Mid 90's Sundancer 270 Questions re: mpg & trailering

zippinbye

New Member
Apr 10, 2010
12
Southern NV & Western BC
Boat Info
1986 Sundancer 268
Engines
4.3L/205 h.p. x 2 w/ Alpha drives
I know there's a model-specific thread for the mid-90's Sundancer 270s, but I did not see these two questions answered there. 15 years ago I was looking for a 1994-ish 270, but I ended up buying a pristine 1986 model 268 instead. It's been a fine boat, but the cockpit layout sucks for cruising comfort and socializing if you're more than a couple. Now I'm back to seeking a 1994 and up Sundancer (anything pre-280, but 280's are not necessarily excluded either) for a number of reasons. While I like the twin 4.3 drivability, performance and economy based on how my 268 runs, I'm leaning toward the simplicity of a single, and having a few square inches to work with in the bilge. I like the benefits of a Bravo 3 as well. Can anybody give me some fuel consumption and speed specs on a 270 with 7.4L and Bravo 3 power?

Also, how about trailering - does anybody fess up to the 9'2" beam and comply with all the wide load permitting requirements? I'm thinking the Slick Wille rule could apply; don't ask, don't tell. It would take a pretty astute county mountie to ID a 270 as wide load material at a glance; it's just 8 inches out of legal. I'm hyper cognizant of load limits when it comes to weight. I demand plenty of excess tire and axle weight bearing capacity on trailers and tow vehicles, as well as compliance with overall and combined gross weight limitations. But I don't see any glaring safety implications from a measly 8 inches, which is only 4 inches in each direction At least, that's my first thought as I consider the hassles and inconveniences of wide load operations through multiple states . Daylight operation requirements and city bypasses could put a real damper on getaway plans. Please fill me in on the realities of towing one of this "barely-illegal" loads. Thanks!
 
If you have an accident ICBC will investigate and probably will not pay your claim. How do I know? Some one with a class A motor home in BC was looking at pulling a bigger GVW load with it than allowed and he was told he could have his claim denied if he did not comply with towing regulations.
 
Good news, the 94-99 270DA and 270SE-DA are 8-6 and not a wide load.

Do not turn down a Bravo II, they are an excellent drive and bulletproof.

I have a fuel flow and get as good as 1.2 mpg at 3200 with carbed 7.4 and a II drive.

MM
 
Depends on which 270. The 1998 I was looking at was 9'2" but there were 'Special Editions' made that were 8'6". Seems if they have the walkthrough windshield they are the 9'2" version.
 
Depends on which 270. The 1998 I was looking at was 9'2" but there were 'Special Editions' made that were 8'6". Seems if they have the walkthrough windshield they are the 9'2" version.

Correct, the 9'-2"" beams had the walk-thru windshield and the separate dinette in the cabin. The 8'-6" beam had the walk-around and a typical forward v-birth without the dinette.
 
Last edited:
Correct, the 8'-6" beams had the walk-thru windshield and the 9'-2" beams had the separate dinette in the cabin
You are partially correct. The 1998 we looked at was 9'2" and had the walkthrough windshield (steps on the cabin door) and had the separate dinette but the v-berth was also a convertible so could be table or bed. It wasn't a standalone bed though if that is what you mean.
 
The SE version was only made in 1999... they made it one more year because of the demand for the 270 with the 8'6" beam. I owned one, great, fast boat! It did not have a walk through windshield.
 
Thanks for the replies everybody. There's a lot of confusion regarding beam and the dinette/walk through windshield. Just when I think I have it figured out, I stumble across and exception. When it comes down to picking the right boat, I don't care about 102" compared to 110," unless it really does impact my trailering ability. But I do want the walk through windshield and dinette.
 
Good news, the 94-99 270DA and 270SE-DA are 8-6 and not a wide load.

Do not turn down a Bravo II, they are an excellent drive and bulletproof.

I have a fuel flow and get as good as 1.2 mpg at 3200 with carbed 7.4 and a II drive.

MM

MM - I'm guessing your figure is nautical miles per gallon? I'm still an mph guy on the water, but I talk knots exclusively in airplanes. Does not really matter, as long as your comparing apples to apples. But I find so many distance references in statute miles, that knots don't really fit well with my boating habits.

