# Need Tartan 34C opinions please



## njlarry (May 13, 2009)

I have finally found a beautiful Tartan 34C that is within the budget. I would appriciate any pearls of wisdom any owners can share.
I plan to cruise the upper Chesapeake.
Are there any concerns one should be aware of when looking at this model?
My main intial concern is that while the engine placement gives great access, I worry that it would also cause the below decks to heat up in the summer when I will be using her. The Bay is noted for hot windless summers. In Maine I would not be as concerned.
Thanks for sharing all your experience.


----------



## SPC (Nov 26, 2009)

See this month's issue of Good Old Boat. The article starts on page 42.


----------



## CalebD (Jan 11, 2008)

The Tartan 34C is capable of crossing oceans if you are up to it and your boat is prepared. Cruising the upper Chessy in a T34C should be a blast. The center board will allow you get into many shallow anchorages that deeper keels will not permit. 
Potential issues with this boat:
- chain plates; these can go bad and need to be re-done
- standing rigging; if it is old it may need to be replaced
- center board pennant; this is important, especially on the shallow Chessy. If the lowering/raising mechanism fails you may not be able to get back to your home port.
- engine; has it been replaced or is it still an Atomic 3 or 4?
- sails; new or needing new canvas?

TARTAN 34 C Sailboat details on sailboatdata.com

Disclaimer: I have never been on a T34C but I am a Tartan 27' owner from the same era (1967) and I like the build quality that Tartan put into their boats. I like to think that the T34 is the larger cousin to my own boat which also has a center board and garnered Tartan a niche in the retail market as the 'Cadillac' of sailboats in their time.


----------



## njlarry (May 13, 2009)

Thank you both. I saw the article in GOB. Unfortunately there was no mention of the functional aspects of the unusual engine location. Does it heat up the salon? Do exhuast fumes get drawn up the sides?


----------



## mike dryver (May 13, 2006)

go to Tartan 34 owners sight and you will get more info than you can handle almost bought one about 6 yrs ago but had a lot of delam issues (they are balsa cored above water line) around the whole hull. (note this was a really neglected boat) good luck


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

larry
Exhaust should never enter the boat regardless of engine location. If it does there is a serious problem.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

The engine location is fantastic for easy access and causes no issues with heat. If you are concerned about heat, you can always add extra insulation around the inside of the dog house. All of these boats came with a bilge blower that could be used to pull any excess heat out of the cabin while the engine is running if you find it is an issue and if the blower is still there. (Yes, diesel powered boats came with it too for some reason.) The engine location also provides for a huge storage space below the cockpit sole. My boat has the hot water tank and engine batt. located there along with additional storage space. Only problem with the engine location is walking around it while someone is in the galley trying to cook. Its a minor inconvenience.

Only real areas of concern would be to check the foredeck for any gelcoat cracks and/or delamination issues, particularly around the the forward edge of the coach roof and around the pulpit. The CB pivot pin can be an issue, but many - most of these boats have likely had it replaced already. Check to see if it has been done. If not it will likely need it in the not too distant future. Not a huge job, but a bit of a pain in the back side. inside CB controls are easy to fix if there are any issues. CB drooping below the trunk is a very common problem, but I have found it is easy to fix with some minor adjustments on the cable/winch. Lower rudder bearing is reported by some owners to need replacing, but I haven't had any issues with it. Check the rubber exhaust muffler that is located under the chart table. They are getting old and can fail allowing exhaust and cooling water to dump into the boat. Replacement mufflers are no longer available, but there are ways around it.

There are still quite a few parts available from Tartan if needed.

Other than that just look for the usual old boat issues mentioned above regarding the rig.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

The Tartan 34 is one of my favorite boats of this size from this period. For that era, it was a great mix of decent accommodations, good performance, moderately shoal draft, and good construction.

Obviously their performance won't match a more modern design, but they still are pretty lively sailors. 

I don't think that the Tartan 34 engine position is any worse than any other 34 footer in terms radiating heat into the cabin. At best, you can buy the foil faced engine room insulation which makes some difference in terms of heat and noise. I can't recall whether the C has a vee-drive but vee drives can be a pain in the butt. 

