Which used ski boat has the smallest wake for beginner slalom skiers?

I’m looking for a used tournament ski boat with the smallest wake for beginner slalom skiers who are running at 24 to 30 mph at 15’ off. Most of them are trying to run the course for the first time. I would consider anything less than $25k. I’ve heard that the 1991 – 1994 Mastercraft Prostar 190 had some of the smallest wakes ever but they changed the hull a bit in 1995 and beyond to improve open water ride. I currently have a 2002 Ski Nautique which I love but if there is something with a smaller wake for beginner slalom skiers I would consider it. Any thoughts?

Comments

  • WishWish Posts: 8,423 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    edited April 30
    Maybe the 97-2001 is about the only boat with flatter wakes and of those the 97 is the best. So you’d be going backwards in years. Never saw my daughter ski anything flatter at those speeds in tournaments or boats outside of tournaments. I’ve been told by a long standing and reputable ski coach who’s used SNs since the 80s to never get rid of my 97. Especially to repower some day.
    >>> 11.25..a different kettle of fish. <<<
    escmanazeReallyGottaSkiturbogoose
  • AndreAndre Posts: 1,712 Mega Baller
    edited April 30
    Learn to hold a good strong position and forget which boat is pulling you.
    My ski finish in 16.95 ...but my ass is out of tolerance!
    HortonRednucleus
  • escmanazeescmanaze Posts: 922 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    If you already have a 2002, then anything else will be almost negligible and not really worth the hassle of switching boats. Yes, a 97 SN might be a touch better or a 94 prostar might be a touch better, but not worth buying and selling a boat and now have an older boat level of better.
  • BrewskiBrewski Posts: 474 Crazy Baller
    Great boom boat and teaching slalom through 28' is great. Then move them to the big boat.....

  • Chef23Chef23 Posts: 6,066 Mega Baller
    I think in that price range an early 2000s Malibu Response LX has a smaller wake than the Nautique. It would probably cost a bit more but the Centurion Carbon Pro had a small wake at slow speeds.
    Mark Shaffer
  • lpskierlpskier Posts: 3,449 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    Moomba outback
    John Wilkins- Si non pro sanguine quem ludus ne. #iskiconnelly
  • swc5150swc5150 Posts: 2,565 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    Keep your boat. The only boat you’d notice a difference on is a ‘14+ Prostar, which is obviously more money.
    Scott Calderwood
    aupatking
  • lpskierlpskier Posts: 3,449 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    edited May 1
    @petersenwaterskiing So do you have a year 2002 model 196, or do you have an early 80’s model 2002? Big difference. If the former, you have a great boat. If the latter, no wonder you want a newer boat.

    On reflection, maybe the 80’s model was a 2001.
    John Wilkins- Si non pro sanguine quem ludus ne. #iskiconnelly
    BroussardBraceMaker
  • 6balls6balls Posts: 5,875 Mega Baller
    @brewski is right...not saying your question went around inboards.

    @horton is also right.

    Inboard you can't do better than what you have. As someone who owned both an outboard barefoot boat and and inboard at the same time when I had young kids---I skied the inboard shortline on a private puddle and my kids skied my outboard barefoot boat on our public lake longer lines slower speeds.

    In my youth I did not have inboard access and skied an outboard barefoot boat up to and through 35 off, skiing inboards only in tournaments. The outboard was better on wake (keep in mind no fancy inboard speed control back then, and discard the tracking disadvantage) through 28 off even at 36 mph. 28 off was equivocal and the inboards better shorter from there (wake). Now steering, refinement, throttle control, tracking, a big boarding platform were ALL inboard advantages and still are advantages.

    Interior space, speed, barefooting, boom platform to teach newbies, long-line wake were all outboard barefoot advantages--and they look cool as hell and cause motorcycle riders to ride directly into the side of the gas stations while checking out your boat while filling up.

    Long story short--you already have the right boat

    Dave Ross--die cancer die
  • DyscoDysco Posts: 79 Baller
    Keep your boat. If you want something with small wakes, buy an old 16-17 foot tri-hull with a 85 hp engine and a pylon for probably $1500. Not kidding. Tiny soft wakes and plenty of power for up to 32mph or so. When you are done with it, pay it forward.
    chrislandy
  • LoopSkiLoopSki Posts: 867 Mega Baller
    Maybe the new MC is a bit better, but you already have the best wake at longer slow speeds. You wont grab a new MC at $25. So keep what you have
  • bananaronbananaron Posts: 522 Crazy Baller
    Have owned them all....you have to ski and drive them and make the decision based on your test drives.Yes I do think the CARBON PRO IS TOUGH TO BEAT.
    Ron Engblom Brainerd lakes,minnesota
    kmenard
  • aupatkingaupatking Posts: 1,713 Mega Baller
    I was going to say the exact thing @swc5150 said. Having owned both, a “14+ Prostar and a “02 Nautique 196, the better wake at very slow speeds is the 14+ Prostar, but you’re not getting one of those anywhere near your price range. The 196 is still VERY GOOD. Keep your boat. Anything near regular slalom speeds of 28mph and more, the wake difference is negligible. My 02 has been the best boat I’ve ever owned.
  • AliAli Posts: 235 Baller
    Cpro every day of the week
  • BraceMakerBraceMaker Posts: 4,975 Mega Baller
    @lpskier nailed it. The 2002s tracked but had ankle breakers for wakes. The 2002 year is a great boat.

    As a side note the 2002 hull from the 80s may be the best early 80s biat for wakeboarding I've ever been on.
  • BG1BG1 Posts: 221 Baller
    The 80's model SN was 2001, not 2002
    WishBraceMakervtjcMISkier
  • chrislandychrislandy Posts: 277 Solid Baller
    Try adding some ballast up front to bring the bow lower, reduces the wake at slower speeds on my '96 205 MC (2x 5gal water containers) , might be worth a try?
  • escmanazeescmanaze Posts: 922 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    For clarification I will disagree with @Chef23 I have skied several early 2000s response LX. While their wake is nothing I will spend much time complaining about, it is definitely not as small and soft as my 97 SNOB.
Sign In or Register to comment.