Classic AquaSport
General Aquasport Forums => Aquasport Discussion => Topic started by: Slo Poke 1 on October 09, 2014, 04:57:40 PM
-
I'm comparing a 1996 200 AS with an '87 model. The thought of the "classic" model is appealing, but it needs painting, inside and out to get it to look nice. That would put the price above the newer boat. The older boat also has an early 80s model J140, while the newer boat has a J112 (probably 1996). Both have tandem axle trailers.
Any reason the 1996 is not the obvious better buy?
-
It all comes down to how well the previous owners took care of them. Construction wise the boats are built pretty much the same. Some would say the Hialeah boats were built better than the Genmar boats. I own both and I'd say they are both well made for a boat built for the masses. The 96 model might have end grain balsa in the deck vs plywood in the 87 model. Either way if POs did not take care to prevent water intrusion through screw holes it does not matter which type of wood was used. I'd look for soft decks and transom on both boats. You didn't mention asking prices either. You have to look at the entire package of boat, motor and trailer.
-
Do you have links or photos for both? We need a TON more info to properly help with your question.
-
The 140 and 112 is pretty much the same motor as well if the 140 is a looper. As stated above, depends on condition as they are pretty much the same with minor differences. If the older one is better then the newer minus paint, go for the older one and repaint to your color choice. Also gives you more coin in your pocket.
Then again, this thread needs pics :bounce:
-
The 140 and 112 is pretty much the same motor as well if the 140 is a looper.
Kev, by no means am I trying to be a #@*&$^, but loopers and crossflows are pretty different engines. Depending on the year of the 140HP engine, it could be either. The 112 is definitely a crossflow, so possibly very different animals. Regardless, many parts for both and VERY rebuildable/repairable if necessary. These old engines are very simple and easy and inexpensive to repair, but a compression test is essential prior to purchase.
Slo Poke, Suggest you read this one if you are seriously considering purchase.
http://www.classicaquasport.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10634
-
I already saw that link to what to look for, thanks.
Here are the links to both boats.
https://tampa.craigslist.org/hdo/bod/4653779789.html (https://tampa.craigslist.org/hdo/bod/4653779789.html)
https://tampa.craigslist.org/pnl/ctd/4668997412.html (https://tampa.craigslist.org/pnl/ctd/4668997412.html)
I have not seen either, but the owner of the older boat claims it to be solid. Plan to look at it tomorrow. The owner of the newer boat said the is a small "soft" spot forward of the console. Don't know if its actually soft or just flexes.
The older boat plus painting would send it slightly above the newer boat cost. I can get it painted for $2000 or less.
There's another 19-6 in Zephyrhills ($3000) that I saw, but it needs a fair amount of work. The deck has several areas that feel like washboard and the transom has some "thud" sounds, but the engine tilt examination indicated very little movement. The deck area just behind the console has a 3/4" sheet of plywood fiberglassed to the deck.
-
Just looking at the pictures of the two boats this is what I see.
They both look clean. They both have Bimini tops. Both motors look clean but keep in mind a can of spray paint and stickers can make any motor look nice (the 87). The trailers look good but of course you cannot see the springs and axles in the pics. The 96 is sitting on an aluminum trailer so that is a plus. The windshield on the 87 is crazed so it will need to be replaced. The paint on the mid section and lower section of the motor on the 96 is all but gone. Like I said above that is easy to fix... but why hasn't that been done? That could be an indicator of the care and maintenance the boat has had. I don't see any electronics to speak of. With that said I think the asking price of both boats is about a grand high. Go look at them. That will give you an idea of the overall condition.
Oh and I have an 87 170 with the same graphics. A little buffing with a high speed buffer and some wax made it look almost new. So painting my not be required.
-
They both have about the same hull specs. The 95 catalog lists the beam at 7'-6.5'' while the 97 shows 7'-6".
The 87 is listed at 7'-8". LOA is the same for both at 19'-6".
Depending on how they measured hull weights, the 96 appears as slightly heavier with a lower HP rating (150) to the 87's 185.
The seat/cooler combo in the 96 appears stock while the leaning post in the 87 is aftermarket.
I don't think you'd find much difference in performance and ride quality between the two hulls so....
