Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Boats, Accessories & Tow Vehicles

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Daniel (cowwboy)      Join Date: Jul 2008       09-10-2012, 3:51 AM Reply   
Saw this on craigslist. Did the 2001 come factory with a 454?
That would be a beast.
BTW I have no connection with this boat just was surprised they squeezed a big block in there.
Old    882001 (882001)      Join Date: Nov 2003       09-10-2012, 5:04 AM Reply   
probably a barefoot nautique
Old    Delta Force (wakebordr11)      Join Date: May 2001       09-10-2012, 5:16 AM Reply   
A model 2001 or a 2001 super air? I know they had a 502 Python at some years... was there also a 454 before the 502 for the superairs/air nautiques? To answer simply, yes 454s and 502s have been shoehorned into various nautiques throughout the years.
Old    LR3w8kbrdr            09-10-2012, 5:35 AM Reply   
Yes the 454 was an option on the 82-89 2001s but were mostly found in barefoot nautiques.
Old    Daniel (cowwboy)      Join Date: Jul 2008       09-10-2012, 5:37 AM Reply   
Ahh noticed on the side it does say barefoot. It also has 2001 on the back? Were they the same hulls?
http://oklahomacity.craigslist.org/boa/3261502192.html
Sounds like a decent deal if it's a 2001.
Old    LR3w8kbrdr            09-10-2012, 5:57 AM Reply   
Different hulls...BF has a deeper v. Still decent at 22mph but not as great as the regular 2001. The 454 hulls a** but the 351 is plenty for the 2001.

If Im not mistaken that BF hull turned into the Nautique Excel when they threw a vdrive in it early 90s.
Old    Daniel (cowwboy)      Join Date: Jul 2008       09-10-2012, 6:20 AM Reply   
Cool. With a 454 I bet it'd haul!!
Old    Tim (srock)      Join Date: Mar 2002       09-10-2012, 6:25 AM Reply   
The trade off is the fuel burn.
Old    Delta Force (wakebordr11)      Join Date: May 2001       09-10-2012, 6:39 AM Reply   
^and how much weight do you actually want to run... You can run a good amount with a pitched down acme with the 351
Old    Daniel (cowwboy)      Join Date: Jul 2008       09-10-2012, 6:42 AM Reply   
True. Hence why I have a fuel injected small block now. But the big block grunt and lope is awesome. My old closed bow supra had the 390 hp 454. Buddy's used to give me hell that I had a go fast not a wakeboat.
Old    Tim (srock)      Join Date: Mar 2002       09-10-2012, 12:38 PM Reply   
I used to ride behind a friends 454 years and years ago. The fuel gauge moved faster than the speedo. I figured that the performance fuel trade off was not worth it unless you were pulling a show team. Nevermind the loss of space. However, I also never would have guessed that 25 years years later I would be hauling a couple thousand pounds of water.
Old    Markj (markj)      Join Date: Apr 2005       09-10-2012, 11:52 PM Reply   
^^^ no war starting here but BS. I've owned a V-drive barefoot with a carburated 454 and currently own a 2005 SAN. There is virtually no difference in fuel economy between the two.
Old    Tim (srock)      Join Date: Mar 2002       09-11-2012, 6:48 AM Reply   
^^^ Interesting and I don't doubt your results at all but we are comparing different things. I am comparing the 454 to the 351 carbureted engines available for a specific boat. In comparison to your SAN, the 454 may be the right choice for a sacked out Barefoot Nautique.

I was behind 454's, 350's and 351's in both 2001's, barefoot nautique's and mastercraft's in the days of slalom skiing and barefooting. You got better grunt and an few more MPH's but the big blocks definitely drank more juice in those applications. If you barefooted the better choice was an outboard over the 454 nautique.
Old    Erik Jernberg (juniorhawk)      Join Date: Jul 2004       09-11-2012, 8:00 AM Reply   
Tricky boat. Good boat but the Barefoot Nautique had a different hull than the legendary 2001, and produced a different wake. I've actually never been behind a weighted one, only unweighted and I can say it wasn't great. At 22mph, there is a pretty big difference in the wake size. I think the Barefood v-drive was only made for a couple of years. 1987-1989 (EJ: edit/correction 1987 to 1990, then v-drive in 1991)? The reports I hear of a weighted Barefoot Nautique are less impressive than the 2001. If you really want to make things confusing, look at the v-drive Excels or v-drive Barefoot Nautiques. Weird inbetweeners that bridged the Ski Nautique 2001 - Super Sport (SAN, 210, Classic 210, other names). The V-drive Excel and v-drive Barefoot Nautiques are VERY desirable.

