final verdict sn 200??

[pilot-76]

Hi guys, after reading many stories about the new 200 wanted to give my personal opinion.

Have skied behind it last week and must say the wake is truly very good, especiallymy wife who is only beginning in the course liked it very much because of the very smooth and soft wake it produces, especially at low speeds Iwould say. We have a 09 196 ourselves and honestly the wake is even better than ours.

And that is where it ends for me atleast....

no 200 has a nice and big love seat to, stitching inside also quite nice, but then again stitching and fabrics of 09-196 almost comparable...

 

But,and know comes the bad,

 

engine noise is painfull, it really is after hearing that it spins more rpm was kind of reluctant to the stories thinking well how much of a difference can 300-400 rpm be anyway. But its a big difference this was with the excal and really was dissapointed at 55 felt like we where doing 64 or somehting, engine is almost maxed out at 58 that is for sure...

Now because engine is working really quite hard am also sure of 2 things

reliability will go down....

fuel consumption will go up...

and that is what kills it for me... beatifull looking boat but would never buy it, would probably opt for a malibu lxi with monsoon engine now, because not only should the skiing be fun, but think the boat driving should be fun and have a sporty feel to it as well. Our 196 feel like a small rocket in comparison+ no more barefooting behind a 200 or you will kill it off in no time, with 196, and especially malibu which feels even faster, shouldbe no problem, not even hurting it.

 

also from a design perspective, a hardcore three event boat shouldn't be that big, who cares if you can stick 6 skis on the sides, i mean honestly how often are ppl really using this. No they actually should have gone the other way, make a even smaller boat then the 196 that would have the performance of the 196 with the small 5.0 liter engine and really make it fuell efficiant, then it would have been a top seller amongst clubs and hardcore skiers. Oh did i mention the trick wake of these boats are not that good, to much air in them makes for very difficult ride...

 

Anywaydon't want to dis correct craft to much because absolutely love the 196i have, knowing that it is flawed for tricks, and really liked the wakeof my previous 1997 196 with gt-40 as well.

 

But if i where to buy now i would go for malibu, good slalom wake, good trick wake, and optional wedge where you can make it beginners wakeboard boat to, fast, reliability over the past seems to be solved, some things still look a bit flimsy, but less so than in the past as well...

 

anyway, don'twant to start a fight thread, just giving my 2 cents...

[ScarletArrow]

the 196 was already a "top seller amongst clubs and hardcore skiers". that market is too small and not a money maker for CC. barefooting is a non-factor...an even smaller market. if you want a smaller boat w/ less storage and a bigger engine, buy a Gekko. the changes were made to appeal to a broader audience where MC and Bu were clearly ahead. the higher rpm's is just a change that people are not accustomed to. i'm sure CC will adjust with prop changes, hull tweaks, sound dampening material in the engine hatch, etc. in future years. "feeling fun" while driving is purely subjective...and while it's a factor i think you would be hard pressed to find a group of people who say the Bu tracks better than the 200.

[jdarwin]

I just ordered MC 197TT for those reasons and the fact that the price of the 200 is $8-9k higher - couldn't justify it.

[Ed_Johnson]

I thought about all the same issues with RPM, fuel consumption, etc., however, after driving and skiing behind a couple, including one with Andy Mapple, I thought it was the best slalom boat I have ever experienced. I ordered a 2011 a couple weeks ago and selected the 409 over the 343, since it is aluminum, 200lbs. lighter, and runs at a lower RPM.

Can't wait for it to get here. Will be trading in my Malibu LXi, which is a great boat, but didn't compare to the 200's I skied behind.

Best Regards,   ED

[Marco]

Ditto what Ed said.  A great boat to ski behind, and a great boat to drive.  The visibility from the drivers seat is a big improvement over the 196, and the tracking makes it the easiest boat to drive.

[Boody]

That is great Ed, you are a lucky lucky man.  I love the 200.

