jimmy_the_builder
Well-Known Member
Ooh - what are you getting next? I like the T64, doesn't seem like you've had it long...?
Targa 50 on eBay
- Thread starter jrudge
- Start date
Ooh - what are you getting next? I like the T64, doesn't seem like you've had it long...?
jrudge
Well-Known Member
It was £430k the other day and now as you say back up.
Un scientifically most of the ones I have seen have been circa £500k. They are starting to age, and will benefit ( if not need) a refurb. Having just done mine the bill is quite signifiant hence i thought it worth posting at £400k.
This one was / is hull number 1 which has pros and cons - but was also fully loaded ex factory.
I always liked the T50, my ex wife hated it when we looked at one. The forward cabin was huge.
Sishoe
Well-Known Member
I'm just having my usual 18 month itch, probably come to nothing.
The T64 is an amazing boat, especially for what i paid for it, but its a bit big for the Solent, I can get a 3 cabin boat for 10ft less.
Portofino
Well-Known Member
I Agree with you here .
They can and do say anything it’s relivance is immaterial.
Here’s why in a mature market with big ticket items like boats the supply is few unlike cars and due to the complexity of the hull and machinery the buyer normally will do his / her own due diligence.
None of that DD investigation involves the reason for sale .
Imho it’s best not to give a reason it ,give anything away to the buyer that a dumb buyer ( they not all dumb btw ) thinks you are desperate and ends up wasting your time with low ball offers .
Unless you are desperate need the £ now / soon .In which case crash it out as suggested ( I think I mentioned a figure too )
Of £350 K asking and see where you end up .
Gimmicks and gimmick adds more so on E bay with a mature market cohort of buyers does not work .
Hence I,am with RD , approach use a marque broker let them set the price and marketing strategy and sensible time line before “ new price “ etc .They know the mkt .
I,am sure they have an internal list of what theses are selling for .Thats the impression I got from when I sold my SS via SS .France .As it happens there number and mine were identical and it went within 3 weeks .
But I kinda worked out like some reply’s above by studying the internet mkt what that number was it’s not rocket science .
So will a wise buyer .
As said the dynamics of big ticket used boat sales ( probably a mover upper buyer ? ) are very different to a car .
Most car changes are triggered by boredom .How ever I have to mention super cars as the dynamics to change are more like
“ how may months can I fund in a [ insert brand ] with x £ “
They often have multiple owners , something like 3/5 months if that each in the 1 st 3 years .
It’s not unusual for a super car to have 7/10 owners within 2-3 years , in fact fairly normal .
As long as the service book is stamped that seems to be the market acceptable practice to make it all ok .
Then after year 3 the depreciation is thus a real petrol head will buy with a view to long term ownership- defined as greater than 2 years
Remember the SC manufactures are bringing newer more desirable modals out 2/3 times / year .Look at Mclaren for example .
Find me a 1 owner 3 year old one please ?
But you can’t imho apply SC buy / seek rules to boats , which ( happy to stick my neck out agian J rudge
) it seems to me this vendor has attempted with this boat .Thats yet another reason the add stands out as odd when I read it .“ trade price “ for the SC if a p- ex - but not for the boat seemingly.£3-3.5 K it would be gone .
Last edited:
Portofino
Well-Known Member
petem
Well-Known Member
When we bought our boat, the broker was up front with the reason for sale. The vendors were elderly and both had fallen into poor health and boat had therefore been little used for the previous 18 months. It was pretty easy to confirm that the backstory was legit. Knowing what we did we were able to make an offer that was fair to the sellers but also reflected the fact that we would need to do some debugging to get it back into A1 condition.
Portofino
Well-Known Member
Yeh that’s different than advertising it “ owner selling for health reasons “
Or course during the course of the buying process at some stage not , “ Hello I,am the broker ,how do you do ? he’s ill that’s why its for sale “
Once the two parties feel there’s a sale then the buyer had the confidence to ask and the broker the confidence the tell the truth esp in your case if the truth fits the condition.
I looked a couple of Itama on a Pershing in a hanger dry stored , the youngest resident had been in there 3 years unused .
Here’s what the broker said in his office before we went to the hanger .
