X-9/209 vs. Air Nautique 216 Log Out | Topics | Search | Register | Edit Profile | User List
Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Moderators | Help/Instructions
WakeWorld Discussion Board » >> Boats, Accessories & Tow Vehicles Archive » Archive through April 01, 2004 » X-9/209 vs. Air Nautique 216 « Previous Next »
By Ramon Beaulieu (fromcmu) on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 1:00 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
I need help! I am considering either an X-9/209 vs an Air Nautique/216. I want a direct drive for skiing and wakeboarding. I like the idea of a bigger boat with the 209 hull vs the sport/216 hull. Which boat is built better, gets better fuel efficiency etc? Also, has anyone had problems with the back seat in the 209/X-9 as far as structure? I like the back seat that becomes a sun deck but it seems flimsy, has anyone had problems with this seat/sun deck?

By barefooter (prostar205v) on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 6:03 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
I had a 03 209. No problems with the the back seat. I kept it 1 year and had a minor warranty issue. Dealer fixed and not a problem afterwards. Lift that backseat and you will see by weight alone it is not flimsy.....They also add a suppport bar under the seat. Easy to put into a sundeck, but the back storage section would suffice for my wife with out moving the seat. Great Boat. Good Luck.
By Clint Holland (clint_h) on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 9:28 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
I have an '03 X9 and like the boat a lot. The back seat is great, we have boarded with it in the "sun deck" position without it latched down and it never moved.
By Tom Barnard (tlb) on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 6:35 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
I used to have an X-7 that had the same set up as the X-9 back seat. no issues with the seat, but to fully fill the ballast bag the seat needs to be in the sun deck position. Make sure to get the MCX engine upgrade. Great boat!
By justin (beerdrnknboardr) on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 6:59 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
X-9 is a great boat if you are doing both. Puts out a good wake with the tanks full and a full crew, although i suggest a fat sack or 2 if you wanna go big. And i too thought that sundeck position looked a lil sketchy but we havent had any problems with it. And with a few people in it its a good ski boat too, but if you are at max its not as good.(my pops has been known to occasionaly toss the extras to the shore for his ski run) And if you can swing the upgraded engines are nice. We ended up finding a loaded used x-9 for thousands less than a new basic one and the escalade engine in it is pretty sweet.
By Zoran Forgiarini (zorforg) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 7:52 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
In 2002, were looking at the same two boats. We chose the X9. We had a deposit on the Air Nautique. We got it back after we test drove the X9. It has way more room and general comfort. The Air has a smaller wake and the X9 wake lays down well for skiing. California Skier went out of their way to make us happy. I am stoked with the excellent service. The Nautique dealer did not seem to care as much. We love the X9. We do everything behind it. I am looking to get some extra ballast bags when we need to get extra huge. We have nothing but good things to say about the X9.
By DJL (dholio) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 8:13 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Nautique has a stronger warranty, better building process, more comfortable seats, better visibility when driving, rides rougher water better, handles better IMHO and puts out a great ski and wakeboard wake. I like the engines a lot better too. They have more power.
By Nick Heckerson (kstateskier) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 8:55 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
I don't agree with hardly anything you said DJL, but I'm not even going to get in an argument with you because it will get nothing accomplished.

Go with the MC, better wakes and a lot better looking IMO.

(Message edited by kstateskier on March 08, 2004)

By DJL (dholio) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 5:57 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Hands down you have to agree that the warranty is better. As far as the rest goes, it is personal opinion in most peoples eyes.
MC warranty - limited life on the hull, deck and stringers. 3 year drive train. 1 year on anything glued and/or screwed to the boat. 1 year on guages (correct me if I am wrong there)
CC warranty - limited lifetime on the hull, deck and stringers. 3 year drive train. 5 year bumper to bumper on the rest and transferable for the remainder of the five years to a second owner.

By Matthew Bird (ldr) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 9:07 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
A waranty alone does not make a boat better. And although the cc handles the rough water beter. the mc is a much easier to drive boat the cc is very hard to steer it takes more effort. the mc is effortless.
By wallyworld (wallyworld) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 9:18 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
the mc is easier to drive if you are used to bayliner performance. CC drives like a sportscar
By face planter (mastercraft1995) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 9:26 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Both boats are very nice, you can't go wrong with either one. It's personal preference and what boat you can get for the best price. Demo and ride behind both then decide.
By Nick Heckerson (kstateskier) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 12:17 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
what he said!
By justin (beerdrnknboardr) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 2:00 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Well i havent been on a 216 in a lil while, and didnt drive it last time i was on it, but it seemed to ride great just like any other cc. And as far as the statement about a mc ridin like a bayliner and a cc like a sports car i'd have to say i disagree with that exagerated comparison. I'm not gonna say i know which one is better, but that i dont believe it to be that big of a difference. Our x-9 seems to move and handle great with no balast, which is the tanks and atleast one fat sack. I'm sure the sportscar type performance would deal more with how much weight you have in it and if you are comparing one with a bottom line engine to one with the top of the line engine.

Other than that i say demo them both because they are both great companies and if you need more wake just get more ballast

By Ramon Beaulieu (fromcmu) on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 11:21 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Thanks for all of the advice! Although, I am still in the same boat (pun intended). I cannot decide either as I like both. I think that I will just look for the best deal.
This is a great source for info, thanks again!

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions Administration
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
WakeSpace is owned by eWake, Inc.
Copyright © 1996 - 2008, All Rights Reserved.