# Bene vs Catalina?



## jorgenl

I am in the process of determining what boat to by next.

I currently own and sail a Hunter 30 (okay - I'm ducking&#8230 in Chesapeake Bay.

I would like for my next boat to be in the 38-42 foot range. I know that a lot of people say to by the smallest boat you can live with but I like to have a bit of room and would rather by the biggest boat my wife and I can safely handle.

Intended purpose will be day sails, weekends and the occasional 1-2 week sail on the Chesapeake.

I really like look of the heavy cruising boats, Liberty 456, Bristol etc but feel that they are overkill for my intended purpose. A bit like driving a Hummer H1 to the local mall.

I would like a relatively new boat (later than year 2000) and do not mind "high volume production boats"

I am currently looking at and would like your opinions on:

Beneteau 393 vs Catalina 380 or 387

Beneteau 411 vs Catalina 400 or 42

If I ignored all practical aspects (and the admiral) I would by this puppy;

YachtWorld.com Boats and Yachts for Sale

Thankful for any input.


----------



## kd3pc

You can't go wrong with the Beneteau. We owned a 36CC and there is little comparison between them and the Catalina..most compare the B to IP, H/R, and Dufour...We now have a 38' Sabre and again no comparison to the Beneteau...a step above altogether.


----------



## donrr1

Enlisted personnel have always known what's best for the Admiral  

Don


----------



## h16Sailor

ok, your boats are out of my league; price wise and size wise. 
when i dream, i think of these monsters and my own crew.

The research i have done suggests prices on catarmans this size don't go down
I can't remember which specific model but a new boat in 2000 was cheaper then than the same boat now, used.

why the rant? just to help prove: 
Buy the biggest, most expensive boat you can and when you sell it, it will pay off.


----------



## welshwind

*I agree*

I also own a Beneteau 36CC. We looked at a Catalina 36 at the same time. Fit and finish below was far superior on the Beneteau. The Beneteau we bought is a '98 and I think the Catalina we were looking at was a 2000. We bought in 2002.


----------



## sailortjk1

I am not a big fan of the layout in the Bene 393.
The entire starboard side of the cabin is devoted to storage cabinets and entertainment systems. This may work for you, but we prefer having two opposing seats to sit and lie/lounge on as opposed to the one on the 393.
Other than the layout which is a personal preffrence, it looks to be a good boat for what it is, a production family cruiser. Large roomy cockpit, nice galley, easy to sail, etc.

You do realise that the other Bene model on your list is no longer in production.

They now have the 423 or the brand new 40. I don't care for the astethics of the new line from Beneteau. You should be able to find a 411 available in your search, but they are out of production.

Can't comment on the Catalina's, don't know about em, I'll leave that for CD, if he is available.


----------



## btrayfors

Either the Beneteau ("Bendy Toy") or the Catalina would be fine for your purpose. Others like the Junneau would be fine, too.

The Swan 43 in your link is a great boat, but it would not only cost more initially....the upkeep would likely make you and the Admiral unhappy. Especially the teak decks.

For daysails and the occasional couple of week (or month) trips on the Chesapeake, just about anything afloat would work. Choose one in good shape which meets with your needs (and makes the Admiral happy), get a good survey before purchase, and go for it.

Bill


----------



## Cruisingdad

I apologize if I do not have a lot of time at the mooment to do a long comment on these boats. I will try and make it as short and sweet as I can.

If I offend anyone with my comments, I apologize. I am not myself here lately, but will try to restrain my comments.

Contrary to what was said, I have found little if any of the Bene that was better to the Catalina. I think the exception may be some of the first series, but those are poor to terrible cruisers (though I think they would be fiun to sail). I have found the cabinetry on the benes scant with little thought to storage. I think benes are warmer down below than most catalinas (the dark wood versus teak). I am tryin to remember the exact layout off the top of my head, but I think the benes you mentioned have forward facing nav stations which is a big plus. That is about the end of the benefits I have found. The Catalinas have many benefits beyond the Benes too. Let me outline some of the ones you have mentioned.

Me, my wife, child, and 2 dogs lived and cruised on a Catalina 380. It is from the old morgan hull design is not the fastest boat in the world, but is heavy and does well in heavy seas. We had ours in many storms. It is a very nice liveaboard boat. It has a very comfortable aft berth, a seperate shower (important), and a comfortable nav station. The cockpit is laid out well and easy to single hand. The one negative is that it needs to be blowing 12-15 to really get close to hull speed. 

We currently own a 400. It is better than the 380 in most respects. It has more wood, has 2 heads (both a positive and a negative), and a LOT more storage. It is very comfortable. It performs MUCH better than the 380. I have not had her offshore yet. If you do not mind spending a bit more money, the 400 has many cruiser aspects that are better than the Catalina 42. 

I like the original design of the 387 more than the changes they made. I personally would just spend the money on a 380 over a 387. 

If you have specific questions, pm me or write back here and I will answer as I can. I know those boats EXTREMELY well.

- CD

PS Catalina has a very large owners group and puts out a magazine called Mainsheet which details specifics on each boat. I have heard that the technical editor of the 400 is a very good sailor, very knowledgeable, good looking, and a true gentleman. I wonder who he is????


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Regarding your consideration of Catalina and Beneteau the boats mentioned would be fine for your intended purpose although the quality is something I would be concerned about. For example Beneteau uses iron for ballast whereas lead is the preferred ballast material for a number of reasons. This is an example of the quality shortcuts taken. Another concern is if you decide later you want to do an off shore passage you would not feel comfortable with your current choices.


----------



## bestfriend

I have to disagree about the finish being superior on the Beneteau. Its cleaner and more modern looking, but that doesn't make it better. I think they are just different styles. I like them both. Just made for different tastes. The make or break for me is the aft cabin layout. I like the island berth in the Catalina 400. Its roomy enough that you don't have to climb over someone to get out, or slide in to your coffin style bed. I initially liked the pullman berth, but after trying out a few, they are too small for the master berth and you have to climb over each other. My favorite is the Catalina 400, especially the cockpit. 
Good luck.
Nice to see you CD! Hope all is going well.


----------



## tommyt

You do know how to start a pissing contest don't you. This isn't a Hunter fan getting even is it?

The answer to Bene or Catalina is. Bene. Catalina. Anything but a Bene, Catalina, or Hunter! Take your pick!

I think that the Bene 36.7 and 40.7 in your range are great boats. Not as amenable to cruising, but enough to keep most people happy...and fast. The 40.7 would be my first choice.....and I own a Catalina. 

The number series and prior to that the Oceanis Series of Bene's are nice entry level boats that will suit your purposes. The new 40 I am not a fan of. I agree that the interior finish is pretty on a new or very well kept Bene, but they do not take the beating a Catalina interior will. Different strokes for different folks again. I think that someone said in an earlier post they are just different and that is true. However, in all of the 3-5 year old boats I have seen the Catalina looked better below. Iron also bothers me for ballast, but these are production boats and they need to cut costs somewhere. It is up to you to figure out where.

I liked the old Catalina 38 better than the 387. It is a great sailing boat ( the boat I sailed was a deep draft) and makes good use of the room below. I prefer the 400 to all three of your Catalina choices, although there is nothing wrong with any of them. 

Let the pissing contest continue!


----------



## Maine Sail

kd3pc said:


> You can't go wrong with the Beneteau. We owned a 36CC and there is little comparison between them and the Catalina..most compare the B to IP, H/R, and Dufour...We now have a 38' Sabre and again no comparison to the Beneteau...a step above altogether.


Please tell me that the IP and the H/R are not Island Packet and Hallberg-Rassy. Beneteau's, Jenneau's or Catalina's don't even play in the same sandbox as a Hallberg-Rassy or even an Island Packet in terms of construction! Even the Dufour is a far better built boat than the Beneteau. People who don't know any better may compare them but there are NOT in the same league by any means. I also would hope you are not saying a Sabre is better than a Hallberg-Rassy? The HR's are in the Hinckley, Morris & Swan category not in the Sabre or Tartan type category.

In terms of Catalina or Beneteau they are like Chevy's and Ford's. Catalina's tend to have much more use of stainless steel fittings like cleats vs. aluminum, more tankage and larger engines. They also use real lead keels instead of cast iron but the Beneteau's, as a line, perform better. Beneteaus and Catalina's are very similar in build quality and neither of them, unless it's a FIRST series, would make a good pond crosser..


----------



## SailinJay

The Catalinas also have larger winches, more heavy-duty travelers, bigger blocks, and larger diameter running rigging than their counterpart Beneteaus. The Garhauer blocks are really first-rate.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

For what its worth - I think that the Catalinas are better looking boats than the newer Beneteaus - and I have a sneaking suspicion that there build quiality has been getting better over the last little while - which I don't think is happening with Beneteau.

