Before we lost SRO i had posted ? about the 39EC. Somebody had me go to a review from PASC. He didnot have much nice to say about SEA RAY or the 39 EC ride. He went to far as to say he didnot want to get caught in 3 footers with this boat. Anybody got any comments about the 39EC ride? I already know it might be difficult to dock. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated! :smt017
Ride of 39 EC
- Thread starter JC3
- Start date
- Oct 6, 2006
- 12,153
- Boat Info
- 1996 450DA
- Engines
- 3116 Caterpillars
I've got a lot of 390EC experience since we owned one on the coast for 9 years. Here's my take on them:
Absolutely great boats, tons of space, very beamy, very forgiving and easy to handle. They tend to be great inshore but are not happy in heavy seas. Anything over about 6 ft seas and the props will break out of the water. This is due to the very shallow draft (28") and fairly deep prop pockets. They are plenty safe, you just have to slow down and take your time. In 6ft + seas, that gets old quickly. Below about 6ft and they have a great, dry, solid ride.
If you are shopping and have yet to find a boat, try to stay in the 1989 and up models. The cockpit in the '88 and older boats have seat bases that were made of unsealed plywood which are prone to rotting. Its not a deal breaker, but if the seats or side walls rot, it can he hard to find someone to do the repairs and it can be expensive.
The gas 390EC's were kinds piggish on fuel.....look for one with 3208 Caterpillars if you can.
These are not quick boats, but will deliver a solid 20 kts cruise.
The only handling anomally is that handling in a cross wind at slow speeds can be ornery. With only a 28" draft, there isn't much boat under the water and they will weather-vane in the blink of an eye. Plan your approaches by backing into the wind and you will have to use a little power to make them respond in a 20 kt wind.
I'd still have my 390 if she had been diesel powered.............
Have fun shopping!
Absolutely great boats, tons of space, very beamy, very forgiving and easy to handle. They tend to be great inshore but are not happy in heavy seas. Anything over about 6 ft seas and the props will break out of the water. This is due to the very shallow draft (28") and fairly deep prop pockets. They are plenty safe, you just have to slow down and take your time. In 6ft + seas, that gets old quickly. Below about 6ft and they have a great, dry, solid ride.
If you are shopping and have yet to find a boat, try to stay in the 1989 and up models. The cockpit in the '88 and older boats have seat bases that were made of unsealed plywood which are prone to rotting. Its not a deal breaker, but if the seats or side walls rot, it can he hard to find someone to do the repairs and it can be expensive.
The gas 390EC's were kinds piggish on fuel.....look for one with 3208 Caterpillars if you can.
These are not quick boats, but will deliver a solid 20 kts cruise.
The only handling anomally is that handling in a cross wind at slow speeds can be ornery. With only a 28" draft, there isn't much boat under the water and they will weather-vane in the blink of an eye. Plan your approaches by backing into the wind and you will have to use a little power to make them respond in a 20 kt wind.
I'd still have my 390 if she had been diesel powered.............
Have fun shopping!
Frank its great to get your advice. We looked at 99 46' and there happened to be a 87 39' at the dock. Couldnot get over the size etc of the 39'. It was 1/2 the price. Donot know if we would go with the 39' but we really liked the overall boat. How about the later 80's 46 EC? Thanks again Frank & again it was good to see you here! JC
I LOVE A 390EC!
This could be a perfect boat for many. I am on the lake and I just casually cruise. There is so much room on the 390EC for entertaining. Lot of boat for the money today. I have been on a couple 390's. One was totally remodeled in Cabin/Cockpit. Stunning boat with Sea Rays classic lines.
I would consider how you will be using your boat and rule it in or out. By this I mean if you boat in big water quit looking at the 390EC. If no big water find a great 390EC and post your boat photo right away. I would love to see it.
This could be a perfect boat for many. I am on the lake and I just casually cruise. There is so much room on the 390EC for entertaining. Lot of boat for the money today. I have been on a couple 390's. One was totally remodeled in Cabin/Cockpit. Stunning boat with Sea Rays classic lines.
I would consider how you will be using your boat and rule it in or out. By this I mean if you boat in big water quit looking at the 390EC. If no big water find a great 390EC and post your boat photo right away. I would love to see it.
HiFi: Thanks for the reply & great advice. But the rub is : We will be using it in the bahamas. Probably not right for that purpose but we really liked the boat. Donot know how it would x the Gulf Sream travel down the Bahamas bank across northwestern channel to Exumas, ETC.........Shallow draft would be nice but getting into heavy chop doesnt sound like fun. We currently have a GlacierBay 2685 05. It has spoiled us as to ride and what it can take. Just way, way to darn small!!! So looking at 46EC & 46 99. It is still hard to get away from the 39EC. Any thought or advice would certainly be appreciated. JC
- Oct 6, 2006
- 12,153
- Boat Info
- 1996 450DA
- Engines
- 3116 Caterpillars
If you are thinking about a gas boat with 7.4's , just get over it. THe range is very marginal for a crossing. But my big problem is the sea keeping ability of the older 390 design........if you don't mind waiting on a calm day, its still a long 90 miles where a lot can happen.
