ClassicMako Owners Club, Inc.
ClassicMako Owners Club, Inc.
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 ClassicMako.com Forums
 Mako Discussion
 Mako 282 - 2001
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Towers
New Member

USA
4 Posts

Posted - 04/17/2011 :  12:07:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I have been restoring a 282 since last July. In the process I learned that there had been some 282 hull failures.

Can anyone tell me more about the failures, why the occured and which year models were most likely to have that fate?

Are there any warning signs? This boat only had 400 hours on it, so it was in pretty good shape from the strat.

I also own a bristol 260 Mako that was built in 1988. It has over 7000 hours on it but I have been very careful with upkeep. I am the original owner of that Mako. Anyone ever had any trouble with that model?

PPOORMAN
Member

USA
740 Posts

Posted - 04/17/2011 :  12:55:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
We are really going to need to see some pics of these boats

Pat
2000 Mako 232 - Twin Evinrude Ficht 150 DFI's
2001 Rinker 310 FV - Twin 5.0 V8 Mercs, Kohler 5kw Generator (Sold)
1967 Boston Whaler 17' Nauset - 2007 Merc 90hp efi (Sold)
Bay Village, OH

Go to Top of Page

Bertram42
Member

USA
144 Posts

Posted - 04/17/2011 :  20:46:36  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
There has been a problem with some of the 282 built. Below you will find the story as presented by BoatUS. I would suggest you have a skilled marine surveyor examine your boat and provide their recomendations. Long read but worth the effort.

This article was written September 2004 so this is not new news.




The Owners Tale

Our story of the defective boat begins two years ago when members of a Lafayette, LA, family bought what they thought was a one-owner 1998 Mako 282 that had seen use as a dealer demo. At the time of sale, they believed the boat was covered by what remained of the manufacturers warranty. After the transom and hull began to crack, they learned otherwise. The boat actually had four prior owners, one of whom was a Mako employee who sold it to the man from whom they bought it. Turns out that the Mako employee bought the boat as is from the manufacturer in 1997 after it was bought back by the factory because of structural problems. The employee refurbished the boat and, allegedly, with the help of a notary who worked in Makos bookkeeping department, fudged the boats certificate of origin to obscure its history. Then he sold it as though it was a new boat.

Long before the new owners uncovered the boats true history, however, Mako offered to build them another hull for $35,000, which the owners rejected as too costly, since theyd already paid nearly $60,000 for the boat. The owners did make a counteroffer of $25,000 for a new hull an offer rejected as too low. The owners told BoatU.S., If theyd accepted our offer two years ago, wed be out fishing right now, not knowing anything about what went wrong.

Instead, Mako told the family that the boats warranty was no longer in effect and an attorney representing the company told the owners, Direct any future communications regarding this matter to me as opposed to Makos customer service department. BoatU.S. attempts to mediate the dispute with Tracker Marine, Makos parent company, received no response.

Records the boatbuilder has since provided to the Coast Guard show that 19 of the 216 Mako 282s built in 1997 and 1998 were repaired under warranty because of problems related to transom failures. There is no record of the total number of boats with defects, where owners either didnt report their problems to Mako or where the problems surfaced after the boats warranties expired.

Although many Mako 282s, including the Louisiana boat prior to its current owners tenure, were repaired at the factory by the manufacturer, the Louisiana family was told the cracks on their boat were strictly cosmetic. Their Mako 282 was built in late 1997.

According to U.S. Coast Guard documents obtained by BoatU.S., the Mako 282 models design was derived by adding two feet to the design of an earlier 26 ft. model. A Coast Guard inspector concluded that the transom extension was not provided with adequate structural support to accommodate the weight of the outboard engines.

Carried to its ultimate conclusion, the rear two feet will disconnect from the forward part of the hull, the Coast Guard report concludes.

Contrary to Makos initial assertions that the hull cracks were cosmetic, the Coast Guard warns that, without adequate reinforcement, eventually the hull will fail and may result in the transom disconnecting from the hull. Should this occur while the boat is underway, it could result in injuries or, under severe conditions, death.

Nevertheless, Mako sparred with the Coast Guard for nearly a year, first over the question of whether the 282 model line was even defective and then over the question of how to correct the models defects.

As this issue of BoatU.S. Magazine goes to press, the two sides had just ironed out details of how the boats would be repaired. The Coast Guard rejected as not good practice Makos initial proposal to laminate fiberglass cloth over existing gel coat. Simply sanding down the gel coat will not result in a good bond and will result in future delamination, the Coast Guard warned. The agency also questioned whether Makos repair plans would address boats where lack of reinforcement has also resulted in excessive hull flexing.

The Coast Guard does not dictate to the manufacturer what needs to be done as we would then have to assume the responsibility for the vessels that are corrected, said Phil Cappel, chief of the Coast Guards Recreational Boating Product Assurance Division, which oversees boat manufacturing issues. The manufacturer has to propose a fix that we agree will resolve the problem.

Sometimes (as in this case) it takes time for the manufacturer to find a solution that we approve. Since the Mako 282 problem is complicated it is taking longer than usual to determine the right solution but it will not go on indefinitely, Cappel said.