There are websites for both brands - Catalina Owners.com for owners sailing production sailboats Beneteau sailboat owners - probably worth asking around on those sites

Good luck !


----------



## PalmettoSailor

I don't think when you compare Beneteau's and Catalina's there is a appreciable difference in bulid quality. Each has different compromises, so it comes down to which ones carry more weight for you and which boat has the features you desire. They both are targeted to the same market for the same types of use. For me, Catalina's just seem to have an edge in terms of what I like in the layout of a boat. 

I usually dream about my next boat being something like a Sabre 387 or 38 or Caliber 35, but knowing my fairly limited sailing ambitions and severely limited budget, I keep the Catalina 42 on my list of boats to dream about, based on its price/availablity, nice lines and spaciousness. (Yeah, Yeah, a pullman isn't as nice as a centerline, but at least you don't have to get out of bed "tail over teakettle" like you do in a V-berth.)


----------



## TSOJOURNER

OK, someone had to ask... If you are looking at these types of boats, why not throw in the mix the Hunter 380/38 and 410/41. I am not a big fan on the aesthetics of the 380 and 410, but think that the newer 38 and 41 series boats look pretty nice (of the past 2 years type vintage). I hear that the 38 sails really well and is a nice boat - I prefer the Catalina 387 island berth though for that 38' type range (though I think the 387 is close to a 40 footer?). 

If you really want the space, liveability, etc., I would take a look at the Hunter 420 as well. We know some folks that have one and it is a really comforatable boat. That being said, I really do not know how well the sail, how the aesthetics hit you, etc. Very comfy - not sure how important that is to you and the admiral.

Is aesthetics the main reason that you were not including Hunters? From what I understand, with the newer boats, you will find little difference in quality of construction, etc. from the big 3. In the end, you should have about the same product, just pick the one you like the most. I personally think the aesthetics of the Hunters are vastly improving from 5-10 years ago.


----------



## sailortjk1

I just can't get past that big arch with the traveler on top of it.
And no back stays makes me nervous. (But, I have to admit, there out there and still standing)


----------



## PalmettoSailor

sailortjk1 said:


> I just can't get past that big arch with the traveler on top of it.
> And no back stays makes me nervous. (But, I have to admit, there out there and still standing)


Yeah that.

The arch just looks like something from a motorboat. If they have to have it, couldn't they move it and angle it further aft and add dingy davits and prewire it for solar panels? Then it would seem more like a feature to me and not just something that detracts from the aesthetics from a lot of peoples view.

Also, the B&R backstayless rig seems to me to be an excessive complication for dubious benefit. Lots of boats have walk through transoms without doing away with the backstay. I'm of a fan of simple and a split backstay seems a better solution if you want a walkthrough transom.

I do have to admit that the Admiral is swayed by the comfortable accomodations that most/many Hunter models offer.


----------



## jorgenl

Thanks to everybody for your advice.

No intention of starting a pissing contest  

I just wanted people’s advice on these specific boats. 

I own a Hunter, it is my first sailboat. It has been a great first boat, we sailed and learned a lot last season and we intend to get a lot of mileage out of her this season while planning and looking for a bigger boat for the 2008 season. 

This does not necessarily make me a great Hunter fan. 
The main reason I did not include Hunters is actually the aesthetics. 
I do not like the arch, especially the older fiberglass versions, the stainless arch is sort of acceptable, I am sure it is very practical, but it does not really please my eye…
Lack of backstay does not worry me; I am an engineer and assume that the lads at Hunter have done their analysis on the rig.

I do not plan to cross any ponds any time soon. If pond crossing becomes a possibility in the future, I would then buy a boat that is suitable for this type of voyage.

The reason for looking at Beneteaus and Catalinas is practical, there are a lot of them in the market, and they seem reasonably priced.

I would consider Hanse, Dehler and Bavaria as well but there does not seem to be as many of them in the market here in the States. I also prefer Yanmar compared to Volvo as I suspect that there is a greater service network for Yanmar in the States.

The boats that I really like the aesthetics of, Swan, Baltic and Sweden all have relatively deep draft that is not ideal for the Chesapeake. I would also have to go for a mid 80’s boat to stay in the same price range. More problems and expensive upkeep.

The size range of 38-40 foot is based on what I believe that we can comfortably handle.
I recently had an opportunity to sail on a new Bene 473 with all the goodies. Absolutely beautiful boat but I think it is too large for my needs and skill level.

I agree with Cruisingdad on the "warmer" look of the Bene interior. I also like the teak inserts in the cockpit. Makes it look less plastic. The blue hull on the limited edition 411 looks fantastic.

Sailortjk - I recall that on the 393 "The entire starboard side of the cabin is devoted to storage cabinets and entertainment systems" from when I chartered one. I also prefer two opposing seats.

What appeals to me with the Catalina 380 (there's a couple in my marina) is that I think it has got sleeker looks. Also the centerline aft berth should avoid climbing over the each other in the middle of the night. Chartered a Bene 393 last year and the Pullman berth did not appeal to me.

Thanks to CD for excellent information regarding performance of 380 vs 400.

Does the 380 and the 387 share the same basic hull? It seems that LOA is 38'5" for the 380 and 39'10" for the 387? If the hull (and keel, rig) is the same I assume that the performance issue would apply to the 387 as well?

How do you find the cockpit on the 400? 

Reason for asking is that we chartered a Sunsail 39 (I think it is called Beneteau Cyclades) in the BVI. Dual wheel boat with huge cockpit, very few handholds. The wife did not like the lack of handholds.

Anyways, thanks for all your input and advice.


----------



## Cruisingdad

jorgenl,

Ok, hoping I do not tick anyone off here again, I will try and answer you on several points. Again, no one take offense please:

1) I would buy a *new *Hunter over a *new *Beneteau or Jeauneau. I think Hunter is making improvements, and the last few benes and Jeauneaus I went on (new ones, 38-44 feet) were VERY DISSAPOINTING! One of the cabinet doors were loose. THe new Jeauneau hand rails look ready to break some fingers and installing a generator in them would be an absolute nightmare of glasswork. I do not mind big and wide open, but the multi levels and tricks steps were poorly thought out. The wooden steps are a hazard in a sea without taping, and maintenance on extra systems will take a circus acrobat. They look good in the boat show down below. They have a nicer, warmer, more comfortable feel than a catalina (in my opinion, others dissagree), but that was it. I DOOO like the older benes, but I still bought 4 Catalinas over them.

2) The suggestion of the Hunter was a good one. I saw a REAL effort to improve quality. The issue I would have is whether those changes really are long-term. Will they really last and hold up? I do not know. Only time will tell. But if I was about to drop 250-300k in a boat, I would let someone else find out first and let some time play out. Also, you will be dealing with the ever lasting Hunter bashing (which is unfair on these boats and some of the others). You are NOT buying your boat for someone else and as long as you own it could probably care less what anyone else says, but should you ever want to sell it... that will make it an issue.

3) The early model 387's made many changes Kris and I liked. They had the fold-up table and coffee table to the side. I do not care for these huge salon tables that take up half the cabin. If you have that large of a party coming over to eat, sit out in the cockpit. However, that seems to be the trend. Thus, the fold-up table was a real plus. Many of the newer 387s do not have the fold-up. They are sparse on cabinet space. The finish out is fine, just not enough of it. I would buy a 380 over a new 387.

4) The 387 is a totally different hull, basically a totally different everything.

5) If you can pony up a little more for the 400, it is better than the 380 in all respects. It performs better. It has considerably more room. It has 2 heads (I prefer one but my wife prefers 2 b/c of the boys). It has a double anchor roller. The cockpit is VASTLY more comfortable. It has 2 steering stations and easy pass-through. It has more room in the lazarette. It has storage all over the place, including under the floor in the galley. Systems are easier to get access to. The nav station is larger and more comfortable (in fact, short of the 470, it has the best nav station of any of the catalinas). It has a very nice, lighted wine/glass cabinet. It has a lot more storage in the galley cabinets. It has access switches leading down the companionway. It has hidden access lighting throughout. You easily have room to increase the battery bank to 1000 ah with little glass work. The salon table is much larger and more comfortable. you can easily modify and put in a large inverter/charger. Generator access and installation is easier. The head room over the aft berth (owners berth) is higher. Ther is more cabinetry in the aft berth and a lot more storage.

