View Full Version : Comparison: RTP vs MCX
redrobster78
05-02-2009, 12:17 AM
So I've pretty much have my mind set on an x-2 but I can't decide on an engine? I'm finding alot of great deals on the 310 RTP engine but I'm alittle bit hesitant with going with the smaller engine. Is there a larger difference between the two or will I hardly notice the difference?
Thanks yet again, just a newbie trying to figure everything out! ;)
tr6coug
05-02-2009, 12:57 AM
What year X2? I've driven the '03 X2 with both RTP & MCX. RTP pulls great, no complaints. MCX has slightly more hole shot. I have the MCX in my '07 X2, don't think I would want less HP in that one.
redrobster78
05-02-2009, 01:02 AM
well we were looking at between a 2006-2007
03 35th Anniversary
05-02-2009, 04:25 AM
MCX
RTP kills the resale....
bturner2
05-02-2009, 07:29 AM
I have the RTP in my 07 200VRS (X2) and I certainly wouldn't call it under powered. I'm actually quite happy with the performance. Haven't driven one with the MCX but I'd have to say that had I the choice (I bought mine used) I would have preferred the MCX. If nothing else for the bling factor.
3event
05-02-2009, 08:05 AM
You will find more info in other threads on this if you have time to do some searching. Low end hole shot is not always the advantage quoted to MCX. Some say top end. But there are many opinions. I've got a RTP-Predator in my 197 that gives me lots of low end and 47mph top end, but the disclaimer is that it's only a 197 and the most ballast we run is the factory rear bag. See below from another thread......
here is the same subject in my thread when i was chosing between the two. ended up with the rtp.
http://www.mastercraft.com/teamtalk/showthread.php?t=17737
i am running factory ballast along with the fly high ballast bags in the back and 400 lbs of pop products up front and have had no problems getting on plane.
i think one big factor is having the upgraded prop!
will say the mcx is so pretty:D
bigmac
05-02-2009, 08:25 AM
MCX is great engine. I'm sure RTP is a good second choice, but around here where they compete with the Malibu and Skier's Choice boats, my dealer says they can't sell or re-sell RTP's.
I don't know what it is now, but when I bought my boat the MCX was a $1700 upgrade. IMHO, as a percentage of the cost of the boat, that's a trivial expense and WAY more than worth it.
Jim@BAWS
05-02-2009, 09:04 AM
The RTP does just fine. Huge amounts of ballast the MCX is better. The RTP is the same basic motor w/o the upgraded Aluminum Exhaust Manifolds and some other features. You are going from 310 HP to 350 HP on the MCX. Sometimes the less expensive motor does great like in an X-1. Do under estimate the RTP is does great in the proper application.
With that said I would not power an X-45 w/ it or even and MCX...
Jim@BAWS
mccobmd
05-02-2009, 09:36 AM
I would have to agree with BAWS, I have the RTP in my X1, looked at both engines. If you're planning on holding onto the boat for a long time and not hauling pro levels of ballast the RTP will do great. I think from a performance standpoint you'd be had pressed to tell a lot of difference if both engines were similarly propped. Would also agree that if you're not as sure as anyone can be it's a long term boat the go with the MCX to aid in trade/resale.
bigmac
05-02-2009, 09:47 AM
"RTP is as good as the MCX...BUT....."
RTP is a compromise. Whether or not it's a GOOD compromise depends entirely on what you use the boat for and your budget. Certainly an X2 with an RTP is better than no X2 at all. If the cost for the MCX upgrade is a deal-breaker...get the RTP. If you can spend the money without hardship, get the MCX.
FamilyX2
05-02-2009, 10:07 AM
:)I ordered my '08 X2 with the RTP.
At the time, i think the MCX was nearly a $3,000 upgrade (Canada). Keep in mind that these two engines are the same "size" (350 cu.in. displacement), with the MCX offering 40 more Hp (top end) and i think 20 ft. lbs. torque (holeshot).
I think the RTP is more than adequate for most applications. (i'm happy with mine)
If you are running a lot of ballast, extra passengers, or need top end (barefooting) more power is always nice to have.
93Prostar190
05-03-2009, 10:23 PM
I have a 2008 214 ..... I bought the MCX .... both engines are great but the old adage with boats is to buy more power if you can .....
I lean towards the MCX .... good luck.
redrobster78
05-04-2009, 05:46 PM
So if I plan on using standard ballast and not much more the RTP will be fine for me?
I'm just second guessing myself cause I think I've found a good deal on a new 2007 x-2 with an RTP and just want to make sure I'm not going to want a bigger engine come next year or so.
ORX-1
05-04-2009, 06:33 PM
I had an RTP in my X-1 and it was great, never under powered and I loaded that thing with Ballast! But in my new X2 I went with the MCX and although I have only spent 30 min behind the wheel it was pretty impressive. Sounds great and just feels powerful.
the question is do you need it.... prob not, but it is pretty sweet to know you have it.
