PDA

View Full Version : 2013 Mastercraft X-star First Impressions


agarabaghi
02-28-2013, 11:50 AM
Well the boats been out for a while, and ive been lucky enough to take a few sets behind it.

The boat is truley a wakeboarding boat. The attention to detail from a riders view is amazing. Just little things like ballast overfill to get the air out of the bags and top them off is great. The layout is very comfy and seems to have much more room than the old xstar. Little things like the trash can and cooler are well thought out. The dash is amazing, having just been on an G25 the layout is much nicer. Sure there are no guages but just sitting down infront of all 3 screens everything just seemed to make sense. Oh ... there are 5 heated seats in this boat!

Wake:

So far we have just been using the stock ballast and plug and play... and well its is awesome. It is so much fun to ride behind. Im coming from a heavily weighted X1 (4000lbs~) and this wake with just stock and plug and play is awesome. I had trouble behind the old Xstar and did not really enjoy the shape. Im no pro and it was nice to see that even bad riders will be able tpo enjoy the boat without hte need of sacs everywhere. I cant wait till we start laying fat sacs in the middle to see how massive it gets.

Surf:

Stock ballast and plug and plug just filling up the port side the wake is really nice. It has so much meat to you it that you can drop back pretty far on a smaller board and still surf the wave. No complaints there.

Trim tabs:

The auto launch feature is nice and noticable. You can tell while riding when the plat is helping the boat get on plane cause the rooster tail is massive haha, then it mellows out to a much much smaller size.

Boat Porn:

BTW this is Josh Palmas Alpinestar / Mastercraft collab boat

http://imageshack.us/a/img202/5589/photofeb22095902.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img69/180/photofeb19140425.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img17/1971/photofeb19135008.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img832/8553/photofeb19144239.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img855/3218/photofeb19133242.jpg

agarabaghi
02-28-2013, 11:58 AM
http://imageshack.us/scaled/large/839/photofeb19133718.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/839/photofeb19133718.jpg/)
http://imageshack.us/scaled/large/831/photofeb19134433.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/831/photofeb19134433.jpg/)
http://imageshack.us/scaled/large/825/photofeb19134454.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/825/photofeb19134454.jpg/)
http://imageshack.us/scaled/large/24/photofeb19134614.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/24/photofeb19134614.jpg/)
http://imageshack.us/scaled/large/37/photofeb19134815.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/37/photofeb19134815.jpg/)
http://imageshack.us/scaled/large/145/photofeb19134857.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/145/photofeb19134857.jpg/)
http://imageshack.us/scaled/large/268/photofeb19135642.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/268/photofeb19135642.jpg/)
http://imageshack.us/scaled/large/254/photofeb19140442.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/254/photofeb19140442.jpg/)

moleson10
02-28-2013, 12:43 PM
One word - WOW!

Thanks for the tour.

JBrew
02-28-2013, 12:46 PM
today's productivity is now at zero... I could look at those pics all day. Thanks bro!

corey
02-28-2013, 01:00 PM
Nice write up and gorgeous photos! Can't wait for the lakes to thaw so we can start ripping behind a Star. I was able to ride it once last year with just stock ballast and loved it, can't wait to load up the plug and play this year!

turbofresh
02-28-2013, 01:04 PM
awesome boat! love the looks of it

i think i spotted some bird poop on the platform.

FourFourty
02-28-2013, 02:48 PM
Sweet boat! It is good to hear about people enjoying the new star! It helps me get through the waiting period for mine! Still 2.5 months before I will have mine on the water, and thats only if the weather is really friendly!

mikeg205
02-28-2013, 07:45 PM
I need to be adopted by some rich person ;) - female please ;)

TN X-45
03-01-2013, 09:35 PM
Wonder why no 5 blade? Not needed?

Sent from my Galaxy S3 on Tapatalk

Traxx822
03-03-2013, 10:21 AM
I need to be adopted by some rich person ;) - female please ;)

Whoa whoa whoa, Be careful what you wish for. lol

Tristar Racing
03-03-2013, 03:31 PM
Am I the only person that thinks of a Chrysler K car wagon with the fake wood grain on the side? Not a fan of that combined with the rasta theme...

