Newer Seacrafts

[fishstu]

Does any body own or have experience of 1986 or newer (Tracker Marine) Seacraft.

The word is that the potter hulls from the 70's are considered to be far better built and that the later Tracker Marine Seacrafts were very poorly built with serious structure and quality control issues. Is it as black and white as that or are a few" bad" boats giving all newer seacraft a bad rap. Seacraft still look and ride great, have high quality components and cost a lot.

I am looking at a 1999 20 Seacraft Lefty Kreh Master Angler, but feed back on any Seacraft issue from that era is greatly appreciated.

[HannahB]

As with any used boat, regardless of manufacturer, a survey will provide piece of mind and pay for itself, based upon the "findings." One thing about Seacrafts (old or new), they have a great hull (offering a great ride) and nice lay-out for fishing, but you already seem to know that, or you wouldn't be asking.

[ocuyler]

Fishstu,

This has been debated on this forum for a couple of years. I can't speak for everyone, but I believe the consensus was that, first, all the hulls are basically the same. Until this recent issue of a very late model hull being defective, there are few or no occurences of hull failure in any hulls, Potter, CSY or Tracker.

Personally, I own a 1989 23CC (Tracker) and a 1971 21 Seafari (Potter). The difference is in fit and finish and quality of the materials. On the older models it's kind of a moot point as most hardware, wiring, etc. is replaced with it's current counter-part by serious restorers. Most hulls pre-1990 will require some degree of repair or restoration anyway, just like ANY boat of it's era.

To answer your question, a "Potter" hull is a terrific hull and you get to say it's a Potter. I guarantee if you close your eyes, your ass will not know the difference and either will the water.