Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

______________
12" White Stickers
______________
BallOfSpray $5 Donation
______________
BallOfSpray $10 Donation

final verdict sn 200??

pilot-76pilot-76 Posts: 4
edited July 2010 in News & Other Stuff
<span>Hi guys, after reading many stories
about the new 200 wanted to give my personal opinion.

Have skied
behind it last week and must say the wake is truly very good, especially
my wife who is only beginning in the course liked it very much because
of the very smooth and soft wake it produces, especially at low speeds I
would say. We have a 09 196 ourselves and honestly the wake is even
better than ours.

And that is where it ends for me atleast....

no
200 has a nice and big love seat to, stitching inside also quite nice,
but then again stitching and fabrics of 09-196 almost comparable...



But,
and know comes the bad,



engine noise is painfull, it really is
after hearing that it spins more rpm was kind of reluctant to the
stories thinking well how much of a difference can 300-400 rpm be
anyway. But its a big difference this was with the excal and really was
dissapointed at 55 felt like we where doing 64 or somehting, engine is
almost maxed out at 58 that is for sure...

Now because engine is
working really quite hard am also sure of 2 things

reliability will
go down....

fuel consumption will go up...

and that is what kills
it for me... beatifull looking boat but would never buy it, would
probably opt for a malibu lxi with monsoon engine now, because not only
should the skiing be fun, but think the boat driving should be fun and
have a sporty feel to it as well. Our 196 feel like a small rocket in
comparison+ no more barefooting behind a 200 or you will kill it off in
no time, with 196, and especially malibu which feels even faster, should
be no problem, not even hurting it.



also from a design
perspective, a hardcore three event boat shouldn't be that big, who
cares if you can stick 6 skis on the sides, i mean honestly how often
are ppl really using this. No they actually should have gone the other
way, make a even smaller boat then the 196 that would have the
performance of the 196 with the small 5.0 liter engine and really make
it fuell efficiant, then it would have been a top seller amongst clubs
and hardcore skiers. Oh did i mention the trick wake of these boats are
not that good, to much air in them makes for very difficult ride...



Anyway
don't want to dis correct craft to much because absolutely love the 196
i have, knowing that it is flawed for tricks, and really liked the wake
of my previous 1997 196 with gt-40 as well.



But if i where to
buy now i would go for malibu, good slalom wake, good trick wake, and
optional wedge where you can make it beginners wakeboard boat to, fast,
reliability over the past seems to be solved, some things still look a
bit flimsy, but less so than in the past as well...



