2000 Mastercraft Sportstar 19 - good/bad/ugly?

[wtrskior]

Considering one of these that's available locally with low hours (300ish). Closed Deck, It apparently has the 5.7L motor, instead of the 5.0L some of these boats apparently came with. Are there any drivetrain issues to be aware of? What are they worth on the used market?

 

Anyone skied one, drove one? I understand it is the same hull as the 95-97 prostar. \

 

thanks!

 

 

 

 

 

[ALPJr]

IMO it's one of the best hulls ever produced.

[swc5150]

My good friend has one, so I've skied it countless times. I also owned a '95 and '97 PS, which is the same hull, which gave me that much more time behind one. Nice wake, no spray to speak of...good stuff from the business end. From the driver's seat, it rides higher in the water than older PS hulls, and has lots of body roll while turning. It does track decent though, depending who you have back there. The open water ride is typical MC harsh, but manageable if you throttle back when approaching rollers. If you're used to how a tournament boat typically handles, flat and on a dime, this hull will be foreign to you. It'll still turn sharp, but the roll is closing in on I/O territory. It has a solid powertrain (Indmar), so no real worries there. In short, it's a decent boat if you can get it cheap enough. By that, I mean it would have to be significantly less money than a TSC1 Nautique, which buries it in all categories. If you drive/ski both, you'll know what I mean.

[wtrskior]

Thanks guys. I've skied and driven a 95-97 prostar a few times. It did seem to ride higher than the nautiques.

 

I may aldo have a line on a 2000 196 big N w GT40 but it is in rougher shape cosmetically, more hours and it was run up on the rocks a few years back. Ive skied and driven it many times and the repairs were done professionally. It's not been maintained as well but it's still seems to run well minus a few little issues a used boat will have.

 

Is the TSC1 really that much better? One thing to consider is i want to teach my wife to drive a course.

[paco]

@swc5150 nailed it. Good all around boat! As far as value. Kinda broad depending on condition. Low hours are not always a good thing if it hasn't been stored properly. If taken care of, low hours are great! Tip top shape, like new or close to it, I'd say 16-18k. Needs interior or faded and damaged gel mechanical issues can bring the value down to 10k or lower. Great thing of a high end boat of this age is resale. Mc or nautique either one can be bought and as long as it's cared for, sold for close to the purchased price 5 years down the road.

[swc5150]

The SN would be easier for your wife to learn to drive in a course. The Sportstar takes more driver input. Take it for a drive and judge for yourself.

[wtrskior]

@swc5150 the nautique I have a lot of seat time in and I've skied more behind TSC 1,2,3 and 200s than any other boat besides a Malibu sportster I used to have.

 

I know its a better ski boat, from behind I could careless, but overall quality is certainly better with the Nautique. its a tighter feeling boat than the 90s MCs I've been in and they handle better.

 

I favor the 350 block based on ease of maintenance and from having a 351 years ago that a was a total lemon. It was harder to find the right parts and a lot of mechanics couldn't figure out the opposite rotation the SN has.

 

Any thoughts on the GM block to the 351 GT40. both are EFI and 310hp.

[MISkier]

GM 350 is a fantastic engine. I would take that any day. Rock solid.

[swc5150]

GM 350 and the 351 GT40 are both great. GT40 parts are still readily available too. I'm sure both engine have encountered a few lemons along the way, but those were exceptions.

[PT Mike]

@paco yes, @swc5150 nailed it. I'm the original owner of a 96' PS 190 and i love my boat but from a slalom course perspective it's hard to beat the 196 My biggest gripe with the 190 as was already pointed out, is the high riding bow.

[TallSkinnyGuy]

I have a '97 MC PS -- so, same boat as the 2000 Sportstar you mentioned. I also regularly ski behind and drive a couple TSC1 boats. I like the TSC1s better, but my boat is not far behind in both wake and driving. I am not an engine guy, but decided to learn how to maintain my boat engine just to learn something new and to save money. Maintenance (winterizing, de-winterizing, oil changes, fuel filter changes, etc.) is very simple on the 350 TBI and they are considered pretty reliable engines. Also, the Mastercraft Team Talk forum is exceptionally helpful regarding maintenance and troubleshooting.

