Bayliner 3380 - I need your help
clpe...@my-deja.com
The case deals with a Bayliner 3388 yacht built on 1997. At the
beginning it worked with two engines Cummins model 4BT 3.9 lts, series
45377536 and 45379245, both, according to specifications, were 155 HP,
seawater cooling and 3.5/ 1 reduction.
In 1999 both turbos broke down after 400 hours working altogether.
According to the manufacturer representative, in Peru, they broke down
because the air temperature entering the engines was too high and
blamed this on a deficiency of ventilation of the engine room. Due to
negligence damage worsen as the cylinder heads crack etc.
From what we have read in the report the supplier that sold the yacht
replaced both engines with new ones, also installing an air-cooling
system for the engines. This system was tested and said to be the
correct one so the air entering the engines be in the temperature
specified by the engine manufacturer.
Recently, January 2001, both turbochargers failed again after 400 hours
working altogether cracking apparently due to overheating.
After reviewing the literature I found that the yacht manufacturer
offers engine-installing services as for 155 or 250 HP diesel engines
is referred.
I would like to know if any of you have ever had a similar experience
with these yachts and how the problem was sorted out so it did not
happen again.
Regards,
Carlos Peralta
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
WayneB
http://www.yachtsurvey.com/dhpascoe_marine_surveyors.htm
He has a great deal of experience with conducting analysis
of premature diesel engine failure for insurance companies.
In brief, turbo diesels are highly stressed and require very
careful operation and maintenance. Pascoe says that he
frequently sees engine failures of turbo diesels with under
600 hours of operation.
Wayne B, Bertram 33 Dorothy Jane
=================================================
K. Smith
> We need your help regarding this case we are attending.
>
> The case deals with a Bayliner 3388 yacht built on 1997. At the
> beginning it worked with two engines Cummins model 4BT 3.9 lts, series
> 45377536 and 45379245, both, according to specifications, were 155 HP,
> seawater cooling and 3.5/ 1 reduction.
>
Hmmmm; both heavy, total 310HP in a planing boat probably over loaded
with heavy gadgets as most gin palaces are, so guessing the owner is
running them for long periods at or near WOT.
Output at WOT is up around 40 HP/ltr so in these premises Cummins
would almost for sure have given these engines "pleasure craft" power
ratings which means various things explained in various ways depending on
the engine brand. There's an ISO # somewhere if you want all the details.
With these engines it probably means below but please check with Cummins
they'll have a sheet on these particular engines.
(i) WOT not to exceed something like 1 in 8 hrs of operation but in
real terms this means these engines can only be run at WOT for that burst
of power needed to get the boat on the plane or a quick dash across the
not very big bay in front of the friends,
(ii) After the boat is on the plane then the engines will be required
to have their revs reduced, probably at least 300 from max & when using a
fixed pitch prop this is a great reduction in power actually being
consumed. Guessing remember check with Cummins !!! but this reduction can
be up around 30% of power so the "continuous" power rating on these
engines' family, is "probably" not much more than 110HP & in a boat that
size/weight a total of say 200 HP is barely enough or depending on weight
maybe not enough, to keep it on a clean plane.
(iii) You might also consider that the power "ratings" are at ideal
conditions inlet air 25C (?F) cool fuel, etc etc so even a normal hot,
tight engine room on a pleasure boat will not be able to supply those
"conditions" for any length of continuous operation, which aggravates the
"rating" because even though they'll still make the power/speed, they'll
be doing it at a higher power setting so breaching the operating
conditions of the pleasure craft rating. Obviously similar comments apply
to even a slightly dirty bottom or prop etc etc.
In short these engines are working too hard, too long & the only real
fix is to have the owner back off a bit, even a little on the tacho means
a big reduction in load for the engines, but because this planing boat is
powered at the lower margin it might mean they just can't travel great
distances at full planing speeds. If you could monitor exhaust temps this
might be managed a bit more accurately but in a marine engine water cooled
turbos etc etc it's not all that practical & besides it doesn't change the
final outcome, which is diesel pleasure boat engines can only deliver
their "rated" HP in very limited conditions for very limited times.
I suggest you talk to your Cummins rep. they'll have some material you
can give the owner but don't forget even that is in a perfect ISO world &
needs to be discounted a bit.
Obviously it's not over propped ???? even slightly???? can make all
above even worse.
Regards,
K
p.s. I wish to have Jim note I didn't mention how extra weight; even
seemingly a small amount like just another few "extra" batteries is a
real issue, trying to be good I just didn't mention it.
hkr...@capu.net
>
> clpe...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > We need your help regarding this case we are attending.
> >
> > The case deals with a Bayliner 3388 yacht built on 1997. At the
> > beginning it worked with two engines Cummins model 4BT 3.9 lts, series
> > 45377536 and 45379245, both, according to specifications, were 155 HP,
> > seawater cooling and 3.5/ 1 reduction.