6) The only negative of the 400 compared to the 387 is the shower. It is seperate from the head (very important), but it is smaller than the 380. The shower on the 380 is more comfortable. The 400 also does not have a dedicated wet locker and will take some modifications in one of the heads. The 400 also does not have an opening port inside the shower. It has a solar vent (none of which work really well). We are going to modify this.

Basically, if you can deal with a bit more money, the 400 is a much more comfortable and better boat than the 380, which is a nicer boat than the 387.

7) I almost bought a 42 over the 400. The 42 costs a little less and has several differences that make it appealing. The salon is more open and inviting. The galley and accompanying garage (storage space centerline and aft of the galley). The 42 can come with a washer/dryer in the forward shower area. One head is accessbile from the salon. The cockpit is more comfortable than the 380/387, not as large and comfortable as the 400 (due to the walk-through with 2 steering stations).

8) However, there were several things about the 42 that killed it for us. THe second stateroom is not as comfortable and accessible as the V on the 400. We have 2 boys and they would be crawling over each other to get out. That is a real negative. The nav station on the 42 is way forward and small for a boat of that size (in my opinion). Adding a lot of electronics or goodies will require some hoakie woodwork or just leave them out in the open. I always prefer having the nav close to the cockpit so you are not walking so far in a sea to make 1/2 hour paper plots and you can also communicate with the helmsman easier. The pullman is not prefered to a centerline berth you can both crawl out of. Anytime someone has to get up in the middle of the night (to pee, check the anchor, whatever) which happens several times/night, you will be crawling over the other person and waking them up. The 42 does not have a good escape point for 2 people. An escape point is an area that you can sit down, spread out (away from the kids or company) and read a book, type, or just relax. The 380, 387, and 400 all have that in the owners cabin. The escape point is one of the most critical pieces of living aboard or spending lots of time on a boat. Lastly, the settees in the salon on the 42 are somewhat curved and will not easily accomodate lee cloths or sleeping in the salon for long passages. That will be an issue anytime you make long runs.

9) There is NOOOO comparrison between a Catalina and a HR. HR's are much better built boats. However, I would buy a Catalina over a IP. If you reallywant to go that direction, I like Calibers.

I personally think the 400 is one of the best boats Catalina makes. It is comfortable, performs well, is easy to sail and single hand, and makes a good live aboard/cruiser. It will take you ANYWHERE in this hemishpere in comfort and safety.

- CD


----------



## labatt

Can I beat a dead horse? Big problems with the build quality of Bene's, hence why their name often gets changed to "Bendy-Tow". You shouldn't be able to get the hull of a 40' boat to flex by pushing in on it, but you can with many Bene's. They look good at the dock, but the build quality is severely lacking. I'd say Catalina is a big step up with regards to build quality and the hardware. I honestly don't know anything about the Jenneau's. 

CD - if you were crossing the Atlantic, would you still pick a Catalina over an IP? That full keel that's horrible at the dock is soooo nice for motion on the ocean.

And Hallberg-Rassy is on the same level as Cabo, Passport, Tayana, etc., not Bene.


----------



## jorgenl

CD - thank you very much for the info.

Of the Catalina's it seems that the 400 is definetely the best bet.

There's a couple of 380's and 400's for sale up in MD.

We'll head up that way soon to check them out.

It would be interesting if someone with similar experiences on the Bene 393 vs 411 could provide som pros and cons about these models.

In the meantime - noaa tells me that it should be 75F and sunny this weekend so we'll take our little Hunter out for a spin on the bay.

Thanks again / Jorgen


----------



## Cruisingdad

Labatt,

People have taken Catalinas across the ponds, but I would not do it. It is not the right boat. The larger catalinas (36 up) were really intended as island hoppers. The 380, 40, 42, 470, and 440 can make much longer runs. However, the things that make them a good island hopper make them a bad pond crosser. However, the likewise is true: Valiants are awesome at crossing oceans, but as I have said countless times before, would be at the bottom of my list for a island hopper. 

Regarding the IP's - I will no doubt raise the ire of others when I say this: I would not take one across the ocean. I put it in the category of slow island hopper. I would take a LRC across the pond, mason, bristol, hylas, valiant, Pacific seacraft... but not an IP. The one thing I do like about the IP's is the shallow draft and protected keel... but that is about it. The IP's are very well marketed, but pricey for what you get. For the same money or less, buy a Caliber. I have been genuinely impressed with them. The only issue with the Caliber is some of the systems are very awkward to get to, espcially any runs under the master berth. I also think the location and size of the nav station is quirky. However, they are solid, heavy boats and would take a beating in my opinion. I think Matt (Soulsearcher??? Cannot remember his call name here) owns one. 

All of this is just my opinion. I have not owned any of these. The only boats I know pretty well outside of the productions boats are Valiants. The only other boat I have spent much time offshore on is a Formossa.

- CD

PS I do not mean any dissrespect to IP owners. They have made more long distance runs than any Catalina and many (not all) of the owners love them. I just personally do not like the build out and do not trust them any more than a Catalina, maybe less. Just my personal opinion so no 'I hate CD-PM's' back to me please.


----------



## btrayfors

Dad,

Just wondering....why would Valiants (say, the V40 or V42) be at the bottom of your list for an island hopper, but up there for an ocean crossing? Cost?

Bill


----------



## Cruisingdad

Hi Bill,

How are you? In the US or islands?

To answer your question, the V40 and V42 are small down below. VERY SMALL! THe cockpits are small. The salon is small. Wally/Valiant calls them the worlds best liveaboards, I dissagree. They may be the worlds best passagemakers, but not liveaboards. They are awesome boats with a lot of thought put into safety and longevity (and maintenance, incidentally), but they are cramped down below compared to most production boats.

Cost is not the factor.

These are my opinions only. I know a bunch of people on Valiants that love them and think they are fine. Just my opinion. I cannot remember, but do you have a V-40?

- CD

PS I have to run in a second, so if I do not resond for a while, that is why. Hope you are doing well. Take care.


----------



## sailingdog

Bill-

Just remember the traits that make for a good coastal cruiser and island hopper—generally don't make for a good bluewater boat.


----------



## camaraderie

CD...I note your comments about improvements at Hunter which have also been made elsewhere. One thing that I would say is that the technical comments about improvements in quality made recently have been made in the context of how improved a COUPLE of new boats are (I believe the H49 was one of them and another in the 38-39 ft. range). I have seen nothing about changes in construction or techniques being made on existing models so I would be very careful about making blanket statements on their improvement. I would take improvement in quality to mean ONLY on their brand new models unless someone can point me to information that says substantive changes have been made on the construction of other models as well...with specific changes rather than marketing department hype. 
I DO believe from what I've read that the new models are indeed an improvement...but I am skeptical about any overall quality improvements across the line.


----------



## bestfriend

Personally, I don't like Hunters because the ones I have sailed on feel like you're riding on an empty rum bottle.

When we went to look at one to buy, yeah I know, the dealer was so enthusiastic about how the rig got the boom out of the way so you didn't hit your head. As he got on board, he promptly hit his head on the SS arch. He didn't get the sale.


----------



## soul searcher

CD Hope you and family are doing better still holding you all in our thoughts.
I don't know much about catalinas just what I've read. 
When I was boat shoping I got down to the caliber and IP(Wife nixed the freya). I went with the Caliber for the reasons you stated. basically the IP is a nice boat but I think alot of the price is just name driven. It hought the Caliber was built tougher and the underbody and numbers were very close to the valiant. as far as comparison to a catalina in physical deminsions its closer to the 380 than anything. 
The fourty LRC is the same hull as the old 38 caliber with the transom modified to get the swim step adding the additional 1.5 feet. 

I wouldnt say our boat is tight down below but from looking at photos of the 380 I dont think it has near the interiior volume. the quarter berth is the sea berth One way in(feet first) your not going to get rolled out of it the pullman is the anchored or docked berth. with the table down you cant get thrown more than two three feet side to side. The aft head is the catch all wet locker. its right at the base of the companion way. The nav station is tight but I prefer it that way It has walls on three sides so stuff can't go far.
and it has a port right behind your head that opens and you can talk to the person on watch or peek through it at the radar on night watches.
We have storage out the wazoo. I wish the Lazz was a little bigger. but thats mostly from being spoiled at work I can walk around my engines you dont crawl anywhere. The finnish on our boat isnt awe inspiring but the fit is good and it durable. this has changed on the newer modles they are way nicer Inside.
BF I like that story, a little humbling of a sailsman is a good thing
As far as hunter goes I fished a few luhrs boats and I wasnt impressed and Ill just leave it at that.


