New MB Boats......What the duck?????

Josh, forget the wake, how did you even get up in that horribly choppy water??

That is one question I have for the MB Owners. I have an old X-Star hull (03' X-2, X-1, etc). Great wake obviously, especially with 3k in it. But I must say when the water gets choppy (not that I ever ride then cuz I'm spoiled), the wake loses 4-6" right away. Do the MBs, and bigger boats in general experience the same "chop-down" in wake-size? Just wondering?

Dealer did tell me the 2012 prices have increased, but if purchased now, one could get like boat show pricing...Pretty close to 2011 pricing! He was thinking mid 50's for the 21 footers, around 7-8k more for 23 footers!

Originally Posted by dnell

So here is a thought for you. The price of a F21 tomcat in Utah as of February 2011 was around $56k loaded up quite nice. In October 1st 2011 the price for the new 2012 is around $66k. Amazing boats, yes. But at what point does MB say " our price's are getting out of controll, can the average family buy our boat?" is the new MB's with all the changes worth the increasing price? In february if you wanted a NEW wake boat and you did not want to completely break the bank you had 2 options. A MB or the Axis. At $66k I would be out, they hit $70k+ there are hundreds of nice low hr wake boats out there. So my thought is MB should keep there prices in check for the average family. Just sayin'

yea every boat company should, but its a niche market

as long as mastercraft, malibu, and nautique keep pumping out 100k or more boats on the reg the better skiiers choice, mb, tige and epic will do well becuase theyre most expensive boats are just reaching into the middle range of the "big 3" its amazing, but then again, at 100k for a 22 footer then 65 for an z3, team 23, epic 23v looks like a bargain considering most of these boats are made of the same stuff.

Stock surf wake - 3 dudes in boat - 3/4 tank of gas - 2012 - 23' TWB.

Oh - All in less than 60 seconds - BOOM!

You should put some protection on the edge of that swim platform so it doesn't get dinged up while you're surfing on top of it....

My thoughts on your questions...

Originally Posted by Kingsriver

I have been reading this thread for the last few days and since I am trying to pick between 23 MB WB and 23 Malibu this has been very informative. IS the Ski wake on the MB that Bad. It's no picnic. But okay for recreational skiing at 30+ mph (e.g. no hard cutting across the wake). But the Malibu will be better due to a flatter hull (see pic below). I like to Ski some and Wakboard and I want to learn to surf. My kids Board and I am sure they will learn to surf as soon as I buy a new boat. I am 47 and Kids are 11 and 14 and my wife just likes to ride in the boat and not get beat up. Here is my questions?
1. How do both boats handle in chop I have been told Malibu does not handle rough water as well as MB. We boat at Shaver Lake and Pine Flat in Central California. The MB will be better in chop. Again, see the pic below. Deeper V equals better ride in rough water, but worse ski wake. It's simple physics.
2. All Around Boat? Both are great "all around" boats. Is the Malibu worth the extra 15+k? Only you can answer that question. Depends on what you value in life. For me the answer is no. But I totally understand the appeal of the Bu's, especially the 23 LSV. It's a sweet boat.
3. Ski Wake and Board and Surf Wake. I dont want to buy more bags I want to make what is in the boat work for me. Is the Malibu system better or worse thant he MB simple fill sytem? MB holds 2x as much water and fills 5x faster. That plus the deep V hull makes a very surfable stock wave. The quick fill makes switching from goofy to regular very quick. With that said, for a killer surf wave you need extra weight in any boat. But if you don't want to be filling bags, the MB is your best bet. The one place the Bu has an advantage is that it has a tank in the bow (albeit a small one). MB tanks extend from the transom to the windshield, but nothing in the bow.
4. The fit and Finish is great on Malibu and MB is the best I have seen next to Malibu. How do they look in 5 years after use? Not sure, I only had my first MB for two years, and it still looked brand new.
5. Does MB weigh so much more than the Malibu and is the fuel milage as poor as the Malibui Dealers claim? The MB 23 TWB weight 4,100 lbs. The Malibu 23 LSV weighs 3,900 lbs. I have the 5.7L EX343 in my MB. I find it very efficient. I'm always amazed how far a tank of gas goes, but I have nothing to compare it too. I would expect the 5.7L Monsoon350 to be similar. Bottom line, don't buy a boat if you are at all worried about buying lots of gas.

Malibu 23 LSV - vs. - MB 23 TWB

This is a funny thread... it started with a guy claiming the MB's we "smushy" and it has evolved into yet another thread praising the MB for it's features, quality, interior, wake, price, etc. Seems like every MB thread (even the NMMA thread) eventually wind there way back to this reality: MB offers more features and quality for the money than any other boat in the industry (e.g. best bang for your buck).

BTW... I finally went out into my garage tonight to see if my boat was "smushy" too. I pressed all over the fiberglass... up and down the side. It felt like a brick wall. I honestly don't know what the OP is talking about.

Originally Posted by ixfe

This is a funny thread... it started with a guy claiming the MB's we "smushy" and it has evolved into yet another thread praising the MB for it's features, quality, interior, wake, price, etc. Seems like every MB thread (even the NMMA thread) eventually wind there way back to this reality: MB offers more features and quality for the money than any other boat in the industry (e.g. best bang for your buck).

BTW... I finally went out into my garage tonight to see if my boat was "smushy" too. I pressed all over the fiberglass... up and down the side. It felt like a brick wall. I honestly don't know what the OP is talking about.

Well... lest this turn into a fanboy circlejerk, there are a few things that could be addressed...

Stuff that is nicer on malibus:

1. A raw water seacock (why oh why does my MB have a 1 1/4" hole in the bottom with no way to shut it off?)
2. Seat base material (when you pull up the seats on my MB, they will flex a bit... my Malibu never did that)
3. electrical components aren't as nice... kinda cheap fuse panels instead of breaker panels
4. speakers in the dash... holy smokes do I miss a soundstage
5. driver's seat... yeah the MB swivels, but you have to manually pull something to make it swivel, unlike the Bu that's on a swivel.

