North Pacific 43 & Nordic Tug 42

Dave,

Conrad and I are a tale of two different boats that look the same on the outside. One difference was the engine. Conrad I think as a 325 HP and I have a 420 Cummins. Over time Nordic has put bigger and bigger engines in the 42, all based on the 6CTA Cummins block. The result is a boat that will go faster and faster but burn a lot more fuel. However at 7-8 knots they probably don't burn any more than the NP43. In my limited cruising so far, I burned about 2.5 gph and averaged 7.1 knots over 788NM, 111 engine hours, consuming an estimated 278 gallons of fuel (Total less heat and generator). To counteract tides and wind to try to keep to a planned schedule, I ran about 200-400 rpm faster than the 7 knot cruise in calm water about 30-40% of the time. I would say a 7 knot cruise would put me in the 2-2.2 gph.

The one thing I learned about extra power, the wife wants me to use it. To her getting to an anchorage or harbor and hour or two earlier, is worth it. When we went south this summer around Cape Caution in BC in a 6 knot boat, it was 8 hours of rolling and yawing in 8-10' swells on the starboard bow, beam, and stern at 5 knots. Coming north it was 7 knots on the port bow of 6-8' and 9 knots with seas on the stern in 7 hours not counting traveling 8NM further. HP is your friend in this case.

Tom

We looked at at a North Pacific 42 (43) in Palm Coast (it then moved to Vero Beach). Loved the boat - you could have eaten your dinner off the engine room floor. All records were meticiously kept. It looked and felt like a well found vessel.

What killed it for us was the single head.

I just don't understand why a 43 foot boat just has one head? It is set up for the cruising couple with guests. But we are just not happy with not offering our guests their own facilities.

kdtx, you are right about compromises. Plus, even if I could figure out what the "perfect boat" was, chances are there would not be one for sale here in the PNW. That 52' you have is a very nice boat. Up here, I just don't see that I would use a flybridge much, but who knows? Even in what passes for normally "warm" summers here, it is still cool by the water when you are moving 6-8 knots. I also am not one for hanging out in the sun much. There are so many boats in the Salish Sea with complete enclosures around their flybridge that I wonder if a flybridge is worth the duplicate cleaning, maintenance, and repair. A bare pilothouse roof and clear boat deck sound nice as far as cleaning goes. (unless I had a boathouse.....)

Rob, nice to hear from another who was concerned about side decks but found it to be a non-issue. I think the NP39 is a very nice boat, but the wife wants that second stateroom.

Tom, that helps with the fuel efficiency question. Trevor Brice claims around 2gph at 7 knots for the NP43. I could be very happy with that as 7 knots is my current cruise speed on my boat. The NP doesn't have the upper speed range that the NTs do however. I believe it maxes out at 12kt and that really burns up the fuel.

We travel with a dog and for that reason never use the fly bridge on the Krogen. The dog can access everywhere on the boat, except the fly bridge. When the weather is nice, we sit on the bench in front of the wheelhouse - with the dog and the auto pilot extension. I originally thought the bench was stupid, but it is a our go-to place in good weather - and 2 steps from the helm.

Not sure if you have dogs in your life . . .

No doubt Nordic Tugs are nice.

dhays said:

Tom, that helps with the fuel efficiency question. Trevor Brice claims around 2gph at 7 knots for the NP43. I could be very happy with that as 7 knots is my current cruise speed on my boat. The NP doesn't have the upper speed range that the NTs do however. I believe it maxes out at 12kt and that really burns up the fuel.

Click to expand...

Dave, our NT has a 330 HP Lugger, built on a Komatsu block; as far as I'm aware it is the only NT with a Lugger. Most have Cummins as Tom mentioned although recent models have Volvo power. I recall that Nordic Tugs offered 650 HP Cummins in the past although I don't know if many were sold.

We cruise at 8 knots almost exclusively with the occasional run up to 12 knots which is our max. With fairly significant genset and furnace use (I'm not on the boat so can't give the genset hours ) we are averaging 12 litres/hour overall.

