80s Nautique 2001 Wake

Jimmy F · Outlaw Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 229 City: Virginia

Those of you with 80s vintage Nautique 2001s please describe and post some pics of your wakes. I'm considering buying one of these but need some help.

BIGMAC · Posted: Nov 06, 2003 2:10 pm Post subject:

I compare it to a Super Airs wake just slightly different. The wake is narrow, very hard, vert, with a nice lip. Here is a pic with around 1800 pounds @ 20-21 mph.

Hollywood · Posted: Nov 06, 2003 5:13 pm Post subject:

Honestly, you won't find a nicer wake from any 80s inboard. I wish I had some pics.

Funkster · Posted: Nov 06, 2003 10:17 pm Post subject:

Jimmy F · Outlaw Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 229 City: Virginia

That wake looks sweet. Lets see some more.

graphik · Addict Joined: 20 Feb 2003 Posts: 727 City: miller lake

I took a lesson at a local ski school who uses a 2001 for the wake boat. It's an 84.... I've never seen a better wake and it only had 500 lbs in it. I went out and bought an inboard after that, but I go back for lessons just to ride on the Nauti wake. You will not be dissapointed.

orzech · Posted: Nov 08, 2003 10:49 am Post subject:

pics:

65 ft. rope and about 1600 lbs with 4 people

srh00z · Outlaw Joined: 09 Nov 2003 Posts: 128 City: Birmingham

Those boats produce amazing wakes. A guy that rides with us has an '84 and a '87 SN 2001 and we usually put a cooler of water in the back with about 4 people. He does inverts with just the stock pylon (he has been doing it for a long time). The '84's wake is better than the '87. I recently found an '81 CC Southwind and was wondering what kind of wake it throws, the hull is deeper than the Ski Nautique.

Hollywood · Posted: Nov 09, 2003 7:22 pm Post subject:

Jimmy F · Outlaw Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 229 City: Virginia

orzech, That's a nice looking wake bro. The 2001s are definitly on my list of potential boats to buy. Thanks.

Preston Duke · Outlaw Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Posts: 150 City: Richmond, Va.

Jimmy,
I have a friend who has one, and I've ridden behind it a hand full of times. I was soooo surprised by it. We were riding with only about 1000lbs in it, so it wasn't big but it's hard and kicky. I was able to rotate 7's my last day behind it, so with more weight those things kill it.

marcg · Addict Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 944 City: Salt Lake City

I had an 88'.....maybe it was just my engine....I had a 351....I can't
imagine trying to drive that thing with 1800 pounds in it!
Is it taking you all a while to plane out with that much weight????

I ran it with about 1000 pounds and the wake was still pretty good.

The only drawback was the lack of space...definitely accomedations for people who really are die hard on riding and don't really care about getting water dripped on them from other people and being little cramped.

So its not very friendly for people who just want to chill on the boat with you and not ride...especially if you got a few other people who are riding.

Definitely put a tower with racks to help the space situation out.

BIGMAC · Posted: Nov 12, 2003 4:00 pm Post subject:

marcg, a little longer but not to bad. I would quess less than 10 seconds to be at speed. I will time it next time out. It takes longer if you have to much weight towards the back so you have to watch that.

wakebored · Posted: Nov 13, 2003 1:25 pm Post subject:

BIGMAC, How do you weight your boat? Sacs? How do you place them? Does your boat have a closed bow?

I am looking at the same kind of boat. I have found an 86 Ski 2001, 19.6' closed bow. Just curious on how to position the weight.

Hollywood · Posted: Nov 13, 2003 1:40 pm Post subject:

wakebored · Posted: Nov 13, 2003 2:01 pm Post subject:

Hollywood, Stupid question. sorry.

Do you have a 80's Nautique? if so, how do you place your weight?

BIGMAC · Posted: Nov 13, 2003 3:08 pm Post subject:

Had about 90# in the bow with sand bags. I had 2 750s filled to around 600# not sure. A 600# not all the way full maybe 450-500. Me driving one little girl and one 175# guy sitting in the front pass seat. . Maybe it was more than 1800 I'm not sure. That's kinda the general weighting configuration I have been using and still experimentong a little.. Mine is a 86 also. Here is another pic of the wake from a slightly different angle.

Tranner · Posted: Nov 13, 2003 3:26 pm Post subject:

I'm a bit confused. Is a 2001 the same as a Ski Nautique? Sorry, new to wakeboard boats.

wakebored · Posted: Nov 13, 2003 3:27 pm Post subject:

BIGMAC, So you put the 90lbs in the bow, the two 750's on each side of the engine, and the 600 in the back?? The wake looks sweet. What kind of tower is that on your boat? I was thinking about just using a pole but the tower really looks good on that boat.

BIGMAC · Posted: Nov 13, 2003 3:28 pm Post subject:

2001 was a model of a ski nautiques in the 80s. Like Super Air, Pro Air, .....