But those are really my only gripes and they are small ones.

No boat is perfect. MBs are imperfect. BUs and CCs are also imperfect. But, in core competencies (build, wake, drive, comfort & style), MB is amazing and extra amazing from a value point of view. I researched and test rode CC/BU/MB when I was looking. And, I bought the best boat for me independent price. So, the price was just a very nice kicker. I so dig the wake shape and bagless/pumpless/pipeless/moldless ballast system. I also dig the build quality, drive capability and styling of their 2012 offering. This is why I chose the MB as my boat.

For the wakeboard wake, I plan to use the stock ballast plus 300 to 500 lbs of lead to round it out.
For the surf wave, I plan to use the stock ballast, some lead and a big bag of water in the rear locker.
For the ski wake, I plan to empty the ballast, have weight in the nose and use the trim tab to help a little.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

A raw water seacock (why oh why does my MB have a 1 1/4" hole in the bottom with no way to shut it off?)

What does this mean and why do I care about it? I've seen you complain about this in several threads on several forums. Enlighten me...

I looked at a new MB recently and didn't notice any weakness in the hull, but maybe that's because the boats are so fugly I couldn't stand to look at it long. In all seriousness, they're probably the best all-around value on a new boat, but I'd rather drive a Pontiac Aztek. The dealer acknowledged that that is MB's big problem and told me to expect some major re-designs soon.

you think this boat is ugly????

Originally Posted by ixfe

What does this mean and why do I care about it? I've seen you complain about this in several threads on several forums. Enlighten me...

If your boat is on the water and your intake hose bursts, or you lose your raw water pump, or shoot if you grenade an impeller and want to change it on the water you can't. There is no way to shut off the flow of water into the boat.

You should care about it if you'd like to be able to keep your boat from sinking if something bad happens.

Definitely on my winter "upgrade" list.

Seacocks & Valves - According to voluntary industry standards, seacocks or gate valves, which can be closed in an emergency or when the skipper is away from the boat for extended periods, must be used at all thru-hulls below the heeled waterline. The valves and fittings must be made of bronze or Marelon®, which are not likely to break when struck accidentally with a foot or anchor. (RC Marine's Marelon® seacocks are the only plastic seacocks that meet the requirements of Underwriters Laboratories.)

Seacocks are widely regarded as being more reliable than gate valves. In an emergency, a quick glance at a seacock will tell you whether it is open or closed. With a gate valve, you can't tell. Gate vales also have a reputation for failing internally because the different metals-steel inside, bronze outside-aren't compatible. Look for a pinkish color on the bronze, which indicates corrosion.

Other thru-hulls that need inspecting periodically are transducers and raw-water intake strainers. Ice can bend a strainer that isn't winterized properly. You should either drain the bowl or fill it with antifreeze. Even if the seacock has been closed for the winter, water can enter the boat when the seacock is opened in the spring.

Removable transducers and impellers must be locked in place securely or they can work loose and sink the boat.

Boats sink when hoses slip off the seacocks' nipples. Hoses connected to the fittings must be double-clamped with stainless steel clamps. Rusted clamps should be replaced.

Boats sink because a hose split. Hoses at thru-hulls should be the reinforced type, which is usually a heavy black hose. Lighter, unreinforced PVC hoses can (and do) rupture and crack. Check the entire length of the hose, as excessive heat from the engine or chemicals (bilge cleaners, battery acid, etc.) can cause isolated failures. Replace any hoses that are suspect.

http://www.boatus.com/foundation/guide/boat_7.html

And a couple examples to show that this does happen in the "real world":

http://www.themalibucrew.com/forums/...g-cover-issue/

http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showt...e+burst&page=2

DFTR, Jason, or Ian. What speed are you guys riding at with full ballast? At what speed does the wake clean up at with no ballast. The reason I ask is for the kids I would like to get a wake that cleans up at lower speeds than my current boat. At 17-19 with no ballast my boats wake is pretty steep and washy for kids to learn on there is not much I can do about tuning it. With full ballast I have to ride at 23.5 to keep it clean. Also how temperamental is the human factor on the wake? Thanks for any help. DFTR that wake looks like fun thanks for sharing the pics.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

http://www.boatus.com/foundation/guide/boat_7.html

And a couple examples to show that this does happen in the "real world":

http://www.themalibucrew.com/forums/...g-cover-issue/

http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showt...e+burst&page=2

Shawn,
Have you called MB to discuss this with them?
i've had a few conversations with Shane about a couple of issues, and he's always been very open minded and responsive.

Just curious.....

Originally Posted by TheSqueakyWheel

Shawn,
Have you called MB to discuss this with them?
i've had a few conversations with Shane about a couple of issues, and he's always been very open minded and responsive.

Just curious.....

No not directly... just through my dealer.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

If your boat is on the water and your intake hose bursts, or you lose your raw water pump, or shoot if you grenade an impeller and want to change it on the water you can't. There is no way to shut off the flow of water into the boat.

You should care about it if you'd like to be able to keep your boat from sinking if something bad happens.

Definitely on my winter "upgrade" list.

It's also a coast guard requirement, not sure how MB got around that one.

Originally Posted by 05mobiuslsv

It's also a coast guard requirement, not sure how MB got around that one.

That is what I was thinking as well. Seems like an awfully cheap thing to skip. If I had one I would definetely add it.

Originally Posted by 3domfighter

I looked at a new MB recently and didn't notice any weakness in the hull, but maybe that's because the boats are so fugly I couldn't stand to look at it long. In all seriousness, they're probably the best all-around value on a new boat, but I'd rather drive a Pontiac Aztek. The dealer acknowledged that that is MB's big problem and told me to expect some major re-designs soon.

I am saying this somewhat joking around but you have terrible taste. The boat shares nothing design wise with the pontiac aztec. The new Xstar might or the Nautique 220 but the MB has nothing but clean and classic lines.

