Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Harry Krause wrote:
Gould 0738 wrote: For that sort of hooch can you consider different power?? As you say you didn't really use the power the turboed perkins had anyway & these days Cummins etc have some lovely units at what seem like good prices. My impression is that a new Cummins would run just under twice what it will likely cost to install another (reman) Perkins. Well, you could always hang an outdoor motor off the transom... Hurts me to admit this but, there's an idea Chuck. I wonder why nobody has ever thought of much less actually done that before??? I mean it's outside, no noise, no small,rubber mounted, easy to service, totally self contained but there would probably be down sides; like the crowds of people who would gather everywhere the boat went, just so they could say they know something of it or that they'd met you, or as you work up a coast you'd find people awaiting your arrival at the next port to have a look at it. Upon reflection some ideas are just too ahead of their time, but all kudos to Harry he actually said something that was boating related & even more amazing; true!! K |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() The newly reconfigured 40-foot Willard pilothouse could be a temptation, but there are only two of those in existence. And there is a small problem with the associated price tag. Wowzers- at least for me. Besides, if anything goes wrong with one of these new diesels, it's much harder to diagnose or repair. My old Perkins is easy to understand. I can look at every part and piece on the exterior of that engine and know what it is, how it works, and how to take care of it. It will even run with a stone dead battery- like to see a new Cummins duplicate that. :-) Hi Chuck, I've been looking at the older 30ft Willards w/o the flybridge. They look like a solid basic cruiser. What's your opinion on them? Mark (Gimpy Wannabe) Williams |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi Chuck,
I've been looking at the older 30ft Willards w/o the flybridge. They look like a solid basic cruiser. What's your opinion on them? Mark (Gimpy Wannabe) Williams Willard builds one heck of a boat. They build a lot of motor lifeboats for the armed forces. As a result, much of what they build for pleasure boating is put together to mil specs. Their hulls are laid up in a continuous shift, "wet" process. Willards are exclusively or almost exclusively full displacement hulls, rather than the semi-displacement design that most similar size vessels would employ. There is no finer sea boat than a well found displacement hull when things get seriously snotty, and I always say you pick a boat for the *worst* (not the average) conditions you will encounter. The downside to a displacement hull is that it is "busier" in a calm to moderate sea than a semi-displacement hull. We spent one night at Friday Harbor last week, and the WA State ferry is, for some reason, really hot-footing it into the adjoining ferry dock these days. We were berthed next to a Krogen, 4 feet longer and quite a bit heavier than our boat. The full displacement Krogen rocked violently in the broadside ferry wake, while immediately next door our semi-displacement hull stayed relatively level as it just rode up and over the swell. However, if I were halfway across the Strait of Georgia and it started blowing 40-knots I'd much rather be aboard that Krogen. A lot of the full displacement boats use outriggers and stabilizers. WESMAR makes some very good electronically controlled active fin stabilizers, and some other companies might as well. I think that I'd reserve a few bucks in the budget to add stabilizers after a season or so if we didn't acclimate comfortably to the busier ride. But at last check, that 40-foot Willard pilothouse is about 1/2 a million bucks. Assuming for a moment that we had the option to rearrange priorities enough to invest (no, make that spend) that much money for a boat I'm not sure I'd want to. Boating fun does *not* increase proportionately to the amount spent for a boat- once one gets to the point where a safe and functional boat is attainable. Example: Is the family in the $100k boat having 5 times as much fun as the family in in a $20k boat? Of course not. Is the family in the $2mm boat having 20 times as much fun as the family in the $100k boat? No, again. Sometimes, the great big boats are *less* fun than just a knock-around 30-40 foot family cruiser that is easily operated by a couple. If you want a slow, economically operated, seaworthy boat, a Willard would certainly be among your options. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Example: Is the family in the $100k boat having 5 times as much fun as the family in in a $20k boat? Of course not. Is the family in the $2mm boat having 20 times as much fun as the family in the $100k boat? No, again. Sometimes, the great big boats are *less* fun than just a knock-around 30-40 foot family cruiser that is easily operated by a couple. If you want a slow, economically operated, seaworthy boat, a Willard would certainly be among your options. The older Willard 30s are going for $30 - $40 thousand. Much less than your $150,000 new 40 footer. Mark |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
I can recommend a good repair shop. They can put in a new 7.4 long block
for about 4k. Sorry about your bad luck. Capt. Frank http://www.home.earthlink.net/~aartworks Gould 0738 wrote: Back ten days early. Raw water cooled exhaust manifold, pronounced OK not long ago, not so OK after all. Our well mannered boat always takes care of us. When the tranny went out a couple of years ago, we were behind the breakwater and upwind of the fuel dock. Soft landing. After running perfectly for a week, the engine shut down several seconds after startup while we were still secured to a dock. Pulling the injectors revealed water in #1 cylinder, and the engine will not quite rotate 360 when cranked by hand in either direction. Obviously got water in through the manifold, and the piston came up on a substance that would not compress. Two potentially major-nuisance failures, and both occured in lucky circumstances. Oh well, the old engine had 4000 hours on it, anyway. We had a spectacular week. A little bit of unfortunate bad luck, but a string of glorious days preceding. |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Chuck, I'm curious to know how old was the raw water cooled manifold,
and how many hours were on it. Is there any rule of thumb for replacement of these things? AFAIK, the manifold was original. I had it removed and inspected a couple of years ago, and specifically inquired whether I should consider replacing it. I was told, "No, it looks fine. I wouldn't worry about this manifold at all." Had I to do over again, I would have simply replaced the manifold at the time I was concerned about it due to age, when it was about 15 years old. These manifolds are $$BIG and I went the cheapie route. Paying for it now. :-( Rule of thumb? Replace *before* failure. :-) |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|