Barefooters - Best Malibu tow boat

[mxbeck]

I am looking for a new (to me) barefoot tow boat. I want an inboard Malibu with no wood in the construction. I know that eliminates older years. What I want to know is which boat has the right combination of speed and barefooter's wake. Looking for a competition level wake, such as what you would get from a Sanger barefooter. Friend has a Malibu Sportster (not sure of the year) that is great. I know there are lots of variations over the years as far as motor and hull combinations. Wasn't there a year when the Response was on the same hull as the Sportser? I wouldn't mind a slightly bigger boat than the Sportster.

Thanks for any and all input!

Edited June 8, 2011 by mxbeck

[Levi900RR]

FYI, 93 and newer are all glass, no wood.

I have never barefooted but I have been told my boat is awesome for it...

[85 Barefoot]

I am looking for a new (to me) barefoot tow boat. I want an inboard Malibu with no wood in the construction. I know that eliminates older years. What I want to know is which boat has the right combination of speed and barefooter's wake. Looking for a competition level wake, such as what you would get from a Sanger barefooter. Friend has a Malibu Sportster (not sure of the year) that is great. I know there are lots of variations over the years as far as motor and hull combinations. Wasn't there a year when the Response was on the same hull as the Sportser? I wouldn't mind a slightly bigger boat than the Sportster.Thanks for any and all input!

you're probably referring to the pre-diamond sv23. diamond came out in 1998. So, 1997 and older responses and ecehlons woudl be good starting point. Generally speaking, most prefer the non-diamond for barefooting. speed-wise, everything will be pretty close depending on prop.

[SeanQ]

The older echelons with the 454 would get you all the speed you need and have the wake hull. The inboard flightcrafts have an amazing wake but lack on the speed side a little. If you want a true barefoot boat you're looking at getting an outboard. The outboard flightcrafts are one of the best barefoot boats ever made. Overall if you're set on an inboard though you can't get a better bang for your buck than the sportsters...they're cheap, better on gas than the 454 echelons, faster than inboard flightcrafts, and have an pretty good barefoot wake.

[Michigan boarder]

My '94 with the 350 Merc (265hp) does the trick no problem. With a 13x13 origina prop. All fiberglass, no wood, walk thru bow. About 46mph top end (not sure if that's accurate with me footing off the side though). I think you can get a better prop for footing.

[WakingMeHappy]

My son and I bare foot behind my 99 Sunsetter lxi with no problems.

[Scottman]

He said that he is looking for a wake comparitive to a Sanger, which I'm assuming is the DXII with a barefoot plate. For barefoot slalom, there are a few boats that Malibu makes that have a good wake.

The Flightcraft outboard with a high five prop has probally the best wake straight out of the box with no modifications. The eariler year Flightcraft inboards, pre 1994 (the Austrialian version) have a better wake than the 1994 and newer but, they are on the slower side for wake slalom. If you put a set of Vortec heads and an intake (should be able to do this for less than $2000) you will pick up some needed speed and have a very good barefoot boat. The only drawback is that the boat is on the smaller side as far as interior room.

The 1998-2000 Sportster closed bow has a great wake for barefooting even with the 310 hp carb motor this boat will run close to 50mph and I know that a lot of avid barefooters are using these boats. The Sportster closed bow 2001-2005 and the Sportser LX 1998-2005 share the same hull, it has an extra cline in the hull. The wake is still very good (I personally own one of these) the closed bow is a little better. I gave up a little bit of wake definition for the open bow for my kids.

The Response and Response LX is four inches wider than the Sportster and it has a terrible wake for barefooting without the SSP (barefoot plate). My parents have the Response LX with the Monsoon motor. You will need the Corvette motor or the Hammerhead, since the SSP scrubs off speed, to push this boat to barefoot speeds for wake slalom with the SSP. When the SSP is set up right, this boat produces a nice wake for barefooting. A friend of mine has one that is dialed in. If the boat comes with the wedge you can simply unbolt it and mount the SSP to the brackets on the hull. The SSP will run you about $400.

There it is in a nutshell as far as barefoot boats that Malibu has produced. My advise would be if you are looking for an inboard barefoot boat that has a "competition" wake go with a Sportster. There is a 1999 Sportster LX with a tower on craigslist in your town for $12500.

[Woodski]

'93-'97 Echelon and '96-'97 Response given your criteria. You want the straight SV23 hull as noted. They are excellent footing boats and also excellent slalom wakes.

[Scottman]

Correct, you do not want the diamond hull ! The 2007 Response LXI is horrible for barefooting and the side spray for boom skiing is a killer !