Last edited by juniorhawk; 09-11-2012 at 8:05 AM.
Old    LR3w8kbrdr            09-11-2012, 8:06 AM Reply   
My buddy just picked up a clean vdrive Excel with plumbed in ballast & tower for much lower than $10k. He got a great deal and wake looks damn good.
Old    Erik Jernberg (juniorhawk)      Join Date: Jul 2004       09-11-2012, 8:11 AM Reply   
Less than 10K for an Excel is an EXCELLENT DEAL
Old    LR3w8kbrdr            09-11-2012, 8:16 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by juniorhawk View Post
Less than 10K for an Excel is an EXCELLENT DEAL
That what I said...I hvent ridden behind it yet but hes out on it 3-4days/week. Locally owned, he is the 2nd owner. And it has PP so easy to drive for his wife. I would of jumped on it.
Old    Delta Force (wakebordr11)      Join Date: May 2001       09-11-2012, 10:45 AM Reply   
Take pictures of the wake when you get on it!
Old    John James (johnboyy7)      Join Date: Apr 2011       09-11-2012, 1:25 PM Reply   
my buddy used to have a 2001 454. man..... talk about a smooth ride and cut through a wave. we got 8 skiers up behind it one time.
Old    Tim (srock)      Join Date: Mar 2002       09-11-2012, 6:54 PM Reply   
We had 6 barefooters behind one pulled up on single skis. It worked hard and so did the footers but it worked.
Old    Markj (markj)      Join Date: Apr 2005       09-12-2012, 5:44 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by srock View Post
^^^ Interesting and I don't doubt your results at all but we are comparing different things. I am comparing the 454 to the 351 carbureted engines available for a specific boat. In comparison to your SAN, the 454 may be the right choice for a sacked out Barefoot Nautique.

I was behind 454's, 350's and 351's in both 2001's, barefoot nautique's and mastercraft's in the days of slalom skiing and barefooting. You got better grunt and an few more MPH's but the big blocks definitely drank more juice in those applications. If you barefooted the better choice was an outboard over the 454 nautique.
I may have misunderstood you. I've just always believed that larger engines when propped correctly , don't really eat any more gas than smaller engines due to the lesser effort required by the larger motor. I know they sure cost more though.
Old    Markj (markj)      Join Date: Apr 2005       09-12-2012, 6:53 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by juniorhawk View Post
Tricky boat. Good boat but the Barefoot Nautique had a different hull than the legendary 2001, and produced a different wake. I've actually never been behind a weighted one, only unweighted and I can say it wasn't great. At 22mph, there is a pretty big difference in the wake size. I think the Barefood v-drive was only made for a couple of years. 1987-1989 (EJ: edit/correction 1987 to 1990, then v-drive in 1991)? The reports I hear of a weighted Barefoot Nautique are less impressive than the 2001. If you really want to make things confusing, look at the v-drive Excels or v-drive Barefoot Nautiques. Weird inbetweeners that bridged the Ski Nautique 2001 - Super Sport (SAN, 210, Classic 210, other names). The V-drive Excel and v-drive Barefoot Nautiques are VERY desirable.
Okay so, are you saying the DD Barefoots weren't so great? I've said this before on WW and I'll say it again. The Barefoot V-Drive is the best kept secret as far as budget wake boats go bar none. When I sold my 91 Barefoot (for $18,500 with 400 hours in Oct. 2004 "when everyone had money") I was a little dissappointed as far as the wake size goes when I bought my new at the time SAN in 05. There wasn't a significant difference in wake size/shape. That's right. I said it. True story. There are other mitigating reasons to have made the switch but, they also cost money too. Not that I regret the move but, that Barefoot wake is for real. Never surfed behind it so I can't comment on that.
Old    Delta Force (wakebordr11)      Join Date: May 2001       09-12-2012, 7:02 PM Reply   
Pictures or it didn't happen! I don't think I've ever seen a well weighted Excel or barefoot Nautique wake... Is the Excel and the Barefoot the same hull?

