Forum opinion on "converted" yachts

[OldManMirage]

While browsing the internet looking at trawlers I came across this...

https://www.curtisstokes.net/motor-yachts-for-sale-bayliner-33-kookaburra-2792867.html

...and I wondered what is the general opinion of such boats ? My own experience with power boats says that they do not track well at slow speeds as they are not truly designed to, not in the way trawlers are with their keels.

But this one being a twin engine I thought hmm...maybe not so bad ? At least it would help with maneuvering over a single screw.

I imagine it would depend on the boat in question, each situation being somewhat unique when it comes to such conversions. What say those with knowledge ?

 

[O C Diver]

Generally, twin engine boats have smaller rudders. On plane there's enough water flow over the rudders for smooth responsive handling. As speed is reduced, water flow diminishes, and more rudder angle is required to effect turn. Also, as there generally isn't much of a keel on planing hulls, slow speed tracking suffers significantly, especially in cross winds and cross currents.

I think 3/4 to 1 GPH fuel consumption for both engine and generator, as claimed by the advertisement is wishful thinking. A 4 KW generator full loaded can burn a half gallon per hour all by itself.

Ted

 

[ranger58sb]

"Converted"?

Oh, because of the newer/smaller engines?

Whatever...

We run this boat, and we ran our last boat, often at "trawler" speeds. Works OK, usually.

Tracking? Autopilot.

Small rudders for low speed maneuvering, docking, etc.? Yep, bag the rudders, use the gears. (Mostly.)

Fuel consumption? Yes, a bit more... but our current example is about 6 GPH total (both engines) with twin 900-hp diesels... and its not like that's horrible.

This is not a recommendation. Just some observations. Planing and semi-displacement hulls may not be so nifty in some sea states (although that's somewhat true of other hull forms, too)... but a typical Plan B for an uncomfortable ride is to get up on plane for a bit. And/or tacking. And or staying in port. Maybe not all that hugely different from some of the "bonafide trawlers" though.

(Those smaller engines may not support that plan in that boat. I think I'd have put in "real" engines - i.e., similar to original hp -- if I'd had to replace the originals.)

FWIW, we've found it more useful to work out the other features we want, then see if hull form and/or engine(s) and so forth are OK enough. That means we've concentrated on living spaces, view from the bridge, accessibility (stairs and transom doors and such) a long way before paying any attention to type of boat and propulsion packages.

-Chris

 

[tiltrider1]

All boats are a compromise. This Bayliner started life as a rather economical planning hull. It sacrificed many things in order to obtain as much efficiency at speed as it could. Then it was made available in gas engines to lower the overall cost. This made the boat even more compromised, mainly in the area of fuel consumption. Now some one has decided to compromise it even more by replacing the gas engines with cheap Diesel engines and committing the boat in a direction that it was never designed for.

So, if spending the fewest dollars possible on a boat that is rarely used is your goal then this boat is a worthy candidate. If you desire anything else then this boat is too much compromise.

 

[Comodave]

If you like the boat and the price is right, then do a sea trial and see how it performs and handles.

 

[socalrider]

All boats are a compromise. This Bayliner started life as a rather economical planning hull. It sacrificed many things in order to obtain as much efficiency at speed as it could. Then it was made available in gas engines to lower the overall cost. This made the boat even more compromised, mainly in the area of fuel consumption. Now some one has decided to compromise it even more by replacing the gas engines with cheap Diesel engines and committing the boat in a direction that it was never designed for.

So, if spending the fewest dollars possible on a boat that is rarely used is your goal then this boat is a worthy candidate. If you desire anything else then this boat is too much compromise.

Well said! Best to get a boat that was designed to be slow from the get-go. Look at single-engined trawlers in the 32-36' range like the Willard 36 for example, or even an old Grand Banks 32. Should be able to find something good for a similar price that's not so compromised.

 

[Jeff F]

I wouldn't be put off by the repower. No hands on experience with this boat, but there are hundreds of them out there, and my sense is that many happily travel at displacement speeds. The boat has a small keel. I'd call it a semi displacement rather than a planing design. The original diesel powered version had a top speed in the mid teens. Hardly a speed machine.

It's not a trawler, but could certainly be used as one.