If the Bahamas is a real consideration, the 99 up 460DA with Cummins power is a better choice, since you mentioned it. However, the '96 to '99 450DA is probably one of the best overall designs Sea Ray ever produced and is significantly better than the 390EC..........but I'm sort of partial!
and, I do understand the difference between the 2........!
If the Bahamas is a real consideration, the 99 up 460DA with Cummins power is a better choice, since you mentioned it. However, the '96 to '99 450DA is probably one of the best overall designs Sea Ray ever produced and is significantly better than the 390EC..........but I'm sort of partial!
and, I do understand the difference between the 2........!
Last edited:
Frank: I hope you will help me thru the process. Knowing how knowledgeable you are i will need the help. Certainly the main concern
is how it will handle the rough stuff that can pop up in the Bahamas. I (admiral) like the floor plan of the express but the right 45 0r 46 will do. The main purpose is next summers cruise. Our plans are to leave SE FLA mid-may & return very late August. This last cruise on the 26fter almost had the Admiral ordering me to walk the plank. INSTEAD we agreed on a bigger boat :thumbsup: . What about the late 80's 46 EC? Thanks FRANK. JC
is how it will handle the rough stuff that can pop up in the Bahamas. I (admiral) like the floor plan of the express but the right 45 0r 46 will do. The main purpose is next summers cruise. Our plans are to leave SE FLA mid-may & return very late August. This last cruise on the 26fter almost had the Admiral ordering me to walk the plank. INSTEAD we agreed on a bigger boat :thumbsup: . What about the late 80's 46 EC? Thanks FRANK. JC
- Oct 6, 2006
- 12,153
- Boat Info
- 1996 450DA
- Engines
- 3116 Caterpillars
JC,
I've only run one of them and that was a long time ago. I seem to remember it is a big roomy boat but underpowered heavy and slow.
I know money is always a consideration, but older boats are not always cheaper. Later resins and vinylesthers as well as construction methods make the newer boats just as strong but a lot lighter and virtually blister proof.
THe 390EC in the photo above had an annual "blister tax" of about $1500 for haul out, pressure wash, opening, dryng and repairing blisters. The 450 to the left is a 10 year old boat yet to have its first blister.
I've only run one of them and that was a long time ago. I seem to remember it is a big roomy boat but underpowered heavy and slow.
I know money is always a consideration, but older boats are not always cheaper. Later resins and vinylesthers as well as construction methods make the newer boats just as strong but a lot lighter and virtually blister proof.
THe 390EC in the photo above had an annual "blister tax" of about $1500 for haul out, pressure wash, opening, dryng and repairing blisters. The 450 to the left is a 10 year old boat yet to have its first blister.
FWebster,
Would a 400EC gas or diesel make a good trip to the Bahamas for JC? I ask this question for myself as well.
Would a 400EC gas or diesel make a good trip to the Bahamas for JC? I ask this question for myself as well.
- Oct 6, 2006
- 12,153
- Boat Info
- 1996 450DA
- Engines
- 3116 Caterpillars
Yes.......
The 400EC replaced the 390EC and the interior layout is identical. The 400's beam is about a foot narrower and they draw more than the 390. That solved the inclination to weather vane and makes the 400 a good bit faster than the 390.
This is still a marginal trip in a gasoline boat....my opinion only. I'd look for a 400EC with Caterpillars. I made offers on one before we bought the 450. THis one was a PD&E boat that had a lot of different non-matching, but upper end electronics and had some "turned up" 350/3116 Cats in it. The goal was to see the performance increase at about 375 hp. They were de-tuned back to original specs, but the boat would absolutly fly and handled like a Porsche on the water.......I loved it, and would have bought it but the 450 became available and was a whole lot more boat with a much better layout for us and a lot better engine room for an old do-it-yourselfer.
The 400EC replaced the 390EC and the interior layout is identical. The 400's beam is about a foot narrower and they draw more than the 390. That solved the inclination to weather vane and makes the 400 a good bit faster than the 390.
This is still a marginal trip in a gasoline boat....my opinion only. I'd look for a 400EC with Caterpillars. I made offers on one before we bought the 450. THis one was a PD&E boat that had a lot of different non-matching, but upper end electronics and had some "turned up" 350/3116 Cats in it. The goal was to see the performance increase at about 375 hp. They were de-tuned back to original specs, but the boat would absolutly fly and handled like a Porsche on the water.......I loved it, and would have bought it but the 450 became available and was a whole lot more boat with a much better layout for us and a lot better engine room for an old do-it-yourselfer.
