Late 80's 340EC vs late 70's 300EC

N

norriscathy

New Member
Jan 21, 2013
60
east texas
Boat Info
boatless
Engines
boatless
I've really narrowed my search down to two boats:
1) '88 340 EC loaded; A/C, genie, radar, closed cooling , bottom paint,
etc , etc w/ mid time 7.4L engines . In really showroom condition.
2) '78 300 EC with tons of beautiful teak and an unbelievably colored gel coat.It has an A/C but open cooling and no genie or radar. It needs bottom paint badly it has low time 5.7L engines.

I really like both boats and both are solely fresh water boats. My main concern now is fuel consumption. I understand that the 340 drinks 25 gph at cruise while the 300 is satisfied with 12 gph at cruise. We'll be doing very little if any salt water cruising.

Like others on this site, I started out looking at only 300's but when I saw the 340's I was blown away even though the 340 cost $8K more. BUT $100 per hour v $48 s a serious consideration.

I am in a quandary !!!! Your suggestions PLEASE.
Norris
 
norriscathy said:
I've really narrowed my search down to two boats:
1) '88 340 EC loaded; A/C, genie, radar, closed cooling , bottom paint,
etc , etc w/ mid time 7.4L engines . In really showroom condition.
2) '78 300 EC with tons of beautiful teak and an unbelievably colored gel coat.It has an A/C but open cooling and no genie or radar. It needs bottom paint badly it has low time 5.7L engines.

I really like both boats and both are solely fresh water boats. My main concern now is fuel consumption. I understand that the 340 drinks 25 gph at cruise while the 300 is satisfied with 12 gph at cruise. We'll be doing very little if any salt water cruising.

Like others on this site, I started out looking at only 300's but when I saw the 340's I was blown away even though the 340 cost $8K more. BUT $100 per hour v $48 s a serious consideration.

I am in a quandary !!!! Your suggestions PLEASE.
Norris
Click to expand...

I would dbl check those gph on twin 5.7's. I've read more like 8-10gph ea so total of 16-20 gph. Your cruise speed will be around 20-22 mph on 340 vs approx 25-28 on 300. Totally different boats.

I decided on the 340. Now I'm undecided on EC vs SD ;(
 
My old 300 Sundancer with twin I/O's and 5.7's got between 1.2 and 1.3 MPG depending on conditions at a cruising speed of 28 or 29 MPH. It broke down to 22-23 gallons per hour. It had AC but no generator or arch.
I would guess that those numbers are about 50% better than a 340 with 7.4's and V drives would get. A friend had a 95 370 Sundancer with 7.4's and his numbers were about .7 MPG at cruise speed. That boat moved along surprisingly well for a big boat with gassers, not nearly as fast as my 300 was but still pretty good, so I'd imagine the 340 with that power would perform even a little better.
Personally I would go for the 88 340. The extra space, generator, and closed cooling alone are worth the extra fuel burn.
You'll likely spend many more hours on the boat with the motors off than you will with them running so the extra creature comforts will be appreciated.
The other thing to consider is that these boats are a lot more efficient at 1200 RPM's or 5-8 MPH so if you aren't in a rush you can really save some time while still enjoying your boat.
 
Last edited:
The 340Ec is a nicer running boat with straight shaft drives and easier to maintain. If you have a family and need the room go for the DA. Both are nice boats and benefit greatly from oversized trim tabs.
 
The EC has a more spacious feeling cockpit and more working room in the bilge but the DA has more space in the cabin and still has a decent sized cockpit.
I'm partial to the amenities in the DA. Hopefully you'll spend more time in the cabin than in the bilge. The 340 DA's from that era had really nice sized aft berths. My wife and I used the aft berth in our 300 DA which was comfortable enough for us but the one on the 340 seemed significantly larger.
 
I think my '88 340 Sundancer gets closer to 20 gph on plane. But I don't have any monitors, just me doing the math at fill up so I could be off a gph or so.

Dan


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
For Dan W
have the same boat, are you saying 20 gph consumption for both engines or 20 gph per engine.
I've had mine 18 years, I always come up with different numbers. I got the twin 7.4's.
Thanks Don
 
It’s been a while since I did the math and my brain is failing me. I can’t remember right now if I calculated it per engine or total. I’ll have to do it again sometime. Sorry.

Dan
 
Its ok Dan, I'm just as bad, I figured it out probably 18 years ago, got tired of keeping track of it, just keep paying at the pump and don't look back. As i write this I am recalling maybe total for both was 25 to 28 gph at cruise, 3200-3400 rpm, i think i just answered my own question, LOL
 
I have Garmin fuel flow meters in my 390EC. It burns 30gph @ 20mph for .66mpg. My friends 340EC does not have flow meters but we have calculated he gets about .9mpg. The 300EC with small blocks would get about 1.1mpg if in good tune. All things considered I would choose witch ever boat you like and fits your need. For a couple I would go for the 340EC or the 340DA if children are in the mix.
 
I owned brand new 1979 and 1986 Searays. There was a huge difference in the build quality of the boats. The stringers on the 1979 were not glassed to the hull in several places because something was out of sync. Not sure if it was the hull or the stringer. The 1986 300 Weekender had a build quality that looked very close to the 1886 Bertram 28 that was sitting in the showroom next to the SR. I spent a lot of time on both boats with a flashlight looking into the nooks and crannies of each before buying the SR. Both of the boats the OP is considering are old boats and likely have potentially expensive issues to address. So do your home work. I would lean toward the newer boat based on my experience of owning two SRs that were brand new back in the day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,170
Messages
1,427,754
Members
61,079
Latest member
capeharj
Back
Top