Jump to content

93 MC 190 vs ski nautique - project boat


smigforce
 Share

Recommended Posts

Was looking at doing a restoration on one of these two boats. Which of these two has a better slalom wake? Anyone had experience with doing major work on either? Should be considering other makes/years? I picked these two with the understanding they both have quality slalom wakes (even compared to new boats). Thanks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

7b2kuc9r5onq.jpg

y9ca2ln1wsfh.jpg

 

I am wrapping up this re-power of a 97 Pro Star. Have skied it during initial water test and this boat rocks! Wakes were far better then anything on the market today.

 

I think that in nautique world if one wants to do a restore or rebuild a 97-2001 bubble butt is the way to go. The earlier slant backs were rather crude in comparison.

 

Dont know a whole lot about the early to mid 90s MC but I would definitely endorse a 97-98 as being very viable for a project..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

@BMG73

it really depends on what condition the boat being repowered is in.

This one had a lot of hidden evil even though it looked to be in great condition.

Bent strut, to many pairs of side cutters over the years and shade tree repairs.also the fact that a PCM went in place of the indmar a few parts had to be fabricated

This one eclipsed the $15K mark zero off included.

 

A Bubble butt SN provided that there are no other repairs involved would run in the $12k-$13K ZO included.

 

Still IMOP a great option for those that do not want to spend the stupid money to participate in the sport.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we will see an increasing number of restoration projects. Take the $15k Jody estimated for ZO drive train (I recently paid similar) add a few grand for all steering and running gear, a few more grand for interior and for around $20k you can restore a boat and have ZO and a modern engine. Sure, you won’t have the latest tournament hulls but for 1/2 to a 1/3 to cost of a current promo it’s a reasonable option for many of us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
@Jody_Seal I'm assuming that's for a new motor in your cost analysis?? How long can we expect to have a supply of Excaliburs or 6L? Do the new motors options in the 2019 SN/200 also plug and play like the Excaliburs do??
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

All pcm engines electrically are plug and play as pcm has adapter harness.

The challenges between engine and hull becomes the key factor.

The MC I just did required fiberglass elbows to be fabbed to mate up with the PCM engine as well as a bracket for the shift cable. Now this was a small block out and a small block in so the indmar engine mounts were retained it went in it's original bolt holes.

Now throw the monkey wrench in and try and install a cat 6.0 or 6.2 the price goes up exponentially. Small block Chevy components will be around for a very long time though not sure as to how long pcm will continue to build the excalibur series.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

Amazing across the board, quality fantastic, rear ski locker in 2002 which may or may not be interesting to you, ZO in '07 if I remember correctly. ZO upgrade/modification possible on '02 or newer with PCM 343.

I run a 2000 with GT40 and PP...don't wish for any other wake just not ZO compatible...but I appreciation no rear ski locker as it's our slalom tug...take the back seat out and easy to get to the platform.

I would love a dialed in '07 or newer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

@wart The earlier than 2002 Nautiques were excellent for everything. Slalom tricks and jump! With lots of weight added, they were even decent wakeboard boats. Seriously one of the best boats Nautique ever built. @Bruce_Butterfield has the best possible with a ZO Bubbleback Nautique.

 

The 2002 and on 196s were awful trick boats. The table is unacceptably rough and they never fixed it. Some boats were better than others but the inconsistency was frustrating for a trick skier and coach. I taught basics outside the wake the table was so bad! The Koolaid group will bid up prices of this hull but never get one if you have a family that wants to actually ski and not just watch you slalom.

 

I'm not sure when Mastercraft changed their hull but my 04 is pretty close to my 11 hull. Perhaps the best all around boat ever. Especially with ZO. They have an undeserved reputation for a bad slalom wake (misinformation from the Koolaid crowd). My boats have given more first complete passes and PBs than anybody else's (yes, that many college kids and juniors). Best all around boat ever!

 

@smigforce The 205 might be a decent and fun family boat. But it will make a MC 197 wake look easy. Fine until 28off but the wake is different. If you get it, low fuel, no excess weight, light boat crew and a shallow lake will make it pretty good. I made the mistake of slaloming behind one with a full fat sack - ripped the boots off the ski through the gates! I'd personally go with the Bubbleback Nautique. If it's a project, upgrade the engine to a ZO engine.

 

I did a 79 American Skier conversion to ZO so I understand some of your thinking (insanity?).

