PDA

View Full Version : 87-90 vs 91-94 prostar?


Bookshelf
09-21-2009, 08:01 PM
Hi everyone, new to this forum and first post! I already searched and found the prostar thread that tells a lot of the differences, and I'm trying to decide whether to buy a 87-90 or spend the extra $ and get a 91-94. I'm a beginning wakeboarder and would like to learn how to slalom and barefoot(5'11, 210). I read about the chine spray and sharper slalom and flatter wakeboard wake on the 87-90 vs the newer ones, my question is, is the 91+ that big of an improvement? What about Chevy vs Ford motors in power and reliability? Powerslot or no? If I put GT40 heads and maybe an intake on a 1:1 351 would this give me near equivalent performance? Are these boats powerful enough to barefoot behind? I've seen 91+ from 7k+, and 87+ from 5.5k+. Thanks for any help!

88 PS190
09-21-2009, 08:21 PM
Can you test drive the boats?

JohnE
09-21-2009, 08:23 PM
The 91-94 is considered by many to have the best wake of any MC for slalom. I've never ski'd one. I had an 89 and had no complaints. I aslo ski'd TMCno1's a year ago and was reminded how nice the wake is.

Personally I'd look for a 91-94. Preferably a 94 since it will have fuel injection. I would not look for the cheapest. Look for one that has been well maintained. It'll cost you less in the long run.

DooSPX
09-21-2009, 08:36 PM
I agree with JohnE. the 91-94 are some of the best wakes ever. I LOVE my 91. I have skied many, bu's, CC's and 97+, but I would love to ski a new 190.
the 91-94 had some chin spray, but it will not affect the ski unless he is at 38 off or more.

Bookshelf
09-21-2009, 08:42 PM
Has anyone owned both years and could compare them directly? Any thoughts on barefooting behind these, how fast do they go, powerslot and non powerslot? Do the EFI LT1 or the regular Chevy EFI()TBI?) do any better with fuel mileage than carb'd 350's or 351's? I have no problem with carbs, and could do a vortec/GT40 head swap if need be to improve economy/performance.

JohnE
09-21-2009, 08:52 PM
They are fine for barefooting. I don't foot but I've heard plenty of people on this site talk about footing behind these boats.

Go powerslot if you have the choice.

Are you looking at any specific boat right now?

I'd look long and hard at finding a nice clean 91-94 with a slot.

Bookshelf
09-21-2009, 08:56 PM
Can you test drive the boats?
I haven't narrowed it down to a few boats, and might wait and buy in the spring, too. With this economy things might be cheaper and I won't have to store it. I've pretty much narrowed it down to these years, I don't want to spend more $ to go newer. If I find a PS205 cheap enough, that would be my first choice... I've owned an 80's Supra w/ a 454, and have driven a 310 hp Malibu. Long ago I drove a tristar w/ a 351, and certainly liked the power of my Supra and my friends Malibu more, thats what has me concerned w/ 240 hp.

JohnE
09-21-2009, 08:59 PM
What is a realistic budget number? Those numbers in your OP aren't going to get you one in nice condition. I would start looking now and be ready to jump on the right deal. I don't think you'll get a better buy in the spring vs. now. If anything fall is a better time to buy.

BTW, welcome to the forum.

Bookshelf
09-21-2009, 09:06 PM
They are fine for barefooting. I don't foot but I've heard plenty of people on this site talk about footing behind these boats.

Go powerslot if you have the choice.

Are you looking at any specific boat right now?

I'd look long and hard at finding a nice clean 91-94 with a slot.

Is the powerslot necessary with more power though, and is fuel consumption going to go through the roof? My friend's 310 HP(350 Carb) 01 Malibu got up and went fast, faster than my 454 Supra, and I think it had a standard drive because it went about 55, at 5500 rpm.

I did find a 91 w/ a 351 and powerslot for $7800, interior has a couple of rips but hull is clean. About 800 hours, asking $7800... About a month ago on Ebay, a 94 with a bad interior and an engine that would turn over but not fire went for $3800, I'd really like to find a boat that needs mechanical work, but has a nice hull and interior. I have no problem rebuilding/repairing engine/trans if the price is right. The boat is most likely going to be stored outdoors and is going to be used by my friends and I, so it doesn't need to be a cream puff.

h2oskifreak
09-21-2009, 09:16 PM
Fast isn't what most folks here want/need. Hole shot, wake, tracking seem more important. H.P. is nice, but when I used to foot I never went over 44 mph or so. How fast do you go? Mention of 55 mph makes my feet burn.

Bookshelf
09-21-2009, 09:28 PM
Fast isn't what most folks here want/need. Hole shot, wake, tracking seem more important. H.P. is nice, but when I used to foot I never went over 44 mph or so. How fast do you go? Mention of 55 mph makes my feet burn.

