Which one? Nordic Tug or Taiwanese Trawler.

[OldDan1943]

Originally Posted by dhays

Likely it is different. I like both the NT and AT boats. They were the direction I was initially going when I was looking.

My North Pacific 43 has the same engine, Cummins QSB 5.9L 380hp. Even though my LWL is 38’, I don’t get anywhere near that fuel efficiency. 2.0 gal/hr (1450 rpm) will give me 7.0 knots.

Of course, I’m a fully loaded boat.

Ah that's where reality comes in, "fully loaded."
I doubt if any boat gets the factory published data when fully loaded and bucking a seas.

[Nomad Willy]

I’d chose the NT.
More efficient and throws much less wake. On the loop less wake is probably a plus. But the AT no doubt has more room.
Most AT’s have a FB (I think) and most NT’s do not. Would that be an issue. Perhaps the bridges are all high over there.
Are most AT’s twins? That could be a plus as much time will no doubt be spent in tight quarters finding slips ect.
OK on to FB.

[OldDan1943]

Originally Posted by Nomad Willy

I’d chose the NT.
More efficient and throws much less wake. On the loop less wake is probably a plus. But the AT no doubt has more room.
Most AT’s have a FB (I think) and most NT’s do not. Would that be an issue. Perhaps the bridges are all high over there.
Are most AT’s twins? That could be a plus as much time will no doubt be spent in tight quarters finding slips ect.
OK on to FB.

My AT and I suspect most of the others come with a bow thruster and stern thruster. If not, install them. I added a 3rd house battery and moved the bow and stern thrusters to the 3 house batteries. WHY? Because normally, the bow thruster is on the start battery and if there is trouble with the start battery, the engine stops. Dont ask me how I know.

[Hamrow]

Originally Posted by Nomad Willy

I’d chose the NT.
More efficient and throws much less wake. On the loop less wake is probably a plus. But the AT no doubt has more room.
Most AT’s have a FB (I think) and most NT’s do not. Would that be an issue. Perhaps the bridges are all high over there.
Are most AT’s twins? That could be a plus as much time will no doubt be spent in tight quarters finding slips ect.
OK on to FB.

A couple of corrections: All ATs and NTs are single engine. As for flybridge; it is optional on both ATs and NTs. by observation i'd say most of the ATs and NTs in the PNW do not opt for the FB, perhaps due to cooler and wetter weather certain parts of the year.

[seasalt007]

Originally Posted by Hamrow

A couple of corrections: All ATs and NTs are single engine..

NT built at least one twin engine 54'.

[Nomad Willy]

OK Dan and Ham,
But since the’re wider, bigger and heavier I thought they (AT’s) may have offered twins. And since the OP is shopping used I think he’ll find quite a few AT’s w FB and very few NT’s w FB.
Those AT’s, especially the larger ones must have big engines.

NT and AT would probably sell more boats w twin engine options. IMO

[OldDan1943]

Originally Posted by Nomad Willy

OK Dan and Ham,
But since the’re wider, bigger and heavier I thought they (AT’s) may have offered twins. And since the OP is shopping used I think he’ll find quite a few AT’s w FB and very few NT’s w FB.
Those AT’s, especially the larger ones must have big engines.

NT and AT would probably sell more boats w twin engine options. IMO

The AT34's engine room could not hold 2 engines. It is the perfect size for one engine and gives you lots of access too. I cannot speak to the NT.

[Hamrow]

Uh-oh, we're not getting into that single vs. twin debate again are we...?
It's a lot like the FB vs no FB debate; very subjective. But yes to answer the size question; the AT 435 like mine has a 500hp single Cummins. ATs never had twins because the hull form heritage was from a single engine fishing trawler.
For the record I'm with Dan; i much prefer the single for several reasons including roomy ER, accessibility, easier maintenance and parts tracking, quietness, and full keel-protected single prop.

I see on the NT website their large 54' has a single Volvo D11 with 670 hp.

[Nomad Willy]

Dan that would be stupid to put another engine the same size as the original doubling the available power. If you’ve got a 200hp put two 100hp engines in the boat ..... that apparently designed for 200hp.

And w two 100hp engines there would probably be plenty of room for maint.

[dhays]

Originally Posted by Hamrow

Uh-oh, we're not getting into that single vs. twin debate again are we...?
It's a lot like the FB vs no FB debate; very subjective. But yes to answer the size question; the AT 435 like mine has a 500hp single Cummins. ATs never had twins because the hull form heritage was from a single engine fishing trawler.

