2001 vs NWZ for slalom

Shortly I'm gonna be in market for an NWZ, hopefully. But part of me always wanted a 2001hull bc I always thought them to be the sharpest Ski Nautiques made. Stumbled upon a 2001 that looks decent for the price. My question is, how's the slalom wake on a 2001? I know there's a rooster on 2001. I've never skied behind NWZ nor 2001. I basically only skied behind G2 SN.

NWZ is the first great slalom wake that cc made. The 2001 throws a pretty large wake by today's standards. The difference in cost between a clean 2001 and NWZ is not that large, it makes it hard to justify the performance difference per dollar if you're a slalom skier. The 2001 is a lot more "classic" looking, the NWZ was ahead of its time. The 19'6" / 91" footprint stayed the same for 20 years, that says something.

Spray, tracking and wake size are all superior on the NWZ. It's a similar step forward from 2gen to 2001 as it is from 2001 to NWZ. Improvements on later hulls were smaller, mostly because they got it so right previously- there just wasn't worlds of improvement to be had anymore. I will say that the 97+ tsc did a nice job of softening the wakes features... Lip and rooster tail got a lot rounder and undefined. That's a world class wake even today but the NWZ is still very good, IMHO. I've spent more time in a course behind a 2001 and loved every minute of it- that wake will make a man out of you! Ha.

Also, for a solely slalom rig, I saw a big reduction in the rooster tail on my boat going with the 4 blade "pancake" 208 Acme prop. Never on a ski but visually in the mirror I noticed immediately. You pay about a 3 mph penalty in top end and reduction in hole shot with that prop but if you want to tame the wake down it works.

Orlando76 wrote: I've never skied behind NWZ

You can ski behind our '92 if you'd like.

JPASS wrote: Orlando76 wrote: I've never skied behind NWZ You can ski behind our '92 if you'd like.

I think I might take you up on that sometime. I'm known to bring gas and beer.

Would anyone say that the fit and finish of the NWZ boats is better too? I know you can't even compare my two

I owned the 78 Nautique, 87 Malibu and now a 95 Nautique 196.
The 78 was great in it's day and a very good solid boat with a Huge ski wake unless you went deep. At 15 off and 36 MPH you had to have loose knees on the wakes or you would launch.
The 86 Malibu Skier had a fantastic wake. I went to 32 off never any deeper with it. The boat was poorly built, no where near the quality of a Nautique but it ran great going straight, looked good but turned poorly and with a lot of steering effort. Nautiques turn like you have power steering in comparison.
The 95 Ski Nautique is a very well built boat. The wake is very good, much better than the 1978 version. Still larger than the Malibu and harder but very good, low spray and tracks great. I have yet to go deeper than 15 off and I am slowing down, skiing at 33 mph now. I think the wake would be better at 36 mph.
We came back to Nautique because the engineering, fit and finish is better in every aspect of the boat.

Hope that helps.