Jeff


----------



## CalebD (Jan 11, 2008)

Well there you have it.
Jeff_H is one of the most respected members here with a broad knowledge of vessel construction and sailing characteristics. He does not hand out praise easily. 
There was a great old gent here named Robert Gainer who had a T34 that he was prepping for a trans Atlantic journey. He never got to take that journey though and died a few years ago in his late 50's. There is at least one book about or by him on Amazon.com. He sailed a 20 something foot boat to England when he was in his 20's. There are many other stories of course. He had faith in his T34 or was it a T37?


----------



## dergon (Jun 19, 2007)

We have a later model Tartan 34-2 (1985) purchased 2009



> chain plates; these can go bad and need to be re-done


Did it...and it turned out to be a PITA of a job since the '85 only has access to the chain plate by crawling through the lazarette.

Also have cut a lot of wet balsa and replaced with fiberglass around the partners.

But all said we really love the boat  . Tons of older generation Tartans here on the southern shore of Lake Erie. The early models have much respect from the sailing community.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

CalebD said:


> Well there you have it.
> Jeff_H is one of the most respected members here with a broad knowledge of vessel construction and sailing characteristics. He does not hand out praise easily.
> There was a great old gent here named Robert Gainer who had a T34 that he was prepping for a trans Atlantic journey. He never got to take that journey though and died a few years ago in his late 50's. There is at least one book about or by him on Amazon.com. He sailed a 20 something foot boat to England when he was in his 20's. There are many other stories of course. He had faith in his T34 or was it a T37?


Robert Gainer was a great guy. He also had a T34-C at the time he passed.


----------



## VTSailor12 (Sep 25, 2009)

*T34C Opinions*

I would echo the comments of the owner of Maeven. Cored decks are an issue with any boat of this age. I have a late model (hull number #519) and highly recommend the boat, particularly for the shallows. Note that the centerboard is held in both directions by the cable which means you will snap the cable if you bump. It sails fine with it up except on a beat and I suspect you will keep it raised much of the time where you are. T34C owners baby their engines because it's so easy. You will love the access and the heat is not terrible, but you will feel it after extended motoring. Use the exhaust blower. Or just sail. The chainplates of the T34C (at least late models) are very simple compared to later model Tartans and should not be an issue. But these boats are old and many have lived 35+ years in salt. As with any fitting, if you can spot rust, pull it and check. Buy it and have a ball. Bob


----------



## VTSailor12 (Sep 25, 2009)

*T34C muffler/standpipe*



T34C said:


> Replacement mufflers are no longer available, but there are ways around it.


This may be off topic, but I would love to hear your "ways around" replacing the original T34C rubber muffler. I haven't seen a solution on the T34 owners site but it is great to see that Moyer Marine Atomic 4 Engine Rebuilding and Parts now sells a stainless replacement for the original copper stand pipe.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

VTSailor12 said:


> This may be off topic, but I would love to hear your "ways around" replacing the original T34C rubber muffler. I haven't seen a solution on the T34 owners site but it is great to see that Moyer Marine Atomic 4 Engine Rebuilding and Parts now sells a stainless replacement for the original copper stand pipe.


After mine went out, another owner that had recently repowered was nice enough to send me his old rubber muffler. While doing the research on replacements, the general theory I got from other was to just get rid of the muffler and install a section of rubber exhaust hose in its place.


----------



## boomvangdc (Oct 28, 2010)

This article mentions a few other areas of concern for a Tartan 34: What Is The Best 25 to 35-foot Cruising Boat For Under $15,000? | Daily Sailing News from North American Sailor.


----------



## Slayer (Jul 28, 2006)

I know this is an old thread, but I thought I would put my question here so information on this boat can be found in one place. I am thinking of buying one built in 1968. I am use to sailing a Cal33 and Pearson36, which are both club boats. I believe the waterline on the Cal is 28.5 feet, which is adequate for me. My concern is the waterline of the Tartan 34 which is only 25 feet. Will I notice a decrease in performance (speed) with the T34? The seller said under power the boat can easily exceed 6 knots, which is adequate for me. Does this sound right? And is the water line extended when heeling and if so does that make a difference in performance?


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

http://www.sparkmanstephens.info/doc/37944PvCf88p9RRw6yzvasCcIaGK6bvY.pdf

I love the S&S designed T34C. It's a CCA boat, so they all sail faster with a longer waterline when heeled. I doubt you will feel slow. It's got a PHRF of 174, so it's a bit slower than the P36, and a touch faster than the P35, most likely due to the skeg rudder and the finer entry. It's a CCA boat, so the accomdations are smaller than the new breeds, but I bet you'd be happy. Nice boats, particularly pre72. 
Best.


