Worth a look. 68 41C

[madhatter1]

Like we all do, posting something I found. No horse in this race. 68 41C on the hull truth commercial listings. Looks sweet although no ER pix. Like the title says, worth a look.

 

[krush]

linky: https://www.thehulltruth.com/boat-c...ces/1141236-1968-hatteras-41-convertible.html

no cummins, no care.

I do really like the redone bridge. And the sole in the saloon/passageway. Maybe I can have it for mine?

 

[SeaEric]

That's a sweet looking boat. Lots of custom stuff.

 

[Eddieclemons]

Did smaller and or older C's not have a transom door?

 

[rsmith]

Did smaller and or older C's not have a transom door?

Optional but not the walk through your used to seeing it was for fish not people

 

[rsmith]

Optional but not the walk through your used to seeing it was for fish not people

This was a $900 option in 1967

 

[Retired1]

That’s a nice boat! I can’t get it out of my mind. Glad I have no dockage.

 

[jim rosenthal]

Beautiful boat but the engines aren't ideal. I can just imagine how nice this would be with, say, Cummins C series at about 540hp each....

 

[Retired1]

Beautiful boat but the engines aren't ideal. I can just imagine how nice this would be with, say, Cummins C series at about 540hp each....

If I was to go down that rabbit hole of changing engines, I would remove all the running gear, and install some Yamaha outboards. I once visited a boatyard in Belize that specialized in doing that, but that was back when one could pick up outboards real cheap.

 

[jim rosenthal]

Well, I don't think that's what I would do. These are good-sized boats and need diesels to move all that mass. And then when you get them going, they have a nice turn of speed with enough hp. I think Cummins C series would be perfect.

 

[kelpy]

It would be nice with newer power but if you did repower her with Cummins, you will have spent 100K+ and still have a 85K boat.

 

[Boatsb]

Krush chime in please.

My estimated performance is just that. Estimated.

The 41c is a great hull for efficiency. Take a pair of 425 hp engines and get about 30 kts at reasonable fuel efficiency. That leaves a few options from cummins I've worked with. I'd look towards the 6.7 at 425 to 480 hp as a lighter and easier to maintain option. Also the 450c will do but at 400 lbs each heavier and other challenges its a more expensive conversion.

Keep in mind the non sleeved 6.7 at that HP is probably a 7000 hour engine. Then it needs to be pulled for a rebuild but let's talk about how long to put 5000 hours on a boat before we trash the idea.

 

[oscarvan]

If I was to go down that rabbit hole of changing engines, I would remove all the running gear, and install some Yamaha outboards. I once visited a boatyard in Belize that specialized in doing that, but that was back when one could pick up outboards real cheap.

That's a pretty severe CG shift.........

 

[Retired1]

That's a pretty severe CG shift.........

well, I was one of those regular heavy weather Haulover Inlet runners (for fun) and would come and go to the Bahamas when it was too rough for LEO to be out, so...”no worries mate”. The space where the engines now sit could be put to good use in “down the rabbit hole” dreams.

 

[madhatter1]

Can someone please explain what is so wrong with DD 2 stroke engines other than a bit higher fuel consumption??? When maintained they are extremely reliable. Parts are reasonable. Agree mechanics familiar with them are in short supply. But what EXACTLY is so wrong about them. I have run my 8-92's for over 2500 miles so far and they have not exploded yet!

Will the detonate next time I start??

 

[Boatsb]

Not that they're bad. Just the newer technology can make these old boats outperform most anything made today.

Compare an 8v53 at 280 hp and 2200 lbs with a 5.9 or 6.7 electronic engine at 1/2 the weight. Smaller size and up to 2x the hp. Longevity is still high at 550 hp.

 

[oscarvan]

Can someone please explain what is so wrong with DD 2 stroke engines other than a bit higher fuel consumption??? When maintained they are extremely reliable. Parts are reasonable. Agree mechanics familiar with them are in short supply. But what EXACTLY is so wrong about them. I have run my 8-92's for over 2500 miles so far and they have not exploded yet!

Will the detonate next time I start??

Not even sure the fuel consumption is higher. It takes a certain amount of fuel to unleash a horse power and these engines are no less efficient than any other of comparable technology. And yes they are relatively simple and reliable.

So AFAIK nothing is wrong with them. But opinions are like arm pits. Most people have a few. And if you say green they say blue. Whatever.