Efficient Blue Water Trawlers

Hey guys I am new to the trawler scene… and I am looking to purchase an efficient trawler. I am going to be cruising the gulf and Caribbean and living on it. I have been told I should stay 40’+ but not certain. It’s just myself and maybe one other person most of the time. So I wasn’t looking at 40’+ because of room, more of safety on rough water… but maybe I 36 would be acceptable out there? Like I said I am new to this… 27 and been on big lakes all my life. Work at a marina now and very mechanical inclined so will have no fear of working on it myself. I don’t have any big “must haves” I just don’t want junk and room to move around in the engine room “since it’s not always smooth sailing in there”

-More efficient the better “Single or twin diesel?”
-Reliability is key along with well built “No junk”
-Roomy engine rooms
-Good resale value
-No wood hulls

Budget of 200k. Like the GB42’ classic but heard there is more efficient out there. Year isn’t an issue as long as it has what I stated. Thanks everyone!!

I may be somewhat biased having lived and cruised on one the past 10 years, but here's a great vessel for what you've outlined:

https://www.yachtworld.com/yacht/1979-cheoy-lee-trawler-8358773/

Single should be a little more efficient than dual and slightly less cost for maintenance. It's not as if 2 motors are twice the cost. You give up something in redundancy but you should also have a roomier engine compartment with a single. Boat length is kind of dependent on how many people are on board and what accomodations you would want for a liveaboard. 40' sounds like a good starting point w/o knowing much else. If going bigger gets you addional staterooms but you are solo or a couple, there's not much point in carrying that extra room with you and will also subtract some from your desired efficiency. Also, with a budget of 200K and wanting something of good build quality and reliability may push you to a smaller length. Hard to make specific suggestions w/o knowing a little more about your mission and your must-haves and don't-wants.

The Kadey Krogen 42 ticks all of your boxes. It is an efficient, blue water capable boat that is right in your price range.

David

Welcome aboard. The KK 42 does sound good.

The KK 42 is very efficient. Very capable. More than enough living space for one or two. But the engine space is crawl around if you don't lift the salon hatches.

Bumfuzzle.com are past circumnavigators in sail and moved to a GB42 Classic several years ago. A family of 4, they have been meandering the Caribbean ever since - currently in Aruba. They are good writers and photographers so it's pretty easy to scroll their blog posts. Several years ago they compared costs of sail to power (HERE) and said it was a toss-up.

https://www.bumfuzzle.com/always-another-horizon/

Personally, I think focusing too much on "efficiency" is missing the mark - once you're into displacement speeds, fuel difference between a single and a twin, or a modern common rail diesel vs an old-school natural (Perkins or Ford Lehman) will not be a major difference in your long term costs. To give some idea, a Willard 40 with a 130hp Perkins burns around 2gph @ 7-1/4 kts. Same hull with a JD4045T burns around 1.5gph at same speed. 25% more efficient, so your annual fuel bill is $3k instead of $4k. Cruising the Caribbean will, at a minimum, take an annual budget of $60k, probably more (perhaps a lot more depending on your lifestyle) . Fuel savings for an "efficient boat" is deminimus when displacement speeds are maintained.

What WILL make a big difference in your quality of life and success is active stabilizers. They are a game-changer.

Good luck with whatever you decide.

Peter

EDIT - one other item I'd look at is range. Fuel can be expensive. Having the ability to be selective about fuel stops will save you more money than 'efficiency.' I picked 1500nm as a desired range, but could easily live with 1000nms.

Peter as usual great wisdom. Although I’m a newbie it’s apparent efficiency is critically import for ocean crossing but for the usual type of cruising most do not so much. At this moment we’re cruising down LI sound to NYC. We’re doing 8.1k SOG burning 5.3gph. Want to anchor near hell gate before sundown. So I’m inefficient going just below hull speed. But I’ll be positioned in the morning to go through NYC.
If I was in FD boat my thinking would be different. I’d go outside as a straight shot. But I’d still probably be inefficient as I’d want to make my window to cross NJ. Speed up or slow down to achieve the most comfortable and safest transit. The difference of a boat buck or two doesn’t enter into your calculations. Comfort, safety, and pleasure does.

Gorgeous lil boat, that's for reference...

Just seems hard to get parts/ old gal/ constant work/ stay on top of...

But I like look

KK all the way!

Like the wide, and spacious living!

44 for cruise
47 for deep blu

Define efficient?

Simi 60 said:

Define efficient?

