Rumors regarding the early Express Trawler models

[Mariner]

Ok, so when we bought our 2003 36' Express Trawler we heard all sorts of rumors about the early models having problems with weight distribution and poor efficiency, etc...

None of the rumors seemed to be complete. They were all told sort of like, "well I heard they had some problems with the hull shape or something early on". That was pretty much the extent of it. The implications were that this was supposedly corrected in later models, but I'd like to know the whole story.

But there are clearly some oddities in the design that leave me wondering. In our boat (a single screw Caterpillar 3126B) there is a bulkhead forward of the engine below the rear wall of the deckhouse. However, the bulkhead only extends out to the fuel tanks. The fuel tanks extend forward of this bulkhead up to the next bulkhead (beneath the middle of the deckhouse). Yet they only extend aft to about midway through the engine compartment. The area aft of them is sort of wasted space as it is not easily accessible. My thinking was that perhaps they moved the fuel tanks either forward or aft to correct poor weight distribution. Originally I was thinking the fuel tanks used to be entirely within the aft engine compartment, flanking the engine. But all the listings for used boats I've found seem to have twin engines, which wouldn't leave much room for fuel tanks back there. Were the fuel tanks located forward of the engine compartment on twin engine models? Was the boat always available with the option of a single or twins, or was that a change that was made at some point?

In every listing I've ever seen for these boats, they indicate the fuel capacity is 380 gallons. Yet, going by the labels on the tanks on our boat, the total capacity is just 280 gallons, including the day tank. Is there are reason for this discrepancy?

I'm really hoping someone with some inside knowledge of the history of this boat will have some input.

[pbirman]

I have the Express Trawler (33+3) with twin Yanmar diesels. Hull 20 from 2000. Before buying I went up to the factory in Portsmouth RI and spoke with the production manager (he took me to lunch). Yes, they were considering a hull change because the huge empty (wasted) space under the swim platform, in their opinion, needed to be balanced by a less fine bow entry. I'm not sure this has any practical meaning for operators, owners as the boat feels balanced and rides nicely without any need for trimtabs. Anyway, they apparently never made the change and discontinued the model instead. Too bad, as it is a nice practical cruising layout with big, safe side decks and an enormous flybridge. My wife and I cruise it in the Atlantic off the east coast of Florida and yes, the fuel capacity is really 380 gal. I have the receipts to prove it.

Paul

[Tuxedo]

Mariner -

I was on hull # 1 at the Charleston boat show when the boat was introduced. The sales manager at the time said that that boat was bow heavy, and would go back to the factory to be re-worked. He was still happy with the performance. Twin 270 Cummins, 20k cruise.

I guess they moved some things like fuel tanks around, and got hull # 2 right, but that's just a guess.

Since the rep was forthcoming with the info, lots of people probably heard the same info, and rumors grew.

[Mariner]

I've now spent a fair amount of time on the boat (hull 105), and I see what you are saying. It definitely isn't bow heavy. If anything, it's stern heavy. With full fuel tanks, it really doesn't want to get up and plane. We have the 420hp single Cat, and with it at wide open throttle (and sucking down 24gph), I was barely able to break 11 knots. Now that we've used up some of the fuel, it does go faster. I can cruise at ten knots, towing a 13' Whaler, and burn 10 gph. Still, it feels like it's squatting and not getting on a plane. I have had the boat up to 17 knots before with a light load and on flat water.

More importantly, the boat develops a noticable starboard list when sitting. It gets to be as much as 5 degrees or even more. That's when drinks start to fall over on the cockpit table. At that point, I start shifting people and gear to port to level it out. But once it starts to go, the fuel all transfers to the starboard tank, and it's hard to bring it back to level. This seems to happen more when there are several people aboard. It's easy to correct with trim tabs when underway, but not when idle.

On the starboard side we have the two 8D batteries, and the waste tank (usually low or empty). On the port side, we have the generator and four golf cart batteries. The water tank is in the center below the main salon and is usually kept full. I'm beginning to think the heavy construction of the galley (solid wood) is having a big impact.

Should I get in the habit of closing the fuel tank valves when sitting, so that fuel doesn't transfer between tanks? This seems like a lot of hassle.

Also, I too have confirmed that the fuel capacity truly is 380 gallons, if not more. I've been amazed that, despite the amount of running we've done, the fuel gauge has barely dropped off the "full" mark.

[Guest]

You can see my Albin 33+3 trawler underway off Palm Beach here. She is cruising at about 17-18 knots with the twin Yanmars at about 3000 rpm. She maxes out at 20 knots at 3600 rpm.

I've since added a RIB atop the aft cockpit top with a UMT electric davit.

http://pweb.netcom.com/~pbirman/page4.html

Paul

[pbirman]

Ok, so when we bought our 2003 36' Express Trawler we heard all sorts of rumors about the early models having problems with weight distribution and poor efficiency, etc...