I was guessing closer to 2 statute miles per gallon or better for a boat like yours. 1.2 mpg works out to something like 20 gph if you were running at 25, be it nautical or statute numbers? That's a lot of fuel passing through your Q-Jet! Between some data on Boatest.com for the 280 and my performance on the 268, your number hits me as kind of low. Obviously different hulls and propulsion set-ups, but in the same realm of size and weight. Looks like a 280 with a 300 hp 5.7 Mag/Bravo 3 can post 2.4 (12 gph@29mph cruise). In the 268 I cannot do much worse than 2.0 mpg on plane and 2.3 is pretty routine (12gph@28mph) with twin Alpha 4.3s, so I was expecting something not too different in a 270.

Thanks for responding to my query.
 
image.jpeg
image.jpeg
This is my boat with no a/c or Genny - full gas, some water, packed for a week trip with me and one passenger. Seas we about 1-2 ft. This is typical for my mpg. (See fuel computer bottom left-shows speed and mpg)
 
Here in AZ at least, if you wanted to be legal towing, its pretty simple. A "WideLoad" banner across the transom and pay 15 or 30 bucks... All done online.
  • Oversize single-trip: $15
  • Oversize 30-day: $30
 
You are partially correct. The 1998 we looked at was 9'2" and had the walkthrough windshield (steps on the cabin door) and had the separate dinette but the v-berth was also a convertible so could be table or bed. It wasn't a standalone bed though if that is what you mean.

I just realized that I didn't type what I meant to say. LOL
I just corrected my previous reply.
We have a 98 wide beam with twin 4.3's and we love it. We just now converted the v-birth into our main bed in lieu of using the mid-birth. She handles great in Lake Michigan and we love the layout. I do see where the sleeping (in either birth) might not be ideal if you are above average height/size. I'm 5'-6" and my wife is a few inches shorter so it's not an issue for us.
 
The SE version was only made in 1999... they made it one more year because of the demand for the 270 with the 8'6" beam. I owned one, great, fast boat! It did not have a walk through windshield.

The SE 270 DA was made in both 98 and 99 as indicated in SR archives.

MM
 
Thanks for the replies everybody. There's a lot of confusion regarding beam and the dinette/walk through windshield. Just when I think I have it figured out, I stumble across and exception. When it comes down to picking the right boat, I don't care about 102" compared to 110," unless it really does impact my trailering ability. But I do want the walk through windshield and dinette.

Any confusion can usually be cleared up by studying the specs of all the vessels you are interested in on the SR archives page.

MM
 
If I knew then what I know now, I'd be shopping for a 1995 290 DA with the 116" beam.
As you say, only 4 inches extra on each side, and permits (where required) are so easy to get for this width it's not really a concern.
I don't see going to a mid-nineties 270 DA or the 270 DASE as being an improvement over what you have. Space is essentially the same and handling characteristics are very similar.
 
In PA over 8'6" requires a permit but from what I have heard that is pretty easy and not too expensive. I think over 12' requires flags and pilot cars so doesn't sound too bad here. I have never towed anything this wide so my info might not be 100% accurate but is what I remember hearing. I do know the 8'6" is the widest without permit though.
 
1995 Windshield Center Section Opening – The windshield center section on my 1995 270 does not open. It looks like it could be made to do so if I remove the windshield wipers, the light pole socket; relocate the support rod connections; disconnect the push open to the lower section that opens, secure that section…I would then put a hinge on it and a hasp has anyone done this?...Is it as easy as I think it might be?
 
1995 Windshield Center Section Opening – The windshield center section on my 1995 270 does not open. It looks like it could be made to do so if I remove the windshield wipers, the light pole socket; relocate the support rod connections; disconnect the push open to the lower section that opens, secure that section…I would then put a hinge on it and a hasp has anyone done this?...Is it as easy as I think it might be?

And how would one "climb" up to the new window opening?

MM
 
And how would one "climb" up to the new window opening?

MM
That's easy...the people that want access the the sunpads can step up on the portside seat, then the dash....mostly my daughter and her friends, 20somethings..not old fat guys like me....plus I'd rather motor along with the wind coming through the opening
 
I haven’t paid an awful lot of attention to that area but it seems like there would be a problem with the framing. And what exactly would you do with the vent? Leaving it in place would create a serious trip hazard.
20 somethings nimble enough to climb over the dash should have no problem with the walkways on each side of the boat.
But if you do undertake this project, be sure to share it here.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
112,872
Messages
1,420,835
Members
60,871
Latest member
cbrcassio
Back
Top