Jdarwin, 8-9 K more than a MC?  I know of two people that have bought one and they were much less than I thought, especially the promo boat. I was looking into a 197tt last year but went with a CC which was way cheaper.  My observations are that the 200 is now more in line with the pricing of the 197tt.  Sounds like you got a great deal, enjoy your 197tt, its a cool boat.

[skinut]

The 197 is a nice boat, if you like big wakes. Even if the 200 is more than a 197 you would be better off. Nicer wake(by far) and a better built boat. Oh, and you don't need to were earplugs while skiing(due to noise from the engine reving when ZO engages).

[lkb]

Boody, is your 200 spec'd out like Ed mentioned with a 409? OB or CB? I have been a longtime 196 guy but I have been pretty slow to warm up to the 200. But now maybe a closed bow with the 409 would be the ticket.

[Deke]

Marco, did you guys use the 200 at your tournament? What was the consensus there?

[Old MS Accout]

LKB,

You do not need a 409. 2011 will bring changes to deal with RPM.  

[lkb]

I got you. I may hold off until '12 anyway since I have a 196 that rocks!

[Roger]

Pilot: The increased RPMs are annoying, but not particularly destructive to the engine. Chevrolet recommends sustained RPM max of 7200 for road racing their small blocks, so I doubt 4000 (55k) or 4400 (58K) is going to do any significant damage to the longevity of the engine. The tracking of the MB or MC or even the 196 SN is not in the same league as the 200, period.

Ed: The 409 uses the same prop and though I've not actually compared them, I believe they run about the same RPM as the small block (which makes sense with the same prop). The major difference I've noticed driving the two in tournaments is that the 409 is slower out of the hole (not so slow as to be an issue, just slower than the 343 engine).

I like the 200 quite a bit also, but I chose to buy a 2009 SN instead. Much less money and about 20% less fuel comsumption if our tournament experience is any indication with these boats. Yes, the 200 has the best wakes right now, but as a tournament skier I'm not sure I want the best wakes. Much rather have average or even stiffer wakes in practice and then get the softer wakes in the tournaments... (just my opinion).

 

[Marco]

Deke- our tournament was pulled with a Promo 200 and MC.  Both skied very nicely, but given a choice, most skiers wanted the 200.  Leigh ran 39 behind it on both days before breaking his ankle at 41.  The MC was much quieter than last years, and I could'nt hear the "gassing" from behind the boat like I could on the 09.

MS-  Are you saying CC is making changes that will allow the 2011 model with the 340 hp motor to perform at altitude?  Re-propping didn't do the trick for us, but upgrading to the 409 sure did.

[Old MS Accout]

All kinds of rumors on changes for 2011. Reprop and engine move are 2 that I have heard.

[jdarwin]

"All kinds of rumors on changes for 2011. Reprop and engine move are 2 that I have heard."

Which begs the question;  why didn't they get it right in 2010?  These are too expensive to have customers beta testing your product. 

[lkb]

I'm not saying it's rigjt but other companies do it with equip. far more expensive than boats...Beta testing that is

[clemsondave]

Mark, you must have better sources than me. I have not heard of any substantial changes. I could be wrong though.

 

FYI, after 130 hours, my fuel economy appears to be almost identical to my 196's. These things spend 90% of their time at idle. I don't think an extra 500 rpms for 17 seconds makes much of a difference for fuel economy or durability. Hell, I spin my stock engine corvette (with a blower) to 7000 for short periods of time and it's no worse for the wear. I hear a lot of assumptions on these forums from people that have spent very little time in one. If you don't like it, I understand, but these assumptions are all over the place. Promo or no promo, I love this boat and think it is a HUGE step forward for our sport.

 

I'll admit it's not 100% perfect, but what product is? Every year for almost every product, things will get better. I wouldn't call that making us beta testers. My '99 was better than some friends' '97s. Does that make the '97 a beta?

