PDA

View Full Version : PS190 Hull Changes


jandrew
09-10-2004, 12:31 PM
Hey folks,

Does anyone know the year models that hull changes were made to the 190? I'm looking for a good used one and want the best hull design that I can afford. When was EVO introduced? What year models have the softest wake?

Thanks,

John

loeweb
09-10-2004, 12:38 PM
I think I read somewhere that the first big hull change appeared on their 1991 models. As far as the wake goes, I am curious about that as well. Like how much different a pre '91 boat skis to a post '91 boat. keep me posted as well.

Stritt
09-10-2004, 12:42 PM
This I believe is correct:

91-94......really good

95-97......not as good as earlier models, but still nice.

98-2000......depends on who you ask....

2001-present.....Some claim that MC is making a come back. Also this is the EVO series.

Sorry, I can't help out much. I haven't skied the course seriously in over 10 years. So to me, all boats have a "bump" at 22 off. Never skied any shorter than that so all of the no spray, no bump and other comparison points did not mean much to me.

kjohnson
09-10-2004, 01:03 PM
91-94 is supposed to be the best. I have a 91. Prior to it, I had an 87. The 87 had a little more spray, but wake was excellent.

Hull change up to 90 were as follows:

82-85 Hull was same through 85
86 Hull changed
87-90 Hull changed in 87 then the same through 90

ski_king
09-10-2004, 01:13 PM
If I rememebr right, the 86 had the same hull as the 85, just changed the paint scheme. 86 was first year without stars and stripes.

ski_king
09-10-2004, 01:21 PM
Well, 86 was different after all, they droped the powerslot indentation above and behind the prop.

Robert Averyt
09-10-2004, 01:27 PM
I am pretty sure the evo came out in 2001. I love the wake behind my 01 190. I have I think the only 01 190 with a 1:1 transmission. It was not approved by awsa with this arrangement. I own the only boat on our lake that is not awsa approved.
If I remember right it was the 98 stars and stripe boat that had the hull problem.
They would not turn and then they came out with the bolt on hull modifications.
I think this is the only year model to stay away from.JMHO.

east tx skier
09-10-2004, 02:12 PM
The hull changes above are right, but I would add that the hull changed slightly on the 02 Pro Tour with the addition of the hook. This is the current hull design, and from everything I've heard, it's sublime.

Also, the 95-97 hull continued as the Sportstar 19/19 Skier from 1998 through around 2000 or so. This may have been the same hull for the X-5, too, but someone correct me if I'm off on that one.

95-97 has a very good wake. I found the chop handling abilities, straightline tracking, and shortline spray to be than the 91-94 boats. However, the 95-97 boats don't seem to handle as nimbly as the 91-94 boats. In general, the profile of the 95-2000 boats are much larger than the earlier hull designs.

bret
09-10-2004, 02:43 PM
35th 197 is correct on the changes.

Having skiied most of the boats, with exceptions being 2001+ yrs, I truly give the heads up to the 91-94 hulls. All the newer hulls do ride better in a slight chop - no doubt about it, as far as skiing in the 15-28 off range, I think the 91-94 boats have the edge. The Pro Tour boats of that era had the side spray pockets sort of hit with like a rat tail file and really knocked the spray down for the shortline skiers. The 95 boats actually wet the driver in a hard turn around, I hated that. The 96-97 boats, nice wake, good ride but felt sluggish to me after driving my 94. I would like to drive and ski a new 197 or 190 though.

You can find a 94 boat with less than 400 hrs, excellent shape in the $14-17k range, higher end being less hours. Good luck with your search.

east tx - corrected

east tx skier
09-10-2004, 02:49 PM
Bret, I'm not sure if you meant to say this, but there was a hull change from 97 to 98.

Tom Wortham
09-10-2004, 03:29 PM
KJohnson and Powerslot82 have hit it on the head reagarding the early MC. I have not been behinnd a lot of MCs. Just an '85 and '86 (which I own an '86 now). Planning on getting behind a X-9 '01 this weekend. I am VERY use to my '86 wake.... or lack their of :D You just can't beat a power turn on an '86 or earlier MC. :banana:

bradamerry
09-10-2004, 05:51 PM
If this helps, here's my 87' 190. @ about 28mph.

Tgchrist
09-10-2004, 08:25 PM
I have a '92 and I get plenty of comments regarding my wake for skiing. Yes, there is a bump at 22' off. 28' off is awesome. The only issue I have is that it does not track as well in the course as some others I have been in. Good Luck.

MasterCrafting
09-10-2004, 08:49 PM
We have a 92' PS190 and i'm loving it i havent skied behind any other mastercrafts but i've been told we have the best wake. :friday:

jimmer2880
09-13-2004, 06:25 AM
... The 95 boats actually wet the driver in a hard turn around, I hated that. ....
Not sure what you mean by that? I have a 95 with 750 hours on it. Never got sprayed during hard turn arounds.

Besides - unless you're on a private lake, you shouldn't be turning around hard anyway (throwing a donut the entire length of your lake/river) :D

Maybe I was "in the zone" too much to notice it. :steering:

USC8791
09-13-2004, 04:54 PM
If you're looking at the EVO hull, purchase either the 2002 tournament team boat or any 2003 or 2004 model PS. The 2001 and 2002 have a very hard wake and big bump at 22 off.

John B
09-13-2004, 05:01 PM
All MasterCrafts have a bump at 22off.
The best is the 91 to 94 hull but it still has the 22off bump

east tx skier
09-13-2004, 05:07 PM
Nearly all boats have a bump somewhere. It's usually at about 22 off. As the boat travels through the water, it displaces it, leaving a void in its wake. When the boat is no longer there, the water recoverges. The result is "the bump" or the "rooster tail."

John B
09-13-2004, 05:25 PM
Doug,
What was that
Rooster Tails 101 Class is in session. :D

east tx skier
09-13-2004, 05:44 PM
Nah, just looked at pictures of my wake and saw what was causing it. I didn't want someone to read this and think it was a MC thing exclusively.

Should've said, "... and here comes the science." :D