New 370 Sundancer Outboard - Coming Soon

[stg099]

https://www.searay.com/us/en/models/sundancer-series.html

Saw that Sea Ray was teasing a new model on Instagram about a month back, and hadn't heard much since but just noticed the new 370 Sundancer OB is now "coming soon" on the website. Anyone have any information on what to expect? Stretched 350 coupe? reinvention of the Venture? Curious to see where they've gone with this one.

 

[TonyQSC500]

If I where to guess I would say a stretched version of the 320 DA. That seems to be the way they are going with boats these days.

 

[New Horizon]

Where and how do you launch and carry a dingy with this set up?

 

[Puget Sounder]

I've owned outboards but I don't see the advantage over any other engine configuration on a midsize to large cruiser. What am I missing?

 

[Timeflys]

Cheaper installation/production costs for manufacturer....more interior space, less mechanical headaches for owner

 

[Golfman25]

I’m no real fan of outboards on a cruiser. But I am tired of squeezing myself into places not possible for any human to do simple maintenance

 

[mobocracy]

I’m no real fan of outboards on a cruiser. But I am tired of squeezing myself into places not possible for any human to do simple maintenance

How much of that is just low-effort design where nobody considers this or its sacrificed for cost or to create a desired boat layout?

I know I always wondered what my 310DA would be like if there was no aft cabin and that space had been used for mechanical systems.

 

[Golfman25]

How much of that is just low-effort design where nobody considers this or its sacrificed for cost or to create a desired boat layout?

I know I always wondered what my 310DA would be like if there was no aft cabin and that space had been used for mechanical systems.

See the Tiara 31 open and similar. Nothing beat the simplicity of straight drives and enough beam to work around the engines.

 

[b_arrington]

How much of that is just low-effort design where nobody considers this or its sacrificed for cost or to create a desired boat layout?

I know I always wondered what my 310DA would be like if there was no aft cabin and that space had been used for mechanical systems.

I think you can see this type of design in a boat like the 33EC/34 Amberjack. Straight shaft, no aft cabin. I looked at these boats as well as similarly sized Tiaras. But without the aft cabin and a lack of sleeping berths I ruled it out.

Instead I moved to a Back Cove 34. Its a single engine straight shaft that doesn't have an aft cabin, but does have a lower lounge and upper dinette that convert to berths. Going from a stern drive to a straight shaft inboard really made me appreciate the compactness of the stern drive package. It really does save a tremendous amount of space. The center mounted inboard with shaft takes up so much room. In some ways my 270 AJ had more and better storage than my Back Cove 34.

My biggest gripes with outboards are these:

• Eats up the swim platform. Swimming is a major activity for us, and we hang on the swim platform all the time.
• Where to put the dinghy? Very hard to carry the dingy with outboards.
• Multiple engines. You need at least 2 engines for larger boats and often more. This means increased maintenance - although less than inboards I think. But still you're often talking 3 engines.
• Fuel burn. 99.9% of outboards are gas powered and still pretty thirsty especially vs. diesel engines. The new Back Cove 39o uses triple outboards has a cruise speed of 34 mph, burning 46 gph and getting .7 GPM. In comparison my single engine Back Cove 37 burns half that amount of fuel. It will cruise at 27 mph burning 22 GPH for 1.2 GPM.

 

[mobocracy]

I think you can see this type of design in a boat like the 33EC/34 Amberjack. Straight shaft, no aft cabin. I looked at these boats as well as similarly sized Tiaras. But without the aft cabin and a lack of sleeping berths I ruled it out.

Instead I moved to a Back Cove 34. Its a single engine straight shaft that doesn't have an aft cabin, but does have a lower lounge and upper dinette that convert to berths. Going from a stern drive to a straight shaft inboard really made me appreciate the compactness of the stern drive package. It really does save a tremendous amount of space. The center mounted inboard with shaft takes up so much room. In some ways my 270 AJ had more and better storage than my Back Cove 34.

My biggest gripes with outboards are these:

• Eats up the swim platform. Swimming is a major activity for us, and we hang on the swim platform all the time.
• Where to put the dinghy? Very hard to carry the dingy with outboards.
• Multiple engines. You need at least 2 engines for larger boats and often more. This means increased maintenance - although less than inboards I think. But still you're often talking 3 engines.
• Fuel burn. 99.9% of outboards are gas powered and still pretty thirsty especially vs. diesel engines. The new Back Cove 39o uses triple outboards has a cruise speed of 34 mph, burning 46 gph and getting .7 GPM. In comparison my single engine Back Cove 37 burns half that amount of fuel. It will cruise at 27 mph burning 22 GPH for 1.2 GPM.

