Current CC Owner: Just Rode an MB B52, Blown Away
I spent the day in a 2012 MB B52 this past weekend (currently have a 2008 SANTE 210) and I have to say that I was blown away by the quality and wake of this boat (I haven't had much exposure to other boats outside the "Big 3").
Wake: Just stock, big, meaty, loads of pop, super clean and easy to balance side-to-side. Hands down the best "stock wake" I have ever ridden. The non-pump ballast system is just brilliant and the surf wake was incredible too. Interior: Vinyl was top notch, I felt like it was every bit as well put together as my CC. I really liked the patterns in the vinyl too. The magnetic carpet is a really nice feature also - no snaps to break or to step on when the carpet is removed. Seats were comfy and storage was ample. Exterior: Swim deck was super solid (mine tends to bounce a little bit), tower never made one hint of a rattle even after hitting monster rollers going down the lake at transit speed, and I love how the graphics are embedded in the Gel Coat (no need to worry about a peeling or faded decal). Verdict: IMO, as the Big 3 keep going up in price (seems like almost all of their models are now in excess of $100k) and pricing those of us that do not make loads of money out of the market, quality "price point" boats like MBs/Supras/Axis/etc. are only going to gain in popularity as people realize that they can give the "majors" a run for their money in terms of wake, quality, etc. Exciting times for our sport. |
Great review. Thanks for sharing your 2!
|
MB is making fantastic boats right now, thanks for the review!
|
great info andrew! in your opinion how did the wake compare to your sante? It is my understanding that the newer MB's have a rampier wake vs the steep wake of a sante? Did you happen to snap any shots of the wake? I am looking at a 21tomcat and currently have an 06 B52. I would like to demo the new 23B52 and check out the differences as well.
For what its worth I have owned mine since 06 and it has been nothing but great. No issues whatsoever outside of regular maintenance.. |
2008s are not steep. 2006 and prior are. The 23 is lippier, its all preference though with what you like. I will try to get some pics this weekend and share some.
|
I've only had my 23TWB a few weeks now, but it seems to me if you run full ballast you get a steep wake, but if you drop down to 2/3-3/4 you get more of a ramp. I have not tried running anything over stock for wakeboarding yet. Stock is plenty for me.
|
I thought the 23TWB was perfect at about 2/3 - 3/4 full for me and my friends. Side note: Jon, have not forgotten about you, will get you taken care of on those guide pole covers.
|
Sean - "Hate2party" is spot on. My 2008 SANTE's wake is not all that steep compared to the 2006 and older 210's. It is much rampier and has that nice Nautique lip at the top that kicks you up (my neighbor has a 2006 210 - its extremely hard for me to ride because of how steep the wake is). The B52's wake I felt was a little steeper than my 2008 210 and much meatier - there is no punching through this wake because of how thick the wall is. The B52 wake was noticeably bigger than my 210 even when I run full Fly High on top of factory ballast (about 2300lbs total), but it was not so big/steep that it was intimidating (like I imagine something like the G23 to be). My second jump, I went for a Tantrum, over rotated like crazy doing basically a 1 1/2 and landed flat on my back about 5 feet out in the flats....ouch! At that point, I realized you have to do minimal work to get blasted off of this B52 wake. I spent the rest of the day just crusing in on a mild edge and letting it just throw me up. I think I can come up with some wake pics for you as some guys in the boat were taking pics - I'll see what I can get.
Jon - I can't imagine ever needing anything over stock in this thing, seriously. There was a really good younger kid in the boat with us and every trick he did was either even with or over the height of the tower.....and it looked like he was barely cutting. The B52 is straight up ridiculous for a stock wake. |
Andrew, maybe I missed it, were you riding a 21'WB or a 23'WB?
|
GD - I was riding the 23' B52.
Oh, forgot to mention - the B52 I was in came standard with Wetsounds tower speakers and interior speakers :) My OE tower speakers are one notch above something you would get from RadioShack. |
^^^^ Don't get too excited about the WS system that comes in MB's. I've had that system, and it is not good. The sub is small and underpowered. And the tower speakers are underpowered and old generation. I made the mistake of ordering that system on my last boat. It was not a cheap upgrade. And it sucked. You can't hear it at riding distance and the amps liked to cut out frequently. Save your money do it yourself aftermarket.
