TigerShark 770
James Fehrmann
Any comments on the TigerShark 770 or the tigersharks in general? I'm
looking to purchase the 770 and wanna make sure I don't get screwed......
Thanks,
James
Phantom
Just keep copious records. I had a '96 Daytona 770 repurchased by the
factory for improper lay up of the hull which caused multiple failures
of the rear coupler bearing, then they replaced that with a '98 TS770R
which was a complete disasters (blown head gasket, seized cylinders,
hesitation, cutting out at mid-range and a absence of top end.
From day one, I kept copious records of use, maintenance, trips to the
dealer, correspondence with the dealer and the factory. In the end,
I got my money back. Personally, I think you can do a hell of a lot
better with another manufacturer. Take it for what it's worth. There
is much better quality and performance available out there then you
will ever find at Arctic Cat/Tigershark. Just speaking from
experience. "Phantom"
Joseph E.Welock
I own a T-Shark monte carlo 770,
The best advise that I can give you is STAY AWAY FROM THEM.
T-Shark does not make a ski that is anywhere comparable to the other brands
on the market.
If I had it to do over I would buy any other brand except the T-Shark.
It is constant problem after problem.
Hell, I would sell it but I have too much conscience to know that I was
giving someone else my huge pain in the A@#%.
Comprende, Mi Amigo.
-
Joe
Joe Welock
>
> On Mon, 6 Jul 1998 04:03:53 -0400, "James Fehrmann"
>
> >Any comments on the TigerShark 770 or the tigersharks in general? I'm
> >looking to purchase the 770 and wanna make sure I don't get screwed......
> >
> >Thanks,
> >James
> >
> factory for improper lay up of the hull which caused multiple failures
> of the rear coupler bearing, then they replaced that with a '98 TS770R
> which was a complete disasters (blown head gasket, seized cylinders,
> hesitation, cutting out at mid-range and a absence of top end.
> From day one, I kept copious records of use, maintenance, trips to the
> dealer, correspondence with the dealer and the factory. In the end,
> I got my money back. Personally, I think you can do a hell of a lot
> better with another manufacturer. Take it for what it's worth. There
> is much better quality and performance available out there then you
> will ever find at Arctic Cat/Tigershark. Just speaking from
> experience. "Phantom"
I second this post.
I too have had way too many problems to endorse the T-Shark brand to
anyone.
Stay away from T-Shark.
Mine is constantly in the shop, and has had many problems.
I would sell it BUT I would feel too bad for the sucker that I sold it
to.
Later,
Ken
Phantom wrote:
> Just keep copious records. I had a '96 Daytona 770 repurchased by the
> factory for improper lay up of the hull which caused multiple failures
> of the rear coupler bearing, then they replaced that with a '98 TS770R
> which was a complete disasters (blown head gasket, seized cylinders,
> hesitation, cutting out at mid-range and a absence of top end.
> From day one, I kept copious records of use, maintenance, trips to the
> dealer, correspondence with the dealer and the factory. In the end,
> I got my money back. Personally, I think you can do a hell of a lot
> better with another manufacturer. Take it for what it's worth. There
> is much better quality and performance available out there then you
> will ever find at Arctic Cat/Tigershark. Just speaking from
> experience. "Phantom"
hahahaha, the Tiger Shark duplicate of what John Hill and Larry are to
Yamaha....;-)
Phantom
keep such copious records. I had notebooks of records on the sale,
maintenance, use, warranty concerns, service records, phone calls, fax
records, registered letter receipts, still 35mm photos and video of
the experiences on both units (the '96 and '98). Coupled with that was
the knowledge of the people within the PWC Club I belonged to that
would have testified about the problems I had on the water and at
events. The line was long and distinguished. The NMMA is scared to
death about state invoked "Lemon Laws" and this is, as well as Larry
and John's experience, a damn good reason why. I give Shark this
much credit, they bought both units back. They want to say "customer
satisfaction"....I'll say defective. Either way, I'm out from under
the constant frustration of not getting what I paid for. The quality
and performance in my opinion and obviously the vast majority of
others inside and outside of this newsgroup, is that it just isn't
there. In good conscious, I could never recommend a Tigershark
product to anyone. I've owed 'em and I speak from experience.
Phantom
On Wed, 08 Jul 1998 08:33:18 +1000, Ken <kb...@hartingdale.com.au>
wrote:
MR-HPT
for potential Tiger Shark customers. Avery manufacturer has problems. I
personally would not hesitate to purchase Tiger Shark. Judging by performance
of 1997 Dytona 1000 which my friend Terry owns it is a excellent machine.
Rough water stability is very good, fuel economy is excellent, speed is
almost equal with Yamaha 1200, many Sea Doo and Kawasaki. Suzuki 3 cylinder
engine is one of the best units I have seen in long time. Yes there are
lemons in avery thing, including big bouts and automobiles. Must of the
problems are created by service department. Shortage of training time,
pressure to make profit, and must of all disrespect for customers personal
feelings these are the stumbling blocks in our modern way of living. Regards
George http://www.hpt-sport.com
Joseph E.Welock
We all have our opinions, and I have learned alot from things you have said in the newsgroup,
HOWEVER - YOU ARE DEAD WRONG ON THIS ONE !!!!
Daytona 1000
George - You say the ski is stable in rought water. Every other person I have ever talked to or read their opinion of this ski says it is very unstable and that it wobbles and takes a different track on every wave.
Also, you say it is that it is right there with te Y-1200 , You must be joking, the Y-1200 is a hell of alot faster and better handling ski than the T-Sh$%#.
Then you say it is comparable to the SEA-don'ts and Kawa's - YOU MAKE ME LAUGH.
