2001 Bertram 510

Not sure what you're talking about. The 510 isn't a Napier design, it's based on the Napier 50' but redesigned and stretched one foot by Ferretti. The 50 already had a poor longitudinal center of gravity, all Ferretti did was aggravate the problem by locating the fuel tank midships as they also did with the other Napier designs you mentioned (450/510/570). In case you don't believe me about the LGC on the 510, try adding around 3,000 lbs of ballast to the stern and see how much better the boat runs.

Also, the 630 was not nor ever was a Napier design.

To the OP, if you can stretch your budget a little bit, try stepping up to the 570 as it was probably the best running of the Ferretti/Bertrams. The 570 was based on the original 54' hull which they stretched to 57, even though it has that awful midship fuel tank, the boat still runs pretty good.

Regarding the midship fuel tank, it may work great on motor yachts with engines under the cockpit running with V-drives but it's got no place on a deep-V sportfish with engines mounted midships with straight shafts!

Shazam,

May be I didn't write it in a clear way, but if you read again, I was in fact saying that the 46 not the 510 was a Dave Napier's design...and yes the only hull of the Zuccon's generation boats, drawn out from the legendary ones is actually the 570, even though I rode this last one and I still prefer the old 54.

franz

I ran a 57' for a while. The boat rides fairly good but is the wettest submarine I've ever run due to the center of gravity issues. Have a full holding tank and full fuel and it's even worse. If you had less than 1/2 a tank of fuel it then rode quite a bit drier but still a little wet. I have no experience with the 510's. I agree with the fuel tank comments and midship fuel tanks......The Italians like to do that to insulate the engine room heat and noise, from the master stateroom or living space foward of the ER.

I'll be brief as you seem focused on the 42 or 510.

i got the 36 new after 2 28's. Had it 5 years.

Used it mainly for game fishing off Sydney and as a family boat. Did not overnight much.

A 36 is a big step up from a 28 space wise, so a 42 or 510 will be huge by comparison. The 36 is quite narrow, not as spacey as the 35 bert.

To give you a feel re fuel - fuel burn on the 28 was 200l for a day's fishing, 400l a day on the 36. Its solid and has a deep v, so uses more than the 35 bert.

I had Yanmars so cant comment on the Cummins, other than to say the 330 Cummins in the 35's have a great reputation.

The boat was as good as it gets for its size in a head and follwing sea.

I loved it. It fished well and happliy held 8 on a family/friends day on the water. We had the open bulkhead, so it was great for entertaining. Clears for bad days at sea and when we put it to bed.

No real issues to speak of - a few gel coat cracks and a crack where a bathroom cabinet joined the hull. Not too bad given she had a few hard days at sea.

Aesthetics is the last thing you will think about when any serious issues occur.
I am not a Bertram owner and never have been. I assume the 51 Bert you are considering is the same one that Eagle Yachts offered me in 2002/3 and I agree, it is absolutely beautiful from the stand up ER to the enormous saloon/cockpit window. But this is all the “candy” that sells a boat at the show. Have you checked the threads and opinions on the Ferriti/Bertram delam issues and quality?

At the end of the day, $300,000 difference in price makes the aesthetics a mute consideration.
Buy a collector car like Austin Healey 3000 BJ8 for $80,000 and put the rest into some shares where the dividend covers your refurb and maintenance/fuel for the 42’.
You will have just as much joy on a $400,000 boat as a $750,000 boat if you have the right quality boat and people aboard!
Good Luck Mate.
Just my 2c worth.

My opinion is my opinion. You may have entirely different tolerance levels. Why not pick a nice rough day and take her for a sea trial. Head into the waves for awhile, then drop her in neutral. See how she feels to you. What makes the right boat is it being the right boat for you. Your mentioning the fuel costs is a concern though. Remember that ALL costs are going to be much higher. Better a small boat that goes out every day than a big one that sits on the dock because she's too expensive to run.

What about early-mid 2000's Hatteras 54' with C30's......That is a great riding sea boat......

It's your stomach and bux. Go for a few rides. Good and bad days. What is the seller going to say? NO? then walk. But, if your happy, then life is good (or your fault) when you plop down the bux. Don't settle, make sure she's rite or shop (ride) some more.
,rc

+1!

And above all do not purchase an older boat with the aim to refit her to a brand new shape.
The way I can see from the pictures you posted, you keep your 28, tells me in some way, you would spend tons of $$ and believe me:
It does never and ever pay you back! (guess how I'm so sure of that?!?)

I would do the seatrial choice!
First if you do not buy it you would be very conscious on this decision.
Second you have a taste of the 510 vs the smaller 42.

If fuel is a big concern I would just forget the 510. Many people I know who stretch it to much tend to leave boating for good after this.

Just to clear some information regarding fuel consumption. I have a 96 Bertram 46, stretched 43, with the 820hp MANS. My cruise burn rate is about 140 LPH @ 1700 RPM doing 21 knots. Fuel burn goes up from there but never reaches the levels quoted here (300 @1950). The 1050 hp and the 820 are the same block just more turbo and electronics. The specs on the 1050 hp engines say that for an engine to consume 300 LPH it would need to be running at 2050RPM or be in a light overload. My engines have 3700 hrs and can say that the normal annual maintenance runs maybe 1.500€ with 5-6.000€ every 3 years when I do the heat exchanger/intercoolers. Very realiable engines if you don't push them and they make the WOT 2300 RPM fully loaded,

Just my 2 cents.

Rolando

For us kids in the U.S.
140 liters 36.946 gallons
300 liters 79.19 gallons

I am assuming your numbers are total ships mains consumption.
Torque makes a difference on how well things can get up and go. Horse power is horse power.
1 hp = 1/10 gallon / hour x .5 for t diesel. 820 hp is close to 41 GPH or 82 gph for twins.

Pretty cool doing 21 kts at better than 2 gallons per mile.

300 LPH is about rite for a light load twin 820 hp boat. 80 gallons/hour is this to close to WOT. If that is WOT, you may be under-propped. I would expect closer to 84gph (318.36 LPH). At WOT, your past all the curves and just pouring fuel in.

If anything, under-propping will give you better life, better fuel economy and longer time between overhauls. The commercial guys (tugs/crew boats) do it all the time with proven results.

It is difficult to resist the temptation to max out rpm's under full load conditions, and squeeze out that last knot at WOT, but one rule of thumb I have successfully used was to keep the propeller sized (diameter/pitch/# of blades/cup) so that the engine would load at 90 - 92% percent in a true full load departure condition (full fuel/full water/no waste/all gear/all stores and tenders) at an August/September high ambient temperature / high humidity conditions. If you haven't loaded up with equipment yet, you can carry weights to simulate the missing equipment while prop selecting. And have all eisenglass/curatins/enclosure in place as well. Both engines should be within 10 rpms at WOT. This would typically show up as 2350 rpm, 90 - 92% load on the dials at WOT for a 2300 rpm engine.

This will give you plenty of margin for additional incidentals/bottom growth/strong currents and rough seas. Take it a little easier on the iron and it will reward you and your pocket book.