1983 42' Grand Banks Classic

[pmh]

Greetings, after 25 years of ownership (20 years spent during winters in the Bahamas) we have decided to part with our baby and move on. Those looking for a "project boat" need not apply, I know, I know, there is always something. Independence has been upgraded to the max and is ready to cruise back to the Bahamas tomorrow morning, pending weather. I understand not to expect getting out of it what I put into it, but surely there is some value in a turn key, ready to go ship that is set up to live on 12 volts for extended times and no cost has been spared to perfect this machine. Independence has recently been re-powered with Luggers, including 1/4 inch aluminum fuel tanks etc. etc. etc. (see link below for details).

Located in Stuart, Florida
Asking $220,000



Thank you
paulmichaelhenry@hotmail.com


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RIWVEkcVzXwgkMxBu8nj6Zt7M25CkzL_YsISjULRrCc/edit?usp=sharing

 

[Larry M]

She’s a beauty!

 

[Blissboat]

Somehow I missed this when first posted on 10-28; a very handsome and thoughtfully sorted GB 42.

 

[Aerobat95]

I hope you can possibly answer a few questions. I am currently looking at a 1987 Grnad Banks 42 with 2800 engines rated at 375hp. At 7kts what could I expect fuel burn to be?

 

[pmh]

Sorry, I’m not sure what engines you are referring to. If each engine is 375hp then I’m thinking you might have cat 3208’s which were common in 1987. I have no idea what the fuel burn would be but I’ve heard that at low RPM, they are very efficient. My guess would be about 2 gallons per engine per hour. You best bet is to find someone with the same engines and ask them. Good luck.





I hope you can possibly answer a few questions. I am currently looking at a 1987 Grnad Banks 42 with 2800 engines rated at 375hp. At 7kts what could I expect fuel burn to be?

 

[Comodave]

I hope you can possibly answer a few questions. I am currently looking at a 1987 Grnad Banks 42 with 2800 engines rated at 375hp. At 7kts what could I expect fuel burn to be?

Welcome aboard. That is a lot of HP for 7 knots. Too much IMO. Our last boat had SP225s in it. We cruised at about 9 knots so I bypassed the aftercoolers and made the engines 180HP. I still had too much HP but was closer to properly loading the engines. At twin 375HP you are looking at a boat that was setup to cruise in the mid teens. And it they are 3208TAs they are a wide engine so space in the engine room will be tight for maintenance.

 

[koliver]

if you keep your speed down to 7 knots, your stern wave will not be excessive, so your fuel burn shouldn't be more than 3.5 US gph. If as is suggested above, those are high hp engines, you will have a lot of trouble staying at 7 knots. 10 would be more likely, at which your fuel burn will rise dramatically. I would guess that at 10 knots that boat will require 10 or more gph.

 

[Comodave]

If you indeed want a 7 knot boat I would suggest you look for one powered more for that speed. It isn’t a good idea to run diesel engines so lightly loaded.

 

[Flatswing]

Actually twin Cat 3208 TA's @375hp were not uncommon in the GB 42. Despite the keel they are fairly flat aft and will plane and cruise in the mid to high teens (depending on your bank balance), which many wanted - to get somewhere quickly for the weekend/avoid heavy weather. Yes, technically way more HP than needed for 7-8 knot cruising, but they will sip fuel (comparatively) if you keep the bow wave & stern squat to a minimum at those speeds as others have suggested. The no load thing has been bandied about for some time. CAT suggests longevity is based on gallons of fuel burned, not engine hrs. As long as your oil temps get to 180F, no worries.
Personally, I wouldn't hesitate to run long distances at 1,000 rpm or so with those engines, consider running up to 3/4 throttle for 10-20 minutes daily if feasible.

 

[markpierce]

A total of 80 horsepower is quite sufficient., assuming one doesn't need to exceed hull speed.

 

[Aerobat95]

Actually twin Cat 3208 TA's @375hp were not uncommon in the GB 42. Despite the keel they are fairly flat aft and will plane and cruise in the mid to high teens (depending on your bank balance), which many wanted - to get somewhere quickly for the weekend/avoid heavy weather. Yes, technically way more HP than needed for 7-8 knot cruising, but they will sip fuel (comparatively) if you keep the bow wave & stern squat to a minimum at those speeds as others have suggested. The no load thing has been bandied about for some time. CAT suggests longevity is based on gallons of fuel burned, not engine hrs. As long as your oil temps get to 180F, no worries.
Personally, I wouldn't hesitate to run long distances at 1,000 rpm or so with those engines, consider running up to 3/4 throttle for 10-20 minutes daily if feasible.

