Hello! Anyone know the details re the hull designs for a better wake re the correct craft wake vs master craft? <BR> <BR>HELP!

How old are we talking? And do you have specific boats and/or hulls you are talking about? Both brands make good older boats but you need to be a little more specific.

check out the2001.com for all info on the older ski nautique 2001 (82-89) boats

The Natty 2001 hull is hands down the best old wake boat on the market. Pick one up for $5K and put $5K in it and its like having a $30K boat...Heres a very well done version: <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65921/557582.jpg" alt="Upload">

I did a lot of research on this same issue for about 4 months and just last month I purchased a 1984 SN2001. <BR>Just from my experience make sure you check the stringers for rot the best you can. Gel coat cracks and soft spots in the floor are a good sign of damage. <BR>It took me a few months to find one that was in good enough shape to drop in the water and ride but you can get them for 5k ready to go. Alot of them are 7-10k loaded. <BR>Mine came equipped with PP, plumbed for auto ballast, electric ignition, fuel injection, tower, and bimini top for 5k. Take your time and get a good one from what i found out you can easily sink 2-3k in new stringer, floor, and carpet if you cant do it yourself. <BR>I need to redo the seats in mine but thats minor compared to new floor in the others.

Wonderful info! <BR> <BR>Attached are a few pics of the 1969 correct craft I am considering. I cant seem to find a nauty for under 9k. It seems that the Mastercrafts have a smaller wake. My wife and I love to surf and wakeboard. If you have a nauty near Arkansas for under 6k, lets talk. <BR> <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65921/557603.jpg" alt="Upload"> <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65921/557604.jpg" alt="Upload">

Well I wouldn't exactly say it's like having a 30K wake boat. But it definitely will throw a good wake and hold 4-5 people. <BR> <BR>If your looking 10K and below go mid to late 80's SN2001, If your going 14K-18K you can pick up a mid to late 90's Mastercraft Prostar 205DD and also have an awesome wake plus an open bow for more seating.

what years? The 82-89 Nautique is called the 2001 hull. It can produce a better wake than any other small closed bow direct drive and probably some V-drives. I personally think the Mastercraft from 84-89 was built better but unlike Nautique they didn't screw up the ski wake. Mastercraft went to fiberglass stringers in 84. For wakeboarding definetely get the nautique. Just make sure the floor and stringers are solid. <BR> <BR>Wow, that is really old. Looks clean, but I have no experience with that boat. <BR> <BR>(Message edited by polarbill on March 14, 2008)

My buddies used to rock an old '88 MC tristar and I would have to argue it had a better wake than the the 2001's. I had an '88 ski supreme at the same time (very similar to the 2001) and the wake was steeper, but a lot narrower. We alwaysed seemed to get a lot more size out of the tristar. Just my $0.02. Good luck!

I would have a dealer do a checkout on the boat you are considering. Dry rot is like a cancer, it just spreads. They will usually charge between 100-150 dollars to do a full checkout on the boat. A good way to do this is to present it to the seller, tell him you will pay half if he pays half and if it checks out you will write him a check immediately. Kind of making him put his money where his mouth is, ya know? <BR> <BR>A buddy of mine had an 89 Nauty and that thing threw up a WALL of a wake with minimal weight. Another friend of mine had an old Stars and Stripes Mastercraft and that had a nice wake but required a fair amount of weight. I would go with a Nautique...

The boat in the photo is a 1969 correct craft, 18.5 foot w a chrysler 318 reverse drive and an Edelbrock 600cfm carburetor. <BR> <BR>It seems big enough as to not get jerked around by a wakeboarder as it is not the 17ft or 16ft. <BR> <BR>Thanks for all your help... keep it coming. <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65921/557670.jpg" alt="Upload"> <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65921/557671.jpg" alt="Upload">

Might want to be careful with older than 82, I'm not sure how that hull compares to the 2001 hull. Also, i think those older nautiques are more narrow. <BR> <BR>Check this one out: <BR> <BR><a href="http://nautique2001.googlepages.com/" target="_blank">http://nautique2001.googlepages.com/</a>

Need some more input! <BR> <BR>HELP

go with an 82-89 2001

Definately keep looking and find a 82-89 SN2001. I am going out this weekend and will put up some wake pics. I dont have it rigged for surfing but i will see what i can do to get wake surf pics for you.

