If I need to ask, does that mean I cant afford it

Broker sent me this link today


Mikelson Fexas 42 Flybridge Cruiser - Ensign Ship Brokers

Question is what fuel figures$ would I expect is it overpowered ?
1000 hours on each motor just seem too good to be true maybe the owner cant afford to use it

Hi Gaston

Are they V drives ? Hard to tell , but appears engines are under the cockpit floor ?

I don't think she would get on the plane , if it does it would not be fast ?

I don't think fuel consumption would be heavy , just depends how you drive it.

Nice looking vessel. I doubt the hours are correct , if they are ,the engines may have been changed at some period . May be worth checking the serial numbers with the manufacturer

Cheers Chris D Liberty

The engines were sized for the 18K sprint , as was the hull optimized for SD cruising.

Going slow will be more costly because of both compromises , but an extra couple of GPH might be worth it.

The usual 200 hrs a year , doesn't add to very big fuel bucks.

Low hours are only a danger if the owner did not bother with proper maint.

I would want a test ride to see how stable the boat is at trawler crawler speeds.

Only on TF would anyone consider that overpowered.
Fexas was known for very thoughtful design.
My only wish for that boat would have been simpler inline engines.

Our boat built in 1978 has 1743 hours or about 50 hours per year. We been a live aboard for 18 years, so we don't leave the dock much, but we do maintain them. So the hours might be correct.

Handsome boat. Seems a good value - I've been rather taken aback by recent posts of high AU prices but this is quite fair for a pedigree vessel.


Keith

Engine room vents are all the way aft so yea probably V drives. The 8.2 Detroit was DD
attempt to copy a 3208 Cat. Exact same specs down the line. The motors were a disaster. They are 4 stroke but just a poor design with lots of failures. Cheap motors that were discontinued after a year or 2.

The only ?? I see on this boat is what appears to be DD 8.2's in a relatively high end vessel, maybe with V-Drives? Normally I'd pass but she is gorgeous. I'd at least want to know who marinized the engines and make sure parts were available there. You're probably gonna need 'em.

gaston said:

Broker sent me this link today


Mikelson Fexas 42 Flybridge Cruiser - Ensign Ship Brokers

Question is what fuel figures$ would I expect is it overpowered ?
1000 hours on each motor just seem too good to be true maybe the owner cant afford to use it

Click to expand...

Yes, if you have to ask, you can't afford it but not for the reasons of fuel. Fuel is still such a small part of boat ownership. With this particular boat affording the engine repairs and rebuilds could be the real issue. I suspect the DD's have a lot to do with the price, if 8.2 DD's is correct as what they are. Survey, survey and survey, but still don't be surprised to have issues. I'm by no means an engineer, but the captains and engineers I spend time with are very much against those engines.

Thanks again for all your reply's you have saved me a 2 hour return flight to look over the boat next week. It obvious the engines are the Achillies heel pity as its looks like a nice boat and well kept .







Next boat please

How much is a repower with 3208's?


Keith

Nice boat shame about the engines.
? US import in 2012, judging from the survey date, ? for insurance.
The AU $ buys around 70c US these days.Even so, our boat prices well exceed yours. How Maritimo and Riviera sell into the US market beats me.
Laurie, seeing the boat type you like, I`m reminded of a broker assessing my search targets saying "so, you want it to look like a boat"

BandB said:

Yes, if you have to ask, you can't afford it but not for the reasons of fuel. Fuel is still such a small part of boat ownership...

Click to expand...

You know I keep hearing that, and reading that on this and other boating forums, and even my father says that to me all the time when I want to keep the rpm's under 2200 which is the sweet spot for fuel consumption and speed on our boat - but when it still costs nearly $1000 to fill my gas tanks, that sounds pretty ridiculous to me. Two fill-ups for me would nearly pay my entire season's slip rental at the marina. One fill-up would pay half my winterization and storage costs. One fill-up would pay my boat insurance and registration for two years. It seems to me that unless you power your boat with a lawn mower engine, or buy your gas in Venezuela for 10 cents a gallon, fuel consumption is not an insignificant consideration.

kthoennes said:

You know I keep hearing that, and reading that on this and other boating forums, and even my father says that to me all the time when I want to keep the rpm's under 2200 which is the sweet spot for fuel consumption and speed on our boat - but when it still costs nearly $1000 to fill my gas tanks, that sounds pretty ridiculous to me. Two fill-ups for me would nearly pay my entire season's slip rental at the marina. One fill-up would pay half my winterization and storage costs. One fill-up would pay my boat insurance and registration for two years. It seems to me that unless you power your boat with a lawn mower engine, or buy your gas in Venezuela for 10 cents a gallon, fuel consumption is not an insignificant consideration.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying any aspect of it is insignificant. I am saying the fuel is predictable and controllable and $1000 (since that's the number you used) at a time. An engine rebuild is somewhat less predictable and many times that amount. So my point on this situation was that he's got a very real potential with the DD's of a far greater expenditure being required.

It sounds like you also have some very low expenses in other areas compared to many.

Another of those slightly out of context debates.

I remember getting into it 5 years ago when I bought my boat and diesel was $4 something a gallon and headed for $5 we all thought. Scares of $10 a gallon like some places were being thrown about by some TF fearmongerers.