> >
>
> Hmmmm; both heavy, total 310HP in a planing boat probably over loaded
> with heavy gadgets as most gin palaces are, so guessing the owner is
> running them for long periods at or near WOT.
According to the Bayliner web page, this particular boat weighs 16,000 pounds
and with the two 155 hp Cummins, cruises at around 17 mph and hits 22 mph at
WOT. Take two away from each of those for a typical boat overloaded with gear
and passengers. BTW, the bottom of that boat has 8 degrees of deadrise.
I would guess your guess is correct, Karen. With twin 250 hp Cummins, that
boat cruises at 24.4 mph and hits 27.4 at WOT. Not that much of a drop from
WOT to cruise.
I know of a 36-footer cruiser that weighs a little less than that with a 600
hp diesel. It'll be signficantly faster.
--
Harry Krause
------------
The point is, this is a way to help inoculate me about what has come and is
coming. -GW Bush
K. Smith
Always nervous when I find myself agreeing with you ;-) but even thinking
about it OK.
This 36 ftr you talk of, I think it's a round bilge not too beamy type so
should not only be easier driven, but be able to sustain it in much worse
conditions than the average "chine" boat, as always though you'll still need to
be ruthless about keeping the weight out of it over time.
Regards,
K
WayneB
Oh my.
If Skip joins in now and admits that Bagliner might
have built an underpowered boat, and that Pascoe
might know something, then I'll know for sure my
computer is broken or that we're under major cyber
attack.
======================================
On Tue, 06 Feb 2001 12:25:20 +1100, "K. Smith"
<drift...@nospamiprimus.com.au> wrote:
>
> Always nervous when I find myself agreeing with you ;-) but even thinking
>about it OK.
>
K. Smith
Wayne,
I'm not saying Bayliner or any other manufacturer haven't built any under
powered boats most have because purchasers want/demand them & when new the
performance is probably "acceptable".
Mostly it's over time the "extras" that seem to go on but never get taken off
& the weight gradually goes up.
Also usually the first owner is well schooled in the don't run it
continuously at full throttle thing but subsequent owners just accept the quick
ride the dealer/broker gives 'em as indicative of how their new boat is to be
driven.
Around here we have a problem with the ticketed fishing boat skippers who
sort of semi retire & then get a casual job driving tourists around on
essentially overloaded fast pleasure boats, after a life time of running fishing
boats at slow or WOT it's difficult to convince them these "intermittent ratings"
just don't allow that; well not for long ;-)
Regards,
K.
Skipper
> Harry and Karen - happy together...
> Oh my.
> If Skip joins in now and admits that Bayliner might
> have built an underpowered boat, and that Pascoe
> might know something, then I'll know for sure my
> computer is broken or that we're under major cyber
> attack.
Bayliner has a few rig options that I would consider less than optimum,
but then they offer more choices than any other builder. Pascoe does
know something, he absolutely *knows* that many of his stableblind
opinions would not stand muster in an open forum.
About your computer, reformatting the harddrive should take care of the
problem.
--
Skipper
Rick
What exactly was the failure mode?
There is no reference to damage to any other part of the engine and this
waves a little flag ...
Do you have pictures of the "failed" part?
Rick
WayneB
<drift...@nospamiprimus.com.au> wrote:
> I'm not saying Bayliner or any other manufacturer haven't built any under
>powered boats most have because purchasers want/demand them & when new the
>performance is probably "acceptable".
>
> Mostly it's over time the "extras" that seem to go on but never get taken off
>& the weight gradually goes up.
>
===========================================================
Most likely from those LARGE inverters doing business at the Battery
Bank.
;-)
You Aussies really do know something about inversion don't you...?
WayneB
there are still things we can depend on.
I took the computer for a hard drive but the turbos blew in less
than 400 hours. Must be a Bagliner in disguise.
==============================================
On Mon, 05 Feb 2001 20:00:10 -0600, Skipper <Ski...@kscable.com>
wrote:
K. Smith
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2001 13:05:23 +1100, "K. Smith"
> <drift...@nospamiprimus.com.au> wrote:
>
> > I'm not saying Bayliner or any other manufacturer haven't built any under
> >powered boats most have because purchasers want/demand them & when new the
> >performance is probably "acceptable".
> >
> > Mostly it's over time the "extras" that seem to go on but never get taken off
> >& the weight gradually goes up.
> >
> ===========================================================
>
> Most likely from those LARGE inverters doing business at the Battery
> Bank.
>
> ;-)
>
Glad you got it Wayne & especially glad you took it as intended; a joke.
Regards,
K
hkr...@capu.net
Ahh, yes, we don't want to devolve into the "avoirdupois special."
I've been on a close "sistership" dressed out similarly that does an honest 34
miles an hour with a Volvo 63P.
