No announcement yet.

04 Mako 201

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 04 Mako 201


    I was wondering if anyone knew what changes Mako made in this boat since the late 80's? I had a 78 20' before this one and the new one seems to ride a little different but I don't know exactly whats different in the design other than its dry weight is 250 lbs more?

    Any info would be great.


  • #2
    The 20 Mako has gone under the knife many times. The original 20's had pretty shallow deadrise and low gunwales. In the late 80's- early 1990's they went to a 19 degree deadrise in the transom, deluxe windshield & console, etc. The problem with the 201's from the early 1990's is that they were pretty expensive at the time,and as a result, didnt sell well and went out of production.

    In the late 1990's they went back to shallower deadrise only to flip-flop around again a few years ago ( I think).

    I used to own a 1991 Mako 201. it was well made....but was a sopping wet ride. I would get soaked on it...


    • #3
      For the layout of the boat in the various stages there is a post that details the brochures and specs, try this link

      As far as ride, I can tell you that my 1987 20 rides nice until things get rough with a ground swell. However, my friends 1991 (I think I got the year right) his boat has a hull that is deeper, higher gunnels and bigger console and it ride very smooth in the rought stuff. However, the boat tends to be "bow happy" and tends to reach for the sky when planing off. The ride is a night and day difference. We both have similar rigged boats, 20' with 200 Yamahas, but my boat will plane much quicker and has a great pull out of the hole. Both engines are strong and it's the hull causing the difference. Both of our boats have 25 inch transoms and the same motors.

      Just my observations. Brad - feel free to chime in and correct the year of your boat if not correct.

      Current Mqko - 1990 Mako 211 w/2006 250 E-TEC. [br]- Previous Makos 1987 20C, 1979 23\' IB, 1970s 17 Angler


      • #4
        I agree with your observations Dave, but my hull is a 1993 []

        I really need to make good use of my tabs/engine trim to keep the bow down and plane quicker. I also think the windage/drag from my T-top is a factor.

        Anyone else with a 93-96 201 care to comment on the ride/handling?

        Brad Earl[br]\"Hooked Again\"[br]1993 Mako 201 Carolina Edition [br]1993 Yamaha 200[br]Boston/Swampscott, MA


        • #5
          The 04 201 has a 12 degree deadrise like the 78 however it specs out to draw 12" instead of 9" on the 78. The boat seems slightly less stable than the 78 which was a rock. They did raise the deck height but also kept the gunnels the same. So overall I'm wondering if the boat is taller from centerline bottom to the deck? I can't seem to get this info from the factory. I also powered the boat with a 200 Suzuki 4 stroke which weighs 600 lbs where the boat calls for a 535 lb max. I wonder if this affects ride. I definately have to use the trim tabs to keep her from bouncing.

          Any comments? Thank you



          • #6

            a 14 degree deadrise boat should be very stable....

            I am wondering if the combination of the raised deck along with the heavier motor is throwing things off??

            Unfortunately, until Mako gets it act together....the newer boats made from 1994ish until now have not be built as rugged as the older ones. From what I've been told...Robert Schwebke sold the company to some New York financial guys around 1993 and then a few years later they sold it to tracker marine.


            • #7

              Thanks for the info. The boat fundamentally is sound, unfortunately my dealer is one of Bass pro Shops(Travis Boating centers) and they know very little about this boat. They sold a package to me with 200 Suzuki 4 stroke without really knowing if the boat would run properly with it. They also rigged the steering wrong and you need a crow bar to work the shifter. The motor was cutting out at 2500 RPM's as well. All of which they're somehow blamming on me. I'm sure you know the type I'm dealing with. In two months I've been able to use the boat 2 hours. I'm holding my ground but they're starting to wear me out. I should have re-did my 78 20' instead of spending 40K. I had a great mechanic who would come right tothe house. Life was good!


              Steve Sanibel Island


              • #8
                Ahhhh…… poor Steve. Here’s just one more new Mako owner that’s been sucked into the endless void of Tracker Marine Group. My heart goes out to you Steve. I too have had to deal with Tracker and their fellow homeboys. All I can say to you is good luck with your new boat. I hope you registered the boat with Tracker. That is if it was used. If it is a new boat maybe everything is taken care of for you, maybe. Be sure to cover your butt on all warranty issues. I would like to know if your boat was rated for that much horsepower.

                Even though I consider myself a newer year Mako owner, I feel my boat is one of the best boats on the waterways. I wouldn’t trade her for nothing. (Maybe money) I hope I never have to deal with Tracker again. I’m still money short.
                01\' Mako BayShark 2100[br]200 Optimax[br]Lakeland Fl.


                • #9
                  I've got the 94' 201, and I think it's just about all you can get in 20' 4" of boat.

                  This hull that Mako switched to in 93' gives a dry confident ride in the rough stuff.

                  It may not launch out of the hole as quick as some others.

                  I've got the " fin " on the bottom of my 150hp Johnson that helps keep the back down, and it does fine. With the std. Bennett Tabs, that also helps.

                  Mako produced this boat from 93 -96, and the Ringleader has provided great info on this hull.

                  If someone has this boat with a 200hp, please reply with some performance info - cruising speed, and top end. I've been curious for some time.



                  • #10

                    I registered with Mako direct. I'm getting "some" help from a engineer out at Mako, but the majority of the problem lies with this Travis Boating Centers who are owned by Tracker/Bass Pro Shops and the beauracracy. First they sold the boat to me brand new with a 140 Suzuki 4 stroke. No not gonna happen! The boat went like 30 top end. So I gave it back to them and they put the only other option in 4 stroke which was a 200 Suzuki. Since then I've had nothing but problems with the trim tabs, steering, gear shifter, and the motor going dead on me(It also weighs 600lbs, I'm not sure the boat performs right). I've used the boat 2 hours in 2 months because its always at there shop. They tell me the steering issue is due to engine torque, the shiter moves fine, they think the engine cutting out is due to me flooring the motor with the prop out of the water Duh! Each simple problem that would take my regular mechanic no time to diagnose they take a week. And I'm pretty sure the guy in charge has never been on a boat before. He keeps asking other customers what they think might be wrong with my boat. This is nuts! So anyway to make a long story long. I wish I kept my 78.

                    Thanks for the sympathy


                    • #11
                      I have a 2001 mako 201 which is your boat. I bought it in Bonita Springs and for reasons mentioned here it looks much like the older Makos. I have not had a single problem with the boat believe it or not. I think I had the third one made. I even went to the plant in Miami to watch it being made. I also have a 200hp Mercury carb. on it and the dealer did not want to put that motor on it. They wanted to use the 150 but it was my choice to do so. I love the boat but for personal reasons I am now selling it on boattrader. I would be more than happy to answer any questions you might have. There are not to many around here in S. FL of that model. But for my purposes I love it. I can run in 3 feet of water down in the keys or run 10-20 miles out for dolphin during the summer.


                      • #12
                        I wonder why Mako in Miami didn't want you to put the 200 Merc on her. Was it weight or performance related? Your motor probably weighs about 400 lbs or so, maybe 450. The 200 Suzuki 4 stroke they optioned the boat with weighs 600 LBs. I'm thinking the extra weight might be throwing things off.

                        Your thoughts?

                        Thank you