Any of you guys have done an in depth comparison of the systems between both boats/brands? There are obvious differences but I have not done the thorough homework. Examples: comparing the fuel systems; comparing the hydraulic systems; comparing the electrical and overall energy management system; comparing safety measures (windows, watertight doors etc); comparing the fiberglass build quality; anchoring systems; etc etc
I am looking at the N52 vs KK52
Thanks
I think a significant portion of the people who buy a Nordhavn in that size range have also considered a KK. When I bought my N60 years ago, I seriously considered a KK58. When it came time to move to an N68, I looked at other boats quite a bit, but KK wasn't on the list mostly because it was beyond their sweet spot in the market.
Old Dan's comments, though tongue in cheek, are pretty important. How the layout, styling, fit and finish appeal to you is very important, and I think second only to meeting the needs of the boat's intended use. You need to live with and in the boat, and it should please you every day, not annoy you.
As for the specific aspects that you asked about, they come down to the boat being suitable for it's intended use/mission. In 90% of the cases, both boats will meet your mission, and I say that without even asking or knowing what your mission is. I say it only because most people doing "extended" or "extreme" cruising still never cross an ocean. Most of the differences address that particular need. Yes, KKs can and have done ocean crossings, but you can probably count them on one or two hands. In contrast, every year there are enough N crossings to use up both your hands. It's just a ho-hum thing vs a celebrated accomplishment. But honestly, that only matters if you actually will cross an ocean.
So let's separate need from want. There is a good thread elsewhere about over-specifying boats that is worth a read. I think the takeaway is that getting out and getting started in whatever boat you have or can manage to get is much more important than delaying for some pipe dream that ends up never happening. You will never know how you really want to cruise, or what a particular boat can and can't do until you have gotten out there and gathered some experience.
OK, with all that out of the way, and at the risk of offending, I'll offer up my opinion. KKs are excellent boats - among the best - but Ns are a notch above in almost all respects. Fit and finish, quality of materials, quality of components, extent of redundancy, stoutness of construction, etc. I reach the same conclusion every time I tour a KK. Do you NEED the difference? Probably not. Do you WANT the difference? Well, that's up to you to decide.
I'll also point out that the individual boat can make a huge difference since every boat in this class is different, sometimes in quite significant ways. That alone can sway a decision.
And one last point on redundancy, since that's one area where you will typically see more on an N than a K. The first thing that comes to mind when you think about redundancy is not getting stuck in the middle of an ocean in a dead boat. If you don't plan to cross any oceans, you can forgo a bunch of redundancy and just call for a tow, or head into a port for repairs. This is all true, but for more extensive cruising, redundancy brings what I think is a very material benefit. When something breaks, redundancy allows you to keep on cruising without disruption or delay. Having been stuck in ports for days or weeks waiting for parts or repairs, I personally place a high value on being able to switch over to some backup or alternate system and keep on cruising, then deal with the broken stuff when you have down-time.
Good luck in your search.