Advice for a newbie on a bigger boat. Regal, Sealine, Bayliner or..

Ive messaged a few sellers to give me a call back after Christmas, the regal 2465 for sale has a D3 and i think id rather have the KAD32 so ive settled on the idea of an S23, the best example ive seen i think is this one Sealine S23 For Sale | Norfolk Yacht Agency | NYH129168. but if its going to be mine they will have to meet me south a bit on the price. we'll see. i guess i'll update in a week or 2 when ive had a chat with the sellers
 
Scubadoo said:
The later (2000/2001) S24 had the kad32 diesel and there are more than just the odd AD31 diesels. The S24 is a great boat and the dry weight is 2100kg, but with that size boat and all the options fitted it can add a lot of extra weight, e.g. holding tanks, heating, electric winch...the factory spec is without all those options fitted.
Click to expand...
You’re absolutely correct in what you have written there. But was perhaps just pointing out that the s23/25 is a very different boat from the s24/240 model. Most of the latter almost certainly came with a 4.3 power plant for sure. Any of the few early ad31 or very very latter kad32, would presumably weigh in at a heavier figure than the more commonly published figures with a 4.3 in mind. Perhaps more relevant to this, with the mention of the definitely different S23/25 boat…this might be considered heavier and certainly as far as I know, only came with either a kad32 or a d3 engine as an option. I’ve driven, handled and towed both the s24 and the s25 in particular. The s23/25 is certainly a heavier boat. Merry Xmas
 
adhdan said:
Ive messaged a few sellers to give me a call back after Christmas, the regal 2465 for sale has a D3 and i think id rather have the KAD32 so ive settled on the idea of an S23, the best example ive seen i think is this one Sealine S23 For Sale | Norfolk Yacht Agency | NYH129168. but if its going to be mine they will have to meet me south a bit on the price. we'll see. i guess i'll update in a week or 2 when ive had a chat with the sellers
Click to expand...
She looks lovely. Lovely boats for sure…just make sure she’s absolutely perfect in every way, if you are thinking of paying that money for her. Make sure she has had the turbo replaced too. Or at least budget for it otherwise. Have a serious test drive of her too. If you aren’t used to the way they behave or are influenced by weight distribution, some might find it a factor. Others (like myself), can appreciate that their rather tippy or easily unsettled nature (when on plane), can be managed and is a an obvious opposing trait associated with the outstanding seakeeping they have, or any other narrow, deep v boat similar might have too.
 
Plenty of good advice here (y)

Manufacturers state weight and dimensions "as delivered when new" unless otherwise stated. So a boat with engine and sterndrive includes this - and nothing else (fluids, equipment and more). The police are unlikely to listen, they'll just put it all on a scale when checking the combination, you and your licence.

You seem to be decided on sterndrive. I recommend you search and read up on the topic (for example on this site) and factor that knowledge into your considerations. Planing boats, as you probably know, often aren't very good at travelling straight at low speed and sterndrives/outboards don't make it any better.

I've heard it said that when shafts work for Maersk, they're good enough for the rest of us. Personally, after 55 years with all variants, I agree. As far as safety is concerned, I would only have a petrol engine if it's hanging off the transom, not tucked away in an enclosed space inside the boat. In that location, it has to be diesel.
Just my 2.... and in the segment, you are looking for, diesel on shaft is hard to find.

Also consider engine access for service or repair:

-Placed in the hull right up against the transom during the build process, then enclosed by the rest of the boat assembled around the engine, later having access through a hatch

or

-hanging off the transom, accessible from all sides

Not to mention replacing the whole shebang.

In addition to all aspects of trailer legality, size and weight will have an impact on handling during launch and recovery. In anything but calm conditions, waves and wind will be a challenge and a few tonnes is a lot to handle by hand.

You'll need at least a two axled trailer but boat length also needs to be considered (I think the maximum total weight on one axle is about 1800kg).
The boat should sit perfectly on the trailer every time and be secured with straps so that it and the trailer form a self-supporting unit - this, together with the correct load on the towbar, makes for much better handling.

1703571082105.png

The height of the boat on the trailer needs to suit your shed (and bridges you're going under), and it's a fact that the actual competency of the vehicle in this marriage is more important than being legal - just. Being approved to hook up is not the same as being capable on roads and ramps!

On a gravel or slippery ramp you will need 4x4 and with the overall weight and resistance, you should expect a frightening fuel consumption when towing. And when not.
 
Last edited:
adhdan said:
End of 2022 i got given a scrap Norman 17 that i brought back to life (i think ive made a tidy little boat) and have been using this year, i enjoyed myself so im looking to upgrade this winter to a bigger boat.