The question that you asked about the Sportster and Response being the same hull is that they are two different hulls.

[SmoothWaterMan]

Just to clarify that last post a bit, don't confuse the 2007-up Response LXi Cut Diamond hull with the Diamond hull on the '98-up Response or Response LX. The 2003-2006 Response LXi also has a Diamond hull and is a good barefoot boat, but the side spray requires an extended boom.

The Response with a SSP can be dialed in and create a very good barefoot boat, even with the Monsoon engine.

The Sportster, as mentioned, is a phenomenal barefoot boat right out of the box.

Peter

[mxbeck]

This is great info and exactly what I was looking for. Keep in mind I only want an inboard. I understand there are fantastic outboard barefoot boats, but it doesn't suit me overall.

I am looking for a wake comparable to a Sanger DXII Barefooter with the wakeplate. Also have a friend with a 1998 Malibu Sportster that has a great barefoot wake that is on par with the Sanger. What I want to know is what Malibu boats would produce a wake comparable to the 1998-2000 Sportster?

You said: "The Sportster closed bow 2001-2005 and the Sportser LX 1998-2005 share the same hull, it has an extra cline in the hull. The wake is still very good (I personally own one of these) the closed bow is a little better. I gave up a little bit of wake definition for the open bow for my kids." This is appealing to me, because I wouldn't mind a newer than 2000 boat and my wife would prefer the open bow. You say the wake is still very good. How close to the 1998? Can you describe the difference I would notice?

Other than a Sportster, a Response with a hammerhead and an SSP would be a good choice in your opinion?

What do you know about the Echelon? Is that a consideration?

When I look at the specifications pages in the resources on this site, there are Sunsetters and Wakesetters that are on the SV23 Wake hull, which is what is listed for the 1998 Sportster. Are either of those considerations?

Thanks to everyone for all of the great help.

He said that he is looking for a wake comparitive to a Sanger, which I'm assuming is the DXII with a barefoot plate. For barefoot slalom, there are a few boats that Malibu makes that have a good wake.

The Flightcraft outboard with a high five prop has probally the best wake straight out of the box with no modifications. The eariler year Flightcraft inboards, pre 1994 (the Austrialian version) have a better wake than the 1994 and newer but, they are on the slower side for wake slalom. If you put a set of Vortec heads and an intake (should be able to do this for less than $2000) you will pick up some needed speed and have a very good barefoot boat. The only drawback is that the boat is on the smaller side as far as interior room.

The 1998-2000 Sportster closed bow has a great wake for barefooting even with the 310 hp carb motor this boat will run close to 50mph and I know that a lot of avid barefooters are using these boats. The Sportster closed bow 2001-2005 and the Sportser LX 1998-2005 share the same hull, it has an extra cline in the hull. The wake is still very good (I personally own one of these) the closed bow is a little better. I gave up a little bit of wake definition for the open bow for my kids.

The Response and Response LX is four inches wider than the Sportster and it has a terrible wake for barefooting without the SSP (barefoot plate). My parents have the Response LX with the Monsoon motor. You will need the Corvette motor or the Hammerhead, since the SSP scrubs off speed, to push this boat to barefoot speeds for wake slalom with the SSP. When the SSP is set up right, this boat produces a nice wake for barefooting. A friend of mine has one that is dialed in. If the boat comes with the wedge you can simply unbolt it and mount the SSP to the brackets on the hull. The SSP will run you about $400.

There it is in a nutshell as far as barefoot boats that Malibu has produced. My advise would be if you are looking for an inboard barefoot boat that has a "competition" wake go with a Sportster. There is a 1999 Sportster LX with a tower on craigslist in your town for $12500.

[mxbeck]

You know what... now that I think about it, I don't really need a newer than 2000 boat. I absolutley want one with no wood in the construction, so if there are older ones that are good considerations, such as those Echelons, I would like to hear about that as well. What is the first good year for the Sportster? What are the best years for the Response as far as a barefoot boat?

Thanks again!

This is great info and exactly what I was looking for. Keep in mind I only want an inboard. I understand there are fantastic outboard barefoot boats, but it doesn't suit me overall.

I am looking for a wake comparable to a Sanger DXII Barefooter with the wakeplate. Also have a friend with a 1998 Malibu Sportster that has a great barefoot wake that is on par with the Sanger. What I want to know is what Malibu boats would produce a wake comparable to the 1998-2000 Sportster?