The loss of the swimming platform would be a major negative to me. In some ways, I'm more into swimming and being in the water than running the boat per se. The admiral will sometimes chide me when she invites friends to a cocktail cruise, "do you have to get out your water saddle this time?"

I would assume that inboard engines with closed loop cooling and straight shafts would be close to a wash on maintenance. Maybe it is *easier* to do similar work on than inboards from an access perspective, but I kind of wonder how easy that center engine on triple outboard centers is for access.

The gas issue is also a problem when it comes to generators and/or having a common fuel. I think at some level of cruising, ditching explosive gasoline would be part of the goal.

I don't think we would have bought our boat without the aft cabin, but our son is now 6'2 and has a ton of complaints about it, so at this point a boat without the second berth would be fine. Unless we move way up into a boat with a second "real" cabin, nobody is staying the night with us anyway, at least not in the puny aft cabin.

 

[Pirate Lady]

How much of that is just low-effort design where nobody considers this or its sacrificed for cost or to create a desired boat layout?

I know I always wondered what my 310DA would be like if there was no aft cabin and that space had been used for mechanical systems.

Look at a late 80’s 300 Weekender pictures on boattrader. My buddy had one, no aft cabin, straight inboards, huge cockpit space, huge engine compartment, perfect for 2 adults no kids.

 

[Pirate Lady]

I've owned outboards but I don't see the advantage over any other engine configuration on a midsize to large cruiser. What am I missing?

I would never have that style aka multiple outboards. I can find a bazillion mechanics to work on a Merc 454, get a Jasper rebuilt For $3k range. Try that with an outboard. Some people have stern drive issues and hate them, my Bravos have been bulletproof and never let me down.

 

[b_arrington]

The loss of the swimming platform would be a major negative to me. In some ways, I'm more into swimming and being in the water than running the boat per se. The admiral will sometimes chide me when she invites friends to a cocktail cruise, "do you have to get out your water saddle this time?"

I would assume that inboard engines with closed loop cooling and straight shafts would be close to a wash on maintenance. Maybe it is *easier* to do similar work on than inboards from an access perspective, but I kind of wonder how easy that center engine on triple outboard centers is for access.

The gas issue is also a problem when it comes to generators and/or having a common fuel. I think at some level of cruising, ditching explosive gasoline would be part of the goal.

I don't think we would have bought our boat without the aft cabin, but our son is now 6'2 and has a ton of complaints about it, so at this point a boat without the second berth would be fine. Unless we move way up into a boat with a second "real" cabin, nobody is staying the night with us anyway, at least not in the puny aft cabin.

All good points! Small cabin size prevented me from considering the 290 AJ. That aft cabin was only about 5'7" IIRC.

I think you're right about getting rid of gasoline as an objective. Over on the BC/Sabre forum, there was a discussion about this. A number of folks there hate the idea of having a 300 gallon tank of gasoline under their feet and won't consider an outboard at all for that reason. BC did decide to have a diesel-powered generator with a separate fuel supply for their outboard-powered models.

You might be right about ease of maintenance of a inboard vs. outboards. I do enjoy having only a single engine to maintain, and have a lot of room to work on it.

 

[copb8tx]

Look at a late 80’s 300 Weekender pictures on boattrader. My buddy had one, no aft cabin, straight inboards, huge cockpit space, huge engine compartment, perfect for 2 adults no kids.

Had an 88 300WE way back in the day. It was a great boat in terms of size, maintenance, efficiency, maneuverability, etc. But to get the great cockpit space you compromised the cabin space which was fine with us since our two young daughters fit fine on the the converted dinette bed and didn't mind sleeping together.

Back to the 370DA, I believe it will be a stretched 320 DA with a lot of shared components.

I've been looking pretty seriously lately at these larger bowrider hybrids, with and without outboards. I like the concept of the bowrider hybrid but it's another case of compromising the interior for the exterior and a little bit of seaworthiness for open water. Only you will know what's important to you.

The size boats I'm looking (31'-35') are either offered with OB's or IO's, not Inboards. So the choice is really OB or IO.

The outboard question is a perplexing one for me. OB's are great in shallow environments and environments where you can literally raise 100% of the boats mechanicals out of the saltwater. Also flushing is a breeze and no concerns about risers and manifolds. You pay a lot more for this option as well.

