R23 OB F200 ECU Flash Upgrade Results

[Craigmconrad]

Third year on a 2020 R23, reading all the post about upgrading to the 250 or even the 300. Priced them both with a trade and figured it wasn't the right time yet to do. I explored NIZPRO, who advertises ECU Flashing for the F200, claims and increase of 34 HP, 12% increase in torque and 15% increase in fuel efficiency. So for $824.00, I shipped overnight to Rogue Custom Marine, who returned the ECU the following day. The owner, Sean, did a fantastic job of setting the expectations, stating it would not turn the 200 into a 250. Today, I spent 5 hrs running the boat and observed the following improvements; Increase of Max RPM of 200 (now 5825). RPM 4800, cruise 24 kts, 2.6 NMPG, an increase of 0.5. The biggest takeaway was the increase in the NMPG, before i would normally get 2.1 maybe 2.2 at cruise, now it's a solid 2.6.

Boat conditions ; Bottom Paint (slime buildup, no barnacles), Autoglide w/ drop fins, 60 gallons fuel, 14 gallons of water, and waste tank 1/2 full. Just me, but I weigh 270 lbs, average gear on board to include a 60 lb portable generator.

- Craig

 

[Brian98133]

I've been jonesing to do this, but was hoping to get some real-world results before biting the bullet. So thank you for sharing your experience!

I see you are getting about .5 nmpg better after the upgrade. Not as much as I'd hoped, but not shabby either. With the 17% increase in HP and 12% in torque, is your hole-shot noticeably better? I'm just over you, at 299.72 lbs :mrgreen: , and I certainly notice that the F200 seems bogged down when punching up out of the hole.

 

[Craigmconrad]

I've been jonesing to do this, but was hoping to get some real-world results before biting the bullet. So thank you for sharing your experience!

I see you are getting about .5 nmpg better after the upgrade. Not as much as I'd hoped, but not shabby either. With the 17% increase in HP and 12% in torque, is your hole-shot noticeably better? I'm just over you, at 299.72 lbs :mrgreen: , and I certainly notice that the F200 seems bogged down when punching up out of the hole.

Honestly, I haven't had a problem with the hole shot since adding the autoglide and drop fins. I'm not real aggressive, i just pop it up to 5000 rpm and pull it back to maintain 4700-4900 depending on sea state.

 

[CruisingElvinRay]

I wonder what in the fuel/air ratio curve is being changed to enable that performance. Slightly leaning the mixture in the higher rpm range?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[az9133bm]

The sea trial of our 2017 R23 F200 ECU flash revealed similar results as Craig's. We appreciate the improved gas mileage the most. The before and after pictures were taken in almost the same boat conditions (slightly more fuel onboard in the "after").

 

[Rocky Lou]

I'm not sure I get the math on fuel savings for my twin 300s. For the past 5 years, I purchased about 700 gallons per year @$5/g or $3500. If I save 15%, I'm saving $525/year. Even if I get a Channel Surfing discount, it sounds like several years to break even. While I travel far offshore at times, most boating is done at trolling speed where my consumption is relatively low. I didn't consider engine hours since I could be idling or at WOT. Do I have that right?

 

[az9133bm]

Our primary reason for the ECU upgrade was to improve range. As you can see, our results add a substantial margin (25%). Our secondary reason for the ECU upgrade was to get as much punch out of a four cylinder 200 HP engine on a 7,000# boat. Likely, twin V6 300's will never struggle, but our little F200 seems less burdened now. Notwithstanding the role prop pitch plays in a boat's performance, our 14.5x13 standard Yamaha prop creates a "happy" cruise at 5,000 rpm where before we needed 5,200. This is subjective, of course, but you can hear/feel when the right RPM meets the right boat speed. In our case, the engine is quieter and the boat seems settled at 5,000 RPM. Notice that at 5,000 RPM we burn less than 10 gph.

 

[Rocky Lou]

Our primary reason for the ECU upgrade was to improve range. As you can see, our results add a substantial margin (25%). Our secondary reason for the ECU upgrade was to get as much punch out of a four cylinder 200 HP engine on a 7,000# boat. Likely, twin V6 300's will never struggle, but the our little F200 seems less burdened now. Notwithstanding the role prop pitch plays in a boat's performance, our 14.5x13 standard Yamaha prop creates a "happy" cruise at 5,000 rpm where before we needed 5,200. This is subjective, of course, but you can hear/feel when the right RPM meets the right boat speed. In our case, the engine is quieter and the boat seems settled at 5,000 RPM. Notice that at 5,000 RPM we burn less than 10 gph.
View attachment 26907

Makes sense. I solved my performance problems, after working on them for years, with PowerTech OFS5 16s with extensions. Not only do I get 30% better fuel economy at cruise, I can plane at 3K RPM vs. almost 4K RPMs with SS2s. Clearly, each of our boats are very different as are our objectives. The C302c LE has a generator along with 300g of fuel mostly aft, in addition to an engine pod with two 300hp outboards...needless to say, it's extremely stern heavy. My only interest at this point is better fuel economy and, if I'm doing the math right, I won't pay off the Nizpros for 4-5 years...I might be repowering by then.