[vtjc]

I owned a 99 SportStar CB with 5.7L TBI Chevy 1:1 trans from 2004-11. A friend and a MasterCraft fan bought a ’98 SportStar with an LT1, since he liked mine so much. I still ski behind the ’98 fairly often. I agree with swc5150 they have a great wake. However, they do ride higher and roll allot during turning. The tracking especially with just a driver(how we often ski) isn’t great. One benefit to the taller boat is for keeping young kids or others aboard. The SportStar’s have simpler interiors then the 95-97 ProStars. The 5.7L Chevy TBI is a solid and serviceable powertrain, the 5.0L was the base motor in ’98 only. This thread mastercraft.com/teamtalk/showthread.php?t=14622 covers the hull and its variants very thoroughly.

 

I plan to seek out a CC TSC 1-3 hull when I am ready to buy another boat. I think this will help my wife and others with driving the course with better tracking. I look forward to a hull with the sporty driving feel a closed bow ski boat should have.

 

I think open bow SportStars and Prostar 195's would make great affordable crossover boats.

[Fast351]

I wouldn't pay more than 7500 for a trashed 196, and that's assuming everything is mechanically sound. Probably closer to 6000. If you can get it for that much it might be a deal. Does it have PP? Otherwise, and as a N guy, it pains me to say this, the Mastercraft is a better deal.

 

[BraceMaker]

@PT Mike is the "bow high" nature something from 95 up? I have a 94 that I don't consider to be particularly bow high at slalom speeds.

 

It is a bit at trick speeds - but that really helps plow choppy days.

[wtrskior]

@fast351 It's hardly trashed, but not mint. Interior is good, but not perfect, bit of a scum line, and it was run up on rocks and rebuilt a few years back; which I know reduced the current owners purchase price and should mine as well. $7500 seems low though. It doesn't have PP, it does have teleflex analog gauges as opposed to the original digital SN guages. Stereo was upgraded to a clarion deck that no longer works.

 

I recall there being about 400hrs on the dial, but that may not be accurate; any way to check the GT40 for actual run time?

 

I haven't seen the sportstar in person but it looks mint and only about 300hrs. Having had both the 351 and a 350, I'd take the 350 for ease of use and parts availability locally, but the nautique package feels tighter than older prostars I've been in.

[swc5150]

@BraceMaker The increased dead rise was from '95-'97. '98 got back to normal in that aspect, but that hull is different conversation:(

[wtrskior]

@vtjc do you know if the platform is removable on the 2000? I read on the TMC site that the 99 is not.

[Fast351]

@wtrskior there is no way to know the hours on a 2000-2002 GT40 based SN with any degree of certainty. The computer doesn't track it, and unless the new gauges were matched to the old ones, they started at 0 when replaced.

 

I bought an absolutely mint 2001, with a perfect pass, and a known low number of hours for 16.5 last year about this time.

 

Starting with that, I would say the crash reduced the boat value by 5K, the PP by another 1500, putting you at 10K. A new interior is 2K, but if it's not too bad I guess you could live with it. Still, I wouldn't pay a nickel over 8 for that boat, but it depends on how bad you want it. Crash repairs, even if done right, create future problems with shaft alignment, extra weight in the boat, gelcoat cracking, etc.

 

Good luck!

 

[keithh2oskier]

@wtrskior the Ford GT40 cannot have the hours checked for actual run-time. I faced the same issue when I was looking at a 2001 with bad gauges.

[wtrskior]

thanks guys. I know the guy is facing winter storage dues so he may let it go cheap. The 196 doesn't need new interior, its just not mint in appearance. 10k is probably reasonable and about what I'd pay. The Sportstar they are asking $12k and open to offers.

[BraceMaker]

+10 on crash damage.

 

We have a fellow who lives down the lake who had an ~84 MC that came off a trailer.

 

They had "professional" hull work done, the guy apparently patched the hull back together, made a jig that bolted into the factory skeg, strut, rudder etc. and then using the cracked factory hull he made a mold; release agent, gel, cloth, the jig glassed the whole running surface. Pulled the jig, cut out all the damaged hull beveled and ground on the bilge surface. Placed his external mold back in place, release agent, gel coat, glass lay up, gel. Pulled the mold and fully blended the repair.

 

This repair was immaculate - exterior and interior looked factory. No seams, and couldn't even really see where he blended the Gel.

 

But the boat was never the same - lost ~6-7 miles on top end and bucked/porpoised as it came above ~34 mph. Point is - running surfaces are made from the outside in - it is really hard to make them right once they're out of the mold. I suspect the hull ended up shallower on this boat through the damaged area and made a "flat" and the hull came onto and off that "flat"

[vtjc]

My '99 didn't have a removable platform. You could add removable brackets to the 2000 if needed. It's that sort of stuff that separates the SportStars from Prostars.