94 PROSTAR 190 OR 99 CC 196

[bananaron]

Hey ballers just curious if you had a choice and both boats were mint condition with PP which boat would you prefer to own and ski?? the 196 would have the gt40 and the MC the LT1. BOTH CLOSE IN PRICE TO OWN.....

[jpattigr]

196, bigger and newer, less spray. Both have great wakes!

[skimtb]

196.

[wawaskr]

196. No comparison.

[keithh2oskier]

Having skied both I would take a 196 even if the wake wasn't as good just for the lack of spray alone.

 

Handling is also better on the SN I'm sure

 

But I do love a 93/94 PS 190 and would gladly ski one.

 

Choosing between the two is the epitome of first world problems.

 

 

[swc5150]

Either. I've owned both, and have a '94 PS now. PS has a smaller wake, SN less spray and softer ride. PS fits better in my garage.

[jhughes]

No comparison, not even in the same dimension. Quality, ergonomics, tracking, spray, 10x better on the Nautique. I'd actually say the same of the previous Nautique hull as well compared to the 91-94 MC.

 

91-94 MC is the most overrated hull ever IMO.

[BraceMaker]

I don't consider those as necessarily peers. I'd actually prefer a 94 with a TBI and powerslot. Do not like to cost and particular upkeep of the LT1 or an old Ford by 99.

[The_MS]

Nautique

[Cent]

94 MC better wake

94 MC has fuel injection

94 more spray.

Have used both

Prefer the MC

Family member still has the MC I had in 94

Learn about that era LT 1. Their can be issues LT 1.

[Cent]

Meant to say spray issue relates to line length.

If your not into short line past 28 not an issue.

For longer for teaching skiing and lines, most wives, children, grand children the wake difference for the MC is a plus.

So consider your use. I think it’s a key issue.

 

 

[BG1]

196 has better tracking so you should get a better pull.

[jipster43]

I’ve had both. The PS is an awesome boat. I loved it. I was just talking about it to a pal who used to own one as well. We both have Nautiques now. Time has definitely improved hull design. The PS is unparalleled for long line, but the Nautique will make better skiers much happier.

[MNshortliner]

I am so glad to see you posting this. This must mean: Back to skiing form and always looking for the next PRISTINE ride.

[Skoot1123]

For me - it would be the 196 all the way. I have a TSC 1 hull and it is phenomenal. The GT40 engine is awesome. Great hole shot and beyond belief handling. Solid solid boat too. Not to mention - a sharp looking boat too!

 

[6balls]

Nautique for tracking, sight lines, ergonomics, built like a brick, no short line spray, great power with the gt40, bubble butt n tapered platform keep the rope from hanging up.

No disrespect to a 94 MC also one of the classic bargain hulls.

Dude buy them both if they are nice! You know you want to!

[cruznski]

The SN196 hands down, the fact you found one I would say grab it. I like @6balls advice though. It's kind of like classic cars at this point- they do not go down in value.

[Blender]

A couple other comments. I have owned both 92' PS and 03' 196. Father in law still has the 92' PS which I use on open water. I ski into 35 off @ 34mph for reference. If your skiing a course, I prefer my 196 SN. I like it mostly for reduced spray and tracking. For barefooting, PS is superior. Super easy to stand up directly behind, less turbulence. Crossing the wake is easier as well. I also prefer the PS for foil boarding, inland surfing, SUP surfing, and wakeboarding. Old man's opinion. Not doing any inverts :).

[escmanaze]

It would be hard for me to pay the same for a boat that is 5 years older. On that alone, I would probably veer toward the 196.

 

The 196 would be a little better for better skiers and the PS would be a little better for less advanced skiers, but even those differences seem pretty minimal. To me the blue book value should be a good $2k or so less for the 5 year older PS, and that means something.

[BraceMaker]

@escmanaze the 91+ prostar IMO really punches above its weight in terms of feeling "modern" And the 94 particularly with the LT-1 is really quite a new looking/feeling boat.

 

At least as I see it a 94 MC doesn't look like a 30 year old boat so condition condition condition. Is a 99 GT40 still the carbureted high output 351W Ford? I know they had some different options including EFI, their own EI options etc.

[dvskier]

@BraceMaker The 99 SN w GT-40 is a fuel injected engine 310 hp, 375 ft lbs torque. It will rip your arms off out of the hole. Great engine and bullet proof. I had a 97 for 7 years.

[6balls]

I looked the Nautique is carb--I'd personally shy from that.

[swc5150]

Getting into nostalgia boat territory here. ‘94 Prostar changed the world with standard EFI. ‘97 SN brought about a breakthrough hull. You can’t go wrong either way.

[usaski1]

200!! But if you can’t, 196 all the way. I love MC, I have a ‘16, but you gotta buy the wake, and the 196 is way better in that regard.

[BraceMaker]

@dvskier some of the 99 SN196 fords are fuelie but I think it was an option in nautique. 94 on ALL MC are fuel injected.

 

Maybe @bananaron can provide that detail.

[dvskier]

True but he said GT 40. All GT 40’s are fuel injected.

[BraceMaker]

@dvskier not sure on that A LOT were converted to carb when the ECM was NLA about 10 years ago.

 

But even in Nautiques engine manual for 99 there are 351 and 351 HO carb models - that'd be a GT40 carrby right?

[dvskier]

They had a 285 hp 351 I believe. However if it says PCM GT 40 it’s fuel injection.

[swc5150]

 

Can’t go wrong:)

[jhughes]

Nautique had the GT40 in 1995, widely regarded as the best MPI marine ski boat motor ever made. The earlier TBI efforts from Indmar/MC were nothing to write home about and didn't change any worlds. The LT1 was a great mill, won't argue that but I'd take a GT40 over that any day.

 

What did change things back then was the NWZ Nautique hull aka Slant Back aka Euro tail which was the first wide beam boat that addressed tracking, spray, and wake in 1990. You won't find a hull (in that era and price range) closer to most modern day characteristics than that hull all around. Not to mention reduction trans the year before as well as quiet single outlet exhaust. The TSC is an evolution of that hull. The NWZ is the most "underrated" hull of all time, literally the opposite of the overrated 91-94 MC.

[swc5150]

MC had companies scrambling to catch up if the EFI arena. I love both boats so I’m not picking sides, but a fact is a fact. The 94 PS is special as is the TSC. One just fits in my garage space much better:) I’d consider a straight up swap for a mint NWZ hull though, as I’ve never owned one and would like to someday.

[Killer]

The 94 MC is a dinosaur to the 97+ TSC1 and also inferior overall to the 90-96 nautique.

 

Great boat the 94 prostar but Joel has it nailed ?. It's sad the 95-02 prostar is so poorly meligned, however true. It's sad the 91-94 hull gets so much praise. The 95 prostar improved on a lot of features from the 94.