Rinker Forward Drives and Diesels.....New Models?

Michael T

I owned a 2014 EC 360 which ran like a rocket ship with Mercruiser 8.2 Magnums and B lll X drives.

Would I have purchased one with diesels and either B lll XR drives or POD drives? I didn't see the payback for me - maybe the second owner after I took the first loss would get the boat at a decent discount but new - too expensive (for me)

I rode in a number on 400 gassers. I never felt like the boat was decently quick. IMO they accelerated and handled  more like a school bus. I loved the main cockpit, the cabin head room and the aft twin bed set-up in the aft stateroom. The one head was also very good -  but would be even better it there were TWO heads!!!!!

IMO the forward stateroom was lousy for a boat of that size and the cost - geez - not even a walk around front berth bed (at least I had that on my EC 360!!!!!)....and no second head (not even a toilet and sink) for the front berth - it was in the main cabin. Fine for 2000 - not for 2016.

HOWEVER.... I saw it written down (yesterday) that Rinker is looking at, and I quote "forward propulsion systems", for coming boats.....WHAT????

My thinking is the Volvo IPS or Mercruiser Zeus..... BUT.....since I doubt Rinker would put either of these very expensive and space consuming systems in anything under 40 feet (unless a 3/4 sized system has been invented) .....are we looking at the launch of a NEW BIG Rinker CRUISER???????

A 45 footer with enclosed front berth with a "Jack and Jill" head, a big front island (walk around) bed (hopefully Queen-sized as a minimum .....an aft stateroom with two twin or a king bed with a private head and a mid ship shower and sink?......all with big diesels and pod drives.

SEND ME THE BROCHURE.....the Admiral already wants back into boating.

Steve (Handy) may be about to have the last laugh on this diesel topic..... :-)

MDboater

I just saw forward facing stern drive

Space consuming pods?  It is my understanding that the IPS drives require less space than V-Drives.  

Handymans342

MT, you surprise me everyday and especially now with all the diesel posts. !!!!!

LaRea

I thought the forward drive was going to be for a ski boat (to put the props farther away from the swim platform, making it less dangerous for people in the water).

randy56

@Mt, you will have to find out where she hid the check book. We all know she took it from you. Glad your health is getting better. You all-way's wanted to be a school bus driver.

Dream_Inn

Geez MT, I might be able to race you and beat you on something like that!  LOL  

It's funny the two things you mention that you didn't like on the 400 is part of why we bought it.  We didn't like the island berths at all.  It takes up too much valuable space.  If you both can't get in/out on one side, then get something slower!  LOL!  The trawlers have nice big comfy beds (may be our next boat).

One head, that is what desired. I didn't want to have to maintain/winterize another head.  & for us, really another toilet was not needed.  A good buddy of mine has a 44' Regal that has the additional head in the back.  It made the beds in the back smaller than twin.  Kind of crazy.  That boat also has the pod drives.  There have been way too many boats lately with pod drives that come back with one.  They are made to break off at the first touch of anything.  I do like his cockpit air conditioning, which is something at times I thought about adding.  Would be real simple.

We do love the huge aft area.  It is amazing for the kids.  Even their own sink to use for brushing teeth and stuff.  & the extra space in the salon/galley is fantastic!  It's because that sleeping area is snugger (which is ok, cause it's just for sleeping anyhow).  I'll add that our couch needs a bit more cushioning.  I'd love if it had a recliner like the 420 does.

As far as forward propulsion, I'm still in limbo if I'd want my props facing forward.  & it definitely takes up more space than stern drives.  Where it talks about saving space is compared to inboards.

My boat is fully fueled, full water (empty waste) and loaded for 11 days leaving this afternoon.  Supposed to be about a 2' chop today.  I'll let you know if I have any issues getting on plane!  She'll be really heavy for sure!  Lots of rum for the pirates/wenches weekend in Rock Hall (look it up online, it is great).  Also built a water cannon and mast (water shooting out of mast) for a double connected dinghy.  So even more weight to add!  & today is national rum day!!!