[Roger]

The 20% fuel consumption difference I mentioned was a result of our tournament experiences with the boat this year. They require refueling more often than the 196 did; the estimate by the guy who gets the fuel was a 20% difference. This was off the cuff, probably not an exact figure. I hope you're right though. However, it seems unlikely it would be the same since you have the same engine running 500rpm faster pushing a heavier wider hull... We've used the 200 multiple times at three different tournament sites and all three sites have said it cost more in fuel than last years boat.

[clemsondave]

That could be true. I have not noticed a difference in what I take to the lake or during tournaments, but I have not specifically measured it. I'll try to do that. Even if it uses 20% more fuel. That's like $1 per set. Not sure about ya'll, but I'd pay and extra buck to have better wakes and easier for the driver to keep it straight.

[jdarwin]

Clemsondave:  At my tournament in two weeks, we have 38 skiers on Saturday and 32 on Sunday.  3 rounds both days.  That's a total of 210 pulls.  Using your calculation, that's $210 more in fuel.  That's more than "an extra buck or two" when you're an LOC trying to justify holding tournaments when you are already overwhelmed by sanction fees and other costs.  In fact, that's another 4 entries just to cover the additional fuel costs.

[auskier]

Find me another gas powered vehicle in 2010 that has reduced fuel consumption by 20% over a previous model?

 Sure, nice boat but not a sensible move IMO.

[clemsondave]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. One unscientific number was thrown out and suddenly this boat is the BP of water skiing. 20% was not my calculation. If you had to spend $210 more because the 200 used 20% more fuel, that put your 'pre-200' fuel costs at $1050 with other boats for that tournament. I doubt that is the case. That's also assuming all 210 pulls were 6 passes with relaxed wait times. That would be impressive.

 

I think it is way less than 20%. I have not noticed hardly any difference from my 196. At one of my tournaments this year, we pulled 32 skiers in one round and it used about 1/2 a tank. I remember b/c I filled it before then next round. Another tournament, my boat was used just about all day. We never had to refuel it. I'll make some notes at State's this weekend. There will be a 196 there too.

 

Auskier - 2009 Corvette Z06 to a 2010 ZR1. Yes, it's comparing apples to oranges, but so is comparing a 196 to a 200. The 200 is a significant improvement in '3 event' performance. Our sport is not anywhere near sensible; otherwise we would not be paying $1500 for skis and $800 for boots.

 

These negative posts about the 200 totally confuse me. The response my boat has gotten every where it goes has been remarkable. Mine sold after the future owner skied it one time. Malibu and MC owners drool over it and picked it in a tournament where they had a choice. One of our club members owns an '08 196. He now wants to sell his and buy a 200 b/c of the wake and everything else. I have not heard one negative thing about it other than the price.

[jdarwin]

I thought the numbers were high but you threw it across the plate - I just hit it out of the ballpark!

At varous tournaments they have estimated 25-33% depending on level of skiers (30mph vs 36mph).  At Ski Ranch, the average set was just over 4 passes.  They meter their fuel very closely.  They showed a 30-33% increase in fuel consumption for the events pulled by the 200 (Open Men, etc.)  At my events, its just under 4 passes.  And mostly 34 and 36.

I track fuel costs very closely.  As an LOC, you have no choice.  At my last tournament in June, my cost was $1.79 per pull.  Using a 30% increase in consumption (avg), that calculates to $2.33 or $.54 per pull.  With 210 pulls, that's a increase of $112.77 in fuel.   

I'm not bashing the 200 as a great driving or skiing boat.  It is.  I love the boat.  I've owned 14 Nautiques over the past 20 years.  I will own another one day.  But, as an LOC who needs a tractor to pull members and tournaments, I cannot afford a 200 - either the sales price or the cost to operate.  If I was simply a Promo person running to 6-8 tournaments a year and pulling a few of my buddies for beer money in a market that can absorb a $50,000 used boat, it would be a different story.

[bxroads]

I think if they offered the 200 with a traditional interior layout, it'd be less cost and a home run.