anyway, don't
want to start a fight thread, just giving my 2 cents...</span>
«1

Comments

  • ScarletArrowScarletArrow Posts: 804 Crazy Baller
    the 196 was already a "top seller amongst clubs and hardcore skiers". that market is too small and not a money maker for CC. barefooting is a non-factor...an even smaller market. if you want a smaller boat w/ less storage and a bigger engine, buy a Gekko. the changes were made to appeal to a broader audience where MC and Bu were clearly ahead. the higher rpm's is just a change that people are not accustomed to. i'm sure CC will adjust with prop changes, hull tweaks, sound dampening material in the engine hatch, etc. in future years. "feeling fun" while driving is purely subjective...and while it's a factor i think you would be hard pressed to find a group of people who say the Bu tracks better than the 200.
    Anthony Warren
  • jdarwinjdarwin Posts: 1,379 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    I just ordered MC 197TT for those reasons and the fact that the price of the 200 is $8-9k higher - couldn't justify it.
    Joe Darwin
  • Ed_JohnsonEd_Johnson Posts: 2,130
    <div>
    I thought about all the same issues with RPM, fuel consumption, etc., however, after driving and skiing behind a couple, including one with Andy Mapple, I thought it was the best slalom boat I have ever experienced. I ordered a 2011 a couple weeks ago and selected the 409 over the 343, since it is aluminum, 200lbs. lighter, and runs at a lower RPM.
    </div>
    <div>
    Can't wait for it to get here. Will be trading in my Malibu LXi, which is a great boat, but didn't compare to the 200's I skied behind.
    </div>
    <div>
    </div>
    <div>
    Best Regards,   ED
    </div>
    Special Thanks to Performance Ski and Surf and the Denali Adam's !!!
  • MarcoMarco Posts: 1,413 Crazy Baller
    Ditto what Ed said.  A great boat to ski behind, and a great boat to drive.  The visibility from the drivers seat is a big improvement over the 196, and the tracking makes it the easiest boat to drive.
  • BoodyBoody Posts: 613 Baller
    <p>
    That is great Ed, you are a lucky lucky man.  I love the 200.
    </p>
    <p>
    Jdarwin, 8-9 K more than a MC?  I know of two people that have bought one and they were much less than I thought, especially the promo boat. I was looking into a 197tt last year but went with a CC which was way cheaper.  My observations are that the 200 is now more in line with the pricing of the 197tt.  Sounds like you got a great deal, enjoy your 197tt, its a cool boat.
    </p>
  • skinutskinut Posts: 411 Baller
    The 197 is a nice boat, if you like big wakes. Even if the 200 is more than a 197 you would be better off. Nicer wake(by far) and a better built boat. Oh, and you don't need to were earplugs while skiing(due to noise from the engine reving when ZO engages).
  • lkblkb Posts: 579 Baller
    Boody, is your 200 spec'd out like Ed mentioned with a 409? OB or CB? I have been a longtime 196 guy but I have been pretty slow to warm up to the 200. But now maybe a closed bow with the 409 would be the ticket.
  • DekeDeke Posts: 381 Baller
    Marco, did you guys use the 200 at your tournament? What was the consensus there?
  • Old MS AccoutOld MS Accout Posts: 2,114 Baller
    <p>
    LKB,
    </p>
    <p>
    You do not need a 409. 2011 will bring changes to deal with RPM.  
    </p>
  • lkblkb Posts: 579 Baller
    I got you. I may hold off until '12 anyway since I have a 196 that rocks!
  • RogerRoger Posts: 1,564 Mega Baller
    edited July 2010
    <p>
    Pilot: The increased RPMs are annoying, but not particularly destructive to the engine. Chevrolet recommends sustained RPM max of 7200 for road racing their small blocks, so I doubt 4000 (55k) or 4400 (58K) is going to do any significant damage to the longevity of the engine. The tracking of the MB or MC or even the 196 SN is not in the same league as the 200, period.
    </p>
    <p>
    Ed: The 409 uses the same prop and though I've not actually compared them, I believe they run about the same RPM as the small block (which makes sense with the same prop). The major difference I've noticed driving the two in tournaments is that the 409 is slower out of the hole (not so slow as to be an issue, just slower than the 343 engine).
    </p>
    <p>
    I like the 200 quite a bit also, but I chose to buy a 2009 SN instead. Much less money and about 20% less fuel comsumption if our tournament experience is any indication with these boats. Yes, the 200 has the best wakes right now, but as a tournament skier I'm not sure I want the best wakes. Much rather have average or even stiffer wakes in practice and then get the softer wakes in the tournaments... (just my opinion).
    </p>
    <p>
     
    </p>
    Roger B. Clark - Okeeheelee skier. Senior driver, Senior Judge
  • MarcoMarco Posts: 1,413 Crazy Baller
    <p>
    Deke- our tournament was pulled with a Promo 200 and MC.  Both skied very nicely, but given a choice, most skiers wanted the 200.  Leigh ran 39 behind it on both days before breaking his ankle at 41.  The MC was much quieter than last years, and I could'nt hear the "gassing" from behind the boat like I could on the 09.
    </p>
    <p>
    MS-  Are you saying CC is making changes that will allow the 2011 model with the 340 hp motor to perform at altitude?  Re-propping didn't do the trick for us, but upgrading to the 409 sure did.
    </p>
  • Old MS AccoutOld MS Accout Posts: 2,114 Baller
    All kinds of rumors on changes for 2011. Reprop and engine move are 2 that I have heard.
  • jdarwinjdarwin Posts: 1,379 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    <div class="CommentBody">
    <em>"All kinds of rumors on changes for 2011. Reprop and engine move are 2 that I have heard."</em>
    </div>
    <div class="CommentBody">
    <em></em>
    </div>
    <div class="CommentBody">
    Which begs the question;  why didn't they get it right in 2010?  These are too expensive to have customers beta testing your product. 
    </div>
    Joe Darwin
  • lkblkb Posts: 579 Baller
    edited July 2010
    I'm not saying it's rigjt but other companies do it with equip. far more expensive than boats...Beta testing that is
  • clemsondaveclemsondave Posts: 369 Baller
    edited July 2010
    Mark, you must have better sources than me. I have not heard of any substantial changes. I could be wrong though.



