Which one? Nordic Tug or Taiwanese Trawler.

[Comodave]

For the trip the OP is planning, he has identified two completely different boat types.
The NT is small interior spaces, MT is large (relatively)
The NT is fine fit and finish, MT not so much
The NT is expensive, MT not so
NT running Cummins will use more fuel than the MT running FL
Twins v Single? May both be singles, the OP's description isn't that clear.
The resale after a year's use, ????? nobody knows if the NT will continue to depreciate from its higher initial value at the same rate, therefore costing more for the year in absolute terms, or not. Or will the MT continue to depreciate at the same rate from its lower initial cost, thereby costing less.
Once guests arrive, the larger spaces in the MT will pay off. As will the flybridge.
IF his bragging is about how much he can save, the MT will shine. About how fine a craft he has, the NT will shine.

+1.

 

[Westiculo]

IF his bragging is about how much he can save, the MT will shine. About how fine a craft he has, the NT will shine.

Get a grand banks and maybe you can do both!

 

[OldDan1943]

Get a grand banks and maybe you can do both!

GB is not for me. Way too much teak on the outside. That costs money and time to maintain.

 

[Westiculo]

GB is not for me. Way too much teak on the outside. That costs money and time to maintain.

This is true - no problems if you sell after a year tho.

 

[North Baltic sea]

For the trip the OP is planning, he has identified two completely different boat types.
The NT is small interior spaces, MT is large (relatively)
The NT is fine fit and finish, MT not so much
The NT is expensive, MT not so
NT running Cummins will use more fuel than the MT running FL
Twins v Single? May both be singles, the OP's description isn't that clear.
The resale after a year's use, ????? nobody knows if the NT will continue to depreciate from its higher initial value at the same rate, therefore costing more for the year in absolute terms, or not. Or will the MT continue to depreciate at the same rate from its lower initial cost, thereby costing less.
Once guests arrive, the larger spaces in the MT will pay off. As will the flybridge.
IF his bragging is about how much he can save, the MT will shine. About how fine a craft he has, the NT will shine.

Hi,

"NT running Cummins will use more fuel than the MT running FL"Can you tell us what this idea is based on?

I claim NT is below Hull's speed, one of the least expensive boats in its entire class. Example of my NT37 1 x 380hp cummins speed at 7.4kn 1,5 gal/hour 1250rmp, same LWL Albin 43 2 x 120hp FL 7,5kn 3,5 gal/hours the question NT is a good length - width ratio and Lynn Senour Hull design.

Albin's fuel consumption data comes from here https://www.blueturtletrawler.com/s...enance-fuel-consumption-costs-considerations/

Fuel consumption is half less than my old same size plaanig Hull Boats and considerably less than several trawlers of the same length.

NT quality can be seen best by looking deeper than the surface, like all the installations of diesel engine, shaft fittings or all laminating and grinding rounds and finishing there Bilge and all ways, pipes and tanks etc. If you look at electrical installations and how each wire marked individually you are not in trouble whenever you have to look for electronic problems. The vinylester used in hull lamination and the NT factory granted 10 years warranty blisters, it also tells you something of quality, of course it also pays something and everybody weighs different things when buying a boat.

NBs

 

[Mrwesson]

A major benefit to the Nordic Tug is being trailerable and it is a huge benefit overall.. BUT specifically towards doing the loop I don't see the benefit so I'd go for the bigger boat.

 

[koliver]

N Baltic

I agree that fuel consumption is related more to speed and hull design than to engine make. However, you state:

"I claim NT is below Hull's speed, one of the least expensive boats in its entire class. Example of my NT37 1 x 380hp cummins speed at 7.4kn 1,5 gal/hour 1250rmp, same LWL Albin 43 2 x 120hp FL 7,5kn 3,5 gal/hours the question NT is a good length - width ratio and Lynn Senour Hull design."

With 380 (Cummins) you are not limited to hull speed, so will spend some, or most, of your time going faster, making a bigger wave, and using more fuel then the 120 (FL) is capable of doing.

 

[OldDan1943]

N Baltic

I agree that fuel consumption is related more to speed and hull design than to engine make. However, you state:

"I claim NT is below Hull's speed, one of the least expensive boats in its entire class. Example of my NT37 1 x 380hp Cummins speed at 7.4kn 1,5 gal/hour 1250rmp, same LWL Albin 43 2 x 120hp FL 7,5kn 3,5 gal/hours the question NT is a good length - width ratio and Lynn Senour Hull design."

With 380 (Cummins) you are not limited to hull speed, so will spend some, or most, of your time going faster, making a bigger wave, and using more fuel then the 120 (FL) is capable of doing.

Dont over look the American Tug. The factory published data on the American Tug 34 (aka 36) with a Cummins QSB 5.9, Model 380 HO, 1/2 fuel (200 gal), 1/2 water (75 gal) .... 8 kits 2.1 gah at 1400 rpm. Mathematically, the hull speed is about 7.3 knots. 17 knots, 18.1 gph at 3000 rpm.
I am sure, loaded as a live aboard, reality is very different.