Definitely agree that two heads are better than one!

My favorite is the NT 52 later named the 55 I believe. Great ER (lacking in all other NTs), several nice layouts and good build. I compared it to the NP 52 and found it much more user friendly in all respects. But at a million bucks + not a good investment as we were then into Nordhavn territory.

So on value alone as compared to the NT the NP seems a more logical choice. The market place agreed when comparing sales volumes over the past decade.

I compared an NP 52 plug from 18" above the waterline to our DF. What a difference with the NP at about 60% the thickness. Gotta keep costs down somehow.

Tator said:

Our previous boats, GB42 and GB50, had side decks. We have not missed them. The extra room in the salon is worth the negligible hassle.

Click to expand...

ktdtx said:

I wanted a full walk-around for all the reasons....got the widebody instead.
Rationalizing.....I'll spend more time in the boat than I will docking or moving fenders. Wife liked the extra room inside.
.
I'm glad to hear that some people went from full walk around to wide body and didn't miss it.
I haven't had this boat long enough to provide a valid opinion.

Then I remembered a lesson I thought I had learned earlier in life (and was now given a chance to relearn)...get the damn boat and get up to the PNW and use it!! So, I did and so far I really like my boat and hope to come to love it as I use it more and "make it mine".

Click to expand...

That sums up my feelings on side decks pretty well. Would like to have had them. Only miss them when docking. Have adapted to not having them for docking and locking. Can hang fenders from the railings of the upper deck. Will certainly use the inside space much more often.

Ted

tpbrady posted this;,
"The one thing I learned about extra power, the wife wants me to use it. To her getting to an anchorage or harbor and hour or two earlier, is worth it. When we went south this summer around Cape Caution in BC in a 6 knot boat, it was 8 hours of rolling and yawing in 8-10' swells on the starboard bow, beam, and stern at 5 knots. Coming north it was 7 knots on the port bow of 6-8' and 9 knots with seas on the stern in 7 hours not counting traveling 8NM further. HP is your friend in this case."

At first I thought it was the first justified excuse for having extra power. Having a 6 knot boat for over 10 years I can relate to that. Even though most of our trawlering has been up north where most anchorages are usually void of boats arriving even very late in the day/evening.
That has been my usual complaint about having a slow boat ... can't get to many anchorages before dark. That's what killed our winter cruising in SE Alaska. However, most of the time there are anchorages closer so instead of powering up one should just choose a closer anchorage. Or learn how to anchor at night.
But having a go slow boat that goes fast too is an obvious advantage but having a cruiser instead of a trawler offers even more of the fast/slow option. All of this slow and fast boat talk assumes the owner/skipper is OK w underloading most of the time. Engines are so good at running lightly loaded now that it may be a non-issue but the underloading talk still goes on.

Going around Cape Caution we usually go from Alison Harbour to Penrose Is (Frypan Bay) but we could go into Smith Sound. That would cut the trip distance in half so it could be done at 3 or 4 knots. My point being that the option to going much faster than your normal cruise speed is to not go as far. And those of us that have FD boats running 6 or 7 knots w/o a faster option are very familiar w it. Takes us 20 to 25 days to go to Ketchikan. No problem if I don't see it as such.

But tpbrady's practice seems very ideal and well put in his post. I like the part about "my wife makes me do it".

Eric,

One of my favorite quotes on engine HP and engine loading comes from Tony Athens at Seaboard Marine (Low Speed Running & “Break-In” of Marine Diesels - Seaboard Marine).

"In closing, I’ll mention that although this topic is brought up quite often and many people preach that you’ve got to use a diesel hard if you want it to last, I’m still waiting to find one that was rebuilt before its time due to low speed use..Just the opposite seems to be always the norm."

Tom

tpbrady said:

Eric,

One of my favorite quotes on engine HP and engine loading comes from Tony Athens at Seaboard Marine (Low Speed Running & “Break-In” of Marine Diesels - Seaboard Marine).