[clemsondave]

I hold 2-4 tournaments at our lake each year. Let's use your numbers ;-) $112.77 more in fuel. 32 skiers with 6 rounds each. So, each skier pays and extra $0.53 for each round. Ask those skiers if they are willing to throw in an extra $2 per tournament to have the 200. If they are short line skiers like most of us, they may not care one way or the other. But ask those longer line/slower speed skiers....

 

Hey, everyone has their own opinion and needs, which I can appreciate. I'm not trying to convince you that the 200 is for everyone. I'm just trying to stop some of the misinformation. We have very few 36mph skiers around here (3 at my last tournament). Maybe there's some difference there. I think a lot of this is b/c people don't like change. I love having the latest and greatest and appreciate the superior engineering in the 200, both interior and performance.

 

I'm all about saving money where I can. That's why I've been 'engineering' for the past 2 weeks. We're holding a night tournament tomorrow and I didn't want to pay $60/buoy! I've got it down to $6 plus the buoy. So, I'm a little cheap ;-)

[Old MS Accout]

I know that at the Ranch Tourneys, they could not pull 30 skiers on a tank. I think the tank is smaller in the 200, but you need to beable to pull a round without stopping and refueling. 30 skiers is the norm for a round everyehere I ski.

CD,

Those are only rumors, but I do know that CC is working hard at eliminating the RPMs and power problems that are there. CC never lets the cat out of the bag until the first boat is off the line.

[ForrestGump]

Charles ordered two Team 200's on the day you could first order 11s. So we should see what changes they make, in the next month. 

[clemsondave]

MS, that is crazy. They must have had a lot of 36mph skiers or a really heavy foot ;-) Another tournament, I pulled a round and a half with a 2min wait time b/t passes (apx 30 skiers per round). I drove part of that and would occasionally shut it down during the wait time.

 

I bet they could solve a lot of the rpm issues by changing the trans ratio. I like having 10x the power of a MC, but I'm sure many would sacrifice some of that for lower rpms. Hell, I can pull up our largest guy with less than 1/2 throttle. The MC takes almost full throttle for everyone over 150#.

[Old MS Accout]

JD was at one of the tourneys and can confirm. It was the boat used to pull the Record that parish set.

[clemsondave]

Not doubting you. I'm guessing you had mostly 34/36 skiers? We have a large mixture up here. I assume that's the difference, unless there are differences in the tune from boat to boat. I'd be concerned if I couldn't pull 30 skiers too.

[Than_Bogan]

Darn -- I was hoping everyone would hate the 200.  On my lake we have an extremely narrow tunnel to get to the area where skiing is allowed, and there is no chance the 200 is going through.  I fear I'm on my last Nautique (or possibly my last boat period -- may have to keep this one going no matter what!)

Hm, just realized nobody cares.  Oh well -- just wanted to vent!!

[Old MS Accout]

thanimal,

Shane has a nice 196 for sale that will last for a long time.  

[Boody]

Two weekend tournaments: MC and 200 took 195 gallons for 164 pulls. Two SN 196s took 203 gallons for 180 pulls.

[clemsondave]

thanimal, the 200 is 4.75" wider than the 196. Is the tunnel that narrow?

[Chef23]

The tunnel is that narrow. 90"-91" is about as wide as you want to have. The Response LXI at 93" is sketchy at times.

[dave2ball]

MS I have pulled over 1and 1/2 rounds of slalom on one tank of gas. the 200 does turn more RPM's but compared to the 196 the fuel consumption is about the same. Not a noticeable difference. As far as pulling 30 skiers and then having to refuel I would bet that the boat did not come full. Come on guys quite bashing the boat. CC always does there homework before putting out a new product. They always have and they always wil.

[jdarwin]

Dave - I was a driver at the tournament MS is referring to.  To be fair, lots of high end skiers but the fact that we rotated the 200 and the LXI over 6 rounds (2 days) gave us a clear indication of fuel consumption between the two boats.  The CC clearly burned more fuel - about 25% more than the LXI pulling the same groups.  Whether the boat showed up on site full or not is irrelevant (although it did - I confirmed).  I'm not bashing the boat.  It skis and drives great.  But, considering all of the costs and logistics associated with running an event, an LOC needs to be aware of the increased fuel consumption and prepare for that inevitability.