I looked at both back to back, still would take the G23 in a heart beat over the new Xstar...

1redTA
03-03-2013, 04:23 PM
7.4 Ilmore NICE!! I need a beer now

vision
03-04-2013, 01:04 AM
Am I the only person that thinks of a Chrysler K car wagon with the fake wood grain on the side? Not a fan of that combined with the rasta theme...

I looked at both back to back, still would take the G23 in a heart beat over the new Xstar...

Both boats have great features, but I had to agree with Tristar.

Aric'sX15
03-04-2013, 01:48 AM
Am I the only person that thinks of a Chrysler K car wagon with the fake wood grain on the side? Not a fan of that combined with the rasta theme...

I looked at both back to back, still would take the G23 in a heart beat over the new Xstar...

Massively disagree. G23 is possibly the ugliest boat ive ever seen. Looks like a beached whale!

FourFourty
03-04-2013, 10:07 AM
Am I the only person that thinks of a Chrysler K car wagon with the fake wood grain on the side? Not a fan of that combined with the rasta theme...

I looked at both back to back, still would take the G23 in a heart beat over the new Xstar...

I disagree as well. (Obviously)

I looked at both of them, back to back. I could not get over how much I hated the interior of the G23. It is so uncomfortable. Straight up seatbacks, square corners, unrounded seatbacks, shallow lower cushions, not nearly as plush....... And no comparison on the exterior looks. The G looks like a barge. (I dont think the star is the best looking boat on the water, but it is way sexier than the G)

With all of that said, the wakes, storage, and engineering behind the G23, are undeniable. It is one hell of a boat. However, for me, there is more to it than that. I wanted comfort and style as well, so I ordered the XStar.

Tristar Racing
03-04-2013, 10:56 AM
Yea, the Xstar looks sportier, and I get I am not going to change anyone's mind on a MC forum. I would say reserve the whale comments until you see it on the water (looks much better than on land/on a trailer), and definitely reserve the "not comfortable" comments on the interior until you have spent a day on the water.

Either way, it still blows my mind that CC and MC sell every G and Xstar they can build. A lot of dollars for a tow boat...

FourFourty
03-04-2013, 11:39 AM
Yea, the Xstar looks sportier, and I get I am not going to change anyone's mind on a MC forum. I would say reserve the whale comments until you see it on the water (looks much better than on land/on a trailer), and definitely reserve the "not comfortable" comments on the interior until you have spent a day on the water.



Ironically, I have spent the day in a G23...... on more than one occasion. Looks better on the water, sure. Still not a fan. It is definitely not nearly as comfortable as my X25. I have not spent a day on a 13 XStar, so I couldn't say for sure. However, the interior is very similar to the X25s that I have owned, so, i have high hopes.

I don't mean to bag on the G23, because I love that boat. It has it's advantages over the XStar, and the XStar has its advantages over the G. If my dealer was not so awesome, the choice would have been harder. I might have gone with the G for the surf wake. I stand by my comments though. The looks and comfort were big downers for me. Other than that, I loved everything from bow to stern on the G23.

Aric'sX15
03-04-2013, 02:50 PM
I have seen the g on the water. Not sleek or remotely good looking at all. I agree with fourfourty on the interior. The g is a riders boat, with only the wake in mind. The star is more plush for sure and has an amazing wake, but built with family comfort in mind as well.

willyt
03-04-2013, 03:11 PM
built with family comfort in mind.

uh... no.

the boat has 2 foot long forks... a 24 footer with the interior room of a 22 footer. I'll agree with the fact that i find the star much, much more comfortable to sit in, but its definitely not a family boat.

comfort may also be a point of view though... i dont find the interior of my buddy's BMW 328xi very comfortable, yet i love the plushness of my tahoe's seats.

FourFourty
03-04-2013, 03:29 PM
uh... no.

the boat has 2 foot long forks... a 24 footer with the interior room of a 22 footer. I'll agree with the fact that i find the star much, much more comfortable to sit in, but its definitely not a family boat.

comfort may also be a point of view though... i dont find the interior of my buddy's BMW 328xi very comfortable, yet i love the plushness of my tahoe's seats.