    FYI, after 130 hours, my fuel economy appears to be almost identical to my 196's. These things spend 90% of their time at idle. I don't think an extra 500 rpms for 17 seconds makes much of a difference for fuel economy or durability. Hell, I spin my stock engine corvette (with a blower) to 7000 for short periods of time and it's no worse for the wear. I hear a lot of assumptions on these forums from people that have spent very little time in one. If you don't like it, I understand, but these assumptions are all over the place. Promo or no promo, I love this boat and think it is a HUGE step forward for our sport.



    I'll admit it's not 100% perfect, but what product is? Every year for almost every product, things will get better. I wouldn't call that making us beta testers. My '99 was better than some friends' '97s. Does that make the '97 a beta?
    Dave Satterfield - Richmond Water Ski Club
  • RogerRoger Posts: 1,564 Mega Baller
    The 20% fuel consumption difference I mentioned was a result of our tournament experiences with the boat this year. They require refueling more often than the 196 did; the estimate by the guy who gets the fuel was a 20% difference. This was off the cuff, probably not an exact figure. I hope you're right though. However, it seems unlikely it would be the same since you have the same engine running 500rpm faster pushing a heavier wider hull... We've used the 200 multiple times at three different tournament sites and all three sites have said it cost more in fuel than last years boat.
    Roger B. Clark - Okeeheelee skier. Senior driver, Senior Judge
  • clemsondaveclemsondave Posts: 369 Baller
    That could be true. I have not noticed a difference in what I take to the lake or during tournaments, but I have not specifically measured it. I'll try to do that. Even if it uses 20% more fuel. That's like $1 per set. Not sure about ya'll, but I'd pay and extra buck to have better wakes and easier for the driver to keep it straight.
    Dave Satterfield - Richmond Water Ski Club
  • jdarwinjdarwin Posts: 1,379 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    Clemsondave:  At my tournament in two weeks, we have 38 skiers on Saturday and 32 on Sunday.  3 rounds both days.  That's a total of 210 pulls.  Using your calculation, that's $210 more in fuel.  That's more than "an extra buck or two" when you're an LOC trying to justify holding tournaments when you are already overwhelmed by sanction fees and other costs.  In fact, that's another 4 entries just to cover the additional fuel costs.
    Joe Darwin
  • auskierauskier Posts: 455 Baller
    <p>
    Find me another gas powered vehicle in 2010 that has reduced fuel consumption by 20% over a previous model?
    </p>
    <p>
     Sure, nice boat but not a sensible move IMO.
    </p>
    Toby
  • clemsondaveclemsondave Posts: 369 Baller
    edited July 2010
    This is exactly what I'm talking about. One unscientific number was thrown out and suddenly this boat is the BP of water skiing. 20% was not my calculation. If you had to spend $210 more because the 200 used 20% more fuel, that put your 'pre-200' fuel costs at $1050 with other boats for that tournament. I doubt that is the case. That's also assuming all 210 pulls were 6 passes with relaxed wait times. That would be impressive.



    I think it is way less than 20%. I have not noticed hardly any difference from my 196. At one of my tournaments this year, we pulled 32 skiers in one round and it used about 1/2 a tank. I remember b/c I filled it before then next round. Another tournament, my boat was used just about all day. We never had to refuel it. I'll make some notes at State's this weekend. There will be a 196 there too.



    Auskier - 2009 Corvette Z06 to a 2010 ZR1. Yes, it's comparing apples to oranges, but so is comparing a 196 to a 200. The 200 is a significant improvement in '3 event' performance. Our sport is not anywhere near sensible; otherwise we would not be paying $1500 for skis and $800 for boots.



