SailNet Community banner

1 - 20 of 54 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,000 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Trying to decide between a Beneteau 473 and a Hunter 460. Costal crusing with liveaboard reguarly for up to 3 weeks. I like the layout and storage space of the Hunter, but the standing riging and fit/finish win on the Beneteau. All comments appreciated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
734 Posts
Try opening up your scope of consideration. If it is a new boat you''re looking for, consider the Tartan, Dehler, J-Boat, or Sabre, you''ll be much happier with a boat that was meant to be sailed rather than motored and have picnics in the cockpits. Both of these boats come from the factory with fixed three blade props, does that tell you something about their intended use? Why are people drawn to such mediocre boats? Sorry sometimes the truth hurts.
 

·
Senior Moment
Joined
·
1,931 Posts
The boats Denr suggests also come at a much higher price than the Beneteaus or Hunters. As with all things related to boats and life, there are trade offs. Comparing Beneteaus, Hunters and Catalinas is a lot like comparing Fords to Chevy''s to Chryslers, not to get into this car comparison thing too much. If you want to step up to something of a higher quality, it will cost more $$$ whether it''s a boat or a car. Thing is, there are thousands of people out there sailing the "Benehunterlinas" who love their boats and would have nothing else. Those boats suit their needs and wallets, so who''s to criticize them? People even sail around the world in them (not that I would.)

As the saying goes, different strokes, etc.

In case anyone is wondering, I own a Pearson (now would that be more like a Buick, or .......does it really matter?)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
734 Posts
It is unfortunate that Pearsons are no longer manufactured as they would be on the above list of boats to consider. That said I qualified my statement by asking the question whether it was a new boat that was to be purchased. The originator of this string did not specify his or her budget. Of course these boats are more money but you really get what you pay for in this case. I believe the exact quotation is "The bitterness of poor quality remains long after low pricing is forgotten!

~ Leon M. Cautillo ~
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Personally for Costal cruising, between the two I would take the Bene. The Hunter with that no-backtay rig and small headsail making going down wind a bit tough. The boat also does not point very high. You are left with a boat that sails only really well in a narrow range of sail angle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
Both of the boats you are mentioning costs around $300000.00 each.
If you are willing to part that kind of money I would look at Sabre 402,Tartan 4000 or Dehler 41 Cruising, etc...
It does not matter what kind of sailing you will do, you will have a better return for your investment and a lot more fun sailing..
Good Luck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,000 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Thanks for everyone''s reply. To answer a couple of questions that were asked, price is DEFINITELY a consideration. Also, these are both new boats and range, completely fitted, in the $265-275 range. Space/layout are also a definite concern because if the sopuse is not happy, it will not get much time away from the dock. I filled my racing need in the 70''s, I now strictly cruise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,000 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
If I had that kind of dough (and wife), I wouldn''t bother with a beneteau or a hunter. I''d buy a nice power boat, park the old battle ax on the sundeck, and let her watch me cruise the harbor singlehanding my new J92. I think you can do both for $275,000!!!
 

·
Senior Moment
Joined
·
1,931 Posts
SEC,

I feel your pain with the spouse who wants all the creature comforts. But for your budget range, you could definitely have a very nice, albeit much smaller, boat from Sabre, Tartan, J Boats, etc. for that same money. Of course, smaller boat overall translates into smaller creature comforts (less volume below). Only you and your wife can make that call.

I will give you my personal opinion to answer your original question of Beneteau vs. Hunter. The Beneteau has the edge in my book. It will sail better and probably is better constructed overall.

I admit to a bias against Hunters because the hull/deck joint with that huge rubber bumper is so inelegant, and the stern looks like it was designed with a chainsaw. I won''t even get into the "roll bar" on Hunters these days, although they are less obvious in stainless than when they were of FRP constuction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
734 Posts
SailorMitch, I like your reference of a roll bar on the Hunters. I always referred to them as picnic a basket handles, which is for the picnic tables in the cockpits. I cannot get past the BUTT UGLY design of all of the Hunters. I had a 28 footer next to me in the marina this year, even the novice people I took sailing with me commented just how bulbous and oddly proportioned it was. Hunter could do better with styling, Im not sure why they stick to the current design.
 