1- owners had a heart attack and never recovered - 3 y ago
2- deceased estate the family ( 5 y ago ) stored it and now want a sale
3- bankruptcy owners been hiding it 4 years now wants to sell .
All three need recommissioning at €10 K each .All north European owners with boats in the SoF , long range guardian looked after and it was his hanger a couple of copters and some Harley’s stored too for clients .
Thing is Pete they not advertised as that.
The ads were straight regular boat ads pics , descriptions, tech spec , pics a mixture of hanger and brochures but that’s normal broker behaviour anyhow.
I walked in the end after crawling over all three , it wasn’t, the re commissioning hassle it was just a normal reason none of them exactly met the layout requirements or tech requirements.
One had GM 2 strokes , one had V 8,s I wanted a 6 , the Pershing had Arnesons, Which I interpreted coming from outdrives similar hassle with rams / seals / water ingress = big bills going Fwds .
So the reason for sale while nice to know did not influence or played a 0.5 % part in the decision process .
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Why, if you don't mind me asking? The cylinders layout/number per se seems a weird thing to include in any wish list.
I mean, in the 800hp power node which is typical of the boat size I was interested in, I would have rather wanted Cat 3406 than MAN engines, but the fact that the former is 6L vs. V8 of the latter is just incidental.
Portofino
Well-Known Member
At the time moving from VP outdrives to marinised truck engines + propulsion wanted straight shafts I was ( righty or wrongly) thinking the line of least potentially hassle and running costs .
The V8,s have double to no of oil and air filters .For me with Itama then almost 80 % certain it had to one they did a baffling range that fitted into the already pre purchased berth sat waiting in the 13-14 M size .
45 ,46 , 42/48 in the end with a nod to the Admiral ( galley layout , saloon table size ) the 42/48 modal came out first .
Obviously after a few years of bigger boat ownership , today I would not really bother thinking about the additional service items in the total scheme of things .But we can all say “ if only I knew then what I know now “:encouragement:
The 42/48 being a narrower beam than the others had a deeper V @23 degrees and obviously more room in the ER lateral to the engines .
At the time I though the fuel burn would be lower than the V8 too which is correct but i can’t put a like for like € saving compared with running a pair of V 8 ,s and with fuel prices only one direction I,am not regretting going down the straight 6 route which was a viable choice.
rubberduck
Well-Known Member
That's fine, if something were to happen to me then the broker would be at liberty to tell genuinely interested buyers. They could also mention the no penny spared upkeep etc. To advertise such things for everyone to see is both pointless & possibly detrimental IMO.
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Ok, that's a fair point.
Not sure about fuel burn, though. That's bound to depend much more on the prop demand (hence engine output), I reckon.
In fact, IIRC your 6L engines burn 90 lph vs. 80 of my V8 at the same cruising speed of 1800 rpm.
But that's bound to be driven by the fact that your boat, even if lighter and smaller, goes at 28kts vs. 22 of mine at the same rpm, demanding (unsurprisingly) a bit more power in the process.
Otherwise such difference wouldn't make sense.
Portofino
Well-Known Member
But if you use the speed as the common denominator then the V 8 uses more significantly more or the 6 less .Lets start by our two boats as you have done .
At 22 knots I,am in no mans land with the turbos at 1400 something maybe touching 1500 rpm the poor things are just about getting a little boost and the L/ hr down at about 60 .
For Yours to cruise at 28 knots you will be burning a heluva lot more than my 90 per side and I estimate mid season fuelled up for a long day well N of 2000 rpm circa 2100 out of a slightly higher headroom.??
Do you really want to cane them that much ?
Let’s compare a 14 M Itama with the V8 ,s the 46 ,production from about 95 to 98 4.46 beam about 23 tonnes dry to the later 42 m2001 - 2004 then same hull with Bvlgari years renames to 48 , was about 60 cm shorter than the 46 and beam 4,16 coming in dry at 17.6 tonnes .
The extra torque of the V8 46 means it’s got a higher top speed by a couple of knots on paper because obviously it’s propped different to the 42 but in real use at real cruise set at 1800 ish rpm or higher the speeds of the two are more / less same as the 6 has a lower rpm range and the 15,4 L 8 ,s burn more than the 12.8 L 6. S .