 

[Old MS Accout]

I love to ski behind the boat. Awesome wake. My best scores this year are all behind the 200.

I know that the boat was full of fuel. (spilled out the back from being overfilled) Maybe the gas gauge was not working properly. We had the same issue for every round. From what I have heard, you dont want to run the tank dry on any of the big 3.

I could care less about gas if I have the cash to drop over 50k on a boat and another 40k for somthing to pull it with.

I hope our club can get one and will not hesitate to buy one.    

  

[dave2ball]

jdarwin to be fair the LXI has a 42 gallon tank and the 200 a 29 or 30. So the LXI would pull more skiers to do a bigger tank. I doubt you will find any 6 LTRs out there and they turn about 300- 400 less which will consume less gas but the increase in the cost is about 5K which buys alot of gas. Other then that good luck with future events.

[jdarwin]

I'm aware of the differences in fuel capacity.  Again, the fuel was measured as "burned" during the event - regardless of tank capacity.  Certainly, the LXI needed re-filling less often but the "burn rate" was less as determined by the total number of pulls vs. the amount of fuel consumed.  Each boat pulled the exact same number of skiers - in fact, pulled the EXACT skiers the same number of rounds.  Therefore, it was as close to a "field comparison" as could be determined.

[pilot-76]

Ok, since I started the post and I saw some ppl saw it as bashing, feel the need to clarify a few things....

I really did not want to bash the 200 as such even though I saw that some ppl took it that way. I really love the brand and as said earlier am very happy with my current 196.

Now I am from Europe and maybe because of it I am forced to have a different view on a few things...

First over here fuel really matters... I mean  a gallon here costs almost 7 dollars. Most clubs, make that 95% of the ski clubs and a lot of private boats here remove the fuel tank and have a propane tank installed instead so they have their propane at about what you guys are paying for your fuel.

This at a quite high installement cost about 2800 dollars and a bit more fuel (propane) consumption and about 10-15% less power. Oh they say it is also quite bad for the valves and reduces longetivity. But not sure about this because saw some club boats with more than 2000 hours with no problems. Apparently the valves run a bit hotter and the valve settings don't like it too much, but then again there is no carbon deposits on them, engine stays increadibly clean, after 1500 hours the one I saw opened looked like new. (anyway different topic)

Still they do it because otherwise the clubs wouldn't be viable... the season is already quite short over here and I don't know in the us but over in Europe have the impression that 3 event skiing is becoming less and less popular. And am sure that one of the reasons is that most ppl if you ask them about 30-35 dollars for a 10-15 min pull or the same money for a initiation, quite a few of them will think nice sport, but not for us. Am also sure that it was never a sport for the poor in the first place, but it seems now it going in to the direction that it is a sport for the wealthy, wich in my eyes is also not a good thing.

Now just for myself speaking am quite fortunate in the way that my wife and I make enough so that we can use our boat without having to think too much about the fuel price. After 2 full time jobs and 2 kids + a short season we are still able to put about 75 to 100 hours on the boat, and our kids are still too small to ski so amongst the 2 of us it is really quite a lot of skiing, about 3-4-5 times a week. And I could own a 200 as well and the extra fuel it would use ( I heard 20-25% more fuel according to denise from swiss ski school) wouldn't change a thing in our lifestile. But just the fact that knowing that it uses 20% more fuel than the other boats out there is just a psychological barrier and one that I and am sure of it many others are not willing to cross. 

Now if you look at it from my point of view you might be wandering just like me why are we still using 70s engine technology in 2010 boats. This is not only correct craft, malibu and mastercraft are not doing better. Mastercraft has the vw diesel engine option and I don't know why it isn't a bigger succes. Maybe it is underpowered, maybe it smokes I don't know.

