Big Mac 65

Discussion in 'Sailboats' started by razor, Mar 22, 2005.

  1. razor
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 17
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Napa CA

    razor Junior Member

    Recently I have started shopping for my next sail boat. I have found a few MacGregor 65 in excellent shape for very reasonable prices. is there any major down side to this design say compared to a Santa Cruz 52?

    Thank you for your time
     
  2. ClarkT
    Joined: Jun 2003
    Posts: 108
    Likes: 2, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 31
    Location: New Orleans

    ClarkT Senior Member

    Big Difference!

    I've sailed on both. The SC52 is a solid boat that you could sail anywhere. It's fast enough, but never a real rocketship. It's what I'd call an heirloom boat.

    The Mac65 is much lighter build, much cheeper outfitting, and not really an ocean sailor. On the right point of sail it can fly! Now the 65's have been sailed to Hawaii and there are many in the caribbean, but the upwind deliveries on that boat were probably pretty hairy. I'd also worry that the boat will not age very well. If you buy it, give a very through hull inspection with an eye toward fatigue in any high stress areas.
     
  3. razor
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 17
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Napa CA

    razor Junior Member

    Witch Mac did you sail on one of the early racing boats or one of the latter pilothouse versions? there being nearly 10,000 lb more fiber glass in the latter boats.
     
  4. mackid068
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 857
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: CT, USA

    mackid068 Semi-Newbie Posts Often

    I like the 65's design, but still, I'd go with a small, new full keel boat. I like full keels for their stability, but the great amount of wetted surface slows 'em down. Just so you know, I found the NADA used price guide for boats. A '92 Mac65 (poorly outfitted) should retail for about $179k. I also found one at EUR (Euros) 179,000 along with another at $219k, an old 1986 model (not looking great) at $110k, a 1990 at $150k, a '92 at $218k Yeesh. I'd go with something smaller with a full keel (anything that's a bit more stable) at the same (or similar price) such as a Nauticat or something of that nature.

    If you do like the 65, check out http://www.webworldinc.com/heritage/brochure/800cover.htm.
     
  5. Mikey
    Joined: Sep 2004
    Posts: 368
    Likes: 7, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 75
    Location: Bangkok, Thailand

    Mikey Senior Member

    Saw an American flagged Mac 65 in Swedish waters many years ago so they CAN cross the Atlantic, still, not sure I would want to be on one doing it though...

    If you go for a Mac 65, go for the latter pilot house model with an additional 10000 lb fiberglass added, they really needed that!

    I like the Mac 65 design a lot, but it is just too much of a racer for me. Wish it was a bit more of a compromise.
     
  6. SailDesign
    Joined: Jan 2003
    Posts: 1,964
    Likes: 136, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 650
    Location: Jamestown, RI, USA

    SailDesign Old Phart! Stay upwind..

    That's like recommending a van to someone asking advice on choosing a Mustang! :)
     
  7. razor
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 17
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Napa CA

    razor Junior Member

    LoL...

    I spent a good amount of time sailing on a Westsail 32 around Hawaii... trust me I would not do that again.

    Why would the big Mac have problems to windward? I thought narrow boats usually do pretty well up wind. (LWL to beam of 5.167)

    Specs LWL of 63
    Beam of 12
    Displacement 32000

    J-26.5
    I-62
    P-53.25
    E-19

    I get a hull speed of 10.6 a sail area/ displacement of 25.ish
    And a capsize ratio of 1.5
     
  8. Skippy
    Joined: Nov 2004
    Posts: 568
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 12
    Location: cornfields

    Skippy Senior Member

  9. Mikey
    Joined: Sep 2004
    Posts: 368
    Likes: 7, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 75
    Location: Bangkok, Thailand

    Mikey Senior Member

    The capsize ratio doesn't say it all but sure, it probably won't go turkey easily since it is so narrow. It could dip the sails in the water rather easily if you are careless or hit a strong gust at the wrong time though. I believe that was what ClarkT meant when he talked about upwind deliveries. He uses the word hairy - not slow.

