A Strange Bayliner 3388 — What Could Be Wrong?

[WhyNot]

Hello all,

A strange boat recently came to my radar. My local friends were unable to reach a conclusion, so I am sharing this, hoping that collective intelligence could help. I am looking for a used trawler up to 45 feet, and my broker gave me an unusual option.

A Bayliner 3388, repowered with two small Westerbeke 55 diesels. The BUC value for these boats in Bristol condition is about $55-60K for now; this one is offered for almost 2x below the market. The selling broker explained that the boat has been on sale for a long time because no one wants to buy a 33-ft heavy boat with a planing V hull, two 55 HP engines, and 8-9 knots max. Per my understanding, it's a powerboat converted into a trawler by depowering, which is fine for my purposes.

I have the latest (to date) survey on hand; the boat is evaluated as "Good"; there's nothing dramatic, just engine temp reading discrepancies on two stations and a broken old Garmin autopilot. Does all that (small engines) render the cost 2x below the typical BUC value for these Bayliners? What could be wrong?

 

[tiltrider1]

What you have found is an orphan. No one wants to buy it and the price reflects it. It is an accumulation of all the wrong things. Bayliner's bad reputation(unwarranted but perceived), Planing Hull that can't plane, extremely inefficient trawler hull.

Orphans can be very good deals if you plan to never sell it. For years would buy orphan cars, 2 year old cars that resold for half their new price. I drove them into the ground and dropped them off at the wrecking yard when I was done. You had to be willing to stick with the same car for 10 years to make it a deal. If you attempted to resell after 4 years you didn't save any money.

So if you like the layout, plan to go slow and will own the boat for 15 years its a deal. If your time horizon is shorter, its probably a bad deal.

 

[Mac2]

First red flag would be the broker saying that Bayliner is a heavy boat. It was meant to get up on plane, so it is designed to be light to do so. I like the idea of two small Westerbekes (great engines and you have built in redundancy). The key would be how the boat sits when you are at the desired rpm's of the Westerbekes. If you are popping a wheely, like a lot of bayliners, before you get up on plane, it would be a horrible ride. A sea trial will bear this out quickly. I would bet this is the reason it has not sold.

 

[SteveK]

Bayliner generally are planning hulls. But you have to be going at least twice trawler speeds. The reported engines cannot be expected to plane that boat, deal breaker. The lower price does reflect this, so if you do not need to plane, the price is right.

 

[RedRascal]

The beauty of that setup is it would sip fuel at 6 knots which is probably a fairly efficient speed for that hull IF the props and transmissions matched the boat. You'd want to do some homework to know if the props, transmission ratios and engine RPMs are sorted out. It would be doubtful that the new engines could turn the factory props at the max engine rpm rating.

 

[johnma]

Prior to buying our 390 Mainship we owned a 32' Bayliner Avanti (express cruiser). We wanted to see if we could exist running trawler speeds before commiting to a trawler so for two years we never ran above 8 kts.
We made the decision to go ahead with the trawler. So, if its a great deal and you're never going to attempt to plane, go ahead.

 

[SeaDogAK]

In my experience, planing hulls don’t ride well at trawler speeds. I used to have a 28’ Bayliner, and it would wallow uncomfortably at 8 knots. Up on plane it would ride much smoother.

 

[Jeff F]

That may be the same boat discussed here: Forum opinion on "converted" yachts

 

[Comodave]

Agree the slow ride may not be very comfortable. Why has it been for sale so long, because it is “unique “. And unique isn’t good in this instance. If you like the boat go for a sea trial but do it on a day when there is some wave action. Then if you like the ride and layout consider buying it. BUT be aware that you have a unique boat that you may not be able to sell or even give away.

 

[WhyNot]

Thank you all for sharing the experience; it's priceless and I enjoy the conversation. It's way different that we have on our project cars forum, lol. Let me quote the key points as I understand them:

tiltrider1>> What you have found is an orphan. No one wants to buy it and the price reflects it. It is an accumulation of all the wrong things. Bayliner's bad reputation(unwarranted but perceived), Planing Hull that can't plane, extremely inefficient trawler hull.

