Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:16:20 -0500, HK wrote:

I tend to agree regarding the inboards, but...what if one of those
diesels blows a tranny? :}

My starboard tranny had 26 years and maybe 10,000 hours on it before
it started to act up. It was actually still functional but showing
some signs that it needed work. We should only hope that everything
else lasted that long without maintenance.


Your problem is not the point. The point is, that with diesels, you
sometimes are facing repair bills that add up to more than the cost of
a new outboard of the same output.

Harry,
Diesels definitely make financial sense is if you are putting lots of
hours on the engines and plan on keeping the boat/car/truck for a long
time. They cost less in fuel and cost substantially less in maintenance
$/hrs of use, but you need the high usage to offset the initial cost.
The same would apply to a major rebuild.

There are very few recreational boaters who can justify diesels engines
financially, but Wayne is definitely one of them.


D'oh. I'm not knocking diesels. I wouldn't buy another large boat
without them. What I am knocking is the concept that it "costs less" to
run diesels. It doesn't when you add in some of the incredible
"maintenance and repair" charges.

Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 21:13:11 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 20:02:30 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:55:46 -0500, HK wrote:

There haven't been any real "Bertrams" for years, just boats made by
successive companies that bought the Bertram name before, during and
after manufacturing started and stopped...Whittaker, Bertram Trojan,
Feretti and others have owned the name.

There are lots of used ones from the 80s still going strong. They are
such great boats that it pays to do a refurb on them and bring them
back to like new. You can buy a used 46 for 200K or so, put 2 or 300
into a complete refit and still be way ahead of a new boat of
comparable quality.

That's the way I've been thinking lately after seeing a '47 Post that
was refurbished.

I've seen a couple of insurance boats that would make good candidates
for this approach.

Little too old.

I looked at the reply and said - what?

Then I realised - whoops. I meant 47' Post.

Er...sorry.

My whole problem is that I'm vacillating between just buying another
Contender and getting something I would use rather than something "we"
would use and go through the whole renovation process with something
like a Post or Bertram or whatever and never use it.

Mrs. Wave is not a "boater" - she's been on the Ranger exactly four
times since I bought it and when I had the Contenders, the only time
she would step foot on them was when I was taking her and her gal pals
to Martha's or Block for the day or take them for a ride around
Mystic, Point Judith or evening cruises here and there. She could
care less about cruising unless its aboard one of the mega cruise line
boats which holds NO appeal to me in any sense of the word. She liked
Wayne's and Mrs. B's GB, but the first thing she said to me was that
while it was very nice boat, she would feel too confined for any long
duration.

So that's the conundrum. Mrs. Wave is being more than accomodating
with whatever I do decide on, but I'm going nuts not having something
with some reach beyond the environs of near shore fishing and running.

I should never have sold my Fisharound - that was a mistake.

Speaking of Post boats, there is a make of boat that Posts are often
mistaken for - starts with a Y. Know what that is? I can't remember.

Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 21:45:47 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
.. .

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:13:44 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

I've seen a couple of insurance boats that would make good candidates
for this approach.

If you want to end up with a great boat at a reasonable price
(reasonable is relative), I'd start out with something better than an
insurance boat so that you can spend most of the money on cosmetic
stuff. The Berts have great electrical systems so that's not usually
a problem. The 8V92TIs can be completely refurbed for $30K each, a
new genset for another 20K. Figure another 30K for new controls,
instruments and electronics. A good awlgrip job will run about 30 to
50K, complete interior refurb 50 to 100K, new canvas 10K, new props
and shafts 10K.

In Short Wave's case, I think you are a little light in the new controls,
instruments and electronics.

Ever see his daily driver?

http://www.eisboch.com/instruments.jpg

Heh - you should see the road trip car. :)

Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 06:52:04 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

I wonder if you could pull those diesel engines out of the engine room
and strap some Etecs onto the transom.

BOOYA!!!!

Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 07:13:25 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
...

Diesels definitely make financial sense is if you are putting lots of
hours on the engines and plan on keeping the boat/car/truck for a long
time. They cost less in fuel and cost substantially less in maintenance
$/hrs of use, but you need the high usage to offset the initial cost.

Last May I decided I didn't need a big pickup truck anymore so I traded in a
'05 Ford 4x4 Superduty diesel F-350 crew cab for a '07 Ford Ranger 4x4
extended cab with a 4.0L gas engine.

The 325 hp diesel truck weighed over 7,000 lbs and got 17 mpg around town
and 19-20 mpg on the highway.

The Ranger, at about half the weight and with just over 200 hp gets poorer
mileage, in both around town and highway driving.

