Home Egret Boats

best Year of the 189

Darkside18Darkside18 Posts: 28 Greenhorn
Ok. So as many of you know I'm in the market for a used 189. What is/are the best years and why. Options/layout etc. Thanks.
«1

Replies

  • Egrets LandingEgrets Landing Posts: 949 Officer
    Excepting the few prototype boats, I think the substantive differences are between (a) the boats built in S. FL and (b) those boats built after Consolidated folded and Egret was reorganized in N. Carolina. Probably not too much if any difference between boats of a particular year that are part of (a) or (b).

    There were some design changes after the operation was sold and moved up north. A few differences based on posts I have read over the last few years and having spent quite a bit of time on the two models:
    The most controversial were probably the 189 updated hatch design and the change to the hatch wells. The hatch update was received well by many but not by all. I think the well change was received poorly by all who had experience with the previous. Only those with quite a bit of experience with both really can provide meaningful insight. With respect to the hatches, the original left and right design provided superior access to the compartment compared to the current design and I think is more functional. However, fly lines can catch on the lip where it meets the cockpit and that is part of the reason for the updated single access design to the space that fixed that problem. You have to put a towel down on the older design to fix it and or you can sand the corner of the hatch where it catches to make it more round to help. But the updated boats with the single hatch design have shallower wells and many reported their hatches are not as dry and have some leaks. Some say they have no leaks but it is not clear what their litmus test is to make the determination. I know the original boats could take a wave over the bow and get the cockpit swamped with no water intrusion into a hatch. It happened to me at Sebastian Inlet once. The original hatch design was bullet proof on the water intrusion concern. The newer boats have improved live well designs compared to the older stock. Many of the older boats out there have been upgraded to a newer more functional design as it is not too much of a hassle to address. The newer boats changed the fuel vent design and many reported problems with it (leaks) compared with the original design which had no issues by comparison.
  • gal218gal218 Posts: 105 Officer
    A used 1997 189 C/K was just listed on the Egret website. Looks like Frank may have done a factory upgrade to the boat.
  • Darkside18Darkside18 Posts: 28 Greenhorn
    Just saw thanks. Can't believe frank would put a 140 on the back. I'll have to keep looking.
  • gal218gal218 Posts: 105 Officer
    I have a Suzuki 140 on my new 189...no complaints here.
  • Saltwater JunkieSaltwater Junkie Posts: 1,086 Officer
    Darkside18 wrote: »
    Just saw thanks. Can't believe frank would put a 140 on the back. I'll have to keep looking.

    Maybe I missed something, Sorry for asking, but is there something wrong with a Suzuki 140 on an 18 Egret?
  • Egrets LandingEgrets Landing Posts: 949 Officer
    Maybe I missed something, Sorry for asking, but is there something wrong with a Suzuki 140 on an 18 Egret?

    It would appear he wants to run more than low to mid 40s and the approx extra couple of inches of draft with the smaller engine isn't so important.
  • camgcicamgci Posts: 190 Deckhand
    Two of the minor features of the older Egrets I like are the deeper wells around the hatches (how nice it is everything staying dry during wash downs and not having to empty them each time) and the hatch catches that don't require turning a knob every time to open and close. I have never had mine fly open running or at highway speeds.
  • Darkside18Darkside18 Posts: 28 Greenhorn
    Egrets landing hit the nail on the head. I have a HB poling skiff that rides great at 37-39 MPH. If Frank would of slapped a new 175 sho on the back and asked $35,000 instead of $29,500 I as well as a lot of others would have been very interested.
  • Egrets LandingEgrets Landing Posts: 949 Officer
    Darkside18 wrote: »
    Egrets landing hit the nail on the head. I have a HB poling skiff that rides great at 37-39 MPH. If Frank would of slapped a new 175 sho on the back and asked $35,000 instead of $29,500 I as well as a lot of others would have been very interested.

    Why dont you make him that offer contingent on him switching that zuke out for you for a 150 or 175? He can put that zuke on something else.
  • Saltwater JunkieSaltwater Junkie Posts: 1,086 Officer
    Darkside18 wrote: »
    Egrets landing hit the nail on the head. I have a HB poling skiff that rides great at 37-39 MPH. If Frank would of slapped a new 175 sho on the back and asked $35,000 instead of $29,500 I as well as a lot of others would have been very interested.

    I can understand wanting to go fast especially on nice days with long runs.

