Hole shot 200 vs 196

[River Monsters]

As long as we are completely off the drag race question, isn't the 200 better for wakeboarding and surfing (ala sport 200)? I like the simplicity of the direct drive, but we don't strictly ski and we don't barefoot. 200 dd with a tower sounds about right to me for an all around boat.

How does the wake compare with some ballast in a 196 to the 200 (or my NWZ hull)?

[TRBenj]

Dave, I realize that lighter does not equal better... my 12' aluminum boat throws next to no wake, but its not my slalom tug of choice. My point is that weight is the enemy, not a benefit. Again, the 200 is the best slalom boat out there because its the latest and greatest from CC, who obviously knows what theyre doing when it comes to water management. Its good *despite* the weight, not because of it. If the market demands that they produce a lighter/smaller "hardcore" boat to compete with the Carbon Pro, do you think CC would be able to improve the wake while making the boat smaller and lighter? Obviously they would! FYI, my neighbor's 200 Sport does not slalom as well as the 196, FYI. Still very good though- especially for a v-drive!

When we sit on the side of the motorbox, we are obviously on the floor. We do so in order not to interfere with the rope. (We do this when we have a group of footers in the boat.) It is most definitely TIGHT between the motorbox and the gunnel lockers. The tightness between the motorbox and the driver/observer's seat is because CC moved the cockpit rearward to accommodate the open bow. Just like they did on the '92-02 SNOB. Just this time, the CB suffers just the same. The motorbox is not to blame- it is still quite a bit smaller than the one in my '90 (Dad's '09 has cats too, btw). In an attempt to make the CB observer seat as wide as possible, they extended it so close to the driver's seat that you cant get a leg in between them... thats just a "goof" on their part, IMHO. Same goes for the stylish raked windshield... not only does it make it difficult (or impossible) to reach a ski in the water from the driver's seat, it also would interfere with a straight boom. A contour boom would be required, and will move the skier/footer aft, and further into the boat's spray. Those are the types of things about the "packaging" that bother me.

[ClemsonDave]

Edit: never mind. We're obviously going to have to agree to disagree. I just wish you would spend more time in the 200 before making all these judgments. I know several people (including me) that had the same opinions until they spent some time with the boat. They are all converts now. Ask swc5150.

[swc5150]

I was guilty of almost not wanting to like it when it came out. Even after taking test ride in one, I wasn't sold. THEN, we picked up my bro's last October and I spent an entire 80 degree weekend in one. SOLD!! It takes a couple of days before one even notices all the extra cool features it has, above and beyond the wake/tracking. Like when we flipped on the lights for our first night ride, and "Ski Nautique" glowed from the saddle bags - baddass! There are too many little things like that to bore you with.

[AirTool]

You guys keep talking about the "perfect ski boat"...

but in the words of Steve Goodman and David Allan Coe, you haven't said anything at all about:

Mama,
Or trains,
Or trucks,
Or prison,
Or gettin' drunk.

[TRBenj]

SWSC sold his 196 and bought... a Mastercraft. Im not sure thats the sort of "convert" that makes the strongest case for the 200.

Like I said, I understand that the 200 is an awesome boat, and that its a very strong seller. Its an impressive boat, but just doesnt fit our needs. Some of the things that I value most in a ski boat (that the 196 got right) got un-done in the redesign. Very disappointing. Agree to disagree!

[swc5150]

I only bought the MC, after selling my last 196, as a beater slalom tractor and placeholder til I buy my own 200. I still have unlimited use of the my bro's 200 for the time being though

[qstufflebeam]

Wow, quite a discussion. BTW, I love the 200. I was just pointing out the difference when placing the two boats side by side. It wasn't meant to be a slam on the 200, just an observation. The two boats are different. I think each has their strengths and weaknesses. For me the strength of the 200 clearly out weighed the weaknesses.
@ClemonsDave-thanks for the education on the actual weight differences of the two boats and the hull design background.

[swc5150]

Using 200 & 196 in the same thread name will always stir the pot

[ffmedic74]

I also hear that the 200 is much slower as well. Less torque on the new motors or significant increase drag on the new 200 is all I can figure. Makes no sense to me at all!

[actman]

I have owned a few 196's and now two 200's . I have never had any thought of going back to the 196. It's funny but for some strange reason I run the 200 wot and crave the extra 2 or so mph the 196 gave me! Now I know you southern boys won't understand that up in Canada we run snowmobiles and that extra 2mph on a snowmobile can be enough to beat your buddies sled and give you bragging rights!
Now in my ski boat it really should not matter since I really only need 34mph and 36mph in my course or a very slow speed to cruise.

I like how Dave was stressing on hull design and wake management opposed to thinking weight reduction is a better approach. The factory tour is awesome and you will come out of it with a very educated experience in boat design and building. You will also see the pride these workers have in them building our toys!
They will never build a perfect ski boat and I don't want them too. It would not be any fun if there was no craving for a new one everytime they bring out a new model!!!
I

[creckard]

With all of this talk about top speed and hole shot, how short of a private ski lake can you comfortably use a 200? Is there a difference in the answer if you have the 343 or the 409?

[cotton]

With all of this talk about top speed and hole shot, how short of a private ski lake can you comfortably use a 200? Is there a difference in the answer if you have the 343 or the 409?

We mostly ski on an 8-buoy course that's about 1600 feet long if I remember correctly. It's so tight on the south end it requires a 180-degree turn into a cove. We have a Bu, MC and a 200 (w/343 motor and 422 prop) and all work well. The 200 tops out at 34.2 quicker and tracks better than the other 2 so you can without doubt “comfortably use a 200” on short lakes.

[swc5150]

I also hear that the 200 is much slower as well. Less torque on the new motors or significant increase drag on the new 200 is all I can figure. Makes no sense to me at all!

More wetted surface area is causing more drag. I encourage you to take a few sets behind one, then it'll it all make perfect sense

[TRBenj]

With all of this talk about top speed and hole shot, how short of a private ski lake can you comfortably use a 200? Is there a difference in the answer if you have the 343 or the 409?

I would not expect to see any difference in holeshot between the 343 and 409. Dad had a 330 Excal in his '03 196 and has a 409 in his '09... I would not say the new boat is any better out of the hole. The 6.0L has a huge advantage north of about 3k RPM though... it pulls hard all the way to 5600rpm.

SWC is right- the 200 is slow because of the wetted surface. The engines carried over from the 196.