 

[dhays]

Dont over look the American Tug. The factory published data on the American Tug 34 (aka 36) with a Cummins QSB 5.9, Model 380 HO, 1/2 fuel (200 gal), 1/2 water (75 gal) .... 8 kits 2.1 gah at 1400 rpm. Mathematically, the hull speed is about 7.3 knots. 17 knots, 18.1 gph at 3000 rpm.
I am sure, loaded as a live aboard, reality is very different.

Likely it is different. I like both the NT and AT boats. They were the direction I was initially going when I was looking.

My North Pacific 43 has the same engine, Cummins QSB 5.9L 380hp. Even though my LWL is 38’, I don’t get anywhere near that fuel efficiency. 2.0 gal/hr (1450 rpm) will give me 7.0 knots.

Of course, I’m a fully loaded boat.

 

[psneeld]

I have serious doubs about some fuel economies posted.

Seems like everyone that posts does way better than what I have experienced and others....When you look at engine manufacturer and WLL numbers...their claims seem off but not their friends boat or others they reference as getting worse.

Can I call anyone a liar? No but I am skeptical.

Many cruise Ford Lehmans at around 1700 RPM which is about 2 gal per hour and mine does the same. My 40 Albin has around a 34 foot waterline and at 1700 RPMs, I only get around 6.3 knots.

My numbers are based on 15,000 miles over the last 6 years.

I will do a better breakdown this year, I will try and more accurately subtract out the diesel heater and genset fuel burns...though my numbers are already guesstimating them out.

 

[OldDan1943]

Likely it is different. I like both the NT and AT boats. They were the direction I was initially going when I was looking.

My North Pacific 43 has the same engine, Cummins QSB 5.9L 380hp. Even though my LWL is 38’, I don’t get anywhere near that fuel efficiency. 2.0 gal/hr (1450 rpm) will give me 7.0 knots.

Of course, I’m a fully loaded boat.

Ah that's where reality comes in, "fully loaded."
I doubt if any boat gets the factory published data when fully loaded and bucking a seas.

 

[Nomad Willy]

I’d chose the NT.
More efficient and throws much less wake. On the loop less wake is probably a plus. But the AT no doubt has more room.
Most AT’s have a FB (I think) and most NT’s do not. Would that be an issue. Perhaps the bridges are all high over there.
Are most AT’s twins? That could be a plus as much time will no doubt be spent in tight quarters finding slips ect.
OK on to FB.

 

[OldDan1943]

I’d chose the NT.
More efficient and throws much less wake. On the loop less wake is probably a plus. But the AT no doubt has more room.
Most AT’s have a FB (I think) and most NT’s do not. Would that be an issue. Perhaps the bridges are all high over there.
Are most AT’s twins? That could be a plus as much time will no doubt be spent in tight quarters finding slips ect.
OK on to FB.

My AT and I suspect most of the others come with a bow thruster and stern thruster. If not, install them. I added a 3rd house battery and moved the bow and stern thrusters to the 3 house batteries. WHY? Because normally, the bow thruster is on the start battery and if there is trouble with the start battery, the engine stops. Dont ask me how I know.

 

[Hamrow]

I’d chose the NT.
More efficient and throws much less wake. On the loop less wake is probably a plus. But the AT no doubt has more room.
Most AT’s have a FB (I think) and most NT’s do not. Would that be an issue. Perhaps the bridges are all high over there.
Are most AT’s twins? That could be a plus as much time will no doubt be spent in tight quarters finding slips ect.
OK on to FB.

A couple of corrections: All ATs and NTs are single engine. As for flybridge; it is optional on both ATs and NTs. by observation i'd say most of the ATs and NTs in the PNW do not opt for the FB, perhaps due to cooler and wetter weather certain parts of the year.

 

[seasalt007]

A couple of corrections: All ATs and NTs are single engine..

NT built at least one twin engine 54'.

 

[Nomad Willy]

OK Dan and Ham,
But since the’re wider, bigger and heavier I thought they (AT’s) may have offered twins. And since the OP is shopping used I think he’ll find quite a few AT’s w FB and very few NT’s w FB.
Those AT’s, especially the larger ones must have big engines.

NT and AT would probably sell more boats w twin engine options. IMO

 

[OldDan1943]

OK Dan and Ham,
But since the’re wider, bigger and heavier I thought they (AT’s) may have offered twins. And since the OP is shopping used I think he’ll find quite a few AT’s w FB and very few NT’s w FB.
Those AT’s, especially the larger ones must have big engines.

NT and AT would probably sell more boats w twin engine options. IMO

The AT34's engine room could not hold 2 engines. It is the perfect size for one engine and gives you lots of access too. I cannot speak to the NT.

 

[Hamrow]

Uh-oh, we're not getting into that single vs. twin debate again are we...?
It's a lot like the FB vs no FB debate; very subjective. But yes to answer the size question; the AT 435 like mine has a 500hp single Cummins. ATs never had twins because the hull form heritage was from a single engine fishing trawler.
For the record I'm with Dan; i much prefer the single for several reasons including roomy ER, accessibility, easier maintenance and parts tracking, quietness, and full keel-protected single prop.

