Duke,
I would not write off Sea Ray from your short list. I would suggest you
place very little credence in any articles you read in any of the boating
magazines that sell ads from the boat builders. If you read a review of the
best built boat and then read an article of the worst built boat, they both
will sound like the best thing since sliced bread. Boat magazine publishers
and those who write the articles have sold their soul to boat builders and
suppliers. The cover price of the magazine do not begin to cover the
expense and profit of any of the commercial magazines. They make their
money by selling ad space to the very same boat builders they are reviewing.

I would recommend you invest in a survey on any boat you buy, either new or
used. It is not unheard of for a builder to make a patch (similar to the
one shown on Pascoe's web site) to correct a problem found after the hull
was pulled from the mold.




"Duke" wrote in message
m...

"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
zeebop wrote in
:

Hi,

I am about to purchase a
Sea Ray 215 EC 1997 (I am in the UK)

Here is an example:
http://tinyurl.com/b2m2f

I am interested to know if anyone has any experience with one of these
and what you thought of it.


Thanks

zeebop


Piece of crap. See for yourself what's inside a Sea Ray boat:
http://www.yachtsurvey.com/Fiberglass_Boats.htm
It's made of "putty"??....

I had the jetboat. Light came through the hull. Seats mildewed because
they were made of COTTON-BACKED plastic with cheap furniture foam by some
furniture company in Tennesee. The side panel mildewed because the
cotton-
backed plastic was over a cotton pad all stapled to a piece of packing
crate wood. It rotted out twice in 3 years.

There was no way to get to the fuel tank INLET or INLET VENT because they
were stuffed into the hull before the top was put on with no access
hatch.
You couldn't even check to see if the fuel tank inlet hoses had a clamp
on
them because you couldn't see it unless you tore the boat apart. The
polyethelene (milk bottle plastic) tank was kept in place with two 1"
long
plastic angle brackets screwed into the stringer with one sheet metal
screw. The two little brackets supported a 25 gallon gas tank! NOT!
They
were eating into the polyethelene, which is very soft, so I had to build
some proper brackets to stop it. The Mercury Sport Jet, considered by CG
as an inboard engine, has a 5/16" hose barb for the fuel hose. Sea Ray
attached a 3/8" fuel hose because that's what the gas tank fitting had on
it. They used two hose clamps to try to squeeze the hose over the
smaller
barb to keep it from leaking. Didn't work. The fuel hose from the tank
to
the engine, a 3/8" marine gas line, was supported and held to the engine
compartment bulkhead with the same 3" diameter clamps used for the big
inlet hose. This meant when the 3/8" hose fell off the 5/16" barb into
the
bilge, it pulled the hose through these huge clamps far enough the
suction
of the siphon effect overcame the anti-siphon valve, if it had one, and
filled the enclosed up hull with about 6" of GASOLINE! The fumes were
strong enough to roughly run the engine sucking its air supply from in
the
compartment. Why it didn't explode is simply a miracle. I won't admit
to
where I pumped 10 gallons of gasoline way up a river in the swamp. I was
not amused. Sea Ray sent me a lifetime supply of 5/16" gas hose, proving
they actually knew what 5/16" hose looked like. I still have a whole
roll
if you need it. I solved the problem with a proper fuel filter/water
separator with 3/8" inlet and 5/16" outlet fittings the damned company
should have used in the first place if they hadn't been so damned greedy.

Sea Ray of Charleston, a bigshot marine dealer......

I didn't buy my boat from my local dealer because I bought it in
Birmingham, Alabama for $3500 less money from a dealer there. OK, so I'm
a
bad boy getting it for wholesale from an overstocked dealer. I had the
boat serviced a couple of times at the local dealer when someone noticed
the dealer sticker from Dead Ahead Marine on the back of the boat. I was
informed my Sea Ray boat was no longer welcome at my Sea Ray dealer for
warranty service as the local dealer didn't sell this boat. I called Sea
Ray and was told that was correct. The Sea Ray dealer didn't have to
service my Sea Ray boat if he didn't sell it. Isn't that nice?! How
supportive of the company....

Nope...no thanks. Sea Ray (or Brunswick's other boat companies) don't
have
to worry about selling me another boat. I'll pass. Just thought you
should know.....

England sure has some beautifully made boats. Why buy a piece of
American
made crap??

--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and you're outlined in
chalk.


Well that sucks. I am looking to buy a new boat in September and SeaRay
was on the top of my list. Maxum being second.

Thanks,

Duke

I find it interesting that David Pascoe is just on ONE boat. One boat does
not fairly represent the whole line of boats by that manufacturer. So in MY
OPINION, I give Pascoe website very little consideration. Now if he had
documented cases of several Sea Rays like that, then it might hold some
weight.

Ed
wrote in message
oups.com...
Neither David Pascoe's web site or the fluff pieces written by you and
other
boat magazine accurately represent the quality of SeaRay. At least
David
Pascoe's web site accurately represents the boat he surveyed. The
fluff
pieces written by you and others are PR pieces written for the benefit
of
the builder, the last person they are written for is the prospective
boat
buyer. Since the boat buyer is not paying you for your fluff piece
they are
not important.

