PDA

View Full Version : Did anyone else catch this?


jkski
01-12-2006, 07:05 AM
Either I have way too much time on my hands, or I am obsessed.... either way, did anyone else catch the "mistake" made in the photo taken of the X2 for the Waterski Mag Boat Review?
Here is a hint: Look closely at the windshield on the centerfold!

BriEOD
01-12-2006, 08:55 AM
The water?

jkski
01-12-2006, 09:47 AM
Second Hint.......
Look at the decal that is on the side of the windshield, where it wraps around.
(Free Advertising!)

BriEOD
01-12-2006, 09:50 AM
Yeah, I saw that.

Granite_33
01-12-2006, 10:03 AM
Noticed it. I think almost all boats you can notice that.

I just clicked over to Waterski Mag online. The boat inspector is cool.......but I think I've seen enough of the year 2000 product reviews. (Note to Waterski Mag.com)

east tx skier
01-12-2006, 11:33 AM
Did anyone catch the accelleration times to 36 mph on the X1? Pretty nimble little base engine there.

jkski
01-12-2006, 11:34 AM
I was surprised by the poor 0-36 times that the 197 turned in as opposed to it's competitors. The only thing I can figure is that they were not running a gear reduction tranny in the test boat.

east tx skier
01-12-2006, 11:39 AM
Was it MB that posted a 3.x second 0--36 time (dragging some poor guys arms through the water).

Of the big three manufacturers, only two offer gear reduction. Of those two, one offers it standard. From that posted time, I assumed the 197 was using 1:1 since WSM doesn't tell you anymore (and based on previous BBGs).

MYMC
01-12-2006, 11:44 AM
The PS197 was a 1:1 boat.

jkski
01-12-2006, 11:45 AM
I wish they would provide a true apples to apples comparison. If a potential buyer didn't know any better and simply read the guide, they wouldn't know that an MC could do better times with a different tranny.
Speaking of that, do you have any idea how the times shake-out if you run the MCX with the gear reduction?

rodltg2
01-12-2006, 12:06 PM
Was it MB that posted a 3.x second 0--36 time (dragging some poor guys arms through the water).

Of the big three manufacturers, only two offer gear reduction. Of those two, one offers it standard. From that posted time, I assumed the 197 was using 1:1 since WSM doesn't tell you anymore (and based on previous BBGs).


the MB has a crazy hole shot. my old mb would smoke any boat at the ski lake out of the hole, including my mc with powerslot and lq9. too bad it couldnt track a straight line for the life of it.

BriEOD
01-12-2006, 12:14 PM
I'm not looking to start WW3 or trade my MC T-shirts in, but I am always impressed with the CC warranty (just an observation). I wish MC would come up on what they offer.

Please no flaming.

rodltg2
01-12-2006, 12:25 PM
whats the warranty differences?

BriEOD
01-12-2006, 12:55 PM
Per WaterSki Mag

MC
Deck/Hull/Stringer: limited lifetime
Gelcoat: limited lifetime
Engine/Drivetrain: 3yrs
Components: 1yr
Instrumentation: 1yr
Upholestry: 1yr
Carpet: 1yr
Labor: 1yr

CC
Deck/Hull/Stringer: lifetime
Gelcoat: 3yrs
Engine/Drivetrain: 3yrs
Components: 5yr
Instrumentation: 5yr
Upholestry: 5yr
Carpet: 5yr
Labor: Shop Rate

rodltg2
01-12-2006, 01:09 PM
quite a difference. honestly enough i never paid attention to warranty guidelines for my boat buying research.

BriEOD
01-12-2006, 01:18 PM
I LOVE MC!!! But, when comparing (the only boat company IMO that even comes close) I and another TT poster saw a big difference and wondered why?

Diesel
01-12-2006, 02:15 PM
Per WaterSki Mag

MC
Deck/Hull/Stringer: limited lifetime
Gelcoat: limited lifetime
Engine/Drivetrain: 3yrs
Components: 1yr
Instrumentation: 1yr
Upholestry: 1yr
Carpet: 1yr
Labor: 1yr

CC
Deck/Hull/Stringer: lifetime
Gelcoat: 3yrs
Engine/Drivetrain: 3yrs
Components: 5yr
Instrumentation: 5yr
Upholestry: 5yr
Carpet: 5yr
Labor: Shop Rate

I think gel coat on MC is only one year.

east tx skier
01-12-2006, 02:43 PM
the MB has a crazy hole shot. my old mb would smoke any boat at the ski lake out of the hole, including my mc with powerslot and lq9. too bad it couldnt track a straight line for the life of it.

