Jump to content

Welcome to TheMalibuCrew!

As a guest, you are welcome to poke around and view the majority of the content that we have to offer, but in order to post, search, contact members, and get full use out of the website you will need to Register for an Account. It's free and it's easy, so don't hesitate to join the TheMalibuCrew Family today!

Response LXi vs Nautique


gripnrip

Recommended Posts

Now that Nautique has come out with the Nautique 200, which looks like the Response, is Malibu going to develop a wake that looks like the 200?

What in your terms does look like it mean, what do you see as better or worse, and have you skied or driven the new 200?

Link to comment

Since Malibu introduced the SV23 Diamond hull, the hull has always been known for great wakes and efficiency synergistically with 1:1 gear ratio. That is what makes Malibu more fuel efficient than MC and CC gear reduction. The new 200 uses 20% more gas than the 196. Malibu can put more hull in the water but at what expense? Slightly better wake and using a whole lot more gas.

Link to comment

If you're skiing at a level that truly justifies the use of either of these boats than the subtle differences in wake are irrelevant. What matters most to short line skiers is consistency / strength of pull and spray from the boat.

If you're a recreational skier that enjoys owning a nice boat then maybe you could argue that the Nautique 200 has a slightly better wake. However at this level of skiing the wake is not your problem, it's your form. Get them hips forward boy!

I can't imagine Malibu redesigning a successful platform to try and make a fraction of a better wake. But that's what R&D is all about so who knows. Just my thoughts.

Link to comment

I like that new 200 but damn, that thing is $$$$$$$. I can't see Malibu changing either. Spending all that money for R and D plugs, molds. There's not much to gain. Especially with the diminished volume of the Response series.

I wish it wasn't that way.

Link to comment

I like that new 200 but damn, that thing is $$$$$$$. I can't see Malibu changing either. Spending all that money for R and D plugs, molds. There's not much to gain. Especially with the diminished volume of the Response series.

I wish it wasn't that way.

Interesting that this topic came up. I was at the boat show over the weekend just checking out the new boats. I have heard great things about the 200 but do not like the looks, even if I could get past the price. I was talking to some people about the new Response LXI and someone mentioned that are working on some changes to improve the wakes and the longer line lenghts. Anyone else heard about this?

Link to comment

Now that Nautique has come out with the Nautique 200, which looks like the Response, is Malibu going to develop a wake that looks like the 200?

You mean like formless foam? Malibu has the best barefoot wake by a long shot. Still enough barefooters that prefer a response and while I haven't yet had the opportunity to try a 200, given the wakes of a 196 at my lines, I'm firmly planted on the malibu bandwagon.

Link to comment

The new SN200 doesn't have any better wakes then the RLXi or the SN196. It just spends a lot more energy getting the wake it has- thus the comments on using more gas. The 200 only has different wakes. If you only ski behind one boat, like 85% of the time, and you get behind any other boat, you will notice a difference in wakes. If you are able to switch the boats around frequently, then you will notice less about the wake and more about your skiing. I think Malibu should look at coming up with a less expensive boat that continues to have great wakes like the Response and RLXi. That's what the skiers want to have.

Link to comment

I spoke with a local pro slalom skier (here in Orlando). He said he heard from some guys at CC that there is some anxiety around the linfer-term effects of the Excaliber 343 at a substantially higher RPM to achieve the desired speed (hence the higher fuel burn). Said it's a great thoroughbred tournament boat, but the hull design pushes a hell of a lot of water D-O-W-N where the Malibu flies over it (and MC is in between). Anyway, might be all BS, but seems logical????

Link to comment

I spoke with a local pro slalom skier (here in Orlando). He said he heard from some guys at CC that there is some anxiety around the linfer-term effects of the Excaliber 343 at a substantially higher RPM to achieve the desired speed (hence the higher fuel burn). Said it's a great thoroughbred tournament boat, but the hull design pushes a hell of a lot of water D-O-W-N where the Malibu flies over it (and MC is in between). Anyway, might be all BS, but seems logical????

I said that a week ago in post 2. The SV23 Diamond hull has always been a "slider" ever since it's inception over a decade ago hence it's good fuel effeciency. It also takes a better driver to drive a "slider". The Cut Diamond wets slightly more hull than the Diamond.

