Hull Difference Pre TSC
Printed From: CorrectCraftFan.com
Category: General Correct Craft Discussion
Forum Name: General Discussion
Forum Discription: Anything Correct Craft
URL: http://www.CorrectCraftFan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=27889
Printed Date: November-30-2024 at 11:23am
Topic: Hull Difference Pre TSC
Posted By: zone 5
Subject: Hull Difference Pre TSC
Date Posted: September-21-2012 at 6:43pm
|
Going back a while. I know the TSC from 97-01, and then TSC2 and so on. But what I don't know is the pre TSC from 89-96. I think I have that right, because if I remember right, the 2001 hull was pre 89. Based on what I am seeing out there it looks like the 89-96 pre TSC hull is closest to my price range than the TSC is gonna be. So if some of you can enlighten me on if I have the years right (89-96) and if so, how different than a TSC boat was it? downsides upsides etc. Any info you guys have or places I can find it. thanks! |
Replies:
Posted By: Fl Inboards
Date Posted: September-21-2012 at 7:04pm
|
Actually the Ski Nautique slant back is what you are referring to (90-96. It was a evolutionary hull from the 2001 hull. A bit wider and a little over 19 feet. Great long line slalom wakes, nearly no bump at 22 off and 28-32 off were great. 35 and shorter a trough in the middle was negotiated but many world and national records was set with this boat in slalom. Good trick wake however not to big and the table in the middle was great. in the later stages of this hulls run one could get a GT-40 5.8 Ford that made this the jump boat of choice. Power to weight this was one of the boats that could get the job done in the open level jump ranks. overall one of the best 3 event boats ever built pure ski boat! So what do you want to do with the boat? ------------- Hobby Boats can be expensive when the hobbyist is limited on their own skill and expertise. 1993 Shamrock "fat" 20. 2008 Nautique 196 5.0 |
Posted By: KRoundy
Date Posted: September-21-2012 at 7:24pm
|
Doug, What you are missing in your note above is that hulls from the era you are talking about are generally called the "No Wake Zone", or NWZ. These hulls come in two types: 90-92 that have wood stringers and 93-96 that have composite stringers. No wood - no rot. Note that some of the interior parts in the NWZ era have wood (like combing pads). The NWZ hull was the first shift away from the 2001 hull and represented a significant jump in the ski-ability of the boat for slalom skiing. The trick / wakeboard wake of a NWZ hull is not as big as that of the 2001 hull. The NWZ hulls include "spray relief pockets" that keep the spray out the side of the boat down. Other items to look for include engine changes such as fuel injection and the GT-40 engines which all came out during this time. This is also the era where the 1.23 transmission came onboard. It was an option at first and later became standard. The transmission slowed down the rotation of the prop creating less prop wash and a noticeable drop in the "hump" at 15-22 off. Somebody else will have to enlighten us concerning the differences between a NWZ and the TSC hulls. Things to look for: Pre 1993 check the stringers. In all boats of this age look for something that has been well-cared for, or be willing to spend time fixing what is broken. Some of these boats also included engines with an electronic ignition system called "Pro-Tech", which are known to go bad and require an upgrade (that costs a few hundred and is not hard to do - I'm told). ------------- Previous: 1993 Electric Blue/Charcoal Ski Nautique Current: 2016 Ski Nautique 200 Open Bow |
Posted By: M3Fan
Date Posted: September-21-2012 at 7:55pm
|
Great hull. Just skied one in the course- world class wakes, right up there with today's boats at 15 and 22. I was really surprised at how well the boat skied. ------------- 2000 SN GT40 w/99 Graphics/Gel 2016 SN 200 OB 5.3L DI https://forum.fifteenoff.com |
Posted By: zone 5
Date Posted: September-21-2012 at 9:57pm
|
Fantastic info!!! Exactly what I wanted to know. Thanks! The wood/composite is really great info, because I couldn't find when they changed it. Some things like interier and engines I can do. I did one boats stringers and never want to FI, I want the boat for slalom, and just general playing. I really don't want to worry about wood, which is why The info is so helpful and I know I'm still back a few years, but I want to stay as close to "modern" as I can |
Posted By: lewy2001
Date Posted: September-21-2012 at 10:28pm
|
Doug 1995 was the first year the GT40 engine was available. Lots of great information to be found in the reference section of this site. This chart I downloaded from this site has the complete SN hull history.  ------------- If you're going through hell, keep going http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=2999" rel="nofollow - 89 Ski <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=5685" ta |
Posted By: zone 5
Date Posted: September-21-2012 at 10:36pm
| WOW!!! more great info THANKS!!! |
Posted By: Foot_Fungus
Date Posted: September-22-2012 at 1:52am
|
as mentioned above 93+ get composite and for the small price difference between an early 90s wood and a mid 90s composite i'd almost say concentrate on the composites exclusively. 94 also brought about the wonderfully hated and loved protec system. Works great when it works, almost impossible to fix once its breaks. Most spend $500 and rid themselves of the protec in favor of a standary dizzy setup. You also had the tbi option on the protecs. Again great when it ran, no parts when it breaks. Add another $600 to replace with a standard carb. in 94 you also had the option of a walk thru windshield, which to my knowledge was the only year it was offered on a closed bow nautique. To me NWZs are the perfect mix between being affordable, reliable, and easy to work on. ------------- '94SN Restoration underway... |
Posted By: zone 5
Date Posted: September-22-2012 at 2:06am
This is probably the path I am going to work toward. As I said, did stringers once, and it was a royal PITA. NEVER again. Had not heard of the protec system before. except for my first late 70's Nautique, all my time was in TSC/TSC2 and GT-40's. Is the hull under the Sport's of this generation the same as under the Ski's? |
Foot_Fungus wrote:Posted By: M3Fan
Date Posted: September-22-2012 at 11:24am
|
Protec was 91+ ------------- 2000 SN GT40 w/99 Graphics/Gel 2016 SN 200 OB 5.3L DI https://forum.fifteenoff.com |
Posted By: zone 5
Date Posted: September-28-2012 at 2:46am
|
2 questions more please. 1. Is the below engine the infamous Protec that you are talking about? and if so what are the triggering? Is this an individual coil motor or what? 2. Is the hull that is under the Sport of the 90-96 era a modification of the NWZ hull? Because I saw one listed that said it was the same as the hull on the Super Air, which if I remember right, even in TSC days had a hull that was different from TSC/TWC. Thanks! 
|
Posted By: Fl Inboards
Date Posted: September-28-2012 at 10:32am
|
That is a projection, protec with throttle body injection (Bad JUJU). absolutely no replacement parts available. At this stage of time this setup will give an owner grief. Detractor on the resale. This was PCM's first attempt at EFI,that did not last long as the GT-40 replaced it in less than 3 years. ------------- Hobby Boats can be expensive when the hobbyist is limited on their own skill and expertise. 1993 Shamrock "fat" 20. 2008 Nautique 196 5.0 |
Posted By: Hollywood
Date Posted: September-28-2012 at 11:42am
|
Plenty of walk through windshields on closed bow ski nautiques ------------- |
Posted By: zone 5
Date Posted: September-28-2012 at 1:59pm
so its amazing to see it still on a running boat I assume? I guess you are saying my best bet would be trash the parts and replace with Holley and standard Dist right because its not if they fail but when? |
Posted By: zone 5
Date Posted: September-28-2012 at 2:02pm
I know. I only asked about the Sport hull, because there are some of them out there in the price and travel distance range. But I don't want to end up with a hull thats poor for slalom. If I had to, I can "make" a ski put out a bigger wake. I can't fix a wakeboard wake. |
Posted By: Hollywood
Date Posted: September-28-2012 at 2:12pm
|
It's probably the best 21' hull I've been behind. There are many threads on the 93-97 and 98-02 sport hull on here, it's been a popular buy lately. ------------- |
Posted By: Fl Inboards
Date Posted: September-28-2012 at 2:29pm
|
[/QUOTE] so its amazing to see it still on a running boat I assume? I guess you are saying my best bet would be trash the parts and replace with Holley and standard Dist right because its not if they fail but when?[/QUOTE] If it runs and still runs good then run it till she quits! just remember that their are NO NEW REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABLE! So when it does puke out be ready to cough up about a grand to change it out to carb and Distributor. ------------- Hobby Boats can be expensive when the hobbyist is limited on their own skill and expertise. 1993 Shamrock "fat" 20. 2008 Nautique 196 5.0 |
Posted By: Fl Inboards
Date Posted: September-28-2012 at 2:39pm
The second generation Sport is a stretched and widened version of the 90-96 SN Hull. A lot of the ideas and concepts from the SN went into the Sport Nautique. The Second Generation Sport is great Family ski boat however it is not a ski Nautique. Keep the crew load light will minimizes the wake and rooster size at longer lines, the boat does ski well at top speeds 34/36 MPH at short line 28off and shorter. I did all the prototype testing and ski ability on the boat before we came out with it. Funny the same wood deck prototype boat that I did all the Sport testing in was the same boat I re-configured to V-drive and tested before we came out with the super sport! ------------- Hobby Boats can be expensive when the hobbyist is limited on their own skill and expertise. 1993 Shamrock "fat" 20. 2008 Nautique 196 5.0 |
Posted By: zone 5
Date Posted: September-28-2012 at 3:24pm
Thats why I was asking. My 2nd Nautique was a 99 Air (or sport with tower). great all around boat. I would love to buy back into the TSC years hulls, but out of my price range. But I have seen some what appear to be great condition 93-96 Sports at decent prices. If they aren't/weren't decent slalom wake boats, I didn't want to waste mine or the sellers time on them. |
Posted By: zone 5
Date Posted: September-28-2012 at 3:27pm
So the dealer with the 97 Sport for sale saying that its the same hull as a Super Air is correct? |
Posted By: Hollywood
Date Posted: September-28-2012 at 3:28pm
|
So you had a 99 sport but still not sure the 93-97 is "decent"? ------------- |
Posted By: zone 5
Date Posted: September-28-2012 at 3:34pm
I don't have any personal knowledge on any of the hulls prior to TSC. Even in 99, CC called the Sport a TSC even though it wasn't (as compared to a SN). I don't know how a pre TSC Sport hull compares to it. |
Posted By: C-Bass
Date Posted: September-28-2012 at 3:50pm
It's been discussed before. The 93-97 would be very similar to your old 99 as far as the slalom wake.
Where's Keith? He could give you a good comparison between a 97 Sport and the "No Wake Zone" slalom wakes. ------------- Craig 67 SN 73 SN http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6103" rel="nofollow - 99 Sport 85SN |
Posted By: zone 5
Date Posted: September-28-2012 at 3:52pm
Thats the info I was looking for. Search brought me so many different threads that I didn't really know where to start, except with this thread. Thanks! |
Posted By: turningpoint84
Date Posted: September-28-2012 at 4:01pm
|
So from me reading this it seems like a 95 or 96 is your best bet? Composite stringers, GT40, 1.23 tranny? Now i'm not saying the 90-94's aren't good boat, i'm just saying if you're going to buy one with this hull, the 95-96's are the best? ------------- Proud 1968 mustang owner and now http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=6454&sort=&pagenum1" rel="nofollow - 1970 Mustang |
Posted By: zone 5
Date Posted: September-28-2012 at 4:08pm
In a perfect world, I'd say yes. But based on what the guys here have been saying about the sport bottom, the 97 Sport hull is good too. Keep in mind, that #1, I want decent Slalom wake. I'm way beyond caring about what I can or can't do in the course, but if I'm gonna do this again, I want a decent wake to play on slalom. I have a bunch of friends that like boards and such, but they just play around. I can always make a wake bigger, but I can't make it smaller. |
Posted By: lewy2001
Date Posted: September-28-2012 at 7:46pm
|
Doug I have a 98 Sport great all round boats and the slalom wake is decent. Check this thread out it describes the differences in the Sport Hull. The thread has a lot of input from Jody. http://www.correctcraftfan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20031&KW=98+Sport&title=98-sport" rel="nofollow - Sport Hull Changes ------------- If you're going through hell, keep going http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=2999" rel="nofollow - 89 Ski <a href="http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=5685" ta |
Posted By: zone 5
Date Posted: September-28-2012 at 8:16pm
