MC 205 slalom wake

dbaconazdbaconaz Posts: 180 Baller
How is the slalom wake on a MC 205? I'm not getting into short line but I ski 34mph. How much different is it from a 197?

Comments

  • BroussardBroussard Posts: 765 Mega Baller
    There were two different ProStar 205 hulls. The 1992-1995 ProStar 205 produced much better slalom wake than the 1996-2000.
    Andre Broussard | Action Water Sports | WakeHouse | SkiBennetts |
    MISkierdbaconazALPJr
  • MISkierMISkier Posts: 3,463 Mega Baller
    edited February 22
    The 205 should be better than the 197, especially the 1995 and older model years.

    I had a 2000 (based off of the 1995-1997 Prostar 190 hull) that was still good and still much preferred over the 197. I have some video available of skiing through the course at 34/-22, if you need to see it.
    The worst slalom equipment I own is between my ears.
    dbaconaz
  • 503Kento503Kento Posts: 165 Baller
    One of my ski buddies (@Pullhard) has a 1998 and the wake is pretty good. 22 off bump is noticeable but not terrible. The biggest complaint we have with his boat is the tracking. Takes focus and a deft hand at the wheel to keep it straight.
    Get high, get fast, and do some good work
  • MISkierMISkier Posts: 3,463 Mega Baller
    I'm not sure if there was any change made from 1998 to 2000, but my 205 tracked like a freight train. Hardly had to touch the wheel and, at 2950 pounds, it rarely moved much with even large/aggressive skiers.
    The worst slalom equipment I own is between my ears.
  • slowslow Posts: 562 Crazy Baller
    Don’t get the MC209. It was a pig.
    MISkier
  • chrislandychrislandy Posts: 356 Crazy Baller
    I had a 96 205 (newer hull) for 20 years, the ski wake was significantly larger and harder than the 88/89 prostar 190 we had before but still acceptable, it did flatten off quite nicely at 34+.

    It tracked OK but was a little wiggly at slower sub 32mph.

    The reason we bought the 205 was to get the bow ride, bigger boat and more wakeboard / kneeboard focus, but there was a reason the same hull ran for so long - it's a great cross over boat that works well for family days at the lake or add perfect pass and it's brilliant for a few runs through the course on a evening.

    That saying, I've just traded up to a 2015 Prostar the difference is not even night and day, it's different planets
    dbaconaz
  • swc5150swc5150 Posts: 2,611 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    My family had a '92 205. Great slalom wake!
    Scott Calderwood
    dbaconazslowMISkier
  • dbaconazdbaconaz Posts: 180 Baller
    I would be looking at a mid 2000's. Again the reason for the 205 is most of what I do is open lake. I love the prostar and I'm sure the wake is not even comparable but need a little more family friendly boat but still has a great ski wake!
    MISkier
  • LoopSkiLoopSki Posts: 965 Mega Baller
    Keep in mind the post 1995 MC 205 went on to become the first Xstar.


  • BobFBobF Posts: 246 Crazy Baller
    edited February 22
    It's been my experience when comparing the 205 and the 197 that the 205 wake is bigger but softer, while the 197 is smaller but a significantly harder bump. Given the choice, I'd rather ski behind the 205.
    MISkierdbaconaz
  • chrislandychrislandy Posts: 356 Crazy Baller
    @dbaconaz the reason I kept it for 20 years was because it was such a good a boat, it's a great boat, simple to work on (96-00 was probably the last of the easily worked on boats - electronic but individual gauges, "simple" EFI system - nothing you can't sort with a multimeter and a test bulb), rock solid power plant & trans, plus it was a tournament approved boat in it's time.

    Add 10gal in the bow and it sorts out the slow speed slalom wake and wigglyness, throw 1500lb in the back, 200 each side of the dog house and 600up front and you've got a substantial wakeboarding wake without loosing too much drivability, add another 600lb to one side at the rear and you can surf it OK (just about)

    The two main reasons we bought the prostar, 1) the kids are getting more tournament serious and 2) it came up at the right price and I know the history. Up until July last year I was still planning to keep it until it sank, heck 4 years ago I put a new engine in it and earlier last year I'd spent 3k on perfect pass and a LPG conversion.

