Eisboch wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:07:41 -0500, HK wrote:

Absolutely, although 700 hp is about the norm for an offshore sportfish
boat of that size. The engines will be about $18,000 each through
Parker, I would guess. That would be the fully rigged price. $36,000 for
the pair. I wonder what a pair of new 350 hp diesels, fully rigged,
with transmissions, goes for these days? Let's say...$80,000+, or a
$44,000 difference. It's going to take a hell of a lot of diesel
efficiency to make that up!
Well, lets run the numbers just for the fun of it. Your price
estimate is in the ball park so let's figure out what the payback is
over 5 years or so. Assuming the diesels will return 50% of their
extra cost on resale, the number to meet is $22,000.

With the pair of big OBs the boat will burn about 50 gph, 25 gph with
diesels. Gas at the marina is about $4, diesel about $3, cost per
hour $200 gas, $75 diesel, $125 delta.

$22,000 divided by $125 is 176 hours. That is the break even point.
If you use the boat more than 176 hours you are money ahead on
operating costs alone. Factor in the reliability and longevity of
diesels and you are way ahead if you use the boat regularly.


My first thought was that by the time the Yamahas are due for their first
rebuild, the diesels will just about be nicely broken in.

Besides, at 35' a proper boat should have inboards. With fixed props. And
rudders.
A boaty-boat.

Eisboch

Eisboch



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

I have a six year warranty on my new Yamaha. Ergo, I will have no repair
costs, just a couple of hundred a year on routine maintenance.

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.

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.

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.

"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
news
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

Eisboch wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
news
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.

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in
message news
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.

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!!!!

"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
news
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

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


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