Categories
- All Categories
- 15 Non-Rinker Boats
- 2.9K General Boating Discussions
- 294 Rinker Custom Projects
- 136 Trailer & Trailering Discussions
- 473 Generator Discussions
- 172 Rinker Photo Gallery
- 364 Rinker Sport Boat Forum
- 3.9K Rinker Express Cruisers Forum
- 1.2K Engine Discussions
- 1.2K Electrical Discussions
- 662 Rinker Support Q&A
- 595 Rinker Marketplace & Classifieds
- 67 Rinker News & Updates
- 102 RBO Forum Archives
- 175 Region-Specific Questions
- 31 Canada
- 136 United States
Comments
What's really funny is I never paid any attention to the rubber in there. I've looked at the splines and seen them apart.
So, you are saying you don't have this type? What does yours look like? I'll have to see what the 390 diesel on my dock has. I know he has Volvo drives.
What's more interesting is why you wouldn't have one or then why would we have it. I hate all those extra rubber parts cause they aren't made to last forever. I guess they say it helps protect the more expensive parts.
Dream 'Inn III -- 2008 400 Express
2007 280 Rinker Express 6.2L B3
Steve, to answer your question. My EC 360 was about 8 tons wet. Here are pictures of it beside a friend's 342 (6.2 mags). On a side-by-side comparison we found the EC 360 to about the same width, longer, much taller hull and top side and far more interior head room - both cockpit and cabin. So, I don't know how they compare weight wise. At the dock they don't even look like the same class of boat, the EC 360 looked so much bigger.
My buddy and I are close to the same height. When we were both standing at the helm he was looking at my hips. I could look right over the top of his boat. The EC 360 is that much taller.
Of course, that windage (and weight) also figures into engine size and power required
John to answer your questions (if they were directed to me):
Are 6.2s okay for a 342? The 342 you see slipped beside my 360 (in the post above) left for a run up the St. Lawrence the next morning. We both filled-up with fuel, we both pumped out and we both filled with water. We both had the same number of people on board. We both accelerated at the same time. The 360 jumped onto plane and was well underway while the 342 still had its bow in the air. We slowed to let him catch-up. We talked by VHF while underway. He was turning about +1200 rpm more than me to stay abeam. We were underway for about 3 .5 hours to the next marina where we gassed up again. He had used a lot more fuel than me. He told me he has had, in his opinion, too many drive related expenses with his 342/6.2s. His tech told him, you spend about 70% of your time on plane - also, you are moving a lot of boat with those engines, what do you expect? So is the 342 underpowered with 6.2s? That would be a personal opinion. IMO it is. I do not think 6.2s would be anywhere near acceptable for my EC 360 - they sure weren't for a friend's 350. The noise of them getting it onto plane and the rpms needed to keep it on plane were, to me, scary. The fuel consumption was terrible. He said he won't go on trips anymore with 350/360s that have 496s or 502s as he can't keep up.
Regarding loads on engines and drive components. Most engine/drive combinations are rated and matched for specific load and duty cycles. I have not met one tech or industry representative that has said a Rinker EC 400, a Sea ray 380 or such sized boats are appropriate for gas engines. Sea Ray usually goes direct drive when they get to the outer limits of their gas engine capability and I have been on plenty of them and cruised with them and imo they were slow, revved too high and burned too much gas. Therefore, imo, when you get to the outer limits of a gas engine/drive combination you get into overload situations. ....and that's, imo, where all the problems begin, overloaded gas engine combinations that cause premature wear of all components - but - imo, the weakest link in that scenario is the drive with its dog-leg set-up and many shimmed gears. Some early Rinker 400 "type" hulls used direct drives that had to be shimmed (Al was instrumental in some of that) but even with the best attempts the 400 hull seemed to go bow down with those configurations and there were significant problems and poor customer feed back.
As for single prop versus dual props being better. Waaay back Volvo scooped the marine industry with its DuoProp. I remember the competing adds Volvo and Merc both put out in boating magazines. The first Volvo add was of a Formula boat on a trailer at a marina with a Merc drive on the transom with a for sale sign on it. Merc countered that their drives were XYZ better. However, within a few days of Volvo's patent (10 years) on the DuoProp expiring Mercury had a ready-for-market duoprop of its own. That speaks volumes, right? Now IMO Mercury has the better duoprop drive - by far.
As for your B2 drive's application - the only time I have heard that a B2 prop is better than a B3 for an application was for use in barge-like configurations where a large diameter prop HD drive would be good. Maybe that's why yours hasn't blown-up yet.
