MasterCraft .. did they have some "bad" years?
scott hargrave
... do others agree? thanks!
Willy Boehnke
news:ed4c7f9c.03051...@posting.google.com...
> Have heard that the 95-98 or so period is not a good one in general
> ... do others agree? thanks!
I have a '95 Maristar 200VRS and really like it. I experienced some
porpoising the last time I had it out, but I'm pretty sure it was because I
need to move some weight forward (I'm still tweaking my weight setup). The
swim platform was about 2 inches under water and it was struggling to get on
a plane.
Willy
flya750
news:ed4c7f9c.03051...@posting.google.com...
> ... do others agree? thanks!
I think you'll find folk here who will agree...the '97 was the best year MC
95-98.. interior and hull... the major problem with the above mentioned MC
vintage is a bump @ 22'off...somewhat okay @ 36 mph...but air is still
inevitable.
I would try and find a '97 Nautique... although I still love my MC '97 190
w/LT1....the one thing about the '97 MC 190...it is still one of the
prettiest boats in and out of the water....IHMO ;)
BrianS
> Have heard that the 95-98 or so period is not a good one in general
> ... do others agree? thanks!
For die hard skiers, most will agree that until the 2003 hull, the
91-94 hull was the best hull. The 91-94 does have some issues with
spray sometimes, but the wakes are great. Starting with the 95 hull,
the slalom quality of the wakes went down hill until the 02 Promo boat
hull (not the regular production hull as that was still not as good).
Because of the success of the 02 Promo hull, MC put that hull into
full production this year. So if you can find a 02 promo hull (I'm
not sure how many were actually made - several dozen at least), that
is the same hull as this years regular model hull.
That's not to say that the 95-02 boats are bad. But if you are
looking strictly at slalom wake, they are not as good as the 91-94
hull.
Greg
> ... do others agree? thanks!
The 95-97 boats were ok, they carried a higher profile than any boats
of MC until that time and so were not received very well with the
tournament crowd. If you are just casually using the boat and are
public waters most of the time than this is probably a good boat to
get. The quality problems showed up with the 98-02 boats. Those
boats were hard to ski behind, hard to drive, and the ones in my area
were falling apart with only one year of use. I own a '94 MC with the
TBI engine and consider myself a MC fan so it was hard for me to see
what the company was doing those years. Of course this info is all
relative to the high quality boats that other manufacturers were
producing those years. Even the worst years of MC are still better
driving and skiing than your typical I/O runabout.
Per your other post...
My TBI engine has never failed me, it's a good quality pull similar to
MPI engines today. It's more fuel efficient than a carb'd engine and
always starts with the first turn of the key- same as any FI engine.
The '94 CC with TBI was a mistake, I know of two of those boats and
niether ran. CC just missed on that one but, I haven't heard anything
bad regarding their engines/injection since other than the "rpm flare"
in 98 or 99.
Hope this helps and good boating!
Bill
MC has a fix for that porpoising problem, that I believe is fixed
under warranty. It involves reshaping the rear edge of the glass to
force the bow down. I know of two guys on this side of the mountains
who have had it done. And both have considerably less problem now.
--
Bill - bi...@nospam.airjunky.com
http://airjunky.com
"Willy Boehnke" <william.boe...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message news:<ISywa.1522$Hy3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
txsriverrat
the cross fin on the rudder, and the fiberglass inserts on the back of
the hull/transom. They just couldn't get the boat to stay in the
water on a hard turn, and the spray was horrific.
I have a 1993 MC 205 and I love it. there is a significant 22' off
bump though.....
The 2002-2003 MC 197 has the sweetest 22 off wake ive ever skied
behind...
Jeanne
others agree? thanks! >>
I agree - also, those models were tubby looking and I heard they were prone to
tippyness. The story I heard was a flip-over during a ski show. The MC had a
camera person, was towing a jumper and the boat flipped on it's side, tossing
the camera person. , I don't think anyone was hurt. I owned a 92' ProStar and
the wake was non-existant. I didn't like the rooster tail at 22 off but then
again I didn't get there very often anyways. Funny how I sold my boat to a
wakeboarder and even told him the boat has no wake, he said he was going to
load it up with friends and whatever, for a bigger wake.
Jeanne
John Chall
I'm reading this thread a little late. Most of the early posts have
already dropped off the server, but in case no one else mentioned that good
years are different for the open bow than the closed bow, I'll explain: The
open bow from those years, the ProStar 205, was first produced in 1992. Its
hull was 12" longer, but other wise identical. While they changed the
ProStar 190 hull in '95, they waited until the following year to change the
ProStar 205 hull.
MasterCraft was trying to make the boats ride better in rough water.
What they did in process was mess up the handling and create a hard wake. A
MasterCraft dealer described it as such, "they took away the wake and
replaced it with a curb". However, if you are not a course skier you will
not care, and you will appreciate the better rough water ride. With our '93
ProStar 205 when the wakes were > 5", we had hold the speed to 15 miles per
hour to keep our teeth in place. If you are a course skier, I'd recommend
the Malibu Response. They began building the Response in '95. It is a
great boat with great wakes and a nice rough water ride.
Good luck,
John