination, because as I'm sure you are aware of, hull design can be either optimised for one or the other type of propulsion, but not for both.
And the best proof of this is that even Volvo Penta has been unable so far to publish any remotely scientifical tests proving their fuel efficiency claims.

To put it bluntly, dismissing a catastrophic fault like that in a 5 years old boat with "stuff breaks" is beyond a joke.

On the other hand, I can think of another idiomatic expression for dismissing the fact that it happened while the boat was "still under extended warranty (barely)" and during a delivery, rather than destroying the holiday of someone: strike it lucky.

I don't care to prove anything to you or search for your apology as you aren't going to be swayed. You're already denying as saying both propulsion methods in the same boat mean nothing. You are entitled to your beliefs but your dismissal of any other opinions is monotonous and self serving but of no value to the thread. I have tests on boats optimized for shafts and those optimized for IPS, multiple makes of boats, but then you'll see something wrong with them and at least some of them are not publicly available and I don't own the rights allowing me to distribute them. I'm not going to argue any more with you so post all you want in this thread and I'll ignore.

Yeah right, as if you would ever be swayed on anything.
Never mind, though. I'm happy to reciprocate your conclusion, because as I said I'm not interested in chaff.

And I'm not interested in gluten.

I just have the figures from MBY when testing the Delta 54 and 80. Today most Delta 54 are with twin D8/800 but the figures are almost the same as with triple D6/600...

It's all rather simple. VP has made published claims. They and others have done a ton of tests to verify them, and thousands of them have been on the water since 2006. So Mapism, where are the tests to prove they've lied? Where are the judgements against them for fraud? I'm sure regulatory agencies in several countries would be very interested in the proof you have of your claims. How about you producing the "wheat" of your slanderous claims? Show us the boat test results. Volvo has and I haven't heard anything about the FTC or any other government agency claiming they lied.

The older Cabo 40' express (or FB)
800 mans with shafts @ 80% load 32 knots cruise, 63 GPH
600 cummins ZUES @ 80% load 33 knots cruise, 45 GPH

I've run dozens of each and the speed and fuel economy was the same. I was the Captain that ran the MAN boat for the seatrials and the zues boats. Boat is exactly the same, waterline up, except bottom modified only where the pods mount to accept the pods and Zues boat held 80 gallons less fuel.

"Based on my sea trial and discussions with Cabo’s factory captain, the 40 HTX’s best cruising speed, with respect to economy and engine load, is 2,710 rpm, making 32 knots and burning 45.4 gph for a net of 0.71 nm per gallon."
Cabo 40 HTX | Boating Magazine

Scroll down to page 7, man R6-800's Cabo 40' express 2100 rpms 31.5 knots, 63 GPH.
Std Sea Trial_C32X-08_CAT C7.xls (channelblade.com)

An interesting way to twist an argument, if I've ever seen one.
I wrote in my post #87 "...even Volvo Penta has been unable so far to publish any remotely scientifical tests proving their fuel efficiency claims", and now you ask me to prove that something that doesn't exist is wrong?
By the same token, it's pretty obvious that there's no legal claim against something that doesn't exist.
If legal agencies could and should prosecute all marketing blurb, there would no business left anywhere on the planet.

Anyway, listen.
I'm fed up of bullying arguments along the lines (in your case, not as directly as olderboater did, but it's rather implicit in your post) that I'm only interested to outsmart anyone else and I don't want a discussion.
I will PM you a link to a debate in another forum where I tried to make a meaningful comparisons with actual numbers.
I am going to do that strictly because pretending to have plenty of tests and not post any of them with the excuse that I would find something wrong (talk about not wanting a discussion!) is not my style.
But I can tell you upfront that I am not interested at all to expand this debate further.
You suggested me earlier to not buy a boat with IPS - a suggestion that I've been following since ever, well before hearing it, and I can assure you that I won't disappoint you also in the future, in this respect.
So, I can only reciprocate suggesting you to do the opposite.
Good luck with that, and fair winds.

But my very last contribution to this thread has to be towards AMG and Capt J.
In fact, both of them obviously read and tried to understand what I wrote (which is more than can be said of some others - yourself included, I must add), and followed up with facts and figures.
This is something I appreciate generally speaking, and even more so in the context of this thread.

More specifically, for AMG:
Thanks for your attention, but I hope you will accept that your Delta numbers say nothing in terms of efficiency comparison with shafts, because they only show that Deltas are very efficient boats overall.
As you know much better than myself, not only they are designed from the ground up around IPS propulsion, with flat stern sections, but they are also built with technologies that make them very expensive but also very light, hence efficient.
Probably, if anyone would design similar boats, aiming at speeds in the 40 kts ballpark but using something else than pods, surface drives would be the most logical choice, rather than shafts.
But I'm not aware of any comparable boats (if you are, I'm all ears), so that's just theoretical.

And for Capt J:
Thanks for your links, interesting stuff indeed.
It's equally interesting that they are based on Zeus rather than IPS, because according to what I understood from some builders the former were not as strict in requiring specific hull adaptations as the latter, and from the boaters viewpoint it's a real pity that they were unable to contrast more effectively the VP monopoly in the pods market.
Anyhow, to Ceasar what's Ceasar's: those tests are the most solid efficiency comparison between pods and shafts that I came across so far, so thanks for your attention and factual contribution.

They are based on Zues because Cabo was owned by Brunswick and Brunswick requires using a Brunswick powerplant and owns Mercury etc. therefore Zues was the option. I really liked the Zues over IPS and felt everything was integrated better. But, Zues was a partnership between ZF,Cummins, and Mercruiser/Mercury and destined to fail because they never really ironed out who was responsible for what as far as warranty, whereas Volvo it's all in house. But that's the most direct comparison of pods versus shafts that I know of.

Yup, I'm aware of all the story.
Pity, as I said, also because I agree with you on Zeus being actually better overall.

I see that the Exumas are a great source of inspiration for clever and enlightening contributions.
Enjoy your stay.

I'm going to copy and paste my response to the thread on oil samples because it fits:

What do you say guys? I think we can all agree to disagree here. Nobody is going to change anyone's mind but I think there's enough debate here to help people decide for themselves.