Uniflite 42' vs Trawler

[JohnMadison]

Hello, everyone...

I have been looking at trawlers for some months and this afternoon
changed my search engine to include Motor Yachts. I came across a 1975
Uniflite 42 and it looks really nice. BUT...can anyone give me an idea
of how these perform (I will be cruising and living aboard full time),
any particular problems for which they are known and what the full
consumption at cruising speed is?

Or, if known, perhaps someone could direct me to a source. I've done
some "googling" but haven't come up with a review yet.

Thanks...

John

[e b]

hi, im not trying to steer you away from uniflites since they are great boats ( I own two ) and if it was primarely a liveaboard it would be fine but if you plan on " cruising " I would stay with a trawler with a single diesel... I would not even consider a planing or semi planing hull. a displacement hull with a big slow turning prop.

I know many like the safety of having two engines, but in all reality engines simply don’t " break " ...unless they are planning hulls and high speed engines or poorly maintained..  my 78ft loa sailboat weighing in at 85,000 lbs with a single ford lehman 120 and a 3.1 gear box and 28" prop got me 1.4 gph at 1400 rpm at 7 knots... 3 times thru panama and 5 atlantic crossings... so im not just throwing a figure out there..!

of course if you have deep pockets and don’t mind the cost of fuel then it doesn’t matter.. any way you go, the most important is to stay within hull speed for best fuel economy.

 

Eric

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UnifliteWorld" group.
To post to this group, send email to unifli...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to unifliteworl...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/unifliteworld?hl=en.

[Day Six]

Ahoy there:

I looked for a trawler to retire on for several years before I
retired. Then one day I ran my Uniflite lake boat into a pier under
full power (long story involving tripping over a carpet) and put a
1/16th" nick in the gelcoat while doing several thousand dollars
damage to the cement and steel dock. I decided that I wouldn't own
anything but a Uniflite after that. I now live on a 1974 Unliflite 42
AC with 903 Cummins V-8s, in N/W Washington. This is my 4th
Uniflite. I cruise at about 8 knots with both engines at around 1300
to1400 rpm and get about 1.2 to 1.3 nm/gal. Since I'm a live aboard
my actual water line is about 1/4 inch above the painted waterline so
I'm moving a lot more weight than a weekend boater usually does. I
can get about 15kts out of the boat at full throttle, but you can
watch the fuel gauge move at that power setting. It's handy to know
you've got the extra power when you might need it, but it's to
expensive for me to use it regularly.

The infamous blister problem you'll hear about if you discuss
Uniflites with anyone, only applies to boats built after August of
1974. The problem is only cosmetic and does not affect the structural
integrity of the hull.

When I had my engines surveyed before I bought the boat the Cummins
mechanic said I have some good news and bad news for you. The bad
news is that with modern engines I can get you twice the horsepower at
half the weight. The good news is you can leave these engines to your
grandchildren, you wont be able to live long enough to wear them out.

Fair winds and following seas:
Kent
MV Day Six

[Den]

Read the previous posts John . You are at the right place for Uniflite
info.
The following link is an information blurb on my 48, and a 36. Try
perusing through the "FILES" on this website for more info


http://yachtbroker.escapeartist.com/boats/action/viewBuilder/builder/278/index.html

When Uniflite went off the market, Chris Craft bought this mold, and
continued the Catalina 48

Also do a search in this group. 580 results for Uniflite 36 .

Or do a search groups. about 4,610 for uniflite 36.

Good luck to you.

Den www.densnet.net

[Rocco]

The blister problem was corrected by 1981. Expect a gas Uniflite to
get .5 to .75 MPG at hull speed. Today I was messing about and saw
that I could get 1.5 MPG at 6 KTS. Zzzzzzzzzzz.

On Jun 10, 9:54 pm, Den <d...@densnet.com> wrote:
> Read the previous posts John . You are at the right place for Uniflite
> info.
> The following link is an information blurb on my 48, and a 36. Try
> perusing through the "FILES" on this website for more info
>

> http://yachtbroker.escapeartist.com/boats/action/viewBuilder/builder/...

[waterguy]

If you're looking at trawlers in the 42-foot range, you're probably
looking at twin engine boats anyway, unless it's a real cheap-and-
nasty Taiwan or mainland China boat that was built to a price. And
you already know about the problems with those boats (fiberglass-over-
plywood deckhouses that turn to pulp due to window frame leaks, ditto
teak plank-over fiberglass-over plywood decks, electrical gremlins,
etc.)

