wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:
Nice write up. However the boat is very slow for a cruiser and is
extremely
overpriced.


More than fast enough for a 34-foot cruiser in the Pacific NW. And
don't forget, boats sell for more $$$ in the Pacific NW than almost
anywhere else in the county.

A top end speed of 20 knots is slow for a cruiser. I wonder it has to be at
WOT to remain on plane.


The price is justified by the nearly new diesels and the immaculate
shape.......(IMO).
Current owner has spent almost $80,000 in upgrades over the last four
years- and while you never get that back it does make the boat worth at
least a little more than an "average" boat of this age.

I agree, to a point. It may be worth $55k, certainly not $80.

A sistership
with high hour twin 454's, faded gelcoat, and in "average condition"
would probably bring $40,000 or so in the current Pacific NW market- I
would guess. Figure that the market is punishing an average boat
probably 15-25% right now if it's equipped with really thirsty gassers,
and you're back up to $50,000. Figure a $10,000 premium for diesel, a
$5,000 premium for low hours, and a $10,000 premium for virtually
bristol and you're probably up to a price that would buy the boat.

The extras are nice and make the boat more desireable, but you give them way
too much credit.



If it takes all that math to get up to "a price that would buy the
boat", why is that such a deal? Because you would be unlikely to find a
better example of this boat for sale anyplace. It's always cheaper to
buy somebody else's upgrades for half price or less than to start with
a beat up old boat and fool yourself into believing that a few grand
here and a few grand there would change it from a "5" to a "10".


Only a fool would throw $80 grand at a 22 year old 34 foot Wellcraft.

RCE wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

RCE wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...



I think (simply my opinion) that a modern diesel boat engine's lifespan
is
inversely proportional to it's horsepower. I know a guy that's been
through
3 engine rebuilds or replacements of both Yanmar 600 hp engines on his
boat
in 6 years. He did a lot of fishing trips and never got much over 1000
hours
on any of them.

RCE


I screwed up. His engines are *not* Yanmar. They are Manns.

RCE

Oh....

That might explain it, but I didn't know Dave was trying to manufacture
diesel engines.
(just kidding)

FWIW:
I think the correct spelling is M-A-N
http://www.mandiesel.com/mome2.htm

There was one guy from back east who was leading a virtual crusade
against MAN Diesel just a few years ago. He kept experiencing (or at
least claimed he was experiencing) piston failures at very low hours. I
thought I heard he settled with MAN and as a condition of the
settlement he had to take down his defamatory web sites. Wouldn't be
your neighbor/acquaintance, would it?

wrote in message
ups.com...

RCE wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

RCE wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...



I think (simply my opinion) that a modern diesel boat engine's
lifespan
is
inversely proportional to it's horsepower. I know a guy that's been
through
3 engine rebuilds or replacements of both Yanmar 600 hp engines on his
boat
in 6 years. He did a lot of fishing trips and never got much over 1000
hours
on any of them.

RCE


I screwed up. His engines are *not* Yanmar. They are Manns.

RCE

Oh....

That might explain it, but I didn't know Dave was trying to manufacture
diesel engines.
(just kidding)

FWIW:
I think the correct spelling is M-A-N
http://www.mandiesel.com/mome2.htm

There was one guy from back east who was leading a virtual crusade
against MAN Diesel just a few years ago. He kept experiencing (or at
least claimed he was experiencing) piston failures at very low hours. I
thought I heard he settled with MAN and as a condition of the
settlement he had to take down his defamatory web sites. Wouldn't be
your neighbor/acquaintance, would it?



No. He's not that type. Any problems he would have would be taken care of
through his lawyer.

RCE

On 20 Feb 2006 07:21:46 -0800, wrote:

I wish I could recall where to find it, but there has been a study
conducted and a theory advanced that there's a direct relationship
between the amount of fuel a diesel engine consumes and its life
expectancy. The theory bases life expectancy on gallons consumed,
rather than on hours operated.

Fuel consumed relates directly to horsepower generated times hours of
operation, and is more or less meaningless as a durability indicator
except between comparable engines. What are very definite indicators
however are horsepower per pound and horsepower per cubic inch. The
Yanmars rate poorly on both counts since they are light weight, highly
stressed, turbo charged engines putting out a lot of power for their
weight, actually weighing less than the 350 hp gas engines that they
replaced. All turbo charged diesels are high maintenance relative to
their naturally aspirated brethren but some are more conservatively
engineered than others.

They didn't get the nick name "MANgrenades" for nothing.

And I'm sorry Chuck, but I'd be shocked if anybody payed even 90% of the asking price of this boat.

http://yachtworld.com/core/listing/p...95&slim=quick&

No matter how much you upgrade it, it's still a 1984 "Swellcraft".

In article , jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
says...

wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:
Nice write up. However the boat is very slow for a cruiser and is
extremely
overpriced.


More than fast enough for a 34-foot cruiser in the Pacific NW. And
don't forget, boats sell for more $$$ in the Pacific NW than almost
anywhere else in the county.

A top end speed of 20 knots is slow for a cruiser. I wonder it has to be at
WOT to remain on plane.

Where do you come up with these assumptions?

A decent hull in that length will get on a plane at 12 to 14 kts. I
expect that'd be in the 60 to 70% of WOT.

jps