Ive got a few key things ive been looking for ,
1/Big but towable @ 3.5ton . about 2.7t of boat + 750kg for the trailer
2/a decent full sized double berth with 2 additional berths of 'usable' size
3/inland & coastal
4/diesel.
5/~2m bridge clearance


Its living on the trailer in my shed + i want to be able to move the boat to different parts of the country for hols, low air draught for inland waters specifically to be able to fit under the lower beeston canal bridge (cant remember the name but its about 2.4m i think) , be able to sleep the wife & kids for a few nights, be capable on the coast (weather dependent channel crossing maybe) & i want diesel. Realise the extra maintenance with inboard diesel & sterndrive but its going to be out the water sitting in my workshop so it will give me something to do 😂

budget is 30-40k , ideally id want a boat + trailer for 40k.

Boats that caught my eye are the Regal 2665, Sealine s23, Bayliner 265. Yanmar or Volvo inboards .

Look forward to your thoughts & advice.

Thanks
Dan
Click to expand...
There is a four winns 238 diesel on flea bay 29k
 
For use proposed to be based at Lincoln with speed restricted travelling the kad32 is better than the d3 engine. This is due to the type of turbo on the d3 which is not suited to extended slow running.
The S23 had the kad32 and the S25 (which is the same boat with cosmetic differences) had the d3 although I think some S25's may have the kad32.
A S23 will just fit under the bridges downstream of Brayford Pool providing the small arch with the nav lights is removed.
 
MartynG said:
For use proposed to be based at Lincoln with speed restricted travelling the ka32 is better than the d3 engine. This is due to the type of turbo on the d3 which is not suited to extended slow running.
The S23 had the kad32 and the S25 (which is the same boat with cosmetic differences) had the d3 although I think some S25's may have the kad32.
A S23 will just fit under the bridges downstream of Brayford Pool providing the small arch with the nav lights is removed.
Click to expand...
I’d agree with that thinking. Great point. The supercharger on the Kad at low rpm will certainly mean a cleaner combustion. But I suppose the other side of that coin…might be that the noise of the charger at low rpm and sustained, might get very annoying ?
That said…being very familiar with a 25 with the kad32…I also know that when she is at river speeds or around that, the way they are propped from new, means that the supercharger isn’t clutched in. You’d need to be fair charging along before that comes on song. I’d think, at a pace that’s likely too quick for most civilised waterways. The 25 with A4 props will go through the water at a deceptively (from the helm) quick rate of knots, when only at barely more than tick over. Anything in the operating range of the supercharger rpms, I think would be probably pushing on at a speed around of above 8 knots (or close) at a minimum, I’d think.
Perhaps less pitch on the props might make the difference…but then back to supercharger wine. Catch 22 ?
Food for thought perhaps.
 
Last edited:
PS
I had a turbo refurbished on a kad32 as it was letting too much oil pass to the inter cooler but think it must have been a lack of use issue . The boat had done 200hrs by the previous owner in 11 years.
The turbo on the other engine in the same boat has been fine . Now on just over 1000 hrs.
On the subject of hours the Volvo Penta hour meters used on the kad engines are notorious for failing
 
QBhoy said:
I’d agree with that thinking. Great point. The supercharger on the Kad at low rpm will certainly mean a cleaner combustion. But I suppose the other side of that coin…might be that the noise of the charger at low rpm and sustained, might get very annoying ?
That said…being very familiar with a 25 with the kad32…I also know that when she is at river speeds or around that, the way they are propped from new, means that the supercharger isn’t clutched in. You’d need to be fair charging along before that comes on song. I’d think, at a pace that’s likely too quick for most civilised waterways. The 25 with A4 props will go through the water at a deceptively (from the helm) quick rate of knots, when only at barely more than tick over. Anything in the operating range of the supercharger rpms, I think would be probably pushing on at a speed around of above 8 knots (or close) at a minimum, I’d think.
Food for thought perhaps.
Click to expand...
I agree its rare to need to run in the supercharger range. Its not necessary on the speed restricted river except maybe on occasions against a strong tide and it would be a waste of fuel.
 
MartynG said:
I agree its rare to need to run in the supercharger range. Its not necessary on the speed restricted river except maybe on occasions against a strong tide and it would be a waste of fuel.
Click to expand...
Yeah. You’re dead right there too, I’d say.
Given that, you think things might suffer long term ? Carbon build up, bore washing etc etc. these things need worked hard, we will both no doubt agree on. Might she see a sustained state of incorrect running and operating conditions, in terms of struggling to get up to and not always seeing ideal T’s and P’s…along with over fuelling and all that might lead to ? Always a risk with a forced induction/aspirated diesel, used long term in or on slow speed waterways.
I don’t know much about the D3’s ability to manage such things, to be honest. You reckon they might struggle or not cope well at all ? Do they perhaps have an ability around or to do with low rpm variable boost ? Perhaps you might be suggesting that this is problematic in itself ? I’m familiar only with a pair of them in a friends SC29. They’ve been pretty reliable things in that at least. They haven’t done much serious use, to be honest…but when they are in use, they have their legs stretched. Keen to hear your thoughts on these. I’ll soon be doing the belts and a service on them both, with the owner. On a side note, very impressed with the SC29. Great boat..hasn’t lost a penny in the years he’s had her, maybe even gained value ! Very clever hull too. Couldn’t believe the pace she can run along at, when she’s opened up. I clocked her into the 40’s gps more than once, running alongside. Good going for fairly modest quoted HP of 380hp (2x190 d3’s)
 
