Why are Inboards more Expensive

In a perfect world,one boat design would satisfy all needs. In the real world, specialized products are purpose-built to cater to those specific needs. Low production, high performance products cost more because so few people buy them, manufacturers cannot take advantage of economies of scale.
The demands of a tournament ski-boat are so far removed from an I/O or outboard (monster starting torque, unflappable stability under rapidly changing, high lateral stresses) a total re-design is required.

Like a Ford GT500, you want the neck snapping performance, prepare to open your wallet. Consider how well a 25-year-old CC hold it's value, two things must be true: exceptional build quality, high desirability. I love my 83 SN 2001, I bought it for $5.5K five years ago and invested another $4K, and no regrets. I get constant complements and offers to buy. There is no settling for less, once you've driven one.
I summer on a 200 acre pond, we sport five, count em', five inboards! Oh what a sweet sound O' summer! Singing lake pipes, hoots and hollers of joy as skiers and wake-boarders master new skills. (tubing for the timid).
In five years I've introduced dozens of newbies that have never skied or wake-boarded to a joy they never knew existed. Now they are addicted! All winter, I hear: "can't wait for summer at the lake and go riding" What price can you put on that love? Much of that joy is due to the superior performance of a purpose-built machine.

Hope this helps, to give you a taste, of what all fuss is about.
-
Now go out and grab some fun! Cheers.

Good to see the pumpkin rocking on the dock again! Pretty rough out there today though. We were rolling in the Crownline instead of the BFN today.

Tull, I feel exactly the same way.
I like riding the brand new Malibu response my buddy has, but nothing compares to the feeling I get when I fire up my 20 year old engine!!

newoldboat wrote: it is the untalented rich kids that help drive up the prices so that the rest of us with a true love for the sport can barely afford it.

We saw one high dollar boat with a boarder in tow yesterday. The guy riding stayed right behind the boat with the wrong posture. The rest were pulling tubes.

And OH to have a pic of the 'drop jaw' as they heard the pumpkin go by and Trey nailing trick after trick!!!

And if HW had been here...     

I am very late to this discussion but I have to agree that wakeboarding has become a fashion show. I am 24, work 60 hrs aweek as a diesel mechanic, pay for a house, pay for an 07 ram with a cummins, and sink the rest of my cash in a 19 year old ski nautique, hows that for a tight budget. I love to wake board and would love to make money doing nothing but working out and wakeboarding but that lifestyle is nearly unattainable. Pro wakeboarders are very lucky people but it is the untalented rich kids that help drive up the prices so that the rest of us with a true love for the sport can barely afford it. I live in Fort Myers Fl where the Gator brand boards are made and would love to ride a local brand but I can't pay $800 for a board/binding combo. I guess the rest of us will have to build 19 year old ski boats to ride behind and buy last years boards from the discount websites because our daddys won't buy the new stuff for us. Don't hate on the wakeboarders, we're not all the same.

QUOTE=eric lavine   Im on a green world kick lately

What - - you trading the Suburban in for a Prius??

eric lavine wrote: I dont know what brainiac ever came up with 2 stroke outboards, I run them in a tank and get an oil slick that is the worst thing you ever would want to see and where does it end up?

Almost twice the power to weight ratio. (you know - a power stroke every rev.) Eric, keep in mind that the first auto engines were two stroke and the first marine (inboards) were two stroke as well!!!

All i know is that I grew up skiing behind a 1966 Wildcat, and I now own a 1969 Barracuda. I have barefooted/skied/wakeboarded behind countless boats. From brand new IO's to older outboard boats, even a 2008 Super Air Nautique, but I always come running back to the oldies.


The one exception to the IO rule is in a center console off-shore fishing boat, where the characteristics of trim and lower draft make it a clear choice when coupled with an efficient diesel power plant. My 37 foot Spectre center console will get about 4 miles to the gallon at 40 knots, when every other outboard powered boat is lucky to get 1.

Has anyone here gone from an inboard to an I/O? I can't imagine moving that direction. Impossible I say.

eric lavine wrote: 79 the bad thing about it though is the guy on a tight budget cant afford a descent boat

They can't.