"In closing, I’ll mention that although this topic is brought up quite often and many people preach that you’ve got to use a diesel hard if you want it to last, I’m still waiting to find one that was rebuilt before its time due to low speed use..Just the opposite seems to be always the norm."

Click to expand...

tpbrady said:

Tom

Click to expand...

Thanks for referencing this site. I have bookmarked it. There is a number of very informative offerings on a number of subjects that are discussed here on the TF. I like the one on 'Over Propping" I would think that Eric would enjoy the content. Recommend that bookmarking of the site worth while as a reference or better if there is response, to questions posed. I did and will await to see if one returns. Yes, the subject is on 'Over Propping".
Al

Tom, Al and many others,
I do think there is something to the underloading issue but I don't think it's monumental, especially w the new engines. But it's not good for the older engines. And I'm sure that engines are better off if UNDER propped 50 to 100rpm. Then you basically can't hurt them. However over propping is fine or at least workable if one stays below the rpm point that will not overload the engine. But that red line on the tach is a bit vague. Running that way opens the door to possible engine damage. I would be very supprised if any engine manufacturer supported running an engine regularly at less than half it's max output. And the manufacturers .. IMO .. will always support propping an engine to the rated rpm.

I've talked this issue for many years and no .. engines aren't dying in large numbers but many are weak, smokey and hard starting w/o the hours that would usually produce that. It's an interesting topic to discuss and one of the reasons is because there is doubt and unknowns that lurk under the surface. It's like anchors ... not cut and dry. Interesting w posibilities for things to learn ... new knowledge to apply to our real life practices. Possibilities ..........

Thread creep- Sorry



Sorry, Please bring the subject of comparing NP and Nordic Tugs.

Al

I wouldn't worry about the electronics that are currently installed. By the time you are using the boat a lot, there will be a whole new generation of electronics that you will want to have.

Al said:

Sorry, Please bring the subject of comparing NP and Nordic Tugs.

Al

Click to expand...

I don't mind a bit. One of my concerns on these boats has been the size of the engine. Most of the North Pacific 43s have 230hp Cummins. The Nordic Tugs have anywhere from 450hp to 630hp at around the same displacement. As I am a cheap SOB, I would likely be running either at between 7-8 knots. That would be a much lower power % for the Nordic Tugs than the North Pacific. So the issue of underloading is of interest to me and actually germane to my original question.

dhays said:

I don't mind a bit. One of my concerns on these boats has been the size of the engine. Most of the North Pacific 43s have 230hp Cummins. The Nordic Tugs have anywhere from 450hp to 630hp at around the same displacement. As I am a cheap SOB, I would likely be running either at between 7-8 knots. That would be a much lower power % for the Nordic Tugs than the North Pacific. So the issue of underloading is of interest to me and actually germane to my original question.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be concerned about it at all, as long as it's broken in, and not running so slow it doesn't stay close to normal operating temps. I run my 26-footer with 260hp Volvo KAD44P at 1350-1400 RPM and 6 knots 95%+ of the time. It's fine after 6,500 hours so far.

My buddy runs his NT32 with 210hp Cummins at 7 knots. An NT 37 with 330hp Cummins could comfortably run 7-8. A 42 could comfortably run 8-9. Virtually forever. But all these could also cruise at 14-18 knots if the situation warranted it.

Our NT42 runs just as warm at 7 knots as when we run it at 9 (when my wife starts figuring fuel costs). We're pretty comfortable that we are not harming the engine and burning a lot less fuel. Compared to our Cat 36, it's more fuel. But we are drier and warmer .

I run my 2004 450 HP Cummins at 1300 RPM which makes 8 knots all day long. Occasionally, I bring it up to 2200 RPM for 10 minutes because my mechanic said to do this, but I only do it about every 20 - 30 engine hours. At 1300 RPM I burn about 3.3 gal/hr. This engine does not have electronic fuel injection. Wide open at 2600 RPM gets me about 14 knots top speed.