Get out of here with that talk, George. You know as well as everyone here in the newsgroup that it is nowhere near these other brands.
Have you not heard people talk or read any of the mags.
Yes, I admit that the mags. are all different with the top speeds and what they all say about the crafts, BUT I HAVE NOTICED - they do all say the same thing,
which is
T-shark has made great improvements BUT they are still behind the others and that they are still way UNDERPOWERED compared to the others.
George, maybe your soup'd up ski's are comparable but NO STOCK T-SHARK is close.
I will admit Suzuki makes a great engine , but T-shark makes a lowsy craft in general when compared to the others.
-Joe " HONESTY HURTS "
Phantom
concur with your appraisal of the Daytona 1000 model as I took one
and used for a weekend right off the floor and found it to be very
unstable in the ocean, both as far as operation in waves go and it's
tendency to want to "hunt" at mid-range speeds. The center of
gravity was misplaced and affected both the ability to control it in
the wave chop or board it in anything other than very shallow water.
It took on water unmercifully when riding. The riding position was
very uncomfortable. Now that is my appraisal. Seems though, that
the magazines that tested it and including the "Shoot-Out" in Key
Largo concurred with my experience. Whether in the hands of
the weekend warrior rider or in the hands of experienced tour
riders, the hull doesn't make it and neither does the power. They
are over priced for the quality, ride, handling and performance
they offer. The availability of aftermarket performance parts is
nill to none. The resale is zilch. I hope after replacing the
pistons and doing the other work to Terry's 1000 that he enjoys
the hell out it...but it seems to me he also had other problems
that I believe you needed to address with the carburetors.......
There is a reason George. If honesty hurts....
Best Regards Always,
Phantom
Phantom
with the dealership and they worked diligently to try to correct both
the '96 Daytona and the '98. I would go so far as to say they went
further than I ever expected them too in the hours they put in trying
to make it right. I have nothing but good to say about MotoPort USA
in Miami. Great Dealer in Bebo Chavez, great Service Manager, great
Techs...if I was going to buy again, they would definitely be at or
near the top of my list because they do care about their customers
and want you as a repeat customer. In these two cases...it certainly
wasn't the dealer or the dealership's lack of experience, willingness
or effort. Just want to clarify that.
Rick Spriggle
<snip>
>I will admit Suzuki makes a great engine , but T-shark makes a lowsy craft in
>general when compared to the others.
I agree and agree again. I have a 96 Montego 640 and the Suzuki engine has run
flawlessly (except for the water in gas incident this year) but the rest of the
boat is a piece of shit. Every year sometime in August there is a problem with
the jet pump. In 96 the input bearing went out and last year the aluminum prop
threw a blade, and almost me. I'm waiting for this year's incident. I also
don't this the hulls are constructed very good. With basically two years of
service it shows the wear of a 5-6 year old craft - broken gel coat, spider
cracks, etc. All I can say is it is what I have for now, and I don't feel like
turning out the cash for a new one, at which point I would go Yamaha.
>George, maybe your soup'd up ski's are comparable but NO STOCK T-SHARK is
close.
I must then have the exception to the rule as far as engines go. Where I ride
it takes a 750, inboard, or 150+ HP outboard to keep up. I routinely have to
stop and wait for my buddies on their Kawi 650 SX's. One guy was next thing to
pissed when I rode side-by-side with him on his Polaris 750, 3 cyl, 3 carb
machine with my single carb twin. I definitely can't say anything bad about
that engine. Maybe I should have it bronzed and hang it on the wall.
As for the handling, I don't think it is bad however the Montego has a
different hull design from the Daytona.
What do you guys think about putting a small block chevy in a PWC? Everyone
puts them in everything else - why not?
Rick
Phantom
Mikuni is a great beginner ski. While the two Daytona's were in the
shop, the Montego just kept ticking along without a problem. It has
a lot of metal available for porting which the 770 derivative of the
639 did not. Never had a problem with the pump or impeller and
didn't see any of the cracks in the hull despite wave jumping etc.
It was my wife's boat and it never spent day one in the shop. I
added an aftermarket pipe which really woke it up big time, the
factory sponsons and an aftermarket grate. What it lacked was
electric trim to make the grate really work, but it was a hell of a
lot better than stock. With all the hours on it and even the salt
water use, when I sold here a few weeks back, it still looked
showroom inside and out. Rick...got that pipe in the garage if
you are interested, brand new carbon fiber reeds and a great
arrestor package if you are interested....blowing out all my Shark
parts for both 770 & 639 engines. Drop me a e-mail if you
are interested. Phantom <rhin...@mindspring.com>
On 11 Jul 1998 01:13:09 GMT, tricky!@epix.net (Rick Spriggle) wrote:
>In article <35A5D9F5...@tivoli.com>, joseph...@tivoli.com says...
>
><snip>
>
>>I will admit Suzuki makes a great engine , but T-shark makes a lowsy craft in
>>general when compared to the others.
>
>I agree and agree again. I have a 96 Montego 640 and the Suzuki engine has run
>flawlessly (except for the water in gas incident this year) but the rest of the
>boat is a piece of shit. Every year sometime in August there is a problem with
>the jet pump. In 96 the input bearing went out and last year the aluminum prop
>threw a blade, and almost me. I'm waiting for this year's incident. I also
>don't this the hulls are constructed very good. With basically two years of
>service it shows the wear of a 5-6 year old craft - broken gel coat, spider
>cracks, etc. All I can say is it is what I have for now, and I don't feel like
>turning out the cash for a new one, at which point I would go Yamaha.
>
>>George, maybe your soup'd up ski's are comparable but NO STOCK T-SHARK is
>close.
>