The turbo on the d3 has variable vanes which I understand may coke up with prolonged slow speed use. I don't have personal experience of that but something somebody wrote on this forum some years ago put me off d3's because of my use of my boat. But I believe if run up to speed regularly no issue.
The turbo on the kad32 is fixed vane.

I have not heard of any bore glazing issue due to river use of any engine on any sea going boats . That's not to say such things never occur.

With my first boat , a S23 , I did 600 hours . This was rarely at fast speed . But when it was asked to perform it went fine.
I now have a F33 with twin kad32's . Similar story although I do get a few miles at speed each year. There is no doubt a good run makes the engines run smoother but I don't know of any issues.
 
MartynG said:
The turbo on the d3 has variable vanes which I understand may coke up with prolonged slow speed use. I don't have personal experience of that but something somebody wrote on this forum some years ago put me off d3's because of my use of my boat. But I believe if run up to speed regularly no issue.
The turbo on the kad32 is fixed vane.

I have not heard of any bore glazing issue due to river use of any engine on any sea going boats . That's not to say such things never occur.

With my first boat , a S23 , I did 600 hours . This was rarely at fast speed . But when it was asked to perform it went fine.
I now have a F33 with twin kad32's . Similar story although I do get a few miles at speed each year. There is no doubt a good run makes the engines run smoother but I don't know of any issues.
Click to expand...
Can’t disagree with your previous and current choice of boats there. Loved my sealine too. Had her for years. Is that the 330 you have now then ? The model before the f34 ? Lovely boats. Amazing ability and useable space for their size, I think.
 
MartynG said:
The turbo on the d3 has variable vanes which I understand may coke up with prolonged slow speed use. I don't have personal experience of that but something somebody wrote on this forum some years ago put me off d3's because of my use of my boat. But I believe if run up to speed regularly no issue.
The turbo on the kad32 is fixed vane.

I have not heard of any bore glazing issue due to river use of any engine on any sea going boats . That's not to say such things never occur.

With my first boat , a S23 , I did 600 hours . This was rarely at fast speed . But when it was asked to perform it went fine.
I now have a F33 with twin kad32's . Similar story although I do get a few miles at speed each year. There is no doubt a good run makes the engines run smoother but I don't know of any issues.
Click to expand...

I believe it was the eminently knowledgeable forumite Latestarter1 who said "Engines are designed to work, so there's no reason not to let them do so" and "regularly in the red [on the tachometer]" is good practice.

It depends on the engine make and model, but engines designed for relatively high output at high revs cannot be expected to live long and trouble-free lives if they are not regularly allowed to work as intended.

Unfortunately, it's been a long time since Laterstarter1 has been on this forum, but for those interested, here's an example of his insights and another quoted below

I was a member of the group grandly called the EEA or European Engine Alliance which created the 'Family'.

First a short history lesson. During the early 1980's IVECO realised that their whole engine range required replacement, a huge undertaking. Replacing the big ugly V8 down to the 1 liter/cyl 8030/40/60 engines. IVECO signed an agreement with Nissan for a complete range of engines. All went well for several years, 8/10/13 liter engines were progressing well, however the smaller unit injector 1 liter/cylinder motor was not meeting design goals.

With very little time left IVECO turned to Cummins.

In the meantime Cummins had their own problems, having made a huge mid life investment in the turning the successful B and C mid range engines into a four valve electronic engine range. The four valve the 'Emerald' program resulted in the in the front gear drive Bosch VP 44 quasi electronic ISB engine. A shed load more cost without very much gain.

IVECO by chance were gifted a little gem. Ford wanted out of their loss making tractor business and sold Ford New Holland to Fiat. Ford had some super guys designing high pressure pumps who had come up with a very simple a clever fuel lubricated common rail fuel injection pump. Fiat dumped this new pump onto their sister company Marrelli.

Marelli KNEW that Bosch were in deep trouble with their oil lubricated CP2 common rail fuel pump, too late, too expensive and unreliable. When offered the original Ford concept pump they bit the hand off the italians. Part of the agreement was that Fiat had control of who the new pump could be sold to.