    Having got it now, it's bigger than the 205! you could fit the width of the 205 inside the prostar! plus with the bow seating it keeps the family use for chilled days on a larger lake. But it is louder in the drivers seat.
    dbaconazunksskisBobF
  • FSSPCatFSSPCat Posts: 168 Baller
    @dbaconaz if you’re looking for a good open water, family friendly boat, there are much better options than a mid-2000’s 205. A friend of mine had one, I spend a good deal of time in it, and it’s pretty underwhelming in comparison to Sunsetter LXi, Nautique, even a Supra 20SSV does most things as well or better, including skiing. Just my .02.
  • ALPJrALPJr Posts: 2,840 Mega Baller
    A ‘93 or ‘94 PS205 with the LT1 motor is pretty sweet if you can find one.
    dbaconaz6ballsAndre
  • unksskisunksskis Posts: 662 Crazy Baller
    edited February 22
    @FSSPCat @dbaconaz there is no such thing as a mid-2000's 205.....
  • FSSPCatFSSPCat Posts: 168 Baller
    @unksskis was just using the same language. I’m pretty sure it was referring to early 2000’s.
  • MISkierMISkier Posts: 3,463 Mega Baller
    edited February 22
    A couple of clarifications:

    1. The direct drive 205 ended production in 2000. A V-drive version of the 205 lived on into 2005.

    2. After 1998, the X-Star was a V-drive. So, other than possibly that 1998 model year, it is not a equal comparison to a direct drive 205.

    3. The 1995 and older 205 had a better wake, but also had some spray issues at shortline and even at moderate shortline when skiing into the wind. The later models did not have the spray issues.

    As mentioned earlier, the venerable Malibu Sunsetter LXi (with the cantilever stern design) is an excellent slalom wake and family boat.

    As with almost any boat, run it with a less filled gas tank and keep weight/people/gear out of the back seat or trunk area.
    The worst slalom equipment I own is between my ears.
    BobF
  • keithh2oskierkeithh2oskier Posts: 854 Crazy Baller
    @MISkier. For #3, do you mean 95 and older?

    We had a 94 205. At a moderate head wind, you got spray at 22-28 off.
    MISkier
  • MISkierMISkier Posts: 3,463 Mega Baller
    @keithh2oskier, yes. I'll correct that.
    The worst slalom equipment I own is between my ears.
  • dbaconazdbaconaz Posts: 180 Baller
    Is the X9 based on the 205 or the 209?
  • MISkierMISkier Posts: 3,463 Mega Baller
    The X9 is based on the 209. You might want to avoid that.
    The worst slalom equipment I own is between my ears.
    dbaconaz
  • swbcaswbca Posts: 737 Crazy Baller
    edited February 25
    Perhaps a naïve question . . but is it feasible to get a ZO fitted motor and relate components into a 1992-1995 ProStar 205 ? Is anything about it a bolt in operation or does it require custom motor mounts or hull modifications ? And would it cost more than buying a ZO boat ?
    Home of the world's first submersible slalom course
  • MISkierMISkier Posts: 3,463 Mega Baller
    For the 190, they corrected the shortline spray in 1995. For the 205, it was 1996.
    The worst slalom equipment I own is between my ears.
    swbca
  • MastercrafterMastercrafter Posts: 388 Crazy Baller
    @swbca it’s possible, I’m doing it to a 1991 190 and about ready for a water test. Biggest issue is doghouse likely won’t fit, depending on your motor. Cost? I picked up some used Ilmor 5.7s for a good price which helped. A new PCM ZR4 is about $12k, plus you need throttle, fuel pump, ZO, etc. @Jody_Seal is your repower man.
  • swbcaswbca Posts: 737 Crazy Baller
    @MISkier thanks for the feed back on the spray.
    Home of the world's first submersible slalom course
    MISkier
Sign In or Register to comment.