Even though I understand that the 2001 model is pretty good I'm more than happy with my 80' CC. <BR> <BR>The wake is enough for an average rider, my friends are doing all their tricks with 900lbs on the boat. The only thing you will desire is more room, this boat is really small. <BR> <BR>Anyway for 5-10k I'd get a 2001 hands down.

Yea, get the 2001. I bought my 2001 for 5k and it doesnt need anything. I now have 6k in it, becuase I put a tower on it, and it's a great wakeboaridng boat. <BR>Next I gotta buy PP.

for under $6k you'll probably have to travel some and expect some repairs. If you can swing closer to $8k you'll find many more nice examples. 82-89 ski nautiques: <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.onlyinboards.com/Details.aspx?ID=23663" target="_blank">http://www.onlyinboards.com/Details.aspx?ID=23663</a> (might be able to talk down due to it being highly modified) <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.boats.com/listing/boat_details.jsp?entityid=18220621&amp;srh_prev=No %3d13684%26rt%3dboat%26ro%3d1%26r%3d103167601%26en tityid%3d103167601%26rs%3dboats.com&amp;srh_next=N o%3d13686%26rt%3dboat%26ro%3d1%26r%3d1831288%26ent ityid%3d18312881%26rs%3dyachtworld.com&amp;rev_srh =sfm%3dfalse%26No%3d13650%26luom%3d126%26slim%3dqu ick%26currencyid%3d100%26Ntk%3dboatsEN%26y%3d5%26x %3d3%26enid%3d0%26ic%3dtrue%26ps%3d50%26sm%3d3%26f tid%3d0" target="_blank">http://www.boats.com/listing/boat_details.jsp?entityid=18220621&amp;srh_prev=No %3d13684%26rt%3dboat%26ro%3d1%26r%3d103167601%26en tityid%3d103167601%26rs%3dboats.com&amp;srh_next=N o%3d13686%26rt%3dboat%26ro%3d1%26r%3d1831288%26ent ityid%3d18312881%26rs%3dyachtworld.com&amp;rev_srh =sfm%3dfalse%26No%3d13650%26luom%3d126%26slim%3dqu ick%26currencyid%3d100%26Ntk%3dboatsEN%26y%3d5%26x %3d3%26enid%3d0%26ic%3dtrue%26ps%3d50%26sm%3d3%26f tid%3d0</a> <BR> <BR>Oh, and I paid the $100 for the dealer inspection....and they missed cracked heads and bent shaft strut. Granted so did I, but I didn't know what to look for at the time. <BR> <BR>(Message edited by bremsen on March 14, 2008)

I would add older supras to the list. santera or saltare maybe both. Lots of freeboard, open bow. check the classifieds. <BR> <BR>ryan anderson, the tristar 190 or 220?

I have a 1978 MC Stars and Stripes and its been great. The wake is pretty small but if you add a couple buddies and some fat sacks (I put one on either side of the engine) Its great. Good shape, nice and firm. It's also really fun to drive, these older smaller boats with the flat bottoms handle amazing. <BR>I bought it in non working condition for $1500 and redid everything. I have no idea how much I spent but I really don't want to know. I'm selling it for $6300 if anyone is interested. I'm in Southern California. <BR> <BR>I'm not sure If I would go for something as old as '69 but if it makes you happy go for. Definitely check the stringers though!

jamie. i dont know about up in arkansas, but here in north louisiana, 2001's are very rare cause no one sold nautiques back in the day around here. I just sucked it up and bought a 79 mastercraft. im takin it to the lake tomorrow. if i get a chance ill get some pics of the wake and stuff. I do have a fat seat and tube sac to put in there though.