    These negative posts about the 200 totally confuse me. The response my boat has gotten every where it goes has been remarkable. Mine sold after the future owner skied it one time. Malibu and MC owners drool over it and picked it in a tournament where they had a choice. One of our club members owns an '08 196. He now wants to sell his and buy a 200 b/c of the wake and everything else. I have not heard one negative thing about it other than the price.
    Dave Satterfield - Richmond Water Ski Club
  • jdarwinjdarwin Posts: 1,379 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    <p>
    I thought the numbers were high but you threw it across the plate - I just hit it out of the ballpark!
    </p>
    <p>
    At varous tournaments they have estimated 25-33% depending on level of skiers (30mph vs 36mph).  At Ski Ranch, the average set was just over 4 passes.  They meter their fuel very closely.  They showed a 30-33% increase in fuel consumption for the events pulled by the 200 (Open Men, etc.)  At my events, its just under 4 passes.  And mostly 34 and 36.
    </p>
    <p>
    I track fuel costs very closely.  As an LOC, you have no choice.  At my last tournament in June, my cost was $1.79 per pull.  Using a 30% increase in consumption (avg), that calculates to $2.33 or $.54 per pull.  With 210 pulls, that's a increase of $112.77 in fuel.   
    </p>
    <p>
    I'm not bashing the 200 as a great driving or skiing boat.  It is.  I love the boat.  I've owned 14 Nautiques over the past 20 years.  I will own another one day.  But, as an LOC who needs a tractor to pull members and tournaments, I cannot afford a 200 - either the sales price or the cost to operate.  If I was simply a Promo person running to 6-8 tournaments a year and pulling a few of my buddies for beer money in a market that can absorb a $50,000 used boat, it would be a different story.
    </p>
    Joe Darwin
  • bxroadsbxroads Posts: 219
    I think if they offered the 200 with a traditional interior layout, it'd be less cost and a home run.
  • clemsondaveclemsondave Posts: 369 Baller
    edited July 2010
    I hold 2-4 tournaments at our lake each year. Let's use your numbers ;-) $112.77 more in fuel. 32 skiers with 6 rounds each. So, each skier pays and extra $0.53 for each round. Ask those skiers if they are willing to throw in an extra $2 per tournament to have the 200. If they are short line skiers like most of us, they may not care one way or the other. But ask those longer line/slower speed skiers....



    Hey, everyone has their own opinion and needs, which I can appreciate. I'm not trying to convince you that the 200 is for everyone. I'm just trying to stop some of the misinformation. We have very few 36mph skiers around here (3 at my last tournament). Maybe there's some difference there. I think a lot of this is b/c people don't like change. I love having the latest and greatest and appreciate the superior engineering in the 200, both interior and performance.



    I'm all about saving money where I can. That's why I've been 'engineering' for the past 2 weeks. We're holding a night tournament tomorrow and I didn't want to pay $60/buoy! I've got it down to $6 plus the buoy. So, I'm a little cheap ;-)
    Dave Satterfield - Richmond Water Ski Club
  • Old MS AccoutOld MS Accout Posts: 2,114 Baller
    <p>
    I know that at the Ranch Tourneys, they could not pull 30 skiers on a tank. I think the tank is smaller in the 200, but you need to beable to pull a round without stopping and refueling. 30 skiers is the norm for a round everyehere I ski.
    </p>
    <p>
    CD,
    </p>
    <p>
    Those are only rumors, but I do know that CC is working hard at eliminating the RPMs and power problems that are there. CC never lets the cat out of the bag until the first boat is off the line.
    </p>
  • ForrestGumpForrestGump Posts: 6,083
    <p>
    Charles ordered two Team 200's on the day you could first order 11s. So we should see what changes they make, in the next month. 
    </p>
    Shane "Crash" Hill

  • clemsondaveclemsondave Posts: 369 Baller
    edited July 2010
    MS, that is crazy. They must have had a lot of 36mph skiers or a really heavy foot ;-) Another tournament, I pulled a round and a half with a 2min wait time b/t passes (apx 30 skiers per round). I drove part of that and would occasionally shut it down during the wait time.



    I bet they could solve a lot of the rpm issues by changing the trans ratio. I like having 10x the power of a MC, but I'm sure many would sacrifice some of that for lower rpms. Hell, I can pull up our largest guy with less than 1/2 throttle. The MC takes almost full throttle for everyone over 150#.
    Dave Satterfield - Richmond Water Ski Club
  • Old MS AccoutOld MS Accout Posts: 2,114 Baller
    JD was at one of the tourneys and can confirm. It was the boat used to pull the Record that parish set.
  • clemsondaveclemsondave Posts: 369 Baller
    Not doubting you. I'm guessing you had mostly 34/36 skiers? We have a large mixture up here. I assume that's the difference, unless there are differences in the tune from boat to boat. I'd be concerned if I couldn't pull 30 skiers too.
    Dave Satterfield - Richmond Water Ski Club
  • Than_BoganThan_Bogan Posts: 6,523 Mega Baller
    <p>
    Darn -- I was hoping everyone would hate the 200.  On my lake we have an extremely narrow tunnel to get to the area where skiing is allowed, and there is no chance the 200 is going through.  I fear I'm on my last Nautique (or possibly my last boat period -- may have to keep this one going no matter what!)
    </p>
    <p>
    Hm, just realized nobody cares.  Oh well -- just wanted to vent!!
    </p>
    Nathaniel Bogan -- GUT Padawan
Sign In or Register to comment.