That explains the underpricing; it mirrors what the selling broker said: "The motors make it undesirable for the folks who typically into these Bayliners." I have nothing-to-zero maritime experience, but an engineer in me wonders why someone would put at least $25K into re-motoring the boat with an inappropriate hull type. Back in the days, someone bought that Bayliner to re-motor it, boats aren't hanging on the tree. Then there is re-motoring. All expenses combined (a boat + new motors) bring the whole project to the entry-level real trawlers designed as trawlers, am I correct?

SteveK>> The reported engines cannot be expected to plane that boat, deal breaker.

I am confident that 110 hp combined would not plane it, ever.

tiltrider1>> will own the boat for 15 years its a deal.

Good point. As I understand it, boats aren't investments. They're depreciating assets and our way to say "the hell with that depreciation." I doubt one can have any ROI with a boat unless it's some sort of collectible vessel that is favored by the folks and gets more expensive every year. I might be wrong, but perhaps if I buy a "real," planing Bayliner for its BUC price, it will drop its value twice 10 or 15 years later, no matter what.

SeaDogAK>> I used to have a 28’ Bayliner, and it would wallow uncomfortably at 8 knots.

Well, there's no sea, but as a land-dwelling Illinoan, I saw that the Great Lakes produce a lot of waves to worry about and be rightfully scared of if the weather gets bad.

Does that mean the planing hulls are more susceptible to roll at the non-planing speed? Lake Michigan is where it is planned to be anchored and sailed, along with the adjacent Lake Superior and the rivers around. Things can get ugly pretty fast over here.

 

[ranger58sb]

Does that mean the planing hulls are more susceptible to roll at the non-planing speed? Lake Michigan is where it is planned to be anchored and sailed, along with the adjacent Lake Superior and the rivers around. Things can get ugly pretty fast over here.

I think they are -- ours have seemed to be -- but I also think its a matter of degree... and unstabilized "trawlers" can be seriously uncomfortable at times, too.

Sometimes you can mitigate roll from beam seas by tacking. Sometimes that doesn't work for squat.

With a planing hull -- and enough power -- being on plane can sometimes smooth out the ride. Sometimes combining that with tacking gets closer to comfortable. Or at least not horrible.

-Chris

 

[mvweebles]

The boat was probably repowered because it was gas powered and a previous owner either wanted a more desirable diesel boat, or one/both of the gas engines blew up and thought going diesel would make it more desirable. I once sea trialed a 3288 with twin Hinos (I don't remember exactly but I think around 130 hp each). It would barely plane with 5 people aboard. Personally, the boat was setup for thirsty gassers and a better choice. The rudders are sized to run at 25 knots, not 8, but I'd guess you'd get used to the handling.

When the time comes to sell, you will have the carrying costs for many, many months. Insurance, winter storage, slip fees, diver, etc. Easily $5k in holding costs plus a ton of time. Sorta sucks if you only get $25k on resale.

Good luck with whatever you decide. Boats are a lot of fun.

Peter

 

[rslifkin]

Planing hulls at low speeds is an interesting dilemma. Some ride and handle like crap at low speeds, others (mine included) have big enough rudders to steer well at low speed and ride quite acceptably in a lot of conditions at low speeds. Generally the faster the hull was meant to run, the worse the low speed handling will be. But something meant to run at 20 kts that has decent size rudders, a little bit of a keel, etc. is generally not so bad.

Keep in mind that many of the "semi-displacement" trawlers out there are really just a slow-ish planing hull that doesn't have enough power to properly plane.

I'm not familiar with the 3388 specifically, but plenty of owners of the 32xx and 38xx Bayliner models run them as trawlers. So it may be a decent enough handling boat with the tiny engines, but no guarantees there.

 

[CaptTom]

I don't think that hull will roll any worse than a soft-chine "trawler" hull. In fact I'd suspect it'll be better than many. Personally, I wouldn't hesitate to buy it with those engines. Of course Bayliners were scoffed at by people who paid double the money for other brands which were basically comparable, albeit with a more trendy finish.