My biggest design critiques are that the subpad is so friggen short. It looks like it would be comfortable for 1 person to lay on and that is it. I think they should ditch the fiberglass deck that goes in between the sunpad and top of the rear seat, extend the sunpad back instead of having the forward sloping deck at the transom and maybe make the cockpit a few inches shorter. I know they designed it like they did to create a huge cockpit but I would personally prefer a slightly smaller cokpit and an actual usable sunpad. It is as much about looks though as actually using it. It jsut looks slightly out of proportion.

Corby ~ BOOM!
Mark ~ My boy (12) rides at 20 mph, no ballast and it's decent.

Originally Posted by 3domfighter

I looked at a new MB recently and didn't notice any weakness in the hull, but maybe that's because the boats are so fugly I couldn't stand to look at it long. In all seriousness, they're probably the best all-around value on a new boat, but I'd rather drive a Pontiac Aztek. The dealer acknowledged that that is MB's big problem and told me to expect some major re-designs soon.

Oh yeah, I know you have good taste because the Xstar you just bought

> I know they designed it like they did to create a huge cockpit but I would personally prefer a slightly smaller cokpit and an actual usable sunpad.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But, I totally disagree. I believe in optimizing what is most used. So, please don't optimize the sunpad over the cockpit. And, for god's sake, please don't optimize the bow over the cockpit.

I have only two gripes about my 2012 21WB. 1) the sunpad opens/slams shut and 2) the bungies are hard to hook onto the racks. I accepted these two nits because no boat is perfect and I know what is much much more important to me (build, drive, wake, ballast, comfort, style, price).

Regarding the seacock, I will look into that. I know that my 2000 BU had direct connects to the engine without without any shut off valves. I am not sure how that has changed in the newer models.

Originally Posted by diamonddad

> I know they designed it like they did to create a huge cockpit but I would personally prefer a slightly smaller cokpit and an actual usable sunpad.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But, I totally disagree. I believe in optimizing what is most used. So, please don't optimize the sunpad over the cockpit. And, for god's sake, please don't optimize the bow over the cockpit.

I have only two gripes about my 2012 21WB. 1) the sunpad opens/slams shut and 2) the bungies are hard to hook onto the racks. I accepted these two nits because no boat is perfect and I know what is much much more important to me (build, drive, wake, ballast, comfort, style, price).

Regarding the seacock, I will look into that. I know that my 2000 BU had direct connects to the engine without without any shut off valves. I am not sure how that has changed in the newer models.

The "slam" I've gotten used to (or used to shutting gently by hand). The bungies... have you snapped yourself in the forehead with one yet? My kids thought it was hilarious when I did. I like the racks but when fully loaded (two boards and a surfboard) there is very little tension on the bottom wakeboard and it tends to move around if you are making time over rough water. I was sorta thinking about seeing whether I could add a second bungie for the bottom rack for that circumstance.

I don't want to come off as bashing MB (but maybe as giving a bit of constructive criticism)... we came from a similar boat to yours (an 06 vride in our case), and the MB is soooo much better in so many ways than the vride. As a weekend warrior, the ride through chop is a vast improvement. The interior room in the 23' has yet to feel cramped. Love the tower, love the bimini, can't say enough about how easy it is to switch disciplines (reg surf, goofy surf, full ballast, no ballast). I'd also say that the unballasted wake is smaller (or at least less lippy) than our unballasted vride wake was

You guys adding extra weight are crazy (in a good way, but crazy still)... the stock wakeboard wake (at least on the 23') is already knee blowingly big. And I'm very happy with the stock surf wake with no added sacks. Once I figured out to partially fill the non-surf side, I've not wanted for additional weight at all.

Yes, a couple of unexpected things I have noticed on my 2012 MB compared to my 2000 BU.

1) The 5 mph wake is somehow much smaller in my MB. This is nice for me as I have to go for 15 minutes in a no-wake zone to start/end the day.
2) The ski wake is somehow smaller on my MB. This will be nice for the occasional skier that we pull.

Originally Posted by polarbill

I am saying this somewhat joking around but you have terrible taste. The boat shares nothing design wise with the pontiac aztec. The new Xstar might or the Nautique 220 but the MB has nothing but clean and classic lines.

My biggest design critiques are that the subpad is so friggen short. It looks like it would be comfortable for 1 person to lay on and that is it. I think they should ditch the fiberglass deck that goes in between the sunpad and top of the rear seat, extend the sunpad back instead of having the forward sloping deck at the transom and maybe make the cockpit a few inches shorter. I know they designed it like they did to create a huge cockpit but I would personally prefer a slightly smaller cokpit and an actual usable sunpad. It is as much about looks though as actually using it. It jsut looks slightly out of proportion.

I did forget the all-important "IMO", so allow me to retroactively point out that this is just personal opinion. I'm not trying to crap on anyone's boat, either. As I said, I think that it's all-around one of the best boats I've seen for the money. I've tried to talk myself into liking them because I'd love to want to buy one. There's just something about it that's like nails on a chalkboard to me. Like the boat equivalent to the Aztek (though I agree they don't share styling cues).

The MB wake is nice and clean. I regularly ride one with full ballast at 21.5. Somewhere, Ian has pics of his 5 year old on a ski trainer behind his widebody. wake was fine at that slow speed.

Here's a HS Backroll (Booted) that also shows the wake. Now that is a lip at the top... Full stock ballast, 450 in the nose, 3 adults, 2 kids, 26.5 mph with a 85' line I think.

Josh is that Utah Lake? How deep is it? I have driven by many times and wanted to stop on my way to ID.

Not to change the sub. ...but what is that dwelling,compound,or nuclear building over on the right side of the pic? Whatever it is

pizza man came. was gonna say whatever it is they have it all to themselves

Hate ~ Nope... It's a little place called "ASPEN!" UT Lake is 8 to 12' deep at it's prime, not bad if you can avoid the zoo of people.

