PDA

View Full Version : 90 vs 91 MC190


ncgreg
03-28-2006, 10:04 PM
Howdy from a newbie here. In 91, the PS190 hull design was redesigned, you know, they gave it the modern look. Ok, which hull was superior for slalom and footing, the 90 or the 91?
Thanks in advance, Greg

6ballsisall
03-28-2006, 10:06 PM
Both are good but if I had my druthers for slalom and barefoot i'd go 91 for sure

pilot02
03-28-2006, 10:40 PM
90 was nice but Get the dam 91! 87 - 90 were the same hull. 91-94 were the best hulls built in the era. Great wake 0n the 91 - 94 though spray IS an issue on both at 28 off and above or in a headwind at longer lengths.

milkmania
03-29-2006, 01:02 AM
don't know about the '90, but my '91 is partial to glassy water vs. chop!

running WOT in choppy water will absolutely turn the kidneys to mush.

but, it's good for watching bikinis in the observer's seat:cool:

jsonova99
03-29-2006, 07:28 AM
I'll agree with everybody on the 91s performance in choppy water and the spray issues, but other than that I love mine.

milkmania
03-29-2006, 10:08 AM
I'll agree with everybody on the 91s performance in choppy water and the spray issues, but other than that I love mine.

It would have to be a very appealing deal before I would trade mine off:love:

TRBenj
03-29-2006, 10:19 AM
Ive had friends who owned '87 and '94 PS190's. Ill agree with all the above- both boats have great slalom and barefoot wakes. Both ride rough in choppy water and had spray issues, the '87 was probably a little worse. I'd say the '94 tracks a little better. The big difference between the boats is the interior- the '94 is much nicer.

If the price and condition is the same, I'd go with the newer hull.

TonyB
03-29-2006, 10:54 AM
Howdy from a newbie here. In 91, the PS190 hull design was redesigned, you know, they gave it the modern look. Ok, which hull was superior for slalom and footing, the 90 or the 91?
Thanks in advance, Greg

It's generally accepted that the 91-94 hulls provided the best slalom wakes up to that time. I'm not sure that todays Prostar wakes are any better. The improvements have been in the reduction of chine spray and taking out the 22 off bump.

On the 91-94 there is a chine spray at extreme shortline (although I don't notice it on my 91 at 28 off).
http://www.tmcowners.com/photopost/data/587/wake_at_34mph.jpg
And like milkmania stated, it's not a pleasant ride in choppy water. Usually, when it's choppy it's too rough to ski. So I just turn up the stereo, pop a cold one, and start putting out those 10 mph rollers.

88 PS190
03-29-2006, 12:33 PM
Mastercraft has an issue with choppy water because they introduced fiberglass stringers.

Despite the fact that they don't rot wood is a superior material for the production of hull stringers and rides the waves a ton better. That's the reason that if you pick up an 82 and compare it with say an 85 prostar the 82 rides waves so much better.

Correct craft waited and introduced a superior hull system that was engineered to have ride conditions more similar to that of wood.

I do love mastercrafts, but the stringers are the culprit.

BrianM
03-29-2006, 12:44 PM
Would take the 91-94 over the 87-90. But you will find that the 91-94 are priced substantially higher as well. So the question is do you want to spend $8-9k or $12-16k? If you want to stay in that lower price range the 87-90 is an awsome slalom and barefoot boat ( I owned an '88 and loved it) but the 91-94 is better and newer but more $$. If you are comparing strickly a 90 to a 91 and the price and condition are close then take the 91 for sure.

east tx skier
03-29-2006, 12:44 PM
While wood clearly had some preferable vibration dampening features compared to the glass stringers of the time, the rough ride in the chop is very much attributable to the hull design of this era of boat. Very shallow vee and a relatively flat hull, while nice for producing flat wakes, surely contribute to the rough ride.

I chalk it up to the fact that this era of MC was not meant so much to be a family cruiser. It was meant to be a ski boat. By 95, they were producing larger boats with deeper vees for the "fanatics with families." More interior room and better rough water ride.

I'm not discounting that stringer construction is a factor. But I don't think it's the only factor.

Also, since it can be an issue with some clubs, it bears mentioning (if I recall reading correctly), the 91 was only AWSA approved with the powerslot. That's not to say that it's not plenty powerful with the 1:1.

BrianM
03-29-2006, 12:56 PM
Here is a wake comparison for you. Obviously neither of these boat has much of a wake.

east tx skier
03-29-2006, 12:57 PM
Oh no. Not again! :o

Actually, I'm thinking Tony doesn't have a cnc'd prop on his boat. Why do I think these things. :confused: I obviously took too many pictures of boat wakes during that prop test to start posting stuff like thatthat based on just a picture. :steering:

BrianM
03-29-2006, 01:03 PM
Oh no. Not again! :o



This time there will be no winners (me and my '88 190) or losers (you and your '93 205) ;) Simply trying to point out that again comparing the two wakes is shall we say "like picking gnat s**t out of pepper"

east tx skier
03-29-2006, 01:13 PM
Yeah, yeah. 1st prize = set of steak knives. ;)

TonyB
03-29-2006, 06:37 PM
Actually, I'm thinking Tony doesn't have a cnc'd prop on his boat.
Ding ding ding!

We have a winner. :D

I want one but I keep finding something else to spend $400 on.

But I am curious. What do you see in the pic that tells you that "Tony doesn't have a cnc'd prop"?

flipper
03-29-2006, 06:56 PM
Don't think I would trade my '91 for anything. Not even a new MC.

east tx skier
03-29-2006, 07:02 PM
Ding ding ding!

We have a winner. :D

I want one but I keep finding something else to spend $400 on.

But I am curious. What do you see in the pic that tells you that "Tony doesn't have a cnc'd prop"?

CNC'd props, for whatever reason, seem to throw a bit more turbulence out the back. They also tend to flatten out the rooster tail a bit.

This before picture stinks, but here is my wake before and after.

BrianM
03-29-2006, 07:19 PM
CNC'd props, for whatever reason, seem to throw a bit more turbulence out the back. They also tend to flatten out the rooster tail a bit.

This before picture stinks, but here is my wake before and after.

Yep, The rooster tail on my '88 basicly disappeared with the CNCd 3 blade. Did get a little more bubbly white water in the wake but it was buttery soft.

Ding ding ding!

We have a winner. :D

I want one but I keep finding something else to spend $400 on.



Should only cost you about $325 and in the best upgrade race it runs a very close second to Perfect Pass. Do it! You will not be disappointed.

Kevin 89MC
03-31-2006, 07:18 PM
I've skied a few times behind a '92 PS190, and IMHO the wakes are not as "sharp" as my '89. Not much difference in size, just felt a bit softer. Not quite as soft as the '99 PS190, but close. I'm at 15 off so I'm not worried about spray (unless it's windy, then I get it all the way back there!)