Click to expand...

Exactly. Most overused term on this forum.

Regards,

Pete

Several in use I can think of:
Fuel burn per pound moved at X SOG.
Distance traveled per gph at X SOG. (Takes into account lighter boats are easier to move)
Range per gallon at best engine rpm/load.

In general think longer, lighter, minimal parasitic drag, good gyradius and prismatic coefficient makes for a more efficient boat. What’s often not considered is propping and HP transfer. Variable pitch depending upon load can increase efficiency. Electric may have less transmission losses. Losses between engine/motor and shaft HP delivered can vary. This can account for some of the greater efficiencies of singles.

Trawlers like the KK42 are efficient. They have displacement hulls and moderate size engines.

"Trawlers", like the newer Grand Banks with semi displacement hulls and twin huge engines are not so efficient.

Even when cruising at below displacement speed, the first category of trawler will burn about half the fuel as the second category.

Is that important in the grand scheme of things, well not so much, but becoming more so as fuel hits $6.00 per gallon.

David

The majority of long range offshore cruising is done is sailing monohulls for good reason. I realize that this is a trawler site but if efficiency is really important to you a true blue water sailing vessel is hard to beat.

jungpeter said:

Exactly. Most overused term on this forum.

Regards,

Pete

Click to expand...

Yes it’s such a broad term it means nothing to me unless you get more specific. Fuel and range, windage a major factor not discussed much, engine and drivetrain/propeller, these are just a few factors. Not unlike trying to define “seaworthy” another concept that like a ball bearing is hard to nail down

Rick

DavidM said:

The Kadey Krogen 42 ticks all of your boxes. It is an efficient, blue water capable boat that is right in your price range.

David

Click to expand...

I do like the looks and layout of these boats but just from a quick search they seem a lot harder to find for sale unlike the GB. At least within my price range. Is there anything wrong with the GB?

garbler said:

Yes it’s such a broad term it means nothing to me unless you get more specific. Fuel and range, windage a major factor not discussed much, engine and drivetrain/propeller, these are just a few factors. Not unlike trying to define “seaworthy” another concept that like a ball bearing is hard to nail down

Rick

Click to expand...

Like I stated I am new to this… being efficient is just saying when I decide to go on a longer trip I’d rather it not kill the bank… I bet they are all expensive but since I’m not here to win any races I figured some would do better in the fuel saving category than others. I like the idea of twin engines just for a backup if needed. I’m going to spend most of my time ported in a river… occasional trips to the Bahamas, maybe Mexico, South America… never really outside of the gulf and Caribbean. So seaworthy just to keep me safe as long as I’m not purposely going out into bad storms.

Thanks for the input.. everything helps

To me efficiency carries with it a systems’ serviceability factor. Access, ER space, parts and supplies storage and range trump GPH in our book.

Then what is the mission? Water skiing, a fast cruise for one hour to an anchorage, crossing the Pacific etc are all possibilities. Budget considerations directly impact efficiency. Each of us have an efficiency quotient. Few are the same

backinblue said:

Single should be a little more efficient than dual and slightly less cost for maintenance. It's not as if 2 motors are twice the cost. You give up something in redundancy but you should also have a roomier engine compartment with a single. Boat length is kind of dependent on how many people are on board and what accomodations you would want for a liveaboard. 40' sounds like a good starting point w/o knowing much else. If going bigger gets you addional staterooms but you are solo or a couple, there's not much point in carrying that extra room with you and will also subtract some from your desired efficiency. Also, with a budget of 200K and wanting something of good build quality and reliability may push you to a smaller length. Hard to make specific suggestions w/o knowing a little more about your mission and your must-haves and don't-wants.

Click to expand...

Yes I like the idea of having two engines just to keep things more reliable offshore. I just was saying 40+ because of what I heard to keep things more stable. I do really like the roomyness of the 42+ GB. It seems like late 70s to mid to late 80s is pretty obtainable for 200 and less.

27 and cruising the Caribbean. What you should be looking at is a blue water sailboat.

Hartmanrox313 said:

I do like the looks and layout of these boats but just from a quick search they seem a lot harder to find for sale unlike the GB. At least within my price range. Is there anything wrong with the GB?

Click to expand...

As posted up-thread, there is a family of 4 cruising an older GB42 in the Caribbean right now. Have been doing it for well over 5 years and having a great time. They started in Florida, went through the Bahamas, and down through the islands and current in Aruba near Venezuela.