That 42 Uniflite you're looking at is far superior in construction
quality to almost any trawler built in the last 20 years.

The differences in design are going to be that the trawler will have
slightly safer outdoor walkaround decks (because they're wider and
have raised gunwales). However, the drawback to the wide side decks
is cramped interior quarters. The Uniflite will have a much roomier
cabin. This tradeoff may work for you as a liveaboard.

If the engines are original, they may be GM/Detroit Diesel 6-71NA or
6-71TI's (great engines, IMHO, a little noisy and a little less fuel-
efficient than 4-stroke diesels, but more powerful for a given
displacement, and repair parts and mechanics who know them are
everywhere), possibly the Cummins 903's, or just barely possibly the
Caterpillar 3208's. Some 42's were fitted with Chrysler 440's or Chev
454's. Avoid those unless you know that (1) the engines are new; and
(2) you're never going to run it above hull speed. Gas-powered 42's
have seriously overstressed engines.

The other difference in design will be that the Uniflite, as a planing
hull, has sharp chines and no keel, so when you're stopped or going
slowly in a cross sea, there's a tendency to snap rolling, which can
be uncomfortable. The trawler won't roll as sharply in a cross sea.

To me the biggest factor is the safety margin given by the planing
hull and big engines. As noted by other posters, your fuel economy
won't be too much worse than the trawler when you're running at
trawler speeds, but if the weather turns nasty, you can do what a
trawler can't -- shove the throttles forward and run for a safe
anchorage. Only thing is, if the boat has Detroit Diesels, know that
they won't tolerate being run at constant low speeds.

May I suggest one other boat to look at? That would be the 1967 to
(about 1975) Chris-Craft 47-foot Commander. Built like a battleship;
it was Chris-Craft's first fiberglass boat; and I think that Chris-
Craft's designers decided, "Well, we use 3/4-inch mahogany in our
motoryachts, let's lay on 3/4ths of an inch of fiberglass mat!" The
hulls are literally bulletproof (I know of one that stopped a .38
Police Positive round). The older style flush deck design may be
offputting because it causes the windows in the cabin to be above head
level when you're sitting down. Look for a 1968 or older, as they
have beautiful interior woodwork in the classic Chris-Craft style
(became more wood-grain Formica in later years).

Most were originally underpowered, having GM/Detroit Diesel 8V-53's
(about 250 HP) or 427 Ford sideoiler gas engines (about 325 hp,
equivalent to the 250 hp diesels), so you almost have to plan on a
repower. A boating magazine a few years ago had a feature on a 47
Commander that had been repowered with 350-horse Perkins diesels. She
ran 26 knots at 20 gph. The 47 Commander had a very efficient hull
for high-speed cruising.

There are a couple of layouts; standard was a large aft stateroom with
private head; there was an option for two aft staterooms with a shared
head opening off a companionway; this is the one you'll most likely
see.

Presently, these boats are selling in the mid-to-high five-figure
range. A hell of a lot of boat for the price.

[Rocco]

Somewhere on the site we should have a FAQ section and model
description section. This piece should definitely be included as it's
exceptionally well written.

[e b]

personally I would stay away from 6-71's, or any two stroke diesel. it seems kind of odd to call a 6-71 naturallly aspirated ( NA ) as there is no such thing as they all have a roots blower... they are good reliable engines but noisy and fuel effiiciency was not a concern back in the late 1930's when the 6-71 was first built. a two stroke is a two stroke, not efficient, even with upgrades and changes over time a two stroke will always burn substancially more than a four stroke diesel and thank god we don’t have to deal with emmissions, it would be impossible to make them meet any standards...

I would think there should be boats on the market that have been upgraded with a newer style diesel that are half the weight, twice the power and 1/3 rd more efficient.  in their days the 6-71's did make more power than a comparable sized four stroke, two strokes always do, but that has all changed in the past 20 years... for those who own them there is no reason to justify the cost to change them out but if I was in the market for a boat I sure as hell would stay away from them. some designs despite beeing good simply get outdated and replaced by better and newer technology.

when I was a kid 40 or more years ago I spend hours in the engine room of my parents boat as the 6-71's pushed us along... I'll keep the fond memories. I do have a 6-71 cranshaft in front of my house holding up my mailbox...