Aside the 6 s have 1/2 the number of turbos and risers to future replace when they eventually go as well as the same ratio of annual consumables V8 s have two oil filters and two air filters to the 6 s single .
In other words you get the same day to day cruise speed from the 42/48 as you get from the slightly bigger 46 .
Also on the subject of underwater rams .Amarti in his wisdom placed the props so far back at the transom with the 46 to chase down the shaft angle as much as possible, there no place for the rudder stocks and ram .So they were placed on a submerged rudder bar under the bathing platform at the optimal distance .
The really clever bit is the two vertical rams to raise the rudders and cut parasitic drag .Obviously reduce steerage as well .
I read that at the time as hassle = ram seals failing etc etc in the same way as read ram seal issues with Arnesons.
Sorry for the TD folks , but I wonder sometimes if I,am the only one ( as argued many times and ridiculed before ) that looks UNDER the water line 1 st at boat shows before making a decision to go on boat and view the wow factor “ mid cabin “ or “ griddle “ to do the prawns
Or if it’s a wet show I wanna have a test drive with the Admiral , lost count how many salesmen she’s given the look after the 1 st slam then barked “ No turn round sorry we not having this “
At 22 knots I,am in no mans land with the turbos at 1400 something maybe touching 1500 rpm the poor things are just about getting a little boost and the L/ hr down at about 60 .
For Yours to cruise at 28 knots you will be burning a heluva lot more than my 90 per side and I estimate mid season fuelled up for a long day well N of 2000 rpm circa 2100 out of a slightly higher headroom.??
Do you really want to cane them that much ?
Let’s compare a 14 M Itama with the V8 ,s the 46 ,production from about 95 to 98 4.46 beam about 23 tonnes dry to the later 42 m2001 - 2004 then same hull with Bvlgari years renames to 48 , was about 60 cm shorter than the 46 and beam 4,16 coming in dry at 17.6 tonnes .
The extra torque of the V8 46 means it’s got a higher top speed by a couple of knots on paper because obviously it’s propped different to the 42 but in real use at real cruise set at 1800 ish rpm or higher the speeds of the two are more / less same as the 6 has a lower rpm range and the 15,4 L 8 ,s burn more than the 12.8 L 6. S .
Aside the 6 s have 1/2 the number of turbos and risers to future replace when they eventually go as well as the same ratio of annual consumables V8 s have two oil filters and two air filters to the 6 s single .
In other words you get the same day to day cruise speed from the 42/48 as you get from the slightly bigger 46 .
Also on the subject of underwater rams .Amarti in his wisdom placed the props so far back at the transom with the 46 to chase down the shaft angle as much as possible, there no place for the rudder stocks and ram .So they were placed on a submerged rudder bar under the bathing platform at the optimal distance .
The really clever bit is the two vertical rams to raise the rudders and cut parasitic drag .Obviously reduce steerage as well .
I read that at the time as hassle = ram seals failing etc etc in the same way as read ram seal issues with Arnesons.
Sorry for the TD folks , but I wonder sometimes if I,am the only one ( as argued many times and ridiculed before ) that looks UNDER the water line 1 st at boat shows before making a decision to go on boat and view the wow factor “ mid cabin “ or “ griddle “ to do the prawns
Or if it’s a wet show I wanna have a test drive with the Admiral , lost count how many salesmen she’s given the look after the 1 st slam then barked “ No turn round sorry we not having this “
Last edited:
Portofino
Well-Known Member
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Pardon? It doesn't make any sense to use the speed as the common denominator, in my books.
The driving factor is the power required by the props at any given speed, which depends on the boat weight and the hydrodynamic efficiency of its hull.
What any engine do is supply the required power, and I can't see any reason why for any given output a V8 should burn more than a 6L (or any other cylinder layout, for that matter), AOTBE.
Let's stick to "my" V8 vs. "your" L6 comparison, even if it ain't 100% correct, because there are other differences aside from the cylinders layout - namely, +14% both in power and weight for the former vs. the latter, but let's forget that.
