Mastercraft X-2

TOTALL · Outlaw Joined: 20 Jul 2003 Posts: 246 City: Kankakee,IL

HI,

I'm looking at 2003 Mastercraft X-2.What do I need to know.

--Wake size good or bad.
--Quality
--Any flaws with this year boat.

Any help would be apreciated(sp)I don't want to turn into a boat bashing session.

Thanks TOTALL

njskier · Criminal Joined: 16 Aug 2005 Posts: 67 City: Jersey

I don't know about the X2, but I own a 2003 Maristar 230 and love it!
The fit and finish of the boat is second to none. Mine has the MCX engine, best choice in my opinion. The 310 HP would be fine in the smaller X2, but with alot of people and ballast, you may want the 350HP.

I have no ballast in mine yet, so I'm sure the X2 would be a much nicer wake by far. I just wanted the larger interior.

I doubt that you would regret buying a MC. (this is my 2nd one.)

Go to www.tmcowners.com to get more opinions from MC owners.

jpk · Outlaw Joined: 07 Aug 2005 Posts: 215 City: Redmond

Bambamski · Posted: Jan 10, 2006 9:10 am Post subject:

I'm a little biased as I own a 2005 X-2.

My favorite wake to ride behind no question. When we bought the boat last year I pretty much rode and demoed every boat I could before I bought it. If you like a good hard not to steep and not to rampy wake then you'll really like the X-2.

It's not the biggest boat on the market that's for sure though. If you're worried about storage and seating for more than 6-7 then it's probably not the boat you want. For me it came down to what the wake was like first and everything else fell into place after.

Some of the people on this board really load their X-2's with a lot of weight. For us, I run factory ballast and a far sac in the bow (350 pounds) and the wake is plenty for what we do.

here's a quick pick of that set up. I think there's three of us in the boat as well.

E.J. · Ladies Man Joined: 15 Jan 2003 Posts: 7597 City: Mogadishu

Great post by Bambamski.

My thoughts.....

Wake size good or bad? Good. Size is relative to weight and speed. But you can build and build with this hull and will not be left wanting.

Quality? Top notch.

Any flaws with this year boat? Not to my knowledge.

Erik · Posted: Jan 10, 2006 10:16 am Post subject:

I am not sure it gets a whole lot better than the X-2, actually. Wake characteristics are, when weighted, about as good as anything I've ever experienced. No offense to Bambamski but much more can be had with an X-2 than the wake pictured there. But wake pictures don't really tend to work very well, unless the is taken of the wake with a rider at the base of it, in the wash, thus showing relative height and shape. But unless that rider is using a pretty short line (55?) then the fully weighted wake changes quite a bit. I remember it having a pretty large table, compared to a CC, and a very pronounced mound as I said before. It was awesome.

Anyway, the X-2's wake is very "moundy" and hard with a solid lip. Phenomenal. I really love it.

P hat in Cincy · Posted: Jan 10, 2006 10:17 am Post subject:

The only "flaw" I can think of was that '03 was the only year they used the telescoping board racks. I thought I had read that if you run around with them extended and take a jarring wave/wake shot it could bend a rod (no Blues Brothers reference) and make it difficult to close.

'02 racks were bungee
'04~?? racks are clamping

Bambamski · Posted: Jan 10, 2006 10:37 am Post subject:

One more note though. MC advertises the X-2(X-1) wake to be a boat for everyone, from Expert all the way down to beginner. I don't think that's the case though. Some of the kids and newbies that we've towed behind our boat have had a little tougher time because at slower speeds the wake tends to crumble over and get to steep. Anything less then 20 mph and you're going to have some problems keeping the wake clean. If you tow a lot of kids or newbies you may want to find a rampier style wake like a older VLX or tige. My opinion though, with a rampier wake you give up a lot of pop so for us I didn't want to go the rampy route. Just something to think about. If you like a rampier wake vs something that boots you straight up, the X-2 wake may not be suited for you.

Bambamski · Posted: Jan 10, 2006 10:51 am Post subject:

Offence not taken Erik

Like I said before, we don't put a ton of weight in the boat because I feel we really don't need it. From the picture of afrodesiac, how much bigger do you need to go? I agree that a picture of wake pretty much means nothing except to tell how big it is. I've ridden behind boats that had huge wakes but when you cut into them they didn't do anything to you. You'd slice right through. Too many people throw too much weight in their boats when all they have to do is learn how to edge and you'd achieve far more height than throwing another 1000 pounds in your boat. (disclaimer, my edging sucks and I know it, something I'd like to work on next year)

Are you asking what line length he was at Eric? He's at 70 plus handle. Right around 23.5 mph.

JV · Posted: Jan 10, 2006 1:41 pm Post subject:

like everyone has said, the x-2 is top notch all around. when i was boat shopping, it was neck and neck between the x-2 and the new vlx as the perfect boat for me. while i ended up going with the vlx, i have no doubt i would be close to, if not equally, as satisfied with the x-2. my reasons for choosing the new vlx came down to the added space, a larger wake with only stock ballast (as you'd expect when comparing 1250 lbs. + wedge to 900 lbs.) because i don't add weight yet, and i felt the rampier wake would make it easier for a big, aggresive cutting guy like myself to progress. that said, you really can't go wrong with the x-star/x-2/x-1. an '03 x-2 was the first boat i went wake to wake both heelside and toeside and landed a w2w 180 behind. and when you do start adding weight like my friend with an '04, the wake gets HUGE in a hurry with the narrow beam. if you do decide to buy the x-2, there's no doubt you won't be disappointed