48LRC vs. 53MY

[Bertramp]

With fuel prices as they are, I took a look on Yachtworld at 48 LRCs ... pricey little devils !! They seem to be way more expensive than their Sportfish counterparts of the same vintage.
Question ... would a 53MY running 871Ns slowly to get 8-10kt speed burn that much more fuel than a 48LRC at the same speed with 4-53s running at much higher RPMs ?
The 53MYs can be had WAY cheaper than the 48LRCs and 100k buys a lot of fuel .... at least it used to.

 

[Pascal]

there is a big difference in fuel burn between 8 and 10kts. above hull speed, 9.2 or so on the 53, you're pushing a big wake... at 8kts, a 53 probably gets a solid 1NMPG if not slightly higher (havent' really figured it out since in shallow water i burn a little more anyway), at 9.2kts, it's more like 0.90 nmpg...

The 53s is a much bigger boat, it's not just the 5ft but the layout. The LRC has 2 staterooms vs 3 and a small cockpit instead of the large aft deck of the 53. Obviously being lower, it's more comfortable in open waters without stabilizers...

very different animals... if you dont' need the long range, offshore capabilities, it's hard to justify the extra $ for the LRC....

 

[REBrueckner]

While the LRC's are much more expensive, they will also resale for much more when you decide to make a change. As noted the boats are very different with the 53 benefitting from twin levels for a significant portion of their length. This means much greater interior volume. And the 48 LRC is galley up vs the 53 galley down which may beimportant to some.

I have not seen fuel figures for the LRC's, but I'd guess they achieve 50% to 100% better economy because they are running (I think) only about 6 or 7 knots. An alternative might be to buy a 53 MY with bad engines and replace them with much lower HP more modern (and efficient) ones. Then you can run at the slower speed where real economy occurs.

 

[Fanfare]

Unfortunately, the 15' 10" hulls are optimized for planing speeds. You CAN save $$ by going slower--from hull speed all the way down to idle. And you can get there quicker if you want to or need to, a choice the LRCs do not have. But look behind you at your wake--that's where the extra fuel is being used, in moving all that water. So we can never achieve the efficiency of a LRC or a sailboat--just see how they slip through the water leaving almost no disturbance.

We do have so much more room inside. The forward stateroom alone means a wider bow, with water being shoved aside with every wave. And although I do sometimes go long distances, most of the time I am docked or anchored, enjoying the spaciousness of Jack Hargrave's inspired design. This doesn't use any fuel at all! Our boats are coastal cruisers, not LRCs. As they say, "you pays your money and you makes your choice." Aren't we lucky?

 

[SeaEric]

The LRC's have, over the years, developed a sortof cult following. Inasmuch as their production was quite limited, the prices have continually escalated. Given the current climate in fuel prices, their popularity is due for new invigoration. To be a true LRC, they need some modifications from the way the factory delivered them- particularly in the refrigeration dept. With the price of a (1976 to 1981 vintage) 48 Hatt LRC in the $300's and a (1989 and newer) 46 Nordhavn in the high $300's price range, most cruising buyers will probably choose the Nordhavn.