 

Eric

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
The early 90s MC has probably one of the best wakes of all time. The bubble butt SN also has fantastic wake. I believe where they separate is tracking and spray. The SN tracks better and the spray off the back is night and day better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
The SN ergonomics for the driver are also way better than the MCs of the same era. Even the NWZ/Slant Back SNs just make way more sense as far as interior layout. Sightlines are perfect, looking THROUGH the windshield, far forward in the boat, etc. driver is comfy all day. MC ergonomics have always been a little odd, even in the Evo hull era through 2013.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a 97 Bubble back 2 years ago. A fair bit of work but not that hard to do. Almost every part is still available including all the decals. Carb was a bit off (bad rebuild?) but a QFT M600 last year took care of that. Still a few jobs to do (see PP Digital Pro display issues elsewhere) but that's half the fun!

 

Still to complete:

Searching for a Digital Pro PP display due old one fading out.

Getting fed up of straight through exhaust so looking for a 97 hull hugger muffler

Stereo Install

1 Tracking fin bent

Electrics need a bit more fiddling

Smell of fuel when turning - no sign of venting from tank so a complete mystery.

Brace removable rear floor panel which is spongy (bit of delamination in panel)

 

Wake, as suggested above, is exceptional.

 

 

 

95wx9jk1xc1z.jpg

ukxvh8w2yqs9.jpg

rhuhcsqh27e8.jpg

abk7rped9w6q.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
It depends on your intentions for this boat. if you plan on a ZO conversion then the current engine will be coming out. If not, I would point out that in late 1993, Prostars were available with the LT-1 Corvette engine. This gives you EFI, was rated at 310hp, Indmar says it was more like 330hp. This was a monster engine in that era. Combined with a relatively small/light boat by today's standards made for a slalom machine that would top out just under 50 mph and had fantastic acceleration. BTW, they handle like a slot car!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

@smigforce, seriously, unless you REALLY want the satisfaction of doing a restoration yourself AND spending alot more money, this one is fully ready to go for alot less than you would spend on an old boat, restoration, and ZO upgrade.

 

https://www.ballofspray.com/forum#/discussion/20376/for-sale-the-ultimate-bare-bones-slalom-tug

If it was easy, they would call it Wakeboarding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a CC person I would say I’d go with the 1993 Ski Nautique. Find a sexier boat than the 90-93 SN and I might give you a $. Gotta take the flavor of motors into account too. As mentioned the driving of a CC of that era vs the MC counterpart is night and day difference. Yes the wake in the 93 SN wasn’t as flat as the MC but I feel CC always had a softer wake no matter what year. Given the 4 boats I consistently skied, I feel my 93 SN with PP classic gives the smoothest pull. Although I’m a Chevy guy over Ford, I prefer the Windsor blocks over a small block Chevy and hands down PCM of ANY era is better than any other marinizer, ever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

If you want to know what it is like to restore a 1993 Ski Nautique I might be a very, very good place to start. Drop me a PM if you are interested in a chat. I love my slant-back. If you have some time go to this blog and start at the beginning. I am willing to fill you in on more details if I did not cover anything in particular that you are interested in. I'm still "restoring" it, because it is a boat. There is always something more to work on. I would really like to work on the gelcoat and put on new "Ski Nautique" decals on the side.

kevin.roundhill.blog/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
Our club boat is a 93 MC - wakes are Ok with just driver, considerably harder with passenger. One thing no one has mentioned is how terrible the chine spray is on these early 90s MCs. Heading into a headwind, you get blasted by the chine spray in the course.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ski partner and I split time between his 99 SN bubble back (GT-40 310hp) & my 93 MC190 (HO 285hp) for almost 1000hrs on each boat.

IMHO it depends on the level you are skiing. 32 off and shorter, I would give the nod to the SN. Less spray, better tracking, stronger pull (comparing SN GT-40 to MC carb HO 285hp/non-powerslot).

28off and longer, I would give the nod to MC. Softer wakes at longer line lengths, spray not an issue that far behind the boat (unless extreme headwind at 28off).

Can’t go wrong with either boat though. Loved them both.

If ease of working on is a criteria OP, consider the engines involved. SN GT-40 and MC LT-1 fuel injected motors or carb engines in either boat choice? How comfortable is the OP working on carbs vs fuel injection?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The GT40 is a GREAT engine but now that most have 20+ years on them and moisture in the electronics you couldn’t give me one. A 351 with GT40P heads and an eddie intake with Holley or QF600 and your seat o’the pants meter won’t tell the difference between the carb vs GT40. Step up the cam and rockers and that carb will leave the GT40 behind with no electronics to trouble shoot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...