    It is not a safe and seaworthy Ocean Cruiser, was never designed to be one. It's designed to be very fast and interesting to sail. - And I bet it is! Wish I had sailed one :(

    Roll dampening with that hull form and small keel is most likely low, that together with low displacement and, it looks like to me too, low rightening moment will make it, don't know what word to use - Not a boat to leave to sail unattended for long but very interesting I suppose. It will certainly be sensitive to strong gusts, heel quite a lot easily and will need to be reefed rather early. But if your preference is active, quick and interesting sailing, don't think much can beat it.

    It will have rather strong accelerations, not very comfortable for Extended cruising. You need to be a bit of an enthusiast. I Really like the concept, just wish it was a bit less extreme.

    The draft is only 6' with the shallow draft keel, another nice thing. And there's enough room for the whole family.

    How much of an enthusiast are you?
     
  10. Mikey
    Joined: Sep 2004
    Posts: 368
    Likes: 7, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 75
    Location: Bangkok, Thailand

    Mikey Senior Member

    There used to be a message board for Mac 65 owners at www.webworldinc.com but it is inactive now. I think you should contact them to try to get in touch with a couple of Mac 65 owners and ask them what they think. Nothing beats first-hand info.
     
  11. asathor
    Joined: Oct 2004
    Posts: 154
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Minnesota

    asathor Senior Member

    There seems to be several versions. I saw a review earlier speaking of this (lost link) and describing the quality upgrade mentioned above with some specificity as to build time. You should be able to find that if you dig on the web.

    There also seems to be 2 keels - one of the links below showing one in the sling with a more usufull if still smallish fin.

    As you probably noticed the interieor is in the form of a molded liner that undoubtedly is part of the design for rigidity etc. That means that you have both hull and liner to fix if you need to go inside to do repairs so you must get a highly qualified surveyor (the one "from hell") to check the boat out

    http://www.yachtworld.com/core/uk/listing/pl_boat_full_detail.jsp?boat_id=1128851&units=Feet&currency=USD&access=Public&listing_id=1472&url=

    See the fin keel: http://www.yachtworld.com/core/uk/listing/pl_boat_full_detail.jsp?boat_id=1299817&units=Feet&currency=USD&access=Public&listing_id=37944&url=

    I myself have been thinking of taking a "can opener" to one of the large pure race boats. I think you can find many good boats that are pretty much empty inside which would let you get to everything so you can add stiffeners, change keel and so on before you close it up and make it hard to work on.

    I found this proud lady in need of a caring home just now: http://www.yachtworld.com/core/uk/listing/pl_boat_full_detail.jsp?boat_id=1267297&units=Feet&currency=USD&access=Public&listing_id=1877&url=

    Unfortunately my driveway is to short, otherwise I would gladly put the time in to bring it back.

    Asathor
     
  12. razor
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 17
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Napa CA

    razor Junior Member

    32,000LB with 12,000lb of ballast sounds about right to me, most boats of the last couple of decades seam to have 1/3 displacement to ballast ratios, why would that be under sized?
     
  13. asathor
    Joined: Oct 2004
    Posts: 154
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Minnesota

    asathor Senior Member

    It just looks a little lonely on such a "large" boat.
     
  14. Mikey
    Joined: Sep 2004
    Posts: 368
    Likes: 7, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 75
    Location: Bangkok, Thailand

    Mikey Senior Member

    32,000LB with 12,000lb of ballast or whatever, it simply does not look like a very stable boat. Remember that it is a very narrow boat and doesn't rely much on form stability, leaving weight stability but it has about the same ballast ratio as wider boats.

    Now I know the word I was looking for before; Unforgiving. It is a very interesting boat to sail, you will be able to sail in circles around your friends, but if you leave it unattended for a while making a cup of coffee and you miss that squall coming, well, that will set your heart pumping.

    I think that Roger Macgregor designs his boats exactly the way HE likes them, very fast, perfect for active sailing, stability not being the highest priority on his agenda, interesting but a bit unforgiving.

    If that sounds like you, then go for it.
     

  15. razor
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 17
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Napa CA

    razor Junior Member

    I understand that the Mac is going to have poor initial stability, this goes to what I have heard from owners” the first 15degeres of heal comes very quickly.”

    But why would the Mac be less stable then say a Deerfoot or Sundeer, Working to wind or weather?
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.