Why are inboards more expensive than stern drives?

[CHARGER2]

How come inboards tend to be more expensive than similarly sized and powered I/O's? It seems to me a car engine and a hull would be cheaper to design and manufacture than a car engine, hull, hydraulic tilt pump, large aluminum outdrive, and tilting gears. What is stopping a company like Bayliner or Sea Ray from making a basic inboard and undercutting companies like Malibu and MasterCraft?

Regards

 

[oldjeep]

Re: Why are inboards more expensive than stern drives?

Inboards are a niche market, you would never sell the volume you would need to make a low cost alternative. Bayliner did make a few inboard ski boats, didn't sell very well.

Unless you need an inboard - like for skiing, they have too many drawbacks to be used by most people for a general cruiser. Maneuverability at low speeds and in reverse is the big problem, followed closely by the depth of water you need to run them in.

 

[haulnazz15]

Re: Why are inboards more expensive than stern drives?

Unless you need an inboard - like for skiing, they have too many drawbacks to be used by most people for a general cruiser. Maneuverability at low speeds and in reverse is the big problem, followed closely by the depth of water you need to run them in.

^This + inboards taking up more interior space due to having the transmission inside the boat and necessary location for prop shaft placement. V-drives are slightly better in terms of the space usage, but still worse than I/O's. The inability to trim is the primary reason inboards aren't more popular, both due to shallow depth concerns as well as fuel economy/top speed.

Remember, inboards still use basically the same engines as an I/O, and still have transmissions, so the main difference between the two cost-wise is going to be volume of production and some miscellaneous hardware like the transom housings and trim pump, which are relatively low-dollar value.

 

[Mischief Managed]

Re: Why are inboards more expensive than stern drives?

It was pretty common knowledge in the boat industry that inboard ski boats typically had a much higher profit margin than I/O boats and that increased MSRPs often led to MORE sales in years past. Not sure if that's still the case, but it makes sense when you consider that they sell in much lower volumes and are quite often second or third boats for people that have waterfront homes. That's a lucrative target market that typically appreciates a status symbol and can afford to have it. I'm thinking that a Bayliner inboard ski boat, regardless of its capabilities, would not sell well. It would be interesting to see them try though.

 

[oldjeep]

Re: Why are inboards more expensive than stern drives?

It I'm thinking that a Bayliner inboard ski boat, regardless of its capabilities, would not sell well. It would be interesting to see them try though.

They already tried it, both in an inboard and V-drive - decent enough boat but no volume. (Look up Ski Challenger and Wake Challenger) The only real choice for a "cheap"
inboard is Moomba and cheap isn't all that cheap I'm currently trying to justify the cost of a Moomba V-drive to myself and not having a lot of luck yet.

 

[Slip Away]

Re: Why are inboards more expensive than stern drives?

Plus, the inboards are slower. Fine for skiing and watersports, but not boats for the masses.

 

[oldjeep]

Re: Why are inboards more expensive than stern drives?

Plus, the inboards are slower. Fine for skiing and watersports, but not boats for the masses.

Slower? My father in-laws Malibu Response does 50 MPH

 

[QC]

Re: Why are inboards more expensive than stern drives?

Moved this to Non-Repair I/O and Inboard. We try to keep the boat topic section free of engine stuff.

The answer is that inboards are cheaper than I/Os. Tournament ski and wake boats are more expensive than high volume I/O runabouts. Different issue than cost of the propulsion system. It is specialty niche market vs. higher volume.

Slower? My father in-laws Malibu Response does 50 MPH

Yes, all true. Inboards are slower than an equally powered I/O equivalent. Trimmable drives are always faster. OB faster than I/O for equal power and similar hull. Just the way it is. Yes, I know drag boats are inboards. Not the same question.

 

[Slip Away]

Re: Why are inboards more expensive than stern drives?

Yep, slower per $ spent. You can spend less than 25K and get an I/O boat that does 50+, or get the $70K inboard to get the 50mph at WOT. Different strokes.

