2001 to 2002 SN 196

[kona]

So for all you 196 fans and wake critics I ask : whats the difference between the two ? 1997-2001 and 2002 forward. I have pretty much narrowed my search to a SN 196 01 or 02. They are both right in my price range.

[Roger]

The 2002 was the first TSC hull. The major difference is that the wake pretty much goes away at 32 off while the older hull has a small bump all the way up the line. Either choice will be a great boat. The hull changed again in 03, so it's really 97-01, 02, and then 03-09. IMO, the 02 had a better 22 wake than the 03-09 (I owned an 02 and now own an 09) while 32 and in are virtually the same.

 

If you're considering upgrading to ZO, make sure you get one with the Chevy engine. My 02 had the Ford, so I was forced to look for a new boat (or pay roughly $6500.00 to re-power). One of my ski partners has an 02 with the Chevy engine and upgraded to ZO for approx $3500.00. I would have gone that route given that engine.

[vtjc]

I believe the TSC 1 hull ran 97-01, TSC 2 02-05 & TSC 3 06-09. See the attached chart.

[Roger]

I don't think that chart is correct. I believe the 2002 was the TSC1, 2003-2005 was TSC2, and 2006-2009 was TSC3. I know that no 03-09 boat I skied behind has as small a 22 wake as either my 02 or my ski partner's 02.

[FA]

Had a 1997 TSC1 196 and a 2001 TSC1 196.

The chart is accurate.

Now Roger is correct you need an 02 with an Excaliber Engine if you are looking to get into a fairly cheap but elusive early 2000's Zero Off Boat after conversion.

 

[Wish]

I own a 1997 TSC1. There is much of nothing at 22 and 28 there is nothing.

 

 

[Roger]

I'm getting the facts from the source, stay tuned. Looks like TSC1 = 1997 - 2001, TSC2=2002 - 2005, TSC3 = 2006-2009 is correct, but waiting on info about 2002 compared to 2003-2005 (I believe a change was made, but not a name change for the hull).

 

Update: The difference between the 2002 and 2003-2005 is a lifting strakes change; that is what makes the 2002 hull unique (and probably what makes it's 22 wake a tad better than the later hulls in the series).

[rmt15n1959]

For my money, the 97-01 TSC1 was/is the best all around hull. GT-40 in those boats is a fantastic motor. However, if you want ZO you will have to go newer and more $. The new PP add-on that Jager is working on might be an option for the older boats (if you need to emulate ZO). Looks like it might bridge the gap between ZO and PP. My .02

[Roger]

While I do like the 97 to 01 wake quite a bit, anyone who skies 32 off and in will find the 02 and later hulls superior. The first time I pulled a friend who owned a 2000 196 behind my 02, he PB'd with 4 @ 39 and after the set said "That boat is cheating!"

[Wish]

Never been behind an 02. But have a friend that runs a ski school overseas and has had every yr Nautique since early 90s. His words..... " 97 has the best wake Nautique ever built " said with a forign accent. He tells me to never get rid of it. Ok done defending it. :-)

[Not_The_Pug]

I have an 2001 Nautique and it says on the side TSC1. Last year of that haul. My dad has an 2002 TSC2. Both ski nice, but I start at 28. If you ask my wife, she likes our 2001 a lot better than the 2002 for slalom at slower speeds 15 off. She has not wanted to upgrade to any of the New Nautiques because she says the wakes aren't as good as ours. She is finally willing to upgrade to the 200, but that is because the slalom wake is as good per her and she likes the trick wake better.

 

Kevin

[jipster43]

It's my understanding that the TSC1 hull had a better trick wake than the TSC2 & TSC3.

 

JP :)

[Not_The_Pug]

TSC1 Table is good but there is no wake. :)

[454SS]

I ski behind a 98 regularly, I ski at 15off, just learning to ski the course this year, and theres nothing better not even my Elite ;)

[A_B]

I ski behind my '99, a '07, and two '09's. The latter were upgrades from the '01's.

My '99 has pulled into 41 off, so I don't believe there is anything there that will prevent you from running a personal best.

I have also skied behind a '03, but it has been a couple years.

All are very good boats for slalom. I think the '99 has a better trick wake than the '02+, but the hydro gate could help.

If ZO isn't a big deal to you, find the best deal in your price range for anything '97 and newer, you can't go wrong.

My '99 might be up for sale for the right price!

