|
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:08:44 -0500, HK wrote:
I doubt the diesels are going to burn half the fuel of the gas engines at the same planing boat speeds. Also, around here there is almost no difference in the cost of gasoline vs. diesel. There used to be, though. Half as much, maybe less. Don't forget that the diesels have a lot more low end torque and run at lower RPMs. The numbers that I quoted are actuals from a guy who made the switch from gas to diesel on a Bertram 33. He was getting more speed at half the fuel. |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
HK wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote: On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 08:23:55 -0800, Chuck Gould penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: Why would every boat in succession always have to be narrower and with a deeper V than previous models? Perhaps the new model is intended for slightly different conditions. Is it possible that the same changes that make the boat less "fishable" in your estimation might make it better suited for cruising and exploring or some other purpose? Unless Brunswick was lying through their teeth (which I find imminently possible), their news releases at the time of purchase gave the reason that they were targeting the sportfishing market. Albemarle builds boats that range up to 40-soome feet in length, and not all are intended exclusively for use by the weekend or retired fisherman. It may be that in order to increase total overall appeal and sales of the new model Albemarle decided to make it slightly less specialized......don't know this for a fact, simply stating a possibility. Indeed, they have taken a local boat, built for local conditions, and corporatized it to sell in a broader market. To build a good case for a decline in quality I think it takes a lot more than the appearance of a new hull design with different characteristics. Why not check out one of the new boats in person and see if fit, finish, hardware, workmanship aren't still up to traditional standards? It was a boat designed for certain local conditions. It now, regardless of fit and finish ranks little above the mongrel stage. I'll be getting underway on one of their new boats, just over 30-feet LOA, in the next week or so. Thus, it wouldn't be prudent to say anything disparaging about the bread and butter, eh? The brand doesn't have the long history in this region that it enjoys back on the east coast, The reason being, pre-Brunswick.... it wasn't designed for or marketed to that region. so I can't say that I will be able to compare it knowledgeably with the pre-2005 produciton- but a pretty thorough at-the-dock examination of one of the current boats a few months ago revealed no glaring defects or cheap-cut aspects- I thought the boat was pretty impressive overall and I am looking forward to the opportunity to learn even more about it. You might as well concede to Harry then, as you are making the argument for him. (The "Hatteras Collection" includes Hatteras, Cabo, and Albemarle. The Harrell family sold to Brunswick in 2005). Albemarle and Hatteras were originally designed as sport fishers for the North Carolina coast. Hatteras hasn't been Hatteras since the High Point, NC factory closed and the "Hatteras Collection" has "evolved" to the point that it has as much in common with sportfishing as a metrosexual does with a salt water tackle box. What the hell would Chuck know about Atlantic Ocean sportfishing boats, based upon an "at-the-dock" examination that "revealed no glaring defects..." How would he know what a "glaring defect" on a sportfishing boat might be? Whenever a corporate conglomerate takes over a boat line, I'm reminded of what happened to Harley-Davidson when it was taken over by AMF. You are an arm chair know-it-all, why can't Chuck be one too? |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
"HK" wrote in message . .. I doubt the diesels are going to burn half the fuel of the gas engines at the same planing boat speeds. Also, around here there is almost no difference in the cost of gasoline vs. diesel. There used to be, though. I don't know the actual burn rates, so this is purely anecdotal. When I had the Egg Harbor with a pair of Cat 3126 diesels and 400 gallon fuel tankage, my brother had my old 26' Phoenix with twin 350 Mercruisers, recently rebuilt and 200 gallon fuel tankage. Once in a while we would take both boats with fishing parties aboard on each out to our secret cod fishing spot, 32 miles straight out from Scituate. We would run together at about 28 kts. He didn't do it often because he burned so much gas. The Egg, being bigger and much heavier burned far less fuel and those Cats were not exactly fuel misers. Eisboch |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 15:10:05 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: Back to Gradys. They are very popular up here in the northeast. I think there are more of them around than any other manufacturer including Boston Whaler. There's a large Grady dealer here in my hometown who stocks and sells a lot of them. I have never understood the attaction to Gradys. I think they are ugly myself fully recognizing that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Having said that, I also recognize that they are solid boats with a great reputation (slightly overstated, but then what isn't?) and built to last. They are still ugly. and overpriced. |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
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. |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
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. |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message . .. 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. Besides, Grand Banks don't come with gas engines. I wonder why. Eisboch |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