But everything else you said is true... the MB B52 23 TWB is a sweet boat and a great value. |
If you could pick out one thing you didn't like about the MB what would it be?
|
Quote:
|
DBC - thanks for clarifying on the WS speakers for the MB. I'm new to the wake stereo scene (actually have some REV 10s on order right now), so anything with that WS logo spins my props!
Troy - easy question for me to answer because there was only one thing I wasn't jazzed about on the MB. The dash is a bit dated IMO and has a lot going on (many gauges). However, once you know where all of the essentials are located, its easy to drive and glance down for the info you need. Also, with all of these fancy dashes coming out (Lync, Maliview, etc.), which in turn are helping drive up the prices of the Big 3 models, analog gauges are looking better and better to me in terms of reliability and simplicity. The new digital displays are sick when they are brand new and working correctly, but I have to believe they are going to be high $$$ to fix/replace and might suffer some reliability issues early on until the mfg's work the bugs out. |
Good review, definitely seems like MB is on it right now. Hopefully one day they show up in the Chicagoland area.
The true test though is 4 years from now, will that thing have held up as well as your CC. Until then, comparing a 2012 MB to a 2008 used 210 is a bit of apples to oranges... |
Quote:
1. Hour meter runs on key-up even if boat isn't running. It should be tied to the fuel pump or something else but it's not, and the MB warranty specifically states that tampering with the hour meter is a breach of the warranty. So even though fixing this oversight should be easy, you put the warranty at risk if you do it. 2. In ACC mode none of the gauges work. It'd be nice to be able to open the tanks and see depth in ACC mode. As it stands you need to key-up and put minutes on the boat to do this. 3. The rear sunpad with the electrical battle ram is tiresome. I'd really like a shock assisted lift instead (looks like they did this in some 2012s?). 4. No raw water seacock (this is going to be on my tombstone, I think). 5. The factory triple racks really don't hold the bottom wakeboard well at all if you are running a surfboard in the middle. The angle of the forks isn't steep enough and the bungee tension is too soft. Can cause surprises in heavy chop. (prior boat was 2006 vride; I've never owned a big 3 flagship, so there are probably other features I don't know I'm missing). |
Quote:
|
I ordered my 2012 21'WB (B52) with the stock audio plus an extra SYN4 installed/wired for the tower.
Next, I added a pair of REV10s to the tower. Easy and good enough for me but I am no audio buff. |
I can't speak for how well the new MB's will hold up but I have to imagine it will be even better than the older ones. My 06 B52 has held up great and I have had no major repair issues...knock on wood. I have around 630hrs on mine.
I am working on setting up a demo for the new B52. I am not sure if the steep wake is best suitable for my riding style. No doubt it boots me, however I tend to feel less under control sometimes...if that makes any sense.. Have ridden some rampier wakes recently and felt more of a controlled straight up and down pop... I am sure it all has to do with my wake approach.. |
I was "this" close to getting a new MB, only went with a Malibu because I got a great deal on a new 'Bu that was a reasonable bump for me. I do agree with the original poster though on the price point getting ridiculous. Even if you can afford it, the thought of dropping 6 figures on a boat is insane. I guess it's nice to know there are other options out there to get a damn good boat at a more reasonable price point. I love the big 3 (I've now owned one of each of them), but there are other good options out there certainly.
|
GD - how do you like your REV10s? Can you hear them easily at the end of the rope while riding? I have a SYN4 and pair of REV10s on the way.
|
Quote:
IMO the stock system is just kind of there.. it sounds ok but really if you are just hangin out and floating in the boat.. the sub and especially the sub location is terrible.. I also thought MB could have done a little better quality job with the installation (both materials and tuning) but they are not stereo people.. they are boat builders.. |
Quote:
|
I have an old style 210 SANTE and it's loaded to the gills (over 3k in weight before people) and I love my wake hands down. BUT the damn B52s are soooo dope from a riders point of view. And if you thought the stock wake rocked add a 650 in the center and a 500 up front, now becomes my wet dream behind a boat for my snowboard background (turned all wake about 7yrs ago)
So yea price point inside and out best boat on the water hands down, and drives great too Larson Marine out of Sacramento CA let me test drive one and would've bought it if I could afford a new boat and if my SANTE would let me cheat on it haha |
Quote:
|
Quote:
This is the same as my Supra. Not sure about the new ones but my 08 does this I hate it as well but have gotten used to it at this point. |
Does that mean if you are floating around just listening to the stereo or drinking, with the ignition switch set to acc - then your hour meter is ticking?