The only reason I'm talking about HP is that my old 454 Supra and my friend's 310 hp Malibu got up to speed a lot faster than my other friend's old 351 Tristar, the 55 mph was just for referencing the fact it probably had a 1:1 drive. A few boats I've called on the owners say they top out in the low 40's, just wanted to make sure what they were saying sounded accurate and that was sufficient for footing.

Ben
09-21-2009, 09:42 PM
I'd look 91-94 for many reasons mentioned, and you've read about. Std HP is higher too. If carbs are easy for you - I'd look 91-93, as I would guess 94's are going to run higher due to being newer + FI. 92-93 205 should do. I think std engine was 275 or 285 HP, and if you bolt on GT40 heads, you get a bit more. I've pulled a footer behind my 205 that was happy with the wake. His boat is a '04 CC196, so he has a decent baseline boat...

IMO the only negative to the 205 is the small observer seat, but there are many pluses - open bow, bigger wake for wakeboarding, etc. I've never skied a 91-94 190, although there are 3 on my lake... Need to do that sometime for comparisonl, I figure it's a little better than mine.

Miss Rita
09-21-2009, 09:56 PM
Fuel consumption has been mentioned a few times. Face it, anything you buy will be a gas hog. The truth is, fuel cost will probably be one of the smaller expenses you'll face, and won't be substantially different from one DD to the next.

Bookshelf
09-21-2009, 10:12 PM
I'd look 91-94 for many reasons mentioned, and you've read about. Std HP is higher too. If carbs are easy for you - I'd look 91-93, as I would guess 94's are going to run higher due to being newer + FI. 92-93 205 should do. I think std engine was 275 or 285 HP, and if you bolt on GT40 heads, you get a bit more.

Does anyone know if the GT40 heads are already on the 285 hp motor? What are the differences between the 240 and 285? Also, were carb 350 Chevys standard or an option in 93? I found one for sale and the guy says its a 350 carb, of course I haven't seen a pic of the engine yet. Is the 94 350 EFI engine an MPI or a TBI setup, and does it have Vortec heads on it? Thanks for all the replies guys, this is a great site.

DooSPX
09-21-2009, 10:26 PM
the difference between the 240/250 and the HO 285 Fords were the GT40 heads and a picky pain in the butt carb on the HO's. most change the carb to the 4160 (240 carb) on the HO's anyway.

and trust me when I say that my 240 hp 91 PS190 w/ the slot tranny gets out of the who and to 36mph VERY quickly.

some have said that the 240 with the slot is as quick out of the whole as a 1:1 HO is.

my 91 has pulled a 12 person pyramid in the past.

Bookshelf
09-21-2009, 10:33 PM
The more I read and search, the more I want a powerslot. Probably a lot easier to hold a steady speed also. If anyone knows of any 91+ prostar 190 or 205's for sale that need engine/other work, or are just a great deal please pm me. I'm in IL but can travel for the right boat.

mayo93prostar
09-21-2009, 10:59 PM
I have owned an 82, 87, and now a 93 "prostar". Each one has a powerslot. One friend has an 89 and another has a 2008 TT197 that I ski behind. obviously the 08 TT is the nicest and it really gets up quick but the wake of the 93 is compareable. the wake was pretty good on the 87 but the 93 is better. not big difference but there is an appreciable difference in the style of the boats that may play a factor too. look in the marketplace here and keep an eye on the thread here for finds in craigslist and ebay. there was a 93 listed the other day but it may be more money than you want to spend. these boats do not go much more than 42-44 mph so you can foot on it but it is at wide open throttle (WOT). I recall one that was local but needed a lot of repair work. If I find it again, I will post. edit-it sold on ebay for 3650 but needed a lot of work and did not run.

TayMC197
09-22-2009, 09:20 AM
I have a 92 190 with a 285 horse 351, powerslot. I have pulled up 3 slalom skiers at one time with no problem. I personally foot behind it no problem and when I strap on my wakeboard I still pull off flips and have a perfectly smooth wake. Thats with no added ballast tanks. The things you are asking about aren't very relavent. These are not fast boats but they are plenty fast for what they are DESIGNED for. My boat pops out of the hole clean and fast. If you get a stock boat, I'm pretty sure you won't notice any difference with upgrading the motor, also you won't be disappointed. If you are close to me, I personally would take you out and show you.
To answer your year difference question, my neighbor on the lake has a 88 190. Awesome boat as well. I don't notice any difference sking behind his boat at my level. If you new to all this then you won't notice ether I'm sure. Looks are just the major differences.
Also I'll take $15,000 for mine!