PDA

View Full Version : Prostar 190 question


jbkriss
05-17-2011, 01:47 PM
I'm looking at a 1998 Prostar 190 but I don't have much knowledge of the prostar line. Is this hull used in other MC lines?

DooSPX
05-17-2011, 04:13 PM
that hull was used for a few years only in the Prostar 190. the Prostar hulls were not used in other models except for the X7, X9, X14 and the first Xstar's, which I believe were 209V hulls. the X7 was a PS197 with factory full tower and ballast, the X9 was a PS209 with factory full tower and ballast and the same for the X14 (PS214)

Someone else can correct me if I missed another hull crossover.

gotta_ski
05-17-2011, 04:38 PM
1998 was a new hull design from the 95-97 hull. It was used in 98, 99, and 2000. The 99 and 2000 had a different top deck from the 98. Mid year in 98 they added a fourth tracking fin, a winged rudder, and hydrorails. The hydrorails were bolt-in parts that filled in the notches in the hull below the transom (spray pockets?). As I understand it the hydrorails were to give the hull more wetted surface in the water and increase lift.

Many have said that the hull isn't that great of a design. They say that it doesn't handle well and that the ski wake leaves much to be desired. I disagree. I skied many boats, including each MC hull design from 1986 to the current 197. The 197 was the best IMHO, but the 98 was everything I need it to be. At 15 off the wake is barely there, and shorter than that there is nothing.

The one thing I do wish it had is the bigger rear trunk of the 99 and 2000 boats, or the newer 190's and 197's. the rear trunk in mine isn't full width. You only get two bins for ropes, gloves, etc. No chance of stashing your skis back there to keep them off the floor.

Here is a great resource for the different model years and what was offered when. I don't think you can go wrong picking a mastercraft from any year.

TxsRiverRat
05-17-2011, 05:00 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but I had been told by the owner of a 1998 S&S that the mods were due to the fact that the boat wasnt handling the right way. This guy had inserts on the hull near the transom and a cross fin - both mods that were made on the fly at a pro tour stop he told me.

Any truth to that?

I can tell ya, with the exception of 22 off, I'd put my 205s skiability against anything short of a closed bow Nautique.

DooSPX
05-17-2011, 05:03 PM
I know that my 91 PS190 wake feels a little softer than a 197's I skied once. Other than that, I thought the shape and height were the same.

captain planet
05-17-2011, 10:14 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but I had been told by the owner of a 1998 S&S that the mods were due to the fact that the boat wasnt handling the right way. This guy had inserts on the hull near the transom and a cross fin - both mods that were made on the fly at a pro tour stop he told me.

Any truth to that?

I can tell ya, with the exception of 22 off, I'd put my 205s skiability against anything short of a closed bow Nautique.

Partially correct. The winged rudder was a correction for a handling issue. Modified at a pro tour stop....not sure about that one. The hydro rails were added to raise the stern and change the wake characteristics. The rails were added from 1999 on through 2000 at the factory.

jbkriss, I have owned my 98 for basically it's whole life and it has been a great boat.

captain planet
05-17-2011, 10:16 PM
1998 was a new hull design from the 95-97 hull. It was used in 98, 99, and 2000. The 99 and 2000 had a different top deck from the 98. Mid year in 98 they added a fourth tracking fin, a winged rudder, and hydrorails. The hydrorails were bolt-in parts that filled in the notches in the hull below the transom (spray pockets?). As I understand it the hydrorails were to give the hull more wetted surface in the water and increase lift.

Many have said that the hull isn't that great of a design. They say that it doesn't handle well and that the ski wake leaves much to be desired. I disagree. I skied many boats, including each MC hull design from 1986 to the current 197. The 197 was the best IMHO, but the 98 was everything I need it to be. At 15 off the wake is barely there, and shorter than that there is nothing.

The one thing I do wish it had is the bigger rear trunk of the 99 and 2000 boats, or the newer 190's and 197's. the rear trunk in mine isn't full width. You only get two bins for ropes, gloves, etc. No chance of stashing your skis back there to keep them off the floor.

Here is a great resource for the different model years and what was offered when. I don't think you can go wrong picking a mastercraft from any year.



I'll second that. I think MC was just beginning to explore "trunks" in 1998 with those trays thare back there.

SS LS1
05-17-2011, 11:52 PM
I'll second that. I think MC was just beginning to explore "trunks" in 1998 with those trays thare back there.