Drew ~ 2 Weeks in a row that nobody was on the lake with us. I jumped in the water with 35 deg air temp... Thank goodness for drysuits! Here's a shot I got of my bro going HUGE off the MB F21

Originally Posted by 05mobiuslsv

It's also a coast guard requirement, not sure how MB got around that one.

Do all boats meet coast guard requirements? I wonder if they have to report to anyone?

The shut off valve at the engine intake is probably one of those things that the NMMA requires, and I would only assume that since MB does not report the boats' construction to anyone, they can leave out whatever they deem fit. I sure got blasted by a few guys in the NMMA thread for asking if there was anything in an MB that NMMA would not approve of. Again, I don't say it by way of bashing, but this is probably one of the exact kinds of things that would not have gotten past NMMA or ABYC inspection. I can tell you that my 2 tiges, 1 MC and 1 Malibu all had a shut off valve at the engine intake.

I would still be happy to own an MB despite this.

Josh, anytime you are in St. George, send me a message and I would take you out. I am a terrible wakeboarder, but have been known to go out all months of the year. When you are choking on that inversion up north, it is usually 65 degrees and dead calm here.

Tall ~ Huge thanks bro... Might have to take you up on that since the winter blues get me down. I heard the X45 Wake is legit and still yet to try it out.

Originally Posted by talltigeguy

Do all boats meet coast guard requirements? I wonder if they have to report to anyone?

The shut off valve at the engine intake is probably one of those things that the NMMA requires, and I would only assume that since MB does not report the boats' construction to anyone, they can leave out whatever they deem fit. I sure got blasted by a few guys in the NMMA thread for asking if there was anything in an MB that NMMA would not approve of. Again, I don't say it by way of bashing, but this is probably one of the exact kinds of things that would not have gotten past NMMA or ABYC inspection. I can tell you that my 2 tiges, 1 MC and 1 Malibu all had a shut off valve at the engine intake.

I would still be happy to own an MB despite this.

Josh, anytime you are in St. George, send me a message and I would take you out. I am a terrible wakeboarder, but have been known to go out all months of the year. When you are choking on that inversion up north, it is usually 65 degrees and dead calm here.

Well said on all points!

Originally Posted by talltigeguy

Do all boats meet coast guard requirements? I wonder if they have to report to anyone?

The shut off valve at the engine intake is probably one of those things that the NMMA requires, and I would only assume that since MB does not report the boats' construction to anyone, they can leave out whatever they deem fit. I sure got blasted by a few guys in the NMMA thread for asking if there was anything in an MB that NMMA would not approve of. Again, I don't say it by way of bashing, but this is probably one of the exact kinds of things that would not have gotten past NMMA or ABYC inspection. I can tell you that my 2 tiges, 1 MC and 1 Malibu all had a shut off valve at the engine intake.

I would still be happy to own an MB despite this.

Josh, anytime you are in St. George, send me a message and I would take you out. I am a terrible wakeboarder, but have been known to go out all months of the year. When you are choking on that inversion up north, it is usually 65 degrees and dead calm here.

NMMA certification is based on the Code of Federal Standards (USCG regulations) and ABYC standards. I do not believe NMMA has individual standards outside of those governing/guiding bodies. As far as I can tell the USCG and CFR have no references to seacocks. However, ABYC does. Additionally, if the impeller is above your waterline why would you need a seacock to change the impeller?

I don't like choppy water, or wakesurfing. So it sounds like I still made the right choice! :-)

Originally Posted by norcalrider

NMMA certification is based on the Code of Federal Standards (USCG regulations) and ABYC standards. I do not believe NMMA has individual standards outside of those governing/guiding bodies. As far as I can tell the USCG and CFR have no references to seacocks. However, ABYC does. Additionally, if the impeller is above your waterline why would you need a seacock to change the impeller?

Isn't that what this says?

46 CFR 171.119(b)

46 CFR is for shipping and passenger carying vessels so not sure if it applies to inboard boats like ours. All other manufacturers seem to be following it though.

Originally Posted by 05mobiuslsv

46 CFR is for shipping and passenger carying vessels so not sure if it applies to inboard boats like ours. All other manufacturers seem to be following it though.

Again, as far as I can tell there are no USCG regulations for recreational boats requiring seacocks. ABYC standards do. I've got no dog in this fight so there's no bias here.

Originally Posted by downfortheride

Tall ~ Huge thanks bro... Might have to take you up on that since the winter blues get me down. I heard the X45 Wake is legit and still yet to try it out.

I had to sell the X45. I got a Malibu 247 now. Personally, I like the 247 wake better, but I did have the 45 dialed in pretty well. Hijack over.

My 2000 BU VLX had NO SEACOCKs. It had many direct rubber hose through the hull without valves.

Originally Posted by diamonddad

My 2000 BU VLX had NO SEACOCKs. It had many direct rubber hose through the hull without valves.

You realize that was 12 years ago guy.

Originally Posted by 05mobiuslsv

You realize that was 12 years ago guy.

My boat does not have airbags.....it's it still safe to drive?........

Originally Posted by diamonddad

> I know they designed it like they did to create a huge cockpit but I would personally prefer a slightly smaller cokpit and an actual usable sunpad.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But, I totally disagree. I believe in optimizing what is most used. So, please don't optimize the sunpad over the cockpit. And, for god's sake, please don't optimize the bow over the cockpit.

.

Agree 100%..


You spend 30 minutes getting a suntan on the pad in the back and 1,000 hours riding and sitting in it.. Make the cabin bigger - put the sunpad on a pontoon or cruiser where you're doing that kind of stuff.. the small sunpad and big cabbin is my favorite part about the mb.

I'm pretty sure my 06 Supra 24V dosen't have a shut off on the raw water intake. It never really bothered me.

Originally Posted by badhabit

My boat does not have airbags.....it's it still safe to drive?........

It would be much safer with airbags, keep you from sinking if your intake hose splits.

