N59CP and Coastal Cruisers

[Duke 239]

The 59CP looks like a deluxe Great Loop boat, and it has been criticized for being too expensive, and that Nordhavn just can't compete in Coastal Cruisers. I would like to hear who y'all think is beating NH in this segment. By this segment I mean a boat that is short enough for the Great Loop, has room to breath, has an engine room you can actually work in, has fuel economy better than 1 nmpg at 9 knts, and basically is ready to live aboard. Any great loop boat I get will spend time in the Bahamas.

 

[twistedtree]

I actually think they are significantly less expensive that a similarly sized grand banks, flemming, Saber, Hampton, etc. But those other brands are abundant, well proven, and all kinks worked out. I also seriously doubt 1nmpg @ 9 kts, but I doubt it equally on any other similar size/weight boat. There is just no way around the physics of moving a boat through water. I think most all fuel economy numbers are overstated.


In the end, I would look at whether you like the boat or not. That's what really matters the most.

 

[tiltrider1]

As twistedtree mentioned, there is a lot of competition in the costal cruising market. 1 nmpg @ 9 kts is not unrealistic. What is never mentioned is that these are numbers based on an empty boat with no fuel and water onboard. After you move on, add water and fuel you will find a performance difference.

 

[mvweebles]

TT - how does the 59CP compare to the GB60 Ken Williams ended up getting, both space and list price? From the outside, appear to be be built for similar purposes?

FYI - the Nordhavn 57 with Lugger 6-cylinder (I think it was a Komatsu) ran at about 6gph @ 9 kts (no generator). Honestly, 1gpnm @ 9-kts for a 60-footer doesn't sound too far off even with twins. That said, I agree that most owner-estimates are optimistic. I suspect it's well-meaning because few owners run their boats long distances without harbor-stops etc. that run-up hours without associated fuel burn.

Peter

 

[sunchaser]

Duke
A decade ago we approached Nordhavn for a coastal cruiser 52. We really liked the design they developed with twin JD 4045s, great range, huge ER and equal if not better stability than the pilot house design.

Obviously it would be far more miserly than the other boats mentioned in this thread. We still have the plans as does Nordhavn.

 

[Duke 239]

I actually think they are significantly less expensive that a similarly sized grand banks, flemming, Saber, Hampton, etc. But those other brands are abundant, well proven, and all kinks worked out. I also seriously doubt 1nmpg @ 9 kts, but I doubt it equally on any other similar size/weight boat. There is just no way around the physics of moving a boat through water. I think most all fuel economy numbers are overstated.


In the end, I would look at whether you like the boat or not. That's what really matters the most.

Good point. I just saw a GB58 from 2017 listed for $3.2 million. That is a million more than a comparable N59CP. Could be an outlier.

 

[twistedtree]

TT - how does the 59CP compare to the GB60 Ken Williams ended up getting, both space and list price? From the outside, appear to be be built for similar purposes?

FYI - the Nordhavn 57 with Lugger 6-cylinder (I think it was a Komatsu) ran at about 6gph @ 9 kts (no generator). Honestly, 1gpnm @ 9-kts for a 60-footer doesn't sound too far off even with twins. That said, I agree that most owner-estimates are optimistic. I suspect it's well-meaning because few owners run their boats long distances without harbor-stops etc. that run-up hours without associated fuel burn.

Peter

I can only partially answer. I have been on an N59CP, but not a GB60, so I can’t compare space. But Inwas impressed with the space on the N59CP. As for price, I have heard north of $3m for the GB60 vs sub $2m for the N59. And I expect you would be at $3m for an equivalent Fleming. For the Ns that I have looked at, I think they all come in a lot less than other top brands when built new. Then when you get to brokerage it tends to flip. These are obviously broad statements, but it’s what I’ve loosely observed.

The N57 is a freak of nature, as it the N50. I would have killed for 1nmpg at 9 kts on my N60. 8kts was more realistic. By 9kts it was probably .75 or lower.