I'd second the thought that engine and trailer condition are the swing votes.
-
The 87 owner told me that he flips boats. He put a little work in them (does his own engine work as that's what he does for a living) and resells them. I'm sure he painted the engine and applied new decals.
What's the difference in a looper vs crossflow engine? Which is the 87?
Anyone else feel these are a bit over-priced?
If the 87 is a little wider and a little lighter, it will float a little shallower. I intend to install a Bobs' Hydraulic jack plate and trim tabs. Some areas where I go in the keys require some shallow crossings and this is a factor.
Would the 96 be appreciably better on fuel consumption?
-
Slo-
Few other thoughts:
1) the '87 140 is definitely a looper (considerably stronger, but significantly smokier w/greater fuel consumption) and the '96 is definitely a crossflow (not as strong but considerably lighter and slightly more fuel efficient). Both very simple, common, and repairable/maintainable engines if powerhead is intact, and both will push the boats fine. Loopers first came on the scene in 1984 and were produced through 2000 in a few different forms. Crossflows were first produced in the early 70's, modified a bit in '79, and then produced in pretty much the same form until 1996 I believe. The name refers to how each routes air flow in the combustion chamber. http://www.maxrules.com/fixtheory2.html
2) the 87 engine for some reason has a much older lower unit (late 70's early 80's generation). Ask the seller why.
3) I second the opinion that the aluminum trailer probably justifies most of the $1000 price difference between the two (providing the axles, tires, hubs and wiring are otherwise in similar condition).
4) I would personally NEVER prioritize cosmetics over structural integrity. If the deck and transom of the 87 are actually 100% solid and the 96 has soft spots, then the 87 would be my choice 10 times out of 10 unless it comes with an overwhelming number of other/small problems to deal with.
5) check to see if the 87 looper engine still has it's original VRO hardware. 87 was second generation VRO and if it's still intact and working then that is a small plus in your favor.
6) Can't be 100% sure from the photos, but the 87 engine looks like it might be a shortshaft and the 96 seems to be a longshaft? Verify which one lines it's cavitation plate up better with the keel.
7) I agree both are mildly overpriced.
-
What's the difference in a looper vs crossflow engine?
The terms refer to the intake and exhaust methodology or "scavenging". Piston shape and port locations define each. The names relate somewhat to the way the intake charge moves within the cylinder due to the above, aka looping or cross flowing.
Anyone else feel these are a bit over-priced?
Yes
If the 87 is a little wider and a little lighter, it will float a little shallower.
I'd guess they are similar but both my 170 and 222 could get into pretty thin water. Never ran a newer hull except my WAC and that's not a good comparison.
Would the 96 be appreciably better on fuel consumption?
I'd say that would be more dependent on the engine type than the hull.
Good luck. :thumright:
Edit: Georgie beat me to it.
-
Slo-
Few other thoughts:
1) the '87 140 is definitely a looper (considerably stronger, but significantly smokier w/greater fuel consumption) and the '96 is definitely a crossflow (not as strong but considerably lighter and slightly more fuel efficient). Both very simple, common, and repairable/maintainable engines if powerhead is intact, and both will push the boats fine. Loopers first came on the scene in 1984 and were produced through 2000 in a few different forms. Crossflows were first produced in the early 70's, modified a bit in '79, and then produced in pretty much the same form until 1996 I believe. The name refers to how each routes air flow in the combustion chamber. http://www.maxrules.com/fixtheory2.html
2) the 87 engine for some reason has a much older lower unit (late 70's early 80's generation). Ask the seller why.
3) I second the opinion that the aluminum trailer probably justifies most of the $1000 price difference between the two (providing the axles, tires, hubs and wiring are otherwise in similar condition).
4) I would personally NEVER prioritize cosmetics over structural integrity. If the deck and transom of the 87 are actually 100% solid and the 96 has soft spots, then the 87 would be my choice 10 times out of 10 unless it comes with an overwhelming number of other/small problems to deal with.
5) check to see if the 87 looper engine still has it's original VRO hardware. 87 was second generation VRO and if it's still intact and working then that is a small plus in your favor.