Not that my boat is not decent, I put sweat blood and tears into my 78 that I got for 4500 like 7 years ago. But you bet your A$$ I would trade it in for a new Air nautique if I could .

I have a mortgage, and am underpaid. So until that second part changes, I will soldier on with my martinique.

I would agree with everybody. Correct crafts are tanks. I baught an 83 that had been in an accident. I paid 2k for the boat and spent $100 in fiberglass stuff to fix it. One good test of a tuff boat is to head for some rollers on the lake in any boat and see how much the holl shakes. Then do the same in a correct craft and note how rigid the hull is. I could go on for hours about CC.

Project Man

Usually the simpler something is the less trouble they give and I believe this definatley holds true for inboard boats. We have had a ton of boats in the past, outboards, I/O, and inboards too of coarse, and I will say the inboards are not only easier to work on but you don't have to work on them near as often when they get older. I used to live in Fla. and until they finally put channel markers in the bay , running aground in the shallow bays- sometimes on oyster bars, meant death to the out-drives of the era. Meanwhile an inboard could survive this all to common occurance again and again. Outboards usually didn't last long either. I know this is hard to fathom this day in age with modern electronics and markers in every channel but it used to be common to see boats idling around the shallow bays turning up sand and silt when coming in on a low tide. This was not intentional and we went dead slow but it was unavoidable at the time. Point is inboard running gear can take a lot more abuse than the other alternatives. This is why all commercial boats have used inboard propulsion until the introduction of pods.

Actually, I did sort of forget to mention that I picked up a used Volvo 280 outdrive that has worked fine for about 6 years now for $300

I guess I was just making the point that there's a more complex piece of equipment involved with a stern drive so you'd think it would cost more, but that could, as you've pointed out, be a bad thing.

Oh, and not to confuse things, but you can't compare a Merc Alpha drive to a Volvo either!

I read this post through rather quickly, so I may have missed something, but there seems to be one thing not mentioned and that is the cost of an outdrive. By "an outdrive" I don't mean "an outdrive boat" vs "an inboard boat" I mean JUST the outdrive unit itself.

They are very expensive compared to an inboard's more simple transmission.

That makes the original question here a legitimate one. There are certainly huge variations in quality, etc. to consider, but when you look at the price of an outdrive (sterndrive) unit they can range from $6,000 to $13,000 (for example for a new Volvo lower unit (just the drive -- with no engine). Check out Sterndrives.com.

For a rebuilt upper and lower gear case for even an old Volvo 280, you could spend as much as $11,000.00! (Hard to believe, huh?)

My point is if you compare the cost of a (for example) Borg Warner Velvet Drive (or something similar) as used in many inboards you're looking at maybe $1,400 to $2,400.

So if the quality of the boats selected for comparison are similar, the boat with the Stern Drive should cost more!

Don't get me wrong. I have an old boat with an inboard, an old boat with a stern drive, and an old boat with an outboard and I've generally always liked an inboard set up the best, but a stern drive is fairly complex and gives certain significant advantages (won't go into that). Because of the complexity and cost of that extra hunk of engineering hanging off the back of the boat, I would think they would cost more.

BUT, there is desireability to consider. In- boards do a lot of things well and are easier (I'd say) to work on, cheaper to fix, etc. etc.

And re-sale, which was mentioned, probably does come into play somewhat. I've got a 1999 Chevy Astro All Wheel Drive for sale (how did that get into the story?) AND... I've watched (on eBay) the 2WD ones (that cost less originally and have less capability) sell quicker and sometimes for more money than the AWD's "I THINK" just because the AWD's are harder on gas.

Likewise, the inboards I think have some appeal to the buyer who will be doing some of his own work. Outdrives are "more scary" to work on.

There's my 2 cents.    



For an idea of the cost of various marine propulsion systems, check out these sites:
http://www.marinepartsexpress.com/mercruiser.htm
(complete engine and stern drive packages)
or
http://bpi.ebasicpower.com/c/ALL3D/Velvet+Drive+%2810-17%29+Transmissions
shows Borg Warner Velvet Drives @ $1,400 - $2,400

Momma always used to say........

" Marry for money, Love can grow!"

needless to say ; I didn't listen to her.