• Untitled Document

    Join us on March 29rd, 7pm EST

    for the CBEC Virtual Meeting

    All EYO members and followers are welcome to join the fun and get to know the guest speaker!

    See the link below for login credentials and join us!

    March Meeting Info

    (dismiss this notice by hitting 'X', upper right)

late 80's E34-2 opinions and thoughts?

patrscoe

Member III
I am seeking a new sailboat this fall and one sailboat that is near the top of my list is a late 80's E34-2 model. It appears to be nearly 35' and seem to meet my needs for size and layout. I do like the aft qtr cabin design and not so much the nav station layout but with all layouts, there is a comprise. I also like that Ericson used a specialized grid and the hull is solid glass and not cored - from what I have researched. The engine on the E34 does seem a little undersized. I am looking for a good sailing vessel, strong in all weather without suffering sailing performance. I currently have a Southern Cross 31; completely different sailboat design - what I like about it is that I can sail it almost anywhere and what I don't like about it is that it's slow, difficult to dock and quite small for a 31 and I want to make a change.

Sailing on the Chesapeake bay with some coastal sailing up the coast.

Any opinions and thoughts on the E34-2 from current and past owners?

Thanks!
Patrick
 

supersailor

Contributing Partner
Patrick,

The 34-2 and 35-3 share the same hull and rig. The 34-2 has a transom that lines up with the backstay. The 35-3 has more bustle added at the stern. They both rate the same at base rating 126 PHRF. The primary difference is in the cabin layout. The 35-3 has the traditional layout with the head forward and the 35-2 has the head aft. Many rant on about which is better but it's just a matter of taste. I happen to like the aft head as it is in a place that has less motion in a boisterous sea and it is closer to the cockpit. Personal opinion. The all teak interior is comfortable. The boat sails to it's rating in all conditions and it is exceptionally fast in light air. It handles more like a dingy than a 35 footer. This makes it fun to sail and exceptionally maneuverable. The 35-3 is the same. The 32-3 and the 38-200 share this attribute. The light air ability is exceptionally valuable for the many times the wind is light.

Don't forget a Survey and engine inspection prior to purchase.
 
Last edited:

Christian Williams

E381 - Los Angeles
Senior Moderator
Blogs Author
When you find a specimen, post the listing here and folks will chime in on state of maintenance and gear.

Great boats.
 

HerbertFriedman

Member III
I like by 87 E34 and agree with all the positive comments. The only minor negatives are the inaccessibility of the "chain plate" connections, it is hard to view them, and the vinyl headliner with all the zippers. The headliner is certainly nice looking but when a zipper jams, accessibility to the deck hardware is a pain. But overall, the build quality is comparable to my old Tartan 30 and it sails well.
 

markvone

Sustaining Member
Patrick,

I'm in the Chesapeake also. The improvement in light air sailing with the E34 will be huge, getting you more sailing in our typical summer conditions. The E34 came with all three keels, deep, shoal and wing. You'll get better performance in all conditions (especially upwind or racing) with the deep keel if you can live with 6'3" of draft. I personally would not own the wing keel version but would look for the standard shoal keel if that was what I needed. Attached is the Ericson keel brochure. I would suggest the benefits of the wing keel are mostly marketing :).

Mark
 

Attachments

  • 1988-Brochure Ericson Keels.jpg
    1988-Brochure Ericson Keels.jpg
    94.3 KB · Views: 187

patrscoe

Member III
Looks like the 35-3 is actually larger by almost a foot and not exactly the same hull size. (per specs)

I have read in many places that the 34-2 engine (21 hp) is undersized. My SC31 with a displacement of 13,400 has a 27 hp engine.
Do you find that the engine is undersized?
What would be a reasonable purchase price for a 34-2 in good (not excellent) condition?

Patrick
 

HerbertFriedman

Member III
I have the deep keel and I agree it points well and does fine in light air but in SF that occurs in the dead of winter, in summer 25-30 kts in the slot every day. The 6'2" draft is a problem in some parts of SF especially if you want to go up river to Napa or Petaluma and there are some shallow spots close to the east bay shore but usually not a problem. In SF, the bottom is all mud, not like all rock as in Marblehead, so going aground is not too traumatic.
 

HerbertFriedman

Member III
The E34 is 34'10", I dont know what the exact length of the 35-3 is or if they are the same hull. The main difference is the tri axial grid in the E34, I think 1987 was the first year for that.