Having the ability to plane and get ahead of weather or whatever is a very nice option. But if you're truly willing to keep it slow, I'd say go for it. The original owner of my boat (a semi-displacement hull) upgraded the engines from the stock 85HP each to 200HP each. I'd rather have the stock engines. I keep it at hull speed just about all the time.

 

[tiltrider1]

It is impossible to know what the PO was thinking when he re-powered this boat. A wild guess would be that the engines were destroyed one winter and the owner found himself with a worthless boat. The owner probably was of a cheap nature and already operated the boat at slow speeds so saw nothing to loose by re-powering with smaller diesels.

Now the PO is paying for that decision. It might actually be the most cost effective decision for the PO. We won’t know until the boat sells.

Are others right about handling characteristics? Yes, but I think those are minor issues.

Yes, most boats depreciate, some more than others but length of time to sell is a huge cost factor that rarely gets factored in. Rate of depreciation is always much greater on orphans. Now if you are sure that this boat has fully depreciated that becomes less of an issue but length of time to sell will still be an issue.

Funny thing about boats. They don’t depreciate linearly. For the first 30 years they often resell for their purchase price assuming maintenance was kept up. After 30 years there becomes a linear decline as fewer people become interested in such an old boat. Unfortunately, with orphans, there appears to be a very linear depreciation from day one.

 

[SIBERNUT]

I noted you have minimal boating experience. That's OK!
But I would suggest your first boat might be something more tried-&-true like a common boat where there are lots of fellow boaters to offer help.
OH! Kinda like this forum !
Good luck whatever you do.

 

[Mac2]

I think mvweebles was on track with his comment. I wouldn’t even consider a boat with gas engines. Installing diesel engines would normally be an improvement for resale. Now consider the cost to run diesel’s at planning speed-no thanks! Then consider the cost difference of the larger diesel vs 55 hp Westerbeke (maintenance as well). If you planned on trawler speeds, this seems like a good idea. It all comes down to how the boat handles at trawler speeds.

 

[Ken E.]

Good comments above. Probably only worth considering if the boat's a long-term for you and you like going slow. I suspect beam seas in this boat going slow would be very uncomfortable. Have you checked to see if Westerbeke parts are available or ungodly expensive?

 

[WhyNot]

Great comments above, thank you all!

That may be the same boat discussed here: Forum opinion on "converted" yachts

Thank you for linking the old thread, I did not see it earlier. It was this one, yes. I looked into the details and I am a bit concerned by the way the ER looks. I ain't no marine mechanic but I worked with car engines and was trained with the idea that if the engine bay looks bad, most likely the engine is bad, too.

Good comments above. Probably only worth considering if the boat's a long-term for you and you like going slow. I suspect beam seas in this boat going slow would be very uncomfortable. Have you checked to see if Westerbeke parts are available or ungodly expensive?

To my surprise, they are available for delivery, and the pricing is... well, not cheap, but we're talking about boats, so probably it's OK.

My conclusion on this topic is that something is wrong with the boat that has been on the market for over two years, dropping the price from $48K to $24K and probably even below. I think many buyers would be happy with a relatively new (2000 y.) hull and small motors. There's probably something wrong with the way they were swapped.

A friend of mine, who owns a 34-ft Carver here at lake Michigan, suggested that "you should stop looking for the diesel boats and get any of the average ones with Volvo Penta or MerCruiser." His point is that if one wants to go slow, they go slow and the fuel consumption at 7-8 kn will be higher but pretty close to the "real" diesel-powered trawler with displacement hull of the same length going the same speed.

So, I'm wondering if it is even possible to get something seaworthy and less questionable with my initially planned budget of 45K I could increase it but I must also plan for the storage, maintenance, and trip expenses because I do not want to use the boat as a floating grill platform.

 

[BruceK]

Lots of Rivieras here, essentially designed to plane, appear to operate perfectly well at hull speed. I notice at anchor they "hunt" more than my SD boat.
I suggest you post a pic of the underwater sections for people to see. Hulls vary a lot, an SD hull can be more displacement, or more planing, etc. I`ve seen a Bayliner 4588 out of the water and the hull shape aft, to my mind, was quite rounded compared to usual SD.
It would have cost a lot to repower. The PO likely wanted a repower intended to produce hull speed performance. If it`s been done well and you don`t want planing or semi planing (=SD) performance it could be good buying. If I remember, Bayliner engines are set well aft, not great access ever.