I absolutely love the AT 435. I would likely have bought one if I could have afforded it.

I'm a but surprised at the 500hp Cummins. The QSC is a nice engine but the 8.3L seems a bit of overkill. Now, I'm sure that the 8.3L would push the boat faster (dig a bigger hole in the water) than the 5.9L, but I really wonder how much utility that extra 150hp really provides? I wonder if they would put the QSB in a new boat if an owner wanted?

Of course, maybe I'm completely wrong.

[OldDan1943]

Originally Posted by Nomad Willy

Dan that would be stupid to put another engine the same size as the original doubling the available power. If you’ve got a 200hp put two 100hp engines in the boat ..... that apparently designed for 200hp.

And w two 100hp engines there would probably be plenty of room for maint.

The boat is designed for one engine. Any attempt to change the configuration would be asking for IMO, for some sort of trouble.

[Nomad Willy]

No,
I think you’re more right than wrong. But probably over powered. It’s well over twice the power of an old GB36 but the AT is not an easily driven hull. So could it use that much to any real benefit? Only if it could get up to some significant wetted surface reduction and a lower angle of attack both of which would significantly increase speed. But it probably would require over an 80% engine load and that would need to be sustained for any real benefit. And I haven’t even mentioned fuel consumption.
So I think the AT is better off plowing along at reasonable speeds like most other trawlers. If they went that way the result would be a big bow bashing boat if it didn’t surprise us all and plane. Not much gain, if any. Dave used the revealing word “utility” as in usefull benefit. Not likely.

[Nomad Willy]

Dan,
I could be wrong but I’m sure a good NA could flip back and forth single and/or twin.

What is it that you feel would be inappropriate about powering the AT w twin engines?

[OldDan1943]

Originally Posted by Nomad Willy

Dan,
I could be wrong but I’m sure a good NA could flip back and forth single and/or twin.

What is it that you feel would be inappropriate about powering the AT w twin engines?

Dont ask me. I am not a NA. Let me know how your conversation works out.

[seasalt007]

Originally Posted by dhays

I'm a but surprised at the 500hp Cummins. The QSC is a nice engine but the 8.3L seems a bit of overkill. Now, I'm sure that the 8.3L would push the boat faster (dig a bigger hole in the water) than the 5.9L, but I really wonder how much utility that extra 150hp really provides?.

I have an QSC 8.3 540 hp. I don't dig any holes. I can get on top with a very pretty wake if I want to pay the bill. Top is 18 kts with half fuel and water. But I cruise at 8.5 kts same as I did with my last NT 42 with the 5.9 B series. The 8.3 at 8.5 kts burns a little more fuel than the 5.9.

[dhays]

Originally Posted by seasalt007

I have an QSC 8.3 540 hp. I don't dig any holes. I can get on top with a very pretty wake if I want to pay the bill. Top is 18 kts with half fuel and water. But I cruise at 8.5 kts same as I did with my last NT 42 with the 5.9 B series. The 8.3 at 8.5 kts burns a little more fuel than the 5.9.

18 kts is very impressive for such a large boat. The AT gives a huge amount of usable space for its length. Likely due to the fishing heritage of the hull shape where they needed lots of volume and work space.

[Reel Grace]

Great info here and thanks! I found a 1988 32 Grand Banks which is going for survey in a few days. Original fuel tanks and teak decks. Nice boat but I can see the work ahead of me. Ill keep it on my lift to avoid monthly diver costs and dockage fees. Would like to have a 36 but would rather not have the additional costs of ownership. So the 32 should be fine. Anything problems specific to this make/model I should look for in the survey? The bottom has been redone and painted a few years a go with alwgrip. Although the GB 32 doesn't meet a lot of my original desires, it does offer a great reputation in quality and resale value. I think the size makes it attractive to other GB owners who have larger boats that may want to down size to something easier to handle and maintain. It doesn't have a bow or stern thruster so Im really in for a learning experience! Practice Practice Practice. Im not planning to spend $10K for a bow thruster. No cockpit doors on this model but it does have wide decks and a pretty spacious stern area.The fit and finish is really nicely done.

[sleaper]

When I discovered the great loop and thought about how I would travel it, i decided that i would have to have a boat with a fly bridge and internal cockpit.

You are going to be spending days cruising through amazing waterways and having the option to sit outside and enjoy it as you steam along will enhance the trip 10 fold I feel.

But I guess with that comes other considerations if your solo.

God luck, can't wait to hear about it.