used mastercraft - what too look for

Post by mncmckee
Recently in the market for a used mastercraft (MC) prostar 190 but have
been unable to find any info about the "used" variety.
1) I know MCs were originally made with wooden stringers (as were most
boats) but I am not sure what the cut off was for fiberglass stringers.
Anybody know what model introduced the all-fiberglass construction? Better
yet does anybody have a preference. I understand the wooden stringers give a
smoother ride, but I am more interested in longevity and a quality ski run
than the fell of the ride to my favorite ski hole.
2)A buddy of mine bought a used '87 which has a sweet wake at 30mph. Another
friend of mine has a '94 which is a sweet ride but you can't get the same
caliber wake without hitting 36mph. When did MC change the hull such that
the best wake is only obtainable at 36mph?
I know the ultimate slalom speed is 36 which is what I should be aiming for,
but I'm not there yet. Besides...that's what friends are for.
3) A major selling point for the older models seems to be the "power slot"
transmission. Any comments or criticisms with regard to this feature? Is it
a must have? Do the newer boats feature the same transmission?
4) Concerning engines - most of the late 80s boats are equipped with Ford
engines. The next engine was the Corvette followed by today's Indmar
variety. Anybody have any comments/ criticism of the older engines...things
to look/ask for etc...
I have been skiing/boating for about 10 years or so and feel like I know the
basic things to look for with regard to purchasing a used boat. I could
probably tell if a boat was cared for properly or not. I am just interested
in picking up some info related specifically to used MCs
Any info or links to a good site would be appreciated.
Thanks,
mnc

I think they switched to fiberglass in 90 or so but can't be sure.
Arguably the best boat they ever made was the 93. Then they were not
so great for about 4 years. The powerslot will give you better speed
holding and more horsepower available at a given speed. This is at
the expense of top speed and fuel economy. On that subject, you
should really hold out for fuel injection. They use significantly
less gas. There was some scuttlebutt here in the mid 90's about the
corvette engine having problems with reverse cooling and aluminum
heads. The concern was that the heads would heat and cool at a
different rate than the block causing head gasket problems, but I
don't think reality was near as bad as the speculation. Bottom line,
get the newest boat with the most horsepower you can afford, but avoid
those 94-97 mastercrafts.

By the way, why are you limitiing yourself to only one mfr?

flya750

2004-06-10 05:15:24 UTC

The 94-97 MC 190 are not that bad. They are a nice looking boat. They do
have a slight bump at 22' off but at speed it's not bad?

I have 1997 MC PS 190 w/LT1.(4 Blade) she is a beautiful boat and the motor
has been trouble free. Like I said there is a small bump at 22'off, but the
boat drives and tracks very well. I'm into 28' off now so I don't care.

What rope length are you skiing?

The MC's to stay away from are 98-2000. I skied behind a 1998 tonight, for
a second time, without the screwed on sponsons. (A modification for the
1998-2000 year.) The wake was absolutely horrible! I will never ski behind
that boat again. I actually sprained my ankle skiing this 1998 boat for the
first this year and now my skiing season is pretty much over. It has been
45 days since I skied the 1998 and sprained my ankle. The sprain is so bad
that I cannot perform near to potential. (So yeah I'm a bit bitter!) I
mentioned to the owners that they have to get the sponsons glued and screwed
on. I can't believe Mastercraft could even release such a boat. Obviously
NO ONE ever skied behind the boat before selling it to the public. The
dealer wants to charge them around $400 for the modification. THIS SHOULD
BE A FREE MODIFICATION! It was free in 1998... Oh by the way, you paid
$32,000 for your 1998 MC PS 190, but can you please bring the boat back to
the dealer for a hull modification. OOPS!

Okay, I'm done venting. Thanks.

flya750

engines...things

Post by mncmckee
to look/ask for etc...
I have been skiing/boating for about 10 years or so and feel like I know the
basic things to look for with regard to purchasing a used boat. I could
probably tell if a boat was cared for properly or not. I am just interested
in picking up some info related specifically to used MCs
Any info or links to a good site would be appreciated.
Thanks,
mnc

I think they switched to fiberglass in 90 or so but can't be sure.
Arguably the best boat they ever made was the 93. Then they were not
so great for about 4 years. The powerslot will give you better speed
holding and more horsepower available at a given speed. This is at
the expense of top speed and fuel economy. On that subject, you
should really hold out for fuel injection. They use significantly
less gas. There was some scuttlebutt here in the mid 90's about the
corvette engine having problems with reverse cooling and aluminum
heads. The concern was that the heads would heat and cool at a
different rate than the block causing head gasket problems, but I
don't think reality was near as bad as the speculation. Bottom line,
get the newest boat with the most horsepower you can afford, but avoid
those 94-97 mastercrafts.
By the way, why are you limitiing yourself to only one mfr?

