390 or 400 DA
- Thread starter endeavor1
- Start date
Endeavor,
I ran the 40 ... in gas... didnt like it ... Boat got pushed around alot out in the bay... . wasn't even a snotty day.
Its alot weight for a gas motored boat... I very surprised how poorly it ran.
Boat was an 06 40 ( same as the 39 )
After that bay test we ran a 03 41 EC..... under same conditions boat handled so much better....
Rob
Rob
I ran the 40 ... in gas... didnt like it ... Boat got pushed around alot out in the bay... . wasn't even a snotty day.
Its alot weight for a gas motored boat... I very surprised how poorly it ran.
Boat was an 06 40 ( same as the 39 )
After that bay test we ran a 03 41 EC..... under same conditions boat handled so much better....
Rob
Rob
I would think he ment the way it handled, gas does not have the bite (torque). I agree with Rob, a boat that weight and size needs diesel. Keep in mind that the 8.1 motors may work in most conditions, in bad conditions it will stink. More important is if you have gas you will be burning those motors up. IMHO gas on a boat that weight is a no no ... a boat that weight is a diesel boat.
Walter
Walter
Dom,
My boat is on the edge, if I had to do it all over again I would have diesel. I find it hard to believe we only have a few hundred pounds difference. My experience with searay is they build a heavier boat. My boats weight is around 18k, I assumed the searay was more weight, not just a few hundred pounds.
As a previous searay owner , I saw with my silverton a much thiner glassed boat, my searay was IMO a tougher built boat, hence more glass and weight.
I did a quick search and could not come up with the weight of a 39 or 40 searay.... just for shi-ts and giggles I would like to see that spec.
Walter
My boat is on the edge, if I had to do it all over again I would have diesel. I find it hard to believe we only have a few hundred pounds difference. My experience with searay is they build a heavier boat. My boats weight is around 18k, I assumed the searay was more weight, not just a few hundred pounds.
As a previous searay owner , I saw with my silverton a much thiner glassed boat, my searay was IMO a tougher built boat, hence more glass and weight.
I did a quick search and could not come up with the weight of a 39 or 40 searay.... just for shi-ts and giggles I would like to see that spec.
Walter
From Silverton sight the 34/36 silverton is 18,550 and from Sea Ray site, the 39/40 Sea Ray is 19,300. The 34 Silverton, being a bridge boat, IMHO, would need the torque of diesel more than a cruiser. Surprisingly, Silverton offered the 34 with 5.7s as the base engine.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2007
- RO Number
- 25199
- Messages
- 190
I have a 97 400DA and we ran it in the bay at the end of November, about a 1.5' chop,it seemed to run fine. I have 7.4L 454 MPI with 340HP and we were running at 26MPH ** 3400RPM. Is this bad? Sometimes as I listen to the more experienced boaters and believe me you are all more experienced than me, I think that maybe with our age and experience may become a little bit tainted in how we think. Me personally, any day on my boat in the water is better than any day on land in my car or at the office for that matter 
Endeavor,
Ok, that is close..... again, if I had to do it all over again I would not have gas...... My boat burns 32 to 34 gallons an hour at a cruise of 21 knots. This is a true reading not a calculated reading. My same boat in diesel burns 18gph at the same cruise.
If you are a northeast boater like I am,that still does not warrant the extra cost to have diesel. At a 100 hours a season and the 50 to 65k difference in cost, that will buy alot of gas.
So since we are comparing gas to gas , I would not be comfortable with 8.1 merc motors, they are real crap motors compared to 8.1 crusader motors. IMO your searay is a better (fiberglass) built boat, but the power plant (crusader vs Merc) sucks. Do your homework on the internet and you will see what I mean.
In the mean time, I am no poster boy to represent crusader, I blew a motor with only 200 hours on it, bad valve keeper.
So in short here is my thoughts:
Searay vs Silverton..... I think Searay builds a more solid hull and the glass work is better.
Merc vs Crusader..... Crusader hands down..........
40 foot boat with gas..... not a good idea... will work but diesel would be better.....
Can't get any more honest than that, again I have owned both......
Best deal for the money, Silverton wins hands down...... P.S. Searay flybridge boats (the new ones) can't compare to the Silverton (layout, interior room and value). The Meridian is the contender in that arena.
Walter
Ok, that is close..... again, if I had to do it all over again I would not have gas...... My boat burns 32 to 34 gallons an hour at a cruise of 21 knots. This is a true reading not a calculated reading. My same boat in diesel burns 18gph at the same cruise.
If you are a northeast boater like I am,that still does not warrant the extra cost to have diesel. At a 100 hours a season and the 50 to 65k difference in cost, that will buy alot of gas.
So since we are comparing gas to gas , I would not be comfortable with 8.1 merc motors, they are real crap motors compared to 8.1 crusader motors. IMO your searay is a better (fiberglass) built boat, but the power plant (crusader vs Merc) sucks. Do your homework on the internet and you will see what I mean.
In the mean time, I am no poster boy to represent crusader, I blew a motor with only 200 hours on it, bad valve keeper.
So in short here is my thoughts:
Searay vs Silverton..... I think Searay builds a more solid hull and the glass work is better.
Merc vs Crusader..... Crusader hands down..........
40 foot boat with gas..... not a good idea... will work but diesel would be better.....
Can't get any more honest than that, again I have owned both......
Best deal for the money, Silverton wins hands down...... P.S. Searay flybridge boats (the new ones) can't compare to the Silverton (layout, interior room and value). The Meridian is the contender in that arena.