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

seaner97 said:


> http://www.sparkmanstephens.info/doc/37944PvCf88p9RRw6yzvasCcIaGK6bvY.pdf
> 
> I love the S&S designed T34C. It's a CCA boat, do they all sail faster with a longer waterline when heeled. I doubt you will feel slow. It's got a PHRF of 174, so it's a bit slower than the P36, and a touch faster than the P35, most likely due to the skeg rudder and the finer entry. It's a CCA boat, so the accomdations are smaller than the new breeds, but I bet you'd be happy. Nice boats, particularly pre72.
> Best.


Oh- and I've had my P35 over 6 in both power and sail. So if the T34C is faster, should do the same or better.


----------



## CalebD (Jan 11, 2008)

Funny to see that I replied to this thread back in 2011.
By now I have had the chance to sail on a T34C in Long Island sound. I recall being impressed with the way the boat handled and sailed and I believe our top speed sailing was damn close to 7 knots if not a hair over.
That boat is on it's way to FL, TX and/or the Bahamas.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

seaner97 said:


> http://www.sparkmanstephens.info/doc/37944PvCf88p9RRw6yzvasCcIaGK6bvY.pdf
> 
> I love the S&S designed T34C. It's a CCA boat, so they all sail faster with a longer waterline when heeled. I doubt you will feel slow. It's got a PHRF of 174, so it's a bit slower than the P36, and a touch faster than the P35, most likely due to the skeg rudder and the finer entry. It's a CCA boat, so the accomdations are smaller than the new breeds, but I bet you'd be happy. Nice boats, particularly pre72.
> Best.


I apologize that I wrote this for another discussion so it is a bit more wordy and a bit off topic, but it deals with the question about hull speed on a boat like the Tartan 34 which has long overhangs, but moderately full stern sections.

The science on waterline length is much more advanced than it was back when boats were routinely designed with long overhangs. Much of the discussion above does not conform with the current science. While it is true that increasing the length of the waterline will increase the hullspeed of the boat some, it is not true that the waterline length of a boat with long overhangs will increase its boat speed with heel angle to the same extent as it would on a short-overhang boat with the same static waterline length as the long overhang boat when it's heeled. It has always been known that it would not but now we understand more about why that is true. What long overhangs did was to make a number of obsolete racing rules believe that a boat with a proportionately short static waterline would be a little slower than it was in reality.

To explain, as has been understood since the late 19th century that hullspeed is not a fixed number, but an approximation of a point at which the energy required to propel the boat increases rapidly. As most of us know, the phenomena of hullspeed is created by the bow wave moving closer to the stern wave with speed. The speed of a wave (in knots) is equal to the square root of the wavelength (in feet) multiplied by 1.34 and that is where the well-known hullspeed number comes from.

As the boat moves faster the bow and stern waves move closer together and as they move closer they begin combining. Once they begin to combine, it takes greater energy to climb up the combined heights of the two waves. At some point in the speed range the amount of energy to climb the combined wave height increases sharply, and that increase is so sharp, that at that point it becomes very difficult for a displacement boat to generate enough forward force from its sails to overcome that rapidly increasing drag. That approximate point is hullspeed. In theory, by spreading out the points on the boat at which the bow wave and stern wave are produced, the boat is able to go faster before hitting the point at which the induced drag increases rapidly.

When a boat with long overhangs initially heels, the waterline length increases at both ends of the boat. The further that the beam of the boat is carried into the ends of the boat, the smaller the heel angle at which the waterline increases. Different designers handled this in different ways so if you look at a typical Alberg design, they generally had very full bows to bring the waterlines forward, and if you look at many of Bill Tripp's CCA designs, they often had full lines aft.

Ignoring the issues associated with heeling that impact comfort, leeway, and weather helm for a moment, there are reasons that extending the waterline by heeling do not result in the magnitude of speed benefit that the heeled water would seemingly produce. To begin with the area aft of the stern wave tends to be low pressure and that works on the counter to cause the stern of the boat to squat (pull down into the water). That creates a dynamic drag and it also adds wetted surface adding drag in that manner as well. When Tripp made his runs straighter and wider, this provided the 'bearing' to reduce squatting, and so was more effective in producing speed under sail or power than the narrower stern models and models with more upswept counters in profile.