I agree about the "family boat" statement, although, I am not sure that Aric meant it, how you took it. It is absolutely small inside for a 24' boat, but creature comfort was definitely a major consideration, based on how it is set up, and designed.

I also understand what you mean about how comfort can be a point of view. That being said, the comparison is far beyond a point of view...... Every surface and angle in the G23 is either flat, or a 90* angle. Human bodies are not square. It is not terribly uncomfortable, but has gotta be in the bottom 10% of any boat I have lounged in.....except the helm seat. That was good. The G23 owner, that I went with a few times last year, even said that he wished he could have his SAN 230 interior back. He drooled all over the seats in my X25.... I drooled all over his healm layout, instrumentation, touchscreen setup, lounge volume, wakes, and locker storage. :D

Aric'sX15
03-04-2013, 03:37 PM
uh... no.

the boat has 2 foot long forks... a 24 footer with the interior room of a 22 footer. I'll agree with the fact that i find the star much, much more comfortable to sit in, but its definitely not a family boat.

comfort may also be a point of view though... i dont find the interior of my buddy's BMW 328xi very comfortable, yet i love the plushness of my tahoe's seats.

In mind* never meant it's a family boat, but it is more comfortable than a g23 for sure.

scott023
03-05-2013, 10:32 AM
Dang. That's a sic boat.

agarabaghi
03-06-2013, 12:42 PM
Wonder why no 5 blade? Not needed?

Sent from my Galaxy S3 on Tapatalk

With stock + Plug n play + launch plate = boat jumped out of the water, be interesting to see how it handles with more sacs.

agarabaghi
03-06-2013, 12:43 PM
Massively disagree. G23 is possibly the ugliest boat ive ever seen. Looks like a beached whale!

Agree, sitting in the water the G23 / G25 do not appeal to me. I will tell you that the Xstar drove much nicer / handle much better while pulling a rider than the G25 did with just stock ballast.

Ive never driven / ridden behind the G23 though

jason95gt
03-06-2013, 03:36 PM
The problem with the G23, minus how big it is, is that it turns like a bus compared to the Star or most other boats for that matter and is also a gas hog. It uses twice as much fuel as a Star. I understand about price of boats and who cares about price of gas, but that means you have to fill it up twice as much over the season. I don't know about you, but that is the biggest pain.

kgrove
03-06-2013, 03:47 PM
I think I'm in the majority in saying MC and CC both screwed up with their latest flagship boats. MC with the X-Star made some questionable style choices particularly in the exaggerated pickle fork extensions plus depending on your point of view either was surpassed or at least lost their advantage in pure wake performance. CC with their G23 made some awesome performance improvements but created a fugly boat that while it produces an awesome wake has some seriously negative handling characteristics and user problems. Both companies also gave their less than perfect boats massive price increases.

Interested to see which company changes first. If neither makes a move, they've both left the market open to Malibu, Tige, etc to step in and take ownership of the dominant wake boat. Don't get me wrong - both boats have an awesome wake, but both come with baggage that should not be present on a $120k boat.

captain planet
03-06-2013, 05:01 PM
I think I'm in the majority in saying MC and CC both screwed up with their latest flagship boats. MC with the X-Star made some questionable style choices particularly in the exaggerated pickle fork extensions plus depending on your point of view either was surpassed or at least lost their advantage in pure wake performance. CC with their G23 made some awesome performance improvements but created a fugly boat that while it produces an awesome wake has some seriously negative handling characteristics and user problems. Both companies also gave their less than perfect boats massive price increases.

Interested to see which company changes first. If neither makes a move, they've both left the market open to Malibu, Tige, etc to step in and take ownership of the dominant wake boat. Don't get me wrong - both boats have an awesome wake, but both come with baggage that should not be present on a $120k boat.

That is like saying Lexus and Infinity have left the market open to Kia and Chrysler. 8p How malibu continues to be considered an elite boat baffles me.