Frank: Now you went & did it. My wife & most certainly the Admiral read your post. Not to make any kind of political statement but the Admiral is a staunch Republican and Stated she would not pay any " Blister Tax" :smt018 . So there goes the 39'. Seriously, want to THANK YOU for your great advice & HELP as we try to muddle our way to a bigger boat with out having to sell our 11yr old daughter. Read your other post and will look at the 40EC. JC
:wink:
:wink:
- Oct 6, 2006
- 12,153
- Boat Info
- 1996 450DA
- Engines
- 3116 Caterpillars
Just stay with vinlyesther resin boats and the blister thing is not an issue. After that, the later the boat, the more modern the furnishings and profile.
On the 400EC, a clean '98 diesel just sold on the coast in the $135K area. But the one thing I did not add was that I think (just an opinion) that a foot in beam is worth 4-5 ft. in length in terms of useable space and roominess.
I really like the 410DA (2 heads) and the 410EC is one of the best express cruisers Sea Ray built (a few had hardtops).....but both of them are new enough that they are in the nose-bleed/sell your first born money category.
On the 400EC, a clean '98 diesel just sold on the coast in the $135K area. But the one thing I did not add was that I think (just an opinion) that a foot in beam is worth 4-5 ft. in length in terms of useable space and roominess.
I really like the 410DA (2 heads) and the 410EC is one of the best express cruisers Sea Ray built (a few had hardtops).....but both of them are new enough that they are in the nose-bleed/sell your first born money category.
xravenx
Member
fwebster said:
OK.... That's a really good looking boat.
paulc
New Member
JC3 said:
Our 88 39EC has never had any blister problems. We bought the boat from the original Owner in 2004. Our WOT at 4400 RPM is 28K. we cruise at 2900-3200RPM doing 13.5- 17K. Again we have 21/19 props which really do make a difference in handling and proformance. When we trade up to our retirement boat we're either goingto go with the 44 Ec or I'm still considering a 42 or 44 Sedan cruiser. They have a little better overall space and als draft more then ECs do.
paulc
New Member
JC3 said:
A friend of ours has a 1991 42 EC. It seems that in the early 90s Sea Ray cut some models back to a 12' beam ( I dont know why Maybe cost) his is a 12' beam you ca nreally tell the difference just steping onto it, it rocks. ours does not. It didn't work, and se Ray went back to the broder beam check which years your looking at and check the beam. I can tell you from my personal experience a 13'-10 beam is better then 12' our Carver's and Silverton's had 12'-6" beams. the 39 EC has it all over them for stability. Sea ray also made some ECs with 15' beams. The people I've spoke with them or had them, said they were very piggish.
Paulc: I started to look at 1994 40' EC's per FrankW suggestion. SR site says beam is 13 even. Draft is 39". Wt is 16,000lbs. Iam like you & want all the beam i can afford. The old 39' are really the perfect layout(size) but I just cant stand the thought of grinding my teeth every x we get caught in some moderate rough stuff as we always do in the Bahamas. There is nothing more miserable than crossing the banks to Chub Cay and the Tongue going to nassau in Snotty conditions. It really for me takes out all the fun. The good thing is i have about 3 months before a final descion has to be made. I intend to look very closely and get all the advice :smt100 from FW AND ALL THE GREAT GUYS ON OUR NEW BOARD i can get. :smt038 JC
WFYB
New Member
JC3 said:
Another strong reason to go with diesels. the diesel torque will hold the boat on plane at much slower speeds softening the ride in poor conditions. Add in any anxiety about running out of gas and you can have a really bad day.
Jon you are exactly right. Wouldnot consider anything but oil burners. I was just reading several articles by David PASCOE and i came to the conclusion that he really dislikes sea rays or they make a terrible boat. After several trips to the Bahamas i have asked many large Sea Ray(36-60) owners about their boats and how they handled the crossing etc... and all said the boats did fairly well. In Sampson Cay Exumas we stayed with a 1994 44'. The owner really liked the boat and said he had owned several SR and admit that it didnt handle the rough stuff like a hatteras but for the price he thought it was the best deal going. At Paridise Island a 03 60' came in from Plam Beach. Talked to the Capt and the Wife. No complaints. You could imagine they thought my Glacier Bay 2685 05 was somebodies dingy. So back to the search for a nice SR that the Admiral will sign off on with out having to sell my 11yr old daughter or seeing patients on SAT & SUNDAYS. :grin: JC