·
Senior Moment
Joined
·
1,931 Posts
Denr,

Main advantage that I can see for the Hunter roll bar is a really neat place to put the stereo speakers. otherwise, I''d pass on it. No doubt Hunter keeps that sterile, ugly design because it has to be really cheap to build them that way with that way too ugly stern. (I call it a stern designed by McCullough........as in chainsaw.) My boat is on the hard right now next to a H-29.5, so I have to see it every time I go check on my Pearson. I feel like asking the marina owner to cover that Hunter stern with a blue tarp so as not to offend my sensibilities every time I go down there.

There used to be a Hunter Vision 32 at my marina, one of those with the unstayed aluminum mast. I literally sailed circles around it with my Pearson 27 no matter what the windspeed. It was real nice below of course, quite roomy for 32 feet. But couldn''t beat a jellyfish under sail.

About 3 years ago I tried real hard to like Hunters. I devoted several hours to going through them at the Annapolis show, only because there are so many of them on the water. I wanted to find out what I was missing. the interiors were all gorgeous of course, as long as you didn''t look behind anything. Tons of room and light (God forbid all those fixed ports start to leak.) The cockpits also roomy, big enough for a party of course. Deck layout OK, no big shakes, but OK. Then there are the 2 struts attached to the mast, along with the extemely sweptback stays because there is no backstay. gonna be a dog downwind since the main can''t go out but so far, and the boats have smallish jobs for the most part.

I''ll shut up now. Obviously I am not a Hunter fan, but they are nice boats for some people, including the gentleman who started this string to begin with. Or maybe I should say, it would be a good boat for his wife, and that IS important, too. Sailing a Hunter beats not sailing at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,000 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Well, between a Hunter and a Beneteau, I like the Beneteau. It will perform better and is a better-built boat, although they are both pan-and-tab construction, which kind of puts them in the Chevy range as cars go. Or maybe the Hunter is a Chevy and the Beneteau a Buick, the point being neither is a BMW. Nonetheless, I think the Benenteau is substantially better.

You simply can''t compare BeneHunterlinas to premium boats (J, Sabre, Tartan, etc.). I mean there comes a time when you have to look at how many hours in a year you spend on the thing, divide that into the yearly cost, and figure out what it costs you per hour to own the thing (don''t forget to include maintenance, storage, mortgage, taxes and insurance by the way). Now, of course, you will poo yourself when you do this no matter which boat you buy, but the Beneteau/Hunter will result in substantially less poo, and that is why they are purchased by many people after a reality check.

That said, DAMN BOY! You''re going to spend all that money for a Hunter? Even the Beneteau? If you''re going to throw that kind of money out the window, can''t you scale back the size a bit and get into a premium boat? Maybe a Tartan or something in the 36-40 foot range? I mean, you''re talking about more than a quarter million dollars for a depreciating asset, and it''s still only a Hunter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
248 Posts
If it were limited to those two choices, I''d go with the Bene. But, having said that, I support many of the above posts...there are
a number of higher quality boats, just several years old, on the market. They''ve
already taken a big depreciation hit (reflected in a lower price)... hopefully the bugs have been worked out with the factory...and they often look showroom ready.
And when you consider the actually below deck space you need, maybe a 38 would do just fine...if, ah, the Admiral will concur.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,000 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
If I was to spend that much money on a Beneteau, I''d put it into a First 47.7. You should get a better ride out of her, and a at 47'' a good amount of creature comforts, especially if it''s only two of you.

