Malibu Response TXI- any years to avoid?

Rw3Rw3 Posts: 29 Baller
Looking at buying a Malibu Response and wanted to get any opinions on what years might be better than others. Thanks!


  • braindamagebraindamage Posts: 299 Solid Baller
    2012-2016 is best. has ZO, best wake, least movement from skier pull.
  • DockoelbotoDockoelboto Posts: 168 Baller
    I have a 2013, overall a great boat. great wake, ZO, no complaints. I believe in 15 or 16 the engine got moved forward a few inches and maybe it tracks better. I don't have any issues.
  • 6balls6balls Posts: 6,112 Mega Baller
    '12-'16 with driver alone throws a little spray off the back corner on a calm day started getting hit at 32 off. With a counter weight no problem. Otherwise I like the '12 to '16 and newer models as well. Feels kinda like a big boat, but handles kinda like a smaller boat.
    Nice wake, good tracking. Never feel like the "bu's" are built quite as well as CC or MC.
    Dave Ross--die cancer die
  • Rw3Rw3 Posts: 29 Baller
    thank yall very much.
  • MISkierMISkier Posts: 3,463 Mega Baller
    edited February 20
    Get 2015 or 2016, as I also believe those had the engine location moved forward. Better tracking and wake.

    Starting in 2017, they seemed to have power problems, especially in higher air temps.
    The worst slalom equipment I own is between my ears.
  • jhughesjhughes Posts: 1,200 Mega Baller
    15, 16 are better but they are all good. I've seen extremely wild fit and finish fluctuation 17-21 but they all ski very well. 12-14 had the engine further back, the kinda odd straight throttle lever and single spoke wheel which all were meh.
  • RAWSkiRAWSki Posts: 985 Mega Baller
    I think the 2017-18s suffred with the 6L crusader engines but once Malibu got their own 5.3 and 6.2L DI engines dialed in the power issues diminished
  • escmanazeescmanaze Posts: 944 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    @RAWSki I heard the power issues only diminished if you used high octane gas.


    Now I'm just being a jerk trying to derail this thread. Sorry. I just couldn't help myself. Please ignore me. Carry on.
  • bigtex2011bigtex2011 Posts: 719 Mega Baller
    I've had a '08, '09 '12,'13,'14','15,'16, '17 and 20. there all good. on the 08-14 i put more weight up front in the nose. It helped to lock down the boat for tracking. Also, malibu's have big gas tanks. we usually would only fill to 1/2 tank max.

    hope this helps

  • PatMPatM Posts: 870 Crazy Baller
    My ski partner has a 14. Great boat. No issues.
  • harrison_343harrison_343 Posts: 41 Baller
    2021 wake is big
  • teammalibuteammalibu Posts: 1,213 Mega Baller
    Love my 19
    Mike Erb Cedar Ridge Canton Miss.
    Horton is my hero
  • DockoelbotoDockoelboto Posts: 168 Baller
    I think a good general rule in boat purchase is try before you buy. If you like the boat and wake, don't listen to anyone else.
  • Rw3Rw3 Posts: 29 Baller
    Thanks for everyones input.
  • ALPJrALPJr Posts: 2,840 Mega Baller
    edited March 1
    Slightly off subject but… Any thoughts on the slalom wakes of the first gen’ Echelon’93-95?
  • ZmanZman Posts: 1,956 Mega Baller
    Love my 16.
  • PurdueSkierPurdueSkier Posts: 209 Baller
    @ALPJr I had a 94 echelon closed bow. Mine had the 454 which added a lot of power but also a lot of weight. The boat actually tracked really well. It had a pretty flat hull so it was a rough ride in chop. The slalom wake was very weight sensitive. With minimal gas and the back seat out it skied pretty well. The wake was small but it was very hard. If you hit it wrong it felt like hitting a curb. Too many people or gas and it got worse quickly.
  • DWDW Posts: 2,516 Mega Baller
    Echelon with a small block throws a very good wake, just remember the latest boats are excellent. There is a bump at 22/28 off, flat 32/35/38 and dips at 39. It got great reviews back in the days of a real Waterski magazine review, it ranked with the other top offerings. Same hull as a 90’s Response with the SV23.
  • RAWSkiRAWSki Posts: 985 Mega Baller
    If you are looking at an Echelon I would suggest the WRE (Weight Reduction Edition) @DW has the only one I know of but he could make more!
  • ALPJrALPJr Posts: 2,840 Mega Baller
    WRE edition?
  • MastercrafterMastercrafter Posts: 388 Crazy Baller
    Oh this sounds like some creative engineering or a good story.
  • MISkierMISkier Posts: 3,463 Mega Baller
    I can't recall what @DW did to his boat, but @MNshortliner had an impressive diet plan for his Response in this thread:

    The worst slalom equipment I own is between my ears.
  • ALPJrALPJr Posts: 2,840 Mega Baller
    Nice work there! I don’t think the ‘93 to 95 echelon had a trunk, just a removable rear seat.
  • skihackerskihacker Posts: 500 Crazy Baller
    I might be wrong but i feel like the echelon was the same hull as a response, neither boat had a trunk until maybe 98?? A hull change in like 97(??) made some wake improvements but it was still pretty good prior to that.
  • RAWSkiRAWSki Posts: 985 Mega Baller
    I figure @DW would chime in but he is probably still skiing out west besides weight reduction he relocated the fuel tank to under the bow.
    I skied my neighbors 96 response for many years it was bascially a stripped Echelon skied well
    I believe they changed the hull in 99 with the introduction of the LX I really liked the 99-05? Great 22' off wake
  • MISkierMISkier Posts: 3,463 Mega Baller
    @RAWSki they produced the LX well beyond 2005. I have a 2009 and I believe they made it a few years beyond that (2012 or so) and then made the LXR to about 2015 or so. However, I was told the LXR did not ski quite as well as the LX.
    The worst slalom equipment I own is between my ears.
  • DWDW Posts: 2,516 Mega Baller
    Yep, Alta-Snowbird occupying my time 😁
    My project boat has been relieved of 475 lbs. All aluminum small block, carbon fiber platform, engine box, panels, fuel tank moved to ski locker up front so transom area is gutted (it actually acts as a ski locker).
Sign In or Register to comment.