JohnE
05-04-2009, 09:31 PM
I don't know how you can argue that the mcx isn't better. And as Bigmac said, the cost upgrade is not a big percentage. I'd opt for the bigger engine before any other options.
I was in an X2 for much of the past 5 days and the owner and were having the same conversation. He said no way he'd buy one with the rtp in it.
Especially if you ever plan to slalom behind it. You will want the mcx getting up.
kev88
05-04-2009, 09:39 PM
RTP in my X-2 - never problem pulling a skier out of the water easily - even loaded with people, gear, and cooler full of beer :D
bigmac
05-04-2009, 09:46 PM
I don't know how you can argue that the mcx isn't better. And as Bigmac said, the cost upgrade is not a big percentage. I'd opt for the bigger engine before any other options.
Good point. If I'm gonna spend $60,000 on a boat I don't want to get the engine that will be "fine" or "probably OK". Most of the other options can be added later as the budget allows. The engine...you're always stuck with the one that comes with the boat.
dumb question, but if it such a issue with having the rtp in the x2, then why does mc even offer it as the base engine?
like i said earlier, i think the mcx is a awesome looking engine, but i have put 130 + hrs on my rtp and have had no issues with getting on plane running approx 1600 lbs of ballast and pop bags along with 4 adults.:confused:
JohnE
05-04-2009, 09:49 PM
dumb question, but if it such a issue with having the rtp in the x2, then why does mc even offer it as the base engine?
like i said earlier, i think the mcx is a awesome looking engine, but i have put 130 + hrs on my rtp and have had no issues with getting on plane running approx 1600 lbs of ballast and pop bags along with 4 adults.:confused:
Not an issue. RTP works, MCX works better.
JohnE
05-04-2009, 09:50 PM
RTP in my X-2 - never problem pulling a skier out of the water easily - even loaded with people, gear, and cooler full of beer :D
I wouldn't want the rtp in my 214 and that gets out of the hole a lot faster than an x2.
kev88
05-04-2009, 10:12 PM
I wouldn't want the rtp in my 214 and that gets out of the hole a lot faster than an x2.
I probably wouldn't want an RTP in your 214 either - but like it just fine in my X-2 :D
Not an issue. RTP works, MCX works better.
john, i agree, but then again, why offer it if resale is so poor. why not just make the mcx the base and the ly6 the upgrade. then again " if it is just a okay hp" why would ANY dealer order a x2 with the rtp to sell of the dealer lot vs a custom built.
maybe i am defending my rtp, but then again i only had 1 to chose from after i sold my 05 supra with the 325 indmar. :( but with that said i am happy with what i have.
she looks good and runs good.
JohnE
05-04-2009, 10:36 PM
Dealers sell a lot of rtp's. It keeps the price lower and is fine. I never said anything about resale. All I say is mcx is better.
duckguy
05-04-2009, 10:42 PM
I have owned an 06 and 07 x2, the 06 with rtp and the 07 had an mcx. The mcx is not better, it is just percieved as such. It looks pretty and it isnt "the base". Even with additional ballast a prop change is all you would ever need. With that said if you are keeping it for awhile save the money and buy the rtp. If you are selling it sooner buy an mcx as re-sale will be higher.
Witness140
05-04-2009, 10:49 PM
I went with the MCX. I had MCX's in both my 197's, so I was familiar with the motor.
Not used to being in a boat geared around 1.5:1 vs 1.26:1. Over 5,000rpm at WOT, and only seeing 40mph, is kinda scary to a bouy head like me. 36mph with the X2 is loud and turning a lot of R's.
All that being said, I bet that the RTP wouldn't be much different. But - I wouldn't even consider an X2 with an RTP - and I know several others who share the same opinion. We are illustrations of why the RTP will not help re-sell your boat.
RTP is a bad choice if you hope to ever sell it in anything but an ideal market. And to the dealers here who think thats a myth - I skipped every one of your in-stock boats with the RTP when I was shopping.
JohnE
05-04-2009, 10:57 PM
I have owned an 06 and 07 x2, the 06 with rtp and the 07 had an mcx. The mcx is not better, it is just percieved as such. It looks pretty and it isnt "the base". Even with additional ballast a prop change is all you would ever need. With that said if you are keeping it for awhile save the money and buy the rtp. If you are selling it sooner buy an mcx as re-sale will be higher.
Did you do any serious slalom behind the x2's?
kev88
05-04-2009, 11:07 PM
Did you do any serious slalom behind the x2's?