----------



## bestfriend

Thanks Matt. I like your boat. I was really impressed by the one I saw at Strictly Sail. It was all by its lonesome in the corner, not getting much attention. But once I got below, I could tell it was a solid build, and well designed. The verdict is still out on the nav table. But, I would feel safe crossing some big seas in the LRC. And it was pretty comfortable too.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*Beneteau vs Catalina, I chose Beneteau*

I sailed Beneteaus, Catalinas, Hunters, a Passport, a Caliber, and Sabre before settling on a new Beneteau 423. I have no regrets. The 423 is a wonderful sailing vessel.

Storage space on the Beneteau 423 is enormous (2 cabin version) and that was a major factor in my decision making. It never ceases to amaze me how little storage room there is on some other boats.

As much as I like my Beneteau let me say that it is a work-in-progress. Beneteau offers a fine basic production boat. If you purchase a new Beneteau you will begin a lengthy customization process. I like that because the boats represents my preferences, not some designers.

I noticed in this thread there was a comment that the cast iron keel was a reflection on cutting corners. That's not so. It reflects Europe's tighter environmental concerns about lead and other heavy metals. It's also because lead is not strong and does not cast well to intricate shapes.

My Beneteau has crossed the Gulf of Alaska a few times and that's not a trivial voyage. Based on that experience I wouldn't hesitate to cross oceans.

There are better boats, there are boats with exotic reputations, but it is reflected in price. IMHO, what you get with a Beneteau is the best value for your money. There's a reason they are the largest sailboat manufacturer in the world.


----------



## captron400

*Catalina 400 - my choice*

I'm not sure how I ran into this thread, but some of the posts caught my eye.

First - who is the guy who is called "Catalina 400 Technical Editor". I had that job (for Mainsheet) for a half dozen years and also was the Commodore of the C400 Association almost forever. Are you editing the Mainsheet articles (if and when they come) or is it for something else?

Now for the the boats. All three (Catalina, Beneteau, Hunter) have their loyal following and all three have their merits - although you can tell which way I went 11 years ago. But I chose the Catalina 400 AFTER test sailing several of the others, including the Ben First 42, Hunter Passage 42 and Legend 40, Catalina 42, and several others including a J120. The absolute best thing for any buyer to do is to test sail the boats to see what HE (or SHE) likes. Assuming he / she knows what they're doing, my opinion should not be as important as his. You've got to live with it, not me.

Why did I prefer the 400 over the others (with the First 42 being in 2nd place). A number of things got factored in, but VALUE seemed to be near the top, coupled with how well the boat sailed. Took one out in both light and heavy air and it moved very well for what it is - a mid-displacement peformance cruiser. Construction was also an important issue - some of the others did not have steller ratings in the mid-90's. The J120 was interesting, but was not really a "cruiser" back then. The head had a sliding curtain (my wife would have loved that).

Examples of "Value" include the standard lead keel (as opposed to the Bennies cast iron - which is an absolute mistake for most uses), standard primary winches that were 14 sizes larger (58 vs 44) than the bigger Beneteau's, a standard toe rail, etc.. Some of these things could be optioned on the Beneteau, but WHY weren't they standard????? They would have gladly sold me a boat with an iron keel and winches more suited for a 35 footer. Besides being a headache in salt water, iron is not nearly as dense as lead and they have to make it bigger & wider. Add in the bigger (and brighter interior), the MUCH bigger cockpit, and the fact that the twin wheels make sailing a big boat a lot easier. You can be on the high or low side within easy reach of the helm and not have to walk thru an 8 foot wheel buried into the cockpit sole.

After 11 years and 32,000 miles, I've never looked back on this decision - I'd do it again in a flash.

Former C400 Commodore, Secretary, Treasurer and Technical Editor


----------



## ksfischer

*Catalina 42*

There have been a few good things said for the Catalina 42 in this thread...let me add a few more....

The C42 is an excellent value. For the price you pay, it is a VERY sound boat with excellent hardware (mostly Garhauer). This is especially true on the West coast where shipping the C400 from FL costs much more than the CA built C42. They keep their value, too.

The C42 is available in a number of configurations to suit your preferences. You will find strong opinions on 2 cabin vs 3 cabin, and pullman vs centerline berths. We chose the 3 cabin pullman. The pullman gives you a fantastic forward head with separate enclosed shower. As one owner said, "What's wrong with crawling over your spouse?" Some bemoan the reduced galley storage of the 3 cabin, but we frequently use the entire 3rd cabin for storage.

Most C42 owners I know do most of their cruising with just two people on board, many singlehand. I would have no concernes with handling a boat of that size. The only thing I would avoid with that concern is the 155 genoa.

Are there downsides? Sure. It's no Tartan or Island Packet. And there are always tradeoffs on any boat.

I just returned from our C42 Fleet 12 Puget Sound Rendezvous where we had 13 C42's, along with an original C38, a Morgan 38 center cockpit, a C390, a CM440, and a C470. Without exception, we LOVE our boats. I'm sure that's true of other makes as well, but you couldn't leave the gathering without noting the strong sentiment.

If you are unsure, I strongly recommend chartering (and the thread starter mentioned that). There are quite a few C42's in charter, including mine.

Our discussion forum has more than a few discussions along these lines:
Catalina 42 Technical Discussion - Message Board - ezboard.com

Ken Fischer
2005 C42 Solaria
Anacortes, WA
C42 Int'l Assoc Vice Commodore & Mainsheet Editor


----------



## sailingdog

Captron400-

You're talking about CruisingDad... You could always PM him... He's not on the board as much as he usually is due to a family emergency.. but generally responds to PM's quite readily.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Captron400,

Nice to have you here. Yes, I took over the job at Mainsheet from you. You and I have exchanged emails many times. I thought I told you this was my name on Sailnet and Cruisers forum??? Maybe not. It has been a while since we have spoken.

Without a doubt, your knowledge of the 400 is vastly better than mine. I would welcome your input here - especially on the 400. Hang around and welcome aboard. I had a family situation that has pulled me away from here quite a bit and probably will continue to for a while (off and on).

Anyways, thanks for the input.

- CD


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*Jeanneau 40 -- My choice*

The newer model, 40.3, is built well and fast ! Rates a base PHRF of 90 here in the SF Bay, 96 with my in-mast furling main. I sail mine single handed and just did the single handed Farallones race last month -- just under 8 hours to cover the 56 miles as the crow flies course sailing with a 105% headsail. Winds were 15-18 kts from the south with a single tack out from the GG Bridge and the islands, then 22-25 kts with rain back on a reach / close reach back to the Gate. Seas were 8-10' at 16+ seconds, so not too bad. Boy was it fun !

I have the 2 cabin "owners" version. Single head. Very large V-berth forward with a sink. Single large head to port, aft of the nav station. Love the twin helm. Doesn't feel as big below as the Hunter 380, 41 or Catalina 400.

WRT to the Bene, on equivalent "newer" boats, the Bene seems to be rigged with on size smaller everything compared to the equivalent size Jeanneau -- winches, lines, rigging, etc. Except for the First Series of course. I have a friend that has a Bene First 40.7 that he races competitively and his wife prefers my Jeanneau interior by a lot.

Just my BIASED 2 cents ...

Paul Koenig
S/V Bear Boat


----------



## sailingdog

captron400 said:


> standard primary winches that were 14 sizes larger (58 vs 44) than the bigger Beneteau's,


I wasn't aware that they made 45, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57 size winches? Going from a 40 winch _(since they don't seem to make a 44 anymore) _ to a 58 winch in with Lewmar's winch line is five winch sizes larger...(46, 48, 50, 54, 58), not 14 sizes. 

Harken makes a 53, but doesn't make some of the other sizes and it would only be four winch sizes different, if they made a 58.

Andersen has sizes 40, 46, 52, and 58... so it would be three sizes different...

I was just curious as to which manufacturer makes all those size winches you're talking about?


----------



## TSOJOURNER

*Catalina 400*

I traded our '04 Catalina 387 for a new '06 Catalina 400 and have not regretted that decision. We carefully evaluated the Catalina 42 but decided that it does not compare in the area of cockpit and aft cabin configuration and the galley in the 400 is a lot nicer china cabinet and all. But enough of that, the boat just sails great. It's easy to handle for two people and because of the location of the primary winches can be managed nicely by one person. We have looked at Benneteau's and Jeanneau's and quite frankly prefer the mostly teak wood on the Catalina and the overall finish out. We have looked at a lot of Hunter's and still believe the Catalina 400 is the way to go. We would Island hop the boat but not cross blue water...we prefer Cunard for that assignment. Sorry all you blue water sailers...about 1% of all sail boat owners.