We've taken a lot of steps to keep the weight of the new boat within limits.
--
Harry Krause
------------
We cannot let terrorists and rogue nations hold this nation hostile or hold
our
allies hostile.-GW Bush.
Lifespeed
"K. Smith" <drift...@nospamiprimus.com.au> wrote:
> p.s. I wish to have Jim note I didn't mention how extra weight; even
> seemingly a small amount like just another few "extra" batteries is a
> real issue, trying to be good I just didn't mention it.
Karen,
I agree on the weight issue. I just installed one top-o'-the-line
battery. Batteries are very heavy, and weight is so important. I would
never add an extra, unless I had to run life support uninterrupted for
hours...
I can drain it for three hours, then, I better run the engine a bit...
--
- Lifespeed
ecr...@my-deja.com
hkr...@capu.net wrote:
> We've taken a lot of steps to keep the weight of the new boat within
limits.
>
> --
> Harry Krause
> ------------
Do we have a launch date yet,tentative or otherwise?
BTW, I liked the dories you posted.
http://www.stur-deeboat.com/dory.htm
I,ve wanted a small lake/bay boat since I sold my CC and bought a big
sportfish. My wife likes to fish for specks in the St. John's and
central FL lakes
Do you have you any experience with their *special "core" bottom*? I
don't have a problem with "new" materials, and it wouldn't sit in the
water, but have they been doing this for a while or is this new stuff
for them?
I really like the looks and the price, but, do you have anything reason
to recommend this product?
Regards,
Clay
hkr...@capu.net
>
> In article <3A7F7000...@capu.net>,
> hkr...@capu.net wrote:
>
> > We've taken a lot of steps to keep the weight of the new boat within
> limits.
> >
> > --
> > Harry Krause
> > ------------
> Do we have a launch date yet,tentative or otherwise?
April.
>
> BTW, I liked the dories you posted.
> http://www.stur-deeboat.com/dory.htm
> I,ve wanted a small lake/bay boat since I sold my CC and bought a big
> sportfish. My wife likes to fish for specks in the St. John's and
> central FL lakes
> Do you have you any experience with their *special "core" bottom*? I
> don't have a problem with "new" materials, and it wouldn't sit in the
> water, but have they been doing this for a while or is this new stuff
> for them?
> I really like the looks and the price, but, do you have anything reason
> to recommend this product?
>
> Regards,
> Clay
My father sold the wood ones at his boat dealership for more than 25 years.
The fiberglass ones were molded off the wood ones. They were and are great
boats. I suspect the "core" bottom was an evolutionary step when first taken.
The boats don't change much.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Other Republican candidates may retort to personal attacks and negative ads.
-GW Bush
hkr...@capu.net
>
> hkr...@capu.net wrote:
>
> > If you examine the standard engines shipped on most Bayliners sent to
> > dealers for "inventory," you'll discover more than just a pattern of
> > serious underpowering. Unfortunately, since many Bayliner buyers are
> > "first-timers," they don't know better, and they end up buying a boat that
> > simply does not perform very well.
>
> Horseshit! Most of these Bayliner "standard" packages are capable of
> around 40 MPH. That's faster than many sea conditions will allow.
> "You'll discover", "just a pattern", "serious underpowering",
> "Unfortunately", "don't know better", "end up buying", "not perform
> well", ... ... Puleeeze!!!
>
> --
> Skipper
Very few Bayliners find themselves in "sea" conditions, Skipper. And the 30' +
Bayliner cruisers on the West Coast...how many of them will even do 30 mph on
flat calm water?
--
Harry Krause
------------
When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world, and you knew exactly who they
were, he said. It was us vs. them, and it was clear who them was. Today, we
are
not so sure who the they are, but we know they're there. -GW Bush
hkr...@capu.net
> > >
> > > > It's good to know that in the heartland of this great country that
> > > > there are still things we can depend on.
> > > >
> > > > I took the computer for a hard drive but the turbos blew in less
> > > > than 400 hours. Must be a Bagliner in disguise.
> > > >
> > >
> > > defending but honestly I just can't see what this has to do with the brand
> > > of boat, they're Cummins engines I hope you're not inferring; they a
> > > "special" Cummins for Bayliner, or even more unlikely Cummins don't know
> > > how to design, build & rate diesel engines ???
> > >
> > > It's simple no "opinions" needed, taking the info that Harry got he
> > > alluded to the real issue but it's easy to pencil out; 16,000 lbs, 22 MPH &
> > > 310 HP using any of the formulas gives pretty much the same answers. "IF"
> > > this boat really did 22 MPH on 310 HP then at the recommended cruise of 17
> > > MPH that Bayliner publishes it was only consuming 185 HP. They certainly
> > > are recommending/claiming that for continuous use the power is reduced by a
> > > whopping about 67% but equally a boat this size is probably not cleanly
> > > planing at that speed so I'd say it's closer to 200-220HP.