But still engine developments have been there,steplessly variable valve lift, variable valve timing, these 2 alone are worth 10-15¨% of fuel saving, then you have the direct fuel injection wich makes for another 5-10%. So basically only these two steps will give a 20% fuel economy.

Also with the newer engines you probably wouldn't need a V8, look at bmw pushing 306 bhp out of a 3 liter v6. Again fuel economy. (just to compare a ford mustang gt v8 with 315 bhp uses 17mpg combined a bmw 330i v6 will do about 24mpg thats a 30% increase.

So using a modern engine in boats would make us use 30% less fuel it's that simple. Too me it"s a lot and it definately should be the next step in boat building.

Also in my club we have about 8 boats and 3 of them are beginning 90/s and 1 2001 from 86 or so. All with original ford engine spinning about 3800 rpm at 36 mph, all 2000+ hours. I might be wrong but let's see how many 200 there will be in 25 years with original engine spinning at 4400 rpm. Am sure that as a promo person who keeps their boat for 1 max 2 years it won't change a thing. But I bought my boat with the intend of never changing it. and again then fuel matters.

why are my posts this long??, I-ll stop babbling, 

 

a skier from belgium

 

[ForrestGump]

I drove the 1st round in a tournament today in a 200 and riding along as judge was our SCR Exec VP. He's a trick skier so he rarely gets to boat judge in tournaments.  The first skier we pulled at 34, he looked at me and said "Damn, this thing is loud!" When we pulled a 36mph skier, he was really floored. lol. It really is almost ridiculous how loud it is inside. From the shore, it's the quietest boat on the water. But in the boat, the engine rpm noise is downright obnoxious.  Now, I love the way it drives. It doesn't matter if you've got a 15mph long liner or a 36mph 39 1/2 skier, it's the best driving and tracking ski boat ever made.  The others don't compare.

[clemsondave]

Update from the state championship. My boat was used for round one slalom. 52 skiers. 1 tank of gas. It was also used for two practice rounds and apx 10 passes to map and for the drivers to get used it. I'm getting someone from the host club to post here to verify those numbers. Their 196 is pulling today so we will see how it does.

 

Fyi, my boat is full at 88%. So it runs forever on empty. Waiting to hear from my dealer if it can be recalibrated.

 

I asked almost every skier and driver what they thought. One M8 said the wakes were wider. All others were loving it.

[LeonL]

I'm not here to bash either.  I really like to drive the 200.  Here are actual figures from our last 3 event tournament.  We pulled 1 round of jump and 1 round of slalom with each boat, a 200 and and LXI.  Same skiers throughout.  Trick, not so sure about but I kinda think the Malibu had more trickers.  End result -- 200 25 gallons, LXI 18 gallons.  Small tournament sure, but figures are what they are.  By my math the 200 used 28% more.

[OSSKI]

At my club in the UK they have put the (apparently bigger) 196 prop on the new 200 after experiencing 10-15% increase in gas consumption (propane gas conversion, as mentioned by  pilot-76). Apparently it is running 1000 rpm lower at every speed, gas consumption back to near the same. I'm sure there is a reason Nautique put the smaller props on, but not sure why? The guy who told me about this said it was to get the boat up to speed better on short lakes, but our lake is very short, and there doesn't appear to be an issue. Pull and wakes feel the same too.

 PS - this is just what I have been told....

[dave2ball]

Reading the posts and participation in this discussion myself I came to this conclusion. Can you get an accurate gas usage comparison? For example if you run a Malibu one round and then a 200 the second round there are many other questions to be considered. 1) Are the conditions the same? 2) Are the skiers taking the same amount of passes as previous round. 3 ) Does one driver sit at the end of the course longer the another driver or just idling at the dock waiting for a skier. It may not be much but it adds up. 4) Are the conditions the same as the previous round? Or if you want to get very techy was the same crew in the boat? Overall crew weight has a big affect on gas usage. What I am getting at is I doubt you will never get an apple to apple comparison.