[URL=http://s9.photobucket.com/user/CaptRoadking/media/DSCN0685_zps484d3eb6.jpg.html][/URL]

Edited by - Bertram42 on 04/17/2011 21:12:05
Go to Top of Page

Bertram42
Member

USA
144 Posts

Posted - 04/17/2011 :  20:59:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Towers,
Here is the link for the recall from the USCG


http://www.uscgboating.org/recalls/recalls_detail.aspx?id=030090T

[URL=http://s9.photobucket.com/user/CaptRoadking/media/DSCN0685_zps484d3eb6.jpg.html][/URL]
Go to Top of Page

Towers
New Member

USA
4 Posts

Posted - 05/01/2011 :  13:08:15  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by PPOORMAN

We are really going to need to see some pics of these boats



Yes, I will photo the boats as soon as I can get them in the water again. The wind has been running 20-30 MPH here (Port Alto, TX) for weeks and I am just not going to launch in those conditions.



Edited by - Towers on 05/01/2011 13:15:04
Go to Top of Page

Towers
New Member

USA
4 Posts

Posted - 05/01/2011 :  13:11:14  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by PPOORMAN

We are really going to need to see some pics of these boats

Go to Top of Page

Towers
New Member

USA
4 Posts

Posted - 05/01/2011 :  13:25:50  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Bertram42

There has been a problem with some of the 282 built. Below you will find the story as presented by BoatUS. I would suggest you have a skilled marine surveyor examine your boat and provide their recomendations. Long read but worth the effort.

This article was written September 2004 so this is not new news.

YES, this is the very article that promped me to post my question to the forum. I have done a survey on the boat and came up with nothing. I am really wondering if that are any early warning signs.

I had a fishing buddy from Friendswood Tex that had his 260 break up at sea in the early 90s but we figured it was because of the huge heavy tower he had put on it. Another fishing buddy of mine from Alvin had a 23 foot hull crack and mako did a major repair to it. That split was in the are at the rear of the cuddy cabin.

Any one know how many hulls have failed and why?


The Owners Tale

Our story of the defective boat begins two years ago when members of a Lafayette, LA, family bought what they thought was a one-owner 1998 Mako 282 that had seen use as a dealer demo. At the time of sale, they believed the boat was covered by what remained of the manufacturers warranty. After the transom and hull began to crack, they learned otherwise. The boat actually had four prior owners, one of whom was a Mako employee who sold it to the man from whom they bought it. Turns out that the Mako employee bought the boat as is from the manufacturer in 1997 after it was bought back by the factory because of structural problems. The employee refurbished the boat and, allegedly, with the help of a notary who worked in Makos bookkeeping department, fudged the boats certificate of origin to obscure its history. Then he sold it as though it was a new boat.

Long before the new owners uncovered the boats true history, however, Mako offered to build them another hull for $35,000, which the owners rejected as too costly, since theyd already paid nearly $60,000 for the boat. The owners did make a counteroffer of $25,000 for a new hull an offer rejected as too low. The owners told BoatU.S., If theyd accepted our offer two years ago, wed be out fishing right now, not knowing anything about what went wrong.

Instead, Mako told the family that the boats warranty was no longer in effect and an attorney representing the company told the owners, Direct any future communications regarding this matter to me as opposed to Makos customer service department. BoatU.S. attempts to mediate the dispute with Tracker Marine, Makos parent company, received no response.

Records the boatbuilder has since provided to the Coast Guard show that 19 of the 216 Mako 282s built in 1997 and 1998 were repaired under warranty because of problems related to transom failures. There is no record of the total number of boats with defects, where owners either didnt report their problems to Mako or where the problems surfaced after the boats warranties expired.

Although many Mako 282s, including the Louisiana boat prior to its current owners tenure, were repaired at the factory by the manufacturer, the Louisiana family was told the cracks on their boat were strictly cosmetic. Their Mako 282 was built in late 1997.

According to U.S. Coast Guard documents obtained by BoatU.S., the Mako 282 models design was derived by adding two feet to the design of an earlier 26 ft. model. A Coast Guard inspector concluded that the transom extension was not provided with adequate structural support to accommodate the weight of the outboard engines.

Carried to its ultimate conclusion, the rear two feet will disconnect from the forward part of the hull, the Coast Guard report concludes.

Contrary to Makos initial assertions that the hull cracks were cosmetic, the Coast Guard warns that, without adequate reinforcement, eventually the hull will fail and may result in the transom disconnecting from the hull. Should this occur while the boat is underway, it could result in injuries or, under severe conditions, death.

Nevertheless, Mako sparred with the Coast Guard for nearly a year, first over the question of whether the 282 model line was even defective and then over the question of how to correct the models defects.

As this issue of BoatU.S. Magazine goes to press, the two sides had just ironed out details of how the boats would be repaired. The Coast Guard rejected as not good practice Makos initial proposal to laminate fiberglass cloth over existing gel coat. Simply sanding down the gel coat will not result in a good bond and will result in future delamination, the Coast Guard warned. The agency also questioned whether Makos repair plans would address boats where lack of reinforcement has also resulted in excessive hull flexing.

The Coast Guard does not dictate to the manufacturer what needs to be done as we would then have to assume the responsibility for the vessels that are corrected, said Phil Cappel, chief of the Coast Guards Recreational Boating Product Assurance Division, which oversees boat manufacturing issues. The manufacturer has to propose a fix that we agree will resolve the problem.

Sometimes (as in this case) it takes time for the manufacturer to find a solution that we approve. Since the Mako 282 problem is complicated it is taking longer than usual to determine the right solution but it will not go on indefinitely, Cappel said.





Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ClassicMako Owners Club, Inc. © Louisiana Web Host, LLC. Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.61 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.07