***************

?????????

I never submitted anything I ever wrote as a rebuttal to Larry's
insinuation that Sea Ray boats are made from "putty".

Do you have a comment on the actual evidence I submitted, (the website
showing photos of a Sea Ray layup and a description of the mfg
process), or is that also suspect because it appeared in print?

And while you're at it, oh wise one, please don't leave us dangling: If
you're in a position to dispute Pascoe's site as well as the European
article about Sea Ray layup schedules- please do so. Speak right up, no
need to keep it a secret.
Here's your opportunity to walk the walk, not just talk the
talk:_______________

By the way, Pascoe does not claim that his items are "sureys". He
admits they are very negatively oriented opinion pieces. He has stated
that it is his mission to attemprt to "balance" any and all positive
opinion pieces. Try reading the introduction to his site sometime.

Newsgroup reader:

You have neatly dodged my invitation to explain to the group how Sea
Ray hulls are laid up.
You agree that Pascoe's site is bogus, and yet you seem to discount the
independent web site as equally inaccurate. You offer some vague
observation that the truth is somehwere "in between".

Layup is a technical issue that can be precisely described. If Pascoe
is not accurate and you insist the technical website is not acuurate,
would you please enlighten us about the actual layup process and
schedule? Failure to do so would leave us all with the impression that
you are talking through that hat you bought at West Marine- the one
with all the scrambled eggs on the visor and "Captain" stitched into
the crown.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Newsgroup reader:

You have neatly dodged my invitation to explain to the group how Sea
Ray hulls are laid up.
You agree that Pascoe's site is bogus, and yet you seem to discount the
independent web site as equally inaccurate. You offer some vague
observation that the truth is somehwere "in between".

Layup is a technical issue that can be precisely described. If Pascoe
is not accurate and you insist the technical website is not acuurate,
would you please enlighten us about the actual layup process and
schedule? Failure to do so would leave us all with the impression that
you are talking through that hat you bought at West Marine- the one
with all the scrambled eggs on the visor and "Captain" stitched into
the crown.


Why the need for a personal attack on him Chuck? And you blame others for
doing exactly what *you* do. Amazing.

Gould,
In the two web sites your provided I learned that Sea Ray use robots to
spray chopped strand fiberglass into the molds. I could not find on either
of the web sites you provided anything that came close to resembling a
technical layout schedule. I did not see anything that discussed the
thickness of the gel coat or the thickness of chopped fiberglass strand,
including minimum and maximum thickness between the high stress areas and
the low stress areas. I did not see anything that discuss how much time
they allow for the gel coat to cure or the fiberglass to cure between each
step. I did not see anything that discussed the ratio of fiberglass to
epoxy nor the relative strength characteristics of this cost saving
technique versus the traditional methods of laying fiberglass hulls. I did
see two web sites selling the benefits of their products, without providing
the technical layout schedule.

I did think it was very humorous that you thought the advertisement
published by the company who sold SeaRay the robots to "an independent web
site".



wrote in message
oups.com...
Newsgroup reader:

You have neatly dodged my invitation to explain to the group how Sea
Ray hulls are laid up.
You agree that Pascoe's site is bogus, and yet you seem to discount the
independent web site as equally inaccurate. You offer some vague
observation that the truth is somehwere "in between".

Layup is a technical issue that can be precisely described. If Pascoe
is not accurate and you insist the technical website is not acuurate,
would you please enlighten us about the actual layup process and
schedule? Failure to do so would leave us all with the impression that
you are talking through that hat you bought at West Marine- the one
with all the scrambled eggs on the visor and "Captain" stitched into
the crown.

Smithers wrote:

Gould,
In the two web sites your provided I learned that Sea Ray use robots to

spray chopped strand fiberglass into the molds. I could not find on
either
of the web sites you provided anything that came close to resembling a
technical layout schedule. I did not see anything that discussed the
thickness of the gel coat or the thickness of chopped fiberglass
strand,
including minimum and maximum thickness between the high stress areas
and
the low stress areas. I did not see anything that discuss how much
time
they allow for the gel coat to cure or the fiberglass to cure between
each
step. I did not see anything that discussed the ratio of fiberglass to

epoxy nor the relative strength characteristics of this cost saving
technique versus the traditional methods of laying fiberglass hulls. I
did
see two web sites selling the benefits of their products, without
providing
the technical layout schedule.

*************

Yet you claim sufficient knowledge to be able to dismiss both Larry's
malicious slam and the general description of the layup process on the
non- Sea Ray site as equally misleading. Once you got past the false
notion that I was using one of my own articles to support my argument,
you then claimed the truth is "somewhere in between."

Once again, why not allow the group the benefit of your detailed and
precise knowledge about Sea Ray layup? Just exactly *where*, in
between, does the "truth" fall? Surely you must know, or you wouldn't
presume to make such a statement.

It's amazing that you choose to believe that a company responsible for
supplying robotics to Sea Ray wouldn't be able to accurately describe
how those robots function and what they do.
Oh well. You're entitled to your opinion and conjecture.

