Options
Starting my search for a 270 or 280
bigal6030
Member Posts: 157 ✭✭
Well I am starting to research my next boat. I am looking at the Rinker 270 FV from about 2005 to 2008. I trailer most of the time and would like some feed back. Seems the 2005 model year was the year Rinker revamped the 270 so I figure that is a good year to start. I am a Great Lakes Boater, but usually hit the Ozarks at least once a year and plan on trailering the boat up to the North Channel in the future. Thanks in advance.
PS: love the look of the Sea-Ray 280 Sundancer but it is narrow and the v berth is tiny not to mention a small aft berth. So Rinker should fit the bill.
Big Al
Big Al - 2006 - 270 Express Crusier
Home port: Hammond Ind.
Comments
Hey Al, You are correct, all Rinkers are taller (more head room) and usually wider than the sea rays of the same designation because the fronts of their hulls are flared out. My friend had an EC 280. It had the generator option. I think it weighed about 8000 pounds plus the extra weight of about 100 gal of gas, 35 gallons of water and 30 gallons of waste capability. I KNOW he was real glad that he got the 496 mag. Because the EC 280 is a BIG boat. He did a lot of research before he bought and said that the smallest engine he would ever put in it was the 377 Mag. I don't know how an EC 280 goes with a 377 but with his 496 Mag and a full load it gets on plane quickly and actually burns less fuel that the 350 or 377 mags. I have been in a FV 270 and it was a very nice boat too but I haven't been out on the water on one. My very strong opinion is to get the biggest engine you can afford - like the 496 if possible because fully loaded the 270/280/290 is the biggest single engined cruiser that Rinker makes and is, in my opinion, borderline requiring twins unless there is a big block in it. At one time we were thinking of buying a new EC 290 and the salesman, to his credit, said get the big block or you'll be sorry! Anyway, you sound like you know boats but most of the guys on the list will advise that when you narrow it down to the last boat to get a survey before signing. Good luck! MT
Steve, from what I have heard from several really reliable owners the 377 is still too small. If there is any kind of load it struggles to get on plane and burns way too much fuel staying there. When we were considering a 2013 EC 290 (which as you know is just a refreshed 270/280) the salesman and three technicians all told me if you buy that boat for God's sake get the 8.2 mag. As you know, we bought a 2013 EC 310. BUT - a young couple at my dealer's marina just bought a 2014 EC 290 from my dealer this spring. They came over to our new 360 to "talk boats" and were REALLY glad that the dealer had ordered the 8.2 mag for that boat as it still had too work to put it on plane. They said they had been on a test ride on a 280 that was for sale with a 350 Mag in it. There were 4 people on it and it was "painful" how long it took to get on plane. In my case I did a LOT of research on the EC 360 before we purchased. It can be purchased with twin 350 mags which is a joke and basically makes the boat a trawler. I have an acquaintence with a Rinker EC 350 with twin 377s and in his words "it takes half the lake to get on plane". Taking my own advice - which is buy the biggest gas engine you can for your boat - we had twin 8.2 mags installed. They still work to get the 360 on plane but they do it quickly. Once on plane they burn about the same (or a little less) gas than the twin 350 mags in our 2013 EC 310. If I were you I'd ONLY look at 496/502s in your 270/280/290 rig. MT
MT I hate to beg to differ with you. I have the twin 350's in my boat and I do not even need the tab's to get on plane. My boat runs at 30/31 mph at 3800 rpm's. I once had my boat doing 49 (gps) at wot but I do not do that. I keep my rpms around 3800 and once in a while 4000/4200. BTW I do not use the tab's because the Lenco's give me a hard time and I end up replacing the cylinders every other year. IMO they are garbage. Electric motors under water, horrible. I will be converting to Bennett's.
Just sayin' , Mike
I have the 260EC with the 5.7 B3. Is getting on to plane with 4 adults and 4 kids on board, full gas tank, full water tank, 1/2 waste tank, fridge stocked, etc., etc. in about 8 seconds an issue? Cause that's what I'm doing. I think the 5.7 is a beast for these boats.
Boat Name: King Kong
"Boat + Water = Fun"
I have a 280 with a 6.2 and B3. When I am getting up on plane, I have the drive trimmed down and the tabs down. I can get there in 6-8 seconds depending on load. I haven't experienced it taking half the lake (or river in my case) to get up on plane. I am glad to have the extra 20 horses with the 6.2. A friend of mine has a 2007 270 with the Volvo 5.7 and the Duo Prop, which I believe is around 300hp, and he doesn't have any problems getting on plane either. Would it be nice to have the big block in my boat, of course! But I am happy with the performance that I am getting out of my 6.2. If I ordered the same boat new, I would have no problems getting the 6.2 in it.
Go Steelers!!!
Mark and CG, I'd say 6-8sec is right on target with an avg load. Fuel economy in ours is also fine at 15gph, 3900rpm 30mph cruising speed in neutral seas, O/D slightly fwd/down from vertical and no tabs, running in saltwater, no bottom paint. Just sayin'.
Like any boat that is loaded near it max spec, distribution of weight can become an issue and becomes less critical once on-plane, so if I have a crowd I move a few amidship until I'm up then they're "free to move about the cabin" as they say. "Rail meat" as we called our guests (aka movable ballast) from my sailing days. In your case it might be all those fish you're hauling home that might be crowding the stern.
MT thanks for the kind words. All I am saying is I have no problems getting on plane. Boat moves very well on plane and I have not used my trim tabs last season or this season. I will not use them till I put Bennett's in. BTW I had 5 adults sitting at the stern 2 weeks ago and boat still planed with out to much of an issue. IMO the 350 mag's rock.....
Boat Name: King Kong
"Boat + Water = Fun"
I dont know how much you guys have researched it, but I have looked at dozens and dozens of reviews.
Here's a 280 Sundancer which weighs 8,800lbs wet and is 28'8" x 8'10". Looks like it planes at right around 3500rpm and 23mph. It was very lightly loaded though, with only 1/4 tank of fuel and 2 people. Add in another thousand pounds with a full tank, another 3-4 people and coolers, and it'd run quite a bit different I'd bet.
http://www.boattest.com/boats/boat_video.aspx?ID=2772
I've got a 276, but its a cuddy and pretty "bare bones" compared to a loaded up 270 cruiser. Mine has absolutely zero issues with power and planing, even with full tanks and full passenger load. If I were getting a 270 I would definitely TRY to get the big block, but if I knew I wasnt going to be riding heavy I'd be ok with the small block. I would demand the B3 or duoprop though.
Another thing to consider is that the OP is trailering the boat, so he can run half a tank of gas pretty much all the time without worry. Also no speed killing bottom paint or full to the brim water/waste tanks to worry about.
My wife and I have a 280 with a 5.7. As long as you distribute your load, It planes just nicely with trim tabs down and the out drive trimmed inwards. I start off at 4500 RPM's and she planes within 5 to 8 seconds doing around 28 mph. Once on plane I bring the RPM down to 4200 with little trim tabs, adjust the drive back, and she runs GREAT at 23 to 25 mph. I have no bottom paint. Yes a larger engine would be nice, but 5.7 can do the job with a balance load. We now love the boat and have not burned any oil running it at this RPM's. I have not calculated gas consumption.