Which to Buy MasterCraft or Tige
Ray Newmark
My head hurts from trying to make this decision, I have it narrowed down
to the Prostar 205 and the Tige 2002fslm. I am 90% slalom and 10% kneeboard
just getting into wakeboarding. Is the fuel injection worth it? There are not
alot of Tige here in New England, are they reliable. I was thinking about
getting the Mercrusier 350 magnum with FI how is this engine.
Any other things I should ask? Any information you can give me would be great.
Like I said, I do have it narrowed down and do not want to consider others at
this point, then not only my head, but the rest of me would hurt too:)
Thanks for you help
Post or email replies
new...@centerline.com
Ray
Flightcraf
Newmark) writes:
Check out the Malibu Line. The Echelon and Flightcraft are a better boat
then both. No wood no wake and no vibration. Ever wonder why the dash in
the mastercraft in rubber. VIBRATION BABY> The tige is built by a guy who
left Malibu to go it on his own. Flightcraft was the # 1 all around boat
for 94. The Echelon was ski boat of the year. Go with the best.
Dave
Team Malibu
Barefootr
consider your local New England........
Where you can re-sell a Mastercraft, and what is a "Tige"?
hehehe....
Bare. :)
SLBoyd
>My head hurts from trying to make this decision, I have it narrowed down
to the Prostar 205 and the Tige 2002fslm. I am 90% slalom and 10%
kneeboard<
Go for the Prostar 205. The Tige has a VERY nice slalom wake, but in the
Long Run (and the Short Line), you'll wish you had purchased the
MasterCraft. I have a '94 205 that we really love, and my buddy has the
'94 Tige. They are both very good ski boats, but if you compare them side
by side, the MasterCraft is a better built boat. You can see it in the
details.
>Is the fuel injection worth it? <
Yes, the fuel injection is worth it. Especially if you live in a colder
climate. You will really appreciate how the boat purrrs when it is cold,
instead of coughing and farting like an older pcm with a carb.
Good Luck
Scott Boyd
Olympia, WA
Keith Euler
some real nice boats. Enough said.
I have a 94 Malibu Echelon with the Mercrusier 350 magnum with EFI. It only has
70+ hours on it, but so far but it starts and runs great. One of the people I ski
with has a 93 Malibu Echelon with the Mercrusier 350 magnum and a carb. After pulling
about an equal number of runs we both fueled up. He put in $32.00 of gas I put in
$26.00. The fuel injection gets far better gas economy than the Carb.
For this reason I think it is worth the extra upfront cost. In a side by side
run my boat will get about a 1/2 boat length jump on his but after that we hold
about even, so I dont think the EFI gains you much in exceleration, speed, or
power.
Just my $.02
Keith E.
John W. Cox
Well if your looking at a 94 the above may be true. And
Bare's correct on the resell issue. However, if you haven't
the 1995 MasterCraft you better look close they made a lot of
changes that some people are not happy with. The driver seat
is one issue the spray come up on the windshield on the starboard
drivers side in CW turns are a couple of the issues folks are
talking about, so check it out before you buy.
SLBoyd
Cox) writes:
> if you haven't
the 1995 MasterCraft you better look close they made a lot of
changes that some people are not happy with. The driver seat
is one issue the spray come up on the windshield on the starboard
drivers side in CW turns are a couple of the issues folks are
talking about, so check it out before you buy.<
The 1995 ProStar 205 is identical to the 1994. The 1995 ProStar 190 is
the boat that has been completely redesigned, and is VERY different. If
you are going for an open bow boat, and don't buy the 205, you'll wish you
had. :-)
Scott Boyd
Olympia, WA
Orlando Garcia, Jr.
>Bare's correct on the resell issue. However, if you haven't
>the 1995 MasterCraft you better look close they made a lot of
>changes that some people are not happy with. The driver seat
>is one issue the spray come up on the windshield on the starboard
>drivers side in CW turns are a couple of the issues folks are
>talking about, so check it out before you buy.
First of all, if you would like to e-mail me your posts for proofing
before they go up, feel free and I will help out when I can.
Second, MasterCraft has not changed the PS 205 AT ALL for '95. Only the
available colors have changed - all else is the same. It continues to
be a great boat if you cannot do without the open bow. The PS 190 is a
radical change from years past and roomier than ever. Much thought has
gone into its design. The results are more creature comforts and some
wake/spray changes - enough to consider passing on the open bow. I hope
they roll the PS 190 changes into the PS 205 line for '96; it will
certainly put them one step closer to "World Record, Open-Bow Tow Boat."
