Jump to content

Another boat thread...


itch2ski
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am helping my parents find a basic slalom boat. It has been narrowed down to a 91-94 Prostar 190 or a 94-96 SN. The MC of that era has a good reputation as far as the wake and build. I don't know much about the 94-96 SN. I know the 97+ SN is great (TSC hull), but is more than they are willing to spend. What can you tell me about SN in the 94-96 range as far as wake, build, etc? How does it compare to the MC? Thanks.

 

Edit: They ski at 32 mph 15 off. 100% freeski, no course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

I have a 1994 Ski Nautique. Compared to modern boats it has a flat wake, but is is harder than the new ones. You will notice a bump if you are not in position, but I never notice the wake. The wake looks like the 97-99 Nautique, but it is not as soft. If you like to trick ski, there is nothing better. If you put in a fat sac and extended pylon, you have a good kneeboarding and wakeboarding boat. I have 1600 hours on mine, and still running strong. It is a very solid boat. If you maintain it properly it will last for decades. The 93 MC has a nice flat wake, but the rooster tail can give you a kick. A friend of mine had a 1993 with 1600 hours on it and the head gasket blew requiring a complete engine rebuild. The Nautique of that vintage is more durable. The dash on my boat was designed for manual driving, so your guages are in your line of sight which is important for manual driving, or pulling barefooters. The back seat comes out easy, but if you leave it in the center cushion fits into a compartment at the seat base, and converts the middle of the seat to a carpeted step to the platform. The front passenger seat opens up to storage under the bow. Lots of storage in the dash. In my opinion it tracks better than a new Master Craft. If you can find a 94-96 Nautique with a PCM GT-40 engine, grab it. You will have a great boat..

I have the 240 HP carb 351 Ford, still a solid engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
My ski partner owns a 93 prostar and owned a 94 sn. The wake on the 93 MC is nice even compared to new boats. The 94 SN was nice but as noted by GAJ0004 firmer. The SN was a better built and stronger pull, I don't remember the spray at shorter lines. The 93 MC again, nice wakes, but an absolute killer at 35 and shorter with a 10 mph or more wind blowing. Like someone shooting water pellets at you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
I have been behind my boat at 32 off in 10+ MPH wind, very little spray. Pat raises an interesting point, the pull from my boat feels just as firm as a pull from an 08 MC. The 93 MC would pelt you with spray at 28 off in a mild headwind. Since I had Perfect Pass Stargazer installed it has worked out as a good practice boat. When I get behind a ZeroOff boat I use the B2 setting and it feels the same. Compared to the 97-99 Nautique, I think the platform area on the back is more user friendly on my boat verses the 97 hull. The slanted transom on mine, and a slightly larger platform give you more room to work. It is also easier to sit on top of the transom without slipping off verses the rounded back on the 97 hull. Both designs work very well for preventing ropes getting caught on the corners when picking up your skier. I don't think you can go wrong with either one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

94 MC is one of the best boats ever. But the fuel injection was new and not perfectly dialed in. Two of my members had them and I loved skiing behind them for both slalom and trick.

 

I owned a 93 CC and loved it for everything. Abused it and it survived well. Enjoyed the KoolAid.

 

Modern boats are better. The engines are stronger, get better economy and seem to hold up better. ZO is unreal to drive.

 

Now is a good time for a boat purchase. Lots of options and soft prices. There are good deals in boats newer than the early 90s. Keep an open eye.

 

Eric

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on what is most important to them. The MC has a smaller wake, but the SN tracks better and feels more solid. Spray is an issue on the MC at 28 and shorter into a headwind, or if they plan to use the boat for a joy ride with people in the back seat on a windy day, as they will get wet. The 97+ SN wake is much better at all line lengths especially below 34. I personally like the back of the 97 waaaaay more because to me, the slanted transom on the 94-96 SN is much harder to step across and harder to sit down with your ski on. At 34mph+ only, hands down SN. But below 34, and especially for kids/women at 25-30mph the 94-96 SN wake is a lot bigger than the MC.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

Keep in mind the SN hull was the same from 90-96. The deck and windshield changed 94-96 so those look a little more modern. 90-92 have wood stringers so although they are still great boats you have to make sure the one they pick has no rot. If you don't want to worry about rot then at least add the 93 SN to the hunt. Better looking graphics than the 94-96 IMO. If you can save a couple grand on the purchase price you can use that to buy PP, bimini, heater, boom or some other crucial accessory.

 

As for wake, the 90-96 SN has a great one. Back when I had mine, we always skied at 26-32mph and loved the wake at -15 with the OJ 4-Force cast prop. The TSC1's wake is even better (that was my next boat) but it's not a night and day difference. I went directly from one to the other as pretty much a terrible slalom skier and didn't notice a huge difference. CC definitely had spray and tracking down in 1990. No doubt.

 

I'd say you really can't go wrong with either a 93-96 SN or 91-94 MC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...