The SAN is practically the same hull as the 2001 so maybe you need to weight them differently
Old    Markj (markj)      Join Date: Apr 2005       09-12-2012, 9:36 PM Reply   
I'm pretty sure the Excel and Barefoot are the same hull. The Barefoot just had the big block if I'm not mistaken. I also think that the V-Drive Barefoot/Excel hull went from at least 90-92. Unfortunately I don't have any pics other than my first torn ACL that would show what a Barefoot hull can do. Wish I did.
Old    Markj (markj)      Join Date: Apr 2005       09-12-2012, 9:39 PM Reply   
^^^That way I wouldn't feel like such a pansy for tearing that ACL on a WTW heelside cross!
Old    Markj (markj)      Join Date: Apr 2005       09-12-2012, 9:42 PM Reply   
Of course that was ten years ago. Now I'm a badass. Hahahahahahaha.
Old    LR3w8kbrdr            09-12-2012, 9:46 PM Reply   
I'll get pics of my buddy on their excel and his wife throwing 5s behind it. I know he has it weighted and will find out specifics.
Old    Markj (markj)      Join Date: Apr 2005       09-12-2012, 10:28 PM Reply   
His wife???! Nice. That's awesome. I do know however, that that boat is capable of a badass wake with little effort at all. I can't wait to see those pics.
Old    Delta Force (wakebordr11)      Join Date: May 2001       09-13-2012, 7:18 AM Reply   
Get the pics and that boat will land on my short list - 2001, 90s sport, possibly excel since I'd love a closed bow small v-drive. Maybe next summer
Old    Matt D (airden23)      Join Date: Aug 2012       09-13-2012, 9:06 AM Reply   
I have a '92 Excel with an Aerial Airborne tower that I just bought last spring. We load it up with about 900 lbs on each side of the v-drive, and 800 lbs up in the bow so 1,700 total (thanks to my buddy!). I really enjoy it. It throws a great wake that is super fun. I haven't ridden behind a newer wake boat in a while so I can't say how it compares. Next time I'm out we'll snap a picture and post it and ya'll can be the judge.

This winter, I'm going to install reversible ballast pumps with switches and try to get the normal ballast up to over 2,600. We tried surfing behind it with about 2,000 lbs a few times and it went OK. We weren't able to throw the rope back in and ride without it, but it was a good sized wake with a decent curl. We had it full with some larger people one time and it got really close. I'm willing to bet if I got the 1,100 surf sack from wakemakers plus 2,600 in normal ballast it would surf pretty well. That is hopefully the plan
Attached Images
 
Old    Steven Pederson (sppeders)      Join Date: Jul 2011       09-13-2012, 9:38 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by airden23 View Post
I have a '92 Excel with an Aerial Airborne tower that I just bought last spring. We load it up with about 900 lbs on each side of the v-drive, and 800 lbs up in the bow so 1,700 total (thanks to my buddy!). I really enjoy it. It throws a great wake that is super fun. I haven't ridden behind a newer wake boat in a while so I can't say how it compares. Next time I'm out we'll snap a picture and post it and ya'll can be the judge.

This winter, I'm going to install reversible ballast pumps with switches and try to get the normal ballast up to over 2,600. We tried surfing behind it with about 2,000 lbs a few times and it went OK. We weren't able to throw the rope back in and ride without it, but it was a good sized wake with a decent curl. We had it full with some larger people one time and it got really close. I'm willing to bet if I got the 1,100 surf sack from wakemakers plus 2,600 in normal ballast it would surf pretty well. That is hopefully the plan
I'm coming over to repo my sacs.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 4:59 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us