Hollywood · Posted: Nov 13, 2003 10:25 pm Post subject:

Again....all Ski and Barefoot Nautiques were called "2001" from 82 till 89. They all had closed bows as well. CC made other models during the 80s, such as:

Dominique - same as Barefoot with a small block though
Martinique - luxurious open bow, same hull as Barefoot, also had small block
Fish Nautique - off-shore inboard fishing boat
Bass Nautique - outboard bass boat
Cuddy Nautique - salt water inboard cuddy-cabin cruiser
Riviera - similar to Cuddy, but smaller made for inland lakes
Southwind - old model, died in early in the decade, 18-20', inboard, open or closed bow

BIGMAC · Posted: Nov 13, 2003 10:37 pm Post subject:

wakebored, Yes but the sacs were not all the way full. I need more weight in the bow before I fill the sac in the back all the way and the 750s are so huge that I dont think you could get them to fill all the way up because of the engine cover. I bought bag covers to the side sacs (big bumps) that have belts that allow you to restrict the circumfrence of the bag. I use that to eleviate some of the pressure on the engine cover.
The tower is a Flight Control Tower same tower as on the newer Nautiques. I got it for a good deal but I would also recommend a monster tower to you. www.monstertower.com Man I should be getting paid as much as I pimp you guys out!! Wink

tiqueman · Posted: Nov 13, 2003 11:00 pm Post subject:

I just got rid of my 82 nautique 2001 for a 97 supersport. I must say that although 2 different wakes, the 82 was just as nice as the 97. I only had 2 550's in the back, one on each side running front to back and about 100 lbs. of weight in the bow. I ride in a salt water river thats not that deep and always though the wake was so much better than the 91 mastercraft 190 i used to ride behind. Then we took it to Orlando, Florida and "Oh my", It was sick. What a difference fresh deep water makes. Anyway, I didnt have near as much as some of the guys but for what weight I did put in it, it was very nice. I also put an inexpensive automatic ballast in it (NO MORE PUMPS AND WIRES AND SUCH) if your interested on seeing how I did that Ive got some pics. If there was any part of riding with my 82 I didnt like, It was filling up bags for 25 min.

wakerwes · Outlaw Joined: 31 Aug 2003 Posts: 135 City: belgium

tiqueman, show me your pic's of your automatic ballast tanks,
im planning to do it on my ski nautique 2001 89 Smile

tiqueman · Posted: Nov 14, 2003 9:52 am Post subject:

I will post some pics this evening when Im off work. I still used bags (Launch pad) but I did pickups under the hull, 2 shut off valves and about 14 feet of hose. Open the valves and drive the boat at around 30 moh for about 3 min. and they were full. Close the valve when they get to your liking and when you want to empty, I just opend the valves (boat in nuetral) and the drained automatically. They siphon automatically which was not planned but it worked out so I never changed it. Sometimes you will have to stand on a bag for 2 or 3 seconds to get it going but thats only if they were not completely full. Im actually thinking of doing a similar set up in my new boat.

flyte69 · Newbie Joined: 14 Nov 2003 Posts: 4 City: Ridgeway

...dude....Nautiques rule!....I have an '88 2001 Nautique and it has the sweetest wake!....I used to have 2 fat sacs, 1 on each side of the engine....that wuz pretty good but wuz a pain accessing the engine....so I switched to 2 side sacs, 1 on each side of the engine and a fat sac in the back.....it's the best we've tried....I wuz gonna try the fat seat but from what I've heard it's just too much weight.....we usually have a possee of about 4 to 6 riderz anywayz.....so go get yerself a Nauticore & ride!.....you won't be dissapointed!! Laughing

delberto · Outlaw Joined: 14 Nov 2003 Posts: 218

This is behind a 1982 Ski Nautique 2001 hull.

tiqueman · Posted: Nov 14, 2003 8:09 pm Post subject:

Wakerwes im going to PM you

BIGMAC · Posted: Nov 14, 2003 10:09 pm Post subject:

delberto, looks like you boys can tear it up!!

BIGMAC · Posted: Nov 14, 2003 10:10 pm Post subject:

tiqueman, If you don't mind sending me some pics as well I'm curious.

King of the Tigers · Posted: Nov 15, 2003 10:52 pm Post subject:

For all people say about not having room in the nauti 2001s I've never noticed it as a huge factor to the amount of fun I have. I almost always have 7 people in the boat and the back end taken up with 2 ice chests. (cheap ballast) It's certianly not spacious this way but we have the driver and two people in the love seat up front, 1 or 2 on the engine cover, and usually one back on the ice chests. Or people sit on the side benches sometimes too. I think someone's complained once or twice and I've simply not invited them again. It's just glorious enough for me to be on the water!

Hollywood · Posted: Nov 17, 2003 8:57 am Post subject:

I've got a 2001, and have had 9 boat riders with someone wakeboarding several times. 1 driver, 3 chicks on the observer seat, 1 on motor box, 1 each side of motor box, and 3 on the back seat. This actually makes room for 10, but the cops are on my ass all the time for the one on the motor box (higher than gunnel) so that usually doesn't happen. One other guy with a 2001 has 2 guys sitting on the bow sometimes too! That's something I probably won't get into though.

Goob · Outlaw Joined: 01 Jul 2003 Posts: 146 City: S/W Minnesota

i just bought a 1983 nuati 2001 and it came with a phat seat and i was wondering if i need to get some more sacs in the bow to even the weight out amd how much i should fill that thing up to and if i am gonna have ne problems with it dropping through the floor. I am tryin to pimp this beast out so when the ice clears off my lake i can tear it up!

BIGMAC · Posted: Mar 01, 2004 8:58 pm Post subject:

You will need some weight up front for sure but how much I don't know. You will just have to experiment and see what works best. I would look into a prop too with all that weight.

Lucky · Posted: Mar 02, 2004 5:44 am Post subject:

Goob, I have an '82 2001 (which is for sale if anyone is looking) I use a fat seat and a 350-500 lbs across the front. For the fat seat I do not inflate the back rest and I wrap it around the engine box. I would recommend not putting it all the way back against the gas tank. If you do the wake will be a little to steep. But a full fat seat around the engine box and the weight up front will be perfect. I like this configuration better then two 500lbs sacks on each side of the engine, and one in back. Have fun it is a great boat.