Use boat buying...your take?

[SacRiverRat]

I tried... I really tried, but these two are outta control!

[NorCaliBu]

WOW.... have we drifted off topic

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I tried... I really tried, but these two are outta control!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry Martho.

To the original topic....for the right price, I'd run a 95 closed bow SN. No doubt.

[VinRLX]

Just don't plan to barefoot behind it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What is the basis for this statement?

And as for some of the inconsiderate off topic rantings above Some of the best mindless arguing I've seen in months!

[M3Fan]

Just don't plan to barefoot behind it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What is the basis for this statement?

And as for some of the inconsiderate off topic rantings above Some of the best mindless arguing I've seen in months!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The same thing that makes the CC wake so great for slalom is what makes it awful for barefooting. Mucho turbulance/foam. The boat in question is a 97 btw.

[grnautique]

That boat looks exactly the same as my neighbors. Same color and year. He has owned his since new and has babied it. It has around 400 hours on it now but still runs, looks and skis perfect. My first inboard was a '95 Echelon LX. When I skiied behind my neighbors boat and then drove it, well lets just say I know own a 2000 Ski Nautique CB. The other thing, the only difference between a '97 and a '00 Ski Nautique are the digital gauges, different gel coat pattern and key pad starter on the 2000. It drives and skis exactly the same.

The other thing about hours. I use my boat a lot, my wife and I ski about 3-4 days a week. This year, I put about 25 hours on it. We live on a lake that is roughly 2 miles long. Most times, I will ski up and back and then she will ski up and back and we are done, that puts maybe 15 minutes on the boat. We don't really use the boat for much other than skiing and pulling the kids on the innertube. Low hours might not mean that the boat wasn't used a lot, maybe just not long periods of time.

[VinRLX]

gr, you owe it to yourself to ski/drive a 2003+ Response or LXi. Albeit a 196 is a fine boat.

25 hours? You need to get out on the water more.

[grnautique]

VinRLX,

I couldn't find a late model Malibu Response for sale when I was looking for a new boat, at least not in the price range I was shopping for. The only Malibu I have ever skiied behind was my old Echelon. I would have to say, if I were in the market for a brand new boat, it would probably be a Response LXI.

As for getting out on the water more. I am not good enough to ski the course (yet) and after an up and back of good hard skiing, its all I can do to make it home and let go. Maybe I am just a whimp.

[M3Fan]

gr, you owe it to yourself to ski/drive a 2003+ Response or LXi. Albeit a 196 is a fine boat.

25 hours? You need to get out on the water more.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why would a 2003 RLX drive different then a 98 RLX(first year of diamond)? This is a silly post, vin. Bus and SN's drive different. One on top of the water, one practically under water. All personal preference.

Edited October 29, 2005 by M3Fan

[NorCaliBu]

gr, you owe it to yourself to ski/drive a 2003+ Response or LXi. Albeit a 196 is a fine boat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why would a 2003 RLX drive different then a 98 RLX(first year of diamond)? This is a silly post, vin.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the "or" in his post may have been a typo.

[JohnDoe]

Just don't plan to barefoot behind it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What is the basis for this statement?

The basis? The basis is that if there is one event that a CBSN does worse than wakeboard, is barefoot.

Its too slow, too turbulent, too washy, too slow, and too turbulent....did I mention its too slow?

[WakeGirl]

Turbulent, definitely on the SN. Martho, I'm not sure of the exact year on that boat & what your goals are with it (how much footing vs. skiing) but for slalom you owe it to yourself to consider a 97-99 SN if that's the brand that you're going with (I think those are the correct years for the TSC hull). The hull after it is not as good, & the one before it isn't even close. My bro-in law has a '96 & there's a fellow in our ski club that has the hull right after it (I just can't remember if his is a 97 or 98) & you wouldn't even think that the 2 boats were made by the same company, the wakes are that different. That TSC hull is amazing, Joe swears it's the best ski wake he's ever been on, bar none.

[martho]

One thing I find amazing. Ok two things

1. This thread cannot stay on topic

2. Lots of people comparing boats/performance who are not really qualified.

As for the 98 vs 03. Different engine can make a huge driving difference. I have driven two 99 Sportsters which were completely opposite of each other.

[martho]

Turbulent, definitely on the SN. Martho, I'm not sure of the exact year on that boat & what your goals are with it (how much footing vs. skiing) but for slalom you owe it to yourself to consider a 97-99 SN if that's the brand that you're going with (I think those are the correct years for the TSC hull). The hull after it is not as good, & the one before it isn't even close. My bro-in law has a '96 & there's a fellow in our ski club that has the hull right after it (I just can't remember if his is a 97 or 98) & you wouldn't even think that the 2 boats were made by the same company, the wakes are that different. That TSC hull is amazing, Joe swears it's the best ski wake he's ever been on, bar none

NWIH I would touch that boat with a 100' pole. Go from a 01 RLX with all the toys to a stripped SN????