That is awful. It's a worse oversight than the stupid early 2000's digital tachometers on Nautiques that not only were utterly defective (I've replaced mine twice), but were also the ONLY place that hours were stored. So stupid. So your tach goes, and that puts you back at 000 hours. Nice if you're the owner... tread lightly if you're a buyer. |
Real hours are stored on the ECU. The hours on the gauge only run when the key is set to run, not ACC.
This is still not ideal, but is tolerable. |
Quote:
|
All ACC does on the MB is run the stereo. I have my stereo running from a switch on the dash instead, so for me ACC does nothing. It would be nice if ACC at least let you see the depth and open and close the ballast gates.
Alas these are pretty minor gripes. I've gotten used to it, but if MB wants to compete with the big boys, they need to work these little details out. |
I can open and close the ballast with it on ACC, or I'm pretty sure I can.
|
Quote:
If I am wrong, so is the entire Nautique dealer network, everyone at PlanetNautique, and a bunch of people from here. |
I think Jon is referring to MB -- on the modern PCM (and indmar) motors, the ECM stores the engine hours, which can be pulled with a scan tool.
|
I was stating what I was told happens on my MB. I have no knowledge of the inner workings of Nautique. But I do hear they have 88 years of practice to get things right.
|
Quote:
|
I'll confirm tonight. The gauge does not work, but I'm 99% sure the switches do.
|
Quote:
|
Just sell that SAN already
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
For you Johnny-come-latelys, here is my summary thus far: G23-huge, clean wake, not known if they are actually producing this boat or if it was/is a concept. Questionable transmission, no rear Sundeck, and don't ask an owner what they do for a living. New Star-mediocre wake, 3 feet of pickle on the fork, but all the big tricks being landed behind this thing and a wait list 200 douchebags long to buy one. MB-can buy 14 for the price of a Star or G23. Certified perfect. Should sue Mastercraft because they stole the super-pickle concept. Were doing tribal graphics on their gels before, during, and after they were cool. |
Quote:
|
dig the sarcasm. :>)
|
No doubt the MB is right up there with the Star and G.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
This thread just got interesting. |
MHunter can't resist a Star-G23 scrum. Add a MB in there and we have the perfect storm.
|
Im pretty sure that they are producing the G23, as Ive seen them outside of the original 3. Actually ironj on this forum just took delivery of his. And they do have a sundeck, a filler cushion goes in place of the walkthrough.
|
Quote:
So it looks like we are in a 3-way dead heat for wakeboat supremacy. Who will emerge victorious? Stay tuned. |
Troy, do you ever actually bring anything worth while to this board? Everything you post is some sarcastic BS in threads that have to do with the Xstar, G23 or MB. That and trolling like no other to get mhunter to jump in. It is kind of annoying to see you consistently hijack these threads.
|
The best way to compare a 2012 boat is to another 2012 boat . I think all builders have stepped it up in the past 4 years . Not saying anything bad about any boat but I think if you compared any 2012 to a 2008 it would come out on top. I dont think MB is in the same class as MC or Nautique yet but who knows ?
|
Quote:
|
The 23 2012 MB that the OP mentioned was closer to 70, loaded with options and on the east coat, add 2k for shipping
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Besides, how much has really changed about the 210 since 2008...? Using the catagories the OP stated: Wake... nope, same hull. Interior... not that I'm aware of. Exterior... same bird decal, right? About the only thing they've changed (to my knowledge) is the the screen on the dash (which is an option), maybe a different tower (haven't heard anybody raving about those), and the price probably went up $20K. Other than that, isn't a 2012 the same basic boat as a 2008? I think that makes it valid comparison for others as well. If you are going to compare an MB to any of the Big 3, I've always found the comparison to CC the most interesting because the wake shape is similar (steep) and up until this very recently they have had the same engines (PCM). |
I looked at this guy's post history. "Blown away" is how he appears to feel about several boats but not his 2008 210. I am a Nautique guy and I am not into the new 210 one single bit either. I think that is an elephant in the room, but that boat missed the mark big time for me. It is a disappointing update to a classic hull. He's slobbering over X-Stars and MB's and whatever else. Sounds like he's had mechanical issues with the boat in addition to the boat not really being Nautique's finest work. Dump that Nautique - it wasn't meant to be dude.