Hope it helps clarify ... Regards,
Orlando
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| | The opinions expressed may
Orlando Garcia, Jr. | Texas Instruments | belong to anyone, you just
orl...@dseg.ti.com | Dallas, Texas | don't know ...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Barefootr
(Orlando Garcia, Jr.) writes:
<<<First of all, if you would like to e-mail me your posts for proofing
before they go up, feel free and I will help out when I can.>>>
Come on now, is this any place to be antagonistic?
<<<Second, MasterCraft has not changed the PS 205 AT ALL for '95.>>>
True. And the original post did not say that it did. And like you said
Orlando, the original post referred to the pro-star 190....which is
radically changed.
The Point :: All of you guys are saying the same thing. :)
Bare. :)
(The day they promote a open-bow tow boat as *the* boat for tournament use
is the day I *really* lose it.)
Thomas Carlson
slb...@aol.com (SLBoyd) writes:
>In article <350iag$o...@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>, C...@ix.netcom.com (John W.
>Cox) writes:
>
>the 1995 MasterCraft you better look close they made a lot of
>changes that some people are not happy with. The driver seat
>is one issue the spray come up on the windshield on the starboard
>drivers side in CW turns are a couple of the issues folks are
>talking about, so check it out before you buy.<
>
>the boat that has been completely redesigned, and is VERY different. If
>you are going for an open bow boat, and don't buy the 205, you'll wish you
>had. :-)
>
>Scott Boyd
>Olympia, WA
I haven't riden in a New MasterCraft. I did ride in a Tiger last
weekend. It is really a great boat! The boat handles great and gets
on plane EXTREMELY quick. Much quicker than my friends 84
Mastercraft. The Tige is also very quiet and cuts through rough
water better. The boat came with a tandem trailer with surge brakes.
This is truely the best way to go. The Tige was being pulled by an
Izuzu Rodeo and the owner mentioned the boat didn't make that much
difference. Well, at 75 the trailer's tires squealed a little
around the sharp turn :).
Anybody have any impressions about the Mastercraft?
Thomas
Pete Tenereillo
check for. (Chop-sprayed boats in the same weight range are not as
strong, and waterskiing really beats up a boat). I've heard of two instances
of rotten wood stringers, and I don't thing that is covered by warranty.
The fix was to pull up the floor boards and put new ones in. Yikes!
(Also, to me the Tige is a bit weird looking. I think the resale on M/C
or InCorrect Craft would be higher).
Stop reading here if you don't want an unsolicited opinion!
Did you try the MasterCraft Outboard? Before you buy, you will want to try it.
Mine is actually for sale (love it but can't afford), but even if you aren't
interested in used, try one! I had the inboard for a year, and was not happy
with it at all. The outboard seems to be better at everything, including
the slalom wake. Driving the two, I'd have to say it's like comparing a
tractor (inboard) to a BMW (outboard). The ride is smooth, there's more
storage and room than you'll ever need (no stepping over people, etc.), and
the performance is breathtaking. Also, un-modified outboards have a longer
engine life.
The drawbacks are that it uses more gas, is harder to drive (especially in
slalom course), and is cramped if you have to put the ski on while standing
on the platform. (And also is more expensive, eg drive train on inboard is
about $6K, where outboard is $12K. Only $1-2K difference on total price, though.
Must be less margin in O/B. Hmmm).
The boats from Cope's (Mercury XRi instead of Yamaha ProV) all seem to top out over
60 MPH (Yamaha got a slower rating in magazine tests).
Cope and McPhetre's (spelling?) has one '94 left, and they always seem happy
to do test rides.
Jon Zeeff
to buy for slalom. The skier can pull it all over the place and it can't
hold the speed.
It's great for barefoot though.
Pete Tenereillo
basically the inboard hull with a beefy transom and motor on the back
(flat bottom at stern). That was called the ProStar 200. The Barefoot
200 is a V-bottom boat, and therefore has better tracking. If it is
the Barefoot 200 you are speaking of, then the magazine reviews do
not agree with you. Neither do I.
I owned a 1992 MasterCraft inboard, and now own the Barefoot 200. If *all*
you do is ski the course and wait on the dock, I agree that the inboard is
certainly easier to maintain course and speed through bouys. Also, wakeboard
speeds (e.g. 18 MPH) are difficult to maintain (Personnally, that doesn't
bother me when wakeboarding).
But for serious slalom, and some occasional *anything* else, I'd take my boat
over a tractor (inboard direct drive of any brand) any day. I can beach it, run
it in 10" of water for emergencies, and fly through nasty chop. Also, the wake
is better (unless you have 6 people in the boat).