Thanks guys, helpful input again.

Dave,
What I'd like to see is a NT32 w a turned up stern more like a FD hull or much more closly so w a 65 to 75hp engine. But the NT does have more rocker than most all other SD trawlers and as a result is almost certianly more efficient than the straight line bottoms of most trawlers. I like their house and wheelhouse very much but at least as much I like the slightly closer to displacement hull form. The narrower beam adds to that as well.

Re the NP I actually kinda like the wheelhouse style.

dhays said:

I don't mind a bit. One of my concerns on these boats has been the size of the engine. Most of the North Pacific 43s have 230hp Cummins. The Nordic Tugs have anywhere from 450hp to 630hp at around the same displacement. As I am a cheap SOB, I would likely be running either at between 7-8 knots. That would be a much lower power % for the Nordic Tugs than the North Pacific. So the issue of underloading is of interest to me and actually germane to my original question.

Click to expand...

Hi Dave and others,

I just sent a deposit for a new NP45. It has a 355hp Cummins and only one head. They do offer a head in the master but I got a good deal on one that was already under construction. Trevor said that if I took it as-is he would give me a good deal and he did. I would have liked the second head but would rarely use it because I boat alone. I really wanted a full displacement trawler but couldn't afford a Selene, Nordhavn or Kadey Krogen and didn't really want a NT. Even though it has hard chines I added stabilizers. I hope that I made the right decision going with the NP45. It sure is a pretty boat and the fit and finish is every bit as good as the boats mentioned above. I just couldn't pay $600-$700k for a 10 to 15 year old boat! I'm stuck doing coastal rather than blue water cruising but I think I'll be OK with that.

I hope to see you on the water some day.

Cheers,

dirtdoc1 said:

Hi Dave and others,



I just sent a deposit for a new NP45. It has a 355hp Cummins and only one head. They do offer a head in the master but I got a good deal on one that was already under construction. Trevor said that if I took it as-is he would give me a good deal and he did. I would have liked the second head but would rarely use it because I boat alone. I really wanted a full displacement trawler but couldn't afford a Selene, Nordhavn or Kadey Krogen and didn't really want a NT. Even though it has hard chines I added stabilizers. I hope that I made the right decision going with the NP45. It sure is a pretty boat and the fit and finish is every bit as good as the boats mentioned above. I just couldn't pay $600-$700k for a 10 to 15 year old boat! I'm stuck doing coastal rather than blue water cruising but I think I'll be OK with that.



I hope to see you on the water some day.



Cheers,

Click to expand...

I like the NP45. Great looking boat. Congrats!

Congratulations Dirtdoc. I am confident you will be extremely happy. I think North Pacific make great boats and that NP45 is just about ideal. I'm jealous. Trevor is a great guy to work with, in fact I just talked to him today.

Keep us informed as to the progress. Do you have a tentative date?

dhays said:

Congratulations Dirtdoc. I am confident you will be extremely happy. I think North Pacific make great boats and that NP45 is just about ideal. I'm jealous. Trevor is a great guy to work with, in fact I just talked to him today.

Keep us informed as to the progress. Do you have a tentative date?

Click to expand...

End of September. How does your NP handle the nasty stuff? Are you completely satisfied with your North Pacific? Any suggestions for an inflatable RIB? I have to keep it under 600lbs, which shouldn't be to difficult if I keep it under 12'. I like the GALA, their made in Canada. Very competitively priced.

Enjoy the pics! The pic of the stabilizer is on a NP49. Trevor sent it to me because I wanted to know where they were going to mount them on my 45. I wish I could afford the NP49. That's the sweet spot! Everything is just the right size. That's OK the 45 is going to be huge compared to my Carver C34.

Cheers

Dirtdoc,

You will appreciate the hard top on the fly bridge. Nice looking boat. Congrats.

