Noosa Cat 1800 Center Console

[Noelm]

beer? new shed?? sounds like a mini M&G to me!

[Grand_Marlin]

Hey Pete big call mate that the SC 500 will match a 5.2KC. Are you livebaiting us 5.2 kc guys up? A guy on here has just switched to a 5.2KC from a SC 500 and reckons the KC blows it away. Hey I think your'e one hell of a guy Pete but you got me on this one

Theres an interesting writeup in issue 141 F&B page 16 comparing the 2. I'll bring it around when we catch up for that beer down at your new shed. Cheers, talk soon.

Deano..

Yes Deano, I know that comment hurts you, but a few beers at the shed and a good drool over my Sharkcats will let you see that there is light at the end of the tunnel for KC owners

[Grand_Marlin]

Seriously, to answer you concerns, yes, I would pick a 5.2 KC over a 5.0 Sharkcat for serious offshore work.

When you look at Loftys requirements the Sharkcat will do everything he needs it to do.
If he is considering a single engine centre console, then the 500 Sportsman (same hull) will be even safer with the cabin structure and twin motors.

Up and running offshore, I am more than happy to say that there is not much between the two.
Anchored and trolling the 5.2 KC is a lot better.
Safer? Nope - just drier and more comfortable.

Deck size is the same (500 SC with pods), cabin is the same, motor size / economy is the same.

The price is what gets me - nearly double for a 5.2 KC

The only true way to know what will suit best is to try both of them on the water and make your decision from there.

Deano, what didn't you like about the 500 Sportsman on the water?

Cheers

Pete

[Dean1]

Pete ive never been in a 500 SC but Im sure theyd carve it up well no doubt. Still eat monos up too 7m id say. The thing about this model that would turn me off one and ive heard from owners of these is the lack of freeboard and the droopy nose where as in turn cops waves on the front of the boat in short chop. Ive never had a wavecome over the front in these conditions only if in say 2m 25kts and you got a wave standing up coming straight onto yo. Or the only time i can clearly remember is while anchored up at Cal wide in 2m 25kts and a freak wave came through and slapped up onto the front. That was when i packed up my bat and ball and called it a day. It know its getting ugly when this happens!!

[Grand_Marlin]

G'day Deano,

Yep, without doubt the 500SC is an impressive little boat.

The freeboard is fine - never had a problem with that.

The low / droopy nose is the only downfall.

Cheers

Pete

[Maccas]

Hey Grand Marlin,

I am the guy that Dean is talking about. I had a Sharkcat 500 with pods which had 60hp Johnsons. Had it from new in 1988 and sold it earlier this year. It was a good boat but the KC 5.2 that I bought to replace it is heaps better. I did a fair bit of research beforehand, went out in a couple of KC 5.2 and even wrote a letter to Peter Webster of F & B magazine which he published. I have attached it to this post for you to read. The biggest difference is that the KC is quicker,safer and easier to drive in rough conditions however the SC 500 was still way better than any comparable size mono and even bigger monos. Once you've had a cat you can't go back.

Maccas

[Grand_Marlin]

G'day Maccas,

Thanks for that - Pete Webster is a wise man who certainly knows his cats.

As the three of us have all driven both boats, it is interesting to see what we have all found.

We all agree that the SC500 is too low in the nose.
Where Pete says it is potentially dangerous, if you were to cop 3 or 4 big waves over the front that filled the cockpit before the scuppers could self drain the deck then yes this could be the case...
But as he also says ... usually it was just dampened spirits from the water coming over the screen.
This has been my experience ... just pain in the @rse stuff, not dangerous.
A change of running angle fixes it most times when trolling, but at anchor you have no choice.
The KC 5.2 is definitely better in this area.
Is this also what you refer to when you say safer?

Personally, I didn't find much difference between the two when up and running.
Speed over ground and softness I found to be similar at around 26 knots.
I found the SC to be a bit flightier at speed than the KC but I also found the SC to be a more agressive hull that could be driven harder.
The KC was easier to plane but didn't like to be driven as agressively as the SC.
Just set it up and let it go and it worked fine. (Hydrofields are the same)
This goes hand in hand with Pete Webster saying not to over power them as you don't get any better performance, where the SC is the opposite in all models.

