1994 Sport Nautique wake??

(blindmnkee3) · (blindmnkee3) **Join Date: Aug 2001** 02-16-2007, 9:13 AM

I'm looking at 94 CC Sport Nautique and had heard that the hull on these boats is basically the same as the 01-02 Super Air's, is this true?

I was told that this is a great boat that only gets better as you add more weight. Any insights or thoughts?

(noti_dad) · (noti_dad) **Join Date: Jul 2003** 02-16-2007, 10:08 AM

94-97 sport nautique is the same hull as the 94-97 supersport and 97-06 super air 210. I will take alot of weight to get the SAN wake but it is the same wetted surface.

(psudy) · (psudy) **Join Date: Dec 2003** 02-16-2007, 10:15 AM

If it is the same hull, why would it take more weight?

(houdini) · (houdini) **Join Date: Aug 2005** 02-16-2007, 10:30 AM

i used to ride in a 93 sport. very good wake for a DD. we put 2 large fat sacs on the sides of the engine and a extended pylon. the wake was very comparable to a newer stock ballst v drive.

(phall925) · (phall925) **Join Date: Feb 2005** 02-16-2007, 10:35 AM

Great Boat. Used to ride behind a 96. Two fat sacs on the engine sides, one in the rear, sand up front and about 12 people =======massive wake

(gundogg) · (gundogg) **Join Date: Feb 2004** 02-16-2007, 11:16 AM

It would take more weight because it is a DD with the engine in the middle of the boat. Also, it doesn't have any stock ballast, so I believe that is why notidad said it would take a lot of wieght to equal a SAN

(mhayes) · (mhayes) **Join Date: Jul 2004** 02-16-2007, 11:53 AM

It shouldn't take anymore weight to get it to SAN level than what is in a SAN (stock ballast or not, it's still weight). As for it being a direct drive, that just means you have to put less in the ski locker and more in the back than a SAN. Either way, it works out the same.

(denverd1)

shouldn't take more weight. great boat.

(peter_c) · (peter_c) **Join Date: Sep 2001** 02-16-2007, 1:35 PM

Many will agree, the 1997 and older hulls are one of the best wakes around.

Load it up and go riding!!

(ponyh8r) · (ponyh8r) **Join Date: Dec 2004** 02-16-2007, 2:17 PM

Paul,

It will take more weight due to engine location. The standard 350 is a very heavy engine and the V-drive and trans are also located near the rear of the boat.

(blindmnkee3) · (blindmnkee3) **Join Date: Aug 2001** 02-16-2007, 9:13 PM

Wow, thanks for all the posts, very helpful! I definately plan on weighting it down, who needs space to walk in a boat right?! ;)

(ltk) · (ltk) **Join Date: Nov 2005** 02-17-2007, 9:20 AM

I have a 93 SN, that kicks a mean wake but completely at the sacrifice of walking room. My biggest recommendation is to make sure you have even weight distribution. Loading the rear doesn't help too much over all. Personally I run a 700 in the rear. I took out the back seat. Even the 1-2 foot difference sliding it back without the seat seriously helps since it's a pendilum effect. Then I have a 550 on each side of the motor but probably only fill them to ~475-500. If you slide them towards the front, you'll leave room for someone to sit behind each bag if need be on the floor. Then I have the triangle shaped one for the nose that I fill about half way. Whoever sits in the front gets to ride on a water bed. With the driver, one to two on the passenger seat, another on the engine, and someone in the front, it's a sweet wake. If you load any more in the rear it just takes forever to plane off. And if you haven't already, trash your stock prop and get an OJ CNC milled 4 blade. The best investment I ever made for this boat!