Air 216 wake

[Tony-M.]

I plan on testing a new 216 this year. How good is the wakeboard wake on this boat? I would go to a v-drive but I still like to barefoot and I love the handling of a direct drive. I drove my buddy's X-9 last year and it seemed a little sluggish from 30-40 mph with the 330 hp engine without the powerslot. Any comments on the wakeboarding and skiing behind the 216? Tony

[MarkP]

See Sales Domination page 2!!

[skinautique]

Tony,
I have never footed behind the 216 but it does throw a respectable wake for boarding. It is not as steep as a 210 but if you want the crossover performance, the 216 is the way to go. The Nautique features a 1:23:1 transmission which provides more torque than most other boats. MC's are gaining a reputation for being sluggish and I think more people are starting to pick up on this. The 330 HP in the Nautique should give you no problems as far as power and durability are concerned. But as you said, the best way to make the decision is to get behind the wheel!! Let us know how it goes when you get out there!!

[Tony-M.]

MarkP....Thanks for the link. For some reason, I never looked past the 1st page on that thread. My wife doesn't like the bow of the 216, she thinks that is is too small. My main concerns are with storage. Last year I checked the rear compartment on a 206 with a 68" ski which would not fit. Of course they didn't have a 216 to check. Now, if my ski will fit in a 216 (rear compartment) there might be a non-issue. I am just not going buy a boat and have to pile my equipment along the motor box like I am doing now with my 95 ski. I love my boat and would love to buy another Nautique. I am going to test drive the mastercraft and maybe a LXI.
The malibu is nice, but I just don't like the wedge very much.

[AbunDiga909]

I had the exact same problem regarding the 68" slalom ski. in the 03s, the ballast tanks curved up the side of the boat making it very hard, but possible to get a 68" ski in there. It would have to be diagonal and on its side. but now in the 04s, they fixed that problem by making the ballast tanks totally flat. You should be able to fit a 70" (i think that from my estimated extra space from the new tanks) in the rear storage compartment. Then again, if ballast tanks are not in the picture for you, you should have no prob. This new tank figureation applies to the 206 as well i think. I should be getting a 216 as well this yr, my family has decided this partially of this extra storage space. Tell us how your drive is!

I have to admit, if you are going to drive the MC, i think you will like their wake, but which MC boat are you planning to test drive? My friend has a 205V and its slalom wake sucks! Anyway...if you are impressed by the MC's wake, dont be decieved! lol...I swear their boats fall apart like legos, with a flick of a finger! Thats all for now...dont wanna start a boat war or anything...lol...

[tlb]

The indmar 330hp that came out a few years ago was not a good design. If you're going to test drive another MC make sure it has the MCX motor in it. It's 350hp and has plenty of power even with the 1:1 tranny in it. You could always get the power slot tranny if you wanted more low end.
I not sure why people knock the MC's. I've owned two of them in the past and never noticed them falling apart like legos. My brand new 210 has had more warranty work done on it in the first 6 mos. of ownership than my other boats combined. Total of 2 1/2 months in the shop so far.

[skinautique]

I am not going to agree with the lego comment (sorry abundiga but I can't buy that one). I will be honest and say that I did not drive an 03 MC with the MCX engine in it so I can't comment on it. What kind of issues are you having with your 210 tlb?

[AbunDiga909]

I dunno...maybe its just this one...I know this boat takes a lot of harsh treating during the season. I mean it is never really dried, not cleaned often, and in general, it takes a lot of crap from people, driftwood, and water. I just went over things that have gone wrong since it was new with my dad and we had to start using our toes. ( its a 2000, about 3-4 seasons old) And we just get to the end, and we say to ourselves that everything that has gone wrong would be covered on the 5-yr warantee. It gets to the point where i feel bad for the owner for having so many problems because it really is a good boat, MC makes good boats. Think of it like this, a B is not a bad grade. But when some A student who has aced every test and gotten all As in every subject, suddenly gets a B or B-, they are extremely pissed and are upset. This MC must be that A student that got a B. It was great to begin with, but when the hole side panal, where the clarion controls are and the throttle started to literally fall off of the boat, the tower shaking about 5-6 inches, almost every "line" of stitching on the engine cover (this was when it was a one-piece that covered the engine and storage) started to rip, and the upholstry stared to stain from water, numerous mechanical problems that cuased the stareo and Perfect Pass not working,,, etc....It was just really dissapointing. We all know that these boats are expenseive, and this is not something you would expect from a MC, just like an A student getting a B. Does that analogy make sense? I hope your experience with a MC was better. Although, i have to say the wake is nice! Maybe i shouldn't have reffered to legos... :roll: sry if that offended anyone...

They are good boats, real good, I for one year liked them better than CC and temporarily betrayed my dad...lol...but i guess we've just had bad luck with this one, even the dealer admits it...

[Tony-M.]

I will be looking at the 216 and the MC X-9. My wife likes the bow of the 209 better (more room). But, performance is my number one concern. I want a boat with a better wake for boarding than skiing. I agree with tlb on the MC 330 hp lack of power. Last year I drove my buddies 209 with the 330 hp and 1:1 trans. He wanted me to pull him barefooting. After we got started, I had to really hammer the throttle between the 30-40 mph range. His boat did not have the ballasts, but the wakeboarding wake was decent without the extra weight. If I was going to buy a 209 it would have to have the 350hp and the powerslot. I am glad that CC changed the ballast tanks on the 216. I would not like not being able to put my 68" ski in the back. I am looking forward to testing the 216. I expect that the 216 is faster, handles better and has a much better ski/bareboot wake. I would expect that the 209 has a bigger and wider wakeboarding wake. I guess a test ride is in order...decisions, decisions!

[Kenw]

Tony, The Nautiques don't have the cleanest table for footing.

I have a friend who fills his ballast for footing he says it helps clean up some of the turbulence for wakecrossing.

If you add some addittional ballast the wakes will get nice for boarding on either boat. The X-9 wake is definitely wider.



Ken