 

[Don S]

Re: Why are inboards more expensive than stern drives?

Moved this to Non-Repair I/O and Inboard. We try to keep the boat topic section free of engine stuff.

I think he was asking why Inboard BOATS are more expensive than IO BOATS, not about engine prices.

An inboard/transmission package is a lot cheaper than an engine/drive package for an IO, less parts.

 

[QC]

Re: Why are inboards more expensive than stern drives?

You're prolly right. I'll boomerang. I even posted something like that :facepalm:

 

[haulnazz15]

Re: Why are inboards more expensive than stern drives?

Slower? My father in-laws Malibu Response does 50 MPH

Sure it does, but with 300+HP. Many I/O runabouts of the same size will run 50mph with 260HP or less. The hull design (no hook) and ability to trim the hull out of the water is what gives the I/O the advantage. Inboards have their advantages, too, just not in speed/efficiency in most planing hulls.

 

[sickwilly]

Re: Why are inboards more expensive than stern drives?

Go to the Cobalt website they have a whole section on inboards versus stern drives. Of course they sell stern drives, so read it with an eye towards that. However, they did offer a direct drive competition ski boat for a while too.

Lets see --

Cobat -- check, got into the market then out

Sea Ray (ski ray) check, got into the market then out. They even have a nice outboard powered version of their competition ski boat.

Bayliner (marketed under a different name, check, in and then out.

Baja -- yup, they made a direct drive too. They used a lot of pink though.

Toyota -- check, theirs are still sought after by a niche market

Marlin made both types for a while too.

Whom am I missing?

The first malibu's were stern drives, they they swapped over.

 

[smokeonthewater]

Re: Why are inboards more expensive than stern drives?

Nautique comes in both flavors.

 

[salty87]

Re: Why are inboards more expensive than stern drives?

even though i/os have more complicated/expensive gearing they are also more maintenance intensive. bellows have killed many a transom whereas inboard transoms are mostly bullet proof. inboard transmissions are also very robust. steering systems are simplistic. no trimming systems although many newer boats have trim tabs of sorts.

the volume comparisons several posters have mentioned are large factors in the initial price differences. however, once past their early depreciation years inboards tend to hold their values better going for maybe 2-3 times the money.

 

[oldjeep]

Re: Why are inboards more expensive than stern drives?

inboard transmissions are also very robust.

Uh - no. The transmissions are the worst part of an inboard ski boat.

 

[rallyart]

Re: Why are inboards more expensive than stern drives?

As an inboard owner, and I still own an I/O, I can comment on a few things. First, mine cost less new than I could have bought a similar sized Cobalt or SeaRay Select. The company makes about 300 a year in 5 models of 3 different lengths. The biggest wakeboat manufacturer makes about 3000 a year in 10 different models, all with different hulls. Volume is a key factor. There are a few cheap inboards that have been on the market over the last five years but their sales have been dismal so it seems that those who want an inboard don't really want an inexpensive boat.
Size is another factor. Inboards usually have a removable swim platform so it does not count in the length. As a result a 21' inboard usually is equivalent to a 23' I/O. That balances the price a bit.
Regal got into the market a few years ago and tried to compete with their Session brand. It was a flop because the performance was poor compared to the specialty makers, and Regal knows how to make a good boat. Just not good enough in that market. Malibu boats in Canada (not Malibu the wakeboat maker in the USA) tried with Liquidride boats and it did not sell well as it was too expensive.

I think the reason that others don't undercut the specialty makers and take over the market is because they don't have the skill, in that specialty area.

 

[sickwilly]

Re: Why are inboards more expensive than stern drives?

Session brand -- that one is new to me. Kool -- off to google that one.

 

[emilsr]

Re: Why are inboards more expensive than stern drives?

Baja -- yup, they made a direct drive too. They used a lot of pink though.

I'd like to see that. Got any pictures or links?

 

[sickwilly]

Re: Why are inboards more expensive than stern drives?

Here is one at only inboards:

1990 Baja 200 SK