1995 Sport vs. 2000 Sport slalom wake

[laddski]

I owned a 93 Sport for 13 years and had to sell last year due to financial issues. We are now looking to replace it and have two boats I am considering at the moment here in SoCal. The first is a 95 Sport which is pretty much exactly like my 93 other than it has the GT40 engine and mine had the ProBoss which we loved and had zero problems with.

The second boat we are considering is a 2000 Sport with the 5.0 base motor at 275hp. Gauges have been replaced with Faria gauges and I am hoping that since it is the Chevy block, they can determine actual hours. We find out today.

Two questions:

1- Is there going to be a noticable difference in slalom wake between the two boats? I am assuming the 2000 "improved" at some level, but how much. I don't ski the course at all but do regularly ski 34-36mph with 28-35 off. I would call myself an aggressive recreational skier at best.

2- Am I going to hate the 5.0 in comparison to my 285hp ProBoss motor? I know the GT40 is better and would obviously prefer that but boats are few and far between out here right now.

I am going with the Sport or an Air because we both board and ski.

Thanks for any help. We are headed to Powell later this week and am hoping to lock down by then. If not I am going to be skiing for 10 days behind a 211 and am not thrilled about that since we have never been able to get rid of the hump even at 36mph and 35 off.

And yes, I have searched and read numerous threads that sort of cover this topic but didn't see anyone that had done both and given a good description of the difference.

[Chexi]

Others will chime in and give you a mor definitive set of answers than I can, but I think that the 2000 Sport will have a little better slalom wake and the 95 will have a little better wakeboard wake. The 95 Sport is the same hull as the SAN (just in a direct drive). Beginning in 98 (when they eliminated the slant back and added the rear locker to the Sports), the hull changed a little bit, and I think the result was actually opposite of what CC intended, that being that the wakeboard wake of the Sport was degraded a touch and the slalom wake was improved a touch. The changes are very minor. As such, it sounds like Hull-wise, the 2000 would be better for your needs (although the motor is a step down from the GT-40). The 2000 also has the rear locker, which really is helpful. There is a decent amount of storage back there, especially with no ballast tanks.

[mdvalant]

We have a 2000 sport nautique and LOVE it for what we do. Can't believe how flat the wake is for a slalom skier and love the wake when we have a couple people in the boat and even a fat sac in the trunk. The trunk is probably my favorite feather on the thing though. You won't notice a different in the motor, not the way you will be skiing. Especially since you were used to your 95 with the proboss.

[NCH2oSki]

The 2000 sport is on the tsc 1 hull, same as the ski nautique of that era. It has just been streatched 1.5'. Its a pretty good slalom wake for an open bow boat, just be mindfull of how much fuel, and what you have stored in the trunk. I'd choose it in a second over the 95' if my budget allowed.

[xlair]

The '98-02 does NOT run on the TSC1 hull. That is a common misconception. Even though CC for some odd reason put the TSC1 stickers on the boats, they do not have that hull. In fact, the hull was largely unchanged from 93 to 02. In 98 there were some modifications to improve low speed handling. Ask Jody Seal. He helped design the boats.

[laddski]

Thanks for the responses and they seem to confirm what I had previously read. My only real hesitation is the motor in the 2000. I have also learned that it might actually be a 2002 instead of a 2000 which is even better. Supposed to see it later today. A better slalom wake will definitely put a grin on my face and I will just have to figure out more ballast to apease my kids.

[NCH2oSki]

I just looked in detail at my 99' brochure and it has a picture of the tsc1 hull, and unless I'm missing something very small, that is what the bottom of my boat looks like, down to the last detail. I'm sure its a little wider and longer, but its the same.

The '98-02 does NOT run on the TSC1 hull. That is a common misconception. Even though CC for some odd reason put the TSC1 stickers on the boats, they do not have that hull. In fact, the hull was largely unchanged from 93 to 02. In 98 there were some modifications to improve low speed handling. Ask Jody Seal. He helped design the boats.

[TRBenj]

I just looked in detail at my 99' brochure and it has a picture of the tsc1 hull, and unless I'm missing something very small, that is what the bottom of my boat looks like, down to the last detail. I'm sure its a little wider and longer, but its the same.

Ive seen Jody say that the Sport never got the TSC upgrades- only a minor hull change in '98 to aid handling (as well as a deck change). If anyone would know, its him.

Take a look at the '97 brochure- it shows the TSC hull in much greater detail. The differences may not be obvious, but they are significant. Notice the "canoe" shape (ie, tapered transom), modified shape on the spray relief pockets, and keel pocket (aft of the rudder). I suspect your Sport has none of these features.

http://correctcraftfan.com/reference...ex.asp?page=13

[mdvalant]

I agree with Tim, our 2000 sport with the TSC badge on the windshield does NOT have all that funky stuff under the boat that the same year ski nautique has. Never really thought about it til now, feel like we got ripped! jk, we never slalom ski

[jchamlin]

I have a 2000 Air Nautique (Sport with tower, etc) and slalom behind it regularly and think it's a great wake. It's a little side to side sensitive but once you have it balanced, it's great. Also, I skied 34 @ 22 OFF recently and was really surprised. I was expecting to get airborne by everyone always talking about the hump at 22 OFF but it was smaller (at least to me) than 15 OFF. Maybe I was too busy holding on to notice?!?!

I'll list three complaints and I can't really compare it to the 95 because I haven't skied behind one.
1) When slowing down to a stop (to pick up a skier or whatever), you need to keep the boat in gear because it will lose most of the steering. Keeping the boat in gear keeps the water moving past the rudder and thus the ability to steer. I'm only saying this because I also have skied behind boats that do not have this problem.
2) The steering is a little loose in the course, but it may only be my boat. I don't know anyone else with a 2000.
3) 2000 had the Teleflex gauges which are known to go out...but the one you're looking at has already had this replaced.

Really the steering thing is very minor overall, and I love the boat.

[Lewy2001]

Here is a thread from CCfan where the differences between the 93-97 and the 98-02 hull were discussed with input from Jody.

http://www.correctcraftfan.com/forum...title=98-sport

[xlair]

yep that's the thread! This really should be a sticky for people looking at used Sport Nautiques.

Probably one of the obvious things to look at is how good the Sport/Air wakeboard wake is in 1998 comparted to the TSC 98 SN. Night and day. If the sport used a modified TSC hull I would bet the 'boarding wake would suck too.

[NCH2oSki]

Well you rained on my parade, ( I'm still saying its tsc 1, since CC put the decal on it.) I will say that since I have NO BALLAST my wakeboard wake sucks, just ask the adaptive guy that I pulled, he sliced right through it, and complained that the wake was small and to soft, and wanted to know if there was a wakeboard boat to pull him on his next run.

[Chexi]

With some ballast, that 99 Sport can throw a pretty decent wake.

[laddski]

Thanks for all the input once again and the links to the other threads. We pulled the trigger on a 93 Sport that is amost identical to the one we owned for 13 years. It was just so familiar, I had to buy it. Needs a little attention but we got a screamin' deal on it and it runs great. Storage in the back would have been nice in a way but we never felt like we didn't have enough previously with our 93 Sport so we will be fine. We are not the "spend the day on the lake" kind of people anyway. We go early, do our business, and leave when the rest of the world is just getting out of bed.

Biggest downside of this boat is the 240hp motor. After I get back from lake powell in 10 days I will be jumping on the board to dump some money into the motor to get some more power. Motor only has 267 hours which is probably too low for the year to be healthy but with the price I got, I don't mind throwing 2-3k into it.