The best part of this thread is this: Quote:
|
Would you feel the same comparing a 2012 MB to a 08 X15 or VLX . The same could be said for them as far as wake ,interior, exterior and tower. I still think the MB would have an edge being 4 years newer. If he has had problems with his 210 then any new boat should blow him away.
|
Quote:
The only really advantage a "newer" boat has is condition, wear & tear, etc. But those aren't really the stuff the OP mentioned. Either way, my point is this... If your buddy took you out in his new 2012 Axis (to pick something different), every impression you have about that boat would be in comparison to your own boat. It's only natural, and completely valid. I'm not one of those guys who gets riled up about apples to oranges comparisons on the boat forum. We are not magazine editors with access to all the newest boat models for detailed testing. We ride our own boats and our buddies' boats (whatever they may have). Sometimes that makes for odd comparisons and apples to oranges impressions... But they are impressions nonetheless. I say post it all... More info is better than less. |
I think its all the MB ball washing that gets to people. Like I said, comparing a brand new almost 70k MB to a 08 SANTE 210 is a bit humorous, especially when items like loose swim platforms are brought up.
Anyone saying the current 210 missed the mark flat out is wrong. Great boat, versatile wake, and it doesn't have the wash issues the 230 can suffer from. Most importantly, it addressed the trough issue the first gen 210 suffered from. The fact is it has remained relatively unchanged since 2007 and continues to sell well, if it had the short run and low production numbers the 220 perhaps it would be easier to agree with you... |
Quote:
The company tacitly acknowledged the fact that this 210 isn't what it could be by releasing the 230 as a different hull - not just an elongated 210. I have been behind the 210, and unweighted it is disappointing. I don't think there is an argument to be made against that - it is small, it really is. Weighted it improves. Trough gone, yes. Old 210 better? Yerp.There is a reason why the top Correct Craft riders get a 230 and not a 210. You don't have to agree with me, I don't care. I think this guy is discovering the 210 is a problem, he's looking for an out. I get it. |
I think some of you have missed the OP's point, he went out expecting to ride behind an OK wake in an OK boat, it exceeded his expectations and in his words, he was blown away. Now to compare $ to $ I do not think you can get a 2012 SAN 210 with the 409 for 70 but you can get a 2012 23 B52 loaded for under 70 with the upgraded 409. And to compare 23ft to 23ft a SAN 230 would be at least 15 more than a 210, so call it 85.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I've never ridden a MB but I'm surprised the ballast fill and dump is not mentioned as an outstanding feature. Maybe I'm wrong but from what I have seen on the website all manufacturers should be employing a similar system. I also like the old style gauge dashes. I don't want that multi screen display.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Frankly, I've had it in two boats. And yes, it's nice. But like all ballast systems it has weaknesses. The biggest is that you can't get weight to the belly or the bow. This is huge, IMHO. Just look at how many MB owners are putting 500 lb. sacks in their bows... Or how many are adding sacks for their surf wake. The MB system is sweet if you only run stock ballast, but the minute you add a sack and a pump you have defeated the purpose. The other thing to keep in mind is that pump systems are getting faster and faster. Is 2-3 mins really too long to wait anymore? I don't think so especially when you get the advantage of having bow and belly ballast. |
Quote:
Tradeoffs indeed! For the record, is anybody advocating weight in the nose on the MB 23s? |
Quote:
|
I'm no pro, but for wakeboarding I see no reason to add anything over stock weight in the 23' boats. For surfing you can run only stock and it's surfable, but if you want to get it big you have to run as much weight as you would in any other boat.
|
Question to the MB owners - Are you all concerned about not having the PCM powerplant anymore? How do you feel about this? What are your honest thoughts....