> > >
> > > Again I hate to admit, as Harry also alluded when he posted the figures
> > > for the boat with 500 HP the top speed is has only gone up about 5 MPH or
> > > say 25% (much heavier engines/trans, shaft sizes, struts etc etc ) but the
> > > Cummins approved cruise has gone up 7 MPH or say 41%. because at 24 MPH the
> > > boat is still planing cleanly.
> > >
> > > Add a bit of extra weight over time & it's just a case of pleasure
> > > craft rated engines working too hard too long, so they have shortened life
> > > in some cases very much so.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > K
> >
> > It's really interesting that Bayliner would spec engines that produce the same
> > amount of horsepower for a 16,000 pound motorboat that many would find more
> > appropriate on a 5,000 pound, 25' fishing boat.
> >
> > It's done, of course, to lower that Bayliner sticker price. If you examine the
> > standard engines shipped on most Bayliners sent to dealers for "inventory,"
> > you'll discover more than just a pattern of serious underpowering.
> > Unfortunately, since many Bayliner buyers are "first-timers," they don't know
> > better, and they end up buying a boat that simply does not perform very well.
> >
> > example, that its tanks hold only 200 gallons, woefully inadequate for a boat
> > positioned as a "cruiser." And with two props on the bottom, the boat only
> > draws 2'2" of water? What's wrong with that picture? It's got a flat bottom!
>
> Harry all you say is factual I guess & obviously one of these boats would not
> be your choice, but equally Bayliner pass along what you see as shortcomings in
> price reductions. I probably agree with lots you say about their boats but
> equally it's undeniable that lots of people get into boating that wouldn't have
> otherwise or choose a much bigger boat for the same money so enjoy their boating
> more, go better places etc.
Apparently for this year the 3388 has been replaced by the 3488. A larger
boat, available with twin 250 Cummins, a little less deadrise on the bottom,
25 more gallons of fuel (with almost twice as much power as the 3388?).
A local dealer is advertising a new 3488 for $186,195. For the same money, I
know of a 1996 Tiara 3500 you can hardly tell from new that'll outrun the
Bayliner, outcomfort it in any important way, hold its value better and, more
importantly, hold up better. Oh...and the Tiara doesn't have a flat bottom.
--
Harry Krause
------------
The most important job is not to be governor, or first lady in my case.
--Dubya Dummy
Will the highways on the Internet become more few? --Dubya Dubious
JeffC
>
>Very few Bayliners find themselves in "sea" conditions, Skipper. And the 30' +
>Bayliner cruisers on the West Coast...how many of them will even do 30 mph on
>flat calm water?
>
None found themselves in a "boat show condition" either. Not a single
Bayliner of any sort at the show in Raleigh...
--
I've spoofed my email in an attempt to reduce spam.
Please remove the "carrot" when replying via email. Thanks!
Tommy Tune
K. Smith wrote in message <3A80C3B5...@nospamiprimus.com.au>...
>WayneB wrote:
>
>> It's good to know that in the heartland of this great country that
>> there are still things we can depend on.
>>
>> I took the computer for a hard drive but the turbos blew in less
>> than 400 hours. Must be a Bagliner in disguise.
>>
>
> Gee you blokes are hard on Bayliner, Skipper does a good job of
>defending but honestly I just can't see what this has to do with the brand
>of boat, they're Cummins engines I hope you're not inferring; they a
>"special" Cummins for Bayliner, or even more unlikely Cummins don't know
>how to design, build & rate diesel engines ???
>
> It's simple no "opinions" needed, taking the info that Harry got he
>alluded to the real issue but it's easy to pencil out; 16,000 lbs, 22 MPH &
>310 HP using any of the formulas gives pretty much the same answers. "IF"
>this boat really did 22 MPH on 310 HP then at the recommended cruise of 17
>MPH that Bayliner publishes it was only consuming 185 HP. They certainly
>are recommending/claiming that for continuous use the power is reduced by a
>whopping about 67% but equally a boat this size is probably not cleanly
>planing at that speed so I'd say it's closer to 200-220HP.
>
> Again I hate to admit, as Harry also alluded when he posted the figures
>for the boat with 500 HP the top speed is has only gone up about 5 MPH or
>say 25% (much heavier engines/trans, shaft sizes, struts etc etc ) but the
>Cummins approved cruise has gone up 7 MPH or say 41%. because at 24 MPH the
>boat is still planing cleanly.
>
> Add a bit of extra weight over time & it's just a case of pleasure
>craft rated engines working too hard too long, so they have shortened life
>in some cases very much so.
