93/94 Ski Nautique 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 March 18, 2009 » 93/94 Ski Nautique « Previous Next »
By Trevor Gleadhill (trevorg7) on Thursday, June 19, 2008 - 10:32 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
What is the general thought about these boats? It seems there are a few for sale and their price point is fairly low. I compare it to a 83/84 Ski Nautique and they are close in price.

I've looked at two recently and both were < 10k. Assuming good condition, are they just under valued? Or is there something about them that should be flagged.

Thanks for your input.

T

 
By A-dub (behindtheboat) on Thursday, June 19, 2008 - 10:57 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
It's an modeled to be a smaller wake ski boat so the wake is smaller.
 
By Darrel F (95sn) on Thursday, June 19, 2008 - 11:21 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
more roomy interior, no wood to rot, 1.23:1 reduction trans.
 
By trace (trace) on Thursday, June 19, 2008 - 11:43 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
The one thing I hated about CC's from those years was the sloped transom. You had to come off plane really slowly, or it would literally flood the back of the boat, even with no weight. It also makes it difficult to get into your boots on the deck.

The earlier 80's "2001" models are more popular due to much more wake potential, which is probably why these seem cheap. They will not throw anywhere near the wake of a 2001. Look at early 90's Sport Nautiques - open bow, and great wake potential. I think '91 was the last year of wood in CC's.

 
By Nickbot (nickbot) on Thursday, June 19, 2008 - 11:54 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
I have a '93 Ski and an '88 2001. I will list the relative good and bad points that I have experienced.
Ski : no wood in the floor/stringers, more space (storage/seating), handles better, quieter (single exhaust vs. dual), one piece windshield, 1:23 transmission (faster to plane), sloped transom (awkward to sit down and put your board on), more solid platform (but smaller), smaller wake (need 3 times the weight to get the same wake as the 2001).
2001 : extremely fun wake, doesn't need much weight (little bit better fuel economy), louder, wood in the floor and stringers, less storage space, more unstable with weight, two piece windshield (bar in the middle), transom better to sit down on, less stable platform (but bigger).
It's really hard for me to pick a favorite. They are both good buys for < 10K. I like the wake on the 2001 better, but I like driving the Ski better.

 
By Mark (market_open) on Thursday, June 19, 2008 - 6:10 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
I have a '92 SN hull with a '93 interior and motor (engine fire less than 10 hours, she was nicknamed "Burnie" @ WCCC in '93). I wouldn't sell her for <10K, but I have seen some in that price range. It is a great boat, no one that rides behind it ever complains about the wake. 900 - 1300 #'s of ballast depending on the crew and I never have a problem with water comming over the transom.
 
By Trevor Gleadhill (trevorg7) on Friday, June 20, 2008 - 7:50 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Thanks guys for the information, comparisons, and feedback.

T

 
By Mikeski (mikeski) on Friday, June 20, 2008 - 9:16 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Never had an issue with water coming over the transom when stopping in my 95 with 1500lbs of ballast.
 
By Don Kiserow (trdon) on Friday, June 20, 2008 - 10:22 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Never had an issue with water coming over the transom when stopping in my 95 with 1500lbs of ballast.

nor have I in my 93 :shrug:

 

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 - 2009, All Rights Reserved.
WakeSpace@WakeWorld.com