 

[Mgmiller3]

Well, I think I am going to jump on this trend as well- 2017 R23 owner with an F200 under 200 hours. Off to Alaska in May and a planned 700+ miles on the boat, if the .5mpg gains at cruising speeds hold true, I will save $351 on fuel at an average 2.5mpg opposed to 2mpg. Just messaged Rogue Customs on how to move forward

 

[Mike and Sarah]

Just remember you will need to run at least 89 octane fuel with these tunes.
The only one that can continue to run 87 octane is the 300 eco tune.
Only a couple places to get 89 in puget sound and trips to Canada and Alaska you never know what you will get.

 

[Mgmiller3]

Just remember you will need to run at least 89 octane fuel with these tunes.
The only one that can continue to run 87 octane is the 300 eco tune.
Only a couple places to get 89 in puget sound and trips to Canada and Alaska you never know what you will get.

I always run at least 89 as that was the recommened fuel for in manual. Typically just a day use boater accept for a few trips annually. May need to look for some outboard safe octane booster to have on board in the event I am limited on options somewhere. Thanks for the message. Currently refueling in Ketchikan, Wrangell and Petersburg. So I will research the fuel points

 

[Submariner]

I always run at least 89 as that was the recommened fuel for in manual. Typically just a day use boater accept for a few trips annually. May need to look for some outboard safe octane booster to have on board in the event I am limited on options somewhere. Thanks for the message. Currently refueling in Ketchikan, Wrangell and Petersburg. So I will research the fuel points

I worked behind the scenes with Rogue Custom Marine trying Boostane, specifically. NizPro did some pretty intensive testing of boostane and found it to be more harmful for the engine than helpful and recommended against it's use. NizPro decided to then come out with their Eco Tune, specific to 87 octane, for folks like me who can't get anything better than 87 octane in Puget Sound/San Juan Islands.

I found the fuel docks in SE Alaska to have 89 octane that I visited.

 

[Submariner]

Makes sense. I solved my performance problems, after working on them for years, with PowerTech OFS5 16s with extensions. Not only do I get 30% better fuel economy at cruise, I can plane at 3K RPM vs. almost 4K RPMs with SS2s. Clearly, each of our boats are very different as are our objectives. The C302c LE has a generator along with 300g of fuel mostly aft, in addition to an engine pod with two 300hp outboards...needless to say, it's extremely stern heavy. My only interest at this point is better fuel economy and, if I'm doing the math right, I won't pay off the Nizpros for 4-5 years...I might be repowering by then.

I'm seeing 10-12% improvement on my F300 with the NizPro Eco tune (specific to 87 octane). This is above what the PowerTech SCE5-15 Channel Surfing prop gave me. That took me from 1.9mpg to 2.1mpg under the most perfect of conditions. The prop improved my mid range, hole shot, and reverse thrust, while maintaining my upper end speeds. I only lost 1mph off WOT going from the 3 blade to the 5 blade PowerTech prop. The NizPro tune is a fuel efficiency improvement mostly for the upper end cruising (3800 RPM and above).

My WOT used to be 39mph at 27.2gph. With the Eco Tune, I'm at 39mph at 24.2gph. My WOT is now at 1.6mpg. Unbelievable.

 

[Mgmiller3]

I worked behind the scenes with Rogue Custom Marine trying Boostane, specifically. NizPro did some pretty intense testing of boostane and found it to be more harmful for the engine than helpful and recommended against it's use. NizPro decided to then come out with their Eco Tune, specific to 87 octane, for folks like me who can't get anything better than 87 octane in Puget Sound/San Juan Islands.

I found the fuel docks in SE Alaska to have 89 octane that I visited.

I called Ketchikan Petro Marine today and they provide fuel to Wrangell and Petersburg marine fuel stations. They have 90 available at all three so I should be safe. Appreciate the feedback on the octane booster. Looking forward to making some runs with the boat Lake Erie with the tune before I head up towards Alaska.

