Help, 89 Tracker

[Sleeto]

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

Thanks,

Paul

[JohnB]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

Easy Cowboy, I responded to that very diplomaticly.

[Mark]

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.

[ocuyler]

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.

[Fr. Frank]

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]

[FELLOW-SHIP]

Just another opinion. But it’s either this or go back to work and I would rather do this. For me, Any Boat over 20-25 years old “that has not been kept out of the elements” need to be totally rebuilt that means new, new, new, gas tank, transom, probably deck, possibly stringers, cap repair, wiring, and on and on and on. So if you are going to redo everything anyway What Is Left???? That’s right, just the original hull design which all SeaCrafts have in common. What is different with all our boats if it is not the design that we did not change It Is all the stuff we put back into the boat to customize in to our own personal desires and needs. I got a 77 that was a real mess (which was Great) I didn’t have to think what I could save I chucked it all and re did the entire boat. Some guys got lucky and found boats that didn’t need to re do it All YET but if you keep her, sooner or later, All will be needed to be done. That’s just the way it is. This boat’s Design in the real attraction to all of us I have a SeaCraft that was custom re did by Me I am glad I got a SeaCraft and I am PROUD of what I did with it.
FellowShip [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]