The KK42 is a good boat. Personally, I believe it's reputation as an offshore cruiser is overstated by endless onlime repetition. It's a comfortable boat and I too like it- I prefer sedan layouts to Pilothouse and trunk cabin layouts.

Your journey would be no different in a KK42 vs a GB42 assuming both of similar quality and equipment.

What will make a big difference in your cruising will be prior maintenance of the vessel, and whether it is stabilized.

Peter

sunchaser said:

To me efficiency carries with it a systems’ serviceability factor. Access, ER space, parts and supplies storage and range trump GPH in our book.

Then what is the mission? Water skiing, a fast cruise for one hour to an anchorage, crossing the Pacific etc are all possibilities. Budget considerations directly impact efficiency. Each of us have an efficiency quotient. Few are the same

Click to expand...

I agree. I like space especially in the engine room, good fuel burn rate at 6-8kn mainly. I’m not trying to win races… just keep it somewhat affordable when I do decide to make a trek. A lot of my time will be spent living and staying put.

Shrew said:

27 and cruising the Caribbean. What you should be looking at is a blue water sailboat.

Click to expand...

And why is this? I don’t think age should have anything to do with it. And hosting guests is a lot easier with more of an open concept like a trawler. My time will be spent more in the bay anchored close to where I work.

mvweebles said:

As posted up-thread, there is a family of 4 cruising an older GB42 in the Caribbean right now. Have been doing it for well over 5 years and having a great time. They started in Florida, went through the Bahamas, and down through the islands and current in Aruba near Venezuela.

The KK42 is a good boat. Personally, I believe it's reputation as an offshore cruiser is overstated by endless onlime repetition. It's a comfortable boat and I too like it- I prefer sedan layouts to Pilothouse and trunk cabin layouts.

Your journey would be no different in a KK42 vs a GB42 assuming both of similar quality and equipment.

What will make a big difference in your cruising will be prior maintenance of the vessel, and whether it is stabilized.

Peter

Click to expand...

I agree. The GB has more of an open concept it seems which is something I like. Gives more room for activity, better when hosting guests, and makes it seem bigger than it is.

mvweebles said:

Bumfuzzle.com are past circumnavigators in sail and moved to a GB42 Classic several years ago. A family of 4, they have been meandering the Caribbean ever since - currently in Aruba. They are good writers and photographers so it's pretty easy to scroll their blog posts. Several years ago they compared costs of sail to power (HERE) and said it was a toss-up.

https://www.bumfuzzle.com/always-another-horizon/

Personally, I think focusing too much on "efficiency" is missing the mark - once you're into displacement speeds, fuel difference between a single and a twin, or a modern common rail diesel vs an old-school natural (Perkins or Ford Lehman) will not be a major difference in your long term costs. To give some idea, a Willard 40 with a 130hp Perkins burns around 2gph @ 7-1/4 kts. Same hull with a JD4045T burns around 1.5gph at same speed. 25% more efficient, so your annual fuel bill is $3k instead of $4k. Cruising the Caribbean will, at a minimum, take an annual budget of $60k, probably more (perhaps a lot more depending on your lifestyle) . Fuel savings for an "efficient boat" is deminimus when displacement speeds are maintained.

What WILL make a big difference in your quality of life and success is active stabilizers. They are a game-changer.

Good luck with whatever you decide.

Peter

EDIT - one other item I'd look at is range. Fuel can be expensive. Having the ability to be selective about fuel stops will save you more money than 'efficiency.' I picked 1500nm as a desired range, but could easily live with 1000nms.

Click to expand...

This is all great information… thank you very much! I have spent the past day reading about the couple you lead me to. They also have a lot of great information. Thanks a lot. Seems like stabilizers can be a lifesaver.

A guy on CruisersForum is a fulltime cruiser in Florida and Bahamas (Sailorboy HERE). Seems to have a blend of anchor and a lot of marinas and some inexpensive/free town-docks. He has been tracking his monthly expenses for 6-years - all of them, including dental visits.

Now, his 6-years includes new sails, standing rigging, and a dinghy along the way. I think this is an honest portrayal. Around $51k/year all-in, including travel, gifts, eating-out, etc.

I took the liberty of summarizing his data; and making an assumption of how much incremental fuel he'd burn if he were on a powerboat doing the same style of cruising at same displacement speed. I assumed 2000 nms/year, and I assumed he motors 25% of the time so $1184/year in gas, propane, diesel covers 500nms of motoring; so a powerboat would have to motor an additional 1500nms. For fuel burn, I used OC Diver's recent estimate of 1500 gals/diesel for 4000 nm of cruising, or 562g for 1500nm. Assumed $5/gal.