Eisboch wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message . .. 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. Besides, Grand Banks don't come with gas engines. I wonder why. Eisboch I wonder if you could pull those diesel engines out of the engine room and strap some Etecs onto the transom. You would then triple the amount of storage space you have on the GB. People were surprised the we had GW's on Lake Lanier, I have seen 4 or 5 GB's on the lake, my guess is there are more. Oh we also have a retired working Tug Boat on the lake, that I think was hauled in from the west coast. For a relatively small lake, (getting smaller all the time), you will see a large assortment of ocean going boats. |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
"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. Eisboch |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Eisboch wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message . .. 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. Besides, Grand Banks don't come with gas engines. I wonder why. Eisboch I wonder if you could pull those diesel engines out of the engine room and strap some Etecs onto the transom. You would then triple the amount of storage space you have on the GB. People were surprised the we had GW's on Lake Lanier, I have seen 4 or 5 GB's on the lake, my guess is there are more. Oh we also have a retired working Tug Boat on the lake, that I think was hauled in from the west coast. For a relatively small lake, (getting smaller all the time), you will see a large assortment of ocean going boats. They're waiting for the return of the Great Flood. Same as buying future oceanfront property in Arizona. |
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 $torie$. |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
On Nov 5, 6:10 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:01:52 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:35:20 -0500, HK wrote: I have no objection to modern materials in the hull, but I'd not buy any boat with foam in between the hull skins. Why? I've read that pounding eventually destroys the foam's structure/strength, leading to excessive hull flex. Yep. That's what I remember reading. --Vic I'd like to see some data, pictures, etc. backing that claim up! Whoever wrote such sounds just like some old fart that's afraid of new technology no matter what! |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 07:21:41 -0500, HK wrote:
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. The boat originally in question was a 34 footer with twin outboards. The numbers are pretty conclusive that the break even point on cost is less than 200 hours of operation. Maintenance cost on the diesels should not become a factor until well beyond 2,000 hours. |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
HK wrote:
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 $torie$. Or aftercooler...I forgot which component he said failed. |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "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 Tom would be right at home in those 'Mad Max' movies out of Australia. |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "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. Eisboch Yeah but... just think how cool you look sporting around town now. You did get a red Ranger? |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
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. Mine works just fine. The gas sucking thing works really well. Hwy 19, City 15. When the oxygenated gas is used is drops to Hwy 15 and City 12. Towing 5000# I get about 12. I hate it. I love mine. It's paid for only costs me gas, insurance, maintenance. |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 07:21:41 -0500, HK wrote: 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. The boat originally in question was a 34 footer with twin outboards. The numbers are pretty conclusive that the break even point on cost is less than 200 hours of operation. Maintenance cost on the diesels should not become a factor until well beyond 2,000 hours. Actually, the numbers you are were "pretty conclusive," but nothing more than speculation, and you had gas prices a buck more a gallon than diesel. That's not the case at my favorite marina, where the last time I filled up, diesel and gas were much closer in price than that. Further, I'm not aware of any "longevity" stats (hours between major rebuilds?) on high horsepower four cycle outboard engines that could be used for comparison with diesels of similar horsepower under similar use. Are you? I do know that the newer diesels that are turning fairly high RPMS and are equipped with air/fuel "boost" gear (turbos and the like) don't have the MTBF stats of the older, slower diesels. |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
Don White wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "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 $30K each, a new genset for another 20K. Figure another 30K for new controls, instruments and electronics. A good awlgrip job will run about 30 to 50K, complete interior refurb 50 to 100K, new canvas 10K, new props and shafts 10K. In Short Wave's case, I think you are a little light in the new controls, instruments and electronics. Ever see his daily driver? http://www.eisboch.com/instruments.jpg Eisboch Tom would be right at home in those 'Mad Max' movies out of Australia. Playing either the title role, or the Tina Turner role. |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
