‘79 Californian 42 LRC pre-purchase survey follow up

[RamseySteve]

Thanks for all the suggestions prior to the surveys.

Just completed the general survey. Mechanical survey also completed but not delivered yet.

General surveyor said engine hours are suspiciously low and at least one hour meter wasn’t working (but likely neither is the other), and many gauges either don’t work at all or are reading erroneously.

Question: The engines are 3208T’s, rated at 300hp. Were these an option in 1979?

It was apparent at the haul out that neither prop shaft is original as they were an inch too long on the port side and about half an inch too long on starboard.

The sea trials essentially were a bust as the port stuffing box was too loose and the starboard was so tight that she started to drip molten wax at just over 1000 rpm, so we essentially limped to, and back from the haul out at idle.

Her current owner is a great guy but “isn’t mechanical” and essentially is using her as a house boat.

Waiting on the mechanical survey..

 

[STB]

300hp doesn't sound right to me. That seems too high for the T and higher than the 200hp I remember being in the 3208 option for that boat. I don't remember that boat, for example, having intercoolers on the 3208s.

The old, mechanical Hobbs (hours) gauges seem to have hit their expiration date years ago. That's not an uncommon problem. I don't understand why it seems to be so rarely properly addressed.
Other gauges being bad is also common....but it gives you a hint as to how much the vessel has been used.

I suspect the horsepower is being overstated. Another option is that an after market dual turbo kit was added, which was one way people tortured those engines. Another option is, of course, that I am misremembering.

As for replacement shafts....if one grabs a crab trap or rope or run aground....a shaft is a cheap day. I'd just make sure the struts aren't bent and that the cutlass bearings all look good.

The stuffing in the boxes might just be old leadingnto adjustment problems...people love tonadd a new ring over old threads...but there could also be alignment problems.

I've seen the mis-sized shafts before. Yards seem to estimate rather than exactly measure. It frustrates me looking at it.

You mentioned them being too long. What is the distance between each rear strut and prop hub? The cutlass bearing does need waterfowl to cool. A little too long is better than a little too short, especially if you ever want to add cutters.

I'd want the owner to fix thise stuffing boxes and to sea trial again. That isn't a big ask. They can be repacked in water if the only issue is the packing.

Any boat that can't be properly sea trialed is a full on project boat and should be priced accordingly.

I had a project 1977 42' Californian LRC for a while
It turned out well. I loved that boat. I hearsay it is still crawling the SoCal coast and making its humans smile.

 

[Comodave]

The shafts aren’t too long unless the distance from the front of the prop to the back of the strut is more than 1 shaft diameter. For example if you have 2” shafts then the distance from the back of the strut to the front of the prop should not be more than 2”. But the surveyor should know that so maybe the distance is more than 1 shaft diameter.

 

[RamseySteve]

To respond to both comments (thanks!) shafts appear true, struts look fine but the distance from the strut to the prop on port side is at least an inch longer than the shaft diameter and the starboard side is also long, but to a lesser degree, maybe 1/2” to 1”. She shows no signs of grounding, and cutlass bearings and rudder bearings seem ok.

I need to ask the surveyor where he got the 300 hp number from. From what I can see she has turbos but no intercoolers or whatever so she should be 220hp?

I asked the surveyor why he didn’t mention in the survey (among other things) the single clamped diesel filler hoses, and I quote.. “ Oh hell, Steve I could pick at that boat for a week if I wanted to apply all the ABYC Standards & Recommendations. Fact is, I grabbed all those hoses to see if I could twist 'em on their nipples. They were tight, so I let it go”.. end quote.

Her owner for the last year is a guy with no mechanical aptitude and a philosophy of just removing things that don’t work - 2 out of her 3 AC compressors, radar, water maker, etc etc. she’s starting to feel like a refit candidate.

 

[Comodave]

I thought that ABYC recommendations included 2 hose clamps on fill hoses.

Not an expert on the 3208 but I sorta think the NA version was about 210 and the TA versions could go up to 375.


Hope the price is good as it looks like there will be a lot of work to be done. Good lick with however it works out.

 

[RamseySteve]

ABYC definitely says fuel fill hoses should be double clamped. And lots of other less life-threatening standards also that are probably missing on her.

Pricing is so subjective, but IMHO she’s priced appropriately for a 43 year old boat in good working order, not needing a refit. I’m starting to think she may be ok mechanically but in need of some major electrical and plumbing refits, and ideally replacement of missing systems. Hard to live in Mexico without AC, and to some extent a watermaker. Radar, like windshield wipers (also missing) isn’t essential, until you need it.

We also ‘discovered’ on the sea trials that the upper helm gear shifters don’t always work. The list of projects is growing.

 

[Comodave]

Just make sure that you don’t become emotionally attached without knowing reasonably well what it might cost to bring it up to your standards. Also be aware that insuring a boat of that age is becoming harder and harder to do. Make sure you can get insurance before you close on it.

