Articles
   
       
Pics/Video
       
Wake 101
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > >> Boats, Accessories & Tow Vehicles Archive > Archive through March 18, 2009

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old     (bobenglish)      Join Date: Mar 2008       06-07-2008, 7:37 AM Reply   
I realize this is a matter of opinion. But I am curious what everyone thinks are the more efficient wakeboard hulls?

For example, our X-star throws a large, nicely shaped wake. But, it takes a few thousand pounds of ballast and we have to run at 25-26 mph to get the shape we want. In contrast, our 05 X-2 (205V hull) throws a smaller wake, but with half the ballast it has a great wake shape at only 22 to 23 mph. So I would call the X-2 more efficient at generating a good wake. To put it another way, if gas was $10/gallon, what hull would you select to get a medium sized, nicely shaped wake without killing your fuel efficiency by having to add tons of ballast or running faster?

I have been told that the SAN 210 throw a great shaped wake with minimal ballast.
Old     (882001)      Join Date: Nov 2003       06-07-2008, 7:59 AM Reply   
210 or 2001
Old     (bobenglish)      Join Date: Mar 2008       06-07-2008, 8:23 AM Reply   
A friend indicated that the early to mid 2000s SAN 210 boats throw a great wake shape with minimal ballast. I have never ridden behind one.
Old     (chpthril)      Join Date: Oct 2007       06-07-2008, 10:41 AM Reply   
To put it another way, if gas was $10/gallon, what hull would you select to get a medium sized, nicely shaped wake without killing your fuel efficiency by having to add tons of ballast or running faster

Tige Ve hull: Does not need a ton of ballast for a nice wake for boarding or surfing. Great fuel efficiency.
Old     (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       06-07-2008, 11:15 AM Reply   
Nautique Super Air/Sport 210
awesome wake with minimal weight.
Old     (innov8)      Join Date: May 2005       06-07-2008, 11:17 AM Reply   
Nautique 210.
Old     (882001)      Join Date: Nov 2003       06-07-2008, 11:47 AM Reply   
another reason why it would be great to bring back the 210. the green boat that will save the planet.
Old     (phirates)      Join Date: Jun 2008       06-07-2008, 12:24 PM Reply   
x2 on the Tige
Old     (bill_airjunky)      Join Date: Apr 2002       06-07-2008, 12:24 PM Reply   
Seems like weight would come into play on a "most efficient boat" comparison. Just looking at Boattest.com at the flagship wake sport boats:

22' Mastercraft X-star - 4200 lbs
22' Tige VE - 3900 lbs
23' CC 210 - 3800 lbs
21' Malibu VLX - 3600 lbs
23' Centurion Enzo - 3500 lbs

Boat manufacturers should be posting gph specs for ALL their boats, especially now.
Old     (bobenglish)      Join Date: Mar 2008       06-07-2008, 3:27 PM Reply   
I second Bill K's thoughts. At least you could compare the base GPH in an unweighted boat.

When did he SAN 210 hull change? 2007?
Old     (dakid)      Join Date: Feb 2001       06-07-2008, 3:52 PM Reply   
older 210 does really well. and even the newer 210 isn't bad at all.
Old     (innov8)      Join Date: May 2005       06-07-2008, 4:02 PM Reply   
Yup 07 on the new 210 hull, but even the new 210 is great, dont need much weight to get a great wake and its a lot less sensitive with side to side weight then the old 210.
Old     (hamkj)      Join Date: Apr 2002       06-07-2008, 8:41 PM Reply   
Go with something that is narrow and pronounced v-hull.

I love it when they say Tiges don't need ballast... well back in the day.. they were also about 1000lbs heavier than a comparable sized boat...

Anyway... back to the topic... find something with a 90-95 inch beam.
Old     (ldr)      Join Date: Nov 2002       06-07-2008, 9:29 PM Reply   
Sanger v210
similar specs to the SAN
and 205V
Old     (pcolajosh)      Join Date: May 2007       06-08-2008, 6:37 PM Reply   
MC 205V hull is great. On my 99 X-Star, I get about 3-4gph. With 1300# of ballast, that number jumps to 4-5gph. Efficient, and a great wake at any weight.
Old     (swab791)      Join Date: Mar 2005       06-08-2008, 8:13 PM Reply   
To put it another way, if gas was $10/gallon, what hull would you select to get a medium sized, nicely shaped wake without killing your fuel efficiency by having to add tons of ballast or running faster

Tige Ve hull: Does not need a ton of ballast for a nice wake for boarding or surfing. Great fuel efficiency.


Thanks for sharing the Koolaide !!
Old     (norcalmalibu)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-09-2008, 9:54 AM Reply   
Sanger v210, SAN, 205V or first X Star
Old     (watsoc)      Join Date: Apr 2005       06-09-2008, 10:22 AM Reply   
I love my 2000 SAN 210 and I usually have half or a little less of my tank left after a full day even when running close to 2000 lbs. of ballast. The unweighted SAN wake is great as well and my wife likes it a lot more then the wall of water we usually roll with .
Old     (silverwake)      Join Date: May 2007       06-09-2008, 10:41 AM Reply   
Just a minor note, I believe the Centurion Enzo 230 weighs 4400lbs. not 3500lbs.
Old     (guido)      Join Date: Jul 2002       06-09-2008, 11:06 AM Reply   
Sanger 215 or 210 is really efficient, too.

X1 with the RTP motor will get you a long ways when fully loaded.