I guess a huge sunpad is preferred if your boat is used mostly as a tied up cove party boat. Everyone has their priorities.

Originally Posted by diamonddad

I guess a huge sunpad is preferred if your boat is used mostly as a tied up cove party boat. Everyone has their priorities.

That would be one of the reasons. The other is it just looks out of proportion to me with the small sunpad. It looks especially out of proportion on the 23's though. I know it is all personal preference and that would be mine but you guys are probably right. Most people probably like the extra interior room.

My 89 Supra does not have a sea cock valve . My 08 Nautique has them on the raw water hose and all three of the ballast pump fittings. Both are NMMA certified the standards must have changed?

Give me a bigger cabin over sunpad any day! That was one of the biggest flaws the mb 23v had i think. There was an abundance of wasted of space on the sunpad. it was 23' but felt like a 20' boat on the inside. They nailed the 23twb on proportions in my book. If partying is your thing then yea its nice to have 15 girls dancing on the sunpad, but it doesn't do you any good if you can only drive out 11 to the party spot..

My wife would kill me if we had a small sunpad..... I could go either way on the arguement, but we do a ton of time just hanging out and all the girls lay out up there. As stated above it is a preference thing and both have their benefits.

Originally Posted by tyler97217

My wife would kill me if we had a small sunpad..... I could go either way on the arguement, but we do a ton of time just hanging out and all the girls lay out up there. As stated above it is a preference thing and both have their benefits.

3 girls laying out in bikinis on the sunpad>1 girl laying out on the sunpad

I agree with brett. The sunpad is disproportionately small, just as the moombas sunpads are disproportionately big. Id rather have it smaller though, giving more cabin space. The sunpad is one of the reasons the mbs look funny to me, i think it rests largly on the wide fiberglass all around the pad. If mb would have vinyl/padding all the way up to the back rests, it would make the pad bigger. The sunpad is used for more than just laying out, its vitally important when changing riders, ropes, changing/fixing bindings or fins... etc, and a big usable pad is preferred over a tiny bubbly mb pad. For me, we ride with 5 or less in the boat and am willing to sacrifice a foot of cabin for a foot of sunpad.

Originally Posted by diamonddad

I guess a huge sunpad is preferred if your boat is used mostly as a tied up cove party boat. Everyone has their priorities.

definitely a question of priorities, though not everyone who ties their boat up has a "party boat". My 6 and 4 year old kids definitely enjoy the large sunpad on our boat when we're parked (which we do more often than i'd prefer)...

BUT...i'd still prefer the larger interior.

I would LOVE the bigger cabin. I regularly had 7-10 people in my VLX they loved the boat but I hated it. Mainly cause it was small. I had 15 in it four or five nights throughout the summer. It was kinda scary and I had to pay VERY close attention. It was almost not fun. Now if I had even the f21 or 21TWB it wouldn't been half as bad.

The sunpad of my 21WB is a bit smaller than my VLX. It's smaller but still very functional as a place to sit down and relax. Neither were that good for laying down. Yet, the MB sunpad is definitely easier to pass someone on the swim deck their board.

The cockpit of my 21WB is MUCH larger than my VLX. It's so nice to have everyone sitting in comfort without their knees banging each other all day long.

I can't imagine asking MB to expand the sundeck taking away cockpit space. A few inches won't matter and I certainly would not ask for a foot or two of less cockpit space. That would be nuts.

I remember sitting in backseat of the original 21' XSTAR with my knees almost hitting the backside of the driver's chair! Now that boat had a big sunpad!

Originally Posted by downfortheride

We had 4 adults and 2 small kids in the boat with an extra 450 in the nose. BOOM! This MB is dialed for sure!!!

We went out on a 2012 MB 21 Tomcat last night for a demo, brought my 550 bag, and 4 180-200lb guys. We could not replicate this wake. How fast were you going? We had the bag laying as far up on the floor and it came into the walkway a bit, where was your bag?
I was really bummed about it, because Ive been talking the MB wake up to my buddy who is in the market for a new boat, and the wave just disappointed. We should have just taken the 23ftr out, because that wake is $. I was really hoping to recreate this wave as well to see how it compared to the 23ft WB.

Were you in deep enough water to get the full potential of the wake? The one time I rode the f21 with just stock ballast it was very respectable but where we rode water depth varied between 5 and 10 feet. In the deeper parts the wake was real nice and firm but in the shallower water it was really mellow and just crappy.

you are talking wakeboarding wake or surf wake Smitty? You mention wave and wake in the post.

Smity ~ We have the 450 all the way in the nose and I ride at 25 mph with the wake plate all the way up and the wake is MONEY! Here's the same setup and peeps just on Sunday...

Long time listener, first time caller-
Tal, I recently went through the same process and found a somewhat different opinion thnt is listed. Before you drop a boat load of cash (no pun intended) I figured to offer my findings for what it’s worth.

1.Both boats handled well in chop. The Malibu has the same steep entry into the water where the chop is being cut down initially but feels like there is much more lift towards the back which seems to avoid the chop altogether by riding higher. The MB is a steeper keel all the way through like a run a bout and thus plowing though the water more like a tug boat to create a dense/good rough ride. That hull also adds to the large wake but takes away from the nimble performance and smaller ski wakes. Neither is better, they are different. The ‘flat’ transom that the pics show has little to do with ride from what I found; it’s all how the boat first enters the water. By the time the water is in the back it’s already out of the way. That steep v hull also significantly plays into less performance. I found the MB to be extremely poor at turning, whereas the Malibu turns on a dime and hands you change back! Impressive to say the least.

2.Your call. The fit, finish, sound levels, warranty, technology, performance (that no one seems to mention) I found all to be superior on the Malibu. Are they worth $15k? Your call. I know I wouldn’t want to go to the lake and see the other boat I could’ve gotten pass me by and regret not spending a little bit more for higher level engineering. But then again, that was my call and no regrets!

