Help, 89 Tracker

Sleeto · #1 09-14-2004, 04:53 PM

I am looking at an '89 Tracker. How does Tracker stack up against Potter? How about value?

Thanks,

Paul

JohnB · #2 09-14-2004, 05:43 PM

I have a 89 Tracker/SeaCraft. Some of the rigging was a little cheapened on it (leaky hatch on a Sceptre, etc), but overall, very solid boat. Wiring was a little scary too. I looked at alot of them before and after I bought mine.

The brand has had it's problems more recently, but most everything I have seen made before 1990 has looked good.
Personally, I don't think there was much of a falloff the first couple of years Tracker built them, and if you go to buy one, I haven't seen the price break or rise around those years. Most of these boats have wet transoms in them by the time they get to 10-15 years old. I also don't think the initial design on these was up to snuff for the big/heavy/powerful motors we have now, especially 4 strokes. If you look at alot of the transom rebuilds on this site, they have gone way beyond the original design on the transoms in both materials and construction.

As far as quality/design goes, IMHO, the "Potter Hull" is a myth. Carl Mosley (or C. Moesly as it is on the patent) was the one that designed the the varible deadrise, and really helped revolutionize the mass produced fiberglass boat industry. I have run into some people down here in Florida that worked with/for SeaCraft when he owned the company, and he took a very personal role in the quality of the hulls. All that I could tell that Potter and Tracker did, was make molds off an exiting mold/design and lamination schedule. Potter had a more consistant track record of quality than Tracker has. I think Potter's best claim to fame is the SeaMark bracket, pricey, but sweet...

I don't mean to offend anyones boat, or "beliefs" here [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] in the legendary Potter hull. I would concentrate on the condition of the boat and how it was maintained. I think any of them made before 1990 were sweet.

Finster · #3 09-14-2004, 06:51 PM

I am going to hold my tongue on this one (frist time for me) and say only this, the 23' hull and the 20' hull as we know them didn't not exsist when Mosley owned the company. Those two hulls are Potter's designs all the way.

And yes there are many reason's why Potter hulls are more desirable.

JohnB · #4 09-14-2004, 07:45 PM

Finster, the Potter boats probably are the pick of the liter overall :grin .

I think I would like to re-summerize my post...
I think any of them made before 1990 were sweet. Ignore the rest [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]. I don't want a Potter decal design burned into the lawn [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] (that's a joke...).

Anyways, I do like some of the later model features such as refinements in the Sceptre cap, and the walkaround models in the early tracker and csy era (80's). From what I have seen, when the brand changed owners, things didn't change overnight. The changes seemed to be incremental both in design, and construction.

Quote:

And yes there are many reason's why Potter hulls are more desirable

Does anyone have the specific design, construction, and materials evolution of these boats from Mosely thru the current models? I think it would be interesting and informative. I might be redoing the transom and some other parts of my boat this winter, and would like to incorporate any improvements that where dropped or made along the way.

ocuyler · #5 09-14-2004, 08:27 PM

Chris,

Just cause Mr. Potter is, like, your God Father or something, you seem to be a little partial, shall we say... You don't have to carry the torch, it carries itself...

Finster · #6 09-14-2004, 08:34 PM

Easy Cowboy, I responded to that very diplomaticly.

ocuyler · #7 09-14-2004, 08:45 PM

Paul,

I own an '89 23CC that I bought in Florida with 700 hours. I have since completed a full hull restoration. In my case, I agree with JohnB that the fit and finish, wiring and hardware were all in need of an upgrade. But under all that was a well built hull, which is what I wanted.

The fuel tank that was foamed in and was in need of replacement. The stringers were wet, but we fixed that. The floor had some soft spots, but we fixed that too. Fortunately, the transom was rock solid and required only minor maintainence.