 

[gregc]

I find firmware flashing.... intriguing. (I'm an old game dev who used to jailbreak consoles)

But can anyone confirm/deny if doing something like this would void a Yamaha factory warranty? Once you start layering on aftermarket mods (props, firmware, etc) I get worried that the swiss cheese starts to line up................

 

[Submariner]

I find firmware flashing.... intriguing. (I'm an old game dev who used to jailbreak consoles)

But can anyone confirm/deny if doing something like this would void a Yamaha factory warranty? Once you start layering on aftermarket mods (props, firmware, etc) I get worried that the swiss cheese starts to line up................

Yamaha's official statement is, if you modify the engine to increase HP, and it breaks something as a result, that won't be covered under warranty.
The NizPro Eco tune boosts an F300 to 315Hp and only requires 87 octane fuel. The NizPro performance tune will boost an F300 to 332HP but will require the use of 89 octane. NizPro warns if you do the performance tune and run it with 87 octane, engine damage may occur. Puget Sound/San Juan's are all 87 octane at the fuel dock.

I flashed my F300 to the NizPro eco tune, specific to 87 octane gas. I've hit 2.1mpg, and sustained it during perfect conditions. (no wind, flat water, slack tide) coming down Saratoga Passage in January. (it literally was, Lake Saratoga that day).

I'm not worried about 15Hp extra breaking anything. My warranty expires next month anyway.
I am seeing fuel efficiency improvements around 10% at cruising speeds, and upwards of 15% improvement closer to WOT speeds.
I've only ran a couple tanks of fuel through it, so still early in testing. But I know of 2 other R27's who've flashed their ECU, they are running the PowerTech SCE5 Channel Surfing edition prop's, and they're seeing similar performance gains as I am seeing.

2.1mpg at 31 mph. 2021 R27-OB, F300. (Channel Surfing)

 

[Rocky Lou]

I've been on the fence since first talking to Nizporo a few years ago, however, with the massive surge in gas prices, have been rethinking. My usage is roughly 700 gallon/year and if I pay $6/g, and presume I'll get 15% improvement, I save $630/year. The Nizpro cost for two engines is roughly $2K and, therefore, I'd need 3 years just to recover. I'm not certain what my plan is 3 years out...different boat, engines, etc.? I currently use Boostane to get 89 Octane, however, the cost is similar to other additives that I"ve used. and it's no issue adding during fueling. I wonder if I'm missing something in my calculations.

 

[Submariner]

I've been on the fence since first talking to Nizporo a few years ago, however, with the massive surge in gas prices, have been rethinking. My usage is roughly 700 gallon/year and if I pay $6/g, and presume I'll get 15% improvement, I save $630/year. The Nizpro cost for two engines is roughly $2K and, therefore, I'd need 3 years just to recover. I'm not certain what my plan is 3 years out...different boat, engines, etc.? I currently use Boostane to get 89 Octane, however, the cost is similar to other additives that I"ve used. and it's no issue adding during fueling. I wonder if I'm missing something in my calculations.

Rogue Customs Marine flashed my Yamaha F300 ECU with the NizPro Eco Tune at no charge to me. I have received no other compensation. Rogue Customs Marine and NizPro are not paid sponsors and there is no ongoing financial relationship. I only write about gear I actually run on my own boat, and the assessment here is my own.

I'd say expect closer to 8-10% fuel savings in the normal cruising range of operating the boat.

On the stock Yamaha tune, I played with running Boostane to see if it made any difference. I saw no difference with or without boostane.
I also ran the boat from Everett to Glacier Bay, Alaska, 2,600 miles in 55 days. Puget Sound/San Juan Islands are all 87 octane. Canada and SE Alaska was 89 octane everywhere. Again, I saw no difference operating 89 octane vs running the 87 octane.

Nizpro did testing with boostane to see if it would work for their performance tune. Their results came back and NizPro said "stop running Boostane!". It potentially will cause more damage to the engine over time and wasn't worth it. I only ran it for a couple tanks of gas.

This was, in part, why NizPro has since came out with their Eco tune. 315HP out of an F300, and only requires 87 octane fuel. This is what I did on my boat.

I ran my boat for 1000 engine hours with mostly 87 octane and no Boostane, without ill effect to the engine. I've got a little over 100 hours on the NizPro Eco tune and am happy with it.

Yamaha stock tune: 38mph at 27.2gph.
NizPro Eco Tune: 38mph at 24.2gph.

I can't get more than 24.2gph with the NizPro tune; speed and RPMs remained the same. The difference is fuel efficiency improvements.
Yamaha stock tune runs these engines rich. If you had a white cowling you'd probably see black streaks over time from the exhaust. NizPro Eco Tune that engine and the black marks will no longer appear. Spark plugs also come out cleaner with the Eco NizPro tune.