 

[mvweebles]

The N57 is a freak of nature, as it the N50. I would have killed for 1nmpg at 9 kts on my N60. 8kts was more realistic. By 9kts it was probably .75 or lower.

Any idea why the N57 was not continued (updated)? I realize the interior accommodations were relatively small for it's length, especially for the ones with full walk-around decks vs asymetrical saloon, but it seemed to work extremely well for a couple. Very well built, though I believe that was the last boat built at that yard (Ta Shing? I don't know the yards well). With the chariot-style flybridge similar to KK, bridge clearance was low with wet exhaust would make a decent Looper. It remained a premium priced boat in the used boat for a long time so it seems it had a market. But maybe the 59CP is that update.

Just curious. When the N50 first arrived (and then the N57), seemed like such heresy compared to the N46/N62 north sea beast. But they really worked. To then go to the N55/N47 seemed like a step towards maximizing interior volume.

Thoughts?

Peter

 

[bkcorwin]

I'd wager it was engine room access and living accommodations for sure. "stand up engine room" is definitely a part of the branding these days and in the marketing material.

The engine room on the earlier boats is often lamented. TBH I don't think its that bad and is what allows for the low slung nature of the older boats. On the newer boats the tankage, stand up engine room, lower level accommodations and storage areas all raised the main floor up.

I've always found the 62 to the 60/63 transition a bit of a weird one. While similar in the N lineup, the boats are pretty different. The 62 actually feels a fair bit larger in interior than the newer 63 despite lacking the lower utility room.

We also make 1 nmpg at cruise easily. We run at about 8.5-9 kts and burn about 6 gph. On the 1100 mile trip up the coast last march, into the weather i think we averaged 8 kts.

Any idea why the N57 was not continued (updated)? I realize the interior accommodations were relatively small for it's length, especially for the ones with full walk-around decks vs asymetrical saloon, but it seemed to work extremely well for a couple. Very well built, though I believe that was the last boat built at that yard (Ta Shing? I don't know the yards well). With the chariot-style flybridge similar to KK, bridge clearance was low with wet exhaust would make a decent Looper. It remained a premium priced boat in the used boat for a long time so it seems it had a market. But maybe the 59CP is that update.

Just curious. When the N50 first arrived (and then the N57), seemed like such heresy compared to the N46/N62 north sea beast. But they really worked. To then go to the N55/N47 seemed like a step towards maximizing interior volume.

Thoughts?

Peter

 

[twistedtree]

Any idea why the N57 was not continued (updated)? I realize the interior accommodations were relatively small for it's length, especially for the ones with full walk-around decks vs asymetrical saloon, but it seemed to work extremely well for a couple. Very well built, though I believe that was the last boat built at that yard (Ta Shing? I don't know the yards well). With the chariot-style flybridge similar to KK, bridge clearance was low with wet exhaust would make a decent Looper. It remained a premium priced boat in the used boat for a long time so it seems it had a market. But maybe the 59CP is that update.

Just curious. When the N50 first arrived (and then the N57), seemed like such heresy compared to the N46/N62 north sea beast. But they really worked. To then go to the N55/N47 seemed like a step towards maximizing interior volume.

Thoughts?

Peter

I believe the 57 was built by Ta Shing, and the 50 by South Coast, I think while they were still in Taiwan. Ta Shing still build Nordhavns, including mine. Wonderful yard and wondrrful people.


I think you nailed it about the 43/47/55 being an optimization of interior space. They also lost the bulbous bow which surely accounts for some of the lost performance. How much? I don't think anybody really knows.


There is still lots of love for the original 46 and 62, and also the 50 and 57. But reality is that people stop ordering them, and eventually the molds get destroyed to make room for newer designs. I've never heard of a mold being destroyed because PAE doesn't want to build or sell the boat anymore. It's always been because nobody is ordering them anymore.


The CP is really a totally different beast as a planing hull, so I don't think really compares with any other N. I gather the 35 can sort of plane, but I think the size difference prevents comparing them in any sensible way.

 

[Steve DAntonio]

TT - how does the 59CP compare to the GB60 Ken Williams ended up getting, both space and list price? From the outside, appear to be be built for similar purposes?