If my 7.3 had not been totaled, I'd still be driving it.

This F-150 with the 5.4 Triton, 3.85 "tow" package sucks in gas milage
and in horsepower.

I hate it.

Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:16:20 -0500, HK wrote:

I tend to agree regarding the inboards, but...what if one of those
diesels blows a tranny? :}

My starboard tranny had 26 years and maybe 10,000 hours on it before
it started to act up. It was actually still functional but showing
some signs that it needed work. We should only hope that everything
else lasted that long without maintenance.


Your problem is not the point. The point is, that with diesels, you
sometimes are facing repair bills that add up to more than the cost
of a new outboard of the same output.

Harry,
Diesels definitely make financial sense is if you are putting lots of
hours on the engines and plan on keeping the boat/car/truck for a long
time. They cost less in fuel and cost substantially less in
maintenance $/hrs of use, but you need the high usage to offset the
initial cost. The same would apply to a major rebuild.

There are very few recreational boaters who can justify diesels
engines financially, but Wayne is definitely one of them.


D'oh. I'm not knocking diesels. I wouldn't buy another large boat
without them. What I am knocking is the concept that it "costs less" to
run diesels. It doesn't when you add in some of the incredible
"maintenance and repair" charges.

Since I have not run a diesel engine, (and don't run my engine enough to
see the cost savings) I can not speak from personal experience, but I
have always heard truckers and working fisherman use diesels because it
does cost less, even with the high maintenance and repair charges.

Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 06:52:04 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

I wonder if you could pull those diesel engines out of the engine room
and strap some Etecs onto the transom.

BOOYA!!!!

Of course you need the Etecs to get the high torque to get that beast
moving.

Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 21:45:47 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
.. .

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:13:44 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

I've seen a couple of insurance boats that would make good candidates
for this approach.

If you want to end up with a great boat at a reasonable price
(reasonable is relative), I'd start out with something better than an
insurance boat so that you can spend most of the money on cosmetic
stuff. The Berts have great electrical systems so that's not usually
a problem. The 8V92TIs can be completely refurbed for $30K each, a
new genset for another 20K. Figure another 30K for new controls,
instruments and electronics. A good awlgrip job will run about 30 to
50K, complete interior refurb 50 to 100K, new canvas 10K, new props
and shafts 10K.



In Short Wave's case, I think you are a little light in the new controls,
instruments and electronics.

Ever see his daily driver?

http://www.eisboch.com/instruments.jpg

Eisboch


Looks like he's trying to imitate his son's cop car.

Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:27:20 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

That's the way I've been thinking lately after seeing a '47 Post that
was refurbished.

I've seen a couple of insurance boats that would make good candidates
for this approach.

Little too old.

I looked at the reply and said - what?

Then I realised - whoops. I meant 47' Post.

If I were going to put big $$$ into a sportfish refurb project it
would be a Hatt or a Bert, preferably a Bert.

Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:16:20 -0500, HK wrote:

I tend to agree regarding the inboards, but...what if one of those
diesels blows a tranny? :}

My starboard tranny had 26 years and maybe 10,000 hours on it before
it started to act up. It was actually still functional but showing
some signs that it needed work. We should only hope that everything
else lasted that long without maintenance.


Your problem is not the point. The point is, that with diesels, you
sometimes are facing repair bills that add up to more than the cost
of a new outboard of the same output.

Harry,
Diesels definitely make financial sense is if you are putting lots of
hours on the engines and plan on keeping the boat/car/truck for a
long time. They cost less in fuel and cost substantially less in
maintenance $/hrs of use, but you need the high usage to offset the
initial cost. The same would apply to a major rebuild.

There are very few recreational boaters who can justify diesels
engines financially, but Wayne is definitely one of them.


D'oh. I'm not knocking diesels. I wouldn't buy another large boat
without them. What I am knocking is the concept that it "costs less"
to run diesels. It doesn't when you add in some of the incredible
"maintenance and repair" charges.

Since I have not run a diesel engine, (and don't run my engine enough to
see the cost savings) I can not speak from personal experience, but I
have always heard truckers and working fisherman use diesels because it
does cost less, even with the high maintenance and repair charges.


Yeah, everyone hears that. I have a old friend who has a 36-footer with
two Cat engines. The boat is maybe eight years old, and it doesn't have
high hours. He maintains the boat by the book. He's spent tens of
thousands of dollars keeping the engines running. If memory serves, he
had a turbocharger failure this year.

Not that outboards would help him because the boat is too large and too
heavy.

If you read any of the serious boating message boards, you'll note how
easy it is to find diesel horror $torie$.