Survey note, aft fuel tank not used, status unknown

[The Brockerts]

Looking at my 3rd 48 Californian MY, this one the current owner and PO, did not use the aft tank. Should I consider this a red flag? Is this something I should negotiate over? Its seem this would be important. Isn't balancing the fuel and issue? I plan on running this boat up and down the East Coast.

On my cat it wasn't a big issue to remove the tanks and clean it them. On these motor yacht's is tank cleaning a big issue?. I have my own external fuel polisher with Racor filters and I've always pump fuel from can's into my tanks thru this process. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to do that on this motor yacht as the volume of fuel is much greater. I've always been rather anal about fuel going in my boats.

The Brockerts

 

[boatpoker]

Was the tank left empty or does it contain decades old fuel ?

 

[The Brockerts]

No sure, fuel gauge reads empty, but I'm guessing some/little old fuel, no one seems to know, and it's been that way for atleast 2 1/2 + years, probably more like 5-7 years. So anything in there can't be good.

The Brockerts

 

[wwestman]

Can you get a camera down to take a look?

 

[dhays]

Looking at my 3rd 48 Californian MY, this one the current owner and PO, did not use the aft tank. Should I consider this a red flag? Is this something I should negotiate over? Its seem this would be important. Isn't balancing the fuel and issue? I plan on running this boat up and down the East Coast.

I would consider the aft tank to be non-funtional until proven otherwise. A 48 Californian MY with a non-functional tank is worth less than the same boat with all tanks functional. If you made the offer on the boat before finding out the unknown status of the aft fuel tank, then I would renegotiate to have them get the tank in good shape, or lower the purchase price to reflect replacing the tank.


If you knew about the tank issue when you made the offer, then it is just a matter of deciding how much you want to invest in cleaning/replacing that tank.

 

[catalinajack]

When we bought our DeFever 44 the aft tank was decommissioned. No matter because the rwo saddle tanks carry more than 700 gallons. After purchase we had it removed as it was rusted badly. When the top was cut away about four inches of "mud" was found. That mud I think was the dead bodies of fuel bugs. We absolutely do not miss having the aft tank as with have plenty of capacity remaining. Plus, why drag around another 2,000 pounds of fuel to go where.

 

[Comodave]

How hard is it to access the unused tank? Can you get it out and a new one in? What capacity is there without the tank? If you like the boat negotiate the price with having the tank replaced. Then enjoy the boat.

 

[The Brockerts]

I had a quick survey of a few hours before I decided to even haulout and have full survey. I've chased to many boats at this time not to do a prelim survey. I'm doing a full survey next week and will get a camera down there or atleast find out more about the status of the tank.

Thanks for the info.

Then Brockerts

 

[SoWhat]

Somebody is not telling someone everything.
The only reason I would close off a tank would be a leak. Borescope would be a start but baffles might prevent a complete view. If there are inspection plates I would insist on removing them as part of survey. There is always going to be a certain amount of unreachable fuel. If the bottom of the tank is an inch of black gunk I would get a quote for replacement.

 

[Comodave]

I would just proceed on the assumption that the fuel tank is bad and ask for an appropriate price reduction.

 

[Taras]

The best way to tell if the tank is bad is just cap off the inlets and outlets. Run an air line to one inlet and pump 2 to 3 psi air to the tank. If the pressure drops significantly over an hour, then you got a leak. This will find any pinhole leak that a scope will not see.

 

[Comodave]

It may also force out any diesel that might be left in the tank.

 

[BruceK]

Isn`t the obvious step 1 asking the PO why he doesn`t use the tank? He might lie,he might not. Then confirm it somehow. If he lies, reconsider any other PO representations you relied on.

 

[FF]

Could just be the outlet is partially plugged , passes enough for a noisemaker , but not a larger engine.

 

[denverd0n]

I would consider the aft tank to be non-funtional until proven otherwise.

This ^^^^^

 

[bayview]

Everyone is assuming that there is something wrong with the tank. An unused tank does not necessarily mean problems. Many boats have too much tankage for how the owner uses the boat. If it was my boat I too would have left the tank empty, after cleaning it.

 

[jleonard]

Everyone is assuming that there is something wrong with the tank. An unused tank does not necessarily mean problems. Many boats have too much tankage for how the owner uses the boat. If it was my boat I too would have left the tank empty, after cleaning it.

I probably wouldn't use it either. I would likely convert that space to fresh water.

 

[angus99]

The PO didn’t use our aft tank for reasons he never specified. For some, it might simply be the notion of sleeping over a fuel tank.

We had it inspected—it was immaculate and not leaking—and now use it as a day tank. Of our three tanks, it’s by far the easiest to access and view. An onboard “polisher” very likely won’t clean a fouled tank, but you won’t know it needs it until you look. Some don’t have a need for an aft tank, but I’d make any offer contingent on proof that the aft tank is functional.

 

[Shrew]

I wouldn't immediately assume there is is an issue.

What is the total fuel capacity of all tanks?
What is the cruising burn rate?