FYI - the Nordhavn 57 with Lugger 6-cylinder (I think it was a Komatsu) ran at about 6gph @ 9 kts (no generator). Honestly, 1gpnm @ 9-kts for a 60-footer doesn't sound too far off even with twins. That said, I agree that most owner-estimates are optimistic. I suspect it's well-meaning because few owners run their boats long distances without harbor-stops etc. that run-up hours without associated fuel burn.

Peter

Others have discussed price comparisons. Anecdotally, the CP 59 feels like it has more volume and def a larger engine room. I know both models, and Ken's boat in particular, intimately as I assisted with the build. A big difference is weight and speed, GB specializes in light weight structures (and they are good at it), cored panels, resin infusion etc., and no keel (which, with some exceptions, is a necessity once you go beyond about the 25 kt speed rang), Nordhavns, even this one as a semi planer, are heavily built with less emphasis on weight-savings and more on their traditional ruggedness. I've been involved with building both, both well-built, both good, consciences builders/yards, who are mostly ABYC compliant, Nordhavn more so, with somewhat different missions. Did I mention the GB has no keel, which means if you touch bottom its with shafts/pods first? Oh, then there's the shafts vs. pods debate...;-) The GB is available in either, N only in shafts.

Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year to TF members.

 

[KarmaII]

2019 5902 CP Karma

We have hull #2 of the CP series. It was Nordhavns boat show boat with 240 hours on the mains when we took possession . We currently have 1350 hours with a lifetime fuel consumption rate of just shy of .7 nm per gallon including 1200 hours on the gen We cruise heavy at about 95,000 lbs at last haul out. Will run at speeds from 8 kt to 15 kt but typically like 10 kts (easy time/distance/fuel calcs in my head). Karma’s sweet spot is not a surprising 1 to 1 at 8.3 kts.

Best in class engine room (for a true 59’ loa), solid in every design category, at anchor when others are tossing around we are rock steady, on the dock it feels like we have a foundation, bumping ground sucks but we are fully protected. More storage than any boat needs…
If you see us we love to give tours. Currently in New Bern for the winter. Heading to Newfoundland this summer.
Mike Ryan

 

[MYTraveler]

1 nmpg @ 9 kts is not unrealistic.

Agreed. I can count on 1.3 nmpg at 8.7 knots in most conditions. Efficiency drops off quickly from there but certainly well over 1.0 nmpg at 9 knots and at least close to 1.0 at 10 knots. Excluding genset consumption, but fully loaded and not based on fresh paint or even a particularly clean bottom. The boat weighs 100,000 pounds and is 59' LWL.

 

[Pete Meisinger]

If you can afford a Nordhavn or a KK buy one. If you cant afford one, buy a lesser boat.

pete

 

[Aquavita]

Hello,
I have a Sirena 58 fly with 900hp D13’s shafts with a Brig 420 w/50hp Suzuki - 850lbs wet - on the back and loaded with 950gal of fuel and 210gal of water -, 80K lbs max (65K lbs dry empty), I get 2.5nmpg at 6.3knts (just in gear at 600rpm), 1.5nmpg at 8knts, 1nmpg at 9.3knts, .45nmpg at 16knts, .35 at 21.5knts and .32 at 23.5knts at 85% load. 26.5-28.5knts WOT at 2350rpm and 92gph.

 

[PierreR]

Hello,
I have a Sirena 58 fly with 900hp D13’s shafts with a Brig 420 w/50hp Suzuki - 850lbs wet - on the back and loaded with 950gal of fuel and 210gal of water -, 80K lbs max (65K lbs dry empty), I get 2.5nmpg at 6.3knts (just in gear at 600rpm), 1.5nmpg at 8knts, 1nmpg at 9.3knts, .45nmpg at 16knts, .35 at 21.5knts and .32 at 23.5knts at 85% load. 26.5-28.5knts WOT at 2350rpm and 92gph.

Those are pretty darn efficient engines. My Detroit's won't come close to that efficiency.