Sounds like the difference is wetted surface. They still using that old MC hull?

east tx skier
01-12-2006, 02:45 PM
Speaking of that, do you have any idea how the times shake-out if you run the MCX with the gear reduction?

0--36 in 5.0 seconds 143.1 Feet (per the 2003 BBG).

rodltg2
01-12-2006, 02:45 PM
i doubt it, my mb was the 190plus, it own design. i loved it but it sucked tracking and it had a horrid bump at 22. otherwise i would have kept it.

vegashomeexpert
01-12-2006, 06:45 PM
I LOVE MC!!! But, when comparing (the only boat company IMO that even comes close) I and another TT poster saw a big difference and wondered why?
In my past life (consumer electronics), the manufacturers that offered significantly longer warranties had to, to sell product. Typically, they are trying to overcome the publics perception that they do not have quality products by putting their money where their mouth is and offering a longer warranty. Look at cars, when Hundai first came to the US, people thought they were junk, so the company gave a 5 year bumper to bumper warranty to help overcome that perception. Same for Chrysler during their turnaround in the 80's; they gave 7 year drive train protection. I don't know what kind of perception people have of CC (good, I think?), so I don't know their reason for having a longer warranty. :rant:

jkski
01-13-2006, 06:46 AM
0--36 in 5.0 seconds 143.1 Feet (per the 2003 BBG).

WOW... that's a huge change over the 0--36 of 6.5seconds, 201.2ft. that was recorded with the test boat. That actually beats the CC SN which recorded a 0--36 of 5.1 seconds in 151.2ft. That is what needs to be in the review!!!

OK, now to test your knowledge: Any idea what the time and distance are if you run the 310hp with the gear reduction. My dealer ordered one, and I am anxious to run it and see what the difference is. I don't think I'd ever go away from the MCX, however.........

jake
01-13-2006, 08:35 AM
In my past life (consumer electronics), the manufacturers that offered significantly longer warranties had to, to sell product. Typically, they are trying to overcome the publics perception that they do not have quality products by putting their money where their mouth is and offering a longer warranty. Look at cars, when Hundai first came to the US, people thought they were junk, so the company gave a 5 year bumper to bumper warranty to help overcome that perception. Same for Chrysler during their turnaround in the 80's; they gave 7 year drive train protection. I don't know what kind of perception people have of CC (good, I think?), so I don't know their reason for having a longer warranty. :rant:


CC has a great reputation, easily as good as MC. They don't need to compensate for anything in terms of lack of quality, just seem to be offering a better warranty.

One thing they may be compensating for is lack of styling. They build great boats, probably the best slalom wakes. But they have lagged the industry in terms of continually re-inventing style. This can go either way with consumers...some folks love that they stick with what works...some go the other direction.

At the Minneapolis boat show last year, I was talking with the CC rep. He gave me the rundown on their 190 and I was very impressed with what they offer for a pure slalom boat at the price (cheaper than a MC because you can actually still get a basic boat without all the frills). But then he started telling me about how brilliant MC was for leading the industry in terms of style and for becoming a wakeboarding boat company (his words). His take was MC's style and V-drive platforms have much broader appeal to the general boating public and so their growth is exponentially bigger than CC and that the gap will continue to widen.

I don't have financial data from both companies to back this up, just giving you the CC rep's opinion, which I found to be interesting.

I just moved to a lake where everyone has CC's (probably because the dealer is about 6 blocks away), so I'm pretty pumped about trying out the Maple slalom hull.

east tx skier
01-13-2006, 11:04 AM
WOW... that's a huge change over the 0--36 of 6.5seconds, 201.2ft. that was recorded with the test boat. That actually beats the CC SN which recorded a 0--36 of 5.1 seconds in 151.2ft. That is what needs to be in the review!!!

OK, now to test your knowledge: Any idea what the time and distance are if you run the 310hp with the gear reduction. My dealer ordered one, and I am anxious to run it and see what the difference is. I don't think I'd ever go away from the MCX, however.........

One caveat, that was the old 1.5:1 gear reduction. I have no idea what the time would be with the 1.26:1. Sorry, that didn't occur to me yesterday when I posted the old time.

jkski
01-13-2006, 11:19 AM
No problem.... I'm headed to the Cleveland Boat Show tonight and I'll find out there and report back if I find something different.