----------



## tsenator

*Lots been said here, but I'd like to point out some things*

In the grand scheme of things a Bene or a Catalina are not worlds apart, but there are real differences. I do have to agree with Haleaki (sp?) and a few others, noting that its absolutely ludicrous to compare a Bene to an Island Packet let alone a Halberg Rassey. Once someone posts anything like that, everything else that person might write is suspect.

The other thing that must be noted is that Bene has different boats and thus different qualities have come from them. Beneteau has made some very good boats. The First 40.7 comes to mind, but they have made some very 'uninspiring' boats too. (ocean series come to mind and I have heard some negative comments on the sailing qualities of the 36CC directly from their owners. The word "bathtub" was actually used more than once). As noted before the First series are generally a cut above for racing, but the amenities and "feel" down below is much more "sterile and utilitarian". (hey its a race boat, what do you expect  ) The problem is most "Admirals" are less enthused about the First Series unless their name is Dawn Reily.

The comment about Steel keels vs Lead not being a big deal is something everyone with a Steel keel likes to tell themselves to make them feel better. Other that an ultra race boat where the foils on the keels are extremely thin and thus you need the extra structural integrity of steel is the ONLY reason steel might be preferred. All one need to do is hit a simple rock at 4 kts to understand the impact that is produced. I personally know dozens of boats that have hit with a lead keel and dozens with a steel keel. Lead is FAR superior to steel when it comes to impact absorption. The lead keel boats had far less or NO damage to the hull after impact, most all steel keels create much more structural damage. The lead deforms and absorbs . The steel transmits almost all of the force to the hull keel interface = recipe for disaster.

If you've got an ultra high aspect keel foil race boat, I will give you the edge for steel. For this discussion that does not count.

If you NEVER hit any bottom when sailing then the Steel vs Lead argument is moot. For all the other sailors. Lead wins hands down. Not that a Steel keel isn't fine - its just that lead is FAR superior for a regular crusing boat. One should never put the two on a level playing field.

Here is one more point that I have noticed when it comes to quality of a Beneteau vs a Catalina. Now I am not talking about a new "boat-show" boats.. Beneteaus do look good while wandering on them at the boat shows. They have they nice Cherry stain and everything. What I am talking about is different. Take a look a 10- 15 Year Beneteau vs a 10- 15 year Catalina. Not always, but usually the Catalina seems to look like its aged more gracefully. At first I though maybe the Catalina Owners are more hands on and take care of their boats and Beneteau owners just "ride em hard and put em away wet".

BUT then I started to notice something and after I noticed it, it was more and more glaring every time I went to a boat show. Take a look at how Beneteaus make their interior doors to their cabins. At the boat shows everything looks great, but upon closer inpection its compressed wood with a thin dark cherry wood veneer. Look at the door jambs where the latch is. I was on a boat on at the boat show and something caught the edge of the veneer on the door and the 1/32" cherry wood veneer was peeling off the side of the door and exposing the raw white compressed wood. It looked like crap.

Since then I have noticed gouges on the doors of some Beneteaus. Instead of being dark cherry wood, what you see is the white compressed wood. I think if you want you can paint the gouge, but it doesn't look as good.

Not saying that Catalina is a Hinckley or anything, but one thing I have noted is that all their doors are SOLID TEAK. You get a gouge or a scratch in that, you just varnish back over it beacuse its solid teak. You don't have to worry about white pressed wood showing up under the Cherry Veneer.

Since learning this about Beneteaus and how they cut corners I brought it up with a local surveyor and he actually laughed and jokingly commented "There isn't enough real wood on a Beneteau to start a girlscout campfire".

Maybe it doesn't matter to everyone and the boat probably still sails well, but how a boat looks after 10 years might matter to some. I also note some other corner cutting so in this case I give the edge to Catalina.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

I own a Catalina 34, and decided on it after seeing several boats, Benetau included. Catalina is not better nor worse, its slightly different. Made in the USA.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

I just bought a Catalina 350. Of course I compared it to all the other "economical" mass production modern boats (Hunter, Benet/Jenneau, Bavaria). There were many reasons I chose Catalina which I won't go into because they've either been mentioned before or are unique to my situation. However there is one very substantial issue that many people don't seem to clue into.

Catalina is the last "little" mass boat builder. ... 

What I mean by that is that if you look at a Catalina you *don't* see fancy headliners, pretty laminate interiors, thermoformed plastic window trim, etc... What you see in a Catalina is painted fibreglass, solid wood, and no window trim at all. I certainly understand which vessel the boat show crowd will be more impressed by, but which has less parts to repair - to maintain - to replace?

Catalinas strike me as simple, plain and honest, not flashy but not impossible to maintain in peak trim over the long haul.


----------



## captron400

"I wasn't aware that they made 45, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57 size winches? Going from a 40 winch _(since they don't seem to make a 44 anymore) _to a 58 winch in with Lewmar's winch line is five winch sizes larger...(46, 48, 50, 54, 58), not 14 sizes. "

OK - I should have probably said that the Catalina 400's primary winches had a mechanical advantage that was 14 points above the Benetau's. But the point really was that a 44 to 1 (or so? - it was 12 years ago) primary winch is too light for a 42 footer. 58 to 1 is probably overkill, but that's what came as standard equipment. After test sailing the First 42, the salesman admitted (and recommended) that I should opt for the extra cost 48 or 50 (at something like $2,000 apiece, along with the optional lead keel and optional toe rail and optional etc. etc. You can't even get Catalina to build something under spec if you paid them to.


----------



## SailinJay

Hubec--

Congrats on the 350. I own Hull 84. Into my fifth season of sailing her and I'm very happy with the boat.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Don't be afraid of buying as big a boat that you can afford. My wife and I just bought our firts boat, a Catalina C470. Sure it was a bit tricky first time taking into our slip but there are smaller full keel boats that are a real handful. After a few times, it's a piece of cake.
As far as Catalina versus Beneteau all I can say is when we were shopping we had seriously considered the Benny 473, that was until we saw the Catalina. The Catalina's fit and finish is far superior, the cabin sole doesn't go boing, boing up and down when you walk on it. There are no gaps in the woodwork anywhere. The rigging is much heavier, the primary winches are Harken 66's versus Lewmar 54's, the rudder shaft is 4" stainless steel instead of composite material, the twin helms are independently connected to the quadrant so if one should fail you can still steer with the other. The two boats are very close in size and yet the C470 is almost 5000lbs heavier with keel weights being almost equal. That 5000lbs more in structural material equals strength and more seakindliness.
I know these boats are not what you're looking at and I don't know if the same comparisons can be made on the boats you're considering but it certainly made it easy for us to decide.


----------



## nk235

hiseas said:


> Don't be afraid of buying as big a boat that you can afford. My wife and I just bought our firts boat, a Catalina C470. Sure it was a bit tricky first time taking into our slip but there are smaller full keel boats that are a real handful. After a few times, it's a piece of cake.
> As far as Catalina versus Beneteau all I can say is when we were shopping we had seriously considered the Benny 473, that was until we saw the Catalina. The Catalina's fit and finish is far superior, the cabin sole doesn't go boing, boing up and down when you walk on it. There are no gaps in the woodwork anywhere. The rigging is much heavier, the primary winches are Harken 66's versus Lewmar 54's, the rudder shaft is 4" stainless steel instead of composite material, the twin helms are independently connected to the quadrant so if one should fail you can still steer with the other. The two boats are very close in size and yet the C470 is almost 5000lbs heavier with keel weights being almost equal. That 5000lbs more in structural material equals strength and more seakindliness.
> I know these boats are not what you're looking at and I don't know if the same comparisons can be made on the boats you're considering but it certainly made it easy for us to decide.


Hiseas, I think this was an older thread from 2007.


----------



## danielgoldberg

The Big 3 as compared to each other. This Definitely is an older thread. It caught my eye, however, as I just went through this process and decided on the Beneteau 49 over the others of comparable size. Very interesting thread, particularly reading it only after we did our research and made our decision. I agree with much of what was written, and disagree with some. Just in case anyone cares, here's how it worked for us (and if posting this in response to an older thread offends anyone, my apologies):

1. First off, let me start by stating that we wanted a new boat. I probably could have and would have settled on a boat that's a couple of years old, but the Admiral really wanted a new boat that no one else had sailed or owned. For us, that meant going with a production boat. We were not limited to the Big Three, but we are not in a position to buy a new HR, for instance. We also wanted three staterooms. We have two boys, and though they certainly could share a cabin, and have up until this point, we spend a fair amount of time on the boat and have designs to take a little time off and cruise a bit. That's where we started in terms of requirements. Obviously the boat needed to have many other attributes and features, but I raise the ones above because they ended up having more of an impact on our decision than I would have thought when we started.

