SabrToothSqrl
Well-Known Member
Ok, I didn't think I wrote anything that unusual. I'll take it as a fluke.
Back to the original question.
I think I posted something along the lines of: a 90 HP 3 seater would be under powered, most people here regard the 787, carb, as a good combination of a reliable, easily serviceable ski.
The 787 packs 110 HP
The 951 packs 130 HP
the 787 uses a rotary valve intake, while the 951 uses reed valves.
The 787 offers more room around it to work.
Both engines have fairly good parts support, and several companies that rebuild them with warranties.
Of the choices you proposed, I'd avoid 2 and 3...
The electronics associated with these engines are expensive to diagnose and repair.
Carbs are where it's at for old school skis.
Find a 787 GTX. GREAT ski.
Back to the original question.
I think I posted something along the lines of: a 90 HP 3 seater would be under powered, most people here regard the 787, carb, as a good combination of a reliable, easily serviceable ski.
The 787 packs 110 HP
The 951 packs 130 HP
the 787 uses a rotary valve intake, while the 951 uses reed valves.
The 787 offers more room around it to work.
Both engines have fairly good parts support, and several companies that rebuild them with warranties.
Of the choices you proposed, I'd avoid 2 and 3...
The electronics associated with these engines are expensive to diagnose and repair.
Carbs are where it's at for old school skis.
Find a 787 GTX. GREAT ski.
Last edited by a moderator: