advice on 1986 nautique 2001
Printed From: CorrectCraftFan.com
Category: General Correct Craft Discussion
Forum Name: Common Questions
Forum Discription: Visit here first for common questions regarding your Correct Craft
URL: http://www.CorrectCraftFan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=39570
Printed Date: November-24-2024 at 9:07am
Topic: advice on 1986 nautique 2001
Posted By: prski
Subject: advice on 1986 nautique 2001
Date Posted: August-02-2016 at 2:46pm
|
I could use some expert advice. I currently have a '07 MB Sport to ski, wakeboard and surf but the wake is seriously big even for a decent skier. I'm 58 and have had 5 knee surgeries so I want a smaller wake. I have the opportunity to buy a 1986 nautique 2001. One owner, 684 hours, all original everything. stored out of the water. Question 1 - is the wake behind the old 2001 boats the smallest and best or are their other years with better wakes? Question 2 - I'm not mechanical, just like to ski. What should I expect in terms of repairs or maintenance on a 30 year old nautique? Question 3 - any idea what it would cost to fully restore it to "perfect" condition if you have it done by a good restoration place? Question 4 - any recommendations on where to have an old nautique restored? I'd appreciate any advice to any of my questions - many thanks ------------- paul |
Replies:
Posted By: lcgordon
Date Posted: August-02-2016 at 2:48pm
| From what I have heard the 2001 hulls are not very good for skiing. Probably better than you have but there are better wakes out there. |
Posted By: Chevy350
Date Posted: August-02-2016 at 2:57pm
|
Welcome to Correctcraftfan Paul! I'll answer your questions the best I can. The smarter ones will chime in later. #1- no its not the smallest or best, but for its time it was. The 90's ski nautiques seem to be a very good wake. #2- if it's been taken care of good by the owner, then it should just need a tank of gas. If not done recently, you'll probably need to change fuel filter and oil. #3- depends on what needs to be done. It'd be cheaper to do anything yourself, just need to take the time. You'll be proud of yourself, and you learn a lot. #4- I personally don't know ny places, but others here will know. Let's see some pics of that boat. ------------- 1972 Mustang |
Posted By: Hollywood
Date Posted: August-02-2016 at 3:14pm
| Have you been in a coma for the last 30 years? By today's standards the 2001 ski wake is no longer even on the good end of the scale. |
Posted By: desertskier
Date Posted: August-02-2016 at 3:43pm
| It will be better than your MB. If it's cheap just buy it, use it for awhile and dump it if you don't like it. Cheap would be in the $3K - $4k range. If you want a better wake and no wood stringers then look for a '93 or newer SN. Can be found starting at about $6k. |
Posted By: Hollywood
Date Posted: August-02-2016 at 3:47pm
| If he's considering a 2001 I'm guessing wood stringers aren't a deal breaker. 90-92 skis will be cheaper. |
Posted By: GottaSki
Date Posted: August-02-2016 at 3:51pm
|
I concur, What speed do you ski? That info is important to the question. Below 34mph, the 2001 was never a good slalom boat even when new, it was already outclassed It was a really solid 3-event boat, and that is what it was sold as. It always perplexed me why the novice tournaments used 2001 for the Jr divisions, wake up to their shoulders at 22-26 mph, then use the MC's for the adults. Slalom wise, given your criteria, Consider the 93+ nautique, a Malibu response is great also. ------------- "There is nothing, absolutely nothing, half so much worthwhile as messing around with boats...simply messing." River Rat to Mole |
Posted By: desertskier
Date Posted: August-02-2016 at 3:56pm
| I wonder how many have had stringer problems with '90 -'92 boats. I think I have only seen one member mention he put stringers in a '92. |
Posted By: prski
Date Posted: August-02-2016 at 4:13pm
|
Wow, this is an active and awesome forum and hopefully one day I can contribute to it. I ski about 30 mph as a recreational skier. I'd like to get better and think a softer wake will help me and extend my years of skiing enjoyment. Sounds like most or all of you believe the 86 is not a good ski wake so thanks for the feedback! You all have been great! ------------- paul |
