"lifetime" hull warranty

[Schmoe]

Got a 96 Marada, 19'. Unfortunently, the company went out of business around 02 or so. Anyway, I've been reading a lot, I mean a lot, on the boat restoration site. My boat has never been left in the water overnight and used as weekend warrior during the summer. I have a super nice 10X30 enclosed metal shed that she's parked in, along with my Seadoo and my 1984 Yamaha QT50 moped ( fun as hell to drive around on). My question is about the hull, stringer and transoms after reading on all the boat restoration projects going on. What would exactly make this a hull a lifetime warranty? Everything I can get to seems to be coated pretty thick with fiberglass. Decking is solid. Would they have not used as much wood as from what I'm reading about on the boat restoration projects, or used wood and coated the be-jesus out of it with fiberglass. Some older reviews of this company from boating magazines gave pretty good praise on the workmanship and materials used in construction. Boat has been an absolute joy to own, just wish I had the optional 4.3 instead of the 3.0LX, but on the other hand, a tank of gas lasts a long time. I guess I'm concerned about rotting wood at some point, but keeping it out of water and rain when stored, I think maybe I'm worried about nothing or maybe reading all those restoration projects, I got the itch to repair something....

 

[Chinewalker]

Re: "lifetime" hull warranty

Pretty much any boat, if well taken care of and kept out of the elements will last a lifetime and then some. Most of the boats that need restoration were not... Bottom line ? you're in good shape.

 

[jkust]

Re: "lifetime" hull warranty

IMO you are worried for no reason. It is not you that need worry. It is the guy who owns it 2 owners from now after the next owner leaves it out in the elements, bow down, plug in for three years. Also, the 3.0 and 4.3 get amazingly similar mileage for reasons such as the 4.3 working much less than the 3.0. I consider the mileage/efficiency discussion a red herring useful when trying to unload a boat with a 3.0. where a 4.3 was optional.

 

[Nico2112]

Re: "lifetime" hull warranty

People don't follow three simple rules when storing their boat. Bow up, plug out, and covered.

True and valuable words!

We used to have a late 70's 14' Thunderbird trihull, stored just as Bubba states...the result: Strong solid deck and transom after all these years

 

[Schmoe]

Re: "lifetime" hull warranty

Thanks. Kind of what I thought, but never hurts to get different view points. Didn't know there isn't that much difference in efficiency when comparing the 4.3 to the 3.0. I can hit about 40-45, depending on prop, weight, wind, etc. etc., but the 4.3 would have been sweeter. But I'll say this, the 3.0 is pretty easy to work on and get to. Hmmm, maybe I need a project to swap out a 3.0 to a 4.3. I know that exact model I have has it listed as an option, so dropping one in shouldn't be a problem except for the mechanical differences like the Y pipe, wiring, etc. etc. I know the Alpha Gen II setup will handle the horses.

 

[QC]

Re: "lifetime" hull warranty

Also, the 3.0 and 4.3 get amazingly similar mileage for reasons such as the 4.3 working much less than the 3.0.

This is actually not true. The reason they get similar mileage is that it takes similar horsepower (read fuel) to make the same boat go the same speed. If all things are equal (they aren't), two throttled, spark ignited (Otto Cycle) engines, putting out the same horsepower (same load), the engine with the smaller displacement will be more efficient. This does not alter whatsoever the fact that the 4.3 will be more fun, and I am guessing that fun is the primary motivator for most of us boaters . . .

Another way to look at it is if a smaller engine working harder resulted in worse fuel efficiency why would all cars with both a 4 cyl and V6 option favor the four cylinder in MPG figures? Trucks with a V6 and V8? Trucks with a smaller V8 and a larger V8 option? VERY few exceptions; the smaller displacement engine gets better fuel efficiency with the same vehicle wrapped around it. If you counter with weight, then throw out all examples except those with two V8 options. Like a Tundra. Oh then if you counter with GMs 4.8 vs. 5.3 where the 5.3 has better MPG, that only serves to make the point even more clear. The 5.3 shuts off cylinders in light load conditions making those remaing four cylinders work even harder . . .

I consider the mileage/efficiency discussion a red herring useful when trying to unload a boat with a 3.0. where a 4.3 was optional.

I agree with that, but it seems important to me to understand the physiscs behind the discussion.