That sounds about right. I have friends who had 5 to 6 thousand dollar quotes for twin motors as long as Yamaha still sells the kits at the discounted price which I think was $700. That doesn't include a new oil pump. I have been advised by a few folks that the oil pump should be changed while the power unit is off. That pump is not cheap
2005 282 Sailfish Moisture Issue
- Thread starter Pipehunter
- Start date
Capnjim7
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2019
- Messages
- 56
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 8
- Model
- Sailfish
I just had mine done 3 months ago at Burleson Marine in Morehead City NC $1800.00 per side. I also was quoted up to 4k per side at other dealers...shop this. And hours means nothing with exhaust tuners. One of mine was so corroded that the mechanic told me that had I taken one more offshore trip that the tuner would have failed and introduced water into the head. The other side looked fine. 308 hours on both motors. Burleson also showed me a tuner that failed with 220 hours. DONT WAIT! (and both sides looked ok on scoping them earlier)
Last edited:
What years are your motors and where do boat ( what waters?). Slipped, racked or trailered?
Thanks
'05 motors on '05 282.. Shed /boatel kept it's whole life in Panama City. Rinsed after every use. All the damage in the exhaust tubes occurred from exhaust side not saltwater side.
Attachments
-
15862728607018127707936851508900.jpg
Fishtales
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2005
- Messages
- 8,029
- Reaction score
- 1,286
- Points
- 113
All depends what you are doing. If you do all the extra things (I went with Sim Yamaha's input and did the oil pumps and some other extra items) while in that deep it is more than 2500 prob closer to 3500. Then add whatever else is found on top. I agree that $7500 is high, but I'd say $3500 or so isn't.
Fishtales
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2005
- Messages
- 8,029
- Reaction score
- 1,286
- Points
- 113
That is pretty well corroded. I was told the corrosion was more of a problem in warmer water. Yamaha was reported to have a heat map tracking locations and severity of damage, warm water is a factor. The biggest risk is the plate to the power head. If this is breached, likely new power head and who knows what else.
Yeah... By God's grace I dodged the bullet on my starboard. Apparently not every tube was made of the suspect alloy. This why some go a normal life while others fail. Chris Burleson ( who has been a 5 star Yamaha guy for decades) says he has done tuners with low hours that were bad. Others held for 500-700 hours. Some looked normal. But he said basically you have to assume they all will fail. It's a 20 grand toss of the dice He also did not automatically advocate replacing oil pumps just because we are "in there" ; a ridiculous notion following the logic that since we are taking out your appendix we ought to take a few more organs as well since you're old.lol. ( which in my case makes sense sometimes.). A water pump and thermostats ..yes but oil pumps on a motor with 300 hours not so much.
His advice may be sound for low hour motors. I can't say what criteria was used by the mechanics that suggested it.
Lsquared
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2018
- Messages
- 178
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 28
While i somewhat agree, 15 yr old engine parts will go soon enough so i will be changing my oil pump whilst in there. Ounce of prevention!
Fishtales
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2005
- Messages
- 8,029
- Reaction score
- 1,286
- Points
- 113
I think it was more of while in this deep why not do it. If you didn't, and had to go back in there again; labor is 2X. Really up to the customer. Intent was to discuss why cost varies between some jobs (due to parts and labor performed). To each his own.
If I may chime in , I too just discovered my 1995 30 ft marlin that I have owned since 2005 has both sides of the hull wet and delaminated running from the stern forward about 10 ft and from the chine up about 18 ". Back in 2005 I replaced all the plastic through hull fittings due to visible cracks inside the outer openings, worried about water intrusion I replaced them all, above and below water line,with stainless steel.
At that time I found black mush in hull openings and scooped out as much as i could filling in with epoxy filler to make a hard mount for the new stainless steel through hulls. I never thought much about it since the boat had passed a moisture reading by surveyor. Fast forward to recent weeks and i just discovered very soft hull sides when pressing against them with my finger tips. I had been washing the hull with a water hose and noticed different drumming sounds as I waived the water hose around the sound would change.
I drilled numerous 1/4 " holes one inch up from the chine running about eight feet from stern forward, every 6 " or so and not surprised, all drilled holes were peeing water for days. yesterday i cut out a 2 foot by two foot section of the hull skin from chine upward near the rear scuppers and i found my fears to be true. This boat was built with balsa all the way down to the chine well below the water line, absolutely rediculous. The hull outer skin fell off when i completed the cut revealing the fiberglass was completely separated from the balsa and turned to black wet mush. Now I was able to look forward behind the outer hull skin i can see the skin is separated from the balsa about 1/8" of an inch gap all over allowing me to press the skin in and out with my hands. Also the outer hull skin is not much thicker than 1/8" of an inch to 3/16" thick at the most.
