Cabo Yachts

Thanks for your feedbacks.
I'm very surprised to hear of 2 other boats on top of yours with the damper problem, also because 1100 is very far from being a high number of hours.
The only similar fault I'm aware of is with an early 90s V12, but it clocked some 34 hundreds hours before it happened.
Maybe it was something V10-specific, I'm not sure.
That's an engine which was a bit less popular than the V8s and V12s, at least this side of the ocean.
Another thing worth mentioning is that around here many of these engines were installed with separate V-drives, and this of course makes life easier for the g/box, that must only sustain the torsional torque, with no axial load.
But that has more to see with the transmission, than the damper.

Talking of which, ref. gearbox stress from high engine load, it's not the overloaded engine as such that can directly affect the gearbox.
If sustained, engine overload is certainly bad for the engine itself, first and foremost.
Whether it can also damage the transmission or not, that strictly depends on how much power the engine can produce also at lower than rated rpm.
I mean, your engine is rated for 820hp at 2300rpm, so that is the main reference used by manufacturers to select the appropriate gearbox coupling.
BUT, the power that any transmission can withstand is inversely related with the rpm, therefore a gearbox that works fine with X power at Y rpm will surely withstand the same power also any rpm higher than Y, but might be destroyed by the same power when spinning much slower than Y.
So, what made me think of this possibility is that your engines can produce almost the max rated power already starting from 2000rpm.

Anyway, back to Scott Roush question, I'm aware of V8/800 with ZF 350 gearboxes that reached 5k hours, and counting.
So, having said that of course I can't grant anything to anyone, in principle I think that's a very solid powerplant, for a 45 footer.

Just for reference, the very same setup on my boat (a 56 footer, built in 2004, weighing close to 60k lbs, with 1600 hours clocked) can still push her at the original max 33kts max speed registered upon seatrial when new.
And neither the turbos nor the HP pump have ever been refurbished - only the injectors did.

My 40 FB is considered a 2008 but went into the mold 12/06 and was completed 05/07. Hull 50 of the 40FB series. Trucked to NJ for commissioning and sold as a 2008. I would include 07' models in your search and early 08' models will probably have zero impact as well. The dates discussed are accurate but calendar dates and boat model dates are considerations and should be considered. The build quality and attention to detail is incredible.

There is NO difference in the quality between Cabo's built with the origional owners and Brunswick ownership built in the Adelanto, CA factory all of the way to 2012, everything stayed the same. There's an easy way to tell, Brunswick built Cabo's did away with the fuel cap on the top of the aft tank. Brunswick did away with it for liability reasons and plastered a dozen warning stickers on the helm like Searay's have. When production was moved to New Bern, there was a very very slight dip in quality. Mainly the was access hatches were cut on the interior and very small items like that.

Well J, you have to work at boat building factories to understand the work culture that goes on. As MBY stated in post #29:

"February 15 2006 was the official date Cabo changed hands to Brunswick. They built boats in Adelanto until 2010 then the molds were moved to New Bern. They never built a flybridge boat in New Bern.

If you want a Cabo built the way it was before the Brunswick takeover your cutoff date is early 07."

So you have to understand when the new sheriff in town moves in, their is always a bit of a shift in the workforce culture, new processes to implement, new managers coming on line, employees being shifted or terminated, employee suspicion of change, etc. So early 2007 is when the new owners moved in and you can say the shift took place. It would be interesting to know if Brunswick kept their own supply chain or used the existing Cabo supply chain for materials - gelcoat, fiberglass, resin, and hardware. If I recall correctly, the new President was a Brunswick guy, a nice person, but did not come from the Boats or marine side, have to wonder what he thought about building boats in the high desert!

One thing that always rubbed me the wrong way is when the Supply Chain managers is that they had job related personal profit sharing goals based on how much they reduced cash outlay for goods. There was a constant battle for them to remove 5% of the cost of goods each year, and engineering had to justify any premium product purchases. That's why you would see the Brunswick line show up a different bilge pump even though they had used Rule's for years, to a supply chain guy it is just a commodity (until it hits the top 20 on warranty claims). Same thing with props.

