Hatteras 61 Cockpit Motor Yacht with Cummins engines?

[happyours]

There is a 1984 Hatteras 61 Cockpit Motor Yacht with Cummins, 2009, QSL9-405 engines in Vero Beach, FL. Is this a good idea for a cruising boat?

 

[Pascal]

With only 405hp that s a trawler. Economical? Sure. But it s not going to get on plane so only cruise speed is 9.5 kts


Depends on how you plan on using the boat.

 

[jim rosenthal]

I fail to see the logic in this. If you have a boat that size, your fuel cost is probably the smallest single item in your yearly expenditure on that size boat. Why would someone put a pair of tiny engines in a boat that size and make it sale-proof in the future?

 

[Westfield 11]

It’s been listed for three years or more, I’m sure the owner is asking himself the same questions. I looked at her before buying our 63’ and passed. Since then, looking back, we could have done all of our travels in a smaller engined boat since the only time we went faster than hull speed was to warm up the big old engines. I would have missed the extra 2’ in the master stateroom and salon though. I did think she was a very nice boat in above average condition and we did make an offer on her which was not countered, so we looked elsewhere.

The big unknown is how she will be in a sea with so much weight removed from the engine rooms. There have been two threads about this in the past few years and I linked to them in another thread in the past month or so.

 

[happyours]

With only 405hp that s a trawler. Economical? Sure. But it s not going to get on plane so only cruise speed is 9.5 kts


Depends on how you plan on using the boat.

Thank you. Very helpful.

 

[happyours]

I fail to see the logic in this. If you have a boat that size, your fuel cost is probably the smallest single item in your yearly expenditure on that size boat. Why would someone put a pair of tiny engines in a boat that size and make it sale-proof in the future?

Thank you for your helpful response.

 

[happyours]

It’s been listed for three years or more, I’m sure the owner is asking himself the same questions. I looked at her before buying our 63’ and passed. Since then, looking back, we could have done all of our travels in a smaller engined boat since the only time we went faster than hull speed was to warm up the big old engines. I would have missed the extra 2’ in the master stateroom and salon though. I did think she was a very nice boat in above average condition and we did make an offer on her which was not countered, so we looked elsewhere.

The big unknown is how she will be in a sea with so much weight removed from the engine rooms. There have been two threads about this in the past few years and I linked to them in another thread in the past month or so.

Had a conversation with a knowledgeable person on this subject and his thoughts agree.

 

[Pascal]

I fail to see the logic in this. If you have a boat that size, your fuel cost is probably the smallest single item in your yearly expenditure on that size boat. Why would someone put a pair of tiny engines in a boat that size and make it sale-proof in the future?

It s not just the annual budget but the cost of the repower itself. Whether you put bigger or smaller engines, the labor costs, engine bed fabrication, etc are pretty much the same. Plus whatever else you’re going to do at the same time.

By the time you ve spent $150 to $200k in a repower, $30/40k more for bigger engines isn’t a big deal.

 

[jim rosenthal]

I agree. As you say, a big chunk of the cost of a repower (unless you put the identical engines back in, and that isn't done often) is the revision of the engine beds, wiring, plumbing, etc, for the new engines.

I suppose that people who repower a large boat with small engines figure that most people run them slowly, and that's maybe true. But other aspects come into it- the changes in weight and distribution, the reserve power for when you need it, and most of all the resale value. I think if you repower a boat that size with modern engines of the same power, the value will go up a bit- not what you have in the work, but some. And someone will want to buy it. But if you go small as in this boat, you may own it for life. Your life.

 

[Bob Quinn]

I agree. As you say, a big chunk of the cost of a repower (unless you put the identical engines back in, and that isn't done often) is the revision of the engine beds, wiring, plumbing, etc, for the new engines.

I suppose that people who repower a large boat with small engines figure that most people run them slowly, and that's maybe true. But other aspects come into it- the changes in weight and distribution, the reserve power for when you need it, and most of all the resale value. I think if you repower a boat that size with modern engines of the same power, the value will go up a bit- not what you have in the work, but some. And someone will want to buy it. But if you go small as in this boat, you may own it for life. Your life.

I would agree, but then I think, why do the long range cruisers demand a higher price? Are there things better on the LRC's?

 

[oscarvan]

I would agree, but then I think, why do the long range cruisers demand a higher price? Are there things better on the LRC's?

Different boats. Different hulls, massive amounts of fuel and water, (even) heavier built, and all of them in smaller numbers.

 

[BajaRat]

It’s been listed for three years or more, I’m sure the owner is asking himself the same questions. I looked at her before buying our 63’ and passed. Since then, looking back, we could have done all of our travels in a smaller engined boat since the only time we went faster than hull speed was to warm up the big old engines. I would have missed the extra 2’ in the master stateroom and salon though. I did think she was a very nice boat in above average condition and we did make an offer on her which was not countered, so we looked elsewhere.

The big unknown is how she will be in a sea with so much weight removed from the engine rooms. There have been two threads about this in the past few years and I linked to them in another thread in the past month or so.

Michael, a PM is inbound to you.

Thanks

 

[jim rosenthal]

I think there's a difference between (on the one hand) running a planing hull design at low speeds to save money on fuel, which is understandable and (on the other) knowingly buying a boat which will never go fast because of its hull design, and which is powered accordingly.

It isn't just about engine size. No matter how much power you stuff in an LRC, it will not go any appreciable amount faster than it's designed hull speed- perhaps a knot or two, but that's it. It's not designed to. But you can make , for example, a 53MY go a LOT faster by putting in lighter and stronger engines- many people have done it. Some of those boats have been mentioned here on this forum.

We haven't talked a lot about how much taking weight out of a boat affects its handling and roll resistance, but it can be significant. For example, there was a Chris-Craft 57 Constellation locally here, years ago, which the owner had repowered with Cummins 450Cs, replacing the Detroits (I thini 8-71s) it had originally had. After the repower, the boat failed its stability testing, and the owner had to pour hundreds (at least) of pounds of lead into the areas under the engines to bring the weight back up. This was a charter boat with a huge bridge where the owner used to invite people to hang out, so the danger of capsizing was quite real. They finally did get the boat through its inspection, but I would never want to leave the dock on that boat, ever.

Witha boat like a 53 MY, Hatteras built in the option to go slowly- as well as the option to go faster if you need to. If I were repowering a boat of that kind, I'd think about engine room weight first, not last, and I think I'd look for engine by weight first, not by hp. Or I'd get a naval architect to make suggestions about what engines to install. But I would not want to come out of a very expensive and time-consuming repower only to find that my boat had become so tender that it wasn't safe or comfortable.