Edited by eyepeeler
Link to comment

I have both skied behind the 200 and driven shortline skiers through the course with it and there is a lot--and I mean a lot--to like about that boat. But the hull is less efficient and it does take more to push it through the water @36 than the 196. This said, it appears that one reason that it runs at overly high RPMs as it comes from the factory is that the prop they used with the 343 was a necessity to meet AWSA specs for jump--it is not a great prop for slalom. One solution is to put the 409 in it, and the other is to re-prop the 343 with an ACME 422, which gives plenty of hole shot for slalom but drops slalom speeds @36 by at least 500 rpm over the stock prop.

I don't envy ski-boat manufacturers when it comes to making design decisions. I hear tons of skiers say all they want is a good tracking/skiing boat that is light and inexpensive. But when the rubber hits the road, if someone tries to build one, you get lots of comments about how the boat looks "cheap" and that it "lacks the fit and finish" of the other boats. And good luck actually selling one. I am already hearing lots of comments like this about the Centurion Carbon Pro and it hasn't even had a chance to prove itself (and its not even that cheap).

Also, a three-event boat has to do a lot of things well, and some of those things compete with the design of the other things. It needs a small soft wake at a lot of different speeds and line lengths, it needs to meet specs for jump, it needs a good table for trick, and it needs to track well and drive straight and provide the driver with comfortable ride and good field of vision. After designing these characteristics into the boat then you need to make sure you can arguably barefoot behind it and you also need to convince mom that it can be used as a family boat every once in a while. And now these boats also have to meet more stringent environmental standards.

The current three-event boats for Malibu, Mastercraft, and Nautique all do a lot of things really well, but they also all have had to make design trade-offs in some form or fashion and I don't see anyway around it. You can't make a boat perfect in every way when it is a three-event boat that also has to actually sell because the design requirements are competing. Given the current economic conditions and the state of the sport, I am just thankful that the big three are still building boats with an engine in the middle and trying new things to push the design of these boats forward, and that there is at least one other company trying to break into the market with something lighter and (a little) less expensive.

Edited by jjackkrash
Link to comment

I have both skied behind the 200 and driven shortline skiers through the course with it and there is a lot--and I mean a lot--to like about that boat. But the hull is less efficient and it does take more to push it through the water @36 than the 196. This said, it appears that one reason that it runs at overly high RPMs as it comes from the factory is that the prop they used with the 343 was a necessity to meet AWSA specs for jump--it is not a great prop for slalom. One solution is to put the 409 in it, and the other is to re-prop the 343 with an ACME 422, which gives plenty of hole shot for slalom but drops slalom speeds @36 by at least 500 rpm over the stock prop.

I don't envy ski-boat manufacturers when it comes to making design decisions. I hear tons of skiers say all they want is a good tracking/skiing boat that is light and inexpensive. But when the rubber hits the road, if someone tries to build one, you get lots of comments about how the boat looks "cheap" and that it "lacks the fit and finish" of the other boats. And good luck actually selling one. I am already hearing lots of comments like this about the Centurion Carbon Pro and it hasn't even had a chance to prove itself (and its not even that cheap).

Also, a three-event boat has to do a lot of things well, and some of those things compete with the design of the other things. It needs a small soft wake at a lot of different speeds and line lengths, it needs to meet specs for jump, it needs a good table for trick, and it needs to track well and drive straight and provide the driver with comfortable ride and good field of vision. After designing these characteristics into the boat then you need to make sure you can arguably barefoot behind it and you also need to convince mom that it can be used as a family boat every once in a while. And now these boats also have to meet more stringent environmental standards.

The current three-event boats for Malibu, Mastercraft, and Nautique all do a lot of things really well, but they also all have had to make design trade-offs in some form or fashion and I don't see anyway around it. You can't make a boat perfect in every way when it is a three-event boat that also has to actually sell because the design requirements are competing. Given the current economic conditions and the state of the sport, I am just thankful that the big three are still building boats with an engine in the middle and trying new things to push the design of these boats forward, and that there is at least one other company trying to break into the market with something lighter and (a little) less expensive.

