Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1979 23 CC inboard

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

  • 1979 23 CC inboard

    Does anyone own or know anything about a 1979 23 ft cc with a inboard(small block chev)??? How many were made / are they rare??? Any photos of these boats, or restorations of????? Were there any other motor combos??? What are the common problems found on other 23 cc inboards?? Would appreciate any info anyone has to throw in the hat, thanks in advance.

  • #2
    As with any inboard they dont handle in reverse worth a darn. they seem to be slow "compared to a outboard or IO) there a little hard on fuel, they sound awsome, ride awsome, and fish awsome. If you want to mount downriggers there is a lot of room to do so. The motors and trans. are easy to work on. They are a little chalenging to get a trailer to fit them just right. For the great lakes I think one would be lots of fun. If I ever find one at a good price I probably will buy one. My 2 cents. dave.
    [br]1994 Mako 215 Dual console Optimax 225[br]1978 Mako 19 with 90hp johnson[br]1996 Mako 22[br]1982 Mako 171 Angler 135 Black Max Mercury[br]1987 21b 225 Yamaha[br]1974 23 inboard Gusto gone.[br]1979m21 225johnson \"blue dolphin\" bought off this board and restored [br]with everyone\'s help!!Gone but not Forgotten....[br]1979 20 Mako 115 Suzuki gone[br]1977 19 Mako 115 Johnson gone[br]1976 23 Mako twin 140 Johnsons gone[br]1983 224 with closed transom and bracket[br]And 162 SOB (some other boats)[br]Venice Florida, Traverse city Mi.

    Comment


    • #3
      I wonder wht Mako didn't make too many of them. My cousin had one years ago and I liked it.

      Comment


      • #4
        I previously owned a 23 inboard, late 70s model. I enjoyed the boat because it had more room than I could use and the ride was great in any type of sea. It also had lots of short comings. As previously mentioned, steerage while backing was lousy, in fact, low speed steerage in general was poor, in either direction. I had the Mercruiser 260 (Chevy 350) and it was thirsty, not to mention slow. Forget about beaching the boat or getting into the shallows and when you wrap the prop on a line, get ready to swim. I've seen them for sale now and again around here and they do not fetch much money. They seem to sit in the ads for a long time, which I interpret as limited demand for this model

        While I enjoyed the boat, I would never buy another inboard in a center console boat. A fellow member of the yacht club I belong to also owned one and when we compared notes we had about the same thoughts. He no long owns his and went back to a 23 center console outboard.

        The only way I would reconsider the Mako 23 IB is with a Cummins QSB for power (over 300 hp).

        David M
        Current Mqko - 1990 Mako 211 w/2006 250 E-TEC. http://www.classicmako.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6226. [br]- Previous Makos 1987 20C, 1979 23\' IB, 1970s 17 Angler

        Comment


        • #5
          I have a 1979 23 inboard...All of the above comments are true and opinions valid...I like the boat, however, I don't fish and I don't have a need to beach the boat. I find it's not as good on gas as one might think, but for the cruising I do, it's fine. I can take a nice size group of people out for a ride and it's very comfortable...there is lots of room for people to set up deck chairs in the rear. You can email me if you have specific questions.
          Formerly: Mako 236[br]Currently: 35\' Viking[br]Greenwich, CT

          Comment


          • #6
            I have had mine for about 8 years. They are horrible to stear in reverse, you just can't, you learn the boat and what it does. They steer poorly at slow speed especially in the wind. The fuel economy is good, not sure what the other guys are comparing it to. You definetly don't want to beach it. If you need to frequently manuever in tight spots forget about it. Trailering is a piece of cake, not sure what is so tricky about sizing the trailer?

            All that said, the thing is a fishing machine and great for diving. I see all transom problem posts, soft spots, etc.. Mine is a tank, first engine lasted 16 years and a few hundred $'s would have kept it going. A 23 ft inboard has way more space than a 23 outboard just take a look.
            Paul[br]Plantation, Fl [br]1988 Mako 236 Inboard

            Comment


            • #7
              Two additional things that are very nice about the 23IB. A swim platform that is huge combined with transom door (you must install). If Mako builds this combo with a big diesel, I would be willing to reconsider. Maybe they are listening....

              David M
              Current Mqko - 1990 Mako 211 w/2006 250 E-TEC. http://www.classicmako.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6226. [br]- Previous Makos 1987 20C, 1979 23\' IB, 1970s 17 Angler

              Comment


              • #8
                I have a 1978-79 23 ft straight inboard with the chevy 350 mercruiser.

                Yup, backing up was always tough, but I never got into any real trouble

                from it.

                I am thinking of selling mine. Yes, it is a tank and a great fishing platform.

                My wife, a professional in marine canvas - her work is amazing, made a complete

                enclosure with 1" stainless pipe for a new bimini. I put the boat away six years

                ago, and it sits on a nice trailer, but haven't run it since. The batteries died years ago.

                Any idea the price range for something like this?