One way of extending the hullspeed of a boat is to reduce the size of the bow wave, and one way to reduce the size of the bow wave is to have a finer bow. A longer waterline forward allows the bow to be finer for the same displacement and center of buoyancy. That is in part the theory behind the near plumb, finer bows used on modern designs.

But a finer entry also helps with the way a boat behaves in a chop. A blunter bow tends to collide with more force into each wave. That larger collision force tends to promote more rapid pitching, a greater loss in speed from each wave, and a larger pitch angle. A finer bow as seen on Herreshoff designs tend to slice through the wave, increasing in buoyancy incrementally and with less violent force. In that regard, Alberg's fuller bows got in wrong on all counts. Not only does Alberg's fuller bows produce a bigger bow wave making hullspeeds occur earlier than a finer bow, but they are more prone to pitching and losing speed in a chop.

The trend toward short aft overhangs also results from another phenomena. When you truncate the stern of a boat sharply, as in the case of a vertical or reverse transom, the water leaves the stern cleanly and continues aft on a trajectory as if there was still more stern back there. In doing so, it moves the stern wave further aft, tricking the water flow into thinking that the boat is longer than it, and thereby increasing the speed at which the steep rise in drag occurs. But because the stern ends where it does, there is not as much of a tendency to squat with the associated drag, and because the water is not sliding up the counter, there is less wetted surface. This results in a boat which sails and motors faster than a boat with the same waterline length achieved only by having a long overhang heeled into the water.

Short overhangs also offer very large advantages in term of motion comfort due to pitching since there is a tendency to reduce pitching moment of inertia while better matching the dampening characteristics to the pitching moments of inertia.

(When a boat is surfing, two things happen, the height of the bow wave is diminished by the geometry of the back of the wave reducing the induced drag, and the force of gravity is added to the force from the sails which in concert allows an increase in the speed of the boat.)


----------



## Slayer (Jul 28, 2006)

So the Tartan34 may not perform as well as the Cal 33?


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

Slayer said:


> So the Tartan34 may not perform as well as the Cal 33?


PHRF rating for NE is 144, so the Tartan is a bit slower. Probably not enough you'd notice. Biggest difference is probably in handling and coming through the wind where the Cal would be a bit more sprightly, and would most likely sail to windward a bit better as well.
Not nearly as pretty, IMO, however.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

seaner97 said:


> PHRF rating for NE is 144, so the Tartan is a bit slower. Probably not enough you'd notice. Biggest difference is probably in handling and coming through the wind where the Cal would be a bit more sprightly, and would most likely sail to windward a bit better as well.
> Not nearly as pretty, IMO, however.


Wait a minute, you say that the Tartan 34 rates 174, and the Cal 33 rates 144. That is 30 seconds a mile, and that is a huge difference, especially if you are cruising. You will notice that difference very easily.

The one thing that the Tartan 34 does do well is go to windward in a moderate breeze with the centerboard down. They sail beyond their rating dead downwind with their board up in winds around 12-15 knots. Its everywhere else that that they are most dramatically slower than the Cal.

Jeff


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

Jeff_H said:


> Wait a minute, you say that the Tartan 34 rates 174, and the Cal 33 rates 144. That is 30 seconds a mile, and that is a huge difference, especially if you are cruising. You will notice that difference very easily.
> 
> The one thing that the Tartan 34 does do well is go to windward in a moderate breeze with the centerboard down. They sail beyond their rating dead downwind with their board up in winds around 12-15 knots. Its everywhere else that that they are most dramatically slower than the Cal.
> 
> Jeff


Probably true if you're doing real long distance days, but the style of cruising MOST do, you're talking hitting port 30-60 mins earlier (100 mins for a 200 mile day) in the Cal 33 than the T34. Significant, sure, but probably not a game changer for most.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

seaner97 said:


> Probably true if you're doing real long distance days, but the style of cruising MOST do, you're talking hitting port 30-60 mins earlier (100 mins for a 200 mile day) in the Cal 33 than the T34. Significant, sure, but probably not a game changer for most.