It's funny, earlier I was reinstalling my the rear seat and trunk thinking about this post as I said to myself "I'm just glad to actually have a trunk" comparing it to our previous boat, an '85 S&S that had very little storage at all. :D

Hmm… was that the longest run-on sentence ever? :o

Anyway, I like the 98 over some earlier models as the interior is more spacious with the dash pushed father forward and the hull rides through choppy water better with a more pronounced V shape up front. But really any MC Prostar is going to be a great boat over other brands and a real joy if you have never owned an inboard before.

bxroads
05-18-2011, 07:55 AM
Prostar History (http://www.mastercraft.com/teamtalk/showthread.php?t=29236)

The above linked thread should be helpful. I don't know why it isn't a sticky at the top. Very informative and a lot work put into it.

BrianM
05-18-2011, 09:15 AM
1998 was a new hull design from the 95-97 hull. It was used in 98, 99, and 2000. The 99 and 2000 had a different top deck from the 98. Mid year in 98 they added a fourth tracking fin, a winged rudder, and hydrorails. The hydrorails were bolt-in parts that filled in the notches in the hull below the transom (spray pockets?). As I understand it the hydrorails were to give the hull more wetted surface in the water and increase lift.



All you long term TMC guys someone please get the shampoo!

Top deck was the same all three years along with the hull but the dash was different. 98 looked like the 97 dash where as 99-00 had a new dash that carried over into the earlier years of the 2001+ EVO hull. But as stated they did add hydro-rails and the winged rudder midway through 98 and MC offered to retrofit all earlier 98s that were originally built without them. If you are looking at a 98 make sure it has the hydrorails and winged rudder.

Fact of the matter is the 98-00 Prostar is kind of the bastard child of the Prostars. This boat was panned for a 'poor' wake and handling by the tournament crowd and nicknamed the 'Deathstar'. I have skied one extensively and think it skis and drives alright but it definitely is not as good a boat or wake as the prior 95-97 hull or later 2001+ EVO hull.

If you are a recreational skier that year Prostar will probably suit your needs just fine but the price should reflect the stigma. It is a great looking boat.

Bouyhead
05-18-2011, 12:31 PM
All you long term TMC guys someone please get the shampoo!

Top deck was the same all three years along with the hull but the dash was different. 98 looked like the 97 dash where as 99-00 had a new dash that carried over into the earlier years of the 2001+ EVO hull. But as stated they did add hydro-rails and the winged rudder midway through 98 and MC offered to retrofit all earlier 98s that were originally built without them. If you are looking at a 98 make sure it has the hydrorails and winged rudder.

Fact of the matter is the 98-00 Prostar is kind of the bastard child of the Prostars. This boat was panned for a 'poor' wake and handling by the tournament crowd and nicknamed the 'Deathstar'. I have skied one extensively and think it skis and drives alright but it definitely is not as good a boat or wake as the prior 95-97 hull or later 2001+ EVO hull.

If you are a recreational skier that year Prostar will probably suit your needs just fine but the price should reflect the stigma. It is a great looking boat.

Thanks for clearing this up. Alot of folks that know the ACTUAL history of that era tread lightly for some reason. Yes, it's a great looking boat and will suit most peoples needs but most diehard slalom guys will stear clear. In 98 99 i was in a pretty good position to trade in my 96' for a new boat and took one look underneath and said no thanks. Funny, I'm pretty sure "Hydrorails" was a registered trademark in the brochure like it was something special.

BrianM
05-18-2011, 12:35 PM
I'm pretty sure "Hydrorails" was a registered trademark in the brochure like it was something special.

The MC marketing for the hydrorails, winged rudder and 4 tracking fins was the "Positive Pressure Tracking System (PPTS)"

Bouyhead
05-18-2011, 12:43 PM
The MC marketing for the hydrorails, winged rudder and 4 tracking fins was the "Positive Pressure Tracking System (PPTS)"

Show Off!:D

It's threads like this and the cost of a new ride that make me quite happy my 96' is alive and well.

gotta_ski
05-18-2011, 07:59 PM
Brian, I have to disagree with you. The bow is different from the 98 to the 99 and 2000. The 98 is flat with the air intake in the center of the windscreen, while in 99 the bow had two recesses in it and the air intake was on the outboard edges.

The interior was completely different. 99 was a strange year as the motor cover had bare fiberglass in the middle rather than being completely upholstered. Also the 99 didn't have the sloped portion just inside the gunwale where the grab rail mounts. The 98 had the L-shaped observer seat, but it was a rectangle by 99. The base of this seat is part of the top deck.

Also, here it says that the deck was different, and you can see the top deck differences:
http://www.mastercraft.com/teamtalk/showthread.php?t=29236
Post #11.
The first overhead shot is a 2000, the pic on the bottom pulling a skier is a 98'.