[vtjc]

Check out www.planetnautique.com great site for info on late model Nautiques. I will be shopping for a similar boat this winter. Jamie

[east tx skier]

Some of this is redundant.

 

97--2001 TSC. Great all around 3 event boat. Even at long line lengths and slower speeds, the wake is virtually nonexistent.

 

2002--2005 TSC2. Lifting strakes added to the hull with a wider "tunnel" and hook at the transom. Phenomenal slalom boat. Trick wake apparently was pretty bad. Slalom wake is probably the best of the three generations of TSC (at least at my level), but only slightly so.

 

2006 "TSC2." There are at least two 2006 196s with the TSC2 hull (still had lifting strakes).

 

2006--2009 TSC3. Lifting strakes are gone, adjustable sport shift with cavitation plate optional to adjust between slalom (plate down) to trick (plate up). Slalom wake is great. Trick wake is apparently a vast improvement over the TSC2.

 

The only difference of which I am aware between 2002 and 2003 is that some 2002s came with GT-40s. I have never seen anything about hull differences in that era.

 

You can't go wrong with any of these boats IMO.

 

Borrowed from CorrectCraftFan

 

/vanilla2/uploads/FileUpload/3/1003.jpg

[LeonL]

All the mentioned year models will ski great, if you don't have a real desire for ZO. IMHO the '02 may be the best overall 196 made. I had an '02 and currently my ski partner has an '02, they both ski and drive great.

[kona]

Thanks guys great information again.

[Geppetto]

Long time lurker first time poster. I will also vote for the '02! I bought (OB)'s '02 when he upgraded his club boat to an '08 with zero off. I think OB still misses my boat sometimes. To me the "early" '02 boats are the best of both worlds, you get the TSC2 hull with the gt40 engine. The TSC2 hull is virtually the same hull as the TSC3 hull which ran all the way through the '09 My previous boat was a '90 Ski Nautique so the '02 is light years ahead for me. The only downside with the '02 is the digital gauge setup. You can replace the digital gauges with analog gauges for a reasonable price. Like others have said, I don't think you will be disappointed with the year models that you are considering.

 

Good luck,

Matt

[6balls]

My 2000 TSC1 rocks. I start at 28 and go very occasionally thru 38, but lots of 35's. My ski partner starts at 22. I watch him behind MC 197's or Lxi's or the older BU LX, and he bounces out of the water on the 22 hump....not so on my boat. No spray and great tracking, too.

[ski6jones]

Did any of you 2001 TSC1 guys weight the boat in anyway to improve the wake?

[BrennanKMN]

Personally I'd get the TSC1. I like the bubble butt for getting in and out plus if you take the back seat out there is loads of room compared to the TSC2. I don't think the TSC2 is worth it over the TSC1 myself. In my mind it is TSC1 or something with ZeroOff. Also don't forget about the dash gauge issues on the early 2000's Nautiques.

 

I had a TSC1 and and now I have a TSC3 with ZO.

[6balls]

I agree with @BrennanKMN

 

@ski6jones one of the things I like is that the TSC1 wake is great regardless...so no I don't weight it. I really notice very little difference in the wake with full gas or light, with just a driver or a driver, two observers and all of their ski gear. Hole shot is slower with all those dudes but wake to me is still fantastic. Have you found weighting a TSC1 makes much difference? It does list a little with driver only but that hasn't affected me behind the boat.

[Wish]

TC1s are the best. And I'm 100% biased. But will repower and ZO long before I ever buy a ZO boat.

[ski6jones]

@6balls I found 25# up under the bow lifting eye on a boat i bought last year. The wake always seemed a bit firm if more than about a quarter tank of fuel on board, especially 28-32 off. Have taken the weight out for a comparison. Found the weight while installing a stereo.

[KRoundy]

Holy thread resurrection, Batman!

[keithh2oskier]

So I have somewhat of a hybrid of an 02 196. Not sure if it was an early production model or just the lowest of the low base models.

 

The dashboard is from the 97-01 and is more rounded and symmetrical. It seems lower than the later TSC2-3 dashboards which I appreciate. Its an SE so it doesn't have all of the electronic gauges that fail which I preferred. And the motor is the little 5.0 which was only offered for a year or two around that time as I understand. Would have preferred to find a GT-40 or the Excalibur but I just couldn't find one in my price range with decent hours at the time I got mine. The big issue I had with the TSC1's was many that I looked at were carbed and I just didn't want to deal with that.