 

[STB]

Dave, et al:

Now that I think about it, I think you are right. I've always seen the 42 Californians with either Perkins engjnes or 210hp NA engines. I saw one born as an NA with an aftermarket turbo kit once.

I've never seen a 42' Califonian with twin factory ~300hp engines. But, I've only seen a dozen, maybe two. Maybe they are out there.

And, in any case, if it is turbos, I'd agree it is at least 300 and could be much higher.

I'm not super concerned that the shafts are slightly different lengths. And Dave is correct about what is considered to be too long. But, hpw much too long woukd be important to me. I'd be willing to squint.

If the gap is too small, it'll eat cutlass bearings and can warp the shaft from heat. If the gap is a little long you might just get a little but more of a vibration that could be annoying, maybe, or wear cutlass bearings a little faster, or motor mounts a.little faster or packing a little faster...But in the grand scheme of things a small barnacle or bit of growth can do that, too, ad can being a little heavier on the throttles.

The upper helm gear shifters are less likely to be the issue than the cables they are attached to. I'd start inspecting those cables. Driving from the lower helm limits visibility a lot. I was only willing to do that outside of the marina and busy anchorages/harbors/etc.

Have fun with it!

It all comes down to how much longer itnis than it should be and how it performs. They can always be cut down by a machine shop at your next scheduled haul out vs immediately.

 

[tiltrider1]

3208’s go up to 435hp. Post some pics of the engines and I can probably tell you what HP they are.

 

[mvweebles]

The sea trials essentially were a bust as the port stuffing box was too loose and the starboard was so tight that she started to drip molten wax at just over 1000 rpm, so we essentially limped to, and back from the haul out at idle.

Water under the bridge for OP, but for others, in my opinion, Sea Trial should be a separate and distinct event, not attached to haul/survey where the buyer starts to incur significant costs. Secondly, there is no way to make a final mechanical evaluation when the boat is incapable of being run up to WOT for at least 5-mins. Finalizing a purchase offer without this critical piece of information is unnecessarily assuming considerable financial risk. It's a simple test.

Peter

 

[Pete Meisinger]

Without you stating the asking price it's tough to make a well informed comment. A Californian is a nice boat, the 42 feet make it desirable. The fact that it is 40 some years old makes it less desirable.

IMO, the shafts and shifters and packing are fairly minor issues. The AC compressors, watermaker and radar are expensive to repair/replace.

Im curious what the mechanical survey shows and what else the full survey shows. How are the electrics, pumps, windows, tanks,decks etc?

I'm thinking the price better be very attractive or just tell the present owner to fix what is on the surveys and you can talk again. Remember the used boat market is no longer "HOT". Some owners/sellers have not accepted this fact yet.

pete

 

[TG]

My 1979 42LRC came with Cat 3208 NA at 210HP each. I believe that was the standard offering in Cat configuration at the time. There are several HP ratings for the 3208's as Turbos were added. It's possible someone converted the 210's over by adding turbos or swapped out the engines for Turbo versions. The standard prop shaft for the 210 is 1 1/2". What shaft diameter is in the boat now? The Struts are a weak point on this model and bend easily if wrapping up a line or hitting a submerged object which in turn bends the shaft so it's not unreasonable to find a shaft or two replaced. If it came with 3208's with 210hp it would likely have the MG502 transmissions with it. There's a limit on how much horsepower these can handle before they have to be swapped out as well. What transmissions are in the boat?

 

[RamseySteve]

Transmissions are MG-506

Price agreed is $72,500 - should have stated that earlier.

Pumps work ( ut with no alarms or alerts), electrics are a black hole. A lot of the breakers on the panel are for equipment no longer on board - forecabin A/C, Saloon A/C, Radar, etc. I have no idea of the state of those circuits. All batteries were recently replaced (inside a year), but the starter batteries tested at under 12v.

The transom zinc is in great shape.. because it’s not connected to anything. The rudders are unprotected. The only zincs doing anything are the single collars on each shaft.

Shafts are 1 1/2”, props appear to be 23” x 22 pitch.

The lower helm is littered with now defunct control panels and other (apparently) defunct devices. The back of the panel is not surprisingly, a mess.

 

[RamseySteve]

I tried to upload engine photos but they all rotated strangely. I’ll do it again.

 

[RamseySteve]

Uploaded some engine photos. Don’t know how to get them rotated correctly, sorry!

 

[RamseySteve]

As to the decks, tanks..

Decks were on my list of concerns but the surveyor seemed somewhat disinterested in them. Essentially he said they’re most likely encapsulated plywood and well, she’s over 40 years old. I found, and had him confirm a soft spot on the foredeck, centerline and just ahead of the forecabin coachroof, but no mention of that in his report. More significant was that both the aft scuppers had significant gel coat cracks that had been patched with silicone. He confirmed that there has been water intrusion there.

Re tanks, he reported no signs of any leaks, but he wasn’t prepared to remove any panels to aid inspection.

