Go Back  Offshoreonly.com > Owners Forum > Baja
questions about a 1990 320 >

questions about a 1990 320

Notices

questions about a 1990 320

Thread Tools
 
Old 01-15-2008, 04:34 PM
  #1  
Registered
Thread Starter
 
BY U BOY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: HOUSTON ,TX
Posts: 8,779
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default questions about a 1990 320

What are the pros and cons?

Is the floor wood or fiberglass?
I have read that some Bajas have some handeling issues,Is this one of those?
what speeds will it see with 454's
Whats the weight of the boat
What do i need to look for Transom ect.
Do the hatches leak
feel free to add to the list if i missed anything

I boat in galveston bay and it can get rough at sometimes 3's to 5's white caps(bay is shallow)

We would like to overnight on the boat and do some PR's but mostly just sunday boating.

What does the 320 offer that the 29OL does not and vise versa

The boat that i am considering but have not looked at yet shows very good and clean in the pics and can be had for cheap.
thanks for the help.
BY U BOY is offline  
Old 01-16-2008, 07:42 PM
  #2  
Gold Member
Gold Member
 
Full Force's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Olmsted Falls,Ohio Marblehead,Oh
Posts: 11,638
Likes: 0
Received 209 Likes on 133 Posts
Default

Is it the red one in NH? I have seen it around on the net, I think it would be a good boat for what you want, I have a 86 320 so it is different but as far as hull goes, get a survey, all the older Bajas had issues rotting, actually any older boat does, my transom was rotted, i knew it but still have a survey.

I would assume around 8000lbs dry, not sure on that.

is it 330hp boat? if so prob around 62-64 mph, if it is 420's maybe 68 ish.
Full Force is offline  
Old 01-16-2008, 09:30 PM
  #3  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: St. louis, East Sider
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

If it is a 320es I had one. It was heavy and deep with a really nice cabin. They have full liners, no wood. I never liked the way the boat handled. It seemed like the pad wasn't big enough to support the high center of gravity and it would ride up onto the pad and fall off. Mine was fast for the weight/horsepower but it didn't ride that well for a 30+' boat. The engine access sucks unless you remove the rear seat.
320es is offline  
Old 01-17-2008, 09:20 AM
  #4  
Registered
Thread Starter
 
BY U BOY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: HOUSTON ,TX
Posts: 8,779
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Thanks guys I'm not sure if its an es or what. It is all red with an intergrated swim platform.
BY U BOY is offline  
Old 01-18-2008, 04:20 PM
  #5  
Registered
 
JasonSmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

I had a friend who had several of them. One with 454 Mags,365hp. It was a high 60's boat. One with 502 Mags, 390hp. It was a low 70 mph boat. The last had HP465's in it. It ran close to 80.
I always liked the style of the boat, but wouldn't want one today now that I have the 29. Not that there is anything wrong with them, I just like my 29 better.
JasonSmith is offline  
Old 01-19-2008, 10:06 AM
  #6  
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: St. louis, East Sider
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I agree Jason. The 320 is much more roomy but the 29 ol is a better riding more stable boat.
320es is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 08:32 PM
  #7  
Registered
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex Junction, Vermont
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question

I just bought the boat in my profile pic. 1993 320es 330's w/5psi prochargers estimated 460 hp each. Math says 72 mph? Who knows I've never had it in the water. Sombody explain what falling off he pad feels like. My previous boat was a formula 272 no pad. Am I going to be dissapointed with the ride.
Sunshadow is offline  
Old 02-01-2008, 09:20 PM
  #8  
Gold Member
Gold Member
 
Full Force's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Olmsted Falls,Ohio Marblehead,Oh
Posts: 11,638
Likes: 0
Received 209 Likes on 133 Posts
Default

72 would be pretty much right with that HP, I have a 86 320, if the hull bottom is the smae design it should run good, I have a friend with a 32 Outlaw using the same hull as mine I am pretty sure he runs 82 ish, he said it rides great.
Full Force is offline  
Old 02-02-2008, 10:34 AM
  #9  
VIP Member
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: ankeny,ia.
Posts: 4,090
Received 267 Likes on 148 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 320es
If it is a 320es I had one. It was heavy and deep with a really nice cabin. They have full liners, no wood. I never liked the way the boat handled. It seemed like the pad wasn't big enough to support the high center of gravity and it would ride up onto the pad and fall off. Mine was fast for the weight/horsepower but it didn't ride that well for a 30+' boat. The engine access sucks unless you remove the rear seat.

I totally agree.

A friend of mine had a 93' with 502MPI's, it didn't
have external steering, which it should have.

When he got it , it had inside rotating props.

The first time I drove it WOT, I noticed it was a bit squirrely,
and as I throttled back and trimmed in, it "fell off the pad"
and rolled on to it's port side running surface......not
a good feeling when you're going 70


We switched prop rotation to outside, and it was
a much better behaved boat.

I liked the looks of the boat, and the Mcleod bolsters.


The 32 Magnum/ Caliber/ Outlaw is a much better
handling boat.
JaayTeee is offline  
Old 02-03-2008, 08:24 AM
  #10  
Registered
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex Junction, Vermont
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

thanks for the advice mine are turning in now I think I'll swap them before I get it wet.
Sunshadow is offline  


Quick Reply: questions about a 1990 320


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.