If you burn 90 l/h at 1800rpm, according to MAN specs it means that you are pulling from each of your engines 335hp, to satisfy the specific prop demand of your boat.
Now, in order to produce exactly the same output at the same rpm (hence obviously making the same speed, for any given hull), my V8s would burn 92 liters.
That's a 2% difference, which I have a funny feeling that could be nullified or even reversed if we should make the same calculation at some other rpm, because for every engine there are tiny differences in their typical most efficient rpm - not to mention that 1800 is closer to the max rated 2200 of the L6 vs. 2300 of the V8.
Regardless, hardly a difference that could justify a sweeping generalization about V8s burning more than L6, I reckon.
Oh, and just to reconcile my previous example about our boats burning a different amount of fuel at the same rpm, which I accept that could have been misleading:
If each of my engines burn 10 l/h less than yours at the same rpm, it's NOT simply due to the speed difference.
It's because, based on a combination of multiple factors (different speed being a relevant one of course, but size and weight being equally if not more important), your boat demands 335x2hp to keep her going at 28kts, while mine demands 290x2hp to keep her going at 22kts.
What really matters is that both engines can (running at different loads) produce either power levels, as required by the prop demand, and burning different amounts of fuel as a consequence.
If we reverse the previous reasoning, again based on MAN specs, my boats would burn 78.5 liters rather than 80, is she would be powered by L6 engines.
Not exactly worth writing home about, or is it?
Portofino
Well-Known Member
But surley to compare fuel burn in two boats that you need a tape measure to tell apart size wise ,like the V8 46 and the L6 42/48 hulls why not use cruising speed as as it happens is more / less identical .
Although comparing boats with cars can get tricky but with fuel burn I think is not tricky in fact a good refference .
In the showroom the Perspex display uses mpg or L/ 100 km in the EU use speed , Urban , 56 and 75 mph ( or EU L/100 km ) .
This means you can waltz around say a Merc showroom and low and behold the V 8 variant of the same car ( boat hull in boat speak ) compared to the V6 or straight 4 gobbles more fuel at those speed points .
Oh and no prize for working out that the next physical size up say move from C to E class funnily enough also burns more fuel .Thats in boat speak the Kg,s .
I don,t call the sales person and say “ dear chap - calculating the 8 speed box and the cylinder bank shut down taking into consideration the gradient , passenger s and final drive ,not forgetting the 20 inch alloys - do you think the V8 will consume the same if not less than the V 6 running around Piccadilly’s circus in London ? “
All three boats yours a heavy V 8 Ed version + air drag , a Itama 46 lighter with the same V8 ,s as yours and my L 6 @ 28 knots my chosen denominator the L6 will burn less .
You have not said what your fuel burn is est at 28 knots btw
Although comparing boats with cars can get tricky but with fuel burn I think is not tricky in fact a good refference .
In the showroom the Perspex display uses mpg or L/ 100 km in the EU use speed , Urban , 56 and 75 mph ( or EU L/100 km ) .
This means you can waltz around say a Merc showroom and low and behold the V 8 variant of the same car ( boat hull in boat speak ) compared to the V6 or straight 4 gobbles more fuel at those speed points .
Oh and no prize for working out that the next physical size up say move from C to E class funnily enough also burns more fuel .Thats in boat speak the Kg,s .
I don,t call the sales person and say “ dear chap - calculating the 8 speed box and the cylinder bank shut down taking into consideration the gradient , passenger s and final drive ,not forgetting the 20 inch alloys - do you think the V8 will consume the same if not less than the V 6 running around Piccadilly’s circus in London ? “
All three boats yours a heavy V 8 Ed version + air drag , a Itama 46 lighter with the same V8 ,s as yours and my L 6 @ 28 knots my chosen denominator the L6 will burn less .
You have not said what your fuel burn is est at 28 knots btw
Last edited:
MapisM
Well-Known Member
I didn't say that because it's completely irrelevant, since weight and size are nowhere near comparable.
But if you are interested, I happen to know the captain who helms both (!) the DPs that a lucky chap owns, one being a sistership of mine, and the other a much larger one.
And he confirmed me that their normal cruise speed with the 56 is 27kts @ 2000rpm, burning 200 l/h overall with a clean bottom.