Sorry for the threadjack......I just couldn't help myself.

Tristar Racing
03-06-2013, 06:35 PM
The problem with the G23, minus how big it is, is that it turns like a bus compared to the Star or most other boats for that matter and is also a gas hog. It uses twice as much fuel as a Star. I understand about price of boats and who cares about price of gas, but that means you have to fill it up twice as much over the season. I don't know about you, but that is the biggest pain.

No offense, but twice the fuel? Come on. I'm guessing you work at a Mastercraft dealer? :rolleyes:

Oh wait, tried this on wakeworld too, it seems G23 owners dispelled this "rumor"...

http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=797030

Aric'sX15
03-07-2013, 05:33 AM
Dude, 19.5 gph?!!! I'd burn through that in like 2.5 hours of riding?! (In my 15) Bottom line is the g is flat out ugly. I wouldnt care if it burned 2 gph. I wouldn't be caught dead buying one of those. I do like the looks of the 230 for sure. Always have. Not just bashing brands. Id like to see some numbers on the star.

FourFourty
03-07-2013, 08:39 AM
No offense, but twice the fuel? Come on. I'm guessing you work at a Mastercraft dealer? :rolleyes:

Oh wait, tried this on wakeworld too, it seems G23 owners dispelled this "rumor"...

http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=797030


G23 Owners?? That thread seemed like a bunch of G23 nuthuggers, and G23 haters, arguing about what the fuel mileage "could" be..... No factual statements


For what it is worth, the G23, that I spent time in, late this last summer, did not drink 19gph surfing with stock ballast + 3000lbs. We spent an entire afternoon surfing and wakeboarding behind it, and still had enough fuel to cruise around that night. It was probably more like 10-12gph.

vision
03-07-2013, 01:11 PM
The problem with the G23, minus how big it is, is that it turns like a bus compared to the Star or most other boats for that matter and is also a gas hog. It uses twice as much fuel as a Star. I understand about price of boats and who cares about price of gas, but that means you have to fill it up twice as much over the season. I don't know about you, but that is the biggest pain.

My G23 burns slightly less fuel than my previous X-star. Around 6.5 gph with 3000 lbs of ballast.

FourFourty
03-07-2013, 01:23 PM
My G23 burns slightly less fuel than my previous X-star. Around 6.5 gph with 3000 lbs of ballast.

Seriously?? We def burned a lot more than that.... I expect my star will burn quite a bit too. I certainly won't be surprised at 8.5gph or more with a boat that heavy....

vision
03-07-2013, 03:34 PM
Seriously?? We def burned a lot more than that.... I expect my star will burn quite a bit too. I certainly won't be surprised at 8.5gph or more with a boat that heavy....

I track gph closely, mostly looking for any early signs of engine performance changes. G with 450 engine gets around 5 gph unballasted and cruising and 6.5 gph ballasted. I am sure the supercharged engine sucks more gas.

The G drafts 4" less than my xstar and its hull is bizarre. It seems to "surf" across the water when unweighted. Perhaps this improves unballasted fuel efficiency. Plus, the tab assist in almost all new boats likely helps gph compared to prev models.

FourFourty
03-07-2013, 03:45 PM
I track gph closely, mostly looking for any early signs of engine performance changes. G with 450 engine gets around 5 gph unballasted and cruising and 6.5 gph ballasted. I am sure the supercharged engine sucks more gas.

The G drafts 4" less than my xstar and its hull is bizarre. It seems to "surf" across the water when unweighted. Perhaps this improves unballasted fuel efficiency. Plus, the tab assist in almost all new boats likely helps gph compared to prev models.



Gotcha! Not bad at all! I doubt my new star will be anywhere near that good (7.4l). My X25 w/LS3 was excellent..... Right around 5gph surfing.

Come to think of it, the nautique 450hp is an LS3 as well, right?? In that case, I am not so surprised that it gets that kind of fuel economy. GenIV SBCs are excellent on fuel!

Aric'sX15
03-07-2013, 04:03 PM
My G23 burns slightly less fuel than my previous X-star. Around 6.5 gph with 3000 lbs of ballast.