This is a great, intelligent, and very relevant perspective. I completely agree on all fronts. I too applaud the Tournament/Inboard manufacturers who are trying to market a "price-point" (thought the price-point is certainly up for debate...) boat. I think I make a darn good living, but jeesh....I'm 42, want to have a decent boat for my kids to have some fun with. Could I afford one, yes, but will I ever spend $75k - $100k+ on a highly discretional, depreciating asset boat? Hell no. And I LOVE all inboards (since being in MC Stars & Stripes when I was 6 and ever after). Some guys love cars, planes, whatever....I love ski boats. The prices of the top-tier boats has gotten absolutely silly (I'm not judging the value or worth.....just my personal justification for spending $). I know what I do for a living, and I know how much I make....I would really love to know how people are swinging $100K+ MasterCrafts, etc., or maybe the more important question I can't reconcile is even if they can swing it...why would they?

I love the fact that Axis is out - - and I hope other manufacturers do the same to provide some competition. My fear is just like the rest of the industry over the past 5-6 years, the disproportionate ski boat inflation trend will take hold, and an Axis will be $75K. I don't care how much I make, or how much I have in the bank, I don't ever see myself parting with more than $50K for a boat, so I am now limited to the used market, or the breed of "cheap" boat.

Bravo Axis and Centurion (and I will never complain that the fit and finish don't measure to a Nautique....)

Edited by theaslip
Link to comment

I have not skied the new CC 200. I pull nearly half of our sets with a CC 196 and the other half with RLXI Cut Diamond I find the Rlxi tracks better than the 196. The boats have different wakes but both are outstanding. I think the RLXI is more weight sensitive. I looked at the CC200 but thought it looks like the interior is covered flat bench seats yea maybe cheep. The rest of the boat is very nice looking to me. In the end I had two boats I needed to narrow down to one and the RLXI won. Price, interior size, looks. and for the wife the open bow.

Link to comment

Well,

As a long time member of TMC (check out the date I joined), I can now say that I've been to both sides. I've owned a 04' RLXI and now I have a '10 SN 200. I won't throw fuel on the fire IMHO, one of the best boats that I have skied behind was a Response LX closed bow. A nice, soft, narrow wake. And dollar for dollar, it can't be touched. Period. I preferred it to the 04 RLXI and a 10' RLXI.

But that is my opinion. That and $1.09 will get you a coffee at the local 7-11 !

The early gen RLXI hulls like mine were nice, but as previously stated, the driver better have some talent if pulling someone that was a hard puller the back end would dance ALL over. It was flat. The latest gen hull not as bad.

I will qualify my remarks and say that I'm just a rec skier, not yet at max speed. I do think think that skill trumps all. Anyone that can ski well behind a SN at max speed (34/36) can ski well behind a BU or a MC, in the end it comes down to personal preference. They may not be thrilled with the wake, but they can do it.

Where does my boat shine then? Reduced speeds? Maybe. That ones open for debate. I believe that the wake behind a 200 is better than my 04 RLXI at 30-32 mph.

Tracking through a course, a 200 hands down. It practically drives itself at 39 off. Switching props over to the 422 seems to be the ticket to bringing down the RPMS. I find the 20% more gas number a bit high. It will burn more gas, but I'm not running a ski school putting on a ton of hours so the added cost of gas is marginal. Look under the hull of a 200 from the front, reverse steps designed to lift the hull. Inefficient, yes, but no wild Zero Off rpm swings like a late model MC 197.

I'm always looking for a 2nd if you are by the Traverse City area.

Edited by skistud1
Link to comment
I have both skied behind the 200 and driven shortline skiers through the course with it and there is a lot--and I mean a lot--to like about that boat.

A lot to like.... Is the slalom wake equal to the hype on the 200? How does it compare to the RLXI's wake?

Link to comment

Being a rec. skiierthat likes flat wakes at 30-32 mph, the cc200 sounds interesting,however we have a couple of wakeboarders in our boat. The RLXi with the wedge does a decent job with the boarding wake. Maybe would"nt suit the intense wakeboarder, but were not trying to do alot of high aerials. That takes alot of time to practice, which we don't have that much of. Is there any form of boarding offered with the CC200?