>
>Regards,
>
>K
>
>
>
>>
K. Smith
> "K. Smith" wrote:
> >
> > hkr...@capu.net wrote:
> >
> > > "K. Smith" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > WayneB wrote:
>
snipped
Morning Harry,
I guess you're just baiting me & fair enough a fisherman is always a fisherman ;-)
but I enjoy the minority position. ;-)
Other than when you infer Bayliners are unsafe or in some manner a "risk", I
probably accept what you say on them as factual, flatish in the bottom, not enough
fuel capacity for long runs, less than "best" cabinet work fit out, less than best
hardware, looks that you & others find less than nautical, the details don't matter
but say you're correct on all this, it's a given you don't like them & would not buy
or I think you've even said actually go boating on a Bayliner, so in these given
premises can you bring yourself to even consider:
(i) Your example below is comparing a 5 year old same size boat with the price of
a new Bayliner, which I think absolutely focuses the real issue, they give lots of
boat for the money. Yes a door might not be hung as you'd like but it's a new
warranted boat, new warranted machinery, electronics etc etc as opposed to something
that's 5 yrs old & of unknown real history, some people just don't like that & I don't
blame them.
(ii) Flat bottom, less fuel capacity etc etc again say all true but in lots of
situations this type of thing can actually be a deliberate indeed smart design tactic.
Most pleasure boats don't go anywhere, ever. They spend their lives in a lake or on a
bay, waterway (ICW) etc, numerically here anyway very very few boats like the ones
we're discussing actually "put to sea" & if they do only when the weather is just
right. I accept you & others here enjoy your offshore fishing but even your group have
to admit you're a minority, indeed you like that fact.
(iii) So say the design criteria is to get as much boat with the most accommodation
as possible & try to offer as much value as possible for a given dollar amount.
(a) Low deadrise is a first "compromise"; yes reduces draft but also makes the
boat easier to plane & carries weight better with less detriment to performance (you
know about this stuff is this a valid comment or not ?) Yes in rough weather it will
pound a bit & yes in a sea way it will be more lively in the roll department but
"most" people talk more about how their boat might handle in open water than actually
take their boat out in open water in anything other than flat calm when the extra
deadrise is a positive disadvantage.
(b) Less than ideal fuel capacity again most boats don't venture too far from
home & the capacity provided is "adequate" for the intended use. My boat has a range
of over 600 miles but other than when the blokes take it somewhere it carts the tank
weight, cost & space around for nothing. (it's not altogether good to leave diesel
tanks near empty) As you currently know big tanks cost lots, baffles, mountings etc
etc so it's a deliberate rational decision not to cart fuel around that's not needed,
nor permanently have the tank/mounting weight, lose the space etc.
(c) Generally high wooded & some say ungainly looks (I guess I do too;-)) but
again in the premises some are cavernous inside for the boat length, lots of "usable"
beam & headroom. Again a rational design approach most boats of this type spend very
little of there total out of the slip time actually travelling so the owners spend
much more time rafted up, in a marina or anchored in a bay, then they have a much
bigger place, more bunks (double beds actually), bigger galley (kitchen really) etc
etc Again when tucked up in a protected bay I always smirk when the so called "sea
salts" are always quick to criticise this or that other boat when they all live in the
same marina & NONE have ever been to sea & probably never will.
(d) Under powered, well yes I agree with you on this but again within the
design remit it's an option, so the base boat can be offered at a price that lets
someone acquire a much bigger boat than they otherwise would, yes some compromise but
so long as their eyes are open it can be a smart decision ( I was pleasantly surprised
when you said the Bayliner page actually fully disclosed that the boat in this thread
has less than sparkling performance). It's a rare but honest boater that actually
says, I don't go to sea & don't intend to, the longest get back home run I'm likely to
do in my waterway is 60 miles & I'm at a marina where fuelling is no big deal, I want
comfort & space for me & the big family.
(e) Safety we disagree on this; I honestly think that given Bayliner numbers
if there were any real issues in that regard a Co like Brunswick just couldn't risk
it & in the unlikely event they did the USCG would round them up. As I said there's
lots of them here & you don't hear of them breaking up or such, but also consider that
because they're so numerous even if they're involved in boating accidents more than
other brands that might be just a function of their numbers, I only submit that & have
no real facts, but I bet the USCG keeps a close eye on these sorts of statistics.
(iv) We're clearly talking about bigger Bayliners but the comments apply to their
trailerable boats pretty much in the same manner & numerically even less of those "put
to sea". I'm honestly not having a go at you but drawing an example for my position
only; you have regularly posted you rarely use all your available power, yes I agree
it's nice to have for a quick dash home ahead of the change, take a bunch of mates etc
but again why pay for & carry around something you don't really need, fuel tankage
same story, etc etc .
In short they're just part of the Brunswick range that are a most interesting
design/mass marketing approach that has proven a real success, a bit like a Ford vs a
Mercedes you still get there safely.