One note on Model year - it does not mesh with the calendar as the turnover for model year is June 1st and they now have 14 months to play with and some builders can play that tune better than others if the have a "leftover" on the line or out back. Always check your HIN ID in the upper Transom Corner to see if their was any "touch-up" or Gelcoat blemishes just in case!

If it looks funky, ask questions.

https://www.nmma.org/press/article/20425

I am not of the opinion that a NC built Cabo is inferior. But when Brunswick sent leadership to California to manage the Cabo factory they sent Brunswick bean counters not leaders from Hatteras that were experienced sportfish builders. During that period in say 2008 to 2010 those bean counters sent to Cali from Brunswick were trying to implement cost savings from the parent companies scale that surely were not purely in the best interest of building the best boat possible. Maybe it was just a wiring harness or something else the casual boat buyer wouldn't ever look twice at. Once the production was in NC and under Hatteras I am sure it was a great boat. A 2014 44 Cabo would be high on my list of desirable boats should I be looking in that size and budget.

I worked for Cabo first under a factory sub-contractor (who was hired by Cabo in 2005 and became Director of Operations) and then directly for Cabo (2005+) since 2003 as both a factory preferred Captain and doing factory warranty service, outfitting the boats when they got off of the truck for many international dealers(installing flybridges, props, etc. etc. and seatrialing them) in the earlier days, through the original owners, Brunswick, and currently. I have run 100's and 100's of new Cabo's, doing engine startups, moving them for warranty work, delivering them somewhere and so on. Virtually NOTHING changed as far as how the boat was built during Brunswick, didn't see any quality drop issues AT ALL. Most all of the factory employees stayed on with Brunswick, I can't speak of the employee culture at the factory as I never visited the factory. But rest assured, All of the equipment installed was exactly the same and so on. Brunswick also didn't change the equipment installed in the boats Hatteras used to build Hatteras yachts either. Hatteras had NOTHING to do with Cabo until Cabo ended up in their factory in 2012. Hatteras builds an excellent Cabo as well, only they changed a few very minor things, like the interior access panels aren't done as nicely as when they were done in CA, look like they were cut with a jigsaw (corners aren't perfectly round etc.), very very minor things most yacht owners would never notice. Bottom line, it doesn't matter what year you buy, you are going to get an excellent Cabo as far as build quality goes.

Respectfully, there is a difference. It may not be where most people would notice, but there is a difference. When your employees go from having a name to a number, their desire to really go the extra mile just isn't there. Capt J you may have worked for Cabo in the field but if you were at the factory you'd notice a HUGE difference from when we owned it to when Brunswick took over. Now I'm not saying they didn't try hard to build a quality boat and a post 06 boat isn't quality, they just don't seem to be as refined as the earlier boats. You can see the big shift once the fully Brunswick designed boats (38 fly, 52 fly...) started coming out of the factory.

What 38' Fly? Do you mean the 40' FB? Cabo only built a handful of 52' Flybridges, I thought around 5 or 6 total. I ran one with only C18's, had a beigish/yellow hull, only ran around 28 knots cruise but was a nice package. Pipewelders also did a tower on another one, but never ran that one.....Ran 2 or 3 of the 52' expresses.

There was a 38 flybridge and it was a real mess. I think they only built 4 of them. They tried to do too much and they built it during a time when their leadership at Cabo shifted dramatically. My dad and I would occasionally get calls from the guys to go help them figure out issues and once the management shifted we were told that we weren't welcome at the factory anymore. Hull one needed a crazy amount of lead on the port side to even out the list it had; almost if not more than 1000 pounds if I remember correctly.

They built only two 52 flybridges, one with C32's and a full tower and the second hull was ordered with C18's that now is in California. Brunswick discontinued the 52 fly as they didn't want it competing with the 54 Hatt even though the 52 would run circles around that Hatt.