Gene Kearns wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:35:20 -0500, HK penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:32:38 -0800, Chuck Gould wrote: Omigawd. Kevlar and carbon fiber composites! (Watch the video- see the bagged hull). Better run over there quick, Harry, and let them know they don't have the first clue about how to build a boat. Obviously a solid, hand rolled, FRP hull would be vastly superior to anything Hinckley is putting out.....right? I'll admit it right up front - I had my doubts about vacuum bagging with foam core up and until I saw the process being done. I'm convinced now that it's a pretty good method given the proper materials in the manufacturing process. In my opinion, which matters little I realize, it's a better method than the Ranger hand laid glass, foam fill method. Stratos has been using the technique for a while using Kevlar/Carbon composite weave and those boats are tough. I have no objection to modern materials in the hull, but I'd not buy any boat with foam in between the hull skins. Nor would I....and the numbers quoted in support of these infusion technologies, when compared to a more traditional cored construction, is a meaningless comparison. The process yields a sound structural assembly, but a lot of the hype is to promote licen$ing of the SCRIMP portions of the process. Note that the subject boat is injected with vinyl ester resin..... not epoxy.... and makes no mention of the type of fibers or warp schedule used. Similarly, the hype from the NSWC is meaningless because it gives no meaningful comparative measures. The NSWC's numbers may have looked really good because they were paying the bill for development. A boat that weighs as much as a cork will float, but you better hang on to your teeth and your kidneys..... One of the most appealing aspects of my little 21' Parker is that the bare hull weighs about 2900 pounds. Lighter deep vee boats of the same length and width "bounce" a hell of a lot more. |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
HK wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote: On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:35:20 -0500, HK penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:32:38 -0800, Chuck Gould wrote: Omigawd. Kevlar and carbon fiber composites! (Watch the video- see the bagged hull). Better run over there quick, Harry, and let them know they don't have the first clue about how to build a boat. Obviously a solid, hand rolled, FRP hull would be vastly superior to anything Hinckley is putting out.....right? I'll admit it right up front - I had my doubts about vacuum bagging with foam core up and until I saw the process being done. I'm convinced now that it's a pretty good method given the proper materials in the manufacturing process. In my opinion, which matters little I realize, it's a better method than the Ranger hand laid glass, foam fill method. Stratos has been using the technique for a while using Kevlar/Carbon composite weave and those boats are tough. I have no objection to modern materials in the hull, but I'd not buy any boat with foam in between the hull skins. Nor would I....and the numbers quoted in support of these infusion technologies, when compared to a more traditional cored construction, is a meaningless comparison. The process yields a sound structural assembly, but a lot of the hype is to promote licen$ing of the SCRIMP portions of the process. Note that the subject boat is injected with vinyl ester resin..... not epoxy.... and makes no mention of the type of fibers or warp schedule used. Similarly, the hype from the NSWC is meaningless because it gives no meaningful comparative measures. The NSWC's numbers may have looked really good because they were paying the bill for development. A boat that weighs as much as a cork will float, but you better hang on to your teeth and your kidneys..... One of the most appealing aspects of my little 21' Parker is that the bare hull weighs about 2900 pounds. Lighter deep vee boats of the same length and width "bounce" a hell of a lot more. What is the hull of your 36' Zimmerman like Lobsta' boat made of. |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
"Don White" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "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. Eisboch Yeah but... just think how cool you look sporting around town now. You did get a red Ranger? Of course not. Eisboch |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 07:13:25 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: "Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message m... 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. I could have told you that. I had an 99' expedition. Same vehicle and the power and fuel consumption both sucked. |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:49:38 -0800, Chuck Gould
wrote: On Nov 5, 5:24?pm, " JimH" ask wrote: "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 19:32:24 -0500, " JimH" ask wrote: I've heard rumors of some small amount engaged in on the Pacific, but have always been leery of same. Sort of like tostitos in Kansas..... I guess I need to see your definition of 'sport fishing'. You're not likely to be convinced but on the east coast it is commonly meant to be "deep sea fishing", or going out off the continental shelf to the "canyons". It takes a decent boat to go out there and back in the windy conditions which frequently prevail. Just my 2 cents worth. I believe you. I just did not know what you East Coast snobs were referring to. Imagine this..........sport fishing in the Gulf, the Great Lakes, the Pacific. Wow, how can I think such a thing exists. Eh? Shhh, Jim. Don't burst that bubble. Don't you know that a 15 knot breeze on the E Coast blows 2-3 times as hard as anywhere else (and according to some sources generates 11-foot breakers)? The sea itself is particularly nasty, erratic, and unforgiving in the western Atlantic, so only the manliest of men in the roughest, toughest hand laid hulls inspected by "old guys" dare venture out? No boat suitable for use on the E Coast could even be considered desirable on any other body of water, and nothing built outside of Jersey or the Carolinas has any business trying to tackle the world's most