I am a MC man, but I think Nautique out of the two has a beter wake in the 80s boats and even early boats. <BR> <BR>As my dad always said, they invented the back boot of the slalom ski for the wake on a nautique. It now helps in wakeboarding on those boats.

1boarder_kevin (1boarder_kevin) that is very interesting and it is plausible - but I wonder if that is sort of an old-skier's tale or based in fact. <BR> <BR>I say again - that is plausible. The slalom wake on a ProStar or Malibu Skier from the 80's was a barely noticeably bump compared to the fully formed, peaky wake at 34-46 on an 80's era Ski Nautique. <BR> <BR>Interesting.

Don't know if it is fact or not, but any slalom skier prefered the MC wake of that era. My dad still has a 85 MC and the wake just doesn't compare to the Nautiqes for boarding. <BR> <BR>Even my stepdads 1991 MC 190 didn't have as good of a wake as my friends 1993 CC ski nautique. The ski nautique would hold ballast better and even would hold speed better and not fight planing off or plowing. Looking back we could of changed how we had it weighted, but then you just threw a fat sac in the back and that was it. <BR> <BR>Those boats were made to slalom and I think MC won that, but looking back CC got it right for what you want it to do with it now.

Jaime, <BR> <BR>Another good boat to look at is my boat, See Profile. Same Hull or similar to SN 2001. It is now for sale $6700. No Stringer damage. Runs Prime. <BR> <BR>Red Bimini <BR>Red Canvas cover <BR>Fly High Pole <BR>New Holley 600 CFM last year <BR>Had the trailer Rewired by professional today <BR>CD player w/ 4 speakers (6 1/2") <BR>New trailer tires 2 years ago <BR> <BR>With a name like Razorback, I assume you like in Arkansas, I'm in Dallas and can arrange delivery.

I have a 94 MC ProStar205 and I love it. I have about $15k into it total and it still runs great with 1400 hours. I looked all winter to find it and it fell in my lap one day. Ya, it's purple, but who else can say they have a purple boat? Keep looking and something will turn up. I think the open bow was worth the extra money IMO. I was looking at the same boats when I bought mine 5 years ago.

Craig I knew a kid when I was competing more (Brian Nelson, I believe was his name, from New England) who trained on an American Skier exactly like that, with an extended pylon. I don't know what happened to him - we all thought he was heading for the pros. <BR> <BR>Outlaw class. Killed it. Mobes and all raley/hoochie variants at the time (99-00). That style American Skier was his boat. Correct Craft had a boat called American Skier but I don't know, or think that, it was the same hull. Regardless I knew someone who was 4x better than me and that was his boat. <BR> <BR>EDIT - By the way, Dave can you or one of the moderators TinyUrl that humongous link - it is kind of breaking the thread. <BR> <BR>(Message edited by juniorhawk on March 18, 2008)

Purple 94' 205 is not only the first boat I drove but the first boat I landed my first and second backroll behind. Many, many good times were had with that boat. <BR> <BR>Needless to say I am a huge fan.

Hey Corey, for all I know my boat WAS your boat, there can't be that many of them. (jack over)

Go for the MC...enough said

If I were you I'd base my opinion on the really informative posts, like from Lenny. "enough said." <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/crazy.gif" border=0> <BR> <BR>My '88 Ski Nautique 2001 is still going strong. Do you have a wake you're used to? I have been going behind my buddies '98 MC 205 a lot lately and in my opinion I'd take the Nautique wake any day over the 205 wake. Other people I ride with have transitioned to the 205 wake fine but I still really dislike it. The Nautique gives an awesome extra kick!