Otoh, I can't see the relevance of that, considering that we are talking of boats which are 10+T apart, no less.
Btw, if the specs I found by quickly googling for Itama 46 are correct, that's also 5T or so heavier than yours, i.e. just about half way.
Anyway, unless you can find any mistake in my previous reasoning (and I'm not saying that there can't be some, mind), comparing boats is a totally meaningless exercise.
The point you raised was that a L6 burns less fuel than a V8, and the numbers I posted confirmed that. So, don't worry, be happy. :encouragement:
No need to make the next question, i.e. "how much less?", since the answer (2%) might be disappointing...
But if you are interested, I happen to know the captain who helms both (!) the DPs that a lucky chap owns, one being a sistership of mine, and the other a much larger one.
And he confirmed me that their normal cruise speed with the 56 is 27kts @ 2000rpm, burning 200 l/h overall with a clean bottom.
Otoh, I can't see the relevance of that, considering that we are talking of boats which are 10+T apart, no less.
Btw, if the specs I found by quickly googling for Itama 46 are correct, that's also 5T or so heavier than yours, i.e. just about half way.
Anyway, unless you can find any mistake in my previous reasoning (and I'm not saying that there can't be some, mind), comparing boats is a totally meaningless exercise.
The point you raised was that a L6 burns less fuel than a V8, and the numbers I posted confirmed that. So, don't worry, be happy. :encouragement:
No need to make the next question, i.e. "how much less?", since the answer (2%) might be disappointing...
Last edited:
Portofino
Well-Known Member
Yes at the time I figured a V8 15 .4 L , 5 ton heavier boat would burn more fuel running at cruising speed , call it 28 knots or 30 than a L 6 pushing 5 tons less .
You ask me why I went for the L 6 slightly narrower and few cm shorter version .
The fuel burn difference @ cruise was 1 /3 rd of the answer the others being fwd maintenance of the engines and that offputting rudder bar hydraulic set up in the V8 version .
The dealer / broker confirmed by choice at handover .
Your figures seem out .
Can you reconcile the 335 Hp you quote for my L6 ,s at 1800 rpm with the 80 % Load the screen shows ?
I take that of 80 % of the 700 Hp available, which if correct is greater than the 335 around 50 % which is way off .
Just saying I use real time data not a graph from another graph on the net .
There will be real fuel burn figures about when the builder and engine supplier do the prop magic on hull
For example here a sample ( not my boat btw )
But this what YOU need and others worried about fuel burn if you can,t see L/ hr on an engine management screen .
Then add a bit on for age and less then perfect bottom + sterngear ,
Engine graphs on there own are erroneous.
View attachment 74604
You ask me why I went for the L 6 slightly narrower and few cm shorter version .
The fuel burn difference @ cruise was 1 /3 rd of the answer the others being fwd maintenance of the engines and that offputting rudder bar hydraulic set up in the V8 version .
The dealer / broker confirmed by choice at handover .
Your figures seem out .
Can you reconcile the 335 Hp you quote for my L6 ,s at 1800 rpm with the 80 % Load the screen shows ?
I take that of 80 % of the 700 Hp available, which if correct is greater than the 335 around 50 % which is way off .
Just saying I use real time data not a graph from another graph on the net .
There will be real fuel burn figures about when the builder and engine supplier do the prop magic on hull
For example here a sample ( not my boat btw )
But this what YOU need and others worried about fuel burn if you can,t see L/ hr on an engine management screen .
Then add a bit on for age and less then perfect bottom + sterngear ,
Engine graphs on there own are erroneous.
View attachment 74604
Last edited:
alt
Well-Known Member
Why are the rudders on rams? I understand what the rams do... but why?!
Portofino
Well-Known Member
The horizontal one of the three moves the blades L and R .
The other two more vertical attached to the hinged bar lift the rudders up reducing parasitic drag at speed .
If you want to turn tighter you dip them down and in the marina set them down for max blade area.
On mine the props are as far back as he dared and the rudders are actually fixed to the transom just behind .
What he did here is use small blades .Unlike the 46 where you can dip the rudders for high speed control ( if you want ) when the speed risers the hulls of these Itamas do lift up , which is nice in a drag reducing way , other boats do too , theses seem to lift disproportionately imho .So much so my rudders are essentially useless over 26 knots .
