Does the model year matter.

N

No wake

New member
Just starting to get ready to buy a 22.

I have heard a little about hull design changes over the years; as well as some comments about factory moves or company buy out.

So I have two questions for you experts:

Are there any model years to stay away from because of design issues

Are there any model years to stay away from because of poor factory work?

Thanks for your input.
 
The only major hull deign change was in 1987. Prior to that year, the bottom was flatter, with almost no deadrise. The stern was narrower, different rudimentary splash well etc. The Angler and Cruisers remained about the same. Differences later have included molded fiberglass interiors, flat raised floors in the cockpit.

As far as quality, most of the 22's are of good quality as for the glass work--and even into the selling of the company in the early 2000 era, the same crew did the 22's. There were some minor quality control issues, but most of those were fixed along the way. Other rare problems can happen in any year boats. A good survey helps.

My personal thoughts are I like the removable floorboards. The permeant have had some issues with trapped water underneath. None of these are self bailing.

I like to see all of the boats with a bilge pump near the aft bulkhead (for when the boat is sitting level in the water, and one aft for when the boat is on a plane, or trailer, with bow up.

I personally feel that all of the boats benefit from both trim tabs and a Permatrim.

If you get twins, you may want to just go with Permatrims. (foils on the anti-ventilation plate of the lower unit)

I personally like the plywood covered with Melamine interiors, which are slightly easier to modify.

I prefer the utilitarian no hull liner approach. Where you can hose down the interior if you wish.

There are other minor modifications which make the boats better and slightly more usable.
 
Disclaimer: This may not be true.

I