90's wake versus late model wake

[ChipK]

I am trying to locate a used SN for a friend. I currently have the 2010 SN200, and the objective is to try and find the best wake out there without breaking the bank. For those that have skied the range, from 1990's through current, what are the best year ranges for the perfect ski wake. And if you were going to trade-off current technology offfered in the 2003-2010 for the lower price of the older boats, considering the WAKE is the priority....would you?

Curious minds want to know.....

[DanielC]

I am biased because I have one, a 1997 Ski Nautique. It was the first year of the TSC1 hull, and still has the reliable analog gauges. In 1997, and 1998, you could completely remove the back seat, and especially if you run way less than a full tank of gas, with no back seat, the wake is pretty nice.
Unless you have the ZR-6 engine in your 200, the 1997 Ski Nautique may also be faster.

[swc5150]

All SN wakes from '90 on have been little more than a trail of bubble bath, in my opinion. One could split hairs comparing the NWZ, TSC and OSC hulls, but in reality, they're all sweet. It really depends on the budget and demands of the buyer. I'd simply find the cleanest late-model I could afford, with EFI being a priority. The TSC1 would likely give your friend the best of all worlds - price, killer wake, (still) modern styling, roomy interior, EFI. People argue that it's one the best slalom hulls ever produced, and there's a valid argument to made there. Your buddy just needs to decide how much he's willing to spend and go from there. For me, the OSC hull wasn't $20k nicer than my TSC3. For a buddy of mine, my TSC3 isn't $20k nicer than his early NWZ.

[chris196]

Daniel pointed out what I was going to.
If all you want is slalom with 3 people going out for sets, then the removable back seat of the 97 & 98 is very nice.
So much room back there without the seat.
I have a 1998 and wouldn't trade it for anything except the SN200.
I think you want 1997 or later to get TSC hull.

[DanielC]

I know NWZ is No Wake Zone, and TSC is Total Surface Control.
What does OSC stand for?

[swc5150]

I know NWZ is No Wake Zone, and TSC is Total Surface Control.
What does OSC stand for?

Optimal Surface Control

[east tx skier]

Daniel pointed out what I was going to.
If all you want is slalom with 3 people going out for sets, then the removable back seat of the 97 & 98 is very nice.
So much room back there without the seat.
I have a 1998 and wouldn't trade it for anything except the SN200.
I think you want 1997 or later to get TSC hull.

Second this sentiment, except for the part about there being a possibility of my wanting to trade it for anything.


Love my 98 SN.

[KONAKING]

Ok "east tx skier" and "swc5150" both of you have come from MC PS 190's and are now in SN 196's. In your humble opinions what are your likes and dislikes about both boats. I am looking at the early 1990's PS 190's or
The 97-2001 SN 196. Fit and finish is a factor. I am a good slalom skier but not great one. 22 0ff at 32mph is as good as I get right now. Just turned 50 so there wont be much of a speed increase coming my way but would like to shorter on the line. Looking for smooth, soft and consistent runs and wakes.

[KONAKING]

Good thread by the way

[mnwild2]

Here are a few shots from our 95 196 at 32 MPH.

[KONAKING]

sorry for the hi-jack

[east tx skier]

Ok "east tx skier" and "swc5150" both of you have come from MC PS 190's and are now in SN 196's. In your humble opinions what are your likes and dislikes about both boats. I am looking at the early 1990's PS 190's or
The 97-2001 SN 196. Fit and finish is a factor. I am a good slalom skier but not great one. 22 0ff at 32mph is as good as I get right now. Just turned 50 so there wont be much of a speed increase coming my way but would like to shorter on the line. Looking for smooth, soft and consistent runs and wakes.

I came from a 93 205, but I have skied the 190s from 93-97 and 197s from 2005 to 2010. I have also skied the NWZ SN as well as the TSC1, TSC2, and TSC3. No 200 yet.

All of my wake comments are at longer line lengths.

The early 90s MC had that classic old school wake. Low and firm. There was a pretty good bump at 22 off. Spray started around 35 off. They handle like older sports cars. Fun to drive. From 95--97 (and the 98--2004 Sportstar/19 Skier), the wake got a little taller and about as firm. Spray was knocked down a line length or two. Tracking was improved at the expense of some handling. From 2002 TT/2003 Base Model, the 197 was the Flagship. Drive by wire on the MCX in 05. DBW on all engines in 06. New Rudder in 06. Supposedly a little weight shaved from the bow in 2008, and that nifty bullet strut in 2011. These boats ski fine, handling feels like a larger boat versus the early 90s feel. Tracking is good. Wake is fine, but not exceptional. The first time I skied a 197, my thoughts were, it's great, but not $20K better than my 205.

Okay, SN. By the time I bought my 98, I had skied the TSC2 and spent a good deal of time behind the TSC3. The TSC2 was what first really grabbed my attention. I'm at a ski school. We've slowed the boat down to a crawl, and there's absolutely no wake. WOW! TSC3 was pretty much the same story. So for years, I had heard that the TSC1 was nearly as good. So when I finally found a great one for sale close, I jumped. I remember thinking on the test drive that the wake wasn't really quite as good as I expected. But I figured conditions were pretty lousy during the test drive and bought it anyway. During my first run on my home lake, I wasn't that much more impressed. Then, my Acme 422 came in and I learned to keep the observer out of that comfortable far to port corner of the observer seat. From there, my mind was sufficiently blown. This boat was the real deal. I no longer hesitated in wake crossings because, it's not much more than a bunch of soft froth ... and I ski at 30 mph. My ski partner agrees. He just bought a 2010 TT 197. He loves his boat. But to quote him, "I have never skied such a small and soft wake as I have behind your boat." I still occasionally ski behind a 98 205. The first time, having grown accustomed to my 98 Ski, I laid out and let the ski fly. I hit that wake and almost lost consciousness. I survived, but I had forgotten what it was like to have to think about these things.

Handling and tracking and view from the driver's seat all go to the SN over the MCs I have driven. The driver forward position in the SN is just incredible. My wife was in awe the first time she drove it. Standard gear reduction is an absolute plus as well.

I have often said that had I wanted an open bow boat, I would have kept my old 205. It really was a great boat. But having now owned a 98 SN, I'm glad I opted for the closed bow and, particularly, this closed bow.



Here's the wake at 32.



Here's the wake at 34.



And here's 36.

[east tx skier]

For comparison's sake. Here are some shots from our old 93 205. As you can see, they actually look like they might be more flat than the 98 Ski Nautique. But even if they are, they are not as soft.



32 mph.



34 mph.



And 36 mph.

[KONAKING]

Thanks for the great reply. That has really helped me. Now I just have to go find a good deal on 97-2000 SN 196.

[swc5150]

TX summed it up great. The only thing I'd add is that the ride of an SN is infinitely more comfortable than an MC. On public water, a Prostar will make your kidneys hurt!

The SN also retained it's fun factor in the handling arena over each hull incarnation. Prostars began to handle like runabouts, starting in '95. The may not be applicable to wake performance, but I enjoy a nice joyride in my boats too. These things aren't all business all the time. I leave that for the promo guys:-)