IMO there is a point where a gas engine will just not perform well enough anymore. To me that is when you get any displacement running hull over 7-8 tons weight. At that point everything I have read/heard says go diesels.
I do not think Rinker will resurrect the EC 400 unless it is very much up-dated, re-configured and has diesels. I do not think there is any longer a market for that size express cruiser - certainly without diesels. I have found that at 40 feet and over people opt for multi level cruisers.
I will never change my opinion regarding HP. Since my first days of boating at 9 years of age (1959) when I built a plywood skiff from plans and added an old Johnson through too many boats to count I have always believed in putting the most HP indicated (safely)for any boat in it. I have seen so many heartbroken boaters whose boats ran stern down or had to keep shifting people and goods to get on plane, or just burn gas, drive train parts and money to stay on plane to think otherwise.
2007 280 Rinker Express 6.2L B3
2007 280 Rinker Express 6.2L B3
You guys are really funny! And Handy saying someone else is slow! LOL! I think we're all happy with the boats we have and this is the most important thing!
jme, I think twin 350 Mags would be ok, but best to try to go for a ride. I will say, I've sold my previous boats on the first ride out. So, if you can find a boat for sale by owner, go for that ride!
Dream 'Inn III -- 2008 400 Express
Heck, without a boat to take care of, he should have time to do both jobs now!
Dream 'Inn III -- 2008 400 Express
PC BYC, Holland, MI
Forget cockpit covers, dripping biminis and wet cockpit carpets. You'll leave the side curtains up all year, and just open them up when you come aboard if it's hot. Need to go back into the boat for something you forgot? No more crawling on hands and knees under the cockpit cover ... just walk in upright like hom0 sapiens.
Am I a fan of the hardtop? Yeah, you could say so.
@jme097. A couple of things.
Two thumbs up to Rinker hard tops, they are amazing.
IMO, at 14,000 pounds a 340 is borderline with 350 Mags. Before I put down 5 cents on one I would have it filled with gas, filled with water and put four friends on it for a test drive. The EC 360 is only about 1,300 pounds more and 350 Mags it would be a disaster.
One interesting point is that the 340 and the 360 have the same sized cockpit. They differ on hull width, length and interior height. Plus the storage in a 360 is awesome.
When looking at 360's there was a 340 for sale at my dealership. It had twin 350 Mags. They were ready to make a great deqal on it as it had sat there for two years and was about to become 3 model years old. (guess why?)
The Admiral didn't like the 340 cabin enough room wise. But what moved us away from the 340 to the 360 was the salesman saying I know you and you'll kill me if I let you buy a cabin cruiser this size with 350 Mags. Remember you had 350 Mags in your EC 310 and it weighed a TON+ less than this 340. Will you be happy? Will you be able to re-sell this. We can't and it's new and heavily discounted (it sold a year later).
He said, look at some more 360s Take one out with a full load and big blocks to see the difference. Then come back here you will be astonished to see how little difference there is in price between a 340 and a 360. I just don't know why people buy 340s?
We took out several 360s. That did it for the Admiral, there was sooo much more room below and so much more storage as well as a dedicated shower. A 360 it was.
I would rather have a used 360 than a new 340. In fact I wonder when Rinker will cut the 340 and just go to two twin engine cruisers. I bet it happens within two years.
There are some great deals on used 360s. If 340s are in your price range I bet 360s are too.
....busted - the Admiral just walked-in and caught me on the forum. I thought she was asleep! ****! I'm supposed to be retired (from it) I'm in cr*p now!
Have a great summer guys! See you, maybe, in the Fall.
It's time to go doing some serious sucking-up!
2007 280 Rinker Express 6.2L B3
2007 280 Rinker Express 6.2L B3
I'll agree completely with a hardtop. Wow, it makes the cockpit part of your home. LaRea nailed it. Staying dry and sitting in the cockpit during a nice rain, wonderful!!
jme, if you need to wait another year, then do it. I agree with MT on skipping the 340 if possible. If you were talking older boats, I'd say the 342 is really nice and has a full size shower. But newer boats, well, I believe the new 360 is close to LOA as the older 342s (maybe I'm wrong, but I know for sure the new 310s are much smaller than the old 310/312/320 and the new 340s definitely feel much smaller than the old 342s). Anyway, don't want to start a new topic with all that, but don't buy and then wish in a year it was bigger. We waited and skipped 8-9 feet each jump we made and sure glad we did.
Dream 'Inn III -- 2008 400 Express