CC production numbers

[skinautique]

SGY,

I respect your comments and won't start an argument but you know what my answer is! CC is still the best builder out there without a doubt. Dig deep enough and you will find the differences!

[skisix@38]

Very interesting that you guys don't think CC is above the competition in terms of quality. I just researched all of the boat manufacturers: CC, MC X 15 and X 1, Malibu Wakesetter 23 and Wakesetter VLX, Tige RZ2, Supra Launch 20 SSV, and Moomba.

HUGE DIFFERENCES! One of the worst was Malibu. They look awesome to the eye at first but just start looking under cushions and such.

Tige lacks storage and the fit and finish is horrible. Not to mention all of the glare on the windshield from the colored padded vinyl dash.

Supra was way under powered, took over 20 minutes to fill the sacks.

MC had a ton of bow rise, the tower flexed like crazy from side to side, the bow wind block rattled like crazy, there was no access to below the floor on the X 15 (what happens if there is a problem with a gas tank sender or a damaged fin?)

Also, you can't get in the boat via the side because of the position of the towers. You have to enter over the sun deck or from the back or front of the boat.

Am I saying CC is perfect?? No but they are a lot further than some of these other companies. There is no doubt about it!

If I had to rank the companies in terms of build quality, it would be CC, Centurion, MC and then down from there.

So, I don't have any idea about wake boats but with 3 event boats - 196, 197, RLXi, they all have their strengths and weaknesses. SGY did help me with my steering cable and the first thing I would be wondering is "why did a guy with an '03 need to replace the cable?" I don't know about it's use before I got it is my only response. The boat has done great since then and hasn't had any other problems. From the driver seat, I would rate the 196 the easiest by a small margin, then the RLXi and 197. From the rope end, they all are good! In terms of build quality the 196 is built for industrial use, no doubt. Do I need all that and wish to pay all that? Hard saying, especially when I could choose the versatility of a Bu. The 197 has come leaps and bounds last year and hopefully will continue- I agree with all SGY's comments on the 197.

I'm not saying that the 196 is a POS but, I'm also not saying the 197 or RLXi are POS's either- I'm saying that they all are good and it is under the skin as to how to decide which to buy. A very individual thing.

[ag4ever]

I would say that the ONLY thing CC has going for it over MC and BU is the thickness of the hull. The others do use a much thinner hull, but in a 3-event boat is that really necessary? The extra thickness adds considerable strength, but at the cost of extra weight. this extra weight must cause the boat to displace more water, and therefore if the boat had a thinner hull, it would produce a smaller wake. Now the fact that CC has engineered the hull to provide a similar sized wake as the others with a lighter hull, speaks volumes to the ability to engineer the wetted surface. But it brings me back to, do you really need the extra weight from the added thickness? A true 3-event boat is used on private small lake waters where it does not need to endure rough conditions. A true-3 event boat is usually replaced every 3 years at most. This means that 1 - it does not need extra strength for use in Lake Michigan and 2 - the usefull life of a 3-event is very short. Now this does not mean they are discarded after 3 years, but you can see just as many starts and stripes around as you can other boats of the same era, meaning even the "inferior" MC construction is sufficient to keep the boat afloat.

As far as interior appointments, BU is WAY ahead of CC. When you get in a boat what do you see? The interior and how it is stiched, assembled, designed, etc... BU has advanced in this arena much more than MC or CC has. Now when I look under the surface of a BU, I don't see much of a diference over a CC, heck, I think BU wires the boats better, but I think CC does a lousy job on wiring. Looks like a 2 year old wired the boat!

Does this mean I think CC is a bad boat? No. in fact I like them. I will probably get another CC, but will I look at other brands before buying my next boat? Yes, and I might even buy a diferent boat if I feel the cost-features-quality ratio gives them the better value.

[Edwin]

Well said ag. No question there are aspects of my 'bu that make me shake my head and wonder why they didn't do this or that.

[Zwengit]

I hope you all don't think that their new building could be built on royalties of a tower?%#%#??? Granted there have been a lot of turnover in management people, but there is no way that anyone would wake up and say "hey, we've got a couple extra dollars here, we should go out and build a new plant". . . No question they want to build more boats, but the problem is they have been losing their base 'cause of mistakes in quality. IMHO they're cuttin' costs and user cheaper stuff to make more $ and pay for that facility. Maybe it was Mcnew that tried to get the family to believe they should chase bayliner . . . more volume + cheaper parts = more $. Definitely the wrong direction. Didn't one of the Meloon children leave last year too???

[ag4ever]

It was a nephew, and that was a real loss the orginization. I met him a t a boat show and spent a hour or two talking with him. He is a really nice guy that had his head screwed on straigh. I hope he landed somewhere that appreciates his ability.

[SGY]

Yup. Jeff Warner. Anyone know what happened?

[skinautique]

Yup. Jeff Warner. Anyone know what happened?

Sure do.

Without details, it is called unethical business practices.

[ag4ever]

Sure do.

Without details, it is called unethical business practices.

That must make for some fun family renuions!