 

[AquaDestiny]

That looks very similar to my 35 trojan hull. It is generally annoying below 8kts. Going through 8 kts it starts to stabilize and I frequently will chug along in that neighborhood and it tracks fine there. I would think that two lighter engines might make it set higher in the water and track even less reliably but that is mere speculation. Usually better to buy a trawler if you're looking for a trawler and a planer if you're looking for that. Sea trial will satisfy your curiosity.

 

[mvweebles]

These Westerbekes are more or less the old Perkins 4.108s. 0.75-1.0 gph each at 7-kts is definitely feasible.

Attached are some screen grabs of the underbody of the 3288, which i believe is the predecessor to the 3388. This forum has 1000s of posts from owners of semi-displacement boats and some planing boats who proudly state they run at displacement speeds comfortably. There is no reason I can see that the 3288 would not be one of them. Bit of a keel, deep vee, decent forefoot, and pocket props. She's a Dixie Cup in a cross breeze, but so are many other boats.

I like the 3288 for liveability. Fitments were not always quality, and engine space is cramped. But many high points too.

Peter

 

[rslifkin]

As far as faster hulls running slowly go, it varies. Depending on prop sizing, how much keel is down there, depth of the forefoot, rudder size, etc. low speed handling can vary widely. Generally once you get to a 20+ kt design cruise, low speed handling tends to get worse.

My boat is a planing hull intended to cruise in the high teens. It's got fairly deep gears, big props and generously sized rudders compared to a lot of similar speed boats. There's also a decent bit of keel down there and a deep forefoot. We often run it at 6.5 - 7 kts and it handles just fine at that speed. I can't say I've ever wished for more rudder authority.

I don't know the 3388 specifically, but many of the other similar Bayliners weren't generously powered. So while they could mostly plane, many were cruised at lower speeds from the start and they generally have a good reputation for it.

 

[BruceK]

I like that it`s called Kookaburra.

The engines should be adequate for the trawler like speeds the hull would suit. I`d probably have preferred a little more power but some (Nomad Willy)on TF would say it has more than it needs. ER could use a tidy up, check out the maintenance side.

 

[Slowmo]

Bayliner's 'motoryacht' series of the 1980's to early 90's were quite efficient at lower speeds. They were optimized for 10-12kn. However they were replaced with full planning designs like the one you're looking at. If the boat lacks a skeg (keel) then it may not track well. It doesn't take a lot of skeg to overcome this. As others say most planning boats have smallish rudders, though I've seen plenty of trawlers with smallish rudders as well.

 

[OldManMirage]

Ha, I feel like I've opened up one of those contentious threads like "what's the best anchor." Based on the responses this one gets a wide variety of yays and nays.

Just to clarify my position I was NOT really considering this one for us, it just caught my eye and I was curious to see how people who might have better knowledge would regard it. I believe I have my answers.

No, I do indeed plan to stick with something more traditional, tried and true.

 

[Mako]

OMM, I wouldn't be scared away by the nay-sayers. The majority would be turned away from that type of repower, plus it does not look like it was cared for at all, so it could turn out to be a great buy at about $25k. I would sea trial it in heavy weather to get some real answers as to handling, plus try docking it as well. However, from the numbers it looks like it would have a range of about 600nm at 6knots, say 500+ reserve. Plus only 90 gal of potable water. Would that meet your needs as well for a "trawler" lifestyle?

 

[Mischief Managed]

Definitely not my cup of tea, but it could be a very economical way to get into cruising for someone. I own a boat with a similar hull but with enough power to cruise at 20 knots plus. I most often run at trawler speed and if the ocean is not cooperating the ride is definitely less comfortable than a true trawler. Unlike that boat, however, I retain the option to put the hammer down and plane over the bumps if I wish to burn a lot of fuel in exchange for comfort and a quicker passage.

 

[Group9]

Generally, twin engine boats have smaller rudders. On plane there's enough water flow over the rudders for smooth responsive handling. As speed is reduced, water flow diminishes, and more rudder angle is required to effect turn. Also, as there generally isn't much of a keel on planing hulls, slow speed tracking suffers significantly, especially in cross winds and cross currents.

I think 3/4 to 1 GPH fuel consumption for both engine and generator, as claimed by the advertisement is wishful thinking. A 4 KW generator full loaded can burn a half gallon per hour all by itself.

Ted

You can always make the rudders bigger. But, as good as we can do the math, our 8.8 KW Kohler diesel generator burns about 7/10 a gallon per hour under our normal load.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. OMM. Yep. Anchors. Frankenboat for sure AND $48K USD is simply ludicrous IMO given the condition of the ER alone. For sure that boat is quite lacking in maintenance.