I am completely disgusted with this Grady construction. it appears Grady built the boat out of balsa with a plastic skin for looks. Now i understand why this boat was so noisy in choppy water last few seasons. the hull sides were slapping against the wet balsa. These boats werent cheap to buy in their day and new ones even more. Ive been getting quotes of 15k to remove sides and re core with foam board or new balsa. has anyone been through this and what can i do that is less expensive
At that time I found black mush in hull openings and scooped out as much as i could filling in with epoxy filler to make a hard mount for the new stainless steel through hulls. I never thought much about it since the boat had passed a moisture reading by surveyor. Fast forward to recent weeks and i just discovered very soft hull sides when pressing against them with my finger tips. I had been washing the hull with a water hose and noticed different drumming sounds as I waived the water hose around the sound would change.
I drilled numerous 1/4 " holes one inch up from the chine running about eight feet from stern forward, every 6 " or so and not surprised, all drilled holes were peeing water for days. yesterday i cut out a 2 foot by two foot section of the hull skin from chine upward near the rear scuppers and i found my fears to be true. This boat was built with balsa all the way down to the chine well below the water line, absolutely rediculous. The hull outer skin fell off when i completed the cut revealing the fiberglass was completely separated from the balsa and turned to black wet mush. Now I was able to look forward behind the outer hull skin i can see the skin is separated from the balsa about 1/8" of an inch gap all over allowing me to press the skin in and out with my hands. Also the outer hull skin is not much thicker than 1/8" of an inch to 3/16" thick at the most.
I am completely disgusted with this Grady construction. it appears Grady built the boat out of balsa with a plastic skin for looks. Now i understand why this boat was so noisy in choppy water last few seasons. the hull sides were slapping against the wet balsa. These boats werent cheap to buy in their day and new ones even more. Ive been getting quotes of 15k to remove sides and re core with foam board or new balsa. has anyone been through this and what can i do that is less expensive
Reeleasy, I certainly feel for you and know how disheartening this must be. But I do want to point out that the construction method of using balsa core in the hull sides and the thickness of the fiberglass skin is not the problem - that is a completely sound way to build a boat and would (should) be a very solidly built hull. Plenty of boats (especially as they get bigger) are built that way and have zero issues.
Normally, the fact that a boat is a quarter century old also holds some merit as things need to be resealed every so often. But you mentioned you found a big issue back in 2005 - which is unacceptable. Hindsight is 20/20 and of course the problem should have been addressed back then... but I also understand that you had a survey done which, if you don't do this kind of work on a regular basis, the natural assumption would be to trust the surveyor. But this is a prime example of "a moisture meter does not a surveyor make"!
The problem is in the way that Grady did it - by not fully sealing and encapsulating the balsa and allowing water to get in. Either around the thru-hulls or, as we found in the other thread, not properly sealing the top of the hull edge (under the rubrail). The general construction idea is perfectly sound - it's the way it was actually done that is the problem.
FYI... you mentioned you replaced all thru-hulls, both above and below the waterline, with SS. Below the waterline thru-hulls should NOT be SS. They should either be bronze or Marelon (a special nylon-reinforced plastic).
I know that none of this makes you feel any better - if I were in your shoes, it wouldn't make me feel any better, either. I simply wanted to point out that the blame goes to the way Grady did it, not the construction idea.
Now... are you handy? Do you feel like a project? If you're somewhat handy, are not overly worried about it being aesthetically perfect in the end, you can do it! I'm somewhat oversimplifying this, but... remove the rubrail and thru-hulls, skin the outer hull side (either one piece or in sections), replace the core, glue (epoxy/lightweight glass) the skin back on. Obviously taking the extra steps that Grady didn't and make sure to use only composite products or thickened epoxy by any edges. You can actually stop there if you don't mind seeing the seam - the upper seam may be hidden by the rubrail, and the lower by bottom paint. But if you skinned it in one piece, the only seams that would be visible would be the two vertical seams. And, if you wanted to, you could address that with a gelcoat repair.
Normally, the fact that a boat is a quarter century old also holds some merit as things need to be resealed every so often. But you mentioned you found a big issue back in 2005 - which is unacceptable. Hindsight is 20/20 and of course the problem should have been addressed back then... but I also understand that you had a survey done which, if you don't do this kind of work on a regular basis, the natural assumption would be to trust the surveyor. But this is a prime example of "a moisture meter does not a surveyor make"!
The problem is in the way that Grady did it - by not fully sealing and encapsulating the balsa and allowing water to get in. Either around the thru-hulls or, as we found in the other thread, not properly sealing the top of the hull edge (under the rubrail). The general construction idea is perfectly sound - it's the way it was actually done that is the problem.
FYI... you mentioned you replaced all thru-hulls, both above and below the waterline, with SS. Below the waterline thru-hulls should NOT be SS. They should either be bronze or Marelon (a special nylon-reinforced plastic).
I know that none of this makes you feel any better - if I were in your shoes, it wouldn't make me feel any better, either. I simply wanted to point out that the blame goes to the way Grady did it, not the construction idea.