Thanks for all the info. I’m sorry I’m my before question I was confused with the engine. That are the 3208 @375hp. I was told 16-18kts at 50L/hr and 2400 rpm

I was wanting something that can go 600-800nm from time to time. Here in Japan it’s hard to find a nice trawler. So I was thinking if on occasion I could pull it back and run a low RPM for greater fuel economy it might be a good fit.

 

[Comodave]

Thanks for all the info. I’m sorry I’m my before question I was confused with the engine. That are the 3208 @375hp. I was told 16-18kts at 50L/hr and 2400 rpm

I was wanting something that can go 600-800nm from time to time. Here in Japan it’s hard to find a nice trawler. So I was thinking if on occasion I could pull it back and run a low RPM for greater fuel economy it might be a good fit.

I think they will burn way more than 50 litres per hour at 2400RPMs. That is only about 13 gallons per hour, even if that is just for one engine it still seems low to me for 375HP. Usually more like 37 GPH for 375 HP at full throttle.

 

[Aerobat95]

I think they will burn way more than 50 litres per hour at 2400RPMs. That is only about 13 gallons per hour, even if that is just for one engine it still seems low to me for 375HP. Usually more like 37 GPH for 375 HP at full throttle.

In the page they sent out of the manual for the engine it shows:

2000rpm -24.5L/hr
2400rpm -45.5L/hr
2800rpm -79.5L/hr

 

[High Wire]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but the Cat 3208 375 hp burn about 5 gallons per hour EACH at low speeds around 1500 RPM. We chartered a 42 GBMY and were shocked at how much fuel they used even at 1300 RPM. 241 gallons in 190 statute miles. Plus 30 gal for the genny. You will find all kinds of glowing economy statements of the GB 42 with 3208TA's. Be skeptical.

 

[DennisB1]

I have the same engines in a gb49 classic. At 8 knots boat gets 2 nm/gal (1200 rpm) At 9 it’s 1.5 (1450) and at 10 knots 1 nm/gal. (1750 rpm). Props are 3 blade 30 x 26 inch pitch with a gear. 2.54 to 1. I would guess that you doing a little better than 2.5 to 3 nm/gal in the 1100 rpm 7 knot range. Your gear ratio maybe about 2 to 1 and the props a little smaller in diameter. You will need to run up the engines to the 2000+ range each day to clean out the turbines for several minutes. In flat water and clean bottom you are using about 30hp /engine in the 7 knot range. (Engine CAT 3208TA 375 hp) This past summer we did 360 gps miles using 296 gallons at 8 to 10 knots and about 100 hrs generator run time. 3+weeks at different anchorages.

 

[Flatswing]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but the Cat 3208 375 hp burn about 5 gallons per hour EACH at low speeds around 1500 RPM. We chartered a 42 GBMY and were shocked at how much fuel they used even at 1300 RPM. 241 gallons in 190 statute miles. Plus 30 gal for the genny. You will find all kinds of glowing economy statements of the GB 42 with 3208TA's. Be skeptical.

You quote specific RPM but “low speeds”. Could you be more specific about what speeds you were achieving? I ask because many operate their semi-displacement boats (like the GB 42) at their theoretical displacement hull speed based on waterline length believing this to be most efficient. For those designs, it is not. Dropping back 1/2 - 1 full knot to 7 knots +/- and the stern squats less, the bow wave is reduced and fuel consumption can be surprisingly reduced. Just a variable to consider.

 

[High Wire]

You quote specific RPM but “low speeds”. Could you be more specific about what speeds you were achieving? I ask because many operate their semi-displacement boats (like the GB 42) at their theoretical displacement hull speed based on waterline length believing this to be most efficient. For those designs, it is not. Dropping back 1/2 - 1 full knot to 7 knots +/- and the stern squats less, the bow wave is reduced and fuel consumption can be surprisingly reduced. Just a variable to consider.

6.9-7.0 knots the whole week. Only one tach worked at any particular time so trying to sync the engines was a challenge. For sure always under 1500.