Need Objective Opinions Please!!

[jrandol]

I think I am narrowing my search down more and more. 95% certain I will be getting a Mastercraft or Nautique (it would have to be a steal of a price to buy anything else) and am trying to narrow the search down futher. For my price range I have looked at several nice 90-93 Prostar 190's and several Ski Nautiques of the same year as well. Seems like I can pick-up a nice clean well cared for of either make for between 10k-13k in my area. I have not had the opportunity to ski behind either so the question goes out to you all, given the price of either brand is near identical and the quality of the boat is the same which boat has:

1. Better Slalom wakes
2. Better Recreational Wake board ability

I know this is the Nautique board but I am looking for objective opinions please, I need some guidance!! Help somebody!!

Thanks!!

[skinautique]

MC - lot of side spray (if you are shortline, you won't like this), wakes are so so, drives ok. Has a rougher ride over choppy water. No wood in the boat. This was one of MC's better designs. Didn't track the greatest in my opinion. Never wakeboarded behind this boat

SN - Wakes were soft but had a decent sized rooster tail at 15 and 22 off (can be minimized with a 4 blade prop), Throws a respectable wakeboard wake considering it is a ski boat. In 1990, the SN went through a major redesign. I used to own a 1990 (no problems with buying the first year for a new design). Boat tracks great and has significantly less side spray than the MC. Handles chop really well due to the sharper entry angle of the front of the hull. These boats all had carburated engines (nothing wrong with that at all). Very solid boat. The hull design stuck around for 6 years and only had minor improvements made to it in the next generation.

Hope this gets you started. If you have more questions, ask and if you can, get out and drive them both and ski them!

Welcome to PlanetNautique too!

[jrandol]

Wow, great reply thank you! Few questions:

Does this year Nautique have wood in it?

Do you or anyone have pics of the Slalom wake this boat throws?

Does the SN track better due to the steeper V in the bow or what makes the SN track better?

What HP was your 90 SN? The ones I have looked at have 240hp, I was hoping for a little more ponies. I slalom shortline and of course theres plenty there for slalom skiing but I kinda wanted to learn to barefoot, thought I might need more juice than 240 to eventually get to deep water barefoot starts. Is that true?

Jeff

[skinautique]

I am pretty sure that the 92 and newer nautiques have no wood in them. CC waited until they had a great design for the stringers before they switched. As far as the wake pictures, I would look for M3 Fan to get you some pics of it. It is ugly looking but really wasn't bad for skiing at all. If you are deep shortline, you won't have any issues there. I owned the 1990 for 5 years and never had an issue with it. My boat had 240 hp. It was more than adequate for skiing. The boat tracks better due to the deeper v, the way the back of the hull is designed and the location of the tracking fins on the hull. I had a few different friends that were 200+ lbs that were able to foot behind that boat. Sure it took a little longer to get up but they didn't have issues with it.

[M3Fan]

SN waited until 93 to release the all fiberglass boats. Apparently they tested their stringer designs with the sea world boats for years before releasing them to the public. Anywho, it's nice to hear someone talk positively about the 90-96 hull. I have gotten ripped on other boards trying to explain how ahead of it's time it was. Here is a pic at about 30 MPH on rough water.

[jrandol]

Hey thanks for the photo M3! Thats doesnt look bad at all.

You commented about the 1990 hull being ahead of its time. What makes it ahead of the time for that era?

Another question, does anyone know if these boats have the Borg & Warner tranny in the them? I am kind of a gear head and thinking if I find a nice boat with 240 hp I will pull the block and "do a little majic" to it to get it around the low 300hp level.

Thanks again for your input!!

[skinautique]

It was ahead of its time because they were really the first ones to significantly cut down on wake size, make it softer and reduce a ton of the side spray. Those boats should have the PCM transmission in them.