Gordon

dhays said:

Conrad, thanks for your input on the side decks. For a long time I would never even consider looking at a boat that didn't have decent side decks. As I have gone along in the process, I am slowly beginning to realize that I can't necessarily think of handling and working the decks of a trawler like I do my sailboat.

Darren, I think you are right. We would be happy with either of them (and a lot of others as well). BTW, I have enjoyed many of your videos. Keep it up.

The other boat that has made our short list is the NT37. That would probably be my first choice, but my wife likes the idea of a bit more room in the saloon to accommodate more family.

It likely will come down to finding the boat that is at the right price, right location, at the right time and call it good.

Click to expand...

We sold our 2005 41 Hunter in 2013 and purchased our 2002 NT37 in 2015. We cruise from our home in Florida up the east coast to New England each summer. I have gone through this entire boat and love the quality of the construction, interior teak, gelcoat and wiring. I love not having a fly bridge, canvas, exterior teak or plastic windows.
I love the pilot house side by side bench seats so my wife and I can talk as we travel. The salon is larger due to no walk around decks. I grab the bow quarter line and my wife grabs the stern lines. We have the Northern Lights Generator, which I highly recommend. So easy to work on. We replaced the Raymarine RL 70 with a new A98 and installed the new Chirp transducer. Love the depth graphic/fish finder.
For us this has turned out to be the perfect boat.
BUT.......
If you and your wife are going to have another couple on board, get the NT42. Two staterooms with queens and two heads is a must.
Safe travels.

Gordon J said:

Dirtdoc,

You will appreciate the hard top on the fly bridge. Nice looking boat. Congrats.

Gordon

Click to expand...

Thanks Gordon. I had my eye on a few Alexander 50 PH Trawlers. What beautiful boats. I actually called to make an offer on a 2007 OC trawler but it had just gone in to contract. I would have owned an Ocean Alexander if that boat didn't go in to contract.

Cheers!

Dirtdoc she is just gorgeous, I love her! Congratulations.

L.

dirtdoc1 said:

I would have owned an Ocean Alexander if that boat didn't go in to contract.

Click to expand...

Dirtdoc, you have my condolences....you would have loved that Ocean Alexander.

dirtdoc1 said:

End of September. How does your NP handle the nasty stuff? Are you completely satisfied with your North Pacific? Any suggestions for an inflatable RIB? I have to keep it under 600lbs, which shouldn't be to difficult if I keep it under 12'. I like the GALA, their made in Canada. Very competitively priced.

Click to expand...

The NP handles rough water better than we do. I had one rather unpleasant crossing last year. We crossed the Rosario strait with pretty high winds bucking a strong current. We had rather steep and short beam seas. It was not a pleasant ride, but the boat handled it just fine. Stabalizers may have helped, but the wave period was rather short.

The other time was when I ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time. This time it was a strong South wind against a strong flood current in the Tacoma Narrows. Very steep and very short waves. It pounded the crap out of us, but the boat didn't seem to mind a bit.

No suggestions on a RIB. I have a 10' RIB that we have put either on a SeaWise davit on the stern or up on the boat deck. On my NP43, I'm not sure that I would want a 12' RIB simply because it would get in the way a bit too much. I have a 600# crane and had a heavy Honda 8hp 4 stroke with electric start and power tilt. Weight was not an issue. If I wanted a RIB that would go faster, I would go with a 10' RIB and 15hp motor. I've seen NP43 owners with very nice RIBs with 20hp motors and center consoles that seem to work just great.

Am I completely satisfied...? I am completely satisfied with the decision to purchase the NP43. I can't say as I am completely satisfied with the boat. There are always things that could be different. Two small things I can think of off-hand. I am not crazy about the curtains. We will be installing blinds. I'm not really happy about the painted aluminum intake vents, they are starting to blister and peel. However, that is why North Pacific no longer uses the painted aluminum now on their boats. Just about anything that I can think of that I wish was different in my North Pacific 43, has been addressed with the North Pacific 45.

In another thread, it was asked if you could buy any new boat in the 40-50 range what would you get? For me, the answer was the NP45.