That being said, I might consider it IF a survey came back fairly clean and the engines checked out for, as mentioned, $25K. One might have to change one's itinerary based on weather, wind and currents as mentioned BUT for the right price it would get you on the water....


$48K....?

 

[Pete Meisinger]

I would recommend it. You need to remember that it is a Bayliner, Just an OK boat, nothing great or durable. I would be concerned about the small rudders but it would not be a big project to enlarge them. The price seems pretty good.

pete

 

[Ken E.]

This model was very popular in the PNW and a friend had one with 150 Hinos, which would plane it. The boat is light for its size and at displacement speeds, the owner said it felt like Tupperware in rough water. Nonetheless, a nice design and interior layout. The engines are straight shaft under the cockpit sole, which increases interior space. Probably worth $20 to $25 and you'd have serviceable boat if it surveys ok.

 

[Hippocampus]

Some boats (power and sail) float in the water and some on the water. How much power or rudder doesn’t change this fundamental issue. Boats that float on the water will be more effected by wind. In the water it’s current. Yes there’s ways to mitigate. Twins, thrusters, larger rudders etc. but you still dance with the girl you brought to the dance.
My single screw NT42 tracks so well you need to look if you’re in standby or no drift. But docking is interesting and and at least at my level of experience being new to power more often than not I need the thrusters to back into a slip. Above 20kts I anchor out until the wind decreases. Hopefully that will change with time.
This bay liner seems light for beam/loa and looks like the a/b ratio would favor it being effected by wind. Beyond cost and survey would suggest looking at your common local weather conditions and your berthing situation. Suspect you’d be unhappy with a boat with which you limited your use due to concern about getting her back in her berth if the weather turned south.

 

[CharlieO.]

Bayliners are on our list of next boats to consider, but this one took out one of the main reason why we may consider a Bayliner. We would like the ability to go a little faster (12+) when wanted or needed. If I am limited to 6-7 knots I would prefer a heavier boat like what I have.

 

[rslifkin]

Some boats (power and sail) float in the water and some on the water. How much power or rudder doesn’t change this fundamental issue. Boats that float on the water will be more effected by wind. In the water it’s current. Yes there’s ways to mitigate. Twins, thrusters, larger rudders etc. but you still dance with the girl you brought to the dance.
My single screw NT42 tracks so well you need to look if you’re in standby or no drift. But docking is interesting and and at least at my level of experience being new to power more often than not I need the thrusters to back into a slip. Above 20kts I anchor out until the wind decreases. Hopefully that will change with time.
This bay liner seems light for beam/loa and looks like the a/b ratio would favor it being effected by wind. Beyond cost and survey would suggest looking at your common local weather conditions and your berthing situation. Suspect you’d be unhappy with a boat with which you limited your use due to concern about getting her back in her berth if the weather turned south.

In that respect, it depends a lot on the slip in question and the wind direction. Especially with a wind-driven boat, there will be certain things the boat just can't do in a confined space (or at all if you don't have enough power).

My boat is definitely wind-driven when docking and the bow blows off significantly. So you learn what situations can and can't be managed. Our home slip is fairly tight, so there's no way I could get into it with a 20 kt crosswind (and departing in that wind would be a serious challenge too). But I've backed in with 25 kts aligned with the slip so I was backing straight into the wind with no issues, as that wind direction doesn't cause any boat behavior I can't work with. In a slip with slightly different obstacles and a little more space to work with towards the outer end of the slip, crosswind limits would be higher. A large bow thruster would also increase the crosswind limits significantly, as the practical limitation is often the point where I can no longer keep the bow from swinging into an obstacle without moving the stern into one to try to catch the bow.

On a face dock, I'd say somewhere around 25 kts is the most I've ever tried to dock against (wind blowing the boat off the dock). It takes more maneuvering room (and a bit longer open spot on the dock) than I'd need in less wind, but it's certainly doable. 25 kts pushing me into the dock would be a serious challenge though, as it would be very hard to keep at least the bow if not the whole boat from making a rather firm crash landing against the dock.

 

[ksanders]

My opinion is i would look at stability of this conversion.

The original 7.4 mercruisers weighed over 1,000 pounds each.

