Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Need advice from PS 190 experts - '94 or '97

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Need advice from PS 190 experts - '94 or '97

    I have been searching for my first Mastercraft Prostar 190. I've read a lot on this forum, including the Mastercraft history thread. That thread described the '95-'97 hull as having a slightly taller wake than the '91-'94 hull. I've read lots of people saying that the 91-94 hull is the best slalom wake ever, so I've been leaning towards a 94 (since I also want fuel injection).

    The boat will be used for open water skiing and mostly slalom. Speeds will vary from 28mph up to 34mph, but mostly in the 30-32mhp range. I've been skiing behind a buddy's early '80s Nautique this summer -- that wake is like hitting a curb. I have skied behind an '85 Mastercraft and '97 PS 190 before, but it has been a a few years and I don't really remember the wakes, except that I am pretty sure they were way better than the early '80s Nautique for slalom.

    So now I have found two boats for sale within a somewhat reasonable distance from me (I'm in Northern California). One is a '97 PS 190 with under 500 hrs, original owner, impeccably maintained, always stored in a garage, tandem trailer, really nice tower with recent stereo and speakers, asking $12.8K.

    The other boat is a couple hours further away. It is a '94 PS 190 with just over 600 hours, second owner, single-axle trailer, stored outside with a cover (extra tarp in winter, and in a mild climate), gas gauge and stereo not functioning but otherwise described as in good condition. After talking with the owner I got the impression that maintenance has been done but not with the regularity of '97. He is asking $10K for the '94.

    If there was no difference in the wakes, I think I would prefer paying a little more for the '97, since it really does seem like a "nicer" boat, although the price would be definitely stretching my budget. So, please help me decide! How much actual difference is there in the wakes of these boats? Especially at the slower speeds mentioned? Is the difference enough for it to be a factor in deciding between the two boats?

  • #2
    What about this one??

    Looks pretty sweet and unique too!

    http://www.mastercraft.com/teamtalk/...ad.php?t=57193
    - Jeff

    1994 205, LT1

    Comment


    • #3
      My boat is a '95-'97 hull built in 2001 under the "19 Skier" name. At 26 mph, the wake is "noticeable" but at 28 mph through 36 mph I, and all others who have skied my boat, have no problems with the wake. I free ski at the moment at 30 mph and the wake really is not an issue. You are definitely going to love the wake compared to the '80s SN.

      If it was me, I would be snatching up that '97. Sure, it's a few grand more but sounds like the owner has taken really great care of the boat.

      just my

      Comment


      • #4
        I'd rather not drive that far and I prefer lower hours. This will be my first self-owned boat and I have a very limited budget, so I am not as particular with getting a unique boat at this time. I'm more concerned about the functionality, and in particular the wake differences as mentioned.

        I'm off for a family camping trip for a couple days and won't be able to get online until Sunday. I appreciate any advice I can get, though.

        Comment


        • #5
          What motor and transmission are either both boats?

          Comment


          • #6
            If you decide against the 94, can you post the ad for it? I may be interested.

            Comment


            • #7
              The 94 will have the better slalom wake granted that you upgrade to a new prop like a cnc oj. It will have a lot of spray that can be annoying at short line lengths. It doesn't like choppy water. I have a 95 but I would trade for a 94 in a heartbeat.

              Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk 4

              Comment


              • #8
                Lol azdave... I have a 93 and it's amazing. Go for the 94.
                Last edited by ; 09-06-2013, 08:04 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Ski-me View Post
                  What about this one??

                  Looks pretty sweet and unique too!

                  http://www.mastercraft.com/teamtalk/...ad.php?t=57193
                  That's my exact boat, but minus the lt1, which some would consider a detraction, but I actually prefer the Ford. What in the name of God is a wedge doing on that boat? I'll be polite in case it's another tt member that put it on there, but... Wow...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    IMO the 91 to 94 boat is nicer than the 95 to 97. Nicer wake, nicer looking boat and nicer interior That inst pod in the 95 to 97 is ugly.
                    Don't be afraid of a carbed boat (91-93) and get the ford engine if you can. Plenty of threads on here with issues on fuel injected boats. The 94 is just a TBI anyway.....not really comparable to MPI.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      IMO comparing the wakes between the two models is splitting hairs, they're both world class. At 28-32 MPH the 95-97 will be slightly taller but negligible. With the 95-97 you'll get a better rough water ride, more room, slightly taller gunwales (nice if you have little ones) and fuel injection standard. The stanard 275HP TBI motor is bullet proof and trouble free. The carbed ford motor is as good as fuel injection as long as its set up properly. Can you drive and ski both boats? That would help you narrow it down. I would go with the 97

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I have a 95 PS190 and ski non course - lake skiing 90% of the time. Buddy has late 90's Malibu and from 32 + the MC is better. If you combine that with being a bit closer to the boat there is nothing. I don't think you can go wrong unless you don't get a boat for next year! Good Luck.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Condition is huge with anything used for me. Hold out for the ride you want in outstanding condition. When I started looking there seemed to be several low hour MC's and many have been better than well cared for so no reason to settle for avg. or worse conditon IMO.
                          ‘99 X-Star

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Thanks for all the feedback.
                            Both engines are the "standard" engine and transmission that came with the boat at that time.
                            I wish I could drive and ski behind both boats before buying, but they are both fairly far away in opposite directions. Perhaps I should at least get my buddy with the '97 who lives close to me to give me a pull so I can know for sure how I like that hull.
                            Last edited by TallSkinnyGuy; 09-08-2013, 04:49 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              My '92 205 with the 351/285 HP has a better hole shot than my friends '93 205 with the LT1. I'm not sure, but I believe it's because of my new Acme 13x11.5 prop.
                              On the other hand, since he has FI, his will idle better than mine. I'm still working on that problem.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X