I dont'' know much of the deck layout on the 47.7, but the similarly designed 40.7 looks like she''ll shorthand well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,000 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Of course for about that much money you could also get a J/42, Sabre 402, Tartan 4100 or a Dehler 41, all within a couple of years old. As someone else observed, let the first guy pay the depreciation to launch it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,000 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Lots of opinions here, but, at the risk of adding one without personal attack on any design, my wife and I have owned a Beneteau 41 for just over a year and we find it to be a perfect fit for our 1000+ mile/year use mostly on the Chesapeake. We have guests almost every weekend, find it to be fast and responsive, yet roomy and comfortable. Our newest addition is an asymetric spinnaker for the light wind during the heart of the summer. Bluntly, whatever you choose, someone else will have opinions one way or the other. Both Beneteau and Hunter are good boats or they wouldn''t sell so many. Don''t listen to the naysayers. Buy what you like after lots of evaluation of your own requirments. We happen to love our Beneteau and you will love whatever you eventually decide on. Good luck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,000 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
I agree with the last few posts. My 2 cents says you haven''t found the right boat yet. Look at them all, new. used, almost new... when you find the right one you won''t have to ask. It will be the correct boat for both you and your wife. You may give on a little sailing ability and she may give on a little creature comforts but you both have to love her. The boat is not an investment, there are as many boats as there are sailors all with different likes and dislikes. When you find the correct boat you''ll both know it. You''ll love the way it looks, sails, sleeps and stores everything you need.
Good hunting

John
_/)_/)_/)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,000 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
At one point in my dream I said I would never buy a Hunter. We bareboat chartered Beneteau all over the Caribbean and the Chesapeake. We finally realized that to cruise for an extended period would require a boat large enough to be comfortable or the dream would end quickly after one two many times kicking my wife in the head to get out of a quarter berth. A 40-44ft boat was the size we settled on an started the search. We quickly realized looking at moody, tartan,or sabre, would break our budget and we would never get" out there" Beneteau''s out of the charter fleet were reasonably priced but beat to crap. We found a Hunter Passage 42 (one owner) in excellent condition. The liveability is incredible for the price and for our plan to cruise the ICW and the Caribbean via island hopping to Granada from Florida the boat is perfect. The boat came with so many extras and they all worked! Is it a blue water boat? are you a blue water sailor? If money is a factor Hunter can get you on the water.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
734 Posts
In the latest edition of Practical sailor the author describes the vessels built by Beneteau, Hunter and Catalina as entry level boats, not more, not less. If a cabin the size of a dance hall, picnic table in the cockpit and tugboat prop for motoring the byways of the ICW is what you want go for that bad boy! Just remember "The bitterness of poor quality remains long after low pricing is forgotten!
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
9,162 Posts
When you ask about the relative quality of boats by the big three, Beneteau, Hunter and Catalina, there is no one universally right answer here. To use my favorite analogy, it is like trying to say that vanilla ice cream is always better than strawberry or vice versa. They have very distinct differences but the differences are more a matter of style, details, and personal preference.

In my book, most of the big three''s boats really are not intended as offshore boats. They lack the kind of details that are really a part and parcel of offshore cruising. Some of these are philosophical such as proper seaberths for half of the crew, galleys and heads that work offshore, hand holds at shoulder level where they do some good when a boat is heeled. Some are more significant such as high freeboard, large Plexiglas areas and large open deck areas without footholds.

Of the three, Beneteau has introduced a couple new boats (473 and 393 two-cabin layout) that look to be a little better suited to offshore work than the standard fair from the other two manufacturers.

When you talk about the big sellers in the U.S.- Hunter, Catalina, or Beneteau, you can not make a blanket statement that one or the other is better built or worse built than the others. They each have things that they do very well and other areas that they do not so well. My take on each is as follows:

BENETEAU
Beneteau has a number of different lines. The First series is their performance line and generally seem to be better built and finished than their Oceanis or Beneteau ''number series''.

My experience with Beneteaus number series is that they have nice layouts with cleaver little details. Like the other two manufacturers, they tend to be lightly built and place an emphasis on accommodations over performance in this size range. I like Beneteau''s hull deck joint best of the three. I also like their fit and finish best as well.