Anyway, fire suit is on ;-)
Regards,
K
Skipper
>> Horseshit! Most of these Bayliner "standard" packages are capable of
>> around 40 MPH. That's faster than many sea conditions will allow.
>> "You'll discover", "just a pattern", "serious underpowering",
>> "Unfortunately", "don't know better", "end up buying", "not perform
>> well", ... ... Puleeeze!!!
> Very few Bayliners find themselves in "sea" conditions, Skipper. And the
> 30' + Bayliner cruisers on the West Coast...how many of them will even do
> 30 mph on flat calm water?
Jeeze, Harry, is the glass half empty or half full? I just did a quick
Deja search using Bayliner and MPH. The results showed an average WOT in
the mid forties. And Harry, a lot of Bayliners experience "sea"
conditions. Give it up.
--
Skipper
hkr...@capuantispam.net
>
> Morning Harry,
>
> I guess you're just baiting me & fair enough a fisherman is always a fisherman ;-)
> but I enjoy the minority position. ;-)
>
> Other than when you infer Bayliners are unsafe or in some manner a "risk", I
> probably accept what you say on them as factual, flatish in the bottom, not enough
> fuel capacity for long runs, less than "best" cabinet work fit out, less than best
> hardware, looks that you & others find less than nautical, the details don't matter
> but say you're correct on all this, it's a given you don't like them & would not buy
> or I think you've even said actually go boating on a Bayliner, so in these given
> premises can you bring yourself to even consider:
>
> (i) Your example below is comparing a 5 year old same size boat with the price of
> a new Bayliner, which I think absolutely focuses the real issue, they give lots of
> boat for the money. Yes a door might not be hung as you'd like but it's a new
> warranted boat, new warranted machinery, electronics etc etc as opposed to something
> that's 5 yrs old & of unknown real history, some people just don't like that & I don't
> blame them.
I'm not a big fan of used boats, either, but it isn't difficult to find out
what shape a good one is in, and visually, sans survey, I'd prefer the cherry
five year old Tiara to a new Bayliner of the same size.
>
> (ii) Flat bottom, less fuel capacity etc etc again say all true but in lots of
> situations this type of thing can actually be a deliberate indeed smart design tactic.
> Most pleasure boats don't go anywhere, ever. They spend their lives in a lake or on a
> bay, waterway (ICW) etc, numerically here anyway very very few boats like the ones
> we're discussing actually "put to sea" & if they do only when the weather is just
> right. I accept you & others here enjoy your offshore fishing but even your group have
> to admit you're a minority, indeed you like that fact.
So, if you're not going anywhere, buy a houseboat. More cube, right?
> (iii) So say the design criteria is to get as much boat with the most accommodation
> as possible & try to offer as much value as possible for a given dollar amount.
> (a) Low deadrise is a first "compromise"; yes reduces draft but also makes the
> boat easier to plane & carries weight better with less detriment to performance (you
> know about this stuff is this a valid comment or not ?) Yes in rough weather it will
> pound a bit & yes in a sea way it will be more lively in the roll department but
> "most" people talk more about how their boat might handle in open water than actually
> take their boat out in open water in anything other than flat calm when the extra
> deadrise is a positive disadvantage.
Pound a bit? Heheheh. Your fillings would fall out unless you slowed to a
crawl. We're not talking about a Hargraves bottom on an older 45-foot Hatt
here, a boat with a totally unique bottom that flattened out towards the
transom.
> (b) Less than ideal fuel capacity again most boats don't venture too far from
> home & the capacity provided is "adequate" for the intended use. My boat has a range
> of over 600 miles but other than when the blokes take it somewhere it carts the tank
> weight, cost & space around for nothing. (it's not altogether good to leave diesel
> tanks near empty) As you currently know big tanks cost lots, baffles, mountings etc
> etc so it's a deliberate rational decision not to cart fuel around that's not needed,
> nor permanently have the tank/mounting weight, lose the space etc.
You can rationalize all you like. There's not enough tankage on that boat.
With twin 250 diesels, 225 gallons does not cut it.
> (d) Under powered, well yes I agree with you on this but again within the
> design remit it's an option, so the base boat can be offered at a price that lets
> someone acquire a much bigger boat than they otherwise would, yes some compromise but
> so long as their eyes are open it can be a smart decision ( I was pleasantly surprised
> when you said the Bayliner page actually fully disclosed that the boat in this thread
> has less than sparkling performance). It's a rare but honest boater that actually
> says, I don't go to sea & don't intend to, the longest get back home run I'm likely to
> do in my waterway is 60 miles & I'm at a marina where fuelling is no big deal, I want
> comfort & space for me & the big family.
Get a houseboat.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Gov. Bush will not stand for the subsidation of failure. -GW Bush.
JeffC
wrote:
When you did Bayliner and MPH in Deja, did it account for the amount
of time the Bayliner you claim to own spends on the interstate?
