320/340

[Woody]

We've discussed this in number of different threads, but I don't mind it again with the snow still on the ground. If you have the funds and like everything in 340, then go for it as I agree with others that you should buy the biggest you can get. Both are very good and popular models, and I assume that majority of owners of each model will say that they're happy with their choice. I am as well. Even though 5" extra beem and 2' extra length may not be very noticeble difference, but I agree with John that for anyone who's big and is looking to do most of the work themselves the ER space could be a deal maker/breaker. Although, 340 is not a walk in the park, but lats face it it's just a little larger and arranged differently.

With all the discussions I don't recall if we did the comparison on performance. The info might be in one of the threads, but I don't recall seen it. So, lets refresh our memories and review the numbers.

Here are some stats from boattest:
340DA: http://www.boattest.com/boats/boat_video.aspx?ID=75#Test-Result

By some reason I can't get the first image the bottom line is that 340DA has 225 gallons tank
and has cruising range of 186 miles.

320DA: http://www.boattest.com/boats/boat_video.aspx?ID=239#Test-Result

The bottom line is this:

- both boats have similar burning rate at MPG figures (320DA: 200/170=1.1MPG,
340DA: 225/186=1.2MPG). However, we can see in the performance chart that at 3500RPMs 320 burns 26GPH while 340DA burns 30GPH.
-To travel the same distance 340 will use slightly more fuel, but the difference is minor and shouldn't be one of the decision making points.

As for the boattest numbers I can say that my 320 performs very close to what is posted. Other 340 owners can clarify is numbers for 340 are close.

This makes no sense.

 

[320Bob]

I'd like to see the 320 test stats with the 6.2L engines that have 40 hp more than the 350 Mag engines. If none are available then I will have to compile my own set.

 

[beerman]

Thanks again for all the responses so far. I am not against either models and am not against v-drives or sterndrives. Looks like its time to start driving and checking some out. They all seem to have positives and negatives so the best thing is to start climbing around. I agree with getting the most boat you can afford, sort of. For our lake a 38-40 does not make that much sense, nor would deisels. Not that there aren't boats that size. Heck we have Mercury Marine on that lake with a 44 with Zues that they have been beating the c**p out of for a few years. It is just the wife, myself and our chocolate lab most of the time. This would give us the much needed room for the amount of time we spend on it. Keep the opinions coming. I do appreciate them.

 

[Alex F]

This makes no sense.

What doesn't make sense from this "both boats have similar burning rate at MPG figures (320DA: 200/170=1.1MPG, 340DA: 225/186=1.2MPG)."?

The burn rate on 320 is slightly less, but the difference is not that big. My point was that when you take both boats for 170 miles cruise 340 will need approx. 15 or so gallons more. Do you disagree?

 

[Woody]

What doesn't make sense from this "both boats have similar burning rate at MPG figures (320DA: 200/170=1.1MPG, 340DA: 225/186=1.2MPG)."?

The burn rate on 320 is slightly less, but the difference is not that big. My point was that when you take both boats for 170 miles cruise 340 will need approx. 15 or so gallons more. Do you disagree?

I agree that fuel useage is similar at cruise. I disagree with the 1.1 and 1.2mpg that you calculated.

Boattests range is really what they feel is a “safe range”. They use 90% of published tank capacity. For the 340DA that is 225 x .9 = 202.5gal. Take that times the mpg@ 3,500rpm(.9) and you’ll have their range from the chart….202.5 x .9 = 182miles. The important part is this, ….the 320DA w/350s gets .95mpg and 340DA w/8.1s gets .90mpg @3,500rpm cruise according to Boattest tests.

Using your method what if Boattest used the 1/3 there, 1/3 back, 1/3 reserve that is often mentioned here at CSR. For the 340DA that would be 225gal tank capacity x .666 =149.85gal. Using your process of calculating mpg we would then get 225/149.85 = 1.5mpg.

To be more clear, after posting the charts, etc, you summarize by stating the 340DA was getting 1.2mpg when the test clearly show .90mpg. That is over stating the fuel efficiency by 33%. I guarantee you that 33% has the potential to cause some one major problems if they went by those numbers.

 

[Ka1oxd]

Boy I wish one of these boating sites would keep historical information like the charts showing burn rates. I have been searching for information on 7.4 mercs on a 1988 340 DA. But I bet the numbers are probably not that different.

 

[Southpaw II]

All this info is good, but useless if you want to go out on Sat./Sun. and raft up on the lake....I do that and I use 2 1/2 tanks a year. It doesn't really matter what the cruise speed is or gph if you don't go very far. Don't get me wrong...I look at the numbers till I go cross-eyed, and love it...that's what we enjoy, right?

If the boat is too big to trailer, the consideration for outdrive is a maintenance cost concern. You can avoid it if you keep your boat on a lift, or if you have a buddy with a big trailer you can borrow to do the work yourself.

If the boat stays in the water, for your use, get the 340. Maintence will be less and you will appreciate the room. And, if you do go to shallow water, try ot to suck up sand in the impellers.