The EEA brought together engineers from Cummins UK and US, IVECO and Ford New Holland. Using the ISB engine as design base around the new common rail pump the team working from rented offices in High Wycombe worked at speed. 102/120 bore stroke cam location, 4 valve cylinder head was retained, everything else was torn up.

New engine had the timing gears moved from from the front to the back, cooling capability upgraded, lube oil system changed to J jet piston cooling nozzles.

Fiat carried out a lighting strike on Case tractor who were building the B Series in Germany and scooped up the bang up to date production line and machine tools.

The final result of the EEA work was the ISBe automotive engine built by Cummins in Darlington and the Italian IVECO NEF engine. Very similar engines, however IVECO use Bosch Hardware/software, Cummins used Bosch ECU with Cummins software and slightly different common rail set up.

Shortly after launch of NEF engine IVECO Aifo took the automotive engine and marinised it.

After just a year tensions between Cummins and IVECO began to smoulder when the Italians failed to pay agreed licence fees.

The Cummins QSB marine engine is based on a US designed engine which came out of the EEA work but based on the ISB (new generation) engine sold to Dodge for the Ram truck, 300,000 units per annum. This engine has the timing gear where Americans like it, back on the front!

At the time of the ISBe launch Ricardo in the UK did a research progam an unspecified customer, I suspect the MOD and in 2003 they had developed a twin turbo ISBe 5.9 reliably producing 500 Hp much of this work was banked for the eventual use in the QSB marine engine.

My biased view of the IVECO NEF.....

Marinisation of a truck engine is a nightmare. Take a look at the raw water pump, Remove the charge cooler in order to change the impeller, simply nuts! This pump is also proprietry, not Jabso, Johnson or Sherwood, try to obtaining price for new pump. Electronics are more than a bit clunky, very poor noise supression algorithim.

Biggest beef, Mickey Mouse 25C test fuel spec dodgy sheet power, when will they ever learn.

When the split came Cummins knew how to obtain more displacement out of the ISB/QSB without weakening major components. Then patented the redesign

IVECO 6.7, 5.9 102mm bore block bored out to 104mm, crank pin offset ground to reduce diameter but increase stroke by 10mm to 132mm.

Cummins 6.7, new block allowing 107mm bore plus service oversize, crank retaining original bearing areas with clever change to balance weights allowing 124 mm stroke without kissing the camshaft.

IVECO NEF motors are around 20% less expensive than equivalent Cummins, but they out sell IVECO by a significant margin.
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
QBhoy said:
Can’t disagree with your previous and current choice of boats there. Loved my sealine too. Had her for years. Is that the 330 you have now then ? The model before the f34 ? Lovely boats. Amazing ability and useable space for their size, I think.
Click to expand...
It's a F33 which was previously called the 330 Statesman. It was new in April 2003 so one of the last . The F34 was introduced later that same year .
 
For some reason i stopped getting notifications about the thread, i didnt realise the conversation had carried on :D.

As before, im off to Burton Waters to chat with a salesman next week and have a look round a few boats. Ive got a feeling im not going to get the space im after on anything trailer sized so while im there im going to have a chat about moorings and look at some bigger stuff

Going bigger means going older for my budget, any boats will likely want some tlc which will offset the cost of not having to buy a trailer so im still ~40k . ~10m length, ~3m beam, decent hulls & seakeeping, B rating. decent power/size ratio, If i can cruise @ 20 knts is plenty for me . preferably twin diesel , shaft or outdrive.

few ive clocked for sale, 80/90's sealines of that size 285/290/328...look like they need some work,

And a curve ball, Ive seen a Nimbus 3003 and find it quite charming, the layout with the aft cabin & partial cockpit cab. The interior looks simple and well constructed from wood, i like that.
It doesnt exactly tick all my boxes though, single tam41b? on shaft, i reckon about 16-18knts cruising speed if anyone can confirm? & i would guess a higher air draught then the cruiser styles with a hinged arch.
 
Max 25 knots with 2 persons and half tanks I'd say. Cruising 18-20 kn.
Edit: Pretty good for a semi-displacement hull.

But read for yourself in this magazine (pg 46 onwards).

For further discussion with owners, there is a

Nimbus Owners Club
nimbusowners.co.uk

The 40-series of these engines are very common but at the age the service & maintenance history is key. Heat exchangers (oil, coolant), turbo/intercooler, fuel system (feed & injection pumps + injectors) would be points of focus.

IMO.
 
And, btw. a semi-D hull will handle better at below planing speeds than a planing hull (which weather or cruising area may dictate), and easily go in a straight line.

As opposed to sterndrive a shaft boat requires water speed at the rudder to steer. Sterndrives and outboards steer by turning the direction of thrust (actually the propeller), hence being able to maneuver just by engaging gear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top