K. Smith
> "K. Smith" wrote:
>
> >
> > Morning Harry,
> >
> > I guess you're just baiting me & fair enough a fisherman is always a fisherman ;-)
> > but I enjoy the minority position. ;-)
> >
> > Other than when you infer Bayliners are unsafe or in some manner a "risk", I
> > probably accept what you say on them as factual, flatish in the bottom, not enough
> > fuel capacity for long runs, less than "best" cabinet work fit out, less than best
> > hardware, looks that you & others find less than nautical, the details don't matter
> > but say you're correct on all this, it's a given you don't like them & would not buy
> > or I think you've even said actually go boating on a Bayliner, so in these given
> > premises can you bring yourself to even consider:
> >
> > (i) Your example below is comparing a 5 year old same size boat with the price of
> > a new Bayliner, which I think absolutely focuses the real issue, they give lots of
> > boat for the money. Yes a door might not be hung as you'd like but it's a new
> > warranted boat, new warranted machinery, electronics etc etc as opposed to something
> > that's 5 yrs old & of unknown real history, some people just don't like that & I don't
> > blame them.
>
> I'm not a big fan of used boats, either, but it isn't difficult to find out
> what shape a good one is in, and visually, sans survey, I'd prefer the cherry
> five year old Tiara to a new Bayliner of the same size.
Lots of others obviously agree with you but equally even a small glitch in a big 5 yr
old diesel can cost more than a new car, you've just bought a big marine diesel & know the
price, but your "preference" is your preference no bill, equally you accept others can
validly have other preferences.
>
> >
> > (ii) Flat bottom, less fuel capacity etc etc again say all true but in lots of
> > situations this type of thing can actually be a deliberate indeed smart design tactic.
> > Most pleasure boats don't go anywhere, ever. They spend their lives in a lake or on a
> > bay, waterway (ICW) etc, numerically here anyway very very few boats like the ones
> > we're discussing actually "put to sea" & if they do only when the weather is just
> > right. I accept you & others here enjoy your offshore fishing but even your group have
> > to admit you're a minority, indeed you like that fact.
>
> So, if you're not going anywhere, buy a houseboat. More cube, right?
I said most boats rarely if ever actually "put to sea" & spend most if not all time in
lakes, bays, waterways etc, to me that's go to sea such that they are at risk of being
caught out there in a weather change, breakdown or whatever, be it a 30 mile off shore
fishing trip as you do in a boat that "might" need to come home in a blow or a coastal trip
such that they're at risk of being caught between ports or ports that might become unsafe
to enter if the weather unexpectedly turns to putty. I accept this particular Bayliner
might give a harsher & rollier ride if "caught" as opposed to some other choices, but it
will probably be drier (freeboard) & still accepting we don't agree I say they're not
really any less "safe". A Bayliner is no more or less likely to breakdown than others, a
Mercruiser or Cummins is the same regardless of the boat brand.
>
>
> > (iii) So say the design criteria is to get as much boat with the most accommodation
> > as possible & try to offer as much value as possible for a given dollar amount.
> > (a) Low deadrise is a first "compromise"; yes reduces draft but also makes the
> > boat easier to plane & carries weight better with less detriment to performance (you
> > know about this stuff is this a valid comment or not ?) Yes in rough weather it will
> > pound a bit & yes in a sea way it will be more lively in the roll department but
> > "most" people talk more about how their boat might handle in open water than actually
> > take their boat out in open water in anything other than flat calm when the extra
> > deadrise is a positive disadvantage.
>
> Pound a bit? Heheheh. Your fillings would fall out unless you slowed to a
> crawl. We're not talking about a Hargraves bottom on an older 45-foot Hatt
> here, a boat with a totally unique bottom that flattened out towards the
> transom.
Again can I repeat most boats rarely if ever put to sea & those that do mostly &
sensibly "pick their weather" so if the water is flat then it's flat, the deep "V" is just
speed & fuel wasted in those conditions as it is when swanning around lakes or semi
protected waterways etc..
>
>
> > (b) Less than ideal fuel capacity again most boats don't venture too far from
> > home & the capacity provided is "adequate" for the intended use. My boat has a range
> > of over 600 miles but other than when the blokes take it somewhere it carts the tank
> > weight, cost & space around for nothing. (it's not altogether good to leave diesel
> > tanks near empty) As you currently know big tanks cost lots, baffles, mountings etc
> > etc so it's a deliberate rational decision not to cart fuel around that's not needed,
> > nor permanently have the tank/mounting weight, lose the space etc.
>
> You can rationalize all you like. There's not enough tankage on that boat.
> With twin 250 diesels, 225 gallons does not cut it.