2004-06-10 12:56:25 UTC

Post by flya750
The 94-97 MC 190 are not that bad. They are a nice looking boat. They do
have a slight bump at 22' off but at speed it's not bad?
The MC's to stay away from are 98-2000...
flya750

I second. The 95 - 97's are actually darn good ski boats. Not quite
as good a wake as the 93 - 94's but still very skiable, plus they
track much better than the older versions (seems to be the tradoff
here).

Definitely stay away from the 98 - 2000 or even '01's, horrible boats.

Tripper

2004-06-10 14:42:01 UTC

Actually the 94 hull is the same as the 91, 92, and 93. They changed
it for the 95 model year. The interior and trailer was updated for the
92 year and the multiport efi lt1 engine was added in 94 but the 91-94
hull is the same. I think you could get the 93 model with throttle
body fuel injection, but not multiport. I have the 94 lt1 now and it's
a great slalom and trick boat even without the powerslot. I had a 86
before that with powerslot and on the 82-86 models I would look for
that instead of the standard. We do fine without it on the 94, but I
would have still gotten it if I could have found one. My 86 did not
have wood stringers, I think they changed to fiberglass in 83. If I
remember correctly the 87 was the first year of the prostar 190 and
had the same hull from 87-90. One thing that I did to my 86 that made
a world of difference was replacing the coil/cap/rotor/plug wires and
put in an electronic/magnetic replacement for the point. I also added
a 4 blade prop that improved it even more.

MT

Post by flya750
The 94-97 MC 190 are not that bad. They are a nice looking boat. They do
have a slight bump at 22' off but at speed it's not bad?
I have 1997 MC PS 190 w/LT1.(4 Blade) she is a beautiful boat and the motor
has been trouble free. Like I said there is a small bump at 22'off, but the
boat drives and tracks very well. I'm into 28' off now so I don't care.
What rope length are you skiing?
The MC's to stay away from are 98-2000. I skied behind a 1998 tonight, for
a second time, without the screwed on sponsons. (A modification for the
1998-2000 year.) The wake was absolutely horrible! I will never ski behind
that boat again. I actually sprained my ankle skiing this 1998 boat for the
first this year and now my skiing season is pretty much over. It has been
45 days since I skied the 1998 and sprained my ankle. The sprain is so bad
that I cannot perform near to potential. (So yeah I'm a bit bitter!) I
mentioned to the owners that they have to get the sponsons glued and screwed
on. I can't believe Mastercraft could even release such a boat. Obviously
NO ONE ever skied behind the boat before selling it to the public. The
dealer wants to charge them around $400 for the modification. THIS SHOULD
BE A FREE MODIFICATION! It was free in 1998... Oh by the way, you paid
$32,000 for your 1998 MC PS 190, but can you please bring the boat back to
the dealer for a hull modification. OOPS!
Okay, I'm done venting. Thanks.
flya750

Better

Post by mncmckee
yet does anybody have a preference. I understand the wooden stringers

give a

Post by mncmckee
smoother ride, but I am more interested in longevity and a quality ski

run

Post by mncmckee
than the fell of the ride to my favorite ski hole.
2)A buddy of mine bought a used '87 which has a sweet wake at 30mph.

Another

Post by mncmckee
friend of mine has a '94 which is a sweet ride but you can't get the same
caliber wake without hitting 36mph. When did MC change the hull such that
the best wake is only obtainable at 36mph?
I know the ultimate slalom speed is 36 which is what I should be aiming

for,

Post by mncmckee
but I'm not there yet. Besides...that's what friends are for.
3) A major selling point for the older models seems to be the "power

slot"

Post by mncmckee
transmission. Any comments or criticisms with regard to this feature? Is

Post by mncmckee
a must have? Do the newer boats feature the same transmission?
4) Concerning engines - most of the late 80s boats are equipped with Ford
engines. The next engine was the Corvette followed by today's Indmar
variety. Anybody have any comments/ criticism of the older

engines...things

Post by mncmckee
to look/ask for etc...
I have been skiing/boating for about 10 years or so and feel like I know

the

Post by mncmckee
basic things to look for with regard to purchasing a used boat. I could
probably tell if a boat was cared for properly or not. I am just

interested

Post by mncmckee
in picking up some info related specifically to used MCs
Any info or links to a good site would be appreciated.
Thanks,
mnc

