Rinker 410

Michael T

Steve and guys, you will like this. A friend who is thinking about a Rinker 410/400 sent me an e.mail. He told me there are several Rinker 410's for sale on YachtWorld. No big deal, right? But, two of them have diesels.  I think they may be Cat 6BTAs - one only had about 300 hours on it.

Also, I had no idea that some of the Rinker 410s came with so much "cool" equipment - full sized fridge, stove with oven, washer dryer combos, recliner chairs, true walk around Queen beds ....wow - there are some really neat older "loaded" 410 Rinkers with diesels at great prices!....if you're interested "google" Rinker 410 and go to the YachtWorld site.

rasbury

Steve apparently has blocked anyone else from viewing those web pages...

rasbury

wow.....to big for me and what I'm able to do on the water...now if I hit the 350 million lotto this week one of those might be gone! For my boating, my 270 is almost to big. I guess up north on some of the rivers it would be nice or if you had endless time to go to the Bahamas, that would be the life and any of those the boat but- I'm about 350 million short in doing that......beautiful boats though! Would it not be something to be able to wash clothes on the boat! And a real shower you can really stand in....and the bedrooms.....hard to imagine. And the price, figure a 280 or a 290 is what close to 200 grand new? Those look like really good prices, kind of scary good prices....

Handymans342

Yes, they have CATS. Great motors. I believe DI knows a few diesel 410 owners. I wish there were more diesel Rinker owners on here. 

Handymans342

OH MT a 6BTAs are Cummins. An even better motor. 

TonyWalker

The 410/420 would not fit in my lift.

TonyWalker

On a serious note, Rinker only made boats of this size for a short span of time.  I think their sweet spot is in the 34 to 35 foot range.  I think they had some hull problems with some of the 410s/420s.  There was a fellow in Cleveland that was given a replacement 420 due to all the hull problems he was having.  I do not know how many boats were affected, maybe just a few.

Dream_Inn

Yes, I know a few 390 owners with diesels. Also know a couple 420/410 owners.  Heck, I've even see 420s with outboards.  All kinds of configurations have been in (or still are in) my marina.  I've stated my opinion on the 410/420 on here several times.  Some of things MT specifically stated he liked is what I didn't.  The full size fridge, well, you will never leave the dock without your genny running again.  The aft cabin, well, it makes it really tough for getting to routine maintenance areas (I've done enough mx on them to know).  I do love the recliner and the layout. As far as the 390/400 & 410/420, only difference for the 1 foot is the nice larger swim platform with a great large seat on the back.  The admiral stated 400 only for her & I agree.  Love that large seat on the back and would not have been happy without it. 

MT, ready to move up??  You are supposed to keep buying new though so some of us can afford your hand-me-downs.

Michael T

@DI, you'll laugh at this but we nearly bought a "new" Rinker 400. It was a trade-in with only a few hours on it. It had every option that Rinker had available and for a while was priced the same (actually a bit less) than my new EC 360 was. There was plastic on the TV and Fridges and no one had even slept on it. It had Rinker's version of teak flooring on the swim platform and entire cockpit, Sat. TV - everything. I managed to convince the Admiral to discuss buying it with the salesman - although she liked the 360 better. I even got space for it at my marina. I was still talking to the salesperson when it sold. That's life. It was gorgeous though. That said, we do love our 360. It is super comfortable for us, as 99% of the time it's just the Admiral and me - and with those 8.2 Mags it does go like a rocket with decent fuel mileage at cruise. But, do yo believe this?  - I got an offer New Year's day from a guy in another city. He had heard of our 360 and wanted to know if we would consider selling it. To be honest we are still talking as for me everything is for sale (well almost everything) if the price is right! LOL

TonyWalker

I have the 2005 and the 2006 Rinker catalogs.  Going with all this discussion, I opened the '05 edition to the 410 page.  Low and behold, on the galley counter is a bottle of Yellow Tail Shiraz, the twin sister of the bottle I have open on our kitchen counter right now.  I sure can focus on the smallest detail.

