Ballast bags on Sv240

[Jlagos 23]

So I've searched the threads and I am considering 2 options to add ballast weight. The easiest is the enzo bags (1480 lbs) on both sides but  I am also considering placing separate bags in the rear lockers and bags beneath the mid-ship seating which would allow individual control of the zones. The addition of ballast pumps and engine divider panel support are a given (along with likely taking out the "sprinkler system" used to control water flow). 

Question: has anyone fit the large 1280 lbs large rear bag from wakemakers into the rear locker? It measures 50L x 25W x 25H. I have seen numerous people add the 1180 lbs bag that are 5 inches shorter in length (45L x 25W x 25H) quite commonly. But if the 1280 lbs bag fits, why not. I am about 90 minutes from my boat and can't get there for about 2 weeks to measure. If anyone knows the dimensions, of those rear lockers it would be of great help. 

[WakeDoc 471]

Will try to remember to measure it this weekend.

[DrNate 426]

4 hours ago, Jlagos said:

So I've searched the threads and I am considering 2 options to add ballast weight. The easiest is the enzo bags (1480 lbs) on both sides but  I am also considering placing separate bags in the rear lockers and bags beneath the mid-ship seating which would allow individual control of the zones. The addition of ballast pumps and engine divider panel support are a given (along with likely taking out the "sprinkler system" used to control water flow). 

Question: has anyone fit the large 1280 lbs large rear bag from wakemakers into the rear locker? It measures 50L x 25W x 25H. I have seen numerous people add the 1180 lbs bag that are 5 inches shorter in length (45L x 25W x 25H) quite commonly. But if the 1280 lbs bag fits, why not. I am about 90 minutes from my boat and can't get there for about 2 weeks to measure. If anyone knows the dimensions, of those rear lockers it would be of great help. 

What year is your 240?  If 2011 or newer then you will have to do separate bags due to the bulkhead they started adding in 2011 to add the Quick Fill tanks.  In this case the 1100's fit perfectly in the rear lockers.  680's for the Mids.

If you have 2010 or older then Enzo sacs fit perfectly.  

Either way definitely ditch the sprinkler valves, they are horrible.  Best to run a two-way ballast puppy to each bag.  

[Jlagos 23]

Good to know. 2010 model year manufactured in 2009. I'll have to relook but I thought I saw people mentioning that the enzo's left some unused space in the rear lockers. I didn't pay attention to the model years which could account for differences in the size of the lockers. 

[DrNate 426]

5 minutes ago, Jlagos said:

Good to know. 2010 model year manufactured in 2009. I'll have to relook but I thought I saw people mentioning that the enzo's left some unused space in the rear lockers. I didn't pay attention to the model years which could account for differences in the size of the lockers. 

Yep, Enzo sacs are the way to go then.  That's exactly what they were made for.  It won't fill completely on the Starboard side but it will fill the compartment completely.

 

[Shaka 146]

21 minutes ago, DrNate said:

Yep, Enzo sacs are the way to go then.  That's exactly what they were made for.  It won't fill completely on the Starboard side but it will fill the compartment completely.

 

I do not necessarily agree with this. I've found I prefer having two sacks per side because it allows me more control for wakeboarders and I don't have a ton of water sloshing all the way to the back if I only want partial weight.

[DrNate 426]

21 minutes ago, Shaka said:

I do not necessarily agree with this. I've found I prefer having two sacks per side because it allows me more control for wakeboarders and I don't have a ton of water sloshing all the way to the back if I only want partial weight.

I apologize, I should have been more specific.  For surfing, Enzo sacs are the way to go.  We don't wakeboard so I cannot speak to that.  I just always assume everyone surfs and nothing else 

[Jlagos 23]

15 hours ago, Shaka said:

I do not necessarily agree with this. I've found I prefer having two sacks per side because it allows me more control for wakeboarders and I don't have a ton of water sloshing all the way to the back if I only want partial weight.

Good insight. I do have a son who prefers to wakeboard more than other. Control of ballast weight will help. 

[Shaka 146]

20 hours ago, DrNate said:

I apologize, I should have been more specific.  For surfing, Enzo sacs are the way to go.  We don't wakeboard so I cannot speak to that.  I just always assume everyone surfs and nothing else 

Don't apologize it's just a personal opinion. I also don't think Enzo sacs are an advantage for surfing. I get almost as much weight between my two bags per side. I think the flexibility of two bags per side is also applicable to surfing.

[TimF16 1]

I have a 2009 SV 240 with the 409 and have found the Enzo sacks work really great.  Fully agree to get rid of the sprinkler valves and manifold.  I wake board and surf.  To be honest...most of the really good boarders who ride behind my boat can't believe how nice the wake is without any ballast in at all.  I put a little ballast in one side or the other to even out the wakes and that's it.  

[Jlagos 23]

3 hours ago, TimF16 said:

I have a 2009 SV 240 with the 409 and have found the Enzo sacks work really great.  Fully agree to get rid of the sprinkler valves and manifold.  I wake board and surf.  To be honest...most of the really good boarders who ride behind my boat can't believe how nice the wake is without any ballast in at all.  I put a little ballast in one side or the other to even out the wakes and that's it.  

Sounds like we have the same 240. Still undecided on the setup I'll put in but all info helps. Now I probably need to stop overthinking it.