Michael T

Well, DI you probably would blow past a diesel....I would be hoping for turbocharged diesels though....after it would be a Rinker boat! LOL

Handymans342

All diesels are Turbo charged MT. 

Michael T

@MDBoater yes, and no. I was told they consume more space inside the boat's engine bay but less outside? However, that was a 75 footer and maybe there was also a transmission?

MDboater

LaRea said:

I thought the forward drive was going to be for a ski boat (to put the props farther away from the swim platform, making it less dangerous for people in the water).

Aren't most of the ski boats inboards with the props already forward anyway.  The article that I read had a different slant on the safety issue.  It raised the concern of a foot getting wedged/stuck in the dual props.  The article speculated that someone could still keep their head above water in the traditional rear facing configuration but not so in the forward facing configuration.  

MDboater

Dream_Inn said:

A good buddy of mine has a 44' Regal that has the additional head in the back.  It made the beds in the back smaller than twin.  Kind of crazy.  That boat also has the pod drives.  

That regal model is a pretty sweet boat.  How does the speed and fuel economy of that boat compare with yours?  

Dream_Inn

MDboater said:

Dream_Inn said:

A good buddy of mine has a 44' Regal that has the additional head in the back.  It made the beds in the back smaller than twin.  Kind of crazy.  That boat also has the pod drives.  

That regal model is a pretty sweet boat.  How does the speed and fuel economy of that boat compare with yours?  

He burns quite well.  I believe it is around the 22-25gph mark cruising around 26-28mph or so.  With the pod drives, he definitely gets even a bit more efficiency.

Handymans342

I am not a fan of the pod drives. They cost more than outdrives, you cant trim them I dont think and they add a lot to the draft. 

Dream_Inn

I initially was a fan, but after they've been on the market for a while, the efficiency isn't as much as they've said.  There definitely is some, but I believe it is a bit slower than outdrives with them as well (maybe I'm off here).  The trimming is the thing I don't like.  At high tide I can't fit under a bridge out of my marina. I have to go out a "back" way that is about 3ft deep.  Not an issue and never a problem trimming, but wouldn't make it with pod drives.  But, a member on here that I talked to at Rinkervous was telling me how many he'd seen come back or just along the ICW and wham, lost the drive snapping off.  Definitely don't like that one.

212rowboat

in 25 years outdrives will still be an option... so will shaft on the bigger boats... the pods may or may not be... so far as i'm concerned it's a 'innovation' sell for those who want newest and grandest without thinking it through... 

what i think would be a good innovation is an additional gearbox and ability to shift between stern drive and jets... for coastal rigs, this would be great- raise an outdrive, drop a jet= skinny waters... 

not all diesels are turbo.. true work horses aren't... but, without turbo's diesels simply wouldn't be a viable option to gasoline, pound for pound.... that said, with the fine tuning of high pressure direct injection and piazio injectors allowing up to five distinct injection events per cycle, what the diesels can do today is ridiculous.  of course, the EPA is curtailing that- and the conspiracy theorist in me thinks that's backed by the oil companies- so.... who knows if we'll ever see it... the crowder six stroke in diesel flavor is amazing, but mostly lives on paper... if THAT thing is ever embraced, you're talking 1k HP/2k #tq motors in the size and weight of a BBC..  

MDboater

Handymans342 said:

I am not a fan of the pod drives. They cost more than outdrives, you cant trim them I dont think and they add a lot to the draft. 

I don't think that pods vs outdrives is the correct comparison.  Isn't it a question of pods vs inboards in boats that are too big for outdrives?  Pods offer a performance improvement over inboards but at a higher cost.  I don't know why anyone would select pods when outdrives are an option (although some people don't like money  ).

Handymans342

I will keep my boat and if the B2s ever went out, I would get the Yanmar drives. 

