Pro Star 190 vs Ski Nautique !!!

andronikos916 · Newbie Joined: 09 May 2003 Posts: 22 City: Athens, Greece

hi guys, I need your advice on this one... I am thinking of buying a boat at approx 15K - 17K$ range...

I found a Pro Star 190 '96 and a Ski Nautique '95... I have seen only the wake of the Mastercraft and I would like to ask you to compare the two wakes... which boat creates better and bigger wakes... Of course the weight plays a huge role but if we weighting both equally good which one is better?

thanx
Andronikos

Tim Krasin · Outlaw Joined: 13 Feb 2003 Posts: 104 City: Houston, TX

The '95 Nautique is pre-TSC hull, so it'll be the same hull from the early 90's - will make a really nice shapped wake and seems to hold shape well when weighted. Haven't had experience with the newer MC hulls.

anti-shoobies · Posted: May 20, 2003 7:26 am Post subject:

The MC dealer told me that 95-97 year on the hulls were poorly designed. Look for like a 93-94. I have a 94 and I'm run about 1000 lbs and it has a sick wake. My friend throws the same setup on a 92 Nauty. The wake are the same heigh but the shape is way different. The MC has a clean lip while the Nauty has a weird lip raffle thing going on at the top. A 92-94 MC will be cheaper too so you'll be able to put a tower and ballat on it.

andronikos916 · Newbie Joined: 09 May 2003 Posts: 22 City: Athens, Greece

So basically both boats can produce a decent/big wake then... The only difference is the shape...

Tim Krasin: What does it mean "Nautique is pre-TSC hull"

Anti-shoobies: which pro star do you have? 190 or 205 ?

thanx Laughing

anti-shoobies · Posted: May 20, 2003 1:53 pm Post subject:

You got it. The shape is the only difference. I have a 190. Hope were of some help.

PimpinD · Addict Joined: 17 Feb 2003 Posts: 785 City: Orlando, FL

i got a prostar 205 for $14700 not to long ago, keep looking i thi nkthe 205 trow a nicer wake than the 190 with some weight .

Tim Krasin · Outlaw Joined: 13 Feb 2003 Posts: 104 City: Houston, TX

TSC: "Total Surface Control" which debuted in '97 on the Ski Nautique hull - it's for slalom skiers to flatten and soften the wakes. It also seems to have slightly hurt the wakeboarding/tricking wakes. Thus, in 2002 (I think) they brought out the TSC2 hull which helped re-improve the wakeboard/tricking wakes. So, anything before the TSC ('97) hull is supposed to have a good size/shape boarding wake. Go ride behind one with and without weight and see for youself if possible. I say without weight because location of weight can also make or break a wake's size and shape, thus without weight removes that factor.

byerly2003 · Criminal Joined: 13 May 2003 Posts: 82 City: Nashville

I had a Sport Nautique '95 last year and hated the wake, it took a lot of weight to make it a decent size and the good spot was really close to the boat, couldnt go with a long enough line without hitting a washed out wake. i dont know a lot about them though, not sure if the sport has the same hull. for that price range i would recomend a 95 malibu sunsetter, i love the wake behind mine

siuski · Posted: May 21, 2003 6:41 am Post subject:

Stay away from MC 95-97; '87-'94 MC's are nice. I have a '93 SN (19.5') closed bow. The wake is great w/ a fat seat. W/O any weight the wake is hard, but very small. The boat in general is built very well. I paid 14k w/200 hrs on mine. I still like to hit the course now and again and my wife is still a semi-competive jumper so I went with the smaller SN. But if I just wanted to wakeboard I'd go with a early-mid '90's Sport Nautique. They'll hold more weight, people, etc.

anti-shoobies · Posted: May 21, 2003 7:45 am Post subject:

siuski, like I said, 95-97 are no good. My 94 is great bought it with about 200hrs on it and haven't had a problem with it for 300 hours which is were I am now 500 hr.

shaun187 · Criminal Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Posts: 58 City: Augusta, GA

Byerly 2003 : how were you weighting your sport? I had one before my launch and I had a sick wake. Just curious?

shaun187 · Criminal Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Posts: 58 City: Augusta, GA

There is a 1994 Prostar 205 for $16,000 up here listed where I live. And a prostar 190 1987 for $7500.

andronikos916 · Newbie Joined: 09 May 2003 Posts: 22 City: Athens, Greece

...thanx Shaun but I live in Greece, Athens...not so many boats here Crying or Very sad

Tim Krasin · Outlaw Joined: 13 Feb 2003 Posts: 104 City: Houston, TX

If those are your only two choices - I'd definitely go with the Nautique. Both boats are quality boats and will give you plenty of enjoyment. Even with smaller wakes, with a proper cut and loading the line correctly you'll get good air. The Nautique seems to be more widely used in older wakeboarding videos - must be for a reason. Per byerly2003's remarks, I'm not sure about the '95 Nautique not giving a good wake - perhaps weighted a little different it would produce better wakes - maybe byerly2003 has higher standards (I agree the '95 Malibu also has great wakes). I have been behind an early 90's MC and it had smaller wakes (no ballast) than mid 90's Nautiques I've seen on the lake (no ballast also) - just never rode behind them. Good luck with the purchase.
-Tim

andronikos916 · Newbie Joined: 09 May 2003 Posts: 22 City: Athens, Greece

thanx Tim,
yes indeed here in Greece there are 3-4 boats available at the moment... So as you understand I knowing that both boats have aprox. the same size wake I will choose the one which is in the best condition-price...

thanx all.

P.S.

MC has a Indmar EFI 5.7 V8 Cevrolet (the guy told me that has 310hp, is that possible? cause all Indmar EFI 5.7 V8 produce 275, am I right?).

The Nautiques have carbs (don't know the type of their engines yet...)

cy

bryce_04 · Posted: May 22, 2003 10:34 am Post subject:

byerly, you must have poorly weighted your sport. Ours throws a perfect shape wake with NO weight. It's not the biggest without weight, but once you add weight it only gets better. I love the wake on ours.