    What I don't like on those motors is the extra weight on the transom, that I have to live with all the time.
  • Darkside18Darkside18 Posts: 28 Greenhorn
    Thought about it but as I remember it said new console which means new rigging for the zuke. Wiring harness, gauges, throttle, etc. A lot goes into it parts/labor. That's why you should never rig or pick power on your own unless it's for you. He easily could have said I have an used 189 that needs some TLC and new power. Here's a perfect opportunity to rig a used boat they way you want it. Give the factory a call if interested. Just my thoughts. Doesn't everyone want a boat rigged to their specs at a price the can afford instead of settling.
  • Darkside18Darkside18 Posts: 28 Greenhorn
    Saltwater Junkie I realize the 4 strokes are heavier. The last boat I ran had the old 175 ocean pro. I know it weighed around 370 or so. I also know that 4 strokes can weigh up to 100 lbs more. I understand this is all on the transom and can affect the ride and draft but are you telling me there's been no effort/testing to balance the boats for the new technology. Crap even the new style (HPDI, DFI) 2 strokes have been out for years weigh at least 60 lbs or so more.

    If I'm not mistaking I believe that when this boat was invented most of them ran 175's which was the most HP to weight ratio.
  • Saltwater JunkieSaltwater Junkie Posts: 1,086 Officer
    Darkside18 wrote: »
    Saltwater Junkie I realize the 4 strokes are heavier. The last boat I ran had the old 175 ocean pro. I know it weighed around 370 or so. I also know that 4 strokes can weigh up to 100 lbs more. I understand this is all on the transom and can affect the ride and draft but are you telling me there's been no effort/testing to balance the boats for the new technology. Crap even the new style (HPDI, DFI) 2 strokes have been out for years weigh at least 60 lbs or so more.

    If I'm not mistaking I believe that when this boat was invented most of them ran 175's which was the most HP to weight ratio.

    It's a weight's and balance issue. When the boat was designed the power options were for a 150. The 150 and the 175 weighed the same 389lbs.. so everyone opted for the additional 25 hp. Remember we're talking 1995.

    As 4 strokes go the Suzuki 's 140 @ 407 lbs. is closet in weight to the original weights and balance at of 56 gallons of fuel. (7lbs per gallon of fuel, times 56 gallon tank equals 392lbs.)

    By myself I got 46 mph with full fuel, full baitwell, cooler with ice, ready to fish a charter. (Using a 3blade prop.) I cruise in the mid to low 30's with 2 or 3 people in the boat with all our coolers and crap. Initially I missed the speed. When I went to the gas station I was saving over 30 percent from the carb 175.
  • mbowersmbowers Posts: 496 Deckhand
    7lbs per gallon of fuel: you running diesel in that Zuke Pete? :)

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
  • Egrets LandingEgrets Landing Posts: 949 Officer
    It's a weight's and balance issue. When the boat was designed the power options were for a 150. The 150 and the 175 weighed the same 389lbs.. so everyone opted for the additional 25 hp. Remember we're talking 1995.

    As 4 strokes go the Suzuki 's 140 @ 407 lbs. is closet in weight to the original weights and balance at of 56 gallons of fuel. (7lbs per gallon of fuel, times 56 gallon tank equals 392lbs.)

    By myself I got 46 mph with full fuel, full baitwell, cooler with ice, ready to fish a charter. (Using a 3blade prop.) I cruise in the mid to low 30's with 2 or 3 people in the boat with all our coolers and crap. Initially I missed the speed. When I went to the gas station I was saving over 30 percent from the carb 175.

    I am moving to the 150 merc 4 stroke which all in is about equal to the pro xs incl the oil tank.

    We compared the proxs 175 with the zuke side by side at the gas pump on two older glass 18s and the draft of the 18 with the zuke was noticeably shallower at the transom. Looked like about 2 inches to me.
  • Darkside18Darkside18 Posts: 28 Greenhorn
    That's impossible. Mercury weighs 431 I believe and the zuke weighs 407 as quoted above. 24lbs is not your problem. That's like someone who weighs 150 vs someone who weighs 175 standing on the poling platform. The other boat has other issues.
  • FishinMcNutFishinMcNut Posts: 536 Officer
    Glenn, I'm looking to repower and would love to hear how the 4s 150 performs on your boat. It is either that or a 175 XS.

    Ps, will likely sell my boat after repower. Somebody will be getting a nice '98 c/K with new motor, trailer and recent electronics and trolling motor.
  • SpookSpook Posts: 153 Deckhand
    Glenn, I'm looking to repower and would love to hear how the 4s 150 performs on your boat. It is either that or a 175 XS.

    Ps, will likely sell my boat after repower. Somebody will be getting a nice '98 c/K with new motor, trailer and recent electronics and trolling motor.

    Can I set up a payment plan now?
  • Egrets LandingEgrets Landing Posts: 949 Officer
    Glenn, I'm looking to repower and would love to hear how the 4s 150 performs on your boat. It is either that or a 175 XS.