One thing you said that I totally agree with is the KC5.2 is a lot easier and more forgiving boat to drive than the SC500.

Also interesting - Pete likes the 5.2 Noosacat, where I found it to have a very "rocky / rolly" attitude with the taller, finer sponsons.

Keep in mind that my comments were for Lofty's benefit and his boat usage ... not to say the SC500 is a better boat than a KC5.2

By the way Lofty, how are things going with making a decision?

Cheers

Pete

[Loftus]

Hi GM,

Still deliberating and welcoming the advise provided. I think I will get a better feel for the market before deciding and am in no hurry.


Rob

[Grand_Marlin]

G'day Rob,

The best advice I can give is to properly water test any boat you are interested in, in the waters you intend to use it.

Cheers

Pete

[Loftus]

GM and others,

Wondering a bit more about the differences between the Shark/ Noosa Cats and Kevlacats. There seems a bit of discussion on the 500 / 520. But what about the 560 and 1850 compared to KC5.2.

Have you any experience with these.


Rob

[Dean1]

GM and others,

Wondering a bit more about the differences between the Shark/ Noosa Cats and Kevlacats. There seems a bit of discussion on the 500 / 520. But what about the 560 and 1850 compared to KC5.2.

Have you any experience with these.


Rob

The 5.2kc has a much better deck layout, more deck room etc. and the kc's have a higher tunnel which gives you much less tunnel slap need less power to push em and kc's look much better

[Grand_Marlin]

And the best thing about the KC is they come standard with a mirror and hair brush for the owners

Cheers

Pete

[finding_time]

And the best thing about the KC is they come standard with a mirror and hair brush for the owners

Cheers

Pete

I can comfirm the above! It's true!! You need the mirror to save you straining your neck looking back to see if the shark cat is keeping up! And the hair brush because you can just go so damm quick in any sea that your hair does get a little messy !


Ian

[Grand_Marlin]

You need the mirror to save you straining your neck looking back to see if the shark cat is keeping up!

Ian

There is a battle royale looming here

Deano and I will be taking both his 5.2 KC and my 560 SC out for a run in the next couple of weeks ... so stay tuned for the results.

Ian, I would advise that you sell your KC now.

After the results are posted, the devaluation rate on the KC will make the global financial meltdown look like loose change

Cheers

Pete

[Grand_Marlin]

G'day Loftus,

The 5.2 KC / 560 Sharkcat comparison is a bit harder to answer, as there are so many different models of the Sharkcat.
The earlier model Sharkcat 560 has the most deckroom, but suffered in the handling / ride due to the driving position being so far forward.

The later model Sharkcat 560 Sportsman like mine is the best riding / handling of all the models due to the driving position being further back.
This also gives you a lock up cabin and twin full length berths, which the KC 5.2 doesn't. (the KC 6.2 does)
This better handling and ride is at the expense of deck space - the KC 5.2 does have a great deck layout.
The 560 Sharkcat will be about 600 kg heavier than the 5.2KC which may impact on your choice of tow vehicle.
Being heavier, it generally requires more horsepower, which equates to more cost and a bit more fuel.
It also makes it a better sea boat in rough conditions.
Upgrading from older to newer motors ... the KC seems quite happy with twin 60 Yamaha 4 strokes, as does the smaller 500 Sharkcat.
The new ranges of 90hp 4 strokes would suit the 560 Sharkcat, the 115's are too heavy.
The E-tec 90 / 115 is probably the best upgrade for the 560 Sharkcat.

The 5.2 Noosacat is an "ok" boat, but it didn't inspire the same level of confidence in me as the 5.2 KC or 560 Sharkcat did.
It felt very "cork like" at rest and liked to "walk" noticeably from side to side.
Not dangerous walking, just a lot more noticeable than the KC and SC.

The 1850 (as far as I am aware) is the 5.2 with pods.
I don't think (and I am happy to be corrected) that they made any changes to the hull design.

I can't give you an opinion for on water, as I haven't been in one.

Keep in mind that the 5.2 KC and 560 Sharkcats are big boats for their length, whereas the 500 Sharkcat is an easier size to manage.

Looks like you have plenty of testing to do!!!

Cheers

Pete