The new westerbekes weigh 465 pounds each.

Is this an issue??? I do not know. What I do know is that boats with more weight down low tend to roll less.

If it were my boat I would only use it with full fuel tanks for sure.

As to this exact conversion I do not know if this boat has a keel, and I do know that a keel helps at low speeds. I had a 3488 Bayliner Avanti and it was a challenge at low speeds as it tended to wander quite a bit, something natural in keel less boats.

All that said the idea of smaller engines providing better fuel economy and easier maintenance access is appealing.

 

[kapnd]

I’d give the vessel in question a thumbs down verdict.
The smaller engines do not translate to tremendously better fuel economy, it still takes X amount of horsepower to push a given boat at a given speed.
So say you need 50 hp to make the hull move at 8 knots, it still takes a given amount of fuel to make those 50 hp, regardless of engine size.
The smaller motors will have to work harder to make the 50 hp than their larger predecessors, translating to shorter lifespan and more maintenance.
There may be some small fuel savings in reduced weight, but not much.
The ability to run from weather or tow another boat is drastically reduced, as is resale value.

 

[MacPhid]

The 3388 was based on the older 3288 but the hull is completely different. No keel, less flair at the bow, the 3388 is a full planing hull where the 3288 had a keel and generally less horsepower. This particular one looks like it was set up for fishing, may have had outriggers installed at one time looking at the cabin side below the arch. The 3388 could be had with diesels, usually 4BT 250 HP, but I believe 6BT's were an option. They were often equipped with 7.4l 310 HP gas on the east coast. The older 3288 diesels had a max 150 HP Hino's. This repower would not likely allow this boat to plane, so without a keel I would guess handling would not be optimal.

James

 

[Pete Meisinger]

You would probably want to consider what will happen at resale?

pete

 

[slowgoesit]

Interesting that the engines, stated to be of 2013 manufacture and installation look like ragged out, 40 year old engines. Red over spray is noticeable all over the engine, battery is not covered, or secured. Engine compartment looks VERY poorly maintained, corrosion on everything hints of a very wet (saltwater) bilge. Stated fuel burn, 0.7 to 1 gallon/hour/per engine as stated (1.4 to 2gph for both) plus say 0.7gph for genny, puts total burn rate at around 2.1 to 2.7gph at 6-7 kts. 200 gallons total of fuel, at 2.4gph (midpoint of 2.1 to 2.7) gives you a engine run time 83.3 hours till fumes in tank, or say 60 usable . . .around 400 miles from fuel dock to fuel dock, not planning for any genny time on the hook . . .

You will need to decide if that suits your intended use.

As stated prior, if it surveys (although casual perusal of the pics shows multiple fails in the electrical and fuel side)

• As noted prior, battery is not covered, or secured, terminals are not protected from arcing.
• wiring appears deteriorated in several locations
• Wingnuts are used to secure battery cables
• Only single clamps on below water raw water strainers

If you are into a project, and IF the running gear surveys out . . . . AND you like a project (did I already say that?). . . . it may be worth a fraction of the advertised price. Please bear in mind, that at resale, it will still only be worth a fraction of what similar boats may bring.
I would suggest you narrow down what you are looking for in a boat, and keep looking. Best of luck in whatever you decide!

 

[Nomad Willy]

Bayliners are on our list of next boats to consider, but this one took out one of the main reason why we may consider a Bayliner. We would like the ability to go a little faster (12+) when wanted or needed. If I am limited to 6-7 knots I would prefer a heavier boat like what I have.

Exactly …
This is an under powered planing boat.
It will have an unpleasant rolly motion w the wrong sized beam seas. Again in the wrong seas it will slam badly in head seas. Drift w the wind in the harbor.

This boat will burn more fuel at any speed below planing than a proper FD boat.
I’d say re-evaluate what kind of boat you want.
Then get that boat.

 

[Art]

OldMan

You are not going anywhere very quickly with twin diesel Westerbeke 55 HP engines. However, I'm sure hull speed [or, just below - the most economical] will be easy to cruise at. 1 gal per hr. per engine seems doable... but not including with gen set running. Price is quite high in my opinion. $30K tops seems correct in today's market.

 

[OldManMirage]

Again, just to be clear, I do NOT want this boat. I was only sparking a discussion to see what the general Forum opinion was on this type of "conversion."

I am much too conservative to spend my money on someone else's experiment !