As far as maintaining speed... who was driving? I have people who have never
driven a boat before pull me, and they keep me at 32 no problem. The outboard
has *so* much more power, that is is barely working at that speed. It does pretty
good up around 63 MPH too... Mr. Toads wild ride!
Jon Zeeff
Why would a 200 hp outboard have more power than a 280hp inboard?
Isn't it just the prop pitch difference?
Terry Jones
>
>Why would a 200 hp outboard have more power than a 280hp inboard?
>Isn't it just the prop pitch difference?
Well, there are factors... where is the inboard power rated. Outboards
are rated at the prop these days, are inboards? (really don't know whether
they are, anyone?). If the inboard is rated at the crankshaft then after
the transmission and stuffing box etc, you have lost a few
horsepower.
Then there is also the direction of the push. Because the
outboard can be trimmed, you can adjust it to push at a better
angle for a particular boat loading (weight distribution).
Not only is the push in the right direction, but the boat
can move through the water at a better angle and be more efficient.
There is also the power to weight ratio. This is higher for the
outboard since a two stroke engine produces combustion on every
up stroke of a piston where a four stroke (inboard) wastes one
up stroke on the exhaust. So maybe you end up with a lighter
package in the end.
Hows that for a non answer to your question. You decide...
Peoples perceptions of boats and motors and how they handle
vary considerably. Try many to see for yourself.
A couple of other things to consider when choosing between the
two (outboard vs inboard). Who will drive. Outboards, unless you
get power steering, are harder to turn than inboards. Turning
a heavy outboard motor that is producing torque can be difficult
in at least one direction. Turning an inboard rudder is pretty easy.
Makes it easy for smaller less strong drivers. But along with this is
the fact that an inboard in reverse is one pathetic puppy to
try to steer.
tj
Bill Walker
(Terry Jones) wrote:
[...]
> Well, there are factors... where is the inboard power rated. Outboards
> are rated at the prop these days, are inboards? (really don't know whether
> they are, anyone?).
I believe inboards are also currently rated at the prop shaft. At least,
the specs on my motor have an asterisk next to the horsepower number that
says "with Borg-Warner 1:1 transmission. Ratings will vary with other
transmissions" or something to that effect.
----------
Bill Walker - WWa...@qualcomm.com - QUALCOMM, Inc., San Diego, CA USA
"First thing we do, we kill all the lawyers." - Shakespeare
Lance W. Bledsoe
>A couple of other things to consider when choosing between the
>two (outboard vs inboard). Who will drive. Outboards, unless you
>get power steering, are harder to turn than inboards. Turning
>a heavy outboard motor that is producing torque can be difficult
>in at least one direction. Turning an inboard rudder is pretty easy.
>Makes it easy for smaller less strong drivers. But along with this is
>the fact that an inboard in reverse is one pathetic puppy to
>try to steer.
Outboards are much easier to get you arm chopped off from than inboards, so
the driver here becomes a *real* factor! :-)
Lance
--
"Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might
dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they
were bound to get you."
-- George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four
Barefootr
Waterskiing folder, as initially posted by GaryM******
Hi folks , been a while since I have been here, but it looks like you all
have been busy! I just came back from Destin, FL from the Shortline
Challenge. It was Master Craft's Pro Ski Team vs Correct Crafts, all for
PRIME network to be aired this Fall.
Team scoring 5 points for 1st, 3 for 2nd , 1 for 3rd. each team gets 3
skiers per event.
Master Craft won this year, even though Andy Mapple TRICKED
about 4800 points to replace Tory Baggiano who was out with a broken
hand......Lots of fun !!! There was also a record tournament going on in
Lake 3 where Suzi Graham ran 2 1/4 @ 39' for a pending World Record, not a
bad weekend.......The weather was great.
Got to go , SHERM glad you could join the 90's !!!
SEEEYAAAAAA!
Gary M your VP
********************************
Keep your feet Wet!
Bare.
Mike Crawford
There could be a number of reasons a 200 HP outboard would appear too have
more power than a 280 HP inboard.
The givens: People and equipment aside.
1. the outboard engine is lighter than the inboard engine...i don't know their
actual weights but 200 HP coming from an outboard that weighs 1/2 what the
inboard weighs...should have more power ( i would think )... given that the
hulls are the same weight.
2. look at where the thrust is being applied and how it acts on the boat. The
outboard thrust is coming from the prop..where is the engine ? on top of the prop.
So, the entire engine is pushing essentially an empty hull.
