Waveraider 760 or Sea-doo GSX
Jeff Steinke
Well, I've finally found a company that will insure a jet-ski for me ... but I am still
unsure as to which machine I want to get. Some of my friends tell me to go with the GSX
because Sea-doo is the best selling boat. But, other friends say I should go with the
Yamaha because they are better built. The Yamaha engine is supposed to require
practically no maintenance at all (except change the sparkplugs each year), plus it is
heavily watersealed inside. The Sea-Doo seems to be more susceptible to breakdowns.
The price is right for both as is the speed (Yamaha - 52-54mph / Sea-Doo 56-59mph).
Does anyone know the difference between the handling of these machines on water is? I
plan to have a machine by the first week of June. One week I am convinced that I am
going to buy the Sea-doo, and the next I am convinced to buy the Yamaha. Right now,
I've got my eyes set on the Yamaha.
Mike Gonneville
I own a modified '94 Raider that I'm sure is faster than the 760 and I
just got a GSX. The difference in handling is enourmous and the GSX is
much faster all the way around. The GSX has dry storage and about
twice as much storage as the Raider overall. As far as maintainance
concerns, the only additional thing you will have to do to the Sea-Doo
is change the pump oil (Yamaha uses grease). It seems that the new
Doo's with the 800 engine are built more bulletproof than their
smaller engine relatives. I only have 5 hours on the GSX so far but it
blows the Raider away in all departments. Also, while my '94 Raider
has a fiberglass hull, the new one's have SMC (sheet molded compound)
hulls. All Sea-Doo's have fiberglass hulls which in my opinion are
superior to plastic, not to mention easier to repair if need be.
I must admit that I used to be very partial to Yamaha but Sea-Doo
seems to be more innovative in their engine design while Yamaha is
more innovative with overall boat design (WaveBlaster II) and making
boats cheaper by DECREASING their performance substantially (Standard
Raider 701). Sea-Doo just keeps making better products and cutting the
prices on last years designs by changing the name instead of ripping
out a carbeurator, a good exhaust pipe, and all the gauges like Yamaha
did to the Standard Raider. Yamaha doesn't seem to understand that if
you want your product line to be more diverse you should increase the
performance of you higher end models instead of slashing the
performance on the lower end.
I feel that you simply get more boat for the money with the Sea-Doo. I
couldn't be happier with the GSX and if you still want a Raider, I've
got a fast one I'll sell you (just as long as you don't want to turn).
-Mike Gonneville
Joseph Kayser
GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX!
GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX!
GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX!
GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX!
GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX!
GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX! GSX!
Get it?
_____________________________________
- Joe Kayser
- Bowne Business Communications, Inc.
- joseph...@worldnet.att.net
John Seneca
You can't go wrong with the Yamaha. I have owned 3 of them and all have
performed well with no problems at all! I now have the Raider1100. I think
the 760 would have been a better choice for all around fun. That will be
my next waverunner.I will keep the 1100 too. Think Yamaha!!!
John
David S. Cunningham
In <31A5D4...@myna.com> Jeff Steinke <je...@myna.com> writes:
>Does anyone know the difference between the handling of these machines
on water is? I
>plan to have a machine by the first week of June. One week I am
convinced that I am
>going to buy the Sea-doo, and the next I am convinced to buy the
Yamaha. Right now,
>I've got my eyes set on the Yamaha.
looking at and see if they offer any demo ride opportunities. I tested
both the '94 Sea Doo XP and the '94 Yamaha Raider before I bought the
Raider. That is really the best way to tell if your going to like
either ski. You might also try talking to a watercraft mechanic or 2
about the maintinece needs of both craft and any recuring problems they
have seen. I'e been very happy with my Raider but that dosen't mean
that the Sea Doo isn't a good choice either.
Good Luck, DC
Eric Aupperlee
I did the same thing two years ago and I still have the '94 Raider.
It was an easy choice, and I still enjoy the craft.
I posted a long article comparing the two and I'd be happy to dig it up
and repost it.
When 95 came around, I was happy to learn that my Raider was still faster
than the XP, had less problems that the newer (local) 95 XP's, and I could
still get 'em in a closed course sometimes (recreational). If I had to
decide in 95 it would have been a closer call.
1996 is a different story.
The Raider is a lot heavier with a little more power. I've raced them with
my '94 and I've not lost yet. A TWO YEAR OLD CRAFT beating a newer version
of the same craft. My engine's stock, and I have lower gas consumption. Also
have Riva plate, grate, and quick turn nozzle.
The 96 XP is a little heavier than the 95 with a lot more power. I've ridden
this thing too and the only craft it doesn't consistently beat is some of the
triples. And sometimes it beats them too. First time I gunned it the thing
almost ripped my arms off. The hull's been changed slightly as well for
better handling than the 95.
If I had six grand or so burning a hole in my pocket right now (which I don't
but I'm working on it, I'm not a big fan of financing) the choice is once
again easy.
But this time it isn't the Raider.
==============================================================================
Eric Aupperlee "'You are here.' You know, being here is a
* These statements are mine.* lot like being lost." -- The Tick
==============================================================================
harold baggs
have found that it is totally reliable and I could not hope for
better...except for perhaps handling. I also had the occasion to ride
an 1100 and whilst it was much faster I didn't think that it was a whole
lot better...so yes...buy the 701....I'm not sure if the 760 has dual
carbs and so it may be a cheaper option to buy the 701...still very
fast...
Are you aware of any newsgroups for Yamaha type discussions?? please
reply
harold baggs
Scott Odle
I==============================================================================
> am from Australia and I have a Wave Raider 94 Twin Carb 701 Raider. I
>have found that it is totally reliable and I could not hope for
>better...except for perhaps handling. I also had the occasion to ride
>an 1100 and whilst it was much faster I didn't think that it was a whole
>lot better...so yes...buy the 701....I'm not sure if the 760 has dual
>carbs and so it may be a cheaper option to buy the 701...still very
>fast...
>Are you aware of any newsgroups for Yamaha type discussions?? please
>reply
The 760 is a twin carb 90 hp engine. For 1996 the 701 raider has been
downgraded to only 70 hp. I have had the 760 for 2 months. It is very fast.
Once is has burned down to a half tank or less of gas the XP's can only
slightly pull ahead. Acceleration is very equal. These observation have been
from numerous runs against various XP's.
BURN1234
You must have a very fast 760 then, My son's XP eats those alive. He even
beats the 1100's
SKEE 77
Own a modified 94 waveraider and a 96 xp. The xp is very fast but my
raider is quicker and faster but my raider is a long ways from being
stock..
Mirrotek
What mods do you have on your "94 Raider. I am looking for more low end
power (more punch) and better rough water (3 foot swells or better)
handling.
/\vner