The X-2 is not designed for "serious slalom" - that's why the MCX is not a must for the X-2. Pulls a wakeboarder (and skier) with ballast, gear, and passengers out of the water without issue or hesitation. Then there's surfing......
duckguy
05-04-2009, 11:39 PM
Kev is right, no I didnt. That is why the rtp is fine. mcx offers slightly more top end. It does not offer more out of the hole power.
scramison
05-04-2009, 11:51 PM
dumb question, but if it such a issue with having the rtp in the x2, then why does mc even offer it as the base engine?
like i said earlier, i think the mcx is a awesome looking engine, but i have put 130 + hrs on my rtp and have had no issues with getting on plane running approx 1600 lbs of ballast and pop bags along with 4 adults.:confused:
It makes perfect sense. Just equate it to Chevy's corvette C6 base model and the Z06. Does anyone need that power? Heck no. Why is it offered? Because there is a demand for more power and they are willing to offer it at a premium. Mastercraft would not put all the time into building a boat of top quality just to have it underpowered and inadequate, so of course the base engine is sufficient for the average boater. The question in your mind should be how much weight are you going to have in the boat at any time.
kgrove
05-05-2009, 12:56 AM
Keep in mind that although the RTP hurts resale, if you're buying used, it hurt the original owner not you so long as your purchase price is adjusted for RTP vs MCX. I don't think anyone would argue the MCX isn't a better engine than the RTP, but you have to balance your costs in the equation somehow. You can get help here figuring out the physics of how much extra performance the MCX would provide, but in the end you have the hard part of weighing the performance vs the cost.
JohnE
05-05-2009, 08:47 AM
The X-2 is not designed for "serious slalom" - that's why the MCX is not a must for the X-2. Pulls a wakeboarder (and skier) with ballast, gear, and passengers out of the water without issue or hesitation. Then there's surfing......
I realize it's not. But I'd want to have as much get up as possible.
Kev is right, no I didnt. That is why the rtp is fine. mcx offers slightly more top end. It does not offer more out of the hole power.
Ask any course skier if that is the case. You want and arguably need the mcx and slot to get set up quickly. Not too many running the rtp with the slot.
And hell, these are just my thoughts. I don't really care what anyone gets in their boat as long as they are happy.
JohnE
05-05-2009, 12:01 PM
Here's another take.........If there isn't much or any difference, why do they make the mcx? Just for the top end????? Or to put some extra cash in their pockets?:rolleyes:
mccobmd
05-05-2009, 01:02 PM
Hey, JohnE, I'm with you, I got the RTP because it does all I want in my X1 which I plan to keep until I give it to my son in 10 years and buy something new. You make the MCX because it has more power, more speed and without question looks cooler. If we are honest we all buy a little bit with our ego. I bought my 2006 X1 at a time when the dealer had just recieved 2 2007 X1's. One had MCX, the other RTP, my 2006 had RTP and the cost difference between the 2007 MCX and 2006 RTP was enough for me to sacrifice the engine. But deep down I wanted the MCX just because it looks cooler!!
proporjet
05-05-2009, 01:02 PM
It's popped up so many times I couldn't refuse to comment. I don't think there is a big difference in performance but it's hard to tell a ~15% difference without side by side testing. Lot's more experience in this thread. RTP wouldn't stop me from buying a boat but I would and did prefer the MCX. I do have an MCX but I got what I thought was a great deal. The one huge difference....open the rear engine cover. WOW 8-) what a difference.
duckguy
05-05-2009, 01:57 PM
Let's not discount the application here. I would not want a 197 without the mcx for the top end but my x2's lived at 10.5 and 22 mph.
bigmac
05-05-2009, 02:29 PM
Let's not discount the application here. I would not want a 197 without the mcx for the top end but my x2's lived at 10.5 and 22 mph.
My boat has many "applications". Wakeboard, slalom, hydrofoil, tubing, kite tube and just general cruising around. We all have our expectations for our boats, but I can't conceive of me owning a $60,000 boat that only does one thing really well. For the extra $1700, I got a boat that also would do great all day at 10.5 and 22 mph, but would sustain 50 mph all the way home.
JohnE
05-05-2009, 03:11 PM
Let's not discount the application here. I would not want a 197 without the mcx for the top end but my x2's lived at 10.5 and 22 mph.
I don't disagree with you on making it suit the application. But by all accounts of everything I've read, the rtp on even a 197 is noticably slower out of the hole. My MCX gets hammered getting me up.
This rtp/ mcx argument is parallel to the slot/ no slot argument on the 190/ 197. And the only reason not to get the slot is the money.
I said before, the rtp is fine. Not just adequate, but fine. I still think the mcx is better.
kev88
05-05-2009, 09:07 PM
Let's not discount the application here. I would not want a 197 without the mcx for the top end but my x2's lived at 10.5 and 22 mph.
Yep and Yep.....8.3 and 19.2....cruise home at about 26.7 ;)