Hydrostream Vegas V bottom

[Go Time]

I've seen many Vegas tunnel Vees, but are there any Vegas V bottoms still out there. They were one of the best around boats of the mid 80's. Never see them anymore.

[pyro]

The XT's were so much more popular, most of the Vees are '84's, before there was an alternative.

[Go Time]

I think your right, Pyro. There was a tunnel V explosion in the mid 80s with the LTVs , XTs ...everyone wanted a tunnel V (me included, had an LTV). Guess that's why you never see the Vees. Although the Vees were better in rough water and faster...... they were harder to drive too.

[A-train-97]

I know what you mean.
The only ones that I have seen besides mine are the ones set up for water skiing. Mine is a 96 x-Stream built by John Spaeth.

[Cp]

I had a V Voyager (200 2.4 Merc) and an XT (Yamaha Excel). They were both great boats. XT was a 'little' faster. V was better all around to me. They both do need a bit of set back though. Even RP couldn't make the XT run over 80 so there ya go. XT is a heavy boat, I guess? Tiger could say for sure, but I bet a V with big push would out run an XT with the same power?

[pyro]

Only if there's a weight difference. The XT doesn't drag the sponsons like a typical MODVP tunnel-vee. A-train, what power/prop/speed you running there? I always ran my best top end numbers with a flat and fast attitude like that.

[BigJohnson]

I know of one in my area. He's had it since '84. Has a 3.6 GT on it.

[Cp]

Only if there's a weight difference.

That's what I'm talking about. There's a BUNCH more surface area in an XT vs a V.

[A-train-97]

A-train, what power/prop/speed you running there? I always ran my best top end numbers with a flat and fast attitude like that.

I just have an almost stock 2.4 carb on the back. I was running a 26p big ear on that run @ 81mph. Started off with 6" of set back and the boat just stuck to the water with full pos trim. Now I'm running a 10" and It feels allot better. So I agree with Cp that these boats need allot of setback to get them to handle like there supposed to. O and mine weighs about 1350 with 15 gals of gas & with out me in it.

[pyro]

I never understood the claims about needing lots of setback. I run 5" total, and mine will easily kite the bow in the mid-80's if I give it a bit too much trim, even with an ET or a cleaver.

[A-train-97]

I wonder if all my set back is do to lack of hp? Or it just might b that yours is an xt & the air entrapment is doing its job. I have noticed that allot of other Vegas Xt's are set up with less setback than me.
All I know for sure is that my boat was slower and it was much more of a ruff ride with 6" of setback.
Pyro, Do you have a weight on your boat? Just wondering if the sponsons really add much more weight.

[pyro]

I never weighed it. Not sure. There's a lot of people with XT's who insist in 10"+ setbacks, but I have always thought they handled nicely with much less. Slower planing speeds, faster planing, and less low-speed porpoise. The only disadvantage is carrying a passenger or two with 200 HP or less. All the trim in the world won't get the bow flying without the extra setback leverage or more power. Moving up to 240hp was well worth the upgrade. It's a whole new boat.

[A-train-97]

Anyone on hear have a weight on a XT rigged?
Finding some more Hp is my next step. Just have to scrape up some doe.

[Go Time]

Judging from the response, there are very few Vegas Vs (or laterversions) out there. Shame for such a nice all around ride. A-train, you better hold on to yours...they do have a good run attitude. My buddy had one in the late 80s with a stock 200 2.4l w/ a bob nose cone lower unit than ran in the low 80s (6" setback) with just him in the boat. Great boat.

[Omahahydrostream]

Heres my 96 vegas -V