2. So, we looked at Hunters, Catalinas, Beneteaus, Calibers, Jeanneau, J, Island Packet, Hanse, Bavaria, Tartan, Sabre, several catamarans (Prout, Leopard, FP, Lagoon, Voyage, Maine Cat), probably others, but those are the ones that come to mind.

3. They're all nice boats, they vary in quality and price quite a bit, and in the end we came to the conclusion that they all have pluses and minuses, we would be happy with most aspects of all, and unhappy with some aspects of all.

4. Of the monohulls we considered, went on and sailed (leaving cats out of this discussion), the Beneteau sailed the best, save for the Js. It was faster, more weatherly and more responsive than the others (again, save for the J). 

5. We think the interior finish on the Beneteaus is better than the Hunters, Catalinas, Jeanneau, Bavaria, Hanse and J. IP was better, Caliber very close but a bit better. Tartan was better, but not by as much as I would have expected, and certainly not by enough that you would have thought considering the price differential (I hope I'm not offending anyone, but boy do those guys think they're selling a Rolls Royce). Sabre definitely was better, but there's a quirk to that boat that blows me away; they glue all of the floorboards down, so if you ever need to access anything under the floorboards that isn't accessible by a hatch, get out your saw. Anyway, some have written in this thread that the Beneteau interior is not as well built as its competitors (Hunter, Catalina, Jeanneau, which of course is owned by Beneteau). We just didn't find that to be the case. Frankly, we found the interior to be less plastic than the others, that the floorboards fit together better, and that cabinet and cabin doors fit together quite tight. A negative is that both shower doors don't really seem to be all that robust; I expect that we'll be playing with and changing those a bit over time.

6. Aesthetically, we like the look of the new Beneteaus quite a bit. I actually think it's a very good looking boat. No accounting for taste I guess.  The Hunters we just did not like (not bashing, just didn't really like them), the Catalinas seemed a bit bland, and we liked and disliked the remainder to varying degrees. But as between Hunter, Catalina, Beneteau, Jeanneau, Hanse, and Bavaria, we liked the Beneteau look the best.

5. The Catalina had a Pullman berth forward, which we don't like, and the Hunter has a bit of a bizzaro setup for the aft cabins. In contrast, the Beneteau is a true centerline queen, as it's set up a bit farther aft in the boat where the hull is wider (there's a massive deck locker between the anchor locker and the master stateroom; some pluses and minuses there too).

6. The Beneteau is the only one with an iron keel. I don't like that at all, and it's one of the compromises we chose to make. Long ago we had a boat with an iron keel (a Hunter actually), and it was a pain to keep it faired. We're hoping that because we're getting this boat new, we can load it up with epoxy, maintain it from the outset, and keep the rust in check. If not, we're going in with our eyes open and we'll just deal. Likewise, we're aware of the issue with a serious grounding being more serious with an iron keel. Again, one of the compromises we were willing to make.

7. The Beneteau does have smaller winches and some other hardware as compared to its competitors. We sailed the 49, however, and didn't find the winches or any hardware to be undersized. This is a compliment to the other brands to be sure, and again, we decided that the other attributes and features made going with the smaller hardware a trade we were willing to make (plus, we're going with electric winches, so we expect the issue to be ameliorated somewhat).

8. None of the production boats with any sort of serious volume use true seacocks. What is up with that? Is it really that much more expensive? Particularly now with Groco's flange adaptor, we're talking about another $350 to $500 in extra hardware for the entire boat. Time for all boat manufacturers to stop with the substandard throughulls and valves. We're going to change that on ours, but would have to do so on all the boats that made it to our short list anyway.

9. We actually like the IP's, but they don't have a three cabin layout, are substantially more expensive, and perform substantially worse in lighter air. Likewise, the Tartan and Sabre were materially more expensive, definitely had better build quality, but not by enough to justify it, at least not to us. Plus, and this is the truth and I know it's blaspheme, they don't sail any better, at least not in coastal conditions (indeed, they're just flat out slower).

10. Totally anecdotal, but I'll say that I spend a fair amount of time in our boatyard because I'm good friends with the guys there, and I see them working on lots of different kinds of boats. The guys with the Tartans, Sabres, J's, etc., are having just as many problems as the guys sailing Catalinas, etc. Obviously there are boats that are higher quality than others, but if you're talking about the hassle factor in terms of which boats are requiring more attention, I actually think the difference between production brands is less than what you might think. My first keel boat was a Hunter 34, which was what it was, but since then we've owned a Bayfield and a Freedom. Both of those are bluewater boats that have sailed all over, and we sailed them a bit offshore too. No doubt, they are very well built boats that are tough, but they've got their problems too, and I've got the maintenance hours and yard bills to prove it. And when we went offshore, we did it with others who were sailing, among others, Catalinas and Jeanneaus. Each time we were expecting them to have a harder time of it than we would, but each time they had no more breakages or problems than did we.

11. On build quality, I found that the Big Three are so similar that it's too close to call. Certainly the higher end boats are better, and you pay for that of course, but as between Beneteau, Hunter, Catalina, Jeanneau, Hanse, Bavaria, and J (I know that's beyond just the Big Three), there is no appreciable difference (J's are a little bit of a different story, but they've got their issues too). For those who advocate that there is such a difference, IMHO, and with utmost respect, I believe that's just brand bias (whether for or against). For instance, I expected the Hunter 49 to be materially worse, and it just wasn't; I didn't like the aesthetic or the layout, but I couldn't in all honesty say that it was less of a boat than the other mass production boats we looked at (which probably just means they all are junk.  ).

12. In the end, as between Beneteau, Hunter and Catalina, we liked the way the Beneteau sailed the best, we liked the interior layout the best, and we liked the aesthetic the best. Plus, right at the end when we were coming to a decision, Beneteau offered an amazing factory special on the boats they had in stock at the factory (the trick was finding one of the hulls on the list that was outfitted and laid out the way you want, and we were fortunate to be able to do that) which saved us about $40,000 (no joke).

Well, that was our thinking. Obviously there was more to it than that, but this post is too long already. Happy to answer questions or just let this die.

Our boat is expected to arrive at the dealer this coming Friday, and I'll post pictures for sure once she gets here (just like a proud father of a new baby).


----------



## Crunch

here is a Bayfield
Boats for sale

opinion on it's blue water capabilities?


----------



## camaraderie

Nice post Dan...very fair despite your obvious bias! 
Good luck and we'll look forward to following your progress!

Crunch...pls. don't hijack someone else's thread....but the answer is NO it is not.


----------



## tweitz

Dan --
Nice post, and a rare one in that you avoid the bashing. I was curious about your comment 8, that none of the production boats use true seacocks. Especially with the recent thread discussing the definition of seacocks and ballcocks, etc., I had the impression they all did. What do they use, and why isn't it a seacock? When i look at my smaller Bene, it looks like a seacock to me.


----------



## SollaSollewSails

I would strongly urge you to consider a Bavaria 38. If these yachts are more expensive than the Catalina and Beneteau it's not by much. We have a Bavaria 33 and compared to the Catalina's and Beneteau's that were available when we bought our boat the differences are considerable:

-Excellent build quality. Boat feels stout in 20 to 25 knot range which has been, so far, max for us. 
-European 'All Ocean' rating.
-Seven opening ports on a 33. I just looked at pics of the Beneteau, in place of opening side ports, it has those really dated looking 'areo' windows that save the builder money on Lewmar opening ports. How do you breath in this boat?
-MUCH MUCH more storage than the Catalina 32 we traded up from. MUCH more. The Bavaria 34 may in fact satisfy your needs. Looked at pics of the -Beneteau, storage looks pretty minimal as well.
-Volvo saildrive. Saildrive means totally dry bilge and no packing gland issues. 
-Adjustable genoa cars
-Selden furling mast
-Lots of storage space. Much more than the Catalina we trade up from.
-Lewmar windless. Boat was delivered with 150 feet of chain. Don't know what these other yachts come with.
-Two 140AH batteries for the house plus separate starting battery.
-40 gallon fuel tank, 55 gallon water tank (again this is on a 33).
-Single lever engine control (forward, reverse and throttle all in one lever, this was an option on the Catalina when I was shopping.
-Did I mention a very solid feel under sail and when motoring?

I would urge you to take a look at the Bavaria. The 34 may well meet your needs and save you money, not just on the boat purchase but also on maintenance and slip fees. The 38 may cost a bit more (I don't really know, you may face exchange rate issues) but you will get a lot more boat. 