Link to comment

My interest in starting this post was to stimulate conversation to ascertain what the general consensus is with Malibu LXi wake to that of the Nautique 200 wake. There seems to be a lot of brand loyalty when it comes to both the Malibu and Nautique, but specifically the Nautique. I have some people at our lake who refuse to ski behind anything but a Nautique. I have also traveled many places and find the same loyalty to the Nautique. I think Malibu should invest in R & D in their ski-boats to stay up with the competition and applaud Nautique with continuing to contribute, develop, and progress water skiing to different levels.

Link to comment

My interest in starting this post was to stimulate conversation to ascertain what the general consensus is with Malibu LXi wake to that of the Nautique 200 wake. There seems to be a lot of brand loyalty when it comes to both the Malibu and Nautique, but specifically the Nautique. I have some people at our lake who refuse to ski behind anything but a Nautique. I have also traveled many places and find the same loyalty to the Nautique. I think Malibu should invest in R & D in their ski-boats to stay up with the competition and applaud Nautique with continuing to contribute, develop, and progress water skiing to different levels.

I dont think change just for the sake of change is necessarly always good, the Malibus have led the way for many years , I would say that their R&D has been cutting edge, as far as for brand loyalty each group has their following , I do think that a skiier that wont ski behind another brand is very narrow minded, for each brand has its pros and cons and only time will tell whether a particular boat was as advertised, my sons are show skiiers having worked at Cypress Gardens and Sea world of Texas and have experenced both the Malibus and nautiques, and in show use there is considerable difference, the 200 is hard pressed to pull barefoot with the 409hp 6.0l , it tracks very poorly and is a handful to do precission manuvers, the SV211 and 200 also have a lot of rudder stall when you have to cut back in the show for a tight pattern forceing you to cut totale power and sink the skiier , these are all things which I agree the everage person might not experence but shows me theres a lot more to a boat design other then just wake.

This is just a small amount of what they have come across in there use of both brands under extreame conditions 4 shows a day 7 days a week .

Link to comment

I may be off base but I have not had a chance to ski a CC200 yet. First I would never turn down a ride behind any of the manufactures top ski boats. None of them are bad and surly not bad enough to turn down a good ski. I can not believe the wake from the CC200 can be that much better just because the wake behind my RLXI is so good. Hay look at the ski offs between MC CC and BU withe the top skiers from each brand Bu has had the best scores for the last two years or more. I don't think team CC & MC are throwing the show. Each boat IMHO have different wakes but not bad and definitely bad IMHO CC has a very heavy prop wash but small wake. Bu has a slightly larger wake bu so soft it makes no difference. MC has a crisper wake but still small. With that said maybe a less aggressive skier may see it different but then when I had less experience I rode behind anything that could get me up on a ski IO's Bass boats OB Evin little fishing boats with OB and tiller steering.

Bu has a tendency to come out with haul updates in about five year area so we may see a new tweaked haul soon but then I am not sure the Cut diamond was any better the the diamond. I think the cut diamond drives better but ski don't know. If I closed my eyes I could not tell you the difference between the two wakes.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

I haven't skied behind a RLXi (we have a RLX), but my team had new CC 200s last year. I loved the wake at 36, and thought they were great looking outside and inside. They did have trouble getting much speed for barefooting, though (w/ the Excalibur 343). You can adjust the hydroplate which will get you 2-3mph more, but even then I think we had a hard time getting more than 42 with a few people in the boat and just one footer. In any case, I think I could make myself happy with either a new CC or Bu!

Link to comment
I dont think change just for the sake of change is necessarly always good, ...

True dat. I ski behind a 98 CC 196 (TSC hull) and an mid-00's 196 (TSC II hull) and I much prefer the original TSC hull (34 / 22, 28, & 32 off) over the TSC II. :yes:

Link to comment

True dat. I ski behind a 98 CC 196 (TSC hull) and an mid-00's 196 (TSC II hull) and I much prefer the original TSC hull (34 / 22, 28, & 32 off) over the TSC II. :yes:

+1.... I share your sentiment, and would chose either of my buddy's 98 196's over the 02 196 and 07 206 I can ski behind.

Edited by davemac
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...