The inboard thrust is also coming from the prop, but now the engine is 4 feet in front of the prop. So, the prop is not only pushing the hull, but it must also
push the weight of the engine as well.
Try it yourself. get a cart and place an 80lb bag of sand in it. Now start to
push. You can move it yes, but it is heavy. Now take the bag out and have
a friend help put it on your shoulders. All of a sudden you can get the cart
moving alot easier because your carrying the weight yourself.
All right, I'm not a physicist, but atleast it sounds reasonable. Anyway, the inboard
has one great advantage over the outboard and that's torque. Because of the 4ft.
drive shaft and the fact that it doesn't have to turn the energy 90 degrees,
you should always a solid pull with an inboard engine.
Isn't that the reason why you don't pull anything over 2000lbs with a front wheel
drive car ???????
mwc
Sorry for ramblin on...
----------------------------
Terry Jones
>outboard thrust is coming from the prop..where is the engine ? on top of the prop.
>So, the entire engine is pushing essentially an empty hull.
>
> The inboard thrust is also coming from the prop, but now the engine is 4 feet in front of the prop. So, the prop is not only pushing the hull, but it must also
>push the weight of the engine as well.
>
> Try it yourself. get a cart and place an 80lb bag of sand in it. Now start to
> push. You can move it yes, but it is heavy. Now take the bag out and have
> a friend help put it on your shoulders. All of a sudden you can get the cart
> moving alot easier because your carrying the weight yourself.
Sorry, the physics is a little bit out on this one... as per my previous
post, there are outboard thrust issues that help, but this one isn't
it...
No matter how you look at it, the prop in both boats has to
push the boat plus the motor. As for the cart example. Two problems
here. The first is that when the bag is on your shoulders you are
correct in stating YOU are carrying the weight. In the boat example,
the transom of the boat is still supporting the weight of the
motor, not the prop. Also, in the cart example, the friction of
the bearings changes considerably with the load because they are basically
poor bearings usually.
But hey, you said you weren't a physicist right...
tj
>has one great advantage over the outboard and that's torque. Because of the 4ft.
>drive shaft and the fact that it doesn't have to turn the energy 90 degrees,
>you should always a solid pull with an inboard engine.
You are correct that a 90 degree gearing is less efficient than
a straight through shaft, but there is a transmission
in the inboard. I am willing to bet that because the gearing in
the inboard transmission is not 90 degree stuff, it does turn
out to be slightly more efficient. But the shaft length in both is
about the same.
>
>Isn't that the reason why you don't pull anything over 2000lbs with a front wheel
>drive car ???????
Um, was this a rule I was supposed to know about before I bought my
MasterCraft and started towing it with my front wheel drive '87
Bonneville? Damn, I have put a lot of miles on this combo this
summer. (there is a smile on my face when I write this... I am
quite aware that this is near the limit for this car, just not sure
which side of the limit it is on!) I trailer an average of 100 miles a week
I would guess with the club skiing and the cottage trips.
As for this being the reason, I don't think so. In fact, the
differential in a rear drive car is exactly a 90 degree gearing. The front
wheel drive is technically straight through. The difference is that
the front wheels turn and therefore require complex joints to
transmit thrust and also handle the turning. The tighter the turning the
more stress these joints take. When towing this greatly
increases the forces. In a rear wheel drive, there are still
joints to allow for bending, but the bending is greatly reduced since
it only has to compensate for the up down travel of the rear axel and the
amount of bending is very small in comparison. In fact, the
front wheel drive has to handle the suspension bending and the turning
bending, and because the length of the half shafts from the motor
to the wheel is much shorter that the length of the drive
shaft from the motor to the differential in the RWD, the bending is
much greater.
And you thought you rambled...
tj
tj
Bill Walker
wrote:
> In article c...@zip.eecs.umich.edu, ze...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Jon Zeeff)
writes:
> >>has *so* much more power, that is is barely working at that speed. It
does pretty
> >
> >Why would a 200 hp outboard have more power than a 280hp inboard?
> >Isn't it just the prop pitch difference?
> >
>
>
> There could be a number of reasons a 200 HP outboard would appear too have
> more power than a 280 HP inboard.
[...]
> 2. look at where the thrust is being applied and how it acts on the boat. The
> outboard thrust is coming from the prop..where is the engine ? on top
of the prop.
> So, the entire engine is pushing essentially an empty hull.
>
> The inboard thrust is also coming from the prop, but now the engine
is 4 feet in front of the prop. So, the prop is not only pushing the
hull, but it must also
> push the weight of the engine as well.
[...]
