Showing my ignorance 4 times in one thread!

P71_CrownVic wrote: BTW...I need some reassurance. With the full tank of fuel, the water is just touching the underside of the platform. Would the experts say that is a good sign that the foam is NOT saturated?

No. This is how our BFN looked with 600 lbs of wet foam in the nose... lots of daylight under the platform!

P71_CrownVic wrote: The stringer/foam issues still make me very nervous. I still have a chance to back out of this deal. I must make sure that I'm getting a solid boat. What do you think?

If there are no soft spots in the floor (check very carefully everywhere between the motorbox and battery box) and the lags on the cradle are nice and tight, then dont worry about it. There is undoubtedly *some* degree of water intrusion in a boat that age with original stringers and floor (so some wet foam and rot), but it can be run like that for years and years. The vast majority of old boat owners are blissfully ignorant of the problems lurking below their floors and Ive yet to hear of a boat crumbling to pieces while underway. Try to put it out of your mind and go boating!   

BTW, the correct radial tire size on a '83+ CC #3 trailer is 225/75/15.

One more thing... if you "must make sure that youre getting a solid boat" then you may want to consider ponying up a bit more $$ and doing what gun-driver suggested a few weeks ago.

gun-driver wrote: Nice looking boat. But for around 1800 more I'll sell ya my '85 with 574 hrs, new stringers, no foam, 75-80 more ponies, wet sanded and buffed a completely refurbed trailer and the list goes on.

P71_CrownVic wrote: "No."....as in that is not an accurate test to judge foam saturation.

Correct.

I am a bit skeptical that what you learn about the boat's weight will be useful. I dont think CC was all that accurate in their weight estimates of the trailers, especially- and Ive noted inconsistencies in the boat weights as well!

All of the "checks" that a person should do when looking at one of these boats (tighten the bolts, check the floor) all come back to indicate that the stringers and floor are solid.

In doing some looking, I did find two areas where there is fiberglass cracking and there is obvious saturation:



...the area behind the exhaust tubing...the vertical area facing the rear of the boat.

Tomorrow I'm going to try and have the boat + trailer weighed and then launch the boat and have just the trailer weighed. If it's wildly overweight, I'll probably pass...but we'll see. CC says the dry weight should be 2400 pounds. I have full fluids, battery, and a damn-near full tank of gas (6.175lb/gallon * 31 gallons = 191.425 pounds.)

200 pounds of variation in weight is definetly in tolerance for a boat of that age that was laid up by hand, and who knows if they were using resin counters back then.

You will never find a guy running a resin gun that puts down too little resin, they want to see that glass turn pink as quick as possible and that almost always means that you are going to end up with a lot of excess resin.

I wonder if CCs original weight was with no back seat, standard back seat or the deluxe interior? I'd say the deluxe interior rear seat might way 75-100lbs. more than the standard seat. That'd put you within 150lbs. or so of your target wouldnt' it?   What does everyone else think?

I think I'd pull the trigger and enjoy it. It's a nice looking boat and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a better non-stringered boat than this one. I'm sure there are many years left of life in this one.

Even on modern boats there is still weight variation that is alot greater then the general public would expect. The human factor is part of it, and so is the weight of the raw glass but to a much smaller extent.

2400lbs would be a base boat, so if there was a basic interior availible in that year that should have been how it was weighed dry with no fluids or options.

You would be suprised what "tightly" controlled is, there is a minimum amount that is speced but no penalty to the tech for using too much resin and they never use too little. That little bit adds up to some pretty decent weight fluctuations.

peter1234 wrote: why wouldnt you buy the boat it seems like a no brainer i cant imagine finding a better one for anything near the price.

Well...looks can be deceiving. This is a big purchase and I wanted to make sure I do my due diligence when buying.

Yes the boat looks great, no denying that. But it's what's lurking under the floor that had me concerned. I wanted to make sure that, structurally, the boat was sound. Everything else I can handle, but I didn't want to have the boat for a short time and realize that the stringers were shot.

Get this though (you're going to think I'm even more crazy):

I sold my 1989 Bayliner for $4,800. Subtract that from the $8,500 for the CC, and I'm really only paying $3,700 out of pocket for the Nautique..

Morfoot wrote: 1. The throttle does NOT lock in the center position. This is an inboard boat and it is supposed to "click" when in the vertical neuetral position. You can inadvertantly put it in gear by getting up out of the drivers seat. If you do need to get up make it a HABIT to pull the knob out below the throttle so if you do hit the throttle you won't put it in gear.

Are you sure about this.? It "should" lock out from forward / neutral, reverse / neutral. That is the purpose of the lift ring release under the throttle knob. so you don't accidently go from forward to reverse or accidently engage either from neutral.

I think the "click" is the worn lock mechanisim dropping into & out of the "lock" position.

I can't speak for an 85, but my 89, 91, 98, & 03 all had the lockout. The 98 & 03 were the only ones that worked but they have a different control.

Not a deal breaker in my mind, but you need to be aware of it.

'89 was the 1st year for the lock out shifer, per the sales brochure - I looked!

I really try to push the idea of shutting down the motor in addition, any time anyone is getting off (and especially on the boat) via the swim platform. I guess when you're getting off the boat, you can jump clear, but when you're getting on, you're really close to the prop, and an accidental reverse could cause a pretty grizzly accident.

63 Skier wrote: Bri892001 wrote: I really try to push the idea of shutting down the motor in addition, any time anyone is getting off (and especially on the boat) via the swim platform. I guess when you're getting off the boat, you can jump clear, but when you're getting on, you're really close to the prop, and an accidental reverse could cause a pretty grizzly accident. I didn't used to shut down all the time, but the past few years I've decided to always shut down. It's so easy to do and I simply don't want to leave anything to chance that might result in hurting someone.

A starter is cheaper and easier to replace than a limb...although there are home kits on E-Bay that come with decent instructions.............

Liledgy wrote:      I have a question for the veterans here. Is their a reason for not putting composite stringers in when replacing the wood on the "80's" 2001's? It would seem like a no brainer. I know it may cost a little more but it sure would be a great selling point. And for the amount of work, it would seem well worth it. I don't mean to thread jack.

No Name.... We have had several members here go back with an all composite stringer/web system and posted the entire rebuild here on CCFan. One of our members from the UK has taken it one step further and is going back with an all composite engine cradle.

If done properly, going back with a wood system you shouldn't experience any rot in the future. Extra steps should be taken when doing so and the members here that have documented the job have done just that.