On the negative side, Beneteau does not publish ballast for their boats but from past data on similar models they tend to be a little lightly ballasted. I am not a big fan of Groupe Finot designed boats (although the new Finot and Berret designed 473 and 393 looks like neat boats). Their boats tend to be overly beamy and do not handle a chop or have as comfortable a motion as well as a narrower hull form. Still Finot is a good as anyone in the world in modeling this form and their boats have reasonable performance for what they are. I do like their hull shapes better than the Hunter in question.

One issue that I have with Beneteau comes from conversations with surveyors. In looking at the design of Beneteaus systems they do not do as good a job as Hunter at meeting U.S. safety standards. This is especially true when it comes to the design of their systems. (For example in examining a Beneteau 38s5''s propane locker I noticed an opening that was not properly sealed and connected that locker to the interior of the boat. That is a very serious no-no. It may have only been a missing finishing detail but a serious one.)

They all tend to do things in a way that is cheaper to build and perfectly sound until it needs to be fixed. For example, the Beneteau that I know most intimately used crimped hose connectors that cannot be reused. Another example is the sprayed varnish finishes. They look great but cannot be easily touched up once scratched without removing and spraying the whole panel. (This is becoming more common in the industry due to air emissions and speed of finishing the work.)

I really do not like that Beneteau is pushing in mast furling mainsails. In my mind In Mast furlers are a really bad idea, especially on boats of this size. In-mast mains really kill performance and shorten sail life spans. They are not good in light air (lose too much area to the hollow leeches) and not too good in a blow (they slip down the luff and power up at just the time when you really need flat sails.)

Beneteaus also tend to use a lot of materials and methods of construction that are not readily available over here. Plumbing connections, through-hulls, deck cleats and misc. hardware are often non-standard in the U.S. market. This is somewhat offset by the Beneteau USA''s (in Marion, S.C.) willingness to be very helpful in getting obscure spare parts very quickly and at surprisingly reasonable prices. I have been extremely impressed with Beneteau''s customer service and warrantee support.

HUNTER
Hunter is the most maligned and controversial of the big three. Hunter Marine marches to the sound of their own drummer and a lot of people don''t like the tune. Their aesthetics are very much an acquired taste and to many of us, who grew up with more traditional designs, would prefer not to buy their look. They tend to be over sold and many of us are somewhat put off by the implication of the "Goes the Distance" motto.

Still looking at them objectively they are reasonable performers for coastal cruising. They offer a lot of accommodations and features for the money. They tend to be sold amazingly well equipped. According to the surveyors that I have talked to Hunter does an excellent job at designing and building boats that meet the various safety standards. Most of the larger older Hunters have a CE ''B'' Classification, which means that they are not certified for Open Ocean usage but the more recent bigger boats have a CE ''A'', which is an open ocean rating.

On the flip side, few builders seem to draw the heavy fire in the court of "common knowledge". Some of this is just plain unwarranted but quite a bit reflects the reality of these boats. They are designed for a very specific clientele. This clientele typically are not circumnavigators but a family that is going to weekend and overnight. Hunters are not really set up with sea berths or offshore galleys but the interiors work well on the anchor. They have narrow side decks and rigs that are at their best reaching but give up a bit beating (headstay sag due to no backstay) and running (the mainsail ends up plastered against the shrouds). Their fractional rigs are easier to tack and are easier to deal with in changing conditions.

Things I dislike about Hunters; I really do not like the huge plastic port lights. This will deteriorate (my experience about 10 to 14 years in Maryland) and these big panels will be become unsafe and in need of replacement. That will be very expensive. I don''t like the rolled out hull deck joint. While it provides a nice rubrail, it is highly vulnerable and from an engineering standpoint has the most bending stresses and highest strains compared to almost any other kind of hull deck joint. My prior boat had this detail and it was the one single thing that I really hated about that boat. It is one thing to do this on a 28 foot 4100 lb. Kevlar boat like my prior boat and an entirely different thing to do on a large all glass boat)

I don''t like the B&R backstayless rigs. I have spent a lot of time on fractional rigs and masthead rigs. To me a fractional rig really makes a lot of sense for cruising but only with a backstay adjuster. Ideally, Fractional rigs can carry considerable larger working sail plans because of their ability to increase backstay tension and quickly depower the sailplan. This means few sail changes and few reefs. BUT the B&R rig does not use a backstay so rapid depowering is not an option. In that case much of the advantage of a fractional rig is lost.

