Go Back   TeamTalk > General MasterCraft Topics > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 03-04-2013, 03:37 PM
Aric'sX15's Avatar
Aric'sX15 Aric'sX15 is online now
MC Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Boat: 85' S&S
Location: DFDUB
Posts: 5,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by willyt View Post
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.
__________________
"if one day the speed kills me, do not cry because i was smiling." -Paul Walker
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-05-2013, 10:32 AM
scott023's Avatar
scott023 scott023 is offline
MC Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Boat: 2008 X45 Switch L18
Location: Canada
Posts: 11,940
Dang. That's a sic boat.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-06-2013, 12:42 PM
agarabaghi agarabaghi is offline
MC Devotee
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Boat: 1994 Mastercraft Prostar 205
Location: Southeast
Posts: 1,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by TN X-45 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-06-2013, 12:43 PM
agarabaghi agarabaghi is offline
MC Devotee
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Boat: 1994 Mastercraft Prostar 205
Location: Southeast
Posts: 1,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aric'sX15 View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-06-2013, 03:36 PM
jason95gt jason95gt is offline
TT Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Boat: NA
Location: Midwest
Posts: 438
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.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-06-2013, 03:47 PM
kgrove kgrove is offline
MC Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Boat: 2011 X-25
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 594
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.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-06-2013, 05:01 PM
captain planet's Avatar
captain planet captain planet is offline
MC Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Boat: 1998 Prostar 190 Anniversary, LT1
Location: Canton, Ohio
Posts: 5,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by kgrove View Post
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. How malibu continues to be considered an elite boat baffles me.

Sorry for the threadjack......I just couldn't help myself.
__________________
1998 ProStar 190 30th Anniversary, Corvette LT-1, STARS AND STRIPES BABY (with a really bad bimini)!!!!!!** * Footin' anyone?
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT

"The truth is treason in the 'empire of lies'" - Ron Paul
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-06-2013, 06:35 PM
Tristar Racing Tristar Racing is offline
TT Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Boat: 2011 X1
Location: Chicago
Posts: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason95gt View Post
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?

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

http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=797030
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-07-2013, 05:33 AM
Aric'sX15's Avatar
Aric'sX15 Aric'sX15 is online now
MC Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Boat: 85' S&S
Location: DFDUB
Posts: 5,024
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.
__________________
"if one day the speed kills me, do not cry because i was smiling." -Paul Walker
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-07-2013, 08:39 AM
FourFourty's Avatar
FourFourty FourFourty is offline
MC Devotee
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Boat: 2015 X23 w/giant punkin motor
Location: Northeast
Posts: 1,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristar Racing View Post
No offense, but twice the fuel? Come on. I'm guessing you work at a Mastercraft dealer?

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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:33 PM.