3.Ski wake is without a doubt, hands down, and clearly superior behind the Malibu. They have 2 hulls- one is a Wake, and the other is a Diamond (skier friendly) to choose from. I went diamond as my family does it all and it did not appear that the diamond had any negative effect to the board/surf wake compared to the gain of the great ski wake. Based on your family description, it does not sound like you are interested in a 1 dimensional core wake boat. You need a family boat that works well all around. Malibu has been on top of the wakeboard scene for years and shows no signs of letting up. They have some of the best pro athletes going-not that it’s a sign of what wake is the best but look at what is ridden at some of those contests, XStars, Wakesetters, and Super Airs. I have to believe there is a reason for that. Surf wake-advantage MB. Malibu is close and you can easily get it there with stock ballast and wedge, but MB surf is slightly nicer on the 21 (23 not so much though imo). Wakeboard, personal. The MB is steep and hard-if you are a pro that likes to get booted, you will like it. Problem that I found is that you can’t slow the boat down for younger/smaller riders or the wake washes. It’s an all or nothing… well it’s mainly just an ‘all’ kind of a wake. If you are a normal guy that would like a lot more control over the size and shape, mellow to steep, a much more rampy wake for softer take offs and landings-Malibu. Both are world class, but to ride the MB you better be too. Malibu system is great with 4 subfloor ballast tanks and a power wedge that is all connected to their presets. One button tied to each family members name, fill and drain on the fly-very slick system. MB is simple too, it’s an rv style flood gate that you toggle a switch for each of the 2 ‘tanks’ they have (my understanding is it’s not really a tank but an enclosed area fiber glassed into the hull-good or bad I don’t know). There is no foam filling for flotation (safety and quieter ride quality, also might answer some of the NMMA questions, I don’t know) in the MB as they flood the hull in that space. Malibu has the foam filled hull along with some sort of sound dampening material. MB does fill quicker than Malibu, but I was told that Malibu now has hi-flow pumps cutting the 3 minutes total fill time to 1.5 minutes. MB fills in 1 min. (not sure where someone gets his 2x more and 5x faster) you cannot fill the MB on the fly, and you cannot drain sitting still. Malibu you can do both. MB 2,300 lbs ballast. Malibu 2,350 lbs ballast.

4.Fit and Finish advantage as you’ve seen Malibu. MB has stepped this up lately-good for them, but unclear as to what their boats will look like in 5 years. I like the wall to wall carpet for a more luxurious look and feel even if you choose the snap out from Malibu, makes the boat quieter as less fiberglass is exposed, the hand wrapped dash and touch screen technology of the Malibu look just brilliant. My knees fit under the Malibu dash but banged the MB. The new driver seat from MB is nice, but is not the smooth swiveling, oversized flip bolster throne that the Malibu offered. It felt as though the MB steering wheel was in my lap, the Malibu I could steer with a finger tip and the fly by wire shifter was simply amazing. I can see why they are the Porsche of the industry.

5.Tow both boats to the lake and back; no way does the MB only weigh 200 lbs more as listed. The advertised weights are just that, advertised. Like the RV industry, they all weigh them differently and at different levels of completion. I’d guess not every builder has a scale; many of them take an educated guess for the brochure. Behind the truck they feel 1,000 lbs apart. I have no way of knowing for sure, but the MB’s tow, drive, and just plain ‘feel’ a lot heavier. I assume you will demo them, look at the hole shot, bow rise, turning ability, ski wakes at speed (not as much for skiing) but for lack of displacement though the water / efficiency of weight and hull design. Then have MB take their boat to Malibu’s factory scales (or the other way around if MB has them) and weigh both boats same day same scale. There may be some fudging that goes on here I’m sure.

In the end, you are looking at 2 great companies. I am surprised though that you are looking at the Wakesetter compared to the MB-apples and oranges. I found the more comparable line is Malibu’s 23 vRide to the MB 23TWB. Malibu’s Ride series has the same rocker switches, ballast, trim level, and so on of the MB. You will also find the price tags nearly identical offering a great value in today’s market. I think you are comparing an Explorer to an Escalade and should be comparing it to a Tahoe. Good luck and happy boating when it comes in.

Originally Posted by Don;1713410
1.Both boats handled well in chop. The Malibu has the same steep entry into the water where the chop is being cut down initially but feels like there is much more lift towards the back which seems to avoid the chop altogether by riding higher. The MB is a steeper keel all the way through like a run a bout and thus plowing though the water more like a tug boat to create a dense/good rough ride. That hull also adds to the large wake but takes away from the nimble performance and smaller ski wakes. [U

Neither is better, they are different[/U]. The ‘flat’ transom that the pics show has little to do with ride from what I found; it’s all how the boat first enters the water. By the time the water is in the back it’s already out of the way. That steep v hull also significantly plays into less performance. I found the MB to be extremely poor at turning, whereas the Malibu turns on a dime and hands you change back! Impressive to say the least.

i imagine in your testing you neither a) hit a double up or b) hit another boats rollers at enough speed for the bow to be out of the water. if their is no advantage to carrying the v entry to the stearn, then why are boats still being built with varying degrees of deadrise? in relatively low chop and speed, the difference may be negligible. increase either of those two variables, and the difference is significant. for reference, check this page:

http://www.tropicalboating.com/power...ull-angle.html

hi jack over....

@ Brandon- yup, we were in 15+ft of water.

@Ian- Sorry only meant wake.

@Josh- So you have your bag laying on the floor going with the length of the boat or have it going width wise and laying across the front seat? I have no doubt the 21TC makes that wake I just wish I could have had it dialed in for my buddy. Im already in the market for a 23WB, and he didnt want a 23ft boat so with the same hull/build quality as the 23WB I thought, and still think the 21TC would be better for him than another Axis/Vride and even the MTZ(x) whatever that new Malibu is called we also demoed yesterday. I really liked the 23WB wake better than the 21TC wake when I was comparing the 2 wake to wake in the same day, but when I saw your post of that photo I knew that setup would sway him from Malibu and maybe sway me from a 23WB to a 21TC. But we both left pretty unsatisfied with the wake, not taking anything away from the rest of the boat which is great. So it just comes down to getting the 21TC dialed in for him again someday. But Im sure once he rides my 23WB when I get it he wont care about the extra 2ft.