And yes the Universal 25XP is undersized, plus the PO put a fixed three blade prop, I do not know the pitch, but I cannot get the engine to rev up beyond 2500 rpm, I think the factor spec for WOT was 3200 rpm. But then again, my engine has 2500 hrs and they are hard hours, i.e. short runs in and out of the marina. I would love a Beta 30 HP or even a new Beta 25 but $20K is not in the cards.
 

Loren Beach

O34 - Portland, OR
Senior Moderator
Blogs Author
Grids and Heads

The E34 is 34'10", I dont know what the exact length of the 35-3 is or if they are the same hull. The main difference is the tri axial grid in the E34, I think 1987 was the first year for that.

And yes the Universal 25XP is undersized, plus the PO put a fixed three blade prop, I do not know the pitch, but I cannot get the engine to rev up beyond 2500 rpm, I think the factor spec for WOT was 3200 rpm. But then again, my engine has 2500 hrs and they are hard hours, i.e. short runs in and out of the marina. I would love a Beta 30 HP or even a new Beta 25 but $20K is not in the cards.

The TAFG came into EY production late 70's / early 80's. Note that until sometime late in '87, EY was installing the 21 hp Universal M25 engine in those boats, and then changed to the 23 hp M25XP model.
My surmise is that they needed an aft cabin model in that size range due to the popularity of the E-32/200 and the E-38/200. Using that proven E-35/3 hull, they put in a new aft cabin interior. The aft head was also really catching on.
:rolleyes: Everything's a compromise... the E-35/3 has a separate shower stall and a sit down nav. table. It's much like a smaller version of the E-381.

The E-34-2 gives you a smaller chart table but you get an extra "ice box" that you can use for a freezer. Which... is pretty neat.
And the aft head does not have a separate shower.

Happy shopping!


:egrin:
 

Loren Beach

O34 - Portland, OR
Senior Moderator
Blogs Author
someone told me that the TAFG was designed by Olsen, is that true?

Nope. Bruce King, for EY.

Interestingly enough, and saying that "great minds think alike" comes to mind, George Olson designed the partial TAFG used in the Olson 34. Having less teak furniture inside, it enhances the look of the teak parts in the Olson. Of course I have no bias concerning this.
:rolleyes:

Contrast the pix in reply 72 and reply 61, in this previous thread. There are other pix also. No matter what model, EY always put high-$$ wood into their interiors.
http://www.ericsonyachts.org/infoexchange/showthread.php?1526-Removal-of-glued-down-cabin-sole/page5

The Ericson 34-2 has a full-on teak interior, and it's more than just a cliche that (almost) no one builds 'em like that any more.
 

bgary

Advanced Beginner
Blogs Author
Nope. Bruce King, for EY.

There's long been conjecture that David Pedrick did the engineering calcs for the TAFG. I think I remember seeing posts here (Seth?) supporting that. IIRC, Pedrick did a lot of the structures work for S&S and was beginning to come out into his own in the late 70s.

Regardless, yes, Bruce King is the designer, no matter who did the engineering.
 

HerbertFriedman

Member III
A friend at the YC has an 87 Olsen built by Ericson, and the construction details look identical. Not that it much matters but I gather that Olsens were built by Olsen and others before they were built by Ericson, so did Olsen's partial TAFG precede the King design?
 

Loren Beach

O34 - Portland, OR
Senior Moderator
Blogs Author
A friend at the YC has an 87 Olsen built by Ericson, and the construction details look identical. Not that it much matters but I gather that Olsens were built by Olsen and others before they were built by Ericson, so did Olsen's partial TAFG precede the King design?

Now that I read Bruce's reminder, the Pedrick reference sounds right. I forgot.
Since the O-34 was designed in about '86 or so, so I would guess that the TAFG was by then catching on with boat builders.
I can say that the integration of the grid part and the bulkheads/panels in our model was really well calculated and designed. What with all the interior wood parts being tabbed to the hull and overhead it is very rigid. It gets the 'OK' nod from a custom boat builder friend of ours, and he likes Ericson's too.
 

markvone

Sustaining Member
I've heard the E30+ had the first TAFG but it was a partial grid. That would have been 1978-9. The attached advertising for the E36RH says David Pedrick did the engineering for expanding the TAFG. This would have been in 1979-80 since E36RH production started early 1981.