[M3Fan]

They will all have the PCM Power Plus, either 1:1 or 1:1.23. Trans has an angle to it so that the motor mounts level. I think they were ahead of their time because of the Spray relief pockets, the SUPER wide beam, the cool sloped transom, the padded keel design, the fins in FRONT of the pylon, close together. The huge rudder makes these boats turn on a DIME. What else? The dash pod concept makes the dash look SO MUCH more modern than the MC and the Bu's of the same era. My dash still looks pretty modern except for those frog-eye airguides. There are circut breakers instead of fuses, the engine mounts to aluminum L brackets which are bolted onto the stringers with a multitude of bolts. These boats had the SP exhaust package which used an exhaust made by Vernay that is designed to make the exhaust quieter. Other brands tried to copy the resonance chamber concept (Mastercraft's "silent master", Malibu's Echelon exhaust) but most owners of those boats have converted to straight exhasts because the resnoance chambers were so flimsy. Notice they don't use them anymore! Meanwhile CC still funnels their exhaust into one big 4 incher to this day. The swim platform was designed to funnel exhaust away from the boat passengers, so it is coated with plastic on the bottom and even has weatherstripping where it meets the boat. The lifting rings in the rear have plastic cowlings to ensure the seal as well. In these days, the other manufacturers are really putting out pretty comparable boats, but in this era the SN was WAY ahead of it's competition. If you look at the Gordon Rathburn 12 slalom drills video you can see a 96 SN pulling Chris Parrish in the 96 nationals. Obviously, the wake is pretty decent!

[siuski]

I have the 93' w/ the 240. The slalom wakes are great, great tracking plenty of holding power @ shortline. When weighted w/ a pylon the boat throws a good wakeboarding wake. When weighted, the wakes are typical SN, steep and hard, I love it. Even weighted w/ 1500 fat seat, and a 550 in the front w/ 3-4 people, it gets up on plane just fine. I've even pulled deepwater barefooters w/ the fatseat in it. I'm upgrading to the ProBoss/GT40 heads can't wait to what that'll do.

I've driven the older MC's and they perform well on the course, but a little squirly driving a good skiier, but I've never been behind one on a board. I haven't liked any of the MC's after the '94 190.

[NCH2oSki]

I think and look to be alone on this board, but the 91-94 MC is a much better slalom boat. You wont find a better slalom wake in this price range. Unless your 35off or shorter the spray on a most days wont bother you. If your asking these questions your probably looking for your first inboard and not into shortline slalom. The MC is available with the GT-40 heads (285 hp) and the power slot tranny. There is no wood except for the platform on the MC. I had a 92 mc ps 190 with the slot and gt-40. They even have the 205 with an open bow that I would still prefer over the CC of that era to ski behind.

That being said the cc is still a great boat, and what I own now because MC lost its direction after 94.

[skinautique]

NCH2OSKI, how can you have a chevy engine with GT-40 heads on it? I have skied both boats and for all around, driving, skiing, comfort, ride and handleing, etc. I would still take an SN hands down.

[NCH2oSki]

Ski,
I dont believe I ever mentioned chevy engine. I think that your more likely to get a ford block with either the pcm or indmar of that era (90-93). There are a few chevy engines out there of that era, but most will be fords. I would even prefer the gt-40 ford over the first edition fuel injected chevy's in the 94 MC.

I do kinda like the slant back transom on the CC, its cool, but I would pick the MC for the softer/smaller wake. As I said before, both would be a good inboard to ski behind.

[skinautique]

Sorry,
I guess I never knew that Indmar dealt with ford blocks. I was pretty sure that MC has always run chevy engines in their boats.

[FatBoy]

I had a 90 MC Prostar 190 Power Slot with the Ford Indmar motor. It was a great ski boat. One of my buddies skied the coarse at 35 off all the time and he never complained about spray. He could however give the driver one **** of a challange holding the boat on line. I really loved that boat and had hours and hours of fun on it but I wouldn't look twice at it now compaired to my SV-211.

[jeepn]

I have a 92 Ski Nautique, have a friend with a 93 Ski Nautique, we pull deep water barefooters all the time with no power issues. Haven't noticed any power issues even when getting several people up deepwater at once.