    Ps, will likely sell my boat after repower. Somebody will be getting a nice '98 c/K with new motor, trailer and recent electronics and trolling motor.

    Why not just sell your engine and then sell your rig with no engine so the buyer can choose what they want.
  • Darkside18Darkside18 Posts: 28 Greenhorn
    Fishinmcnut I'm interested in your boat before you repower. Pm me if you're interested.
  • FishinMcNutFishinMcNut Posts: 536 Officer
    It's a little early in the process to talk seriously. I first need to decide how it will all unfold. Pretty sure I will at least sell the motor separately and then decide how to proceed i.e. repower and sell vs selling minus motor and let the buyer pick their poison.
  • Captain BackyardCaptain Backyard Posts: 441 Deckhand
    camgci wrote: »
    Two of the minor features of the older Egrets I like are the deeper wells around the hatches (how nice it is everything staying dry during wash downs and not having to empty them each time) and the hatch catches that don't require turning a knob every time to open and close. I have never had mine fly open running or at highway speeds.

    I've fished on a newer Egret many times and it doesn't have hatch catches that require any turning to open or close the hatches.
  • FishinMcNutFishinMcNut Posts: 536 Officer
    I had slam latches installed on my two rear compartment and livewell hatches. The older c/K hatches were so light they would lift up @ 55 mph due to the low pressure bubble behind a seated passenger or driver.
  • camgcicamgci Posts: 190 Deckhand
    My bad on the latches. I saw a newer Egret with the latches that needed to be turned, and assumed they were all coming with them out of the factory.
  • Captain BackyardCaptain Backyard Posts: 441 Deckhand
    Really? I'd like to see that setup. Ive never seen an egret of any year with those latches.
  • Last-CastLast-Cast Posts: 219 Deckhand
    In general you don't need the latches except for a couple of owners that are also speed demons an like to push the envelope. Out of the factory the average Egret will do around 50 mph with a standard 150 and a three bladed prop. As with any boat there are some owners that love to see what they can get out of their boat. Once they start getting past 65 mph then you need the latches to keep everything closed.
    Egret 189
    Maverick 17T sold
  • Saltwater JunkieSaltwater Junkie Posts: 1,086 Officer
    Last-Cast wrote: »
    In general you don't need the latches except for a couple of owners that are also speed demons an like to push the envelope. Out of the factory the average Egret will do around 50 mph with a standard 150 and a three bladed prop. As with any boat there are some owners that love to see what they can get out of their boat. Once they start getting past 65 mph then you need the latches to keep everything closed.

    I don't think you need latches, tape or wood screws. I'm pushing 70 to 75 depending on traffic and my hatches stay closed.
  • rbtbryanrbtbryan Posts: 99 Deckhand
    I think in general that the point is being missed regarding the locking latches that both Glenn and I have on the boat.
    The real point is a level of security.
    I like the little bit of security I get from being able to lock the front, rear and rod lockers to keep a modicum of insurance on my rods, gear and hardware.
    I would never leave rods or the Lowrance Touch 12 overnight on the boat, but stopping in for a bite to eat, and not having to worry about someone prying open the rod lockers and stealing about $5k of rods is the intent.
    These locking latches would necessitate breaking the fiberglass / Kevlar to open the hatches.
    IMO.

    Last-Cast wrote: »
    In general you don't need the latches except for a couple of owners that are also speed demons an like to push the envelope. Out of the factory the average Egret will do around 50 mph with a standard 150 and a three bladed prop. As with any boat there are some owners that love to see what they can get out of their boat. Once they start getting past 65 mph then you need the latches to keep everything closed.
  • Saltwater JunkieSaltwater Junkie Posts: 1,086 Officer
    rbtbryan wrote: »
    I think in general that the point is being missed regarding the locking latches that both Glenn and I have on the boat.
    The real point is a level of security.
    I like the little bit of security I get from being able to lock the front, rear and rod lockers to keep a modicum of insurance on my rods, gear and hardware.
    I would never leave rods or the Lowrance Touch 12 overnight on the boat, but stopping in for a bite to eat, and not having to worry about someone prying open the rod lockers and stealing about $5k of rods is the intent.
    These locking latches would necessitate breaking the fiberglass / Kevlar to open the hatches.
    IMO.

    Just how many Zebco's you got this there?:grin
  • rbtbryanrbtbryan Posts: 99 Deckhand
    3 Flyrods, One 12, 2-10's, 5 Spinning rigs, 2 heavy high speed offshore rods.
    Easily hits that mark! I'm pretty particular about my gear. Not to mention the boat!
    Just how many Zebco's you got this there?:grin
Sign In or Register to comment.