Indeed to get any meaningful tight turns I reduce speed .
Over 30 knots a supertanker had a tighter turning circle .
Prop wash at speed kill the rudders because I think they are too small and too close to the anode with the 42/48 View attachment 74607
So he’s trying to minimise the shaft angle despite a central engine room location comprising the internal accommodation layout .
The lower the shaft angle the more thrust Fwds , less vectored off dragging the stern down ,the better in threory the AoA the less reliance on tabs when running .It works in practice too .
Better pic View attachment 74609 see how the props can,t really go any further back .
Of course you outdrive boys can trim the drives to get the optimal prop thrust .
Last edited:
MapisM
Well-Known Member
No rocket science, I simply threw the relevant numbers into a spreadsheet to do the math, but I didn't save it.
So, forgive me for not wanting to do it again, but the logic is very simple, if you wish to cross-check it:
1) I checked the specific fuel burn of both engines, expressed in g/kWh;
2) I converted that number, into l/kWh (that was around 0.27, IIRC);
3) Now, if you burn 90 l/h, it's just a matter of dividing 90 by by this l/kWh, and you get the kW output that the engine is producing - assuming it's working as it should, obviously.
Therefore, coming to think of it, I did make a mistake:
in my post #54, I mentioned 335 and 290 hp, while the result of the above calculation is expressed in kW instead.
Sorry for that, but the wrong unit of measurement for power doesn't affect one bit all other numbers, fuel burn included.
Otoh, I don't think it's as easy as you think to reconcile "my" calculations with the %load which you read in your instruments, anyway.
First of all, I never understood how exactly the ECU elaborates that specific number, but I have a funny feeling that it's actually made up against the theoretical engine curves, pretty much with the same logic that I followed with my calculations.
In fact, it's the ECU that calculates in real time how much fuel to squeeze into the engine, so the fuel burn numbers are accurate by definition, so to speak - defective injectors or pump aside.
Otoh, the load can only be calculated vs. the potential max fuel that the ECU could squeeze at any given rpm, which is bound to be based on pre-programmed theoretical curves, I reckon.
Happy to be enlightened if anyone knows better, though (where's LS1 when one needs him?!
)Regardless of the above, I believe that what you are envisaging is wrong anyway.
You can't conclude that an engine whose max output is 700hp@2200, while running at 1800rpm with 80% load, is producing 80% of 700hp, i.e. 560hp.
The load wouldn't make sense unless related to the specific rpm, and I don't think that the full load output at 1800rpm can be the same as at 2200.
I don't have the MAN specs tables handy atm, but based only on the numbers discussed so far, I can estimate the following:
1) what we've got here is an engine burning 90l/h at 1800rpm.
2) Based on the manufacturer's specific fuel burn numbers, this implies an output of 335kW - i.e. 450hp (sorry again for the previous mistake).
3) Assuming that such output is generated with an 80% engine load, the estimated output at the same rpm with full load should be 450/.8, i.e. 526hp.
By and large, this sounds a reasonable number to me, for an engine whose max power is 700@2200.
But now you made me curious to check how close this is to MAN numbers - will do asap.
As an aside, are the sheets which you posted of those two Itama 55 all what was given to their owners? REALLY?
If so, I'm even surprised that MAN accepted them for validating the engines warranty!
I have a copy of the official MAN protocol for marine engines installations, which was filled upon seatrial of my boat back in 2004.
It's made of EIGHT pages, and was made with a MAN engineer onboard, who spent (and I know this for sure) hours just to attach his own workshop instruments directly to the engines, cross checking the relevant results with the onboard instruments.
And the parameters which were checked are MUCH more than in those pathetic sheets.
I mean, on my report I've got exhaust backpressure, all sort of environmental data, all sort of temperature and pressure data, EGT at all rpm and split for each cylinder bank, plus plenty of other stuff that I can't even remember by heart.
Last but not least, it's interesting to notice that on two sisterships, the one with the (lighter!) V10 engines burns MORE fuel than the V12, at comparable speeds.
Explain that, if you can!