I carry 300 gallons (2 x 150) and we both work full time. We live in New England and have, effectively, a 5 month season. The tanks are balanced port and Stbd and must contain the same amount of fuel, otherwise, the boat will list. I struggle to find ways to burn the entire seasons worth of fuel.

If I could isolate one tank and not introduce a list, I would.

 

[JohnEasley]

Everyone is assuming that there is something wrong with the tank. An unused tank does not necessarily mean problems. Many boats have too much tankage for how the owner uses the boat. If it was my boat I too would have left the tank empty, after cleaning it.

That was the situation with our Jefferson, too. The saddle tanks hold 600 gallons, combined. The aft tanks (in the lazarette) hold a combined 135 gallons. The PO never used the aft tanks. The main tanks have about 1000 mile range, even with reserve. Still, I'm thinking about cleaning them and putting them back into service.

 

[sunchaser]

Two issues are at play. First, is the tank any good? Second, is that capacity needed by the potential purchaser (PP)?

If the answer to the first is a certain no, then the PP needs to assess if a now flawed tank is a deal breaker or a negotiating area. If the answer to the second is no, the PP should keep in mind the next owner may want to cruise to the Islands and want that extra capacity.

Personally, if the tank is bad and the current owner didn't disclose, I'd walk in anticipation of other no tell ums. Just me.

 

[dhays]

I wouldn't immediately assume there is is an issue.

What is the total fuel capacity of all tanks?
What is the cruising burn rate?

I carry 300 gallons (2 x 150) and we both work full time. We live in New England and have, effectively, a 5 month season. The tanks are balanced port and Stbd and must contain the same amount of fuel, otherwise, the boat will list. I struggle to find ways to burn the entire seasons worth of fuel.

If I could isolate one tank and not introduce a list, I would.

Only using two tanks may not be an issue for the OP. However, if I was a buyer I would want to discount the price on a boat with three tanks where only two were functional.

 

[jleonard]

Only using two tanks may not be an issue for the OP. However, if I was a buyer I would want to discount the price on a boat with three tanks where only two were functional.

Yes if you "assume" the tank is bad. But until you KNOW you cannot make a call.
Remember how assume breaks down.

 

[catalinajack]

Only using two tanks may not be an issue for the OP. However, if I was a buyer I would want to discount the price on a boat with three tanks where only two were functional.

I bought a boat knowing the aft tank was bad. Didn't care. Didn't ask for a discount. Removed it and converted the space to long-term storage under the aft berth. Didn't need the tankage. Our range on the two saddle tanks is around 1,600 miles with no reserve. That space could also be used for another black water tank or fresh water.

 

[BruceK]

Everyone is assuming that there is something wrong with the tank. An unused tank does not necessarily mean problems. Many boats have too much tankage for how the owner uses the boat. If it was my boat I too would have left the tank empty, after cleaning it.

Um, no, see Post 13 above.But you are right otherwise,discover why it was left empty.

 

[slowgoesit]

If not proven to be in usable condition, then in my mind they are bad until proven otherwise. The owner is trying to sell the boat, he wants my money. "Trust, but verify" is still as good advise now as it was when Regan said it.
I for one want that extra fuel capacity. He is trying to sell it to me . . . . but the tank isn't being used now . . . so can't be proven . . .

Would you purchase a twin engine boat, paying full price if one engine didn't have the wiring going to the starter and couldn't be started, just because the ad stated "Twin engine"? And the broker and owner stated that it "runs great, we just don't need that second engine"?

 

[angus99]

"Trust, but verify" is still as good advise now as it was when Regan said it.

Or since Russian folklorists first coined the saying.

 

[Slowmo]

I have a friend with a Californian 42. He also does not use the after tanks, just a smaller day tank, because he doesn't cruise enough to cycle the fuel through. The big however is that an unused tank can still deteriorate and is more likely to gather condensation over time. So even if the tank was fine 5 years ago it should be inspected. I thought these put the tanks under the after bunks, if so easy to access.

 

[RickyD]

If it is like my 55, there is a smaller narrow tank called the "Mid" tank that runs under the master (assuming this is a sun deck model). I had the larger version which was originally 265 gallons. This area is walled off from all other bilges. However, knowing that the water tanks over this area were replaced I assume the water was not removed from under the fuel tank and it leaked. It cost me $7,000 to replace it. The tank walls were almost 1/4" aluminum and was spotless except for the areas where patches of neoprene under the tank created a constant wet contact area. I assume my current tankage is 250 as it took four tanks linked together for replacement. Now if your boat is like mine, the aft tank in the Lazaret is 400 gallons and has no contact with outside water as it is elevated. My surveyor said tank almost always rot from the outside in. I did have two access ports installed and had the aft tank cleaned as best we could. Because of large baffles, visual access is very limited. I'd take $7 - 8,000 off the price and plan for replacement or perhaps you could have the owner cut in access ports and check it out as well as pressure test as mentioned by others. My boat is a 1991 and these tanks are beefy. Made by Florida Tank.