Sunseeker Predator 56 running costs.

P

Portugeezer

New Member
Joined
23 Oct 2021
Messages
20
Location
Portugal
Visit site
Evening all,

I´ve been on the lookout for a 50ish ft sports cruiser and been offered a Predator 56. The boat is in budget, the marina fees considerably higher than a 50 footer but what concerns me is running/ maintenance costs. It´s got Man 800´s and I´m guessing around 220L/hr at a gentle cruise, does that sound close? What I really have no idea on is the maintenance and servicing costs that I´d likely incur. I understand the 1000hr service is open wallet surgery but what about general annual bills? Anyone own or owned one that can give me an idea?
 
jrudge said:
In Mallorca ( where i am with a squadron 58) my costs for mooring , fuel , insurance, maintainence , lifting , anti foul are close for £50k.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply. That figure is not too far off what I´d guessed. I wrote down a few numbers and came up with €45k based on 50hrs use. I imagine mooring costs here in the Algarve might be less than Mallorca. Does my guess on 220L/hr sound about right?
 
I’ve got the old V8 800’s and getting around 200/220L @ 1800rpm/ 30knots.
I‘m doing a fair bit of my own maintenance and costs are a lot lower than 50k, berth costs are what they are, depending on where you are, I’ve gone from 28k to 7k !
 
Chris H said:
I’ve got the old V8 800’s and getting around 200/220L @ 1800rpm/ 30knots.
I‘m doing a fair bit of my own maintenance and costs are a lot lower than 50k, berth costs are what they are, depending on where you are, I’ve gone from 28k to 7k !
Click to expand...

Thanks Chris, that´s encouraging. I´d also plan on doing as much maintenance as possible myself. I´d guesstimated €10k p/a maintenance but maybe I´d have some change. Are these engines generally as good as any other?
 
Portugeezer said:
Thanks Chris, that´s encouraging. I´d also plan on doing as much maintenance as possible myself. I´d guesstimated €10k p/a maintenance but maybe I´d have some change. Are these engines generally as good as any other?
Click to expand...
There is a face book page for MAN engines that is worth joining, although there are some scary stores…..just like any engines.
Maintenance is key to the life of any engine, check invoices for checking valve clearance, engine cooling system flushing, any injector work, it’s all timed but something you might not have to do if it’d already been done.
 
I was told nearer 240 L / h upwards depending on fouling for the V8 MAN s when I was stud in a hanger in the SoF with a dozen boats in “shopping “
My later 2003 in-line 6 s do 180 L/ h at around 1800 rpm as I can access fuel flow in real time on the MMDS screens .

A lot depends on the load % which itself is dependent on the degree of fouling and the weight of the boat .

The problem with manufacturers stats they run them on a test bed in laboratory conditions which yield optimistic numbers quite considerably different then real world numbers in a boat .

A 56 Pred is a big boat S Seeker never got into BS marketing with exaggerated length etc .

Itama fitted those MAN 800 v8 s in the 46 that’s how I know a bit about them .The eq Itama 54/56 had V12 s by way of assessment of the amount of work they are going to do in the Pred for you .

On the MAN FB mechanic forum they report pre 2001 on the V engines from the late 90 s failed valve keepers on the inlet valves only .
You can identify them by removing a cover .The retro fitted inlet valve stems have 4 groves for the keepers .A lot were recalled or diiligent engineers / owners opted to up grade as MAN fixed the valve stem design, from about 2002/3 .
They know the serial numbers of the effected upgrade motors and the ones with the single groove .
The Mangrenade valve stems have one single groove and the keeper pings loose = piston and valve meet .

This effected the V s from late 90 s to approx 2001 .
As i said the FB guys can access the data base .
 
Portofino said:
On the MAN FB mechanic forum they report pre 2001 on the V engines from the late 90 s failed valve keepers on the inlet valves only .
You can identify them by removing a cover .The retro fitted inlet valve stems have 4 groves for the keepers .A lot were recalled or diiligent engineers / owners opted to up grade as MAN fixed the valve stem design, from about 2002/3 .
They know the serial numbers of the effected upgrade motors and the ones with the single groove .
The Mangrenade valve stems have one single groove and the keeper pings loose = piston and valve meet .