Despite your example, physics says this just ain't so. The only advantage
here is lighter weight for the outboard, and perhaps a small advantage
from thrust angle (the outboard thrust vector is straight aft, while the
inboard's points down at the shaft angle).
[...]
> All right, I'm not a physicist, but atleast it sounds reasonable.
Anyway, the inboard
> has one great advantage over the outboard and that's torque. Because of
the 4ft.
> drive shaft and the fact that it doesn't have to turn the energy 90 degrees,
> you should always a solid pull with an inboard engine.
Yes, the inboard has a torque advantage, but it has nothing to with the
drive system. It's because the outboard is a 2-stroke of 2.5-3.5 liters
displacement, while the inboard is a 4-stroke of 5.7-5.8 liters
displacement. The engine produces more torque. Yes, there's probably
some loss due to friction in the outboard's bevel gears. A stern drive
using the same motor as my inboard is rated at 15 hp less at the prop, but
the stern drive has another set of bevel gears the outboard doesn't.
>
> Isn't that the reason why you don't pull anything over 2000lbs with a
front wheel
> drive car ???????
Nope. It's because the tongue weight of the trailer tends to transfer
weight off the front wheels of the car, which can be a big problem on
hills and slippery surfaces (or boat ramps, which can be both). I've seen
this graphically demonstrated, the best example being a 70's Cadillac
Eldorado (the one with the 500 cubic inch {8.2 L} engine) trying to pull a
22 foot wood Chris-Craft up a ramp. Even with 3 people sitting on each
front fender, it would just spin the wheels. He finally had to get a tow
from a 4WD pickup.
Re TJ's comment in his response to this post, I'll bet the mfr.'s rating
for his Bonneville is only 2000 lbs, and I'll bet he's over it by at least
1000.
Mike Crawford
>Nope. It's because the tongue weight of the trailer tends to transfer
>weight off the front wheels of the car, which can be a big problem on
>hills and slippery surfaces (or boat ramps, which can be both). I've seen
>this graphically demonstrated, the best example being a 70's Cadillac
>Eldorado (the one with the 500 cubic inch {8.2 L} engine) trying to pull a
>22 foot wood Chris-Craft up a ramp. Even with 3 people sitting on each
>front fender, it would just spin the wheels. He finally had to get a tow
>from a 4WD pickup.
>
>Re TJ's comment in his response to this post, I'll bet the mfr.'s rating
>for his Bonneville is only 2000 lbs, and I'll bet he's over it by at least
>1000.
>----------
>Bill Walker - WWa...@qualcomm.com - QUALCOMM, Inc., San Diego, CA USA
>"First thing we do, we kill all the lawyers." - Shakespeare
Well, I said I wasn't a physicist.....just trying to offer a less technical
answer to the question....obviously, it wasn't an acceptable answer.
BTW, let me know how much it will cost to replace your transmission in that FWD car you've been using to pull your 3000+ lb boat... at your current rate of use, I'd
give it one more season....maybe.
mwc
Barefootr
engineers! hehehe....I love it! :)
Any-who....PCM and Indmar rate their engines as 285 shp (shaft
horsepower), where Mercruiser rates there's in accordance with PMMA (sp?)
standards, and that is at the prop. Thus, you will see that the Merc's
rated at 265 will have the same performance as the Indmar or PCM rated at
285.
(I discovered this fact this past summer, running two boats, one with a
Merc, and one with an PCM)
Bare.
Pieter Ganzer
[Stuff deleted]
>tj
>>has one great advantage over the outboard and that's torque. Because of the
>>4ft. drive shaft and the fact that it doesn't have to turn the energy 90
>>degrees, you should always a solid pull with an inboard engine.
The fact that an inboard has more torque than an outboard comes more from the
differences between the motors themselves. A two stroke outboard gets its
horsepower from a power stroke every other stroke in smaller pistons (ie less
mass) and high rpm's, this config is not the ideal way to produce high
torque. A four stroke v8 has a a better torque curve for the same HP since it
runs at a lower rpm and has a larger piston dispalcement. The real advantage
to the increased torque in an inboard is that the boat can hold a constant
speed when under load better than an outboard. (ie a 190 lb skier in the
course).
>You are correct that a 90 degree gearing is less efficient than
>a straight through shaft, but there is a transmission
>in the inboard. I am willing to bet that because the gearing in
>the inboard transmission is not 90 degree stuff, it does turn
>out to be slightly more efficient. But the shaft length in both is
>about the same.
I agree with tj. Like I said above it has more to due with the motor than the
transmission.
>tj