>
Rationalise ??? no it's easily pencilled. I'm accepting your figures on this but you've
chosen the big engine option for your example (fair enough ;-)) but even so; 500 HP WOT
then cruise will be absolutely tops 380 HP or the engines are at long term risk, that's
about 25 gals/hr so 225 gals is a safe 8 hours cruising at 24 MPH (190 miles), as I said a
range "adequate" for the boat's use & adequate for most boats of this size. 190 miles in an
8 hr day with a reserve is quite manageable for even the rare coastal cruise. For the type
of usage most boats like this get a couple of hours (that's near 50 miles away from
home!!!???) at most each way for a days fishing, sunning, posing or whatever then home, a
doddle.
I accept you might want more for "offshore" fishing but as said that's not the norm.
>
> > (d) Under powered, well yes I agree with you on this but again within the
> > design remit it's an option, so the base boat can be offered at a price that lets
> > someone acquire a much bigger boat than they otherwise would, yes some compromise but
> > so long as their eyes are open it can be a smart decision ( I was pleasantly surprised
> > when you said the Bayliner page actually fully disclosed that the boat in this thread
> > has less than sparkling performance). It's a rare but honest boater that actually
> > says, I don't go to sea & don't intend to, the longest get back home run I'm likely to
> > do in my waterway is 60 miles & I'm at a marina where fuelling is no big deal, I want
> > comfort & space for me & the big family.
>
> Get a houseboat.
As I said you blokes are really hard on Bayliners as I concede I am on OMC, but I'm
always happy to detail my complaints for review;-)
Regards,
K
hkr...@capuantispam.net
> > I'm not a big fan of used boats, either, but it isn't difficult to find out
> > what shape a good one is in, and visually, sans survey, I'd prefer the cherry
> > five year old Tiara to a new Bayliner of the same size.
>
> Lots of others obviously agree with you but equally even a small glitch in a big 5 yr
> old diesel can cost more than a new car, you've just bought a big marine diesel & know the
> price, but your "preference" is your preference no bill, equally you accept others can
> validly have other preferences.
It's not difficult to find out what condition a diesel is in...you can hire
someone to do it for you.
>
> I said most boats rarely if ever actually "put to sea" & spend most if not all time in
> lakes, bays, waterways etc, to me that's go to sea such that they are at risk of being
> caught out there in a weather change, breakdown or whatever, be it a 30 mile off shore
> fishing trip as you do in a boat that "might" need to come home in a blow or a coastal trip
> such that they're at risk of being caught between ports or ports that might become unsafe
> to enter if the weather unexpectedly turns to putty. I accept this particular Bayliner
> might give a harsher & rollier ride if "caught" as opposed to some other choices, but it
> will probably be drier (freeboard) & still accepting we don't agree I say they're not
> really any less "safe". A Bayliner is no more or less likely to breakdown than others, a
> Mercruiser or Cummins is the same regardless of the boat brand.
According to the folks who marinize and sell Lugger diesels, one of the top
brands, screwed up installations, especially with the exhaust, account for a
tremendous number of problems that show up in marine diesels a year after the
first splash. I would posit that because of cheap materials, cheap labor and
cost cutting, a Bayliner is more likely to break down than many other brands,
and the way the engines run is NOT the same, regardless of boat brand.
--
Harry Krause
------------
I want you to know that farmers are not going to be secondary thoughts to a
Bush administration. They will be in the forethought of our thinking. -GW Bush
Skipper
> ...a Bayliner is more likely to break down than many other brands...
Other than a creative play on words, that posit is pure BS. In truth,
Bayliners generally provide a much better value than their competitors
while presenting no higher risk of breakdown than its competition.
--
Skipper
Deanna Fladgard
<hkr...@capu.net> wrote in message news:3A813A72...@capu.net...
> Skipper wrote:
> >
> > hkr...@capu.net wrote:
> >
> > > If you examine the standard engines shipped on most Bayliners sent to
> > > dealers for "inventory," you'll discover more than just a pattern of
> > > serious underpowering. Unfortunately, since many Bayliner buyers are
> > > "first-timers," they don't know better, and they end up buying a boat
that
> > > simply does not perform very well.
> >
> > Horseshit! Most of these Bayliner "standard" packages are capable of
> > around 40 MPH. That's faster than many sea conditions will allow.
> > "You'll discover", "just a pattern", "serious underpowering",
> > "Unfortunately", "don't know better", "end up buying", "not perform
> > well", ... ... Puleeeze!!!
> >
> > --
> > Skipper
>
>
> Very few Bayliners find themselves in "sea" conditions, Skipper. And the
30' +
> Bayliner cruisers on the West Coast...how many of them will even do 30 mph
on
> flat calm water?
>
Bullshit says I and the fight was on.
RGrew176
Yes, bullshit says you. My 1999 Bayliner 3055 Ciera Sunbridge with twin 5.7L
(250 HP) tops out at 47 MPH as measured by my Garmin GPSMAP 230.
Hows them apples.
64 days to go..