Michael T

....the important ones, Tony! :-)

TonyWalker

Here is another   bit of trivia.  I believe the 342 carries the most gas per pound of empty weight of any boat in the Rinker fleet.  And the Shiraz is working.  No more posts tonight!

Michael T

@TonyWalker I think you're right. I think the 342 and it's cousins the 350 and 360 are the best "big" cruiser hulls  Rinker (or anyone else) ever made.

TonyWalker

Just an FYI.  If anyone needs some info out or either of these two catalogs, I would be glad to look it up and send it along.

TonyWalker

Good info.  Thank you Al.

rasbury

I've always wondered why when even you get a boat the size of a 270 towing 10000# or so they aren't 5th wheel or goose neck type trailers...really would not be any more expensive a trailer and sure would haul better getting more of that weight on the axle rather than the frame.....

Michael T

I'm aware of at least two Rinker 410s with 6TBAs as they are for sale on YachtWorld. The Cummins 6TBA is a 5.9 liter turbocharged and aftercooled diesel that Cummins rates at 370 HP at 3000 rpm. Dealers and owners often refer to it as 380Hp. I'm not sure about a 390 HP rating but marine diesel ratings are famous for being all over the place. When Roger Penske took over the failing Caterpillar Marine Diesel Division way back, the first thing he did was stop dealers from jacking-up the HP of the engines by a number of unethical and short lived methods. The over rated diesels were literally blowing up, burning out and destroying caterpillar's reputation. Marine dealers who would not comply with Penske's regulation of the proper HP ratings and set-ups lost their dealership. Penske is credited with saving Caterpillar Marine and probably the company too. 

jbschmalz23

Out of curiosity, what kind of fuel would you burn per hour on the diesels compared to gas? Seems the gas is faster, but we enjoy cruising at about 25 or 26 mph, so speed isn't a need for us. Was just curious. 

Michael T

Cummins Diesels: My friend had twin 6TBA 5.9Ms and looked up his stats for me. He keeps stats on everything! LOL

He cruised with them at 2200RPM +/-

@2200 RPM 310 HP 

@2200 RPM  750 Ft. Lbs. Torque

At full throttle:

@3000 RPM 355 HP

@3000 Rpm 621 Ft. Lbs. Torque

Fuel Usage:

@2200 RPM 8.5 GPH

@3000 RPM 20 GPH

* Note The engines were not supposed to be run at full throttle more that 15%(+/-) in a duty cycle, (therefore about 1 in 8 hours of use)

Michael T

.....and if the 496s moved a 420 along crisply, imagine how 5.2s move a 360! It's a big Rinker/Mercury induced SMILE!!!!!

Handymans342

I rest my case

Dream_Inn

Alswagg said:

Fuel burn I can't remember. But I know with the gas 28 mph was .3 mpg. Deisel was .5mpg.  This on the 410 v drive.  The 420 stern drive gas at 32 mph was .98 mpg and the ips deisel was .8 mpg.  These were the optimum cruising speeds for milage    All rated at medium loads. Half fuel, water, waste 

Al, are you sure the .98 and .8 numbers are right?  If I'm reading it right, you are saying stern drive gas burned better than IPS diesel, which doesn't make any sense.  & .98mpg, almost 1 mile for every gallon.  That doesn't even seem close to how much they actually burn (I'm talking stern drive gas).  I would think it'd be closer to ~.6mpg.  I know a few owners of the 420 and even 410s, and there isn't any way they are burning better than I, which is about .8mpg.  & yes, I have the 496's and love them!  Great engine!

Michael T

I have gotten 1.2 mpg with my 8.2s (360 Rinker) at cruise in ECO mode, with the boat loaded with guests and gear. I will take a reading this spring with normal load and just the Admiral and I on it, just for fun, as I really don't give a cr*p about mpg - it's boating!  :-)

Handymans342

Guys, thats why I was trying to get the test results. 