My best buddy who owns the MB B52V23 with the PCM powerplant - has decided not to move forward with a new V23 - (which was his initial plan) since they are no longer running PCM. Hes decided to move to another brand once he sells his V23. BTW - he unlike the OP here - loves my 210 wake better than any other wake we have in the stable of boats our crew has. I do LOOOVE- his wake also like the OP here does. |
Miguel, is a PCM vs Indmar really that big of difference to completely cross it off his list. That seems absolutely stupid considering they all use the same blocks. It seems like some think PCM is better(I have no idea) but I would imagine Indmar and PCM have almost identical reliability and power.
|
Quote:
Cuz you do have to weight them lil homie. You do. 23' is just 600lbs or so more than a 21' boat, whose weight delta is spread across those extra feet of hull. They still need to be tanked. With the bigger boats there is just more room to hide it. |
Quote:
|
I'll just say that his previous boat ran an indmar and was
In and out of the shop. This left a very bad "taste In his mouth". That caused him to sell and get his MB which has been bullet proof for 600+ hours. So for him - he only wants to stick with PCM now. |
Quote:
Having had both, the impeller change and winterizing are a little easier on indmar. The oil change is a little easier on pcm. It's a net "meh?" imho. I wouldn't be worried about a gm powerplant marinized by indmar. |
Quote:
|
Cant speak of all obviously - but I can speak of several different times I was on that boat and we got stranded. Fuel pump issue once, starter once, overheating twice, tranny once. All in the first year. im sure Indmars are just as good and reliable, but as an owner - when that happens to you (which was his 3rd boat) , it just becomes difficult to look past.
Just from my own experience with my 2 first gen Xstars - were always in the shop for something. JUst with those experiences- I will never buy an MC ever again. Even now with the illmore's - I could never do it. I have buddys with stars that all run strong. But because I had those experiences with 2 boats, its engrained in me. So I understand his thought process. |
On the marinizing comparison between the PCM and Indmar, each company also programs the ECM which controls the fuel injection, ignigiton, sensors, etc...This is a pretty big piece of controlling a "fly by wire" engine. They do use the GM MEFI module, but the programming is proprietary to each.
Also, a big difference in the raw water pumps between PCM and Indmar, PCM has designed an built their own "modular" pump which to me is a better design and will prove more reliable. My previous PCM engine had an "off the shelf" RWP, and watching it run on the front of the engine, it looked unbalanced and a problem waiting to happen. I never did have a big problem, but it was starting to leak from the shaft, and it did shred a couple of impellers with what appeared to be no outside trash through the strainer. The problems most people will experience with a GM marine engine will be in the ancilliary parts hanging on the engine. |
Quote:
As far as the 23 TWB, no it doesn't need now ballast to avoid the massive porpoising common in the 21, but isn't it a fact that every wake boat needs weight in the bow to achieve its full potential...? If MB had offered it as an option, would you have checked that box? Even MB knows he needs weight up there... Why else would the 2007 MB B52 V23 Team Edition come with bow ballast from the factory? Why else would MB himself tell me that he's built some of the new boats for pros with sand or concrete under the bow seats?? Trust me, MB knows they need weight upfront. The only reason they don't have it is because they can't get it there with pure vert. |
1 Attachment(s)
LOVE the bow weight in my F21!!! Now just to hide it...
Attachment 23745 |
I actually don't disagree with you Dave. What I was trying to get across is that not having bow ballast can be a perverse marketing tool. The x30 doesn't have it, and consequently there's bow storage even with "full factory ballast." you could order an LSV that way, but then you'd have a less desirable boat for resale because it wouldn't have "full factory ballast," even though both boats would have nearly identical factory ballast.
So for some folks, just the *availability* of bow ballast is clearly a demerit because if they appropriately choose not to buy it, they've now got a "less than" (can't claim "loaded") boat. I'm sure there must be MB dealers who make this same argument (2100lbs AND bow storage!). I'll stand by my thought that the 23twb doesn't need bow ballast, at least not as a compliment to the existing factory ballast. I've ridden with 400 in kids in the bow and it really doesn't change the wake IMHO. But for pros who are running weight on top of factory ballast I'm sure it might make sense. For the 99%, the tube wake is just fine without bow ballast. As for why and whether the older mb hulls need bow ballast, I'm ignorant. |
Quote:
You also allude to a common perception that the gravity fed ballast system is simple and trouble free. I thought that too until my last MB had one of the gates get stuck in the "open" position. It required a trip to the dealer to resolve. Then I sold the boat and the new owner had the same issue on the same gate... Another trip to another dealer. After multiple phone calls on the subject, I no longer think Pure Vert is trouble free. Don't get me wrong... Pure Vert is a cool system. But let's be careful not to overstate the value or the reliability. As Shaun says, it's all about trade offs. No magic pills here. I might be one of the few people on WW who's had both Pure Vert and the newer, quick-fill pump systems (e.g. I can fill all FOUR of my tanks in 2-3 minutes). I used to LOVE Pure Vert but I'm quickly learning the advantages vs. pumps are NOT what I once thought they were. |
If you are filling ~2400 lbs in 2-3 min that great. What pumps are you using?