This effected the V s from late 90 s to approx 2001 .
As i said the FB guys can access the data base .
Click to expand...


This effected the V s from late 90 s to approx 2001 .
As i said the FB guys can access the data base .
[/QUOTE]


Thanks for that info. This particular boat is a 2000 so sounds like right in the "Danger zone"
 
A 17/18 meters on average has a maintenance costs about 25/30k euro year. This excludes diesel and running costs.
Can go easily higher to that if you are in a prime location and your berths costs 20k or more a year versus the 10k average in most Med marinas.

The 1000 hour service costs is 5-10k per engine on the 800s.
 
TWO issues injector s and coolers
Not necessarily connected .

It it’s any help in your deliberations the V8 s need the cooler strip down in the sense you can’t avoid it .The location of the charge air cooler and it’s plumbing means it inevitably gonna salt up with time .They do gradually rise in temps as time goes by .
The more unused like leisure boats used in the summer as a typical pattern = the more certain of a gradual temp rise .

MAN s injector pull / test / replace tips time is actually 2000 hrs .How ever there is latitude on this .Commercial guys which there a lot of btw go to 6000 hrs between injector pulls but there boats are in regular use .

It’s more of a fuel quality issue not a hrs issue .Crappy fuel = stuck injectors = hosing = piston damage.
So if you were to pull the injectors at 1000 hrs and each is sent away = perfect clean bill of health = refit .
Then you fill up with crappy fuel then by 1005 hrs = a piston hole from a stuck injector .

Commercial guys are fussy with the filtration and obviously the reg through put helps mitigate from stagnant fuel bug issues .

So there’s no gospel “ thou shalt do this “ and never suffer an issue .
If you over emphasise the fuel hygiene then injector issues should be minimised .This means Water In Fuel ( WIF ) alarms , the best ( or better put least worst ) filtration sizes in your primary and secondary and regular use of anti bug additives esp in the winter then this is the best anyone can do .

Returning to the cooler strips MAN actually recommend every 24 months but they write the book for commercial where the bills are simply like any business past on as part of the overheads to the final punter end user .

As a leisure prospect where the buck stops with you once out of warranty the MAN techs I have spoken to ( Two French + one Italian fully franchised techs ) suggest other wise .

5 years as a precaution or obviously if temps rise sooner .
This brings me back to the V8 and if I may be permitted to bring the inline 6 which I have .
There is a difference .
The I 6 fully drains out of seawater when at rest unlike the V 8 s .This means they never really clog up .Or any tiny residue salt / crap is simply flushed out after a good Italian tune up / high speed run .So they never need stripping because of temp risers unlike the V8 s .

In the past 5 / 6 years in have not actually had a full strip .I have asked / enquired twice .Once to the French tech , once to the new to me Italian tech .Both said the same they do not need doing and explain what I have said as why ^^^ .

My temps never really move 82 winter , 84 summer every season .

I did have the pumps rebuilt last winter @€4000 approx the pair the first time since new 2003 I was told .
The seals were weeping a little nothing big .Just age .

How ever there is a downer to leaving it or waiting its the seals and gaskets eventually start to seep - quite naturally and sea water might get trapped in crevices and start in theory some corrosion.The parts are expensive if the edges do not make a tight fit .Regular strips mean fresh seals / o rings / gaskets etc . You can see with regular inspections if any joints have a green hue = seeping .


So from experience I had a minor ex gasket leak in 2017 and the French techs 3 of them had to remove the coolers to get to it .
So we eye balled inside them .I initiated the clean them conversation but they were clean un salted un crapped up .They then explained why so we left them .Told me the I 6 never needs it doing .

Summer 2020 a sensor on a injector failed ( no show stopper could still use the boat ) This was replaced as a whole unit injector and all at 980 hrs .I enquired about the myth on forums “ thou shalt pull the injectors every 1000 hrs “ and he said no it was not necessary.This is while a lap top was connected and I saw all 6 there bar charts , pressure opening times + much more while the motor was running .
Told not necessary.How ever he did say 2000 hrs .
The duff one came out easily BTW .I mention this as some ( not MAN method ) end up ceased up and problematic to remove = just pull them to change the o ring as a preventative measure - I think this applies to VP fastening system ??