Posted By: Hollywood
Date Posted: August-02-2016 at 4:19pm
| There are better 30 mph wakes no doubt |
Posted By: GottaSki
Date Posted: August-02-2016 at 4:36pm
|
Yeah you just dodged a bullet. Stick around and good luck with your search. ------------- "There is nothing, absolutely nothing, half so much worthwhile as messing around with boats...simply messing." River Rat to Mole |
Posted By: Lakeview
Date Posted: August-09-2016 at 4:13pm
|
Having owned an '85 2001 14 yrs ago and skied it for 5 yrs it's not the boat you want I skied in the 28-32 mph range and the wake was a beast-the wake is great for today's wake boarders ! Ski behind an early 80's Ski Supreme - you'll buy one in a heartbeat ------------- Lakeview 1992 Barefoot Nautique 1967 Barracuda SS 1967 Chris Craft Cavalier |
Posted By: prski
Date Posted: August-11-2016 at 2:41pm
|
Thanks for the advice, just to be clear I ski pretty well today behind an MB B52 wakeboard boat with a wide and rough wake, would you consider the 85 nautique that bad? I'm getting the sense that most of the advice may be relative to something much better than my current boat. The boat I'm considering is in amazing original shape and a very fair price, one owner no mods to it. I love the look and as long as the wake is better than my current boat it may be okay even if better wakes are out there. Thank you! ------------- paul |
Posted By: desertskier
Date Posted: August-11-2016 at 3:04pm
| It will be much better than the MB. Go buy it! |
Posted By: GlassSeeker
Date Posted: August-11-2016 at 4:46pm
|
Tell them you need to test ski it first ------------- This is the life |
Posted By: Jonny Quest
Date Posted: August-13-2016 at 6:56pm
|
I would keep looking for the next hull model known as the NWZ. The 1993 and up boats are wood-free and the wakes are fairly good. No, not as good as the latest SN, but much better than the 2001 hull. A 1993 to 1995 can be had for well under $15,000. JQ ------------- Current 2003 Ski Nautique 206 Limited Previous 2001 Ski Nautique Open Bow 1994 Ski Nautique Open Bow Aqua skiing, ergo sum |
Posted By: Faceplant
Date Posted: August-14-2016 at 1:13am
| Had a 1979 Ski Supreme - excellent wake for slalom . Now own a 1988 - 2001 model . Excellent wake board wake , Slalom wake - not so much . |
Posted By: fgroce
Date Posted: August-15-2016 at 9:35pm
|
We own a 88 2001 and first skied behind a 84 2001. It may not be as good as the new boats, but is smooth as glass compared to a Moomba Mobius. Plus the look and sound of those boats with duals is awesome. I agree go ski behind it and see how you like it, If you like it buy one. If not look for a later model. Frank ------------- FGroce 88 Ski Nautique For 28 years Now 2002 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: prski
Date Posted: August-15-2016 at 11:55pm
|
Thanks for the reply and advice. ------------- paul |
Posted By: GottaSki
Date Posted: August-22-2016 at 11:55am
For a visual, here is the wake of an 82 Supreme at 26 mph. Gets even better with speed, like most boats. Not bad for 34 years old.  ------------- "There is nothing, absolutely nothing, half so much worthwhile as messing around with boats...simply messing." River Rat to Mole |
Posted By: audiodude
Date Posted: August-30-2016 at 12:45am
|
I have an 89 2001, the wake is not flat but way better than the outboard I skied before buying this boat. When I bought the 89 I was concerned that the wake would be to flat. I like the wake, it has a bump that can be alot of fun. I am a good recreational skiier, I don't ski courses but if I did I would want something flatter. I like the little bit of air you can get off this wake when skiing. I agree with others if you can get a pull behind the boat give it a try. I ski behind a ski supreme often and only find that wake a little better than my 89. ------------- 2000 Ski Nautique 1989 Correct Craft 2001 In the words of Milton Berle: "You can lead a man to Congress but you can't make him think" |