|
Quote:
I'm not saying pumps are as fast as gravity. I'm just pointing out trade-offs and the fact that pump technology is only getting better/faster. Pure Vert was designed to solve a problem... slow fill times. But as pumps get better, that problem is going away, or becoming less noticeable. The gap is not as wide as it was just a few years ago when you'd regularly hear guys complain about 10-15 minute fill times. Do you think pump technology has peaked at 1200gph...? How big of an advantage will Pure Vert be when pumps are 3,000gph and hoses 2" wide? At some point you start to say... "At 2-3 minutes pumps are fast enough. I can't even put my heater top, helmet and board on that fast. I'd rather have bow and belly ballast." I used to think pumps would become obsolete. Now I feel like it's the oposite. Pure Vert may become obsolete. Time will tell. |
Quote:
|
I had 4 T-1200 pumps with 1" lines on my old boat and it took about 7-8 min to fill 2000 lbs. I want to plumb in surf sacs on my 23TWB, but I'm thinking of going with a Johnson pump this time due to the simplicity of only needing one pump and from tests I have read the 720 GPH is faster in the real world that the T1200s. I have no idea why no one is making 2000 GPH impeller pumps. Maybe the amp draw is too high? Maybe a cost issue?
|
I'd think that all those hose runs would get very hard to conceal, and hard to radius with 2" reinforced hoses.
|
I hate pumps, hoses and bags.
I like ballast under the floor and I like ballast in the bow. I like the idea of both filling/draining when underway through some sort of hydrogate. That should take care of wakeboarding ballast. Surf ballast is a bit more challenging. |
Faster reversible pumps please. Have zero desire to have the issues all my friends have had with Tsunami style pumps in their system.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Nope don't own one. I find your name ironic considering the claims you are making. What do you know about the design differences between the 210 and 230? What characteristics are that wildly different? Any (if you can come up with any) differences have more to do with the fact the boats were designed for different purposes than "acknowledging the fact the 210 isn't what it could be." The 210 was designed to a be an Air Nautique from the start, the 230 was actually the 236 and billed as a cross over. It was never intended to be the flagship SAN when released. Neither was the the 210, it was supposed to slot beneath the 220. Hell the modern 210 and 236 (what the 230 originally was released as) came out the same year, 2007. So don't claim the 230 somehow magically addressed any issues you claim with the 210. The 236 just happened to make a large wake when weighed down, and CC needed a larger boat to compete with the Xstar and other larger wakeboats. I'm sure they would have loved to design a new 23' boat, but after the 220 failure (and 226 for that matter) it made more financial sense to go with the 236. The 230 became the flagship SAN, that's why their riders ride them; it is what CC gives them to ride. Ask Chat about his issues he had with the 230 when weighed down with a lot of weight. The 230 can produce a larger wake than the 210, but not necessarily as clean. Yes the original 210 was a great boat, but it was a love or hate wake. The new 210 addressed that, and I would say it's 5+ year run with no changes "acknowledges" a successful and popular design... |
07 and up 210's suck!!!!!! Period!!!
|
In my experience, the MB 23 doesn't really need the bow weight. In the 21 widebody, on the other hand, a little bow weight makes a huge difference. Caveat, the 21 widebody is hands down my favorite wake i've ridden, and I don't own one. Something that hasn't been brought up in this thread is fuel tank size. Does anyone know what the fuel capacity is in a mb 23, a 210 or 230, a vlx, etc? I honestly don't know, but I know in my boat, I definately notice a differnce if my tank is low. As such, i'm guessing if one of those boats has a 50 gallon tank and another has a 70 gallon tank, for example, it's something you have to consider when we talk ballast numbers. I think it also affects how much bow weight you need.
|
The 23TWB has a 65 gal tank and I keep it full.
