SailNet Community banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Anyone have experience with sailing and maintenance issues (good/bad/ugly) with these boats? We won't be able to take any on a sea trial, weather is getting too nasty.

These are the three boats in our price range, in the size we are looking for, available in our area. All three are "Good Old Boats", all have expected issues, but lets say far the sake of comparison that the condition of all three is equal.

Morgan 30/2, 1974. The oldest and cheapest, but has brand new sails and a newer replacement yanmar. No frills, older electronics.

C&C 30, 1979. Sails are OK, not great. Unable to determine how many hours on yanmar, but it runs good for now. Intermediate price. Some frills (hot water).

Newport 30, Mark III, 1987. This one is slightly more expensive, but is newer and has better gear. Lots of frills for a boat this size (frig, heater, hot water, newer stuff). Has weird history though, moved around a lot (Florida, Alabama, Mass.) and had hurricane damage and was rebuilt in 1996.
 

·
Telstar 28
Joined
·
43,289 Posts
Which do you like the best...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I like the frills and the look of the Newport, but price is an issue, and the Morgan wins easily on that front.
 

·
Telstar 28
Joined
·
43,289 Posts
just curious, what kind of sailing do you intend to do with the boat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Mostly weekend cruising. Our last boat was more of a racer, and we want a boat that is less tender and has a decent cabin. Last boat was a Cal 27 pop-top.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I didn't mention it, but we also looked at a Tartan 30 (1977). It had more issues than the other three boats, but I loved the cabin (well maintained), and there was a lot of nice things about the boat. I haven't completely excluded it, but I need to price out what the required repairs would cost, and factor that in. The owner claims that the original Faryman runs, but it looks very bad, completely corroded. I'm wary.
 

·
ASA and PSIA Instructor
Joined
·
4,096 Posts
As a former owner of one I consider the C&C 30 mark I an absolutely wonderful sailing boat, and it is still my favorite amongst the various nice boats I've had the opportunity to own (or sail..). I'd own another one without hesitation.

The C&C will sail circles around the other choices, especially when the breeze is up. This model is genrally considered the stiffest boat C&C built...(and if you don't know what that means, buy something else.) Yet it's light air performance was also good.

The interior is functional but somewhat Spartan...if your comfort at anchor is a greater concern than behavior under sail, go with the Newport. The Morgan is cheaper for appropriate reasons, which don't make it a bargain, just less expensive/less desireable.

PS - a Tartan 30 would be an excellent second choice, it was my second choice when I selected a C&C...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Thanks for the input. Well, we are looking for a sailboat, not a RV, so sailing performance is our top priority. But for us sailing performance doesn't necessarily mean fast. Stable when it gets in the groove, responsive, handles swells, cuts chop, etc. are more important to us than speed. Compared to our last boat with less than 5' headroom, any of them look spacious. Our last boat was fast but it was a wild ride.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,188 Posts
Another $.02 opinion

As these boats age, basic construction is very important. (Not deriding "frills" and add-on's, 'cause I like that stuff too...)
:rolleyes:
The C&C will have the best hull-to-deck joint by a country mile, and the Newport the worst. This is a big deal as boats age and hard-to-fix leaks start cropping up in many boats.
Sailing ability is another thing. You will find that something like PHRF is handy for a quick one-dimensional potential speed-under-sail comparison. Problem is that it can not tell which designs are actually fun to sail and will be easy to make go fast.

I believe that the C&C would be #1, the Morgan a somewhat distant #2, and the Newport would be further back yet.

Given that you will be smart enough to find a design whose compromises are a great fit for your sailing area, you will like whatever you buy.