Only FF had the cool head and predicted the current fuel prices from what I remember.

At $5 a gallon, fuel started to become a big chunk of my annual boating budget...anything above and it meant budgetary cuts in other places.

At $2 a gallon...even I can breath easily taking my annual trip to Florida and back, with plenty of side trips and a little goose on the throttle when I want.

So for some of us, fuel IS a bigger deal than others...obviously not for everyone...but some of us bought boats for what some people's annual fuel bill was at $5 a gallon....and like to use them.

refugio said:

How much is a repower with 3208's?


Keith

Click to expand...

A Cummins 330B reman is about $19-$20,000 without the core, each. Figure $10-$15,000 installation cost for both. Of course that's without modifications which could add significantly to the total bill. All US dollars done in the good ole US of A.

Fuel use is mostly a function of Speed.

Go at the SQ RT of the LWL, ( in K) and most every boat is cheap. 36ft LWL = 6K

Travel at 18K and 1nm/gal would be considered cheap.

FF said:

Travel at 18K and 1nm/gal would be considered cheap.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I get.

On current usage I will be using the boat around 250 hours a year so would expect to use around $10000 fuel a year in this boat + or - $2000 to justify that Im using $6000 a year in the Pajero 4x4 so taking into consideration the boat is now part of our family life Im not worried about fuel but the more I look into those engines and a possible refit of $160000AU$ along with deprecation Im back to a 38" 2006 2008 single diesel I just wish the owner of the Mainship 34 2006 with Cummings and 350 hours would contact me

PS Why is a 38 foot Mainship called a Mainship 35 ??

gaston said:

PS Why is a 38 foot Mainship called a Mainship 35 ??

Click to expand...

Oh now that's worse than anchors. Why are 90% of the boats called differently than LOA. A lot has to do with dates too as over the years they've snuck into calling boat's XXXXX 50 when the 50 includes 5' of platform and pulpit.

Sometimes too it's because they're using the other nomenclature for something else. Here are a couple to contemplate that I've recently played with:

A Sunseeker Manhattan 63 and 65 are on the same hull. Length of both with enormous swim platform is 69'1". Now a comparably sized boat you'd think would be a Sea Ray L 650. However, it's 65' in length includes nearly 5' of platform. So their 65 is in reality about 5' shorter than Sunseeker's 65. A Grand Banks 43 is 48'11" including everything, but they use fair and honest numbers with it 43'4" without the platform and pulpit. Fleming shows hull measurement and total. Their 55' makes sense as it's hull is 55'9". Their 65' isn't too far off with a hull of 67'4". But their new 58 is 62'9". The only thing I can guess is they want it perceived as something easy for a 55 owner to move up to. As I said the small boats I grew up around went the other way. Oh they'd also use even 10's like 180 for outboard and 5's like 185 for I/O.

Their is now general uniformity in what must be put on documentation and most state registrations. However, model numbers seem to have little representation of length and with different builders they pick a different length.

And why do so many people call a Cummins engine a Cummings? Not a criticism, just a curious fact.

For marina billing, be glad nominal boat length < measured length. Unless of course your marina is one which gets out the tape measure to squeeze out the last $.

BruceK said:

For marina billing, be glad nominal boat length < measured length. Unless of course your marina is one which gets out the tape measure to squeeze out the last $.

Click to expand...

Most marinas in our area pick true LOA including everything, not nominal. They generally charge the greater of the actual length or slip length. My observations on transient are that they generally take the number they're given unless it appears off to them. On slips it's not normally an issue as the slip must be as long or longer than the boat and they charge by slip length.

timjet said:

That's exactly what I get.

Click to expand...

Hey....me too!!!!!

Even if I traveled 1500 miles a year in my boat, fuel would be considerably less than ten percent of ownership costs (excluding depreciation). My actual mileage is about half that. ... I travel at less than "hull speed."

BandB said:

Most marinas in our area pick true LOA including everything, not nominal. They generally charge the greater of the actual length or slip length. My observations on transient are that they generally take the number they're given unless it appears off to them. On slips it's not normally an issue as the slip must be as long or longer than the boat and they charge by slip length.

Click to expand...

Ditto. ... But when considering a double-sided berth, my fat Coot is mostly concerned with the width of the berth rather than its length. Most berths seem to serve sailboats which have narrower beams. "My" marina charges by the berth length, while end ties are something different.

I treasure my oversized berth (extra long and extra wide).

markpierce said:

Ditto. ... But when considering a double-sided berth, my fat Coot is mostly concerned with the width of the berth rather than its length. Most berths seem to serve sailboats which have narrower beams. "My" marina charges by the berth length, while end ties are something different.

I treasure my oversized berth (extra long and extra wide).

Click to expand...

Yes, in most places end ties carry quite a premium. I could see in your area too a lot of sailboat designed slips. Glad you have what you need and can hold on to it.

hmason said:

And why do so many people call a Cummins engine a Cummings? Not a criticism, just a curious fact.

Click to expand...

'cause they fink it sounds like they is unejukated, and dropping their 'G's..?

autocorrect

koliver said:

autocorrect

Click to expand...

Lot's of autocorrect, but then there may be some who have read it here so many times, they've become convinced. It's been emblazoned upon their brain.