|
Quote:
We have a wide variety of skill sets ride on our boat and I love how "tuneable" the Malibu system is. If we want to ride with more than factory ballast, than I also hit the 3 switches for the extra plumbed in sacks. By using the stock MLS system plus the extra ballast pumps in parallel it takes me just 3 minutes to reach the same 1800lbs as the gravity system on the MB, and with plenty of weight in the bow. Saving 1-2 minutes of fill time in that case just doesn't seem worth it to me. If I want to really sack it out then I am able to fill 3500lbs total in 6 minutes by running all the fill pumps at once. If you want to run that much weight with a MB then you are throwing pumps over the sides which is a pain and doesn't save you any time. Or you are plumbing in extra pumps/bags/switches just like I did, and you are again limited by the pump speed just like every other pump based system out there. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
The "tunability" argument does have some merit.... if you always have the same crew, same amount of gas, same cargo, and everybody sits in the same place every time. If you have people moving around the boat, you are putting ballast at different places in the boat and then the wake will change. If it DOESN'T change when people move around the boat then I guess I'd question whether and how half or quarter filled tanks (which weigh less than an average adult) can tune the wake where a person moving in the boat won't?
A truly automated system would keep the boat at the same attitude and displacement in the water at a given preset. So it'd dump water from the bow if the kids move up front, and add water to the front and dump it from the back if everybody moves to the back. AFAIK, that doesn't exist yet. I also don't think it's fair asking whether a VLX can take on 2000 lbs in two minutes. That's a much smaller boat than a twb 23 and it will put out a wake that is more than 99% of people who strap on a wakeboard need or can handle. In my old vride, just the addition of two 225 lb friends made the wake way bigger. Small boats just take less weight to sink (another valid consideration as gas hovers at $4 a gallon). |
Quote:
With the wedge all the way down and the wake is rampy with a very mellow lip. Great for learning to clear toe side jumps for example. Raise the wedge a few clicks up and you can just watch the wake stand up and get a nice sharp lip that really boots you vertically. You can make it as lippy as you want to the point of rolling the lip over just by adjusting the power wedge. Just 2 days ago we were running 2500lbs of ballast plus 6 people in the boat at 23 mph and the wedge works exactly as I described it. Had some very good riders out with us and everybody loved how easy it was to get it dialed to their liking. |
going back to the OP...I had a chance to demo the same MB yesterday afternoon and as an owner of an 06 B52 I was very impressed with the wake. 3 people plus the rider with stock ballast and I was getting booted. Definitely has a more abrupt feel to it than my wake. It cleans up a little better and the pure vert system is amazing. I am not into surfing but with an extra sack in the back on the side you are surfing on the surf was was massive.
fit and finish on the interiors of MB's have always been great and they have only gotten better. I like the simplicity of the dash gauges and personally don't need the fancy LCD screen gauges. With that being said I am still looking at the 21tomcat and the A22. Seems like the 23 widebody will coming in a bit higher than the A22 and the 21tomcat will come in a bit below. All great boats IMO |
Sean - awesome to hear that you got to ride the 2012 B52 as well and that the wake made a great impression on you too. I agree with the abruptness of the wake - it is even more abrupt than my 2008 210 when loadeded with factory ballast and the full Fly High kit (about 2300lbs total), but I didn't find it overly abrupt to where I couldn't ride it given my very intermediate skill level (I struggle riding an OG 210 because of how steep the wake is). I'm also not into surfing, but can appreciate how huge the surf wake was and how far back a rider could get from the boat while still remaining in the pocket. The surfers in my crew were having a field-day on that surf wake.
Just to clarify a few things, I've had zero issues with my 2008 SANTE 210 (has 370 hours on it) both cosmetically and mechanically. It is a very solid boat and I have had zero regrets purchasing it. I'm just toying with the idea of moving up to a larger boat (something in the 23 foot range) for more room and to ride better in rougher water so I can take it to larger lakes. I've been thinking about a 230 or Star - however, the MB B52 made a real impression on me because I was expecting it to be a "so-so" boat (build quality wise) with a medicre wake....I was pleasantly suprised with it because this was not the case at all. |
the first charge Sean took at the wake, he got booted up and the look on his face was priceless followed with a big smile :)
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 2:56 PM. |