I think they switched to fiberglass in 90 or so but can't be sure.
Arguably the best boat they ever made was the 93. Then they were not
so great for about 4 years. The powerslot will give you better speed
holding and more horsepower available at a given speed. This is at
the expense of top speed and fuel economy. On that subject, you
should really hold out for fuel injection. They use significantly
less gas. There was some scuttlebutt here in the mid 90's about the
corvette engine having problems with reverse cooling and aluminum
heads. The concern was that the heads would heat and cool at a
different rate than the block causing head gasket problems, but I
don't think reality was near as bad as the speculation. Bottom line,
get the newest boat with the most horsepower you can afford, but avoid
those 94-97 mastercrafts.
By the way, why are you limitiing yourself to only one mfr?

Bill

2004-06-10 15:27:03 UTC

I think they used more GM motors than just the 'Vette model from about
'93 on. I have a '94 with the 350 Chevy, cast heads, EFI, either 275
or 265 horse.
Has a BIG bump at 28 if you weight it right..... ;)

My brother had an '88 a few years ago. May have had a good ski wake
but it the ride was so bad, it was hard to get people to go with us. I
think a bare piece of plywood would ride better.

Check the forums on the MC site.
-
Bill

PS: I think they did test that '98 too....... if the stories we all
heard are true!

mncmckee

2004-06-11 00:24:54 UTC

Thanks for the info....

I am embarrassed to say the length of rope I am currently using. Hence the
reason I am after my own ride. Been mooching off of friends for too long and
need to be able to hit the course for some reps on my own schedule.

I am looking at MC mainly because that's what I am used to. I have a cousin
who swears by Nautiques but I hate the lines of the Nautique and there is a
bit of Rooster Tail behind the boat that is distracting at lower speeds. No
real reason for liking MCs other than I know what I am getting into and the
lines of the boat are unequalled in my opinion.

With regard to stringer construction.... that's good to hear. I was worried
I would have to get a 90's model to have the security of all F/G
construction. I am going to opt for all F/G just because I am buying "used"
and it gives me a bit of added security.

Based on all the info, and the fact that the 87 hull is the one I have grown
partial too (not to mention the prices on the current market since I was
hoping to stay in the 10-12K range) I'll probably be looking for an 87-90
model. So...If you guys were in the market for a used MC of that era.. what
are the top 3 things you would be looking for if you bought one used?

Later,
mnc

engines...things

Mark Kovalcson

2004-06-11 01:15:03 UTC

I spent a lot of time skiing behind a 1987 with powerslot that a friend of
mine had. He got it for 10K about 5-6 years ago. He since got the much much
nicer 1992 for about 12K a couple years ago. The 1987 has a windshield that
is useless (way too low). The stereo is sitting right in the middle of the
dash where it gets wet. The set backs will rot, and the rear center section
of the floor will need replacing.

The 1987 has a really bad 22 off wake. In fact that was the main reason my
ski buddy sold that boat. It's spray is really bad too.

10-12 K is way too much for a 1987-1990. My ski buddy sold his for $7500
two years ago.

I personally like Ski Nautiques, but in that price range I would steer you
towards a 1991 - 1992 Prostar. The 1992 has a much nicer trailer and more
modern deck, plus it tracks better and has a much better 22 off wake. The
1991 and 1992 share the same hull with the 1993 and 1994.

Good luck with your boat selection and be careful that you don't just become
fixated on what you are familiar with instead of what would be a better boat
long term.

Post by mncmckee
Thanks for the info....
I am embarrassed to say the length of rope I am currently using. Hence the
reason I am after my own ride. Been mooching off of friends for too long and
need to be able to hit the course for some reps on my own schedule.
I am looking at MC mainly because that's what I am used to. I have a cousin
who swears by Nautiques but I hate the lines of the Nautique and there is a
bit of Rooster Tail behind the boat that is distracting at lower speeds. No
real reason for liking MCs other than I know what I am getting into and the
lines of the boat are unequalled in my opinion.
With regard to stringer construction.... that's good to hear. I was worried
I would have to get a 90's model to have the security of all F/G
construction. I am going to opt for all F/G just because I am buying "used"
and it gives me a bit of added security.
Based on all the info, and the fact that the 87 hull is the one I have grown
partial too (not to mention the prices on the current market since I was
hoping to stay in the 10-12K range) I'll probably be looking for an 87-90
model. So...If you guys were in the market for a used MC of that era.. what
are the top 3 things you would be looking for if you bought one used?
Later,
mnc

give

Post by mncmckee
a

Post by mncmckee
smoother ride, but I am more interested in longevity and a quality ski run
than the fell of the ride to my favorite ski hole.
2)A buddy of mine bought a used '87 which has a sweet wake at 30mph.