With MAN they sit inside the valve cap next to the rockers .You have to remove the valve caps for access .
Ceasing up , playing hard to pull is a none issue .

So i volunteered in France for a coolant strip was refused by Fr franchised MAN team .
Volunteered for a 1000 hrs injector pull + strip both at 980 hrs was refused by Italian franchised MAN team

Italian guy sea trailed the boat and we agreed on the 80 % load concept and the fuel hygiene side .
As some of you know I am a convert to the American sport fisher captains who swear by never exceeding 80 % load in the interests of longevity so is the Italian MAN tech .

Sorry for the long post .
Its difficult to give any reassurance of engine reliability online it too multifaceted……it DEPENDS.

Whats it in .
How it’s used .
Fuel hygiene.
 
Portugeezer said:
Does my guess on 220L/hr sound about right?
Click to expand...
I've got the very same engines on my 56 feet flybridge, and I hope you don't mind me saying that your question is meaningless, for two reasons.

First, fuel burn is almost never the most important component in the TCO of a boat like this.
And I'm saying "almost" only because I guess that theoretically there could be someone out there who crunch several thousands of miles each season with these boats, but I never came across anyone who actually does.

Second, it's liters per NM that matters, not LPH.
Just consider Chris boat, which is powered by the same engines as mine, but is very different in all other respects: a bit smaller, lighter, faster, and equipped with surface transmission/props.
As he previously said, at 1800 RPM she burns 200/220 LPH, while mine burns "only" 160 LPH, give or take.
Trouble is, talking of fuel burn at any given RPM is meaningless without considering the engine load, which depends on the so-called propeller demand.
Which in turn depends on the boat shape, weight, cleanliness, transmissions, props - you name it.
So, it's not surprising at all that the same engines, at the same RPM, can burn much more fuel in one boat compared to another.
Just consider that this engine is rated for 800hp at 2300 RPM, but can produce up to 714hp already at 1800 RPM (burning 136 LPH - hence 272 liters for two engines), if fully loaded.
With a bit of reverse engineering on these numbers, we can find that on Chris' boat, at 1800 RPM, the engines run somewhere between 73% and 80% load (200 and 220 LPH respectively), while on my boat they are more lightly loaded, at around 60%.
Then again, this alone does NOT mean that my boat burns less than his, because at the same 1800 RPM, he makes 30 kts vs. 22 of my boat.
So, in terms of fuel consumption for any given distance, his boat burns exactly as much as mine (7,3 liters/NM) if we consider 220 LPH, and is actually a bit more frugal (6,7 L/NM) if and when she burns 200 LPH.

But mind, it's just by coincidence that our boats, which as I said are very different, have a very similar fuel burn in L/NM, and I have no clue about how close (or not) to these numbers the Predator 56 is.
On one hand, she's more similar to Chris' Pershing than to any flybridge boat like mine, but as I recall she runs on normal shafts, not surface drives.
So, since the engines are 100% mechanical and can't have any indication of fuel burn in real time, I'm afraid there are only three ways to find out: test, test, test.
Looking forward to hearing your findings, if you will go for her! (y)
 
MapisM said:
I've got the very same engines on my 56 feet flybridge, and I hope you don't mind me saying that your question is meaningless, for two reasons.

First, fuel burn is almost never the most important component in the TCO of a boat like this.
And I'm saying "almost" only because I guess that theoretically there could be someone out there who crunch several thousands of miles each season with these boats, but I never came across anyone who actually does.