@Don Hankey
We rode both the new Malibu mt something yesterday and a 21TC and I cant disagree with you more about cutting through chop/rollers. The MB drives through them with little effect to the driver/passengers like an Escalade, and the Malibu more like the Explorer, but still the Malibu was better than many boats Ive been in.
And I thought the fit and finish was equal in both boats. The MB is less flashy but everything fits like it should and the finish was excellent for a no "frills" boat, the Malibu we were in was "pimped" out more and fit and finish was also excellent, just 2 different styles of fit and finish. To me I like the more simple clean look, and some like the Malibu bling look. MB's throttle is also fly by wire FYI, and the 3 of us that drove both the Malibu and the MB all felt that MB handled and turned both loaded and unloaded with ballast better than the Malibu. I can also comment on the new Malibu pumps, they were pretty fast, not super fast, I would say in the 3-5 minute range the entire boat was full, much faster than previous Malibu that I have been in.
I cant comment on towing as I have towed neither, but with that being said your the first person Ive seen mention that the MB felt that much heavier.

> I found the MB to be extremely poor at turning.

What MB model/year are you talking about?

My 2012 MB 21WB turns on a dime and drives like a sports car. But, of course, this is with the 2012 changes implemented by Shane. BTW, it out performs my 2000 BU VLX which was no slouch compared to the CC SAN for example.

My 2012 MB 21WB also holds line much better than my 2000 BU VLX with regard to rider-steer. Driving is much less stressful.

BTW, a friend of mine got a 2001 Sunsetter VLX with the diamond hull and cursed it's inability to make a good wakeboard wake everyday until he dumped it.

I realize that the new BU is not the old BU. Yet, I did test ride the latest BU VLX against the MB when deciding to get my boat. The BU wakeboard wake was rampy and small by comparison. I think most everyone will agree that the mid 2000s BU VLX had a much better wake (less rampy; easier to build).

Originally Posted by diamonddad

> I found the MB to be extremely poor at turning.

What MB model/year are you talking about?

My 2012 MB 21WB turns on a dime and drives like a sports car. But, of course, this is with the 2012 changes implemented by Shane. BTW, it out performs my 2000 BU VLX which was no slouch compared to the CC SAN for example.

My 2012 MB 21WB also holds line much better than my 2000 BU VLX with regard to rider-steer. Driving is much less stressful.

Everytime you compare your 2000 malibu to your 2012 mb it cracks me up LOL. You couldn't be more wrong about the older hulls producing better wakes than the newer hulls. It's exactly the opposite actually.

I think my 2000 BU VLX was produced with the "VRIDE" name up through 2011.

IMO, the BU 21 VLX wake was significantly improved (more steep) in the mid 2000s (2004?) and then made worse (more rampy; harder to sink) in the late 2000s (2008?). But, its just my opinion.

Originally Posted by diamonddad

I think my 2000 BU VLX was produced with the "VRIDE" name up through 2011.

IMO, the BU 21 VLX wake was significantly improved (more steep) in the mid 2000s (2004?) and then made worse (more rampy; harder to sink) in the late 2000s (2008?). But, its just my opinion.

I have no experience but from everything I have heard/read that is wrong. The early 2000's wakesetter VLX/05-08 vride produced a very rampy wake. I believe the 05-08 VLX was steeper and considered a very good wake. I believe the 09-current might be a little rampier then the 05-08 but still steeper then the early vlx's. Of coarse that is all depending on if you use the wedge/power wedge and where you position it and the ballast would effect the steepness/rampiness of the wake.

Originally Posted by diamonddad

I think my 2000 BU VLX was produced with the "VRIDE" name up through 2011.

IMO, the BU 21 VLX wake was significantly improved (more steep) in the mid 2000s (2004?) and then made worse (more rampy; harder to sink) in the late 2000s (2008?). But, its just my opinion.

One small correction...

2000 BU VLX was produced with the "VRIDE" name up through 2008.

Also, I don't see any problem with GD compairing his new MB to his old Bu. That's his only point of reference. Is he supposed to ignore it? I think we can all decide how much weight to put in that comparison, given the passage of 12 years between his two boats. But it's still helpful, I think.

Originally Posted by polarbill

I have no experience but from everything I have heard/read that is wrong. The early 2000's wakesetter VLX/05-08 vride produced a very rampy wake. I believe the 05-08 VLX was steeper and considered a very good wake. I believe the 09-current might be a little rampier then the 05-08 but still steeper then the early vlx's. Of coarse that is all depending on if you use the wedge/power wedge and where you position it and the ballast would effect the steepness/rampiness of the wake.

Brett, I agree with you. I believe the VLX wake went from very rampy to very nice to not quite as nice (but still much better than the very rampy wake).

Originally Posted by polarbill

I have no experience but from everything I have heard/read that is wrong. The early 2000's wakesetter VLX/05-08 vride produced a very rampy wake. I believe the 05-08 VLX was steeper and considered a very good wake. I believe the 09-current might be a little rampier then the 05-08 but still steeper then the early vlx's. Of coarse that is all depending on if you use the wedge/power wedge and where you position it and the ballast would effect the steepness/rampiness of the wake.

to add a banana to this apples and oranges comparison, I can offer this comparison of the 2006 vride and the 2011 MB twb 23:

vride: easy to get clean above 19, tons of pop with little ballast. add a few people and the wake is plenty big for mere mortals. somewhat sensitive to weight balance in the boat. Nothing moving an 80lb kid won't cure. Adding the wedge would produce a pronounced vert lip. I never liked it because it was too abrupt (at least with the boat unloaded). A little bit of weight makes a much bigger difference in the wake. Two extra 200lb dudes is very noticeable as far as wake size goes.