6) Can't be 100% sure from the photos, but the 87 engine looks like it might be a shortshaft and the 96 seems to be a longshaft? Verify which one lines it's cavitation plate up better with the keel.
7) I agree both are mildly overpriced.
I just spoke with the owner and he said the lower unit is '87, not 70s or early 80s. Forgot to ask about the VRO. Said he's had the boat sold 4 times with deposits and each time the buyer couldn't come up with the balance. Will take $4500 for it, down $500 from the asking price.
-
$#!+...my bad. http://www.marineengine.com/parts/johnson-evinrude-parts.php?year=1987&hp=140&model=J140TLCUA&manufacturer=Johnson§ion=Gearcase
I'm gonna crawl back in my hole again and stop posting in fear of being mistaken for a THT troll. He is right and I feel like slime. For some reason I thought that the gearcases with 6 holes for coolant outflow were discontinued in the early 80's and were replaced by the ones with two horizontal slots. In actuality it happened a year later in '88. http://www.marineengine.com/parts/johnson-evinrude-parts.php?year=1988&hp=140&model=J140TLCCM&manufacturer=Johnson§ion=Gearcase+-+140tx+Standard+Rotation
That'll teach me to post specifics without double checking in the future.
Sorry, dude. :oops:
-
No problem. Thanks for the correction.
-
Saw the '87 yesterday, seems pretty solid, I'll post photos later. Trailer not in great shape. Some exposed fiberglass on the hull.
-
Looked at the '96 model yesterday, I'll try to post pics of both later today. Deck had more than 1 soft spot, trailer was damaged.
Here's another that I'll try to see this weekend. '87 hull, engine said to be '94 or newer, compression 100+, "deck and transom strong".
http://tampa.craigslist.org/pnl/boa/4717609003.html (http://tampa.craigslist.org/pnl/boa/4717609003.html)
-
It appears that the pixels are too high to post on this site. I need to figure out how to dumb them down.
-
Hi Slo,
If you "Upload" your pics to your gallery here, the gallery will resize them to the correct size. Then you can post the link in your topic. Easy as that.
-
This is the 1987 model, asking $4500. While there is cracking in the transom and open screw holes in the deck, I found no spots in either. Not sure about the trailer bunks. What about the exposed fiberglass cloth in the hull?
(http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery/data//500/IMG_1428.JPG) (http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=10616&title=crystal-river&cat=500)
(http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery/data//500/IMG_1440.JPG) (http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=10619&title=crystal-river&cat=500)
(http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery/data//500/IMG_1432.JPG) (http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=10618&title=crystal-river&cat=500)
(http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery/data//500/IMG_1430.JPG) (http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=10617&title=crystal-river&cat=500)
(http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery/data//500/IMG_1426.JPG) (http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=10615&title=crystal-river&cat=500)
(http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery/data//500/IMG_1435.JPG) (http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=10622&title=img-1435&cat=500)
Admin Edit: You were really close on posting the pics. You copied the "Linked Thumb"(nail) link when you should have copied the one right below it - "Linked Image".
-
The deck holes appear to have been where a T-top was mounted :scratch:
Not sure but they probably have some decay started. You can use the "drill and fill" method for future repair in this area.
The transom needs a good "tap inspection" and if it passes, grinding and filling the cracks will be fine until the entire transom needs replacement.
The exposed glass on the keel just needs to be filled with say, epoxy (think Marine Tex), gel coat or thickened epoxy if you have that. While it should be taken care of in a timely manner, it's not a huge problem from what I can see. The forward keel on my 210 was similar.
I see another Aqua next to that one. What's the guy, a collector. :wink:
Good luck. :thumleft:
-
Not a collector, he does engine repair and buys clunkers, puts a little work in it, and sells.
You think it might require a new transom in the foreseeable future?
-
You think it might require a new transom in the foreseeable future?
Well, it's the exception rather than the rule that a wood transom will not need replacing. They have numerous penetration and these tend to let water seep in. The wood rots. Some take longer than others but sooner or later it will need to be done. That's why doing a tap test and a flex test will give you a pretty good idea as to its current stage of "life".
Replacement isn't a huge deal and many have been documented here. I'd worry more about the fuel tank.
Good luck.