Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

looking to buy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • looking to buy

    Hi guys -

    My name is Jamie, and I live in CT. I'm looking for a center console in the 22-foot range, to serve double duty as an inshore light-tackle fisherman, as well as something that me, the wife, and the golden retriever can just hang out on and have lunch sometimes.

    My budget is around $13,000. So I know that "new" is out of the question. But I'm much more concerned with the safety and functionality than I am with cosmetic appearance, so hopefully I can find something.

    My first thought was to looker at "lower-end" names (Sea Fox, Cape Craft, Key Largo), and try to find something 4-5 years old. And there was lots to choose from.

    But then I started thinking about looking at much older hulls, but "high" end names, like Mako. I found these 2 packages on the internet, both are 22-foot center consoles.

    First is a 1981 hull, 1990 engine (new powerhead with 0 hours), and a 2002 trailer. Asking price is $11,900.

    http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listi...04&slim=quick&

    The second is a 1971 hull, 1992 motor (600 hours) no trailer. Asking price is $8,500.

    http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listi...57&slim=quick&

    The first seems like a better deal (hull is 9 years newer, new powerhead on engine, almost-new trailer). What do you guys think?

    Also, what would you advise - getting a newer, lower-end rig? Or an older, higher-end rig?

    If I have to put a few thousand into the package in a few years (I know how boating can be), that's fine. I just can't break the bank right now.

  • #2
    Jamie,

    This will obviously be a biased group since we really like the classics. My take on it is that with a Classic Mako, the hulls are built better than most new boats and the hulls have pretty much depreciated as much as they ever will. I wouldn't descriminate much between the two hulls in terms of age. With that being said, on these two, you're really making a decision on the motor. They're both known for being dependable engines. I'm always a little skeptical on the rebuilt ones unless you are the original owner that had the rebuild done. I just see nightmares trying to get any type of warranted work done. The Suzuki could conceivably give you years of service and the rig is quite a bit cheaper. Surveys of both would be appropriate.

    I hope I didn't add any confusion.
    SCMako17[br]1990 Mako 230 WA[br]Yamaha 200 2-stroke[br]Greenville, SC

    Comment


    • #3
      another thing to consider is the condition of the transom, stringers, floor, etc. Depending on how the previous owner(s) maintained thier boats, the '71 could be in a lot better shape than the '81. Both of them will probably need some work done them, depending on your taste and tolerance, but by chosing the one that was better maintained will lead to an easier blow to your pocket book 3-4 years down the road when it's time to have repairs done on your boat. I.E. regular wear and tear on gelcoat is a lot cheaper to fix than having a rotted transom replaced.
      Steven[br]1978 Powercat 232[br]One flat broke, the other almost ready to float!!![br]Atlanta, GA

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi Jamie...welcome to the board!

        I bought that exact combo in 1994; only my hull is an '83. The powerhead had been replaced with a '91.

        The boat hull is one of the best Mako ever came out with -- but I'm biased since I still have mine!

        The Evinrude 225 is somewhat of a gas and oil hog, but not too bad.

        If you're interested in the boats I strongly suggest you find a good engine mechanic to check it out and a fiberglass repair expert to check out the transom, deck and hull. Since the boat has bottom paint, you want to be sure there is no rot.

        Any other questions, feel free to email me...

        Tom
        Prop Blast[br]Mako 224, F225[br]Tampa, FL

        Comment


        • #5
          Thanks for the responses.

          How do I check the condition of the floor/stringers/transom? Is that something I (a novice) can see, or should I get a survey for that?

          Also, how about this deal? Hull is a 1984 22 foot cc, engine is a 2001 Suzuki 200 (2 stroke), asking $15,500 with trailer. That's about the most I can afford, but it's only the ASKING price. And I think I like the idea of a newer engine, I don't want to have to make the sign of the cross every time I turn the key, in the hopes that the engine turns over.

          http://www2.boats.com/listing/boat_d...lk_srclnk_name

          Comment


          • #6
            I had similar questions/concerns/thoughts when buying my first boat a little while ago. After lots of reading and deliberating and asking, I decided to go with an older boat rather than something "newer" just for the sake of newness. I ended up with a 1985 20' Mako and I felt like I was getting a better boat, a better ride and one that had already proven itself against time. This site actually helped sway me quite a bit....I mean why would someone (OK several) pour hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars into them if they were not some pretty darn good boats.

            I looked at several and spent many late nights searching but when I found one I wanted to seriously consider I could tell immediately. (this might be a pretty darn good deal) Had the motor checked out by an authorized service shop for that particular brand, also had the entire thing surveyed. The surveyor also went on the sea trial with me which turned out to be a good thing because he looked for little things that I would not have known to look for (feel for) during a sea trial.

            He also pointed out many things that I saw, but I didn't really know how to look at in terms of no problem/problem/big problem, if that makes sense. Very professional, 14 page written report, good insurance documentation and also educated me a bit about my new boat.

            In short, if your not sure about needing a survey, get one done and also have the engine checked. In my opinion, well worth the relatively little bit of money to know if you have an immediate problem, a could be later problem or no worries, rather than wondering "did I just buy myself a $7,000 problem on top of the $13,000 purchase price."

            FYI - my survey cost $250 which was the minimum charge he would come out for. He spent about 5 hours total at the boat and probably 1 or 2 writing the report. I found him by calling several surveyors and asking "if they could not do it for me, who would they recommend?" This guy's name came up several times.

            Hope it helps and good luck. Feel free to email me.
            -Bizz[br]1985 20C[br]Charlotte, NC

            Comment

            Working...
            X