twb 23: much smaller wake empty than the vride empty with same size crew. Or maybe not smaller, but no lip. This is the sort of wake (empty) where technique and loading the line at the lip are critical. Empty, the boat will reveal flaws in your technique that the vride would mask. 1/4-1/2 full, the wake gets big and rampy, with a good lip. Interestingly, landing on either side of the propwash, inside the wake, is much softer than the vride. Similar shape to the vride, but bigger. As you weight it more and more, the wake gets taller and steeper. Boat seems to take a bit more speed to clean up reliably. 20ish is about right. I also will fill the ballast tanks by about 1/4 when going this slow, so that I've got a bit of ballast to drain to balance the boat while underway. twb is a bit more weight sensitive than the vride, though easily balanced by emptying a bit from the heavy side while under way. twb wake is also wider. I would ride @ 21 on the vride at 75' and I ride @ 23 at 70' on the twb 23.

The vride wake is great, but perhaps a bit less versatile (it can't get as small as the twb 23), though it will shape up a bit slower.

Originally Posted by ixfe

One small correction...

2000 BU VLX was produced with the "VRIDE" name up through 2008.

Also, I don't see any problem with GD compairing his new MB to his old Bu. That's his only point of reference. Is he supposed to ignore it? I think we can all decide how much weight to put in that comparison, given the passage of 12 years between his two boats. But it's still helpful, I think.

the only problem with comparing it is trying to compare new Malibu's to new MB's but using old Malibu's as a reference.

For example. I could say my 84 Mastercraft had a terrible wakeboarding wake and rode like crap in rough water so new mastercrafts must be terrible in rough water and throw bad wakeboarding wakes. Is an 84 mastercraft terrible in rough water and a pretty terrible wakeboarding boat? Yes. Does it have anything what so ever to do with a comparison of a 2011 MAstercraft and a 2011 Malibu? Absolutely not.

I think that is the point NuBu is trying to make.

Originally Posted by diamonddad

I realize that the new BU is not the old BU. Yet, I did test ride the latest BU VLX against the MB when deciding to get my boat. The BU wakeboard wake was rampy and small by comparison.

Did you miss this?

Shawndoggy - "to add a banana to this apples and oranges comparison" LOL you're killing me, that was great might have to use that one in the future.

Polarbill - yes you get it, thanks for making it even easier for them to follow.

Ixfe- Hey maybe you're right, a 2000 malibu might be a good comparison for a 2012 MB. Hope not though, I'm looking at them and an MB could be my next boat. We'll see.

Rest assured that when I test rode the new offerings from CC/BU/MB (SAN/VLX/TWB), I evaluated them on equal footing.

They are all great boats. But, I preferred the steeper wakes from CC/MB and superior ballast system from MB.

The other stuff that I compared to my old boat are things that I have discovered only after owning my MB.

My MB makes a surprisingly small ski wake. My MB makes very little wake at 5 to 6 mph. My MB does not suffer much from rider-steer.

Hopefully, all newer boats do well here too.

Originally Posted by 05mobiuslsv

Shawndoggy - "to add a banana to this apples and oranges comparison" LOL you're killing me, that was great might have to use that one in the future.

I'm here all week.

Originally Posted by buffalow

I have had (8) MB's in the last (6) years. Not one had a spider crack or did I feel the flex you speak of. We put a fair amount of hours on them every year with no issues. Like GD, we drove double ups, chop, yacht wakes and misc stuff with no issues. I have spent a fair amount of time in the factory and the last thing MB ever would do is skimp. When everyone else is going to plastic parts, they went to billet. There is a ton of places they could save money and choose not so I doubt they would start by skimping on the hull.

Like not installing a water intake shut off valve.

You mentioned you spent some time in the factory.....what for? Do you work for MB? (not being sarcastic....it's a real question)

Was the ballast full? How about the fuel level? In my experience with the MB wakes (2008 and newer), I've not seen one that disappoints. With the 21 footers, I never found the need for more weight, but some weight in the nose did mellow it out a bit. If you ge the chance to take one out again, I'd put your crew in the bow and leave the sack at home.

Originally Posted by smitty1258

We went out on a 2012 MB 21 Tomcat last night for a demo, brought my 550 bag, and 4 180-200lb guys. We could not replicate this wake. How fast were you going? We had the bag laying as far up on the floor and it came into the walkway a bit, where was your bag?
I was really bummed about it, because Ive been talking the MB wake up to my buddy who is in the market for a new boat, and the wave just disappointed. We should have just taken the 23ftr out, because that wake is $. I was really hoping to recreate this wave as well to see how it compared to the 23ft WB.

Originally Posted by diamonddad

>
My 2012 MB 21WB turns on a dime and drives like a sports car. But, of course, this is with the 2012 changes implemented by Shane. BTW, it out performs my 2000 BU VLX which was no slouch compared to the CC SAN for example.

If you think the MB 21' turns on a dime, then you really need to drive a vlx, new 21vride, or an a22... I have driven the new 21' mb's, and turning it is harder than getting a lonely fat chick to put down her piece of cake at her skinny friends wedding, and that was unweighted. But seriously, a better boat handling comparison would be between an 21' mb and an xstar(2003-2011). There is no clear winner there.

Back to the topic. I have only had salesman from ONE manufacturer ever point this out to me about "all other boats flex...bla bla bla". This was after I asked him why their boats are so much more expensive than all the rest. I do not and will not go around and push on the side of every boat, I don't see this as a problem. Don't most boat companies give lifetime hull guarantees?

On another note. Today after we were done riding and heading to the dock, I was dumping ballast and decided to see how slow I could go and still have a clean wake on both sides. I still had about 3000 lbs. on board, 3 adults and 3/4 tank. I was able to get down to 17.0 mph (gps calibrated) and had a clean wake on both sides. Next time out I will try it with no ballast and see if I can go slower.