I don't understand Lenny's statement. <BR> <BR>Sounds like he didn't read the thread. <BR> <BR>It isn't a MasterCraft vs Correct Craft Debate. <BR> <BR>It is an 80's MasterCraft vs 80's Correct Craft debate. <BR> <BR>On a wakeboarding site. <BR> <BR>Correct Craft's Ski Nautique 2001 would be the better choice. **For wakeboarding**. <BR> <BR>If we got into the 90's and opened it up to <BR>the Sport Nautique vs ProStar 205, it would <BR>almost be a dead heat. <BR> <BR>But that's not what we're discussing here. <BR> <BR>This is not a poem it is formatting that takes <BR>into consideration that someone pasted a 424 <BR>character link into the thread (yes I checked.)

Erik - I like your poem! <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/lol.gif" border=0> <BR> <BR>The 82-89 Ski Nautique 2001 is THE way to go. No question. Here's why: <BR> <BR>* The hull shape is the exact same as many of the newer Nautique Pro Wakeboard Boats. They realized they got something right with this shape and just made it wider. <BR> <BR>* 1000 lbs. of weight makes a really nice wake. 1700 lbs. rivals many of the wakeboard boats on the lake. <BR> <BR>* Less gas consumption <BR> <BR>* Less rider space = more rider time <IMG SRC="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> <BR> <BR>* You need a project to continually work on <BR> <BR>Someone posted pics at one point showing how the 2001 hull and the Pro Air hull were the exact same... <BR> <BR>This has pics of the wake towards the bottom: <BR><a href="http://www.2froeses.com/sn2001/" target="_blank">http://www.2froeses.com/sn2001/</a> <BR> <BR>2/3 of the video in this video is from my 2001 (the rest is from an air nautique): <BR><a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/drq9K5kU1rg&amp;hl=en" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/drq9K5kU1rg&amp;hl=en</a>

I have 2 links to show some of the SN2001 wake. The weather has been crappy and I havent got mine on the lake to get some wake pictures. <BR><a href="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65921/356157.html" target="_blank">http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65921/356157.html</a> <BR><a href="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65921/421409.html" target="_blank">http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65921/421409.html</a>

Mark, I checked but yours is a little different. <BR> <BR>The boat was never mine, it was my buddy Blakes. I saw the boat a year or two ago during winterization and it brought back the memories. <BR> <BR>Either way its a sick boat, we had a black 96' with an LT-1 and about 100 hours come in last year and I wanted to but it soooooo bad.

So im gonna go ahead and pose another question. Exactly how legal are these boats with 1000 to 1500 pounds of water plus people and gear? they have got to be sittin real low in the water. especially since they werent desinged for this weight. my fat seat by itself will over do the capacity on my S&amp;S. then i add 5 or 6 people to it? <BR> <BR>maybe i should just ignore it. lol.

Jamie, I've had my '84 SN 2001 for a year now and love it. I put two 600lb. sacs on either side of the motor and a 250 in the back and the wake is perfect! Waaaaaayyyy better than our '96 ski nautique that I grew up on. Mine was around $12,000, but that was with tower, new paint, new interior, and a 2003 motor. <BR>For the $$, the wake is comparable to some of todays boats.

I rock a fat seat (1500), 2 full sacks (1200) and 2 tube sacks (500) plus people and gear. I think my plate says somewhere around 1200 lbs. I need to be a little careful going through big rollers, but it's only sitting 3-4" lower than normal, no biggie.

I found a 190 model in purple, not sure your price range. <BR> <BR><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1994-Mastercraft-Prostar-190_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ63686QQihZ007QQitem Z170201933042QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW" target="_blank">http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1994-Mastercraft-Prostar-190_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ63686QQihZ007QQitem Z170201933042QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW</a>

Nick McDonald (lsukuntryboy) - yes. Ignore it. <BR>The horse hath been beateth to death-eth. <BR> <BR>We dont load ours with anything more than a "fat buddy" 250lb <BR>bag on either side of the engine, a 500lb bag in <BR>the back and 200lbs up front. People very often run <BR>3 full size bags in 2001's now and it perplexes me. <BR> <BR>But - yes that topic has been beat to death. <BR>Let's look the other way.