BrianM
05-19-2011, 08:34 AM
I'll give you top deck change but it always seemed like just a very minor year to year change similar to the changes to the dash and engine cover. Fact of the matter is the hull was the same (after hydrofoil, rudder and fin add ons) with some year to year changes of the interior. Bottom line is this hull was a fail in the tournament community even after the bandaid fixes very shortly after introduction.

callaway_1
05-19-2011, 08:41 AM
BrianM is right on the money. Those were dark times for the ProStar

TxsRiverRat
05-19-2011, 10:37 AM
I'll give you top deck change but it always seemed like just a very minor year to year change similar to the changes to the dash and engine cover. Fact of the matter is the hull was the same (after hydrofoil, rudder and fin add ons) with some year to year changes of the interior. Bottom line is this hull was a fail in the tournament community even after the bandaid fixes very shortly after introduction.

Did that also include the 205? I never heard anyone talk about that, only the 190....

André
05-19-2011, 11:20 AM
Did that also include the 205? I never heard anyone talk about that, only the 190....

Nope,205's are OK.
Only the 98 190 is the real "shampoo boat"...
Ask FarmerTed!!!

Maybe Doug or skiking could dig deep down and find that original post from Farmer Ted.
Good times...:rolleyes:

TxsRiverRat
05-19-2011, 11:35 AM
Nope,205's are OK.
Only the 98 190 is the real "shampoo boat"...
Ask FarmerTed!!!

Maybe Doug or skiking could dig deep down and find that original post from Farmer Ted.
Good times...:rolleyes:

Thanks for the info - my new GF owns a 98 205 (What are the chances of meeting a woman with the same model boat as me??)...

She must be a keeper.

Edit: The only thing we'll argue about is Ford VS Chevy LOL

BrianM
05-19-2011, 11:49 AM
Did that also include the 205? I never heard anyone talk about that, only the 190....

Nope. 205 changed in 1996 (based on the redesigned 95 Prostar 190) and remained basically the same until 2001 when the boat was renamed the 209. That 205 hull was the basis of the original X star (the X started life as a DD) and then modified into the 205V variant. Great 205 history here:
http://www.mastercraft.com/teamtalk/showthread.php?t=15198&highlight=prostar

BrianM
05-19-2011, 11:55 AM
Oh and here is the famous "shampoo" thread.
http://www.mastercraft.com/teamtalk/showthread.php?t=621&highlight=shampoo
Post #19 has got to be the #1 classic post ever on TMC.

Shooter McKevin
05-19-2011, 12:45 PM
Many have said that the hull isn't that great of a design. They say that it doesn't handle well and that the ski wake leaves much to be desired. I disagree. I skied many boats, including each MC hull design from 1986 to the current 197. The 197 was the best IMHO, but the 98 was everything I need it to be. At 15 off the wake is barely there, and shorter than that there is nothing.

I like posts like this one from gotta_ski because he is talking about actual personal experience. Most of the negative press about this hull on TT seems to be based on speculation or people repeating other speculation they have read here. (Much like Farmer Ted and his clean crotch said).

When I bought my 2000 PS190 I got a way newer and nicer boat than I could afford because I got lucky with a crazy good deal. (bought it from an ex NHL player). I've only skied and boarded one other inboard (97 ish Wakesetter, once) so my only benchmark is the Banshee and I/O's I grew up on, but I was expecting my wake to be a little smaller than it is (at 15off, 31mph).

My boat is perfect for what I need. I even prefer the closed bow for the family (3 and 4 year old boys) because the kids are too young to ride up front. The marketing of this "pro wake" hull promoted better rough water ride and better 3 event (aka trick). These are bound to take away from the slalom wake a little? I like to think that the hard core buoy chasers that prefer other hulls just means that my Prostar is a better closed bow crossover boat ;);).

Shooter McKevin
05-19-2011, 12:47 PM
I posted winks after "closed bow crossover boat" but they didn't show up ;)

captain planet
05-20-2011, 11:11 AM
All you long term TMC guys someone please get the shampoo!

Top deck was the same all three years along with the hull but the dash was different. 98 looked like the 97 dash where as 99-00 had a new dash that carried over into the earlier years of the 2001+ EVO hull. But as stated they did add hydro-rails and the winged rudder midway through 98 and MC offered to retrofit all earlier 98s that were originally built without them. If you are looking at a 98 make sure it has the hydrorails and winged rudder.

Fact of the matter is the 98-00 Prostar is kind of the bastard child of the Prostars. This boat was panned for a 'poor' wake and handling by the tournament crowd and nicknamed the 'Deathstar'. I have skied one extensively and think it skis and drives alright but it definitely is not as good a boat or wake as the prior 95-97 hull or later 2001+ EVO hull.

If you are a recreational skier that year Prostar will probably suit your needs just fine but the price should reflect the stigma. It is a great looking boat.

Not true. The deck of the 98 bow was very similar to the 97, flat and smooth. The 99 and 00 had a retro deck on the bow to emulate the older S&S bows with contours.