challenging boating conditions. :-) Welcome to the Dark Side. |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Don White" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "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. Eisboch Yeah but... just think how cool you look sporting around town now. You did get a red Ranger? Of course not. Eisboch I see... you probably had to colour co-ordinate it to one of your trailers. ;-) |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:01:18 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote: There's a decent looking Carolina 28 docked across the marina from us. I assume they are made somewhere around here. They are built in Edenton. http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Edento...i=map&ct=title Thanks. We drove through Edenton the other day while we were out exploring the area. Nice little town. There are boat builders hiding behind every tree in this part of the world. What kind of reputation do the Carolina's have around here? |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:49:38 -0800, Chuck Gould
wrote: I believe you. I just did not know what you East Coast snobs were referring to. Imagine this..........sport fishing in the Gulf, the Great Lakes, the Pacific. Wow, how can I think such a thing exists. Eh? Shhh, Jim. Don't burst that bubble. Don't you know that a 15 knot breeze on the E Coast blows 2-3 times as hard as anywhere else (and according to some sources generates 11-foot breakers)? The sea itself is particularly nasty, erratic, and unforgiving in the western Atlantic, so only the manliest of men in the roughest, toughest hand laid hulls inspected by "old guys" dare venture out? No boat suitable for use on the E Coast could even be considered desirable on any other body of water, and nothing built outside of Jersey or the Carolinas has any business trying to tackle the world's most challenging boating conditions. :-) You have been in the NorthWet entirely to long, and Jim is just being Eerie (again). I once had a business colleague from Indiana who was always waxing poetic about his state. One day I told him that he was no doubt correct, but that if I were to move to Indiana I'd want to be in the mountains or along the sea shore. It took him a moment to get my point. All that by way of saying that the great Pacific NorthWet could meet those requirements easily, which means that they need to be ammended - to include sunshine. |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:21:03 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote: According to Webster: sport·fish·ing (spôrt'fi(sh'i(ng, spo-rt'-) pronunciation n. The sport of catching large salt water game fish using a rod and reel and an offshore sportfishing type boat epitomized by those constructed along the coastal regions of North and South Carolina. Chuckle. We are docked with about 50 of them right now and they're building a bunch more right down the road. |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:49:38 -0800, Chuck Gould wrote: I believe you. I just did not know what you East Coast snobs were referring to. Imagine this..........sport fishing in the Gulf, the Great Lakes, the Pacific. Wow, how can I think such a thing exists. Eh? Shhh, Jim. Don't burst that bubble. Don't you know that a 15 knot breeze on the E Coast blows 2-3 times as hard as anywhere else (and according to some sources generates 11-foot breakers)? The sea itself is particularly nasty, erratic, and unforgiving in the western Atlantic, so only the manliest of men in the roughest, toughest hand laid hulls inspected by "old guys" dare venture out? No boat suitable for use on the E Coast could even be considered desirable on any other body of water, and nothing built outside of Jersey or the Carolinas has any business trying to tackle the world's most challenging boating conditions. :-) You have been in the NorthWet entirely to long, and Jim is just being Eerie (again). I once had a business colleague from Indiana who was always waxing poetic about his state. One day I told him that he was no doubt correct, but that if I were to move to Indiana I'd want to be in the mountains or along the sea shore. It took him a moment to get my point. All that by way of saying that the great Pacific NorthWet could meet those requirements easily, which means that they need to be ammended - to include sunshine. Indiana sucks. Big time. I have been to that state many times, and concluded years ago it really had almost nothing to offer. The little bit of shoreline it has along Lake Michigan incorporates several of the crummiest cities in America. There's hardly a worse place to be in the summer than in inland Indiana. |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:17:16 -0500, Wayne.B penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: |On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:01:18 -0500, Gene Kearns wrote: | |There's a decent looking Carolina 28 docked across the marina from us. |I assume they are made somewhere around here. | |They are built in Edenton. |http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Edento...i=map&ct=title | |Thanks. We drove through Edenton the other day while we were out |exploring the area. Nice little town. There are boat builders hiding |behind every tree in this part of the world. I think there are 120 boat builders in NC. |What kind of reputation do the Carolina's have around here? They are, as far as I know, a pretty good boat. There aren't many of them in my neck of the woods, but they have a good reputation. -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats ----------------- www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed* Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road ----------------- |
Another quality boat manufacturer sells out.
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:39 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com