Edited October 29, 2005 by martho

[WakeGirl]

Whew, you had me going.

[JohnDoe]

One thing I find amazing.  Ok two things

1. This thread cannot stay on topic

2. Lots of people comparing boats/performance who are not really qualified.

As for the 98 vs 03.  Different engine can make a huge driving difference.  I have driven two 99 Sportsters which were completely opposite of each other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh..oh..I want to hear whos not qualified.

[M3Fan]

Let's say you bought the 2001 RLX, hypothetically for X amount. Assume X amount is high retail, just for kicks. Let's say you could get the 250 hour 97 mint SN for 17k . Take x-17k = F. F is for Fun, because that is a handful of cash and you still have arguably one of the best ski boats ever.

Edited October 29, 2005 by M3Fan

[WakeGirl]

Let's say you bought the 2001 RLX, hypothetically for X amount. Assume X amount is high retail, just for kicks. Let's say you could get the 250 hour 97 mint SN for 17k . Take x-17k = F. F is for Fun, because that is a handful of cash and you still have arguably one of the best ski boats ever.

Only if he gets the 97, if he gets the 10 year old boat then that's a different story altogether.

[martho]

Well, I don't know how many tournament rated drivers we have on this site.

Second, most of the people on this site, including me, are not short line skiers or will ever ski where these boats are designed to perform (36mph and short lengths)

Third, based on a post several months back, most people haven't even driven a PS190, a CC(SN or 196) and a RLX or RLXi.

Finally, everyone has different basis of opinions and no scientific testing is being done. It is all based on our views of what is right/wrong. Some people hate the windshield height on the early RLXi. Thus it got some poor reviews. It may ski like a champ(once again subjective to the needs/level of the skier) but gets a horrible word of mouth based on an atheistic level, not a performance level.

[martho]

Only if he gets the 97, if he gets the 10 year old boat then that's a different story altogether.

Tracie,

Use the 97 one season and guess what? a 10 year old boat

[martho]

Let's say you bought the 2001 RLX, hypothetically for X amount. Assume X amount is high retail, just for kicks. Let's say you could get the 250 hour 97 mint SN for 17k . Take x-17k = F. F is for Fun, because that is a handful of cash and you still have arguably one of the best ski boats ever.

Take 17K, pay your 6.5% sales tax and you have 18,105. Add PP, heater,shower and you have almost 20K.

Sorry, no cash to have in pocket for any F regardless of the value of X

Edited October 29, 2005 by martho

[M3Fan]

Raise your had if you have ever seen an 01 RLX go for 20k in any condition.

[JohnDoe]

Raise your had if you have ever seen an 01 RLX go for 20k in any condition.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Allegedly there were somme newer ones than that for sale in the NE for less.

[M3Fan]

Let me add this- what the heck wears on a ski boat disporportionally to the engine and interior? Engine use should be directly proportional to interior use, unless the family just sits around on it as a living room. As is everything else- like say, the steering cable- is somebody going to just sit there and spin the wheel with the engine off? Engine hours = Use of boat = Wear on boat. Exception is engine sitting for long periods of time with no use AND sun fade on interior/hull. Another exception would be wood construction, which is moot in the big 3 since 94 (the echelon was the last boat to go fiberglass right?).

Also, for a slalom boat, as great as bus are now, who wants a 95 bu for slalom? Nobody. Not until the 98 was bu really a desirable hull for slalom, right?

Edited October 29, 2005 by M3Fan

[JohnDoe]

Let me add this- what the heck wears on a ski boat disporportionally to the engine and interior? Engine use should be directly proportional to interior use, unless the family just sits around on it as a living room. As is everything else- like say, the steering cable- is somebody going to just sit there and spin the wheel with the engine off? Engine hours = Use of boat = Wear on boat. Exception is engine sitting for long periods of time with no use AND sun fade on interior/hull.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Somewhat agree. Except there are a lot of 30 hour 2000 boats out there that look like crap! And of course, there are many 1000 hour boats that look pretty decent.

[99response]

Honestly I'd go for the 10 year old boat used consistantly with proper maintance and 800 hours over a low hour boat in questionable condition. Although I did buy a 2000 Response with 400 hours that is beat to heck, but boy did i get a smoking deal....

Chris