This didn't appear to post the first time, sorry if it's a repeat:

Gene Kearns wrote:

Your link seems to describe a European robotic application of Pascoe's
complaints... therefore, I suspect his position is still valid....
though the build-up is more precise. In fact, very little is devoted
to marine application.


*************

Nonsense.

First, Pasoce's inflammatory piece is titled "Fiberglass?" Boats, or
something similar, and his theme bash throughout is that many
manufacturers sell boats that are primarily some weird coring material
beneath a very thin layer of fiberglass and the gel coat. There is a
chance you do not understand the nature of "Pascoe's complaint," but
the RIMFIRE technology used by Sea Ray to build these small runabouts
does remotely approach the process Pascoe describes.

As far as the "European application"...No, that's a European article
about how the Sea Ray process is being exported from the US to Europe
and it's written from the perspective of an FRP manufacturer. Sea Ray
won some sort of industry award for technical innovation with this
RIMFIRE process. I thought this might be more convincing than something
that reads
"Sea Ray says........"

If you read the article with an open mind, you will see how the chopped
strand hull is reinforced at critical points with engineered *fabrics*,
which are biaxial and triaxial glass cloth, kevlar, and other materials
in the modern layup.

Show of hands: how many people in the NG have ever been in a Brunswick
layup facility? Funny, staring intensely at the monitor I see almost no
hands except my own. (Once again, the hand in Ohio is disqualified due
to finger position). The description in the European article which
notes a chopped hull with glass mat reinforcements is spot on. Pascoe's
alleged practices are nowhere to be seen. The boats are not built up
with "putty" (as his photo of the failed, "bondo" repair job is
supposed to imply).

If a guy doesn't like Sea Ray, that's his right. But to post stuff
that's ridiculously out of date in response to an inquiry about a new
boat along with the comment
"See how they're made" is done either because the poster doesn't know
any better or because the poster can't find anything (true or untrue)
that appears to be more damaging. In either case, when the "advice" is
bogus it needs to be called for what it is- sheer bs hate mail and
nothing more.

****************

Gene Kearns also wrote:

My personal experience with Brunswick is that they trash (cheapen)
everything that they touch.

***********

Remember, the OP was asking for advice about new boats in the year
2005. Impressions formed in the mid-90's or before may no longer be
relevant. In the last several years, Bayliner quality control has
improved
substantially, the larger Bayliner models supplanted with a line of
boats easily built to the prevailing industry standards (Meridian), and
some of the reasons that one could bash Brunswick in the past have just
simply disappeared.

I don't put much stock in the JD Power awards, but those who find them
very important barometers of product quality would want to note that in
a category just above runabouts, Sea Ray was either the top finisher or
rated extremely highly in the latest release.

You don't suppose Pascoe's wierd chunk of "Sea Ray" putty hull came off
of Larry's old jetski, do you?

We're halfway through the 00's, and some folks seem stuck in the late
80's, early 90's. :-)