Now... are you handy? Do you feel like a project? If you're somewhat handy, are not overly worried about it being aesthetically perfect in the end, you can do it! I'm somewhat oversimplifying this, but... remove the rubrail and thru-hulls, skin the outer hull side (either one piece or in sections), replace the core, glue (epoxy/lightweight glass) the skin back on. Obviously taking the extra steps that Grady didn't and make sure to use only composite products or thickened epoxy by any edges. You can actually stop there if you don't mind seeing the seam - the upper seam may be hidden by the rubrail, and the lower by bottom paint. But if you skinned it in one piece, the only seams that would be visible would be the two vertical seams. And, if you wanted to, you could address that with a gelcoat repair.
Fishtales
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2005
- Messages
- 8,029
- Reaction score
- 1,286
- Points
- 113
Dennis I hear you, but this is really getting ridiculous. It's time for changes at GW. I think leadership needs to change. The brand is at risk at this point.
Some of the crappiest wiring in the business. Late to move from wood. A transom design from the late 1980s that is a joke (hull sealed with fairing compound (basically bondo) and then capped with a cheap aluminum cap and plastic pieces all screwed in. The entire transom is just waiting for water intrusion the day it leaves the factory. Do they benchmark? Do they look at top tier competitors. Go see how an Onslow Bay is built for Pete's sake. Look at the motors situation. Married to one manufacturer with customers with no choice.
GW has been living on a 1980s reputation for a long time. They need to clean house and bring in people that know how to build a quality boat, not market a mid tier constructed boat as quality.
The pics from the recent boat shows say it all. You let boats our with that level of defects and then sell 20 at one show? They are being incentivized to sell a low quality boat.
I will not buy another boat (I bought 2 new) until I see demonstrated change. The dealers should wake up and demand a higher quality boat. They see the BS everyday but are making their nut too and saying zip. I was thinking of another, not now.
Some of the crappiest wiring in the business. Late to move from wood. A transom design from the late 1980s that is a joke (hull sealed with fairing compound (basically bondo) and then capped with a cheap aluminum cap and plastic pieces all screwed in. The entire transom is just waiting for water intrusion the day it leaves the factory. Do they benchmark? Do they look at top tier competitors. Go see how an Onslow Bay is built for Pete's sake. Look at the motors situation. Married to one manufacturer with customers with no choice.
GW has been living on a 1980s reputation for a long time. They need to clean house and bring in people that know how to build a quality boat, not market a mid tier constructed boat as quality.
The pics from the recent boat shows say it all. You let boats our with that level of defects and then sell 20 at one show? They are being incentivized to sell a low quality boat.
I will not buy another boat (I bought 2 new) until I see demonstrated change. The dealers should wake up and demand a higher quality boat. They see the BS everyday but are making their nut too and saying zip. I was thinking of another, not now.
Fishtales
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2005
- Messages
- 8,029
- Reaction score
- 1,286
- Points
- 113
I'd take a video. Send to GW and give them time to respond. If not satisfactory, post it on the net and let the consumer see and decide. This is totally unacceptable and people need to demand better.
Grady has changed some of these older construction techniques. They are no longer using balsa in the hull sides of their larger wide beam models. For example my 2014 hull sides have no wood in them. My stringers are still wood but one of the last boats to have this as the newer Gradys have foam stringers. This is as per a conversation I recently had with customer service. They have also gotten rid of those crapy metal bang plates as well. The wiring on my boat well not perfect is a whole lot better then in my previous 2002.
I have been doing some local research last few days and found three other boaters with marlins that had the sides of the hulls removed to replace the core materials at an average cost of 10 to 20 thousand dollars, the latter,($ 20k ) included the transom replaced as well as the sides of hull. This is insane!
On my boat, the skin is completely separated from the balsa.I can walk along the boat pressing my fingers and I can see and feel the flexing of the loose skin. I thought the glass was supposed to be bonded strong to the balsa deep into the grain. Even when wet it should still be solid. All i could think about when i cut the test piece out and discovered the gap between the balsa and the outer skin was how many times i been off shore in rough seas pounding at the hull all along she could have come apart and then what?
I really think Grady with their false reputation that lead me to buy this boat, should reimburse those who have already gone through what i am going through right now.
On my boat, the skin is completely separated from the balsa.I can walk along the boat pressing my fingers and I can see and feel the flexing of the loose skin. I thought the glass was supposed to be bonded strong to the balsa deep into the grain. Even when wet it should still be solid. All i could think about when i cut the test piece out and discovered the gap between the balsa and the outer skin was how many times i been off shore in rough seas pounding at the hull all along she could have come apart and then what?
I really think Grady with their false reputation that lead me to buy this boat, should reimburse those who have already gone through what i am going through right now.
Update - purchased boat for $23k. Going in for kits today. Actually the boat is in nice shape. Good gel coat. Will do new canvas and some new cushions. Big question is when I can use it.
So as a fix to this rotten balsa, could you remove the entire outer skin; scrape away the old wood core; rebuild thickness with layup and re laminate the outer skin back on ? At that point you could take it to a good glass guy and have the seams blended back in or re-spray the entire side. Probably not super difficult, making it look good is the tough part