Mark
 

Attachments

  • E36RH_Advertising_Page_1.jpg
    E36RH_Advertising_Page_1.jpg
    95.8 KB · Views: 27
  • E36RH_Advertising_Page_2.jpg
    E36RH_Advertising_Page_2.jpg
    104 KB · Views: 28

Teranodon

Member III
The E34 is a fine, well-behaved, well-built racer/cruiser. I have only two beefs with the design: I think any boat in this class should have four primary winches, and there should have been a real chain locker up forward.

Anyone who is buying a 30-year-old boat should be aware that things are going to start (and keep on) crapping out. Four years ago, my E34 did well on her survey but, since then, I have worked on just about every system (plus I replaced the engine). You have to be ready to do the work yourself, or pay someone to do it. Personally, I don't mind because I'm retired and I enjoy messing with the boat (most of the time, that is). But it has to be kept in mind when thinking about buying.
 

Frank Langer

1984 Ericson 30+, Nanaimo, BC
Stefan, you're right that our Ericsons are aging, and do take work to maintain. And sometimes it's frustrating trying to solve a problem or do a repair. But at least we're working on boats that were generally built well to begin with and sail really well. That makes the effort worthwhile! ☺️
Frank
 

Teranodon

Member III
.... our Ericsons are aging, and do take work to maintain....

I used to think that you had to be seriously cracked to buy a new boat. You can get an E34 for under 50k$, whereas an "equivalent" new boat costs about four times as much. By most accounts, new boats are full of bugs and take a while to shake down. Following that, however, you can probably count on 10-15 years of trouble-free sailing. A high price to pay, it would seem. But I once indulged myself with calculating how much money I would have earned if, instead of going down to the marina to work on my Ericson, I had gone into the office at my pre-retirement salary. The result was scary: I should have kept working a year or two and socked away some money for a new boat. It was a dumb exercise, I know.
 

Frank Langer

1984 Ericson 30+, Nanaimo, BC
Stefan, I'm not sure I agree with you. Firstly, I know of several owners of new or relatively new boats who had problems. One was a brand new Tartan 34, which had various problems fixed under warranty, but then the mast cracked, and he lost a whole summer of sailing before they replaced it again under warranty. A local Beneteau has had similar, though different issues.
Also, you probably had much more fun working on and getting to know your boat, as compared to going into the office more often to earn those extra dollars, especially near the end of work life when the motivation lags.
And by working on your boat you've learned skills that will help you to keep her in good shape for a long time to come, which wouldn't have happened if you'd gone to the office instead.
I retired quite early at age 57,and periodically think about the fact we would have more money if I had worked five more years. But in those five years we spent time with kids and grandkids, travelled extensively, sailed alot and enjoyed life alot more than if we had had to get up early, put on my suit and tie yet again.
Just my thoughts....
Frank
 
Last edited:

Loren Beach

O34 - Portland, OR
Senior Moderator
Blogs Author
Opinions.... maybe...

Boat builders that I know say it would take about $200K minimum to replace my boat with an Equivalent Quality new boat. i.e. design and construction to the same standard.
Actually, I would have to shop in the 250K and above market for a replacement.

While we have put continuous money and time into this boat since we bought it in '94, we are miles from that figure. Presently insured for a bit over 70K, and it would be very darned hard to replace it for that amount, as it sits now.
This spring we put in a new diesel, so the boat is functionally a lot "younger" than its year of manufacture.

Note that Ericson's were built a LOT better than the low price cheapie boats whose only claim to fame was being a "lot of interior room for the money".

One example of the difference in boat quality is a quick comparison between an 80's E-34 that I know of that hit a rock at speed and put only a ding in the lead keel.
Ouch. But zero structural damage.

Contrast to a Hunter 37 that I know of that hit a rock up north this summer at about 5.5 kts, and while it did return home ok, is now in the yard getting a major insurance repair. Hull is cracked, interior frp moldings are cracked/broken, and some damage has been found on one side that affects the chain plate attachment. The total cost in the thousands... is still being tallied.

The sailboat market is full of used and new boats whose only claim to utility is that they are cheap on a per-length basis and have oodles of party room inside. They are called sail boats because they have a point at one end and a mast.
They are really just the boating version of Gresham's Law.
Yup. That's only one opinion, and YMMV.
:0

As for boats build to be dock side condo's, nothing wrong with that at all! But not all buyers are educated about the market.

Not that I have an opinion, however.
:)
 
Top