Cobaltchat.com

Hi, coming from a 2002 Crownline 225BR with a standard 7.4/Bravo 3 (totaled out after storm last summer). Looking at 2002 Cobalt 246 with Merc 8.1 Mag and a 2004 Cobalt 240 with Merc 6.2.

Concerned about hole shot and carrying heavy loads (up to 8 people, dogs) and wakeboarding/tubing with my kids (age 18-21).

Run primarily on large Lake (KY Lake), so it can get rough.

I like the extra seat in the 240 (plus the 8.1!); also like the open space/layout in the 246. Boats are same color, good condition.

Otherwise, it’s down to the year and engine choice.

As boys get older with girlfriends, we’re probably about 70% cruising and 30% wakeboarding/tubing with dual tubes, at least 4 people on tubes and 4 people on the boat.

As mentioned above don’t care about top speed; looking for hole shot, carrying heavy loads, and handling of occasional rough water from traffic and wind.

I would appreciated anyone’s thoughts about their experience with these boats, engine choices, etc. not just “go with the power!” but also comparing the two, and also comparing the 7.4 vs either engine (since that’s what I’m coming from), Relative fuel economy, etc.

I would say that if the 6.2 behaves like my 454, I would be perfectly content. But the 496 Mag is really tempting.

Thanks in advance!

.
Hey Rvgetfive....welcome to the CobaltChat forum. So glad you found us!

Personally I would go for the torque provided by the big block for hole shot which will more than compensate for the slightly extra weight above the 6.2L. Plus the captain's call exhaust sounds so much better with a big block.

Any pics of your Crownline...pre storm and post storm?

Again, welcome aboard mate!

.

The 6.2 was specifically designed by Merc to be a replacement for the 7.4 back when GM quit making the 454 available. HP numbers are very similar, but the 6.2 weighs less. Fuel consumption is a little better if I remember correctly, but obviously that depends on how far you push that throttle.

I would have to agree with Aslan and say I would be drawn to the BB 9 times out of 10 because of the incredible torque that engine produces.

I owned a 2003 240 with the 6.2 Merc and from my experience it was powered just fine. On average maybe we had 6-8 people on board (4 adults 4 younger kids). Cant say I ever really noticed it lacking in power per se. I was concerned about this as well before I purchased and I can honestly say it was never ever an issue. I like the 240 layout better than the 246 personally.

I have no comment but congrats on your new purchase. What's your heart saying go with that.

Do either of them utilize a dual prop out drive? That would be a big help in what you're looking for.

Yes both bravo 3

So with the 496 mag, this might be a dumb question but is it hard to stay on plane at lower speeds for wakeboarding? My kids like it 17 to 21-ish.

Rvgetfive wrote: Tue Mar 02, 2021 7:05 pm So with the 496 mag, this might be a dumb question but is it hard to stay on plane at lower speeds for wakeboarding? My kids like it 17 to 21-ish.

Not at all. They are both Bravo 3’s. Hull design would have more to do with that. 17-18 should be doable for both.

shrfdeputy wrote: Tue Mar 02, 2021 8:49 pm

Rvgetfive wrote: Tue Mar 02, 2021 7:05 pm So with the 496 mag, this might be a dumb question but is it hard to stay on plane at lower speeds for wakeboarding? My kids like it 17 to 21-ish.

Not at all. They are both Bravo 3’s. Hull design would have more to do with that. 17-18 should be doable for both.

.
+1

Been on a 240 with a 496 and I wouldn’t want anything less in it. It’s a friends. Tops out at 63mph, amazing torque and good ride. Something to consider on the 240 is you have no rear sun pad to layout on. Only drawback in my opinion.

Otherwise, it rides VERY well in rough water.

Personally, I would choose the 246. If you dont buy it, send me the link so I can

tsouthard91 wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 2:17 pm Been on a 240 with a 496 and I wouldn’t want anything less in it. It’s a friends. Tops out at 63mph, amazing torque and good ride. Something to consider on the 240 is you have no rear sun pad to layout on. Only drawback in my opinion.

Otherwise, it rides VERY well in rough water.

Personally, I would choose the 246. If you dont buy it, send me the link so I can

Is your friend's engine the 496 MAG HO? (425 HP) That I could see 63 MPH from

If it's just the 496 MAG (375 HP) I'd be really surprised it hit that speed.

Unless you're talking the speedometer and not GPS.

shrfdeputy wrote: Tue Mar 02, 2021 8:49 pm

Rvgetfive wrote: Tue Mar 02, 2021 7:05 pm So with the 496 mag, this might be a dumb question but is it hard to stay on plane at lower speeds for wakeboarding? My kids like it 17 to 21-ish.

Not at all. They are both Bravo 3’s. Hull design would have more to do with that. 17-18 should be doable for both.

Put tabs on it and about 12-13

Some friends of ours have a 240 with a 6.2. It will run right with our R5 with a VP380. As said in an earlier post there is no rear sun pad so it’s a big NO for our family. Everyone on the 240 eventually ends up on the back of our boat because of the lack of the rear sun pad on the 240.

xlint89 wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 7:48 pm

tsouthard91 wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 2:17 pm Been on a 240 with a 496 and I wouldn’t want anything less in it. It’s a friends. Tops out at 63mph, amazing torque and good ride. Something to consider on the 240 is you have no rear sun pad to layout on. Only drawback in my opinion.

Otherwise, it rides VERY well in rough water.

Personally, I would choose the 246. If you dont buy it, send me the link so I can

Is your friend's engine the 496 MAG HO? (425 HP) That I could see 63 MPH from

If it's just the 496 MAG (375 HP) I'd be really surprised it hit that speed.

Unless you're talking the speedometer and not GPS.

Yea, I guess it was on the speedo (so prob deduct 3ish mph).