 

[Terry Wilkinson]

I have a ‘82 Bertram with 3208T’s, 300 HP

 

[Comodave]

Looking at a boat of that age my main concerns would be decks, stringers and tanks. Electrical problems are easy to fix. Engine problems could be expensive too. But if the surveyor wasn’t interested in the decks then I would find a different surveyor. If he didn’t mention the soft areas on the decks ask him to edit the survey report to include them. I have had to do that with surveyors in the past. I have never had them fight back, I just show them where they missed something and asked them to edit the report and include the item(s).

 

[RamseySteve]

Which reminds me to ask: The scupper gel coat damage was evident on both port and starboard. Is this a common issue with these boats?

 

[Comodave]

Gel coat cracking can be because it was put on too thick. Gel coat doesn’t have any real structural strength. The ideal thickness is about 20 mils but if it is thicker then it is likely to crack. Too bad they put silicone on it because the silicone is very difficult to remove and nothing sticks to it. It most likely isn’t a structural issue but a cosmetic issue. The fix is to get rid of the silicone, not easy to do, and grind out the crack until you get to solid glass. Then use the appropriate filler and refinish the gel coat. Boatworks Today has a lot of good videos on how to work with fiberglass.

 

[mvweebles]

.

IMO, the shafts and shifters and packing are fairly minor issues.

Not sure I agree about shaft being minor. Stuffing box is heating up, and could be an alignment issue via the struts vs just engine alignment. There are enough concurrent issues with shafts that I'd want an accurate diagnosis before proceeding. Replacing a shaft (if needed) will be over $2k, if the strut is out of alignment, could be $4k-$5k to repair.

Bottom line is this boat failed sea trial.

Peter

 

[TG]

Which reminds me to ask: The scupper gel coat damage was evident on both port and starboard. Is this a common issue with these boats?

Yes

 

[TG]

Not sure I agree about shaft being minor. Stuffing box is heating up, and could be an alignment issue via the struts vs just engine alignment. There are enough concurrent issues with shafts that I'd want an accurate diagnosis before proceeding. Replacing a shaft (if needed) will be over $2k, if the strut is out of alignment, could be $4k-$5k to repair.

Bottom line is this boat failed sea trial.

Peter

When I purchased mine it had a bent strut and shaft from the owner wrapping up a dock line. The shafts are over 12 feet long and there is also an intermediate strut. Cost for replacement and install including prop work was $10K

 

[CharlieO.]

Gotta say it..... I'm not sure that I'm impressed with your surveyor.

 

[RamseySteve]

I’m not either. We had a short list of locally available surveyors here in La Paz, and he was ‘recommended’ versus others. My opinion is he works for me and me alone. My experience is that he is trying to thread the needle. There was no need to sugarcoat the boats problems but that’s what I felt he was doing , almost like he’s wanting more work from the listing agent (doh!!).

 

[Comodave]

Yes, he is supposed to work in your interests. However some are afraid to kill a deal since the broker may not recommend him again. That isn’t good for you and it is unethical to say the least.

 

[boomsurf]

I have a 42lrc w twin 3208NA 210hp. I've often felt we are over powered with that. We typically run 7.5 to 9kts. The big V8 Cats are barely working at those speeds. I've never seen another one with 3208TA. It is a semi displacement hull so maybe you can get it really going if you don't mind spending the money on fuel. Supposedly they will do 12_14 kts with the NAs.

 

[STB]

Well...if it has turbos and 506s, it has more horses than most of those. 300hp is on the conservative side of an estimate.

Having looked at a bunch of them each time I boat shopped (and bought one of them), the cat versions seemed to have 210hp naturals and 502s.

I find those engines odd for the boat just because my twin 185hp Perkins 6.354MGTs pushed an impressive bow wave and heavily parted the seas when I opened them up and got to 12kn or so, maybe 14kn on flat water. The 210hp 3208s I've been on might could squeeze another couple or three knots out. But anything over about 9.5kn seemed to drain fuel increasingly quickly, to the point of insanity. The boat would rock back a bit, but definitely not plane.

I can't imagine that more hp would help, except maybe having headroom by not using it.

My boat had a lot of crazing before I had it all fixed (ground down) and repainted. Yet, I don't remember any around those scuppers and nothing there should flex. I'm thinking the wood inside is waterlogged leading to softness and too much flexibility.

On my own boat, it just seemed toclike going and get good efficiency between 9 and 10kn and trade increasingly huge amounts of fuel for increasingly small gains in speed after that.

Of course there isn't a reason not to buy the boat because it has 3208Ts and 600 combined horses. Itnis more a curiosity than a concern.

The overall condition is what has my attention. That's good money for an old boat. It shouldn't be a project. For that price some things, perhaps a significant item or two, should be expected -- but not a project boat.

My old boat just sold for ~$90k and was a very, very good, but significantly imperfect boat, in present condition.