Chuck,
You have absolutely no idea what the technical layout schedule for SeaRay
is. You have provided absolutely no information except advertisements from
SeaRay and the robot supplier, yet you think you have provided valuable
info. Larry's info was based upon personal info, yours is based upon public
relations bull****.

I do believe the company who built the robots can describe what they are
capable of doing, and they did a good job of doing that. They did not nor
did SeaRay discuss any details concerning their technical fiberglass lay-up.
The fact that you think either of those web sites did either, places any of
your observations in questions..

The one thing everyone who has ever read your boat "reviews" or observations
agrees upon is they are well written fluff pieces designed to sell ad space
in your magazine. I don't think anyone has ever thought they were anything
else. You have become delusional in your thought process.


wrote in message
oups.com...
Smithers wrote:

Gould,
In the two web sites your provided I learned that Sea Ray use robots to

spray chopped strand fiberglass into the molds. I could not find on
either
of the web sites you provided anything that came close to resembling a
technical layout schedule. I did not see anything that discussed the
thickness of the gel coat or the thickness of chopped fiberglass
strand,
including minimum and maximum thickness between the high stress areas
and
the low stress areas. I did not see anything that discuss how much
time
they allow for the gel coat to cure or the fiberglass to cure between
each
step. I did not see anything that discussed the ratio of fiberglass to

epoxy nor the relative strength characteristics of this cost saving
technique versus the traditional methods of laying fiberglass hulls. I
did
see two web sites selling the benefits of their products, without
providing
the technical layout schedule.

*************

Yet you claim sufficient knowledge to be able to dismiss both Larry's
malicious slam and the general description of the layup process on the
non- Sea Ray site as equally misleading. Once you got past the false
notion that I was using one of my own articles to support my argument,
you then claimed the truth is "somewhere in between."

Once again, why not allow the group the benefit of your detailed and
precise knowledge about Sea Ray layup? Just exactly *where*, in
between, does the "truth" fall? Surely you must know, or you wouldn't
presume to make such a statement.

It's amazing that you choose to believe that a company responsible for
supplying robotics to Sea Ray wouldn't be able to accurately describe
how those robots function and what they do.
Oh well. You're entitled to your opinion and conjecture.

wrote in message
oups.com...


Yet you claim sufficient knowledge to be able to dismiss both Larry's
malicious slam and the general description of the layup process on the
non- Sea Ray site as equally misleading. Once you got past the false
notion that I was using one of my own articles to support my argument,
you then claimed the truth is "somewhere in between."

Once again, why not allow the group the benefit of your detailed and
precise knowledge about Sea Ray layup? Just exactly *where*, in
between, does the "truth" fall? Surely you must know, or you wouldn't
presume to make such a statement.

It's amazing that you choose to believe that a company responsible for
supplying robotics to Sea Ray wouldn't be able to accurately describe
how those robots function and what they do.
Oh well. You're entitled to your opinion and conjecture.


Here are the various lamination schedules of Four Winns, a middle of the
road production boat:
http://www.fourwinns.com/lamination.cfm

SeaRay does not offer this information on their website.

What is the layup schedule of the SeaRay boat you gave a fluff review on
Chuck? You should know after your *detailed* review of the boat and the
company.

JimH,

I have not looked at a SeaRay in the last few years, when I did their larger
boats were middle of the road boats, their smaller ones were price point
boats there were at the bottom of the barrel. I don't believe SeaRay has
changed their marketing strategy from trying to be a middle of the road boat
builder. The reason for the robots is to save money and hopefully provide
consistent middle of the road if quality. Using a fiberglass chop gun has
always been a preferred method of low end boat builders, so I would look
very closely before buying a SeaRay. The fact that Gould uses the robot
manufacturer as his source of technical info concerning the fiberglass
lamination schedule amazes me. Especially since the web site does not
discuss anything concerning a fiberglass lamination schedule.

Gould has become a victim of actually believing his PR pieces.


"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...


Yet you claim sufficient knowledge to be able to dismiss both Larry's
malicious slam and the general description of the layup process on the
non- Sea Ray site as equally misleading. Once you got past the false
notion that I was using one of my own articles to support my argument,
you then claimed the truth is "somewhere in between."

Once again, why not allow the group the benefit of your detailed and
precise knowledge about Sea Ray layup? Just exactly *where*, in
between, does the "truth" fall? Surely you must know, or you wouldn't
presume to make such a statement.

It's amazing that you choose to believe that a company responsible for
supplying robotics to Sea Ray wouldn't be able to accurately describe
how those robots function and what they do.
Oh well. You're entitled to your opinion and conjecture.


Here are the various lamination schedules of Four Winns, a middle of the
road production boat:
http://www.fourwinns.com/lamination.cfm

SeaRay does not offer this information on their website.

What is the layup schedule of the SeaRay boat you gave a fluff review on
Chuck? You should know after your *detailed* review of the boat and the
company.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Well that sucks. I am looking to buy a new boat in September and
SeaRay was
on the top of my list. Maxum being second.

Thanks,


Duke


**********

Avoid buying a late 80's, early 90's Sea Ray, or a discontinued jet-ski
model like Larry owned, and it won't suck - at least not in the same
way. :-)

And, avoid boat manufacturer that Chuck has reviewed.