More Powerslot talk......

[stump]

With regards to my earlier post about looking for a boat specifcally with a Powerslot, I'm wondering if this is being too hasty? If a boat comes up that is otherwise good, I need more info. before I walk away based on it not having a Powerslot. Let's hear what Powerslot/non-Powerslot owners have to say about this. Keep in mind, I'm looking in the 84-90 range. (although the 91 in the marketplace is interesting.....good price....no slot, I checked) BTW, I'm a free-skier and fledgling wakeboarder with young kids who like to tube and are gearing up for skiing and boarding as well. (too young now)

[Ric]

I gotta be honest and say after spending much time behind both transmissions, it's not that big a difference to recreational skiers.
Holeshot is quite a bit better with the slot but you will refill with fuel more often on a day of pulling tubers, boarders and free skiers with a slot.

91 will be a carb motor, right?

I had a '90 carbed 351 with 1:1 trans in a supra and it had plenty of pull power for whatever we threw at it. Bogging or a weak pull weren't an issue, BUT when we hit the course hard with big guys, we had to be a throttle jockey to keep a good speed due to the 1:1 transmission and lack of perfect pass....

[stump]

Originally Posted by Ric

I gotta be honest and say after spending much time behind both transmissions, it's not that big a difference to recreational skiers.
Holeshot is quite a bit better with the slot but you will refill with fuel more often on a day of pulling tubers, boarders and free skiers with a slot.

91 will be a carb motor, right?

I had a '90 carbed 351 with 1:1 trans in a supra and it had plenty of pull power for whatever we threw at it. Bogging or a weak pull weren't an issue, BUT when we hit the course hard with big guys, we had to be a throttle jockey to keep a good speed due to the 1:1 transmission and lack of perfect pass....

Yes, the 91 is carbed. Thanks for the input......very useful "end of the line" experience!

[Cloaked]

I have had both on several different boats. There is not that much difference once all is said and done but the PS hull config with the drive train option of 1.5:1 does have a harder bite. It holds a better line. As I said before, where this was initially needed was for big guys doing big skiing. The smaller props and gear wasn't getting the job done for record capable tournaments and AWSA was not certifying the boats with a sissy pull. Simple as that. Chris or Bob LaPoint could make a 1:1 stop in it's tracks (figuratively). Mike Syderhoud was another. Sammy Duvall on his jumping double cuts could ruin a timer's skills in a heartbeat. On and on... Even Cindy Todd could pull a 1:1 hard...

Now for the casual user such as myself, I'll never see the day I pull a boat down to slow the time on a course that will disqualify me on a record attempt or a winning pass... But that is what the powerslot was initially all about. Skiers were outperforming the boats and having to make passes over due to slow times (stop watches then).

If I found a boat that felt good, ran good, and looked good, I'd buy it without preference to the gears. Like I said, I have had both and sure, there's a small difference of performance but not to the extent of passing on the non-drive train slot option. You may very well see the slot in the hull and not have the drive option so don't just look at the hull expecting "powerslot."

The 85 I have now is a 1:1 hull slot but it does perfectly fine for my needs and the engine runs like a well oiled Singer sewing machine...

I think the hull design for the slot went away in 90, but don't hold me to that.

As for waking, these boats were not made to throw a wake for wakeboards. In fact, they were specifically designed and named as a "variable plane hull" to suit the needs for slalom (flat), trick (crisp) and jump (flat) at variable speeds for the (then) three events in competetion. The later 80s boats were chined differently to reduce the spray from the sides for the (still acceleratingly skilled) shortline skiers.

The ones that weight them down to change the performance or expect a wakeboard type wake result are basically pi$$ing in the wind, either by misusing the intended design, or stressing the hell out of the boat. When I look at these boats in this range of era and I see one that is advertised for sale with sacks, weights, ballasts, that is the first thing I walk away from. Thus my rant about the "variable plane hull" design. These boats were made to pull with smooth wakes for all practical purposes.

[88 PS190]

i'd agree, slot is more a course boat compared to the 1:1 but you can pull a handle away from a skier even w/ the factory and a 1:1, I don't find myself giving it even 3/4 throttle w/ most skiers. Of course on the lake we ski it isn't uncommon to go 3-4 miles to find the calm water, and the 1:1 saves us alot of fuel compared to using a slot tranny.