Any pics of your g23? Surprised at the 6.5 gph. Need to start calculating my 15s. Seems like I burn more than 5.5 an hour.

Nordicron
03-07-2013, 05:01 PM
Any pics of your g23? Surprised at the 6.5 gph. Need to start calculating my 15s. Seems like I burn more than 5.5 an hour.

Yeah I think it's all a matter how people calculate their hours. I prob use 6-7gph on my SAN 210 loaded with 2500lbs.

I plan on doing a better job this year writing down engine hrs vs fills.

willyt
03-07-2013, 06:04 PM
Come to think of it, the nautique 450hp is an LS3 as well, right?? In that case, I am not so surprised that it gets that kind of fuel economy. GenIV SBCs are excellent on fuel!

nope. PCM's ZR450 is L96 based, not LS3. that engine's displacement = 6L, LS3's is 6.2

FourFourty
03-07-2013, 07:27 PM
nope. PCM's ZR450 is L96 based, not LS3. that engine's displacement = 6L, LS3's is 6.2

ah.... I guess i assumed that the 409 was an L96, and the 450 was LS3. They don't say on the site, so I went to PCMs site, and it is, in fact, a tweaked L96. Having a hard time believing 5.5gph with that base engine. The LS3 may have been plausable, a GenIII L96 is not IMO.

willyt
03-07-2013, 07:52 PM
Yeah, at least power-plant wise, ilmor > Indmar > PCM

captain planet
03-07-2013, 09:13 PM
Massively disagree. G23 is possibly the ugliest boat ive ever seen. Looks like a beached whale!

......I have to agree. I just went to the antique website to look at it again.......and that thing is really bad. I don't like MC's two point tower, it just looks incomplete unless the bimini is up, and don't even try to put one of those on a 214. But that tower on the antique is built over in China.....and it looks like it. It is awful. The boat is this big hulking thing....with this itty bitty tower sitting on the gunnel.....and the 25 makes it seem even smaller. NOTHING sleek about either of those two boats.

kantwaittochill
03-08-2013, 12:06 AM
My G23 burns slightly less fuel than my previous X-star. Around 6.5 gph with 3000 lbs of ballast.

Like the others - I'd like to see how this was calculated.

5400lb boat + 3000 ballast + 360 lbs fuel + riders + gear + beer = about 10,000lbs?

At 10,000 lbs you'll need 3/4 to full throttle to get on plane and considerable amount of fuel and rpm to hold it. I'd say you have some idle time in there somewhere...

vision
03-08-2013, 03:37 AM
Like the others - I'd like to see how this was calculated.

5400lb boat + 3000 ballast + 360 lbs fuel + riders + gear + beer = about 10,000lbs?

At 10,000 lbs you'll need 3/4 to full throttle to get on plane and considerable amount of fuel and rpm to hold it. I'd say you have some idle time in there somewhere...

GPH calculated the same for my 05 x2, Xstar, and G23. I top it off at every fill and record hours between fill ups.

There certainly is some non pull time in the ballasted calc. Prob about 15 minutes of engine time for every 2.5 hours of riding. But this would be the same for all the boats.

Actually running lower RPMs on G than the we did on X star, despite about 1000lbs more weight.

broncotw
03-08-2013, 01:18 PM
No a fan of the simulated wood grain!

agarabaghi
03-26-2013, 10:06 AM
No a fan of the simulated wood grain!

Luckily for those who don't like it, it is just a wrap...

As for fuel...

I will say the Xstar is a guzzler with the 7.4

We put in 6x5gal tanks and 3 of us rode, and it was basically empty haha... not looking forward to paying for gas in that boat =P

Nordicron
03-26-2013, 11:56 AM
Luckily for those who don't like it, it is just a wrap...

As for fuel...

I will say the Xstar is a guzzler with the 7.4

We put in 6x5gal tanks and 3 of us rode, and it was basically empty haha... not looking forward to paying for gas in that boat =P

So 30gals for 3peeps! Wow better be chipping in a little more than $20 if your getting a pull behind the new 7.4 star! What's that equate to in GPH anyway?