You said: "The Sportster closed bow 2001-2005 and the Sportser LX 1998-2005 share the same hull, it has an extra cline in the hull. The wake is still very good (I personally own one of these) the closed bow is a little better. I gave up a little bit of wake definition for the open bow for my kids." This is appealing to me, because I wouldn't mind a newer than 2000 boat and my wife would prefer the open bow. You say the wake is still very good. How close to the 1998? Can you describe the difference I would notice?

Other than a Sportster, a Response with a hammerhead and an SSP would be a good choice in your opinion?

What do you know about the Echelon? Is that a consideration?

When I look at the specifications pages in the resources on this site, there are Sunsetters and Wakesetters that are on the SV23 Wake hull, which is what is listed for the 1998 Sportster. Are either of those considerations?

Thanks to everyone for all of the great help.

Edited June 14, 2011 by mxbeck

[BuFootin]

If your looking for Comp level barefoot boat, why would you not look for a Sanger DXII? Something specific drawing you to a Malibu? My 05 RLxi with 340 Monsoon is a darn good barefoot boat, but as Smooth Water Man commented it does produce some side spray which requires the BI boom extension. MY 2 cents, Malibu has built some good barefoot boat options over the last 10 years, but none of then great. But that was not their intention either with the boats listed.

[mxbeck]

That's a really good question. There are a couple of things. We do like to do other things besides just barefoot, including slalom ski. I'm told the Sanger wake is not good at all fir slalom, whereas the Sporster is said to have a really good barefoot wake and a really good slalom wake. Is there any truth to that? The other thing is that I believe the Sanger's still have wood in thier construction, and I don't want a boat that has wood in it. Is there any truth to that?

Your 2005 RLxi, is the wake good enough for front and back slalom (one foot) barefoot wake crosses? Does it have a harsh roost of prop wash down the center or is it pretty consistent across? Also, do you have the SSP?

Thanks again!

If your looking for Comp level barefoot boat, why would you not look for a Sanger DXII? Something specific drawing you to a Malibu? My 05 RLxi with 340 Monsoon is a darn good barefoot boat, but as Smooth Water Man commented it does produce some side spray which requires the BI boom extension. MY 2 cents, Malibu has built some good barefoot boat options over the last 10 years, but none of then great. But that was not their intention either with the boats listed.

Edited June 15, 2011 by mxbeck

[footnlongline]

FWIW I have a 95 sslx sv23 with a merc 350 mag/ ski multi port FI 4blade oj legend 13x13. The footin wakes are awsome, the trough is soft but defined and not lippy, table is real good longline. I don't use a boom so I cant comment on that. Plenty of hole shot on deeps and you don't get that dreaded bounce when sitting up. Wake crosses and surface tricks are easy. Very good slalom boat with 3 or 4 in it and back seat removed. I have a Titan 3 tower but is only fair for wakeboarding.

[thealy]

I have an 05 RLXI with the 383 Hammerhead (400hp) and while I don't barefoot very much any more I have pulled some avid footers that own flight crafts and have said they were very surprised at how well the RLXI did even without the SSP. I have done some footing with it off the boom and with the extension, there are no spray issues at all.

[BillFooter]

I have a 2000 Response with the 365 Hammerhead and SSP plate. My buddy has a Sanger DXII. The DXII has a better barefoot wake and rides better in rough water. The Response has better storage and interior ergonomics. Both have very good wakes and you won't know much difference unless you are a very advanced footer. Neither can hold a candle to the wake of a Flightcraft with the outboard motor. I had a 1994 Flightcraft prior to my Response. There is no comparison.

[Scottman]

The 1998 Sportster has the smaller gauges where as the 1999 and newer have the larger gauges, which are a lot nicer.

You will not find a Malibu, besides the Flightcraft, that has a wake as nice as the Sanger DXII for barefooting. With a properly set SSP the Response has a darn nice wake for barefooting. The nice thing with my Sporty is that I have the ability to have a boat that I can do it all. The wake is good for slalom, crank up the speed and barefoot or drop down the wedge (I took mine off since I don't wakeboard) and have at it. There a better boats that have better wakes for each disipline but this seems to be good at them all.

My buddies have Sangers and we use them most of the time. But, I wanted more of a family boat and this fits much better.

Do you ski with Carl and Teddy?

[SmoothWaterMan]

As Scottman stated, there are few boats as versatile as the Malibu. One of the things that drew me to the brand in 1995 was the ability to do it all, at a excellent level. I will never ski a 35 off pass, trick 8000 points or get a 10 in barefoot slalom. Few of my customers will either. But Malibu makes a boat that does not hold me back from all of those goals and enjoy my time on the water as well.