A PP will be able to keep the speed constant w/ a standard 1:1.

i agree with the thoughts on the hull for wakeboarding use. It simply was not meant for it. Doesn't mean it doesn't work, just adding that much weight and strain to the boat can cause alot of issues, stress cracking etc. to the hull. Additionally the extended pylons create quite a bit of leverage against the factory pylon, just due to its length.

[stump]

I'm totally in agreement with using a boat within the parameters that it was designed for, but I'm sure almost any MC would be good enough to get everyone to a pretty decent level of boarding, then make decisions based on ability vs. boat suitability. It's nice to hear comments with regards to fuel consumption, as we're paying over 4 bucks per imp. gal. up here!

[Jim@BAWS]

MC came out with the powerslot option from Borg Warner in 1980 model
year 1.5-1.0. Its design was to hold a truer speed with the boat.
It swung a 14 x 18 prop vs. 13 x 13. It is a nice option but do you need it? Dynamic slalom skiers yes...average Joe NO! It burns more fuel and you loose a 1-2 MPH on the top end with the standard 3 blade. I have seen that change especailly with the CUTTER prop. The slot does give a better hole shot.

Now onto the 1991. That boat probably has a FORD 351 240 HP. MC/Indmar did not offer a 285 HP motor till 1992. The slot is important in the 1991 model year as that hull with the 240 HP did not pas the AWSA boat test with a 1:1 tranny. Only the slot passed. Changing of hull designs and MORE wetted surface oil on the 91 you need a slot.

Now onto today, The MCX is awesome. With the OLD slot - 2004 1.5-1.0 was powerful, very powerful. The new slot is great 1:26-1:0. That is what my new boat will have...more power the better.

PS Be careful...double check the tranny, make sure it is a slot. The LARGE extra buldge in the tranny is the first sign. Second is the prop
14 x 18. Some older boats has designation stickers as POWERSLOTS but there where not !


Hope this helps


Jim@BAWS

[stump]

Originally Posted by Jim@BAWS

MC came out with the powerslot option from Borg Warner in 1980 model
year 1.5-1.0. Its design was to hold a truer speed with the boat.
It swung a 14 x 18 prop vs. 13 x 13. It is a nice option but do you need it? Dynamic slalom skiers yes...average Joe NO! It burns more fuel and you loose a 1-2 MPH on the top end with the standard 3 blade. I have seen that change especailly with the CUTTER prop. The slot does give a better hole shot.

Now onto the 1991. That boat probably has a FORD 351 240 HP. MC/Indmar did not offer a 285 HP motor till 1992. The slot is important in the 1991 model year as that hull with the 240 HP did not pas the AWSA boat test with a 1:1 tranny. Only the slot passed. Changing of hull designs and MORE wetted surface oil on the 91 you need a slot.

Now onto today, The MCX is awesome. With the OLD slot - 2004 1.5-1.0 was powerful, very powerful. The new slot is great 1:26-1:0. That is what my new boat will have...more power the better.

PS Be careful...double check the tranny, make sure it is a slot. The LARGE extra buldge in the tranny is the first sign. Second is the prop
14 x 18. Some older boats has designation stickers as POWERSLOTS but there where not !


Hope this helps


Jim@BAWS

Are you saying that in 91, they carried over the engine while changing the hull? Are they "dogs" without the slot? I know it's all relative, but I want an MC that performs like an MC, not a runabout I could spend less on. (not that there's anything wrong with that) Any 1991 non-slot owners out there? Stand up and be heard!

[Cloaked]

Originally Posted by stump

I'm totally in agreement with using a boat within the parameters that it was designed for, but I'm sure almost any MC would be good enough to get everyone to a pretty decent level of boarding, then make decisions based on ability vs. boat suitability. .

That is a good asumption in my opinion. Again, I'd not let a 1:1 tranny discourage me from buying a boat.

[6ballsisall]

Lots of good comments here about the trans choice. Personally my first MC was a 1:1 and I had wanted the 1.5:1. Same scenario with my 95, which is also a 1:1. I think unless you are skiing on a private lake that has a really short setup for the course or you can pull like Jamie Beauchesne the 1:1 has more than enough umph. Unless you fit that criteria I wouldn't get hungup on a purchase related to trans option.