Eric

Full disclosure... here are my don't likes about the Bavaria:

-Iron keel, I believe the Catalina's are lead. The Beneteau's are iron as well.
-Poorly insulated frig
-Poor choice for locker hardware (pics look like Beneteau uses the same supplier)
-Stock sails are not the greatest but this is probably true of every new boat.


----------



## sailingdog

IIRC, the Bavaria 38's were the ones that had the keel falling of them??? IMHO, not such a great boat to be recommending, given some of the accidents had fatalities. Also, given the weakness of the dollar compared to the Euro, you'd get killed on the exchange rate right now.



> *Bavaria's Unabridged Response*
> 
> I have read the response of Mr. Lawrence Sterne to your article on the Bavaria Yachts manufacturing facility. All of us associated with Bavaria are deeply saddened by the loss of life associated with the tragic accident that occurred in Croatia this past summer, the official investigation of which is still ongoing.
> 
> The fact that Bavaria issued a retro fit order on the 38 and 42 Match series boats is accurate, unfortunately the time line is not. The factory, on July 13, 2004, well prior to this incident, informed all dealers that a retrofit of a larger stainless steel backing plate to better distribute the keel loads was being mandated and they supplied the necessary parts to accomplish this. With this installed, both Bavaria 38 Match and 42 Match series boats have competed successfully in major ocean races world-wide and in so doing encountered conditions that led to the withdrawal of many of the entries.


----------



## Vasco

Very well put, Dan. I bought a new Beneteau in 2004. I had owned two new boats prior to this, a CS30 and a CS36Merlin. I had no intention of getting a Beneteau but was sort of in the market for another boat to keep south as I was tired of the long journey home to Toronto from the Bahamas. A friend had bought a 423 so I went with him to Charleston to take it to Florida. While there (the 423 was being commissioned) I had time to crawl around a few Beneteaus. I was pleasantly surprised after having heard all the Beneteau bashing. I ended up buying a 393. After four seasons of cruising the Bahamas with this boat I am still very happy with it. There are one or two niggly little things such as the cheap Lewmar blocks which I replaced with Garhauers but overall I am pleased with both the boat and the service I've gotten from both the dealer and Beneteau.


----------



## danielgoldberg

tweitz said:


> Dan --
> Nice post, and a rare one in that you avoid the bashing. I was curious about your comment 8, that none of the production boats use true sea****s. Especially with the recent thread discussing the definition of sea****s and ball****s, etc., I had the impression they all did. What do they use, and why isn't it a sea****? When i look at my smaller Bene, it looks like a sea**** to me.


Thanks Tweitz. What I consider to be a proper sea**** is an assembly that is flanged and attaches directly to the throughull with matching threads, with the actual throughull cut to size. The flange makes it more difficult for the valve to break off because there is support by the flange against the hull or backing plate (depending on installation), keeps the valve from spinning if you really need to get on the thing because it's jammed or something, and lessens the risk generally because there are less connections. What the production boats do, at least the ones I've seen, is that they take an NPS throughull, shove it through the hull, bed it and all, and then just tighten the retaining nut down on the inside of the fixture. Then, they just thread on an inline ball valve, which of course is an NPT thread. So, you end up with mismatched threads, which means the valve is not threaded all the way down, which is just asking for trouble in my opinion. In one installation I saw, they had an elbow threaded directly to the throughull pipe, and then an inline valve attached to the elbow, so the valve was not even on the throughull itself. The risk is that if something heavy happens to hit the valve from any angle at all (engine b/c of broken motor mount, extra alternator stowed somewhere near a throughull, stray kick from a foot attached to a person in some contorsion trying to reach a stuffing box, who knows how these things always tend to happen), you are at risk for the valve breaking off, or at least breaking the bedding and leaking. Don't confuse an inline balve valve that has a handle turning 90 degrees with a true and proper sea****.

I'm probably overreacting a bit to this, but I just don't quite get it, considering that Marelon sea****s are reasonably priced, and the Groco flanged adaptor is downright cheap and may even be a better solution to a true sea**** because the valve can be changed so easily. All that said, we are going to sail our boat as is for the rest of this season once we get her, only because there isn't time to swap everything out and still have a season. If time allows over the winter, I hope to install the Groco flange adaptor and make all of our throughull assemblies more robust. I certainly plan to do so before we head off on our next Bermuda trip, which for this boat likely will be June 2010 (I'll organize, run the start, and then fly over for the 2009 rendition; it's Tania's turn to sail it!).


----------



## witzgall

Ok, what is the problem with saying ****PIT. SEA****.???

Are we that sensitive here?
Wow, I posted, and the system changed my letters to ****. Crazy.


----------



## tweitz

Thanks for the clarification. I would certainly have noticed if the valve was not on the through hull, but will now go and look at the threading on my through hulls as well. I wonder if part of the problem is that inexpert boat buyers will think marelon is plastic and therefore inferior to bronze, so an improvement will hurt, rather than help sales. Even scarier to me is the fact that a lot of through hulls that look and are sold as bronze are apparently being made of inferior materials like brass, and the electrolysis effect can be disastrous. When I first read about this I also did a quick search on the web, and there are lots of throughhulls made of brass that are sold as brass. What are the buyers thinking? I guess if you have a boat used on a trailer in fresh water they might squeak through, but they are really asking for trouble.


----------



## camaraderie

Problem with new profanity filter recognizing compound words as ok when stan alone word is not. Will fix...pls. bear with us as we tweak this. If you post with a dash - - - between the offending letters, it will show up. Sorry for the ****up.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

I have never owned either a Bene or Catalina, but have my opinions (which I shall not express.0 Let me only mention a few facts as I know them. I once hit a rock, unforgiving rock, at 4 knots in my O'day 28 (former boat.) It took a chunk out of my glass covered keel, but did no hull damage. I have a friend who hit a rock at 4-1/2 knots with a cast iron keel, (which happenned to be on a Hunter.) Wheelman broke ribs, wife broke collarbone when she was thrown forward, hull cracked all the way around the keel. It did not open up and sink the boat, but did require extensive repair to make certain the next time wouldn't sink it. Needless to say, I am not enthralled with cast iron keels! Four years ago I chartered a Beneteau 39 in the North Channel. The wood behind the galley counter came all the way down, no backsplash, no molding. Looked great in the showroom, but after one year in charter service, enough water had been left in contact with that wood, the veneer was peeling due to swelling particle board under said veneer. I have afriend who owns a 2 year old Beneteau Oceanis, and last month technicians from France refinished the entire interior of his boat and replaced all interior doors. Good thing - they honor their warranty without question. Down side - why on earth was it so bad it need complete refinish already? 
O K, I agree that most bene's sail better than most Catalinas. But I am a cruiser, not a racer, I rather like lead keels and solid wood, and as a loyal American, I also prefer "made in USA"


----------



## sailingdog

rtd-

just FYI, many of the Bendytoys sold in the US are made in the US...as IIRC, Beneteau has a factory here


----------



## danielgoldberg

sailingdog said:


> rtd-
> 
> just FYI, many of the Bendytoys sold in the US are made in the US...as IIRC, Beneteau has a factory here


Just about every Beneteau sold in this country is made in South Carolina. The exceptions are the 57 and a few other larger more expensive models that are made in France. That's why the Bene's actually are more price competitive in this market, as the exchange rate isn't killing them to the same extent that it is with other imported brands.

RTD, by the way, no doubt you are entitled to your views, and IMHO you should express them, but it's a little funny to start your post by stating that you won't express your opinion, and then go on to state how you don't like the boat. It made me chuckle anyway.

SD, I kind of like the name BendyToy. BeneSlow doesn't do much for me, but BendyToy is kind of fun. Perhaps we should consider that for the name. Hmmm.


----------



## witzgall

Concerning cast iron keels. We have one on our boat, and I actually like it. I wonder if some of the bad issues following a grounding are not the keel's fault, but related to skimpy construction. We have ten one-inch ss bolts holding ours on, with a beefy stub and supporting framework. I don't think you would find that on a Beneteau.

I wonder how much shock the lead keel would actually absorb, compared to the water surrounding the boat? I would think it would be an insignificant portion. But if the stuff the keel is attached to is not up to the task, well then you have problems. This would be the case regardles of the keel's makeup, but since it is iron, let's blame the keel, instead of the substandard supporting matrix.