None of the rumors seemed to be complete. They were all told sort of like, "well I heard they had some problems with the hull shape or something early on". That was pretty much the extent of it. The implications were that this was supposedly corrected in later models, but I'd like to know the whole story.

But there are clearly some oddities in the design that leave me wondering. In our boat (a single screw Caterpillar 3126B) there is a bulkhead forward of the engine below the rear wall of the deckhouse. However, the bulkhead only extends out to the fuel tanks. The fuel tanks extend forward of this bulkhead up to the next bulkhead (beneath the middle of the deckhouse). Yet they only extend aft to about midway through the engine compartment. The area aft of them is sort of wasted space as it is not easily accessible. My thinking was that perhaps they moved the fuel tanks either forward or aft to correct poor weight distribution. Originally I was thinking the fuel tanks used to be entirely within the aft engine compartment, flanking the engine. But all the listings for used boats I've found seem to have twin engines, which wouldn't leave much room for fuel tanks back there. Were the fuel tanks located forward of the engine compartment on twin engine models? Was the boat always available with the option of a single or twins, or was that a change that was made at some point?

In every listing I've ever seen for these boats, they indicate the fuel capacity is 380 gallons. Yet, going by the labels on the tanks on our boat, the total capacity is just 280 gallons, including the day tank. Is there are reason for this discrepancy?

I'm really hoping someone with some inside knowledge of the history of this boat will have some input.

I don't have any inside knowledge, but I can tell you how my twin is configured.

In the twin engine configuration, the fuel tanks are entirely forward of the bulkhead on either side of the boat with the water tank in the middle (under the cabin sole) and the waste tank aft of it, but still in front of the bulkhead. Each tank is, I believe 150 gal for a total of 300. The "day tank" is aft of the bulkhead on the centerline between the two engines and holds 80 gal.

The Racors are mounted to the day tank (which is a two-level affair, with the taller section forward and the shallower section further aft between the engines with a diamond-pattern walking platform above it.) I've added a fuel polishing system mounted to the bulkhead forward of the port side engine.

Paul

[Mariner]

Is the bulkhead watertight? Ours is not, which was a surprise to me. I wish it was.

[Guest]

Is the bulkhead watertight? Ours is not, which was a surprise to me. I wish it was.

No. There are scuppers so bilge water can be pumped by any of the three pumps Aft Center and Forward. Also there are pass throughs for potable water and fuel and the engine controls (Micro Commander).

Paul

[Mariner]

Sounds the same as ours except that on ours there are very large gaps around where the fuel tanks penetrate the bulkhead. Essentially meaning the bulkhead is nothing more than a place to hang electronics components (the engine controls, and the inverter, on our boat).

[pbirman]

Interesting. I guess many of the 33+3 (36') fast trawlers are configured differently. My fuel tanks are entirely forward of the bulkhead which appears to be a structural support for the aft part of the cabin.

I've just had to replace the sound enclosure around the genset (Westerbeck 6.5KW) The original one corroded out to the point that the hatches could not be opened. Also had to replace the starter solenoid. Again corrosion was the problem. The gen set worked OK. the changeout was precautionary.

Paul

[Mariner]

We also just replaced our starter solenoid. Turned out it was just fine though. $600 down the drain.

We're fortunate in that there is no appreciable corrosion occuring on the boat. I wonder why you're experiencing so much? Do you have problems with saltwater making it's way into the bilge?

[pbirman]

Twice we've had major ruptures of seawater cooling hoses, so the bilge has been flooded with salt water. The worst was off shore midway between Miami and Ft. Lauderdale when the SS hose clamp on the starboard engine let go and the raw water cooling hose popped off its nipple. The first indication that anything was wrong was a bilge pump warning light up on the bridge. I climbed down to investigate and found a foot and a half of seawater in the bilge. Later, the starboard engine began to over heat and needed to be shut down. I limped in on just the port engine. With the starboard engine off, the pumps were able to empty the bilge. (That's why there are scuppers!)

I found that the SS hose clamp had corroded through on the underside (where it was not visible) I replaced it with two clamps and went through the boat doubling up on all the clamps.

I rinsed everything down with fresh water and a spray compound that was supposed to remove the salt, but the generator's sound shield is of composite construction, inexplicably using steel and the salt could never be completely removed. corrosion set in and this summer I had to replace the whole thing, cutting away "frozen" bolts.

The second instance was a split hose on the generator's saltwater intake. This was at dockside and was easily repaired, but the additional saltwater didn't help things I'm sure.

Paul

[Mariner]

Yikes. I'm going to add inspecting or replacing all hose clamps to my yearly maintenance routine.