What most people do not realize about PHRF ratings is that any boat's rating is derived from the relative performance of that boat at the prevailing wind speed for that region. As you note, 30 seconds a mile at the prevailing wind speed is not all that much over the course of a day. But in reality, the PHRF regional prevailing wind is the average wind speed during the racing season. It is not the wind speed that is likely to be encountered in day to day sailing, which is more likely to be more or less than that average. A boat like a Cal 33 will more easily sail over its rating (as compared to a Tartan 34) in lighter or heavier breezes than the prevailing winds. My experience when cruising with boats that are 30 second a mile different in rating is that there are typically several hours different in passage times over an 8 hour sail in lighter or heavier winds than the prevailing wind. Getting back to Slayer's question, that is a very noticeable difference. In really lighter air (around 5 knots), its the difference between motoring or sailing to your destination.

Which was my point.

Jeff


----------



## JimsCAL (May 23, 2007)

Keep in mind there are two Cal 33s. The later one built in the mid to late 80s (which I have) has a base PHRF rating of 132 in western LI Sound. The older one is rated slower. The later Cal 33 will be quite a bit quicker than the Tartan 34C. It has a tall double-spreader rig and does quite well in both light and heavier air.


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

Jeff_H said:


> What most people do not realize about PHRF ratings is that any boat's rating is derived from the relative performance of that boat at the prevailing wind speed for that region. As you note, 30 seconds a mile at the prevailing wind speed is not all that much over the course of a day. But in reality, the PHRF regional prevailing wind is the average wind speed during the racing season. It is not the wind speed that is likely to be encountered in day to day sailing, which is more likely to be more or less than that average. A boat like a Cal 33 will more easily sail over its rating (as compared to a Tartan 34) in lighter or heavier breezes than the prevailing winds. My experience when cruising with boats that are 30 second a mile different in rating is that there are typically several hours different in passage times over an 8 hour sail in lighter or heavier winds than the prevailing wind. Getting back to Slayer's question, that is a very noticeable difference. In really lighter air (around 5 knots), its the difference between motoring or sailing to your destination.
> 
> Which was my point.
> 
> Jeff


Unless you're an Eisenberg . Does he even have an engine?


----------



## Slayer (Jul 28, 2006)

Someone put a deposit on the boat the day before I contacted the seller. 😔. Waited too long to pull the trigger.


----------



## NavySnipe (Jun 25, 2017)

Slayer said:


> I know this is an old thread, but I thought I would put my question here so information on this boat can be found in one place. I am thinking of buying one built in 1968. I am use to sailing a Cal33 and Pearson36, which are both club boats. I believe the waterline on the Cal is 28.5 feet, which is adequate for me. My concern is the waterline of the Tartan 34 which is only 25 feet. Will I notice a decrease in performance (speed) with the T34? The seller said under power the boat can easily exceed 6 knots, which is adequate for me. Does this sound right? And is the water line extended when heeling and if so does that make a difference in performance?


It has reported by some that the Tartan 34c will in fact run 6.3 kts on the Atomic Four even with its small prop. One such report I got was from an owner using a two blade folding prop. There is nothing wrong with the Atomic Four that a freshwater cooling system, electric fuel pump and electronic ignition won't improve on. Most are raw water cooled but somehow still manage to run 30 years without an overhaul. The low compression is gentle on cylinder wear and most rebuilt with minor honing of the bores and no over-boring. One factor in raw water cooling is that corrion can force the head gasket at the water port from the block to the head. This is a PITA because it means a mill job on the head or block deck and then shimming the head to keep the compression in spec. Moyer sells these copper head gasket shims. These engines today new with aftermarket blocks can run as much or more than a diesel replacement. I understand all the reasons for the preferrence out here for diesels, but most of those reasons fall short when one is replacing an Atomic Four. The resale value factor falls far short when you consider the cost of the replacement and the actual price value increae when later selling the boat. I myself would find it very hard to reconcile replacing the Atomic Four with a diesel in a Tartan 34c. The last overhaul I was apprised of for one of these engines was quoted at 8K by a boat yard. The owner did it easily himself with guidance from Moyer Marine for 800 dollars. Yes, you read that correctly. I have never heard of a crank being replaced on these engines either. In fact that is one part that is so plentiful now that you can grab one for a song. One word of warning though; These engines have no center crank shaft bearing and do NOT take well to "performance" modifications at all. If you want to see how much one of these truly remarkable marine engines is going for Moyer Marine is the place to go. You will think twice about throwing these engines away once you see the pricing on them.


----------