Chris


----------



## danielgoldberg

*Most respectfully*



witzgall said:


> Concerning cast iron keels. We have one on our boat, and I actually like it. I wonder if some of the bad issues following a grounding are not the keel's fault, but related to skimpy construction. We have ten one-inch ss bolts holding ours on, with a beefy stub and supporting framework. I don't think you would find that on a Beneteau.
> 
> I wonder how much shock the lead keel would actually absorb, compared to the water surrounding the boat? I would think it would be an insignificant portion. But if the stuff the keel is attached to is not up to the task, well then you have problems. This would be the case regardles of the keel's makeup, but since it is iron, let's blame the keel, instead of the substandard supporting matrix.
> 
> Chris


I have to disagree pretty strongly. Not sure if you've ever seen a lead keel after an impact. Believe me, the lead absorbs quite a bit. I don't care what kind of boat you have, if you have a hard grounding with the front end of an iron keel, you are going to have glass damage at the aft end of your keel boss. And believe it or not, the more stout your hull is constructed the more likelihood that you'll have much more damage. The lighter hull will flex much more and absorb at least some of the shock, whereas a more heavily laid up hull will suffer more damage. Likewise, cored hulls just get ruined in collisions because the hulls are so stiff due to the coring that they don't flex at all, so they just splinter. No two ways about it, lead keels are better in every respect for cruising boats, and not just because of the grounding situation; they are more dense so are heavier and make it easier to have a higher ballast to displacement ratio, and they don't corrode. Sometimes racing boats benefit from iron or steel keels because the cord can be smaller, and thus less underwater surface area, but short of that there's not too much to recommend an iron keel over lead (except cost and perhaps some environmental issues I guess).


----------



## sailingdog

A lead keel will actually absorb a lot of the force in a grounding, since it will deform, rather than transmit the shock through to the structure.


----------



## xort

I noticed that on all the Bene's I looked at, low 40'ers, none had a separate shower stall. For weekends maybe not an issue but to me a big deal for long term cruising.


----------



## tommyt

I have to say "Who gives a damn!" You buy the boat that you want, justify it because you wanted it, and hopefully you are happy. Other than you, who really matters until you want to sell it? 

You love your Swan for whatever reason, I love my Catalina, and someone else loves there Bene. Big friggin deal!!!!!!!! We all love our boats, as it should be!!!!!!!!

If you need to justify your decisions,you should have bought a Tayana......or something else! And, this many years later, who cares!


----------



## cupper3

Reading through this thread I actually learned something... lead vs iron keels and the big one for me, is that I can't believe that any manufacturer would actually put press wood cabinetry into a sail boat!

That is horrible... something that deteriorates with the slightest bit of moisture into a marine environment!!!

Unbelievable. Other than Bennies, who else does this? Does Jeanneau also?


----------



## Cruisingdad

I suspect Jeneau too, but do not remember now. I do not think Hunter does. And all this may also depend on the models. I honestly am not fully educated in all the (MANY) models of Benes.

Brian


----------



## Jeff_H

With all due respect, I am somewhat skeptical about the post stating that Beneteaus have particle board in thier construction. 

Not all that long ago I read a article that described Beneteau as the largest user of marine grade plywood in the world, and because of that, how Beneteau was able to influence veneers, plys, and laminating practices for the products they bought and that other boat builders were able to purchase as well. 

The article talked about the Beneteau chosing inner plys which gave them specific weight and strength advantages. While it is possible that Beneteau uses particle board on their charter fleet spec'd boats, I would be skeptical of that. Given that Beneteau went though the process of developing lighter weight plywood that the article suggested was being used across the Beneteau line, I cannot imagine them then turning around and using particle board, which is generally significantly heavier than plywood. 

That said, while I persoinally generally am not a fan of 'particle board' type produces, we are now seeing OSB concrete formwork and OSB subflooring which has better moisture resistance than the plywoods and are using better moisture glues and internal sealants than were typically used for this purpose in the past. 

Jeff


----------



## Cruisingdad

Hey Jeff,

Not sure if that post was directed at me, but I dont think I have said taht Benes had part board. Maybe I did? Can't remember now. If I said it then I saw it, but I honestly cannot remember. I do remember the cabinetry being very cheaply done and veneer peeling off. What I meant above was that Jeaun and Benes seem to me to pretty much share teh same building standards so that if one saw X in a Bene, you could probably expect X in a Jeanneau. 

DO be warned that since this post was done many years ago, that Catalina has done some things that I am not particulary fond of either. Not sure it would push me away from them to a Bene, but would make me give them another look. But teh Bene I saw back then was poorly done, IMHO. THis is my opinion only. I will also say that in general, Bene makes a fine boat. Sometimes I wonder if teh Bene versus Catalina argument should be phrased more like, "Do you like Chevy's or Fords?" 

Brian


----------



## Jeff_H

Brian,

I was replying to Post #57 and #65 and not to you post. 

Jeff


----------



## blt2ski

I will not say this part of the particle board is correct, BUT, the outer layer of teak is not a full layer cut from the log as in the past, The inner plys are cut from a log and glued accordingly. The outer layer is a for lack of better term a particle base. BUT, it is all teak that has been put together to get the current horizontal look and feel that GB uses in there lines. To me it has a bit of a plasticized wood look. IIRC it is a combo teak and epoxy to make sure it will last vs partical style boards most of us are used to for shelving, behind some interior products etc. 

Marty


----------



## Cruisingdad

Jeff_H said:


> Brian,
> 
> I was replying to Post #57 and #65 and not to you post.
> 
> Jeff


Ahhh... thanks for clarifying.

B


----------



## dhays

Cruisingdad said:


> DO be warned that since this post was done many years ago, that Catalina has done some things that I am not particulary fond of either. Not sure it would push me away from them to a Bene, but would make me give them another look.


Hey Brian, as a new owner of a 2005 Cat 400, what things in the recent boats concern you? In other words, what should I be keeping an eye on?


----------



## Cruisingdad

dhays said:


> Hey Brian, as a new owner of a 2005 Cat 400, what things in the recent boats concern you? In other words, what should I be keeping an eye on?


Nothing on your boat. They have done a good job on it.

Some specific issues to keep a watchful eye on (that I do not believe reflect negatively on catalina) are: THe steering cables need a watchful eye. Also keep an eye on the sheaves above the liner in the master SR. Remember that unless you are after HN#~307, your boat probably draws 5'10, not 5'4. THe shower sump ius a bad design in the master head. THe pumps do n ot do well with foreign objects... especially hair and there are no strainers. We fixed this by putting some screen (window screen... very cheap you can buy at Walmart) over the cover to screen out hair. Keep an eye on the portlights in teh cabin top. You are approaching or at the time of pulling htem and rebedding. I don't know why Catalina doesn't just use mechanical fastners versus the glue... but that is another story. I used Dow Corning 795. It is not a hard job... but takes half a day per. And it takes seven days to cure so no sailing for a while and no moisture for about 24 hours after application. Incidentally, Catalina is not the only builder that uses those types of portlights (glued in only)... I just think they would be better and easier to repair of they were mechanically fastened.

So, on yoru boat, nothing is really wrong. THese are the boat specific issues I can think of. EVERY BOAT HAS THEM... these are just our specific headaches.

My frustration with Catalina is on many of the newer models (and a tad bit of ours, though ours and the 42 still hold to the older method). They simply are not using all of teh available space made to them. Those shelves are about worthless and NONE of them hardly have and fiddle boards. Also, they could have made massive space available under the liner if they only spent a few more bucks and cut it out and finished it (like what we have just port of the galley). As a cruiser and live aboard, we stick a bunch of junk low (read bilge). You should know that your boat, should you pull the floor board, just port of the waterheater, has a nice access under the liner. I actually ended up putting two-4-D batteries there. Also, if you pull the forward mattress, there is a very large area that has been fairly well finished and could easily take something like an extra diesel tank (which our boats really need for any long distance cruising).

Anyways, going back to Catalina, I wish they would just seperate themselves a bit more and put in more cabinetry and access to more available space. Some of the equipment (shower sump runs and wire runs) could be made a bit easier too... but they aer doable, just not pleasant. I think the 400 (and I have nothing to sell) is teh best boat Catalina makes, though I would not mind getting my hands on the 445. But if I was going to drop an easy $350k-$400k in a boat, it would be hard to do it without really looking at other boat manufacturers that really made a top notch product and would be comparably priced, if not less on the used market.

So ther eyou go! You have a great boat! I would buy mine again in that price range. Outside of that price range, I would (and may) buy a Nordhavn... so not even a sailboat at all.

Brian

PS Was taht you that called me a while back?

PSS Catalina is not doing anything that Bene and the rest seem to have done... I just wish they would charge another 5% and put it into their boats.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Oh yeah, you got one fast boat. PHRF is too generous. If you have a slick clean bottom, you can easily do over hull speed. I did 8.5-9.5 coming across the gulf. If you like racing, she will put some trophies out there for you after correction. Read your blog, so thought you might want to know.

Brian


----------