I see on the NT website their large 54' has a single Volvo D11 with 670 hp.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Dan that would be stupid to put another engine the same size as the original doubling the available power. If you’ve got a 200hp put two 100hp engines in the boat ..... that apparently designed for 200hp.

And w two 100hp engines there would probably be plenty of room for maint.

 

[dhays]

Uh-oh, we're not getting into that single vs. twin debate again are we...?
It's a lot like the FB vs no FB debate; very subjective. But yes to answer the size question; the AT 435 like mine has a 500hp single Cummins. ATs never had twins because the hull form heritage was from a single engine fishing trawler.

I absolutely love the AT 435. I would likely have bought one if I could have afforded it.

I'm a but surprised at the 500hp Cummins. The QSC is a nice engine but the 8.3L seems a bit of overkill. Now, I'm sure that the 8.3L would push the boat faster (dig a bigger hole in the water) than the 5.9L, but I really wonder how much utility that extra 150hp really provides? I wonder if they would put the QSB in a new boat if an owner wanted?

Of course, maybe I'm completely wrong.

 

[OldDan1943]

Dan that would be stupid to put another engine the same size as the original doubling the available power. If you’ve got a 200hp put two 100hp engines in the boat ..... that apparently designed for 200hp.

And w two 100hp engines there would probably be plenty of room for maint.

The boat is designed for one engine. Any attempt to change the configuration would be asking for IMO, for some sort of trouble.

 

[Nomad Willy]

No,
I think you’re more right than wrong. But probably over powered. It’s well over twice the power of an old GB36 but the AT is not an easily driven hull. So could it use that much to any real benefit? Only if it could get up to some significant wetted surface reduction and a lower angle of attack both of which would significantly increase speed. But it probably would require over an 80% engine load and that would need to be sustained for any real benefit. And I haven’t even mentioned fuel consumption.
So I think the AT is better off plowing along at reasonable speeds like most other trawlers. If they went that way the result would be a big bow bashing boat if it didn’t surprise us all and plane. Not much gain, if any. Dave used the revealing word “utility” as in usefull benefit. Not likely.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Dan,
I could be wrong but I’m sure a good NA could flip back and forth single and/or twin.

What is it that you feel would be inappropriate about powering the AT w twin engines?

 

[OldDan1943]

Dan,
I could be wrong but I’m sure a good NA could flip back and forth single and/or twin.

What is it that you feel would be inappropriate about powering the AT w twin engines?

Dont ask me. I am not a NA. Let me know how your conversation works out.

 

[seasalt007]

I'm a but surprised at the 500hp Cummins. The QSC is a nice engine but the 8.3L seems a bit of overkill. Now, I'm sure that the 8.3L would push the boat faster (dig a bigger hole in the water) than the 5.9L, but I really wonder how much utility that extra 150hp really provides?.

I have an QSC 8.3 540 hp. I don't dig any holes. I can get on top with a very pretty wake if I want to pay the bill. Top is 18 kts with half fuel and water. But I cruise at 8.5 kts same as I did with my last NT 42 with the 5.9 B series. The 8.3 at 8.5 kts burns a little more fuel than the 5.9.

 

[dhays]

I have an QSC 8.3 540 hp. I don't dig any holes. I can get on top with a very pretty wake if I want to pay the bill. Top is 18 kts with half fuel and water. But I cruise at 8.5 kts same as I did with my last NT 42 with the 5.9 B series. The 8.3 at 8.5 kts burns a little more fuel than the 5.9.

18 kts is very impressive for such a large boat. The AT gives a huge amount of usable space for its length. Likely due to the fishing heritage of the hull shape where they needed lots of volume and work space.

 

[Reel Grace]

Great info here and thanks! I found a 1988 32 Grand Banks which is going for survey in a few days. Original fuel tanks and teak decks. Nice boat but I can see the work ahead of me. Ill keep it on my lift to avoid monthly diver costs and dockage fees. Would like to have a 36 but would rather not have the additional costs of ownership. So the 32 should be fine. Anything problems specific to this make/model I should look for in the survey? The bottom has been redone and painted a few years a go with alwgrip. Although the GB 32 doesn't meet a lot of my original desires, it does offer a great reputation in quality and resale value. I think the size makes it attractive to other GB owners who have larger boats that may want to down size to something easier to handle and maintain. It doesn't have a bow or stern thruster so Im really in for a learning experience! Practice Practice Practice. Im not planning to spend $10K for a bow thruster. No cockpit doors on this model but it does have wide decks and a pretty spacious stern area.The fit and finish is really nicely done.

 

[sleaper]

When I discovered the great loop and thought about how I would travel it, i decided that i would have to have a boat with a fly bridge and internal cockpit.

You are going to be spending days cruising through amazing waterways and having the option to sit outside and enjoy it as you steam along will enhance the trip 10 fold I feel.

But I guess with that comes other considerations if your solo.

God luck, can't wait to hear about it.