So the costs for Power vs Sail go from $51.4k to $53.9k, or an additional 4.7%. That's it. Now, if you want to go faster than displacement speeds, the cost difference can get pretty crazy.

Now, I know putting a chart like this will spur many rotten tomatoes to be tossed. I challenge anyone to produce a better projection.

Peter

PS - interesting about the knit-picking on "Efficiency." Y'all know darn well what the OP meant. That said, surprised no one picked-up on what he meant by "Bluewater...."

Hartmanrox313 said:

This is all great information… thank you very much! I have spent the past day reading about the couple you lead me to. They also have a lot of great information. Thanks a lot. Seems like stabilizers can be a lifesaver.

Click to expand...

According to David Kasten, noted Naval Architect, stabilizers do not make a boat safer, just more comfortable. Reason being is there are certain measurements that indicate a boat's ultimate stability. For example "AVS" is Angle of Vanishing Stability. In short, its the angle where a boat would rather keep rolling over versus return to it's upright position. Stabilization does nothing to change that factor. I personally think that's too narrow of a definition as there are personal safety issues where stabilization absolutely makes a BIG difference, but just so you know....."Lifesaver" might be a bit too enthusiastic a description (though in my case, maybe not as my wife would mutiny without them).

Good luck. Bumfuzzle did a few YouTube videos years ago that were great. Unfortunately, they are now blog-only.

Peter

The old time proven adage that with nearly forty years surveying I have found pretty accurate is, ‘ that if it’s hard to get to it doesn’t get maintained ‘ . Exceptions of course but generally true

Rick

Hippocampus said:

Several in use I can think of:
Fuel burn per pound moved at X SOG.
Distance traveled per gph at X SOG. (Takes into account lighter boats are easier to move)
Range per gallon at best engine rpm/load.

In general think longer, lighter, minimal parasitic drag, good gyradius and prismatic coefficient makes for a more efficient boat. What’s often not considered is propping and HP transfer. Variable pitch depending upon load can increase efficiency. Electric may have less transmission losses. Losses between engine/motor and shaft HP delivered can vary. This can account for some of the greater efficiencies of singles.

Click to expand...

Hippocampus, with all due respect, coming up with meaningless metrics is easy. How 'bout "furlongs per fortnight"? But coming up with meaningful metrics by the ORIGINAL POSTER (OP) that suit HIS use model is the true issue in this thread.

I got a giggle out of the posters to this thread that immediately chimed in on THEIR choice of a boat that met the OP's metrics (a KK42). Early on in my ventures here in the PNW, I chartered one of those things. Compared to the overall cost of a week's charter, the cost of fuel was truly lost in the noise. So from that very limited and short sighted perspective of the true cost of boat ownership (reflected in the charter fee), the KK42 was "efficient". But my family and I were really disgusted in the overall experience, given the cramped living quarters, poor engine room access, and the absolutely atrocious roll, both underway, at anchor, and at the dock. It truly rolled our fillings out.

And "gyradius" as a consideration the choice of a coastal cruising powerboat? Seriously? OK, try this. Email Grand Banks Yachts and ask their naval architect what the gyradius is on a (for instance) 80's vintage GB42. I can feel their eyes rolling from here. This may be a pertinent design element when considering flume stabilization, or the latest Ocean Race race boat, but hardly for the perceived OP's use case. Ditto prismatic coefficient. The guy doesn't want to transport crude oil or other bulk cargo, but presumably travel easily and safely with friends and family. A skinny boat (presumably with higher prismatic coefficient than your typical GB) will be more "efficient". Well, fine. As long as you can live with the down sides, like excess LOA with attendant high moorage fees, living in a tube, and extremely limited design choices.

I don't believe throwing out for consideration such fourth-order design elements to an admitted new guy is doing him much service. And I stand on my statement that "efficiency" as a design element for recreational power boating is not only misused on this forum, but also disingenuous and a red herring for the uninformed.

Furthermore, it appears to me that the OP has fastened on a GB42, and is seeking affirmation from the forum. And his concern with the cost "...to fill the fuel tanks" indicates he has little understanding of the true cost(s) of boat ownership. If the cost of a tank of fuel is a concern for the OP, I hope he does significantly more research before he dives into this venture. I wish him the best in his endeavor.

Regards,

Pete