Happy shopping!
:thewave:
 

·
Junior member, rest old
Joined
·
499 Posts
I've had a 77 C&C 30 for 9 years now and it's one the best sailing boats I've ever owned (my favorite was a Dragon, but not much for cruising). It's a true racer/cruiser, does both reasonably well for its size. Sails well to its PERF rating: I've been first or second in our club series for 3 years straight. I keep thinking I want a bigger boat, but every time I try to find one I like better, I give up and just keep improving my C&C. Easy to singlehand with boom-end traveler and all lines aft. Great heavy weather boat. Responsive yet forgiving, points very well. I haven't had a problem with the toe-rail-deck-to-hull joint noted above. It's still got the original butyl tape sealant and doesn't leak a drop.
I bought a new main and hank-on 155 genoa 4 years ago, North Nordac, about $3500 (that's right, hank on- as long as my legs will carry me to the foredeck I'll stay with a hank-on jib). A new blade 2 years ago was $2000
The main problem on this vintage C&C is wet deck coring- watch for this. Don't let an Atomic 4 scare you if that's the engine. Easy to repair, parts available and lots of info online.
I would add that the design is not good for adding canvas- a small bimini is possible but a dodger is not really practical- the boom is only about 15" off the cabin top. Later C&C 30's (Mark 2) raised the boom a foot.
 

·
ASA and PSIA Instructor
Joined
·
4,096 Posts
..... Later C&C 30's (Mark 2) raised the boom a foot.
It is a low boom, although into so different from similar size boats. FWIW my recollection from the time, was C&C actually raised the boom a foot around the end of '77, so later Mark I's have less sail area. I'd rather the lower boom...
 

·
Junior member, rest old
Joined
·
499 Posts
I agree with the more sail area. However, I thought that they also made the mast a little taller to compensate for the raised boom. Nevertheless, I've always liked the Mark1 better than the Mark 2, if for no other reason than the framed portlights, which I prefer over the bonded-to-the-cabin type.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
One issue that we noticed on the C&C was that the stanchions along the port side had a lot of flex, and that the gelcoat and perhaps also the deck laminate itself has been cracked in that area (it had more flex than usual but wasn't what I would call soft). I couldn't see how to get to the backing plates, to see what size they are, because of the molded interior liner.
 

·
Junior member, rest old
Joined
·
499 Posts
On my '77, the liner ends about 4-5" from the hull, giving access to the toerail nuts and stanchions. My stanchions are mounted so that 2 bolts go through non-cored deck along the edge, and 2 bolts go thru cored deck. Stanchions have backing plates (1 plate per 2 bolts) but they are really undersized and I intend to replace them with larger plates someday. There is some flexing leading to gelcoat cracking but they are structurally solid. That is a common problem. That is also a common site for core saturation. Later models have stanchion bases that mount over top of the toerail. That is, I think, a better solution, and could always be done if the deck is a problem there. The later model bases are still available if you want to retrofit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
What about a Bombay Clipper 31? Tough as nails, sail decently, handle tough stuff like a battleship, and best cabin and storage I have seen for her size.
 

·
ASA and PSIA Instructor
Joined
·
4,096 Posts
What about a Bombay Clipper 31? Tough as nails, sail decently, handle tough stuff like a battleship, and best cabin and storage I have seen for her size.
the OP has expressed an interest in sailing performance, so a vessel rating some additional 70 seconds/mile would represent a radically different level of performance, or lack thereof.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
the OP has expressed an interest in sailing performance, so a vessel rating some additional 70 seconds/mile would represent a radically different level of performance, or lack thereof.
Sorry I thought the op had said ,
,, "But for us sailing performance doesn't necessarily mean fast. Stable when it gets in the groove, responsive, handles swells, cuts chop, etc. are more important to us than speed"

I guess I misunderstood :rolleyes:
 

·
ASA and PSIA Instructor
Joined
·
4,096 Posts
Sorry I thought the op had said ,
,, "But for us sailing performance doesn't necessarily mean fast. Stable when it gets in the groove, responsive, handles swells, cuts chop, etc. are more important to us than speed"

I guess I misunderstood :rolleyes:
No problem, happens to us all...
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top