Don

 

[VinceR]

Ain't this fun!

 

[beerman]

OK. I just left the hospital. My wife decided that she didn't need her appendix anymore, or at least her appendix thought that. So as any good husband would do while their wife is getting ready for surgery I discussed boats with her. She says why get a 320 if we can find a 340 for a little more? Keep them pain meds rollin.

 

[Alex F]

I agree that fuel useage is similar at cruise. I disagree with the 1.1 and 1.2mpg that you calculated.
Boattests range is really what they feel is a “safe range”. They use 90% of published tank capacity. For the 340DA that is 225 x .9 = 202.5gal. Take that times the mpg@ 3,500rpm(.9) and you’ll have their range from the chart….202.5 x .9 = 182miles. The important part is this, ….the 320DA w/350s gets .95mpg and 340DA w/8.1s gets .90mpg @3,500rpm cruise according to Boattest tests.

I see what you mean and agree that even though the formula is correct I’ve missed the 90% capacity part. Thanks for pointing this out.

I guess that more accurate numbers should look like this:

320DA: 200gal * .95gpm=190 miles (range on full tank) * 90% = 171 miles (what boattest suggests). So, plugging in correct numbers to the formula I’ve use before we have 190miles / 200gal = .95mpg

340DA: 225gal * .9mpg=202.5 miles (range on full tank) * 90% = 182.5 miles (what boattest suggests). So, plugging in correct numbers to the formula I’ve use before we have 202.5miles / 225gal = .9mpg

Do these numbers make sense now?

As you might have noticed, I just wanted to make a simple point across that the difference in fuel usage between 320 and 340 is minor and shouldn’t be a concern while choosing between the boats.

This is fun and I'm sure this thread would be a good addition to the others we had on the subject.

 

[Woody]

320DA: 200gal * .95gpm=190 miles (range on full tank) * 90% = 171 miles (what boattest suggests). So, plugging in correct numbers to the formula I’ve use before we have 190miles / 200gal = .95mpg

340DA: 225gal * .9mpg=202.5 miles (range on full tank) * 90% = 182.5 miles (what boattest suggests). So, plugging in correct numbers to the formula I’ve use before we have 202.5miles / 225gal = .9mpg

Alex, I understand the point your attempting. My wife and I are considering moving up in boat and I wondered how the 320DA and 340DA might compare. I’ve no experience with them other than crawling around on a dealers lot so I think this thread is interesting. Myself I favor the 340DA v-drives although the engine room of the stern drive boat sure is nice. As far as your calculations I don’t see that the last ones tell us anything different than the first… same miles, same gals, same mpg but again I do get the main point…..not too much difference between the .90 and .95mpg that these boats get.

 

[rootbeerfloat]

beerman - I hope all is well with your wife. You have a PM.

 

[StevenA]

So my wife and I are throwing the discussion around about moving up. <snip> Also there is no difference on a 320. We are looking at around the 03-05 yr models because we love the styling...Thanks.

We looked quite awhile and are very happy with our 320 decision, and would pick it again if doing again. One small factor was our slip size is 13' and the 340 would have been a little snug. The next jump will come soon enough either way. For now the perfect boat for us is our current. JMHO, Steve :smt001

 

[mhtimber]

We looked at both and bought the 320 because it was $40K less than 340 and aside from being a tad smaller was otherwise almost identical.

The only thing I would do differently is go with v-drives rather than the BIIIs but our's was a left-over and we got a good deal on it.

You'll enjoy whichever boat your choose and can't go wrong with either pick.

Cheers
Jeff

 

[BadaBingII]

I have a 340 and my friend has a 320. The berths in the 340 are quite a bit larger. I'm a good sized guy at 6'2 and the 320 v berth and aft cabin were cramped for me.

I lke the forward facing seats in the front of my 340, but if you are going to be rafting a lot and just hanging out, the port side seat on the 320 might be nicer for you. The swim platform on the 320 is quite a bit larger and closer to the water. When sitting on the platform of my 340, I can barely get my feet in the water.

I've had boats with stern drives , and my current has vdrives. I really like the vdrives. I have never had an issue with my v's (knock on wood) but had repeated issues with my stern drives. That said, I owned my last stern drive 16 years ago. I imagine a lot has improved since then. I think for shallow water boating like you are doing, It might be best with the stern drives. The last time I sent my Vdrive props in for reconditioning it was about $400 a piece.

Plus twin stern drives on a 320 or 340 would get your top speed and efficiency up there considerably.

 

[MAKC]

In my opinion, the 320 and the 340 are very similar except for the personal preferences noted here (swim platform, forward berth, seating layouts). Since they are so similar, id go for the one with the best price. If you found a 320 and a 340 for the same price, id go with the 340 of course. But i think you will find that 320's are less $$ for essentially the same layout. Both look fantastic and offer lots and lots of amenities. The outdrives offer more flexibility for shallow water but require more maintenance than vdrives. So it really all depends on your personal preferences. One thing i know for sure is that you cant go wrong with whichever one you choose. We love our 320.