Another

for,

Post by mncmckee
but I'm not there yet. Besides...that's what friends are for.
3) A major selling point for the older models seems to be the "power slot"
transmission. Any comments or criticisms with regard to this feature? Is

engines...things

Post by mncmckee
to look/ask for etc...
I have been skiing/boating for about 10 years or so and feel like I know

the

Post by mncmckee
basic things to look for with regard to purchasing a used boat. I could
probably tell if a boat was cared for properly or not. I am just

interested

Post by mncmckee
in picking up some info related specifically to used MCs
Any info or links to a good site would be appreciated.
Thanks,
mnc

flya750

2004-06-11 02:07:33 UTC

I second mark on this one!

d

Post by Mark Kovalcson
I spent a lot of time skiing behind a 1987 with powerslot that a friend of
mine had. He got it for 10K about 5-6 years ago. He since got the much much
nicer 1992 for about 12K a couple years ago. The 1987 has a windshield that
is useless (way too low). The stereo is sitting right in the middle of the
dash where it gets wet. The set backs will rot, and the rear center section
of the floor will need replacing.
The 1987 has a really bad 22 off wake. In fact that was the main reason my
ski buddy sold that boat. It's spray is really bad too.
10-12 K is way too much for a 1987-1990. My ski buddy sold his for $7500
two years ago.
I personally like Ski Nautiques, but in that price range I would steer you
towards a 1991 - 1992 Prostar. The 1992 has a much nicer trailer and more
modern deck, plus it tracks better and has a much better 22 off wake. The
1991 and 1992 share the same hull with the 1993 and 1994.
Good luck with your boat selection and be careful that you don't just become
fixated on what you are familiar with instead of what would be a better boat
long term.

Post by mncmckee
Thanks for the info....
I am embarrassed to say the length of rope I am currently using. Hence the
reason I am after my own ride. Been mooching off of friends for too long

and

Post by mncmckee
need to be able to hit the course for some reps on my own schedule.
I am looking at MC mainly because that's what I am used to. I have a

cousin

Post by mncmckee
who swears by Nautiques but I hate the lines of the Nautique and there

Post by Mark Kovalcson
a

Post by mncmckee
bit of Rooster Tail behind the boat that is distracting at lower

speeds.

Post by Mark Kovalcson
No

Post by mncmckee
real reason for liking MCs other than I know what I am getting into and

the

Post by mncmckee
lines of the boat are unequalled in my opinion.
With regard to stringer construction.... that's good to hear. I was

worried

Post by mncmckee
I would have to get a 90's model to have the security of all F/G
construction. I am going to opt for all F/G just because I am buying

"used"

Post by mncmckee
and it gives me a bit of added security.
Based on all the info, and the fact that the 87 hull is the one I have

grown

Post by mncmckee
partial too (not to mention the prices on the current market since I was
hoping to stay in the 10-12K range) I'll probably be looking for an 87-90
model. So...If you guys were in the market for a used MC of that era..

what

Post by mncmckee
are the top 3 things you would be looking for if you bought one used?
Later,
mnc

Better

Post by mncmckee
yet does anybody have a preference. I understand the wooden stringers

give

Post by mncmckee
a

Post by mncmckee
smoother ride, but I am more interested in longevity and a quality ski

run

Post by mncmckee
than the fell of the ride to my favorite ski hole.
2)A buddy of mine bought a used '87 which has a sweet wake at 30mph.