Handymans342

By the way, Rinker never answered my email. 

raybo3

Time to chime in here. Two each his own. Some people like gas and the extra speed and dont care about fuel burn. Some like deisel with better burn but a little slower. So its all about what suits your needs. Deisel are a better over all engine than gas no doubt but again it comes down to prefence. I like the speed and I like the way my boat handles. Cant get that from deisels...... Just say'n

Michael T

@Al, it seems , as usual, you are right on. I was talking about this thread with a Rinker buddy a few minutes ago and he sent me an e.mail. He referred me to a performance test of a Rinker 420 in 2007, so I looked it up -  Boating World Test review of a 2007 Rinker 420 with 496 Mags.  Kim Slocum was the Rinker representative at the test on January, 1, 2007 of a Rinker 420.....Performance test results of that particular Rinker 420: Top Speed: 40.6 MPH @4800 RPM. Gas Mileage 1.25 MPG. As the reviewer noted REALLY impressive for a boat of that weight.  As Kim Slocum noted - we build them tough to take on anything.

Dream_Inn

Well, I have to say that is impressive then.  Better than the 400!  I will say though, I've traveled with a 420 doing the same trips, and he had to put more fuel in than I at the end.  Maybe he just had more crap on board.  I even subtracted the fuel he had to burn to run the genny all weekend to keep the full size fridge/freezer cold.  Some of my better days, fuel burn will at very very best get close to .9mpg.

I do agree the 420 takes a lot of trim, and that would make sense a bit more for the IPS.  I know the bow rides a bit higher (or it feels like it anyhow) than my 400.

hmmm, now I'm thinking I should play a bit more with trim or tabs.  I put trim up a little bit, but too much and a small wave will start the porpoise affect.  I also worry about spinning a hub with my B-2 prop. 

I will say the fuel burn doesn't seem much different if it is a B-3 compared to B-2.  @alswagg do you have any difference in fuel burn between the two?  I have a dock buddy with a 2007 400, that we do travel together a bit.  we seem to get similar amounts of fuel (hard to tell completely because he runs his genny a lot more than I do).

As MT said, it won't slow me down from using, but it is nice to optimize.  I am planning to go even more this summer than last if that's possible.  Love the lower fuel prices.

Michael T

@DI you are definitely 100% when you talk about trim. I have not spent nearly as much time trying different trim settings as I intend to this coming season. BUT, I will say this - from what I have experimented with so far, and that's using the vessel view 7 with the 2015 data up-grade, the trim makes a crazy difference AND you don't have to change it much to get into a "sweet" zone that can change your mpg to a much, much better number.

Rinker hulls are very efficient but (probably like most hulls) they have certain trim and rpm bands that are super efficient.....and if you combine both!!!

What I have done so far is use the V V 7 to dial-in the best rpm setting, then use the trim to see if I can get more.

Of course there is no setting that I can use consistently as the varied temperature, humidity and loads from day to day make a set it and forget it setting impossible. But, I'm pretty sure I can come up with a quick process each time I go onto plane to get the best MPG.

@DI btw I should add - as I know you know - test results are just what a particular boat achieved with a certain bottom coating, with a certain load of gear/water etc. and on a day of certain temperature, humidity, wind and water surface. I would like to see three or four boats (from any manufacturer) of the same configuration tested but that's not likely to happen. So, we have to take all of that in mind when we see a rating.

@DI - BTW #2..... You may find this interesting (I sure did) Years ago when I was talking engines with the guys at the old Mercury engine plant in Stillwater Oklahoma they said Mercury rates their engines +/- 5% on their '"standard" HP/Torque charts. So with my twins I could be +/- 10% compared to another EC 360 with the same engine/drive set-up..... No wonder what different guys get for MPG, RPM and MPH varies!!!!! LOL

rasbury

gas was a buck 77 here in Fl today.....for regular gas. When I first bought our boat, the 400 fill up about gave me a heart attack.....keep in mind I'm the poor guy on the forum....

Handymans342

Al, you have such specific info for the 400S why not for the 342s? Especially mine?