 

eric

[jack courrier]

It's pretty tough to argue with the extreme reliability of a DD 671N (supercharger much different from a turbocharger.) I ran a pair in a 42 convertible for several thousand hours and repowered 5 years ago to 4 stroke turbo diesels. They do burn more fuel and definitely make more noise but give 'em fuel and air and they will get you home. Incidentally my new engines and gears weigh almost the same as my 671's did and the dimensions are very similar. Definitely do not miss the noise but those old girls will be running when my grandkids are boating. The repower was a "fun" project though.

[e b]

because each of the six cylinders had its own injection system they were hard to kill, you might loose the injection on one cylinder or more but it didn’t stop the others from running unlike most engines that use a single injection pump and injectors.. if the pump goes bad the engine is dead. im not sure if they were developped that way for the navy for WW2 but it was an ingeneous design, years ago I bought a WW2 landing craft that had one in it.. and my " big " sailboat did as well untill I repowered.

a supercharger is simply a mechanically driven compressor compared to a turbo that uses exhaust gases as a power source, a turbo is more efficient as supercharger workes better at low rpm. and of course a 6-71 would not run without the blower as it is needed to force the air into the cylinder as it does not have intake valves but ports in the cylinder that become exposed when the piston reaches the bottom of its stroke.

 

Eric

[David Oates]

My 42 has 8.2 L DDs.  They are 4 cycles.  Actually after owning the boat for 3 years, I figured out that I have one 206(hp) and one 250(hp) engine.  The previous owner said the port had about 500 hr less that the starboard (the 206).  Anyway, I can't imagine having more hp.  My 42 is listed to cruise at 17 knots.  I don't believe one would cruise at 17, but 13 to 14 is quite comfortable.  When I need to "get-up-and-go" she really jumps up!  21-22 knots @ WOT.  As long as the RPMs are the same, it doesn't seam to matter that one engine has less hp than the other.  The big issue is that "everybody" doesn't know about the 8.2Ls.  I have yet to find a mechanic in the San Francisco area that is knowledgeable. As an aside, there is a brand new 8.2L for sale on eBay.  None of the bidders are even approaching the reserve, but I wish I had that engine.  Not enough to bid higher though.  I would just own an engine that I had to ship and hold until I could afford to replace the starboard engine.  It is probably better to rebuild the 206(hp) when the time comes. DavidO --- On Sat, 6/12/10, jack courrier <jbcou...@comcast.net> wrote:

[jack courrier]

Actually the blower (supercharger) is bypassed in the "TIB" versions--usually 450-485 hp in the 671. Not trying to dispute the "old"  engineering of the DD 2 strokes but that old 671NA  is perhaps the most indestructible engine ever built--especially at the lower hp ratings. Anything on any engine can (will) break but I'm sure my old ones are still going strong. That being said I love my common rail 4 strokes.

[Hhct...@aol.com]

about your engines,,

[Hhct...@aol.com]

your engine again

[waterguy]

My point about the 6-71's was that if the boat came with them, they're
good engines; not that I'd consider repowering with them. (Well,
actually, it's kind of crossed my mind to ditch the Chrysler 440's in
my 36 and replace with 6-71's, if I could find a good pair with
transmissions)

On the other hand, if I had a boat with a pair of tired 6-71's, I'd
think long and hard before replacing them with any modern engine.
Modern 4-stroke diesels have phenomenal power-to-displacement numbers,
but I'm kind of conservative. Any diesel that puts out more than
about .75 hp per cubic inch seems to me to be overstressed. And
modern diesels seem to use a lot of aluminum in some mission-critical
parts, like exhaust manifolds and heat exchangers.

For further background, check out David Pascoe's series of articles on
marine engines here: http://www.yachtsurvey.com/engines.htm

The thing I like about the Detroit two-strokers is that every little
fishing village from here to Alaska has some grizzled veteran that can
work on them with his eyes shut - plus parts availability. I also
really like the modular rebuild concept - you buy a kit to rebuild
each cylinder: comes with piston, cylinder liner, bearings and seals;
and the engines can be rebuilt in-situ. Add to that the fact (as
noted by another poster) that each cylinder has its own injection pump
(rather than the common pumps used by most other diesels). Also the
fact that the fuel system on Detroits is self-bleeding (as opposed to
having to be manually bled if you air-lock it), and you end up with an
engine system that is second to none for ease of maintenance. There
are a lot of criticisms that can be levelled at Detroits, but there's
a lot in favor of them, too.