sunseeker camargue 44 ???? (just tyre kicking at the moment)

[kashurst]

wandering around the marina last week and saw a new to the marina sunseeker camargue 44. I like the look of the deck layout, but are they a bond villain bloater or a serious sea machine ?
looking on the tinternet they seems to come with a variety of engines - caterpillar 3126 or volvo 73 or 74s. According to the MBY review apparently they a well built and they seem to burn @ 100 - 110 l/hour.
any ex or current owners out there to advise ??

 

[PowerYachtBlog]

Well build yes, hull very similar to previous 47 Camargue (little modification) with not so good CoG. Hull was again used for 46 and 47 Portofino.
47 was offered with the D9s which gives good power so CoG becomes less relevant at medium cruising speeds.
Engines where moved aft from the 47C. Always under-powered but best engine is Volvo Tamd 74 at 480hp or 2002s with the new version of the Cats at 450hp.
They drink as a lot per mile, CoG makes them become unefficent.
Old 47 Camargue eats the 44 Camargue in any sea though.

For similar $$$ I would go for a Fairline 43 Targa (agreed Sunseeker main deck is much better though) or Princess V50 both of these have good engine power.

 

[Promarine11]

A good solid craft. As per tests very well built at the time( often overbuilt ). Unlike the 46 which was tough very sea worthy thirsty and at semi displacement + very stern heavy ( where steering was not possible without a decent application of the trim tabs). The 44 is a tough all rounder and well balanced. Having delivered and crewed a number the Volvo's were the natural economical choice. Difficult to fault.

 

[petem]

I like the Camargue 44, very pretty boat.

 

[MedMilo]

I had a 2000 Camargue for three years and loved it. Good hull and punched well above it's weight in most seas in my opinion. And I even managed to keep an Avon 320 jetrib on the back! I had the Volvo engines which were good and powerful enough, though I can't remember exactly which ones they were - maybe the TAMD 74s

 

[PowerYachtBlog]

A good solid craft. As per tests very well built at the time( often overbuilt ). Unlike the 46 which was tough very sea worthy thirsty and at semi displacement + very stern heavy ( where steering was not possible without a decent application of the trim tabs). The 44 is a tough all rounder and well balanced. Having delivered and crewed a number the Volvo's were the natural economical choice. Difficult to fault.

They are all but the same, minus the higher free board, up/down bathing platform, and 100kg more of weight of the 46 forward.
You cannot fault one and and promote the other.
46 Portofino have a few structural issues around the radar arch and wind-screen though.

Volvo Tamd 74 will give you WOT 30/31 knots clean and unloaded, goes down to 28/29 knots loaded. Economical cruising is around 22 knots.
If I remember well they consume over 5.5 liter per nm at 22 knots.
Which is much more (I'd say 30% more) to the average of this size, a problem for the boat being under powered and not having an efficient hull set up to the hull design.
The propeller tunnels should have gone in the set up (aft engines) they used and I am sure it would have gained (not much in top speed) but cruising would have been much better.