Like this one: https://www.******************.com/boat-tests/cabo-38-flybridge

I ran the C18 52' for several days, was just a hard top boat. I thought it went somewhere down in the French Islands near St. Maarten, Guadalupe perhaps when it was new. I remember the towered boat as it was at pipewelders. I never ran that one, I think Trip did or the owners had their own Captain. I've run a few 52' expresses, one had C32's and didn't ride/run as good as the 2 MAN expresses I ran. One MAN boat was a light blue hull, the other one had a white hull I believe. I did really like the 52' FB, it rode very well. I don't think it rode any better than the 54' Hatt in most conditions (which is a great running hull too), however the cockpit was much much better in regards to fish boxes, tackle center layout etc. and better FB layout. I don't remember the interior layout very much.

Honestly, I always felt the 38' was an orphan boat and no idea why Cabo released it. Too close in size to the 40' but not nearly as nice as the 40' with the bench helm seat layout etc.......helm area was much nicer on the 40'. I always felt they should've released a 36' they were talking about to replace the aged 35' Flybridge and express instead of the 38' at that time. I ran the yellow 38' express at the Miami Show for demo rides one year, it ran good.

38 was a poor decision and it killed the 40 sales. We wanted to release a 36 fly but when talks started of selling the company that project was cancelled. The 36 was a great improvement over the 35 but timed too late to have any sort of lasting impact.

Give Mag Bay a little longer and we'll have a mid 30 foot express and flybridge. Only a matter of time...

You are making me curious.
Did the pre-Brunswick Cabo ever built a boat whose powerplants available stretched as far as that?
I can understand giving clients some choice, but fitting either C18s or C32s on the same vessel sounds like someone should have invested some more time at the drawing board...

We didn't when we owned the company. If I remember right the owner of the second 52 travelled extensively and wanted the smaller motors for more range. I'm not sure what talks happened as we were long gone from the business at that point but that C18 52 fly was built during the recession so I'm sure Cabo/Brunswick would do just about anything for the order. I know when we tooled the 52 express C18's were not a consideration for power plants.

It's common in the Sportfish world. 54' Hatteras had that option as well C-18 1000HP, C32 1600 hp +/-. 45' Cabo went from 660 HP Cats (in the beginning) to 800hp- 1100HP Mans.......can name many other examples.

I ran that particular 52' Cabo FB, several days as we fished it off of Fort Lauderdale with the owner. It ran well with the lighter motors. 27-28 knot cruise at 80% with 75 GPH fuel burn......with 1000 hp C18's. Would've actually been a great package in the express. But everybody's hell bent on those extra few knots in the SF world

It's refreshing to hear exactly what I expected, thanks for your confirmation.

Actually, I find more acceptable a lighter powerplant with less hp, if it still allows half decent performances, rather than the other way round - which would have been just a bad way to patch a bad boat.

But yeah, I guess that 'anything for the order' says it all, really.
Which sadly, is far from being an exception, nowadays.

Well, one of the keys to Cabo’s success in my opinion was that they were actually selling hp as well as boats.

If a 45 Express is fine with 825hp Series 60 it should be even better with 1100hp MAN or C18. They made a ton of money on those extra 2 knots, the buyers could not resist even though they would use that power 1% of the time. This is not the frugal crowd for sure.

More examples - twin 800hp in a 40’ SF when I recall a pair of 6-71TI’s at 485 was the dream deal in the generation before.

Last example, the venerable 35 FB, previous generation Sf were happy with a pair of 330hp Diesels, Cabo ran the power up to a QSC at 540hp apiece, who would have thought you “needed” 1080hp in a 35’.

I can hear that cash register ringing........

I ran a new 45' Cabo to Belize and all over Belize for 6 months. Our normal trip was 73NM out to the owner's island on Glover's reef, fish for Marlin 2-3 days and run 73NM back......about every other week. I ran the C18's at 80% load at 30.5 knots every single trip except once where I had to slow down to 24 knots one day......The 45' was a great running boat. The 1100hp MAN's would cruise it at 32-33 knots......I'm not sure how much extra profit they made on the larger engines.

Now the 35', anything over 25-26 knots would get really tiring after a few hours.