Compared to other builders, Hunter''s interiors also tend to be a bit more sterile.

Lastly if you buy a Hunter you have to deal with the emotional issues about them. There are absolutely rabid Hunter haters out there. You can not under estimate the vehemence of their hatred. Then there are rabid Hunter lovers and defenders out there. They can be almost as bad. This roiling controversy results in a situation where you are left either defending the boat to detractors or defending you lack of defense to the rabid defenders.

CATALINA

My experience with Catalina is that they are no better-built and no better sailors than the other two. They have their strengths and they have their weaknesses. The thing about Catalina (at least in the US) they are seen as being the most normal. They are not great boats, but they have no big faults either. Catalina uses a lot of well-known hardware and details. They tend not to walk down the path less traveled which depending on your perspective is both a real strength and a real disadvantage. They definitely care about how they are perceived. I raised some issues with Catalinas on another BB and Frank Butler, the founder and president of Catalina, called me personally and explained to me why I was wrong in my opinion. (I have actually met both Frank Butler and Warren Luhrs from Hunter and both are people who are trying to do the right thing. They each have a vision of what that right thing is and (and even if their detractors question their definition of what is the right way to go with their boats) they seem to pursue their goals with a lot of personal integrity.) Catalinas are generally roomy and generally sail reasonably well. They don''t have the kind of quirky details that can drive you crazy with the other two companies.

The negatives on the Catalinas are somewhat subjective, but in terms of fit and finish, Catalinas seem to be the worst of the three. (The flip side is that they have finishes that the average guy can maintain.) Their boats have a dated look to my eye but to many people that can be seen as a traditional charm.

Then there is the cored hull issue. The other two manufacturers use some coring in their hulls but really limit the use of coring to limited areas above the waterline. Cored hulls are considerably lighter and stiffer. This means less heeling and less flexing which can fatigue the glass over time. (Obviously this is not a universally held belief and I am sure that there are people out there who would not buy a cored hull on a dare.) Cored hulls are actually more expensive to produce if they are produced with care. In any event, per conversations at the Annapolis Boat Show, Catalina is in the process of switching over to cored hulls on a number of their newest models with a couple models that have already switched over. To me building a boat intended for coastal use without a cored hull is just plain backwards BUT I emphasize that this is only my opinion and its not hard to make the case for either side of this argument.

In any event it all comes down to how you will use you boat. If all you are doing is coastal work then any of the three should work. I have spent a lot of time on examples of all three manufacturers and none of the three are compellingly superior to the other two. It''s a matter of what you wish to accomplish and which one moves you most.

Catalina like Hunter uses glued hull to deck joints. As Mr. Butler pointed out to me, Catalina uses a space age adhesive caulk developed for the aerospace industry and it is very tenacious stuff. The bolts are only there for alignment during construction. I think that this is a reasonable hull to deck joint but it is not may favorite.

The biggest complaint with Catalinas is the lack of warrantee support. I have had quite a few Catalinas complain about this issue and although when ever I say this I ask anyone with a good Catalina warrantee experience to please talk about it, I have yet to have anyone defend Catalina''s record. The stories that I have encountered are reprehensible and negatively color my view of these boats. In one conversation with a gentleman dumping a new boat, I came to realize that in theory it is possible to get a comparatively new Catalina with some pretty expensive but curable problems that were dumped after a warrantee battle.

In conclusion, it all comes down to how you will use you boat. If all you are doing is coastal work then any of the three should work. I have spent a lot of time on examples of all three manufacturers and none of the three are compellingly superior to the other two. It''s a matter of what you wish to accomplish and which one moves you most.

In any case good luck in your search and let us know what you decided to do. Your decision making process might be helpful to others making this kind of decision.

Respectfully
Jeff
 
1 - 20 of 54 Posts
Top