The best I could do with the Yamaha stock tune was 1.92 mpg on the PT 5 blade prop. Normal cruising was usually around 1.75mpg.
After the Nizpro eco tune, I've hit 2.1mpg under the best conditions. My normal cruising often is at 1.9mpg or better.

I am of the opinion that the NizPro eco tune is actually better for the engine than the stock Yamaha tune, especially since all that is available to me, most of the time, is 87 octane. Running 89 octane won't hurt it, though there is no benefit to putting in 89 octane.

Don't just consider the cost savings at the fuel dock. Also consider the increased range afforded the boat once tuned. This is primarily what I was after (longer range between fuel docks for SE Alaska, Season 2, starting in May 2027).

 

[Rocky Lou]

Nizpro did testing with boostane to see if it would work for their performance tune. Their results came back and NizPro said "stop running Boostane!". It potentially will cause more damage to the engine over time and wasn't worth it. I only ran it for a couple tanks of gas.

This is a bit disturbing and I can't find any similar reference from Yamaha. Did Nizpro publish information regarding damage to engines caused by Boostane?

I've also never noticed any performance difference whether running Boostance or 89 Octane gas compared to 87. From what I read in past, you'd need to have two engines side by side running WOT to see noticeable difference. I switched from other additives to provide ethanol & water protection to prevent phase separation and neutralize corrosive elements associated with ethanol-blended marine fuels.

 

[Submariner]

This is a bit disturbing and I can't find any similar reference from Yamaha. Did Nizpro publish information regarding damage to engines caused by Boostane?

I've also never noticed any performance difference whether running Boostance or 89 Octane gas compared to 87. From what I read in past, you'd need to have two engines side by side running WOT to see noticeable difference. I switched from other additives to provide ethanol & water protection to prevent phase separation and neutralize corrosive elements associated with ethanol-blended marine fuels.

@Rocky Lou
Here's additional detail about boostane, unedited.

This was the result of my discussions with Sean. He and I had been talking since 2024, whenI started prop testing. Sean reached out to me. I was onboard with flashing my Yamaha ECU for better fuel efficiency, except for that 89 octane requirement and the 87 octane availability throughout Puget Sound and San Juan Islands.

Like I said, I tried boostane for a couple tanks of gas, then quickly stopped using it over my discussions with Sean and NizPro's detailed testing of using boostane.

Hence, why NizPro set out and created the Eco tune designed for 87 octane fuel.
-----------------
From: Sean Clancy (Roque Customs Marine)
Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 at 5:09 PM
To: Channel Surfing
Subject: Fwd: Octane booster

Bad news…
Here is a very quick wrap up of what we found using the Boostane professional octane booster. I will send you a full report that I’m putting together for future reference at some point, showing the detonation intensity and frequency between using pump 91 octane vs Boostane at their mixing ratio to achieve 91 from base of 87.

Attached is a picture of 2 spark plugs, both were brand new and installed into a YAMAHA test engine. F150
The test was repeated using one of the two spark plugs separately over two test.

Test one: Plug on right side: New plugs installed running 91 octane premium unleaded fuel, over a 27 minute period at 4000 rpm at 80 hp, total fuel burn was 10 litres exactly. 2.63 Gallons

Test two: plug on left side: : New plugs installed running 87 octane unleaded fuel, Plus BOOSTANE octane booster mixed to achieve 91 octane using their mixture ratio app over a 27 minute period at 4000 rpm at 80 hp, total fuel burn was 10 litres exactly. 2.63 Gallons

Plugs in photo are as they were removed after 27 minutes.

A second test ran the same set of plugs with booster, after 6 hours (130 litres of fuel) (so a total of 140 litres of fuel 6 hours 27 minutes) the engine developed a misfire caused by the plugs and octane booster. All boosters contain very similar ingredients and behave in the same manner, judging from my 30 years of auto experience.

Our mixing ratio for the test was super accurate, a lot better than you could ever hope for at the boat ramp. At the ratio suggested the octane did not raise the knock limit of the 87 to the same level of genuine 91 octane, although considerably higher than the base 87, So more need to be added, which of course would cause faster plug failure.

My strong advice would be never to use octane booster. For one achieving a correct blend is difficult. Two; fouled plugs that cause misfires can cause catastrophic engine failure. It is way easier to limp the engine home at part throttle on substandard fuel and then empty tank and refill with high octane when available. Customers need to be mindful that running low octane fuel can cause engine failure on engines that have been tuned for higher octane levels.