Another

Post by mncmckee
friend of mine has a '94 which is a sweet ride but you can't get the

same

Post by mncmckee
caliber wake without hitting 36mph. When did MC change the hull such

that

Post by mncmckee
the best wake is only obtainable at 36mph?
I know the ultimate slalom speed is 36 which is what I should be aiming

for,

Post by mncmckee
but I'm not there yet. Besides...that's what friends are for.
3) A major selling point for the older models seems to be the "power

slot"

Post by mncmckee
transmission. Any comments or criticisms with regard to this feature? Is

Post by mncmckee
a must have? Do the newer boats feature the same transmission?
4) Concerning engines - most of the late 80s boats are equipped with

Ford

Post by mncmckee
engines. The next engine was the Corvette followed by today's Indmar
variety. Anybody have any comments/ criticism of the older

engines...things

Post by mncmckee
to look/ask for etc...
I have been skiing/boating for about 10 years or so and feel like I know

the

Post by mncmckee
basic things to look for with regard to purchasing a used boat. I could
probably tell if a boat was cared for properly or not. I am just

interested

Post by mncmckee
in picking up some info related specifically to used MCs
Any info or links to a good site would be appreciated.
Thanks,
mnc

Jim Thompson

2004-06-14 18:21:06 UTC

<snip>

Post by Mark Kovalcson
I personally like Ski Nautiques, but in that price range I would steer you
towards a 1991 - 1992 Prostar. The 1992 has a much nicer trailer and more
modern deck, plus it tracks better and has a much better 22 off wake. The
1991 and 1992 share the same hull with the 1993 and 1994.
Good luck with your boat selection and be careful that you don't just become
fixated on what you are familiar with instead of what would be a better boat
long term.

I'll agree with you Mark, I've skied or driven every year MC since 1978.
87 was a very poor driving boat.

In an MC move up to 92, 93, 94. Drives better, skis better. Until you
get to 35off or better, even the newest boats really don't drive or ski
better for slalom.

Mark Kovalcson

2004-06-14 23:57:16 UTC

Post by Jim Thompson
<snip>
I'll agree with you Mark, I've skied or driven every year MC since 1978.
87 was a very poor driving boat.
In an MC move up to 92, 93, 94. Drives better, skis better. Until you
get to 35off or better, even the newest boats really don't drive or ski
better for slalom.

I've had drivers used to driving those year model ProStars make comments
about how much easier it was to drive a straight line behind my boat with
skiers below 35 off. Of course that is offset by the comments about how much
harder it is to maneuver at low speeds. Trade offs, you gotta love em :)

As much as I love my 2001 SN for many reasons, I still enjoy driving my ski
buddies' 1992 and 1994 ProStar 190's. They are much easier to control at low
speeds and I can say that with three years experience with my boat. Having
the boat pull away from the skier in reverse may be safer for the masses,
but it is harder to do accurately. You still need to gauge momentum with the
boat spinning towards the skier and then apply just the right amount of
throttle to stop that spin and leave the platform right in front of the
skier.

Jim Thompson

2004-06-16 14:00:55 UTC

<snip>

Post by Mark Kovalcson
As much as I love my 2001 SN for many reasons, I still enjoy driving my ski
buddies' 1992 and 1994 ProStar 190's. They are much easier to control at low
speeds and I can say that with three years experience with my boat. Having
the boat pull away from the skier in reverse may be safer for the masses,
but it is harder to do accurately. You still need to gauge momentum with the
boat spinning towards the skier and then apply just the right amount of
throttle to stop that spin and leave the platform right in front of the
skier.

Granted SN does track a bit better, but I really find the differences
fairly subtle.

BrianS

2004-06-16 15:38:53 UTC

I have a 93 and love it. I've skied extensively behind a 88 and 89 as
well. I have to say that the wake of the 93 (91-94 hull) is much
better. My only thought to why you are happier behind the 87 is
because of the rooster tail. I know that on my boat the rooster tail
is at 75' because that is where my Dad skis. By moving to 15off, you
aren't really making it any more difficult (especially free skiing),
but get the rooster tail out of the picture. I honestly don't know
where the rooster tail falls on the 87 as I've always skied at 15 off,
but I suspect it is in a different location that the 91-94.

Besides the rooster tail, I think everyone would agree that the size
and firmness (or lack thereof) is much better on the 91-94 hull than
the 88-90 hull. You will also find that the 93-94 resale value is
probably the best of the bunch because it is so highly sought after.
So you would do well to find a good boat in those years because it
won't loose value as fast as the other years. We bought our 93 PS 190
about 5 years ago and would bet that I could get almost as much today
as what we paid for it. Now I've added Accuski Speed Control, bimini
top, etc that add to the resale value (to make up for depreciation),
but that still isn't bad for 5 years worth of use.

JJG

2004-06-16 16:49:18 UTC