It's not as large a difference as before, but on the east coast it has also been a dealer issue, to ensure that you can get service, warranty work or parts quickly for your boat. MB, Sanger, and others are primarily west side boats.

I am a Malibu dealer, and I've looked at carrying the Sanger line numerous times. Unfortunately the potential sales volume has never been enough to carry it.

Peter

[BuFootin]

That's a really good question. There are a couple of things. We do like to do other things besides just barefoot, including slalom ski. I'm told the Sanger wake is not good at all fir slalom, whereas the Sporster is said to have a really good barefoot wake and a really good slalom wake. Is there any truth to that? The other thing is that I believe the Sanger's still have wood in thier construction, and I don't want a boat that has wood in it. Is there any truth to that?

Your 2005 RLxi, is the wake good enough for front and back slalom (one foot) barefoot wake crosses? Does it have a harsh roost of prop wash down the center or is it pretty consistent across? Also, do you have the SSP?

Thanks again!

I'll try to answer your questions from my experience: wake is good enough for front slalom (one foot, long line) wakes, can't say for back wake crossings cause I've never done one. I backwards foot off the boom only. Prop wash is noticably harsher in the center (as you might expect) then firms up as you approach either side of the table. Very comfortable to foot in though and very predictable.

I do not have a SSP because I run the course too. Nor have I footed behind a RLXi that had one. What I have read on here and other forums is that the SSP doesn't help the slalom wake, but in fact hurts it. So, it's a matter of trade offs between better footin table and clean slalom wakes. Others on hear that have experience with the SSP could better advise you.

Either way you go, with a Sporty or RLXi...you won't be disappointed with the barefoot or slalom capabilities the boats will deliver.

[mxbeck]

Great info everyone.

Scottman - yes I do ski with Carl and Ted. Do I know you?

Everyone - what about the echelon? How does that wake compare to 1998-2000 sportster?

In 1997, echelon and response are both listed on sv23 hull. Does that mean the wake will be the same? Then in 1998, the sportster is listed as sv23 wake hull? What is the difference? Is that what makes the 1998 to 2000 sportster the best malibu barefoot boat is the wake hull?

Edited June 17, 2011 by mxbeck

[NorCaliBu]

...what about the echelon? How does that wake compare to 1998-2000 sportster?

In 1997, echelon and response are both listed on sv23 hull. Does that mean the wake will be the same? Then in 1998, the sportster is listed as sv23 wake hull? What is the difference? Is that what makes the 1998 to 2000 sportster the best malibu barefoot boat is the wake hull?

The echelon is a heavier boat than the Response (~200#'s) and quite a bit heavier than a Sporty (~400#'s).

The SV23 hull is the same as the SV23 wake hull. They (Malibu) started calling it the "wake" hull when the diamond (slalom) hull came out. Just because two different models are both on SV23 hulls doesn't mean they will perform the same. There's a difference in the wakes due to the footprint of the boats. Sporties are smaller and lighter while Echelon's are larger and heavier.

You almost need to get behind the different models to get a feel for which is the right blend of compromises for you.

I love my Sporty.

[Scottman]

mxbeck, I know Teddy and Carl. I have skied with them a couple of times out on the Fox, but spend my time out on the Rock River. I sometimes ski with Eric Friedle, he has the 2008 Red Response LX with the barefoot package, he skis alot with them. Another buddy of mine lives out on the Fox and has an Echelon with a tower, but he has the 454 in that boat. I know if you asked him for a pull so you could check out the wake he would be more than happy to give you one. I'm not sure how the wake would differ with the extra weight of the big block but I know that it will get you the speed that you would want.

The Echelon would be a good boat for you. My main concern would be the speed that you would want for wake slalom. For a couple of bucks, you could add a set of heads and an intake for some extra horsepower to get you what you need. Then throw on a SSP to fine tune the wake and you would be set. Or, go with Carl and Teddy when you want to do a set of wake slalom and ski on the boom when your with the family.

[mxbeck]

Hoping I'm not an idiot... I ended up buying a 1999 Response LX with 325 efi motor. From a local dealer that has gone through it thoroughly. Like the size compared to the sportster. Like the EFI motor, which is hard to find in a sportster. Has a wedge, so we can wakeboard also. Didn't have to drive forever to go get it. I'm expecting it to be a 45mph boat with a wake that I can get across adequately, but probably not do slalom wake sets.

Am I an idiot, or did I do okay?

[SmoothWaterMan]

You did just fine. You can run wake slalom on it if you're not shooting for a score in the high teens. Or, run a 85' line and you'll love it.

It's a 48-50mph boat.

Peter