Walter
Bright ayes,
the 39/40 of today is way different then ur boat. It was a sloppy handling boat. Felt like alot bow steer... The diesel package are or was yanmar... Word was they were not a good choice for this boat but were the only ones that fit. The EC wasnt a fair comparason but its what my buddy was by testing... Id have thought the 39/40 would have shined against an aging boat... The ec shined....
Rob
the 39/40 of today is way different then ur boat. It was a sloppy handling boat. Felt like alot bow steer... The diesel package are or was yanmar... Word was they were not a good choice for this boat but were the only ones that fit. The EC wasnt a fair comparason but its what my buddy was by testing... Id have thought the 39/40 would have shined against an aging boat... The ec shined....
Rob
Rob:
The first year that Sea Ray came out with the 390DA, they didn't offer a diesel option. They had to work on some weight issues. Somewhere late in 2004 (maybe the 2005 model) they offered a diesel option...Cummins QSBs....no Yanmars. The Yanmars were offered in the 360DA and now the 38DA (the redesigned 360DA)....
The first year that Sea Ray came out with the 390DA, they didn't offer a diesel option. They had to work on some weight issues. Somewhere late in 2004 (maybe the 2005 model) they offered a diesel option...Cummins QSBs....no Yanmars. The Yanmars were offered in the 360DA and now the 38DA (the redesigned 360DA)....
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2007
- RO Number
- 25199
- Messages
- 190
Thanks Robski97 for the info. I'm just a little confused though. Which boat did you think was sloppy handling boat, the newer 39/40 or older 40DA or EC? There is soooo much for me to learn!
Bright Ayes:
The EC's are great handling boats....they have the advantage of Straight Drives....no V-Drive....better weight distribution....but they give up some space down below in the cabin....if you don't need an aft cabin or the 2nd head, and can get past, IMHO, the awkward configuration down below, the ECs are great riding boats, with an excellent cockpit layout to boot...
The EC's are great handling boats....they have the advantage of Straight Drives....no V-Drive....better weight distribution....but they give up some space down below in the cabin....if you don't need an aft cabin or the 2nd head, and can get past, IMHO, the awkward configuration down below, the ECs are great riding boats, with an excellent cockpit layout to boot...
In Sundancer models with gas engines standard and diesel optional, Sea Ray typically offers two version in gas -- the standard version and an upgrade version. My experience is that the standard version was just enough to get the boat on plane at about 75% rated hp under ideal conditions and a light load (half fuel, two people, minimal gear). The upgraded version usually provides enough additional hp to be comfortable and run well on plane at cruise under more loaded conditions.
The 2005 390 DA (last year of the 390 DA) did just that. Standard was the twin v-drive 8.1 Horizon Mercruiser inboards at 370hp each, the next level up was the 8.1 SHO Mercruiser twin v-drive at 420 hp each. My guess is that the 370 hp version would seem weak and the 420 hp version would appear just fine under anything other than light load and ideal conditions. So which 8.1's are you talking about?
On a boat of that weight diesel would probably be a better general choice, but there is nothing wrong with gas if it is run either near hull speed or on plane at reasonable power settings. The problem comes in between when you push over hull speed but remain well below plane. Usually this falls in the 1800 - 3000 rpm range. Under that condition the engines are working hard to overcome significant load - like pulling a heavy trailer behind a small pickup constantly. That's hard on those gas engines.
So either back off to trawler crawl or run it up on plane without playing tricks. If the boat will carry anything more than minimal load or run in anything less than ideal conditions, then in gas the standard engines will be disappointing but the upgrades will probably be fine.
The 2005 390 DA (last year of the 390 DA) did just that. Standard was the twin v-drive 8.1 Horizon Mercruiser inboards at 370hp each, the next level up was the 8.1 SHO Mercruiser twin v-drive at 420 hp each. My guess is that the 370 hp version would seem weak and the 420 hp version would appear just fine under anything other than light load and ideal conditions. So which 8.1's are you talking about?
On a boat of that weight diesel would probably be a better general choice, but there is nothing wrong with gas if it is run either near hull speed or on plane at reasonable power settings. The problem comes in between when you push over hull speed but remain well below plane. Usually this falls in the 1800 - 3000 rpm range. Under that condition the engines are working hard to overcome significant load - like pulling a heavy trailer behind a small pickup constantly. That's hard on those gas engines.
So either back off to trawler crawl or run it up on plane without playing tricks. If the boat will carry anything more than minimal load or run in anything less than ideal conditions, then in gas the standard engines will be disappointing but the upgrades will probably be fine.
The rest of the story. We have a 340 DA now and really like that boat. But it's time for more room, we had two boats picked - Tiara 36 Sovran T/8.1 385hp and the 40 sundancer T/8.1 370hp. The Sovran is out of the running, I ask the Tiara factory about the fiberglass gas tanks and ethanol issue they said they dont know how it will affect? I test drove both but test drive's are one thing and real use is another. I'd like to hear from someone who's been spending time with a 39/40.
I ran the 40 with the 370hp 8.1s. IMHO, simply not enough power for the 40. I also ran a 40 with the QSB's. It did a lot better once the turbo kicked in. I don't think I would want a boat that size without the diesels because the gas just dosen't have enough torque. Very noticable in close quarters manuvering.
Sorry to hijack this thread, I just have a quick question while the subject of the weight of the 380/390 came up. The Searay website archives show the 2002 380DA as 18,300 dry while it shows the 2003 380DA as 20,000 dry. Is this a misprint or did they somehow pack 1700 more pounds into the 2003?