Great thread!! Thanks for the link. Its funny to read the discussion about the "magic" TSC sticker on the Sports. I remember when they first came out, multiple of us having some very heated discussions about what it was or wasn't. My 99 Sport had it. The 2000 Sport/Air did not have it. |
Posted By: bhectus
Date Posted: September-28-2012 at 8:55pm
Didn't see anyone answer this for you yet so... The hull is similar but a major difference in the "super" is the engine is in the back (v-drive). More weight in the rear=bigger wake. My '97 SS had a pretty rough wake to cross for slaloming, although my BFN is probably even worse, and it's hard as a rock. ------------- '02 Ski Nautique 196 w/ 5.7 Apex bowtie - Sold '87 Barefoot - sold '97 Super Sport Nautique - originally custom built for Walt Meloon '97 Ski Nautique '83 SN 2001 |
Posted By: desertskier
Date Posted: October-01-2012 at 10:16pm
| I've owned a '92 SN since it was a year old. I'm surprised to hear that others think it has a great ski wake at longer line lengths. At 15 off it is fairly large. At 22 off you hit a very hard rooster tail and basically catch some air. At 28 and shorter I would agree that it is very good although I don't have much else to compare it to. I skied Mastercrafts from the same era and they had much smaller long line wakes (190's and 205's). Most of my course skiing was done at 34mph with the backseat installed and 2 or 3 people in the boat. If you lighten it up and ski at 36 it should be better. Not that I don't like skiing behind my boat but I was actually surprised after I bought it that the wake was so big for an advertised "No Wake Zone" boat. My friend has a '94 SN and our boats ski exactly the same. Mine has the wood stringers and haven't had any problems with them. With 1400 hours the Protec is still working fine. I have been having carb problems for a while so I just put on a new one. Should be good for another 20 years. I wouldn't hesitate to buy one just don't want you to be disappointed. |
Posted By: zone 5
Date Posted: October-02-2012 at 1:54am
|
skiing at 36 is just a "few" years behind me. Unlikely that this boat is gonna pull me in the course but when/if it does, its gonna be in the 30-32 at most range. So far I have found 3 boats that fit. Of course no way any of them are within 500 miles of here. One in Maryland, One in Orlando, and there was one in NH, which is close, but as its the twin to the one in Maryland but $2K more and is gonna need iterior while the one in Maryland has a new interior/carpet already. Orlando looks really nice with GT40 but gee, its only 1800 miles away. I have a question on The protech motor picture that I posted above. Its from a 94. Can anyone tell me what these were rated HP wise, and is there any way to tell which transmission these boats came with, or do you have to ask/see it. |
Posted By: 63 Skier
Date Posted: October-12-2012 at 9:50pm
|
Doug, did you end up finding anything? I think the '94 protec was rated 300 HP. ------------- '63 American Skier - '98 Sport Nautique |
Posted By: oldslalomskier
Date Posted: December-03-2012 at 9:22pm
|
I think the main difference in the pre-TSC hulls is the wake at longer line lengths. The sweet spot on my '02 (TSC2) is 28 to 35 off, but the biggest improvement over the pre-TSC boats is the 22 wake. In my experience, this has been the pattern through the years with many boats; I started behind a '73 MasterCraft that had a jump ramp for a wake at 15 off, but was barely there at 28 off/36mph. My '81 Nautique was slightly better at 15 and 22, and just a bump at 28. The ProTec was definitely a disaster/learning experience--the common cure was to "regress" to a Holley! My '02 is a dream in comparison in terms of powerplant--worth making friends with your banker to make the step up. It is interesting to see the table with all the various design iterations--makes me slightly nostalgic for the old '81, which would peg the speedo way before full throttle. When I built the motor in '94, I cleaned up the ports slightly and added an aluminum intake with a little stronger midrange. I had already converted to electronic ignition, and kept the Holley dialed in; when I was too tired to ski at the end of the day I would amuse myself by embarrassing my buddies in their new boats... I can honestly say that when skiing behind newer boats than mine, up to the 2012, at 28 off and beyond I can't feel any significant improvement over my boat--at least that's what I'm going to keep telling myself unless I have a financial windfall.. |