Marex 370 MB&Y test

Neil_Y

Neil_Y

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 Oct 2004
Messages
2,340
Location
Devon
www.h4marine.com
If any body had any doubts about the efficiencies that can be gained by a change from a conventional shaft spinning in water they should read the consumption figures from the boat test. Yes it will be down to other factors as well but this set up gives quite an improvement over other designs and drive options. Shame it hasn't been seen at UK shows yet but I'm sure that will come. I know there were a few on here interested in an independent set of figures well here they are.

She's also a lovely boat, even being a yacht person I'm tempted, could you fit a tender platform extension or davits? possibly, the swim platform is quite big for this size of boat.
 
You have to get the mag and read the report, there are a number of interesting comparisons and comments like, it blows away every other similar shaft drive MB have tested but it also outperforms many sterndrive sports cruisers.

The key difference is not light weight or hull design, its heavier than some and has good head room throughout. But it does have a far more efficient means of getting power to the prop and thrust to the hull. Our figures have said 10%, MB figures for fuel burn are anywhere from 30% to 50% more efficient when compared to stern drives, single shaft and twin shafts.
 
Neil_Y said:
If any body had any doubts about the efficiencies that can be gained by a change from a conventional shaft spinning in water they should read the consumption figures from the boat test. Yes it will be down to other factors as well but this set up gives quite an improvement over other designs and drive options. Shame it hasn't been seen at UK shows yet but I'm sure that will come. I know there were a few on here interested in an independent set of figures well here they are.

She's also a lovely boat, even being a yacht person I'm tempted, could you fit a tender platform extension or davits? possibly, the swim platform is quite big for this size of boat.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's a stupid shedload of money for a (barely) 37 footer so nobody is going to buy it. About £100k too much, I reckon, at least, which buys an awful lot of fuel. I guess that the extra cost of your gear accounts for some of that. A Broom 365 + £100k change? No contest
 
The point was, there were many sceptics who could not see the real efficiency increases that were possible with a different drive set up, this test and the comparisons prove what we have been saying and what some builders are experiencing. Maybe ask for a set of different shafts when you order your Broom?

Marex are certainly not the cheapest in their class, but if you talk to the boat builders using the seatorques they have all seen real savings in installation and follow up support costs. So the extra cost of our gear just increases their margin when they look at the costs for build and support over 12 months.

The high cost for this boat is down to build and exchange rates, but as with other scandinavian designs they will probably hold a very high resale value.
 
it is true the gain the captain who drove that custom new F&S 72 splashed earlier on this year said they gained about 6/7 knots with Seatorque
the Marex looks a very nice boat but for a single engine and that kind of money it might be hard, though I heard it is doing quite well...
what does the Seatorque cost Neil?
 
Neil_Y said:
The point was, there were many sceptics who could not see the real efficiency increases that were possible with a different drive set up, this test and the comparisons prove what we have been saying and what some builders are experiencing. Maybe ask for a set of different shafts when you order your Broom?

Marex are certainly not the cheapest in their class, but if you talk to the boat builders using the seatorques they have all seen real savings in installation and follow up support costs. So the extra cost of our gear just increases their margin when they look at the costs for build and support over 12 months.

The high cost for this boat is down to build and exchange rates, but as with other scandinavian designs they will probably hold a very high resale value.
Click to expand...

Sorry this test proves f*** all until it is compared to the fuel consumption of the same boat without the Seatorque system. Even then it's a cost/benefit calculation. If the extra cost of the Seatorque system is, say, £30k and I plan to do 100hrs pa and keep the boat for 5 yrs, I would conclude that the extra cost is not worth it in terms of the fuel saved. On the other hand, if I was planning to do 1000hrs pa and keep the boat for 10yrs, I might think differently.
Just so that we can try to do the calc more accurately, what does Marex charge for the 370 with Seatorque and without? Why are there 'real savings in installation and follow up support costs'?
 
It's an amazing performance from the Marex on fuel efficiency, although as Mike says, you need the comparison with the same boat on conventional shafts before you claim it all for Seatorque. If it is down to the Seatorque though, then it's a great result and should generate a lot of interest in the product from boat builders and end users.

I also think that if the fuel consumption figures are that good, and are proven to be down to the shaft set-up, then the Seatorque equipped boat would hold the same premium on re-sale as it cost new, so I don't necessarily agree with the rationale Mike uses. Also, lots of boaters seem to worry disproportionately about fuel costs, probably because there's much greater scope for big price changes than there is in mooring, insurance and servicing costs.
 
Nick_H said:
It's an amazing performance from the Marex on fuel efficiency, although as Mike says, you need the comparison with the same boat on conventional shafts before you claim it all for Seatorque. If it is down to the Seatorque though, then it's a great result and should generate a lot of interest in the product from boat builders and end users.

I also think that if the fuel consumption figures are that good, and are proven to be down to the shaft set-up, then the Seatorque equipped boat would hold the same premium on re-sale as it cost new, so I don't necessarily agree with the rationale Mike uses. Also, lots of boaters seem to worry disproportionately about fuel costs, probably because there's much greater scope for big price changes than there is in mooring, insurance and servicing costs.
Click to expand...

Firstly I wouldn't trust MBY's figures. One fuel flow meter, one very short test. If an owner confirmed these figures after a season's use, then I'd be more impressed. Second, how much of the fuel efficiency is down to the hull/engine combination? Some boats just hit the sweet spot and it is only a single engined boat, after all. Maybe it's got a very flat bottom? And the boat is a hell of a price for a relatively poky 37 footer with one engine. £100k+ more than an equivalent Nimbus which is crazy. Thats why I'd really like to know what a non-Seatorque equipped 370 would cost.
Don't get me wrong. If Seatorque does prove to give the kind of efficiency that Neil Y is talking about, then it is a significant product. However, I do have a bit of a problem with a poster who only comes on to this forum to promote his own product and makes no other contribution, which is why I like to wind him up a little.
Yes, you are right. If Seatorque proves itself both in terms of improved fuel efficiency and reliability, then obviously there is a resale value benefit. Yes, we are disproportionately concerned about fuel costs because they're only going only one way, upwards, and because we see those costs on our credit card statement every month (and so does the SWMBO:)) so anything to ease that burden is attractive
 
OK Mike! only slightly wound up...but check my threads and replies please, I think I do more on the forum than just promote products! I usually try to give an informed opinion on aspects of engineering I know well or on questions of seamanship or navigation from experience...so how do I answer the questions above without mentioning benefits which could sound like promoting?

I am guilty of starting a thread that had clear links to a product which I am promoting, it is true m'lud, but it was so good to see an indepenent test showing what we have been saying for two years that I couldn't help myself. Sceptics have been telling us that there can't be much difference as it still looks the same as a conventional shaft (!), that IPS is great and really efficient (as are stern drives) and so on. So this kind of report is really quite ground breaking in an industry where change is either very slow or driven by companies with huge levers and marketing.

So I should back away and let you draw your own conclusions from reading the test, which was my original plan.

I'll answer the other questions asked privately!
 
When I went on the Fleming 55 at this year's SIBS, they were testing a system very similar to the SeaTorque (it might have been this) on the demo boat.

Their comments at the time were that initial impressions were quite good especially on the noise and vibration front, but they didn't comment on the fuel efficiency. Would be interesting to see what their long term tests reveal, as that boat does some significant mileages from what I gathered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top