                Thanks,

                jacques

                Comment


                • #9
                  quote:


                  Originally posted by PutnamI find it's not as good on gas as one might think, but for the cruising I do, it's fine.



                  350 Mag MPI, 20-25 gallons of fuel trolling and chasing tuna all day with a 15 mile run in and out. What was that about "not as good on gas"?

                  properly propped with a good bottom and a maintained EFI engine is a dream.

                  Also flying by boats similar size with outboards in a typical buzzards bay afternoon chop causes a grin. 900lbs dead center? yeah, its a pretty damn nice ride.

                  Definitely not for everyone, if you need to be able to beach, nope. I wouldn't touch one with a raw water cooled engine unless it was a freshwater boat, even then, to covert it to closed cooling will cost you plenty.

                  That said, I will never own an outboard powered boat.

                  Next will be a Strike 26 or Seevee inboard CC. Or go to a nice express.
                  1975 Mako 26 Inboard[br]1976 Mako 23 Inboard[br]1984 Rhodes 19[br]Padanaram, MA

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    quote:


                    Originally posted by TPG


                    quote:


                    Originally posted by PutnamI find it's not as good on gas as one might think, but for the cruising I do, it's fine.



                    350 Mag MPI, 20-25 gallons of fuel trolling and chasing tuna all day with a 15 mile run in and out. What was that about "not as good on gas"?

                    properly propped with a good bottom and a maintained EFI engine is a dream.

                    Also flying by boats similar size with outboards in a typical buzzards bay afternoon chop causes a grin. 900lbs dead center? yeah, its a pretty damn nice ride.

                    Definitely not for everyone, if you need to be able to beach, nope. I wouldn't touch one with a raw water cooled engine unless it was a freshwater boat, even then, to covert it to closed cooling will cost you plenty.

                    That said, I will never own an outboard powered boat.

                    Next will be a Strike 26 or Seevee inboard CC. Or go to a nice express.



                    Amen, brother!

                    I have the 5.7 Crusader Capt's Choice (fuel inj. 330hp).

                    Burn around 11-12 gph at cruise, 17gph WOT. Around 1 gallon per hour on the troll. 20 gallon days fishing off S. FL. No complaints...

                    I did find a neat trick to maneuvering in reverse: If I lower the stbd trim tab and raise the port tab, the boat backs a lot straighter. The tabs help negate the 'prop-walk' to port in rev.
                    [br]DonK[br]Boca Raton, FL[br]1979 236IB: \'The Fish Tank\'[br]1979 Backcountry 18 \'Boner\'[br]<>< <>< <>< <>< ><> J[br]Redneck Troubleshooting:[br]1) If it moves, but ain\'t supposed to, use Duct Tape[br]2) If it don\'t move, but supposed to, use WD40[br]3) If that don\'t fix it, it\'s electrical![br]

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      quote:


                      Originally posted by TheFishTank

                      I did find a neat trick to maneuvering in reverse: If I lower the stbd trim tab and raise the port tab, the boat backs a lot straighter. The tabs help negate the 'prop-walk' to port in rev.



                      No tabs, I just learned the proper amount of rudder and throttle to get the boat to walk where I want. []
                      1975 Mako 26 Inboard[br]1976 Mako 23 Inboard[br]1984 Rhodes 19[br]Padanaram, MA

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It was quite the adjustment for me to learn the techniques of a single screw...

                        Not sure about yours, TPG, but I get a crapload of prop walk to port in rev...for the most part, i do the dance (like you describe) but in close quarters or when trying to put it up on the trailer, being able to back down a little straighter is nice.... []
                        [br]DonK[br]Boca Raton, FL[br]1979 236IB: \'The Fish Tank\'[br]1979 Backcountry 18 \'Boner\'[br]<>< <>< <>< <>< ><> J[br]Redneck Troubleshooting:[br]1) If it moves, but ain\'t supposed to, use Duct Tape[br]2) If it don\'t move, but supposed to, use WD40[br]3) If that don\'t fix it, it\'s electrical![br]

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I usually give myself enough runway to drive the boat straight onto the trailer.

                          I've driven alot of inboards, alot bigger, and less responsive. You get used to it pretty quickly.

                          Just put an edson wheel with suicide knob on the boat. Now I can really snap it. []
                          1975 Mako 26 Inboard[br]1976 Mako 23 Inboard[br]1984 Rhodes 19[br]Padanaram, MA

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I've got a 1988 236 which I love. It is kinda slow but you only notice that on slick calm days. Any other time you can cruise with the best of them because of the ride this thing delivers. The fuel economy is only fair. I average about 2.7 MPG at cruise speed of 25 mph. All inboards are tricky to steer at docking speed but you get used to their ways rather quickly. Shallow water operations are delicate. You do not want to ground one of these. When this boat was manufactured, the largest outboard you could buy was around 200 horsepower and they delivered about 1.5 mpg. I believe this was the reason these inboards were more popular then and why they eventually stopped building them as outboard horsepower and fuel economy improved. All that said, there is no beating the clean open-transom on these boats for fishing and diving.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X