I love the transom/swim platforms of the the IO's and most go faster and burn less fuel the OB's but you pay in terms of saltwater damage to manifolds and risers and the fact that the lower unit can't be raised out of the water and therefore suffers far more damage from corrosion. Other than the Ilmor engines you need to budget pretty big $$$s for 3-5 year replacement of manifolds and risers. The boat I buy would probably be lift or rack stored.

I really don't know what to think or do at this point. No perfect solution.

 

[mobocracy]

I love the transom/swim platforms of the the IO's and most go faster and burn less fuel the OB's but you pay in terms of saltwater damage to manifolds and risers and the fact that the lower unit can't be raised out of the water and therefore suffers far more damage from corrosion. Other than the Ilmor engines you need to budget pretty big $$$s for 3-5 year replacement of manifolds and risers.

I'm kind of surprised that there hasn't been any engineering done to greatly reduce the salt water impact on those components. Maybe I'm naive, but stuff like thin film ceramic coating or the use of bronze alloys. Even if nothing is forever in salt water, pushing out replacement cycles to 10 years instead of 5 seems worth it.

 

[Golfman25]

I've been looking pretty seriously lately at these larger bowrider hybrids, with and without outboards. I like the concept of the bowrider hybrid but it's another case of compromising the interior for the exterior and a little bit of seaworthiness for open water. Only you will know what's important to you.

I don't know how you can do a bowrider hybrid in any type of chop. Even on lake Michigan, we frequently have 1-2 foot chop and can take some spray on the bow even just going to the beach. Seems like a mess waiting to happen to me.

 

[b_arrington]

I'm kind of surprised that there hasn't been any engineering done to greatly reduce the salt water impact on those components. Maybe I'm naive, but stuff like thin film ceramic coating or the use of bronze alloys. Even if nothing is forever in salt water, pushing out replacement cycles to 10 years instead of 5 seems worth it.

Mercruiser has done some work in this for the stern drive. The Sea Core option basically adds corrosion-resistant anodizing to the stern drive for better longevity. That doesn’t address the engine side parts though.

 

[stephenm27]

Mercruiser has done some work in this for the stern drive. The Sea Core option basically adds corrosion-resistant anodizing to the stern drive for better longevity. That doesn’t address the engine side parts though.

I noticed in the Brunswick latest quarterly SEC filing that outboard revenue was $410M versus $39M for stern drive engines. The approx 10x ratio was the same for the same period in 2019 as well.

Based on this, I think we see why there’s little innovation to be expected in the stern drive engine segment delivered by Mercury.

 

[mobocracy]

I noticed in the Brunswick latest quarterly SEC filing that outboard revenue was $410M versus $39M for stern drive engines. The approx 10x ratio was the same for the same period in 2019 as well.

Based on this, I think we see why there’s little innovation to be expected in the stern drive engine segment delivered by Mercury.

I think it's compounded by Brunswick being a major consumer of Mercruiser engines. It's a captive market in a lot of ways, consumers can't pick a Volvo Penta stern drive and Sea Ray can't move their business to a more responsive supplier. Why would Mercruiser ever be motivated to innovate?

I know that pod drives are significantly different than stern drives, but it's kind of interesting that stern drives can't be made as robust as pods, at least in terms of environmental resistance. I don't know how well SeaCore really works in this regard, but stern drives would probably be more reasonable if there wasn't a risk of them rotting.

 

[b_arrington]

I think it's compounded by Brunswick being a major consumer of Mercruiser engines. It's a captive market in a lot of ways, consumers can't pick a Volvo Penta stern drive and Sea Ray can't move their business to a more responsive supplier. Why would Mercruiser ever be motivated to innovate?

I know that pod drives are significantly different than stern drives, but it's kind of interesting that stern drives can't be made as robust as pods, at least in terms of environmental resistance. I don't know how well SeaCore really works in this regard, but stern drives would probably be more reasonable if there wasn't a risk of them rotting.

Fair points. Just look at Mercruiser's continued use of mild steel for the steering pin on Bravo 3 drives. That mild still will always corrode, chew up the seal, and cause a leak that eventually rots the transom ring. Simply switching that one part to stainless steel would reduce a big source of damage.

TBH though, Mercruiser basically failed on the pods so it might not be the best comparison. They teamed up with Cummins to co-engineer Zeus and the partnership fell apart. It may not be corrosion-related, but Zeus owners other problems like seals that get blow out and cause leaks.