Second, it's liters per NM that matters, not LPH.
Just consider Chris boat, which is powered by the same engines as mine, but is very different in all other respects: a bit smaller, lighter, faster, and equipped with surface transmission/props.
As he previously said, at 1800 RPM she burns 200/220 LPH, while mine burns "only" 160 LPH, give or take.
Trouble is, talking of fuel burn at any given RPM is meaningless without considering the engine load, which depends on the so-called propeller demand.
Which in turn depends on the boat shape, weight, cleanliness, transmissions, props - you name it.
So, it's not surprising at all that the same engines, at the same RPM, can burn much more fuel in one boat compared to another.
Just consider that this engine is rated for 800hp at 2300 RPM, but can produce up to 714hp already at 1800 RPM (burning 136 LPH - hence 272 liters for two engines), if fully loaded.
With a bit of reverse engineering on these numbers, we can find that on Chris' boat, at 1800 RPM, the engines run somewhere between 73% and 80% load (200 and 220 LPH respectively), while on my boat they are more lightly loaded, at around 60%.
Then again, this alone does NOT mean that my boat burns less than his, because at the same 1800 RPM, he makes 30 kts vs. 22 of my boat.
So, in terms of fuel consumption for any given distance, his boat burns exactly as much as mine (7,3 liters/NM) if we consider 220 LPH, and is actually a bit more frugal (6,7 L/NM) if and when she burns 200 LPH.

But mind, it's just by coincidence that our boats, which as I said are very different, have a very similar fuel burn in L/NM, and I have no clue about how close (or not) to these numbers the Predator 56 is.
On one hand, she's more similar to Chris' Pershing than to any flybridge boat like mine, but as I recall she runs on normal shafts, not surface drives.
So, since the engines are 100% mechanical and can't have any indication of fuel burn in real time, I'm afraid there are only three ways to find out: test, test, test.
Looking forward to hearing your findings, if you will go for her! (y)
Click to expand...
Going off on a tangent…………I was told surface drives should be 20% faster and 20% more efficient than an equivalent shaft boat, no idea if that’s correct but it’s come from a few different sources now.
 
Chris H said:
Going off on a tangent…………I was told surface drives should be 20% faster and 20% more efficient than an equivalent shaft boat, no idea if that’s correct but it’s come from a few different sources now.
Click to expand...
Yes .
No shaft + rudder + p bracket parasitic drag .
Also your shaft angle vector ie lost thrust is lower minimal compared to av shafty in general .

Amarti with his central mounted engine and transom mounting of rudders managed to get the shaft angles under 10 degrees so did not loose as much in lost vector thrust .Also the rudders are tiny .
With the 46 ( actually same V8 s as yours ) his Anrnesons version only gained about 4 extra knots if that .
The Itama 56 of the 90 s and the current today’s 62 reach 42 knots on shafts .
The bigger 75 44/45 on Arnies .

But yes comparing your boat to MapishM s is like comparing a Merc SL to a Vito van :) ….in terms of performance.

With other manufacturers say the Sunseeker Porto 53 on VP D12 s / CAT C12 s the Arnie version came with 1100 Hp mans not 715 s …..so obviously it went measurably faster in every day use-age as they upped the Hp .
 
Last edited:
To make Arnies really work you need to factor in drag .
Drag in the sense of weight / displacement. The less hull in the water or more in the less dense air the faster it will achieve .
This where the likes of Baia come in.
They use ( have been for years btw ) composite technology in there hulls to reduce weight .

Take a Baia 48 it’s Uber fuel efficient on Arnies over 40 knots cruise ( max iirc 45/46 ?? ) because relatively weedy in this company- VP 480s only 6 cylinders can push it along .So 7.4 Litres guzzling 6 banger compared to Chris’s 15.4 L 8 bangers .
The Baia s optimise there low drag hulls It can sit all day @ 40 knots guzzling less fuel than chris doing 30 knots .


That partially explains why Amarti foray into Arnies never really took off as the hulls were just too heavy .The current 75 ,with Arnies are FG boats built on the Pershing line @ Forli .Marco Cassali designed.

Given a choice ( another tangent maybe ? ) when boat shopping always go for the larger engine size if the manufacturer offered a choices irrespective of its propulsion.
You see you don’t have to cane them and can get about quickly at lower fuel costs as you arrive sooner .

But as said over all fuel costs are not really the biggie unless you plan to do starship milage in which case a lighter Arnesons boat comes into its own .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top