210 SAN.. Narrow and easy to weigh down.
Old     (bmartin)      Join Date: Jan 2007       06-09-2008, 11:49 AM Reply   
Of most of those that have been mentioned, I was very impressed with the SAN210 and stock balast wake. Do not know what the GPH is, but the wake to balast ratio is the best I have been behind.
Old     (wake_upppp)      Join Date: Nov 2003       06-09-2008, 6:59 PM Reply   
Yep, Sanger V210 and SN 2001 and SAN 210 are among the top of the efficiency list for weight to wake ratio.
Old     (waterskirebel)      Join Date: Apr 2008       06-09-2008, 7:57 PM Reply   
Guys,

Tige Ve hull: Does not need a ton of ballast for a nice wake for boarding or surfing. Great fuel efficiency.

Go and test drive one. You'll be glad you did. Plus they use around 6 GPH, where others are closer to 10-12. The price of Gas isn't getting any cheaper (I wish it was).
Old     (dabell)      Join Date: Apr 2007       06-09-2008, 8:15 PM Reply   
I got 5.2 GPH last weekend with not ballast and the wake was about 2.5 feet tall. That was on the 2007 Tige RZ2
Old     (lsukuntryboy)      Join Date: Jul 2007       06-10-2008, 7:58 AM Reply   
my 79 MC stars and stripes does great! cost 45 bucks to fill up and i can board all day long on half a tank! even with all the bags full!

i wouldnt recommend it though. 6 people tops. and thats crowded
Old     (nickbot)      Join Date: Feb 2007       06-10-2008, 9:34 AM Reply   
2001...almost knee high with total weight (boat + people + ballast) < 3000lbs...that translates into a fun ride and very good fuel economy...
Old     (chilidog)      Join Date: Dec 2007       06-10-2008, 12:18 PM Reply   
My sanger v215 gets great mileage, about a half tank to board for most of the day, 45 bucks ain't touchin half a tank on that old girl though, more like $80
Old     (eubanks01)      Join Date: Jun 2001       06-10-2008, 1:26 PM Reply   
Hulls that producer steeper wakes are doing to have a "better" wake out of the box with no ballast.
Old     (trace)      Join Date: Feb 2002       06-10-2008, 1:51 PM Reply   

quote:

Plus they use around 6 GPH, where others are closer to 10-12.




There went your credibility. My 72 foot, 45,000 lb houseboat with twin 5.0L's burns about 12 gph while cruising, with the 15 kW generator running.
Old     (trace)      Join Date: Feb 2002       06-10-2008, 1:53 PM Reply   
And for the record, I am a Tigé fan.
Old     (gene3x)      Join Date: Apr 2005       06-10-2008, 7:38 PM Reply   
I cannot believe nobody mentions the old Toyota Epic. Damn efficiant.
Old     (markj)      Join Date: Apr 2005       06-10-2008, 8:46 PM Reply   
Even with my owners goggles removed, I can honestly say the san 210 has to be the most efficient hull. It's one of the many reasons I bought mine.
Old     (froese)      Join Date: Jun 2005       06-11-2008, 9:08 AM Reply   
SN 2001

2 riders, 2 sets a piece, 6 gallons of gas, over knee-high solid wake.

Granted the rest of the day was an additional 18+ gallons, but still...
Old     (big_wave)      Join Date: Jul 2007       06-11-2008, 10:20 AM Reply   
07 tige 24ve with 2000lbs ballast is giving us 6-7 gph. solid wake for both surf and wakeboarding
Old     (ncboarderboy)      Join Date: Aug 2007       06-11-2008, 10:27 AM Reply   
We get 4-5 gph behind our 03 supra ssv without weight and it still produces a good sized wake
Old     (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       06-11-2008, 10:58 AM Reply   
95 Supersport (SAN)
2 riders - 2 sets (about 1 hour) about 3/4 gallons

The wake with 1500 water + 2 people in the boat
Upload
Old     (chpthril)      Join Date: Oct 2007       06-11-2008, 11:09 AM Reply   
Hehateme & TK,

Not sure what you gays are driving at, or why this needs to be another "bash Tige" thread. No one here has said "Tiges do not need ballast, and TK, the invite is here if you ever want to ride......I'll prove my statement 100%. I did not say it was "the best" wake, "Pro level" wake or anything like that. Simply indicated you DO NOT need to load it up to get a rideable wake that anyone with some skills can do any tricks off of. If you guys need a bigger wake, sounds like the boat is not the problem. $.02
Old     (dabell)      Join Date: Apr 2007       06-11-2008, 11:47 AM Reply   
^^^^ he he he
Old     (1boarder_kevin)      Join Date: Mar 2007       06-11-2008, 4:48 PM Reply   
My old X1 use to get around 3-5 gph. Closer to the top when heavily weighted with a lot of start/stops. For a wake boat, I alway figured on 5-8 gph loaded. I haven't run the numbers yet on my X2, but I feel like it may be slightly more than the X1, but not much.
Old     (nsolis220)      Join Date: May 2007       06-11-2008, 6:03 PM Reply   
my sanger v210 i guess is better on gas usage than some bigger boats but imo still not great. I use about 18-20 gallons in 3.5 to 4 hrs and thats with usually 4 peeps and 750 lbs in ballast
Old     (sinister_designs)      Join Date: Feb 2008       06-11-2008, 8:11 PM Reply   
how does the '06 X2 Mastercraft compare? RTP engine
Old     (bobenglish)      Join Date: Mar 2008       06-12-2008, 8:09 PM Reply   
Our X-star with MCX and stock 14.25 x 14 prop uses 5.8 to 6.8 GPH at 25 mph and around 1800 - 2000 lbs ballast and people.

Our old 2005 X2 with MCX used 3.5 to 4.5 GPH with around 1200 ballast and people.

I would guess that a new X2 with RTP engine would be 4 to 5 GPH if correctly propped for the level of ballast.

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 4:19 PM.

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

 

© 2019 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us