 

[ksanders]

The 3388 has a great interior. It is a very liveable boat for it's size.

Lots of people operate their boats at hull speed by choice. If that's the speed you want to travel at it might be the perfect boat for you at a bargain price.

The 3388 is stern heavy with OEM engines, and might be perfectly balanced with lighter engines. Look at how she sits in the water.

 

[WhyNot]

There are some ER images as presented by the broker; I pointed out something that confuses me a little bit, but I'm not a marine mechanic. I do not know if it is a norm or not; it's just what I would not do because I've been taught that the wiring must be secured and sleeved if there is a vibration, and also one doesn't cross the hoses like this, etc...

 

[tiltrider1]

Looking at these pictures I am left with the opinion that these were well used engines before being dropped in this boat. As you have noted, every possible short cut has been taken to not spend money.

I can tell you the battery is not properly secured nor covered and that is probably the easiest thing to get right. This only means the more we dig the more rework will be required.

There is an old saying, “the most expensive boat to buy is a free boat”. This one might not be free but it looks like it will require a lot of maintenance to be properly dependable and safe.

 

[WhyNot]

Looking at these pictures I am left with the opinion that these were well used engines before being dropped in this boat.

Wow, that's quite a revelation to me. I did not even know that could be a thing. I mean, to swap the engines for used ones, one must source them somewhere at first. And I thought that boat engines usually die with or without the boat they were installed on initially. I did not know there was a market for small, used marine engines.

There is an old saying, “the most expensive boat to buy is a free boat”. This one might not be free but it looks like it will require a lot of maintenance to be properly dependable and safe.

I tend to believe the same; I mean, there's a difference between something worn due to the time but adequately done and the sloppy work.

 

[Comodave]

Yes, some repowers use cheap running take out engines. It may be ok if the engines are in good condition but usually when you repower it is because the engines are just about done. Also when someone repowers they usually clean up the engine room and make it nicer. That doesn’t look like the case from those photos. It looks like everything was done as cheap as possible. That may or may not be ok depending on what you are willing to buy. Do you want to do extensive work to make the boat seaworthy, and spend a lot of money. Or do you want a boat that you can get into and use right away! Only you can answer that.

 

[DavidM]

Do this simple test for a worn out engine. It can be done on the hard if you keep the run time down to a minute or so, but better if in the water.

Start the engine. Once it is running smooth, and in gear with a moderate load if in the water, remove the oil filler cap and place your hand over but not closing off the outlet.

If the rings are good, you will probably feel a light pulsing flow, but if worn, the flow will be strong. This is a little subjective, but if bad it should be obvious.

The quick test for worn bearings is oil pressure, but rings are usually the first to go.

David

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. WN. WOW! What a dog's breakfast! I think Mr. t. hit the nail on the head. "...well used engines...". That being said they MAY have been serviced well and have lots of life left in them but from the looks of the ER space the person(s) doing the refit didn't care much for esthetics nor, apparently, take any pride in their work.

 

[tiltrider1]

In the top left corner of picture 1. You will see a fuse panel. Not that the bottom two fuses have fused jumper wires. This is probably due to some one breaking off the tabs that hold the fuses in place.

So, instead of upgrading to a more modern spade style fuse block they did the cheapest thing possible, jumpered with inline fuses.

Now there is nothing functionally wrong with this. It’s just the cheapest sloppiest way to have fixed the problem. This just shows that someone always chose the cheapest method which inevitably leads to the least dependable method.

 

[BruceK]

I`m respectfully with DavidM above. Investigate it properly. Check the engines as David suggests. Are they in good working order, if not pristine clean? Don`t dismiss the boat on appearances and simple non optimal fixes. Sea trial it, surely the seller will cooperate considering time on market. If it doesn`t pan out in the important respects, dismiss it then.

 

[Delta Riverat]

That engine was painted to make it look pretty. Fast and cheap too. They even did the hoses and alternator...

Yeah, look real hard at that one before proceeding.