I'll say this about the various incarnations: if you are REALLY into these boats, you're probably looking at at a partial renovation minimum. That said, you'll be upgrading all the stuff that matters anyway and ending up with one terrific boat. A lot of what is wrong with any SeaCraft is due to neglect on the part of the owner(s), otherwise they would all be fairly comparable. I would say, in conclution that you should focus on what the boat can become, not what it is.

I paid $8,500 for my 89 23 2 years ago and got a newer Continental 6000 trailer and a decent 200 Yamaha. The value of those 2 accessories is probably $5,000, so I paid $3,500 for the hull. I consider that to be fair and reasonable.

Mark · #8 09-14-2004, 08:59 PM

Regardless of whether you buy a Tracker hull from the 80s or a Potter hull from the 70's, you are talking about OLD boats. There will very likely need to be some updating of some or all systems. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] I'm told by someone quite knowledgable in the rebuilding of these boats that there are good and bad examples of hulls and workmanship from each decade: every hull is an individual.

Scott · #9 09-14-2004, 11:21 PM

Quote:

How about value?

I’ll say this right up front I’m biased here and some of the below is my opinion …John this isn’t meant in anyway other than to try to clear some things up. Bottom line everyone is proud of THEIR boat

If any of this is inaccurate please someone point us in the right direction

Does anyone know of a 23 or 20 prior to 1968 ??? I Think Finsters boat (1971) is close to one of the first 23’s out there (as per B. Potter if I recall...Finster ??) and Trayders 20 (1969??) is in the same league. I believe that once B. Potter purchased the company in 1968 production of these boats started … So I would consider these Potter boats

Yes, he was using the variable degree deadrise design of C. Mosley, I thought I even heard that B. Potter may have worked with Mosley at some point with regards to that design ??…To achieve the ride which makes these hull legendary required a blend of the proper hull weight, length and beam …In other words I’m pretty sure Potter adapted the original VD design and engineered those hulls. The hull that Mosley manufactured I believe was a 19’ ….A member here Pipedreams (Don) I believe has a “Mosley” hull.

Also … B. Potter sold the company to Caribbean Sailing Yachts (CSY) in late 1979 early 1980 … not to Tracker …. And in fact I think CSY then turned it over to SeaCraft Industries…. In the summer of 1987 it was then sold to Tracker…These are time lines that kick around the site every now and again.... there was no direct Potter to Tracker transfer.

I think the whole thing of the “Potter Hull” is that the reputation for the hull, which was, and still could be, considered one of the best designs out there. WE all benefit from that. Look at how many boat companies have copied and used that shape for their current hulls. Around the docks and in the boat yards Potter Hulls have an enduring reputation as some of the best hulls in this size class ever produced …I’m frequently asked …”Is it a Potter built??” Even fishing/boating magazines as of late have expressed the desire for these hull ….This hull is often mentioned/regarded in the same elite company as the old Formulas, Bertrams ( My personal opinion is that the 31 is almost a reference standard for restorations), and some other Ray Hunt designs…Classic Boats …..All time proven shapes that are still highly sought after.

Bottom Line …. That “Potter” name in my opinion … right or wrong … does a lot for the boats value.

Fr. Frank · #10 09-15-2004, 12:51 AM

In '87 I worked for a marina that had an almost new '87 23' Seacraft WA in for repairs after a "channel digging" episode. After coming to a rest on the north jetty of Boynton Inlet after 20+ mph impact, the hull was broken just about 12' forward of the transom, with a single broken stringer as well.
We fixed it per the insurance, but I was dismayed by the internal quality I saw when we cut through the liner to make the repair.
IMHO the hull stringers were not nearly as substantial as I had seen in older Seacrafts, and the core material in those new SC stringers was only 3/4" plywood encased in a couple of layers of medium mat. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] Of course, that may have just been that particular hull.
Look in the bilges very carefully. It's a great hull design, but you may want to strengthen it or even replace the stringers, especially if you're undaunted by Small Craft Advisory weather like that guy was. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]