LaRea

Dream_Inn said:

... The trimming is the thing I don't like.  

Same here.  I envy boaters who are not constrained by draft, but I definitely am.  

Handymans342

What would a 2 speed tranny do AL?

Handymans342

Also, I dont think Nibral likes to be coated with anything. 

ruwallydog

Once again you guys amaze me with your knowledge and I am once again reminded of my own lack of it!

Handymans342

Al, then why haven't they made one yet for a straight shaft boat?

craigswardmtb

I love our 360 but we continually wish for a bit more space in the entertaining and dining areas. A 3rd stateroom would also be welcome. It seems like the only reasonable way to get there is by having a fly bridge?  I am amidst our 11 day summer trip and researching bigger boats at night while of course drinking rum. Not sure if we will actually do it but something like an Ocean Yacht 48 of the 2000 vintage with Detroit Diesels is compelling.  Lots of room, more ocean capable than our EC, and still cruises at 25-27 knots.  Many good deals out there on this type of ship. Some of the low 40' Meridians are also real nice and fit more of my wife's style with a larger open fly bridge. 
We shall see. Probably just window/dock shopping for the next couple years...  I sure wish Rinker had something in this category. 

Dirtythirty

I would love for,you guys to,come next spend a day on my boat just to,see how it performs.  You are correct, I can't trim my drives, but I don't have to. At 30 mph I am flat of the water.  My torque slingshots me up on plane with 3 people or 13 on board. And I'll put my fuel burn up,against any 496.  Btw, can your B3 crab sideways into a slip ? I can't run with a gas motor, but in reality, I don't feel that I need to. 

LaRea

@Dirtythirty - be careful what you wish for.  A lot of people would love to spend a day on your boat!  BTW I can crab sideways with my B3s, but I have to use the steering wheel.

Dirtythirty

I hear ya on that !!  But I hope you can see what I'm saying.  Gas/diesel .....both have there pluses and minuses ....so no need to argue over it.   There are times at low tide I'd love to raise my drives, but the advantages of pods (in my mind) far out weigh those few times I'm running out of water. 
Enjoy what you have, I say !

Handymans342

And how much have you spent on those pods YTD? 

Dirtythirty

Actually....except for the scheduled oil change, nothing. I had an issue when I first bought the boat , and the seals weren't done around the prop shafts, and I paid for that, but that was an issue that the old owner never kept up with.  So once complete, they have been very good to me.

Handymans342

I cant believe they will just fall off when you hit something. 

MDboater

Dirtythirty said:

I would love for,you guys to,come next spend a day on my boat just to,see how it performs.  You are correct, I can't trim my drives, but I don't have to. At 30 mph I am flat of the water.  My torque slingshots me up on plane with 3 people or 13 on board. And I'll put my fuel burn up,against any 496.  Btw, can your B3 crab sideways into a slip ? I can't run with a gas motor, but in reality, I don't feel that I need to. 

For me, the bigger intangible is handling of pods vs inboards.  It's easy to appreciate what pods can do in terms of maneuverability around the dock but less so concerning their performance at planing speeds.  Given the higher up front cost and periodic maintenance costs of pods, I don't think that you could ever financially justify pods over inboards for fuel burn(efficiency) alone.

@Dirtythirty: Is handling (at planing speeds) of pods vs inboards something you can comment on?  

Dirtythirty

I'd love to....the design of the pods is supposed to make the boat turn sharper, plane faster and achieve better fuel efficiency ....

the boat absolutely planes faster.

the boat absolutely gets very good efficiency 

the exhaust exits the water 100 feet behind the boat in the wake and the is no smell of exhaust

but, ...the design requires that the boat be run with trim tabs extended to level out the boat on plane. It has no adverse effect of any of the above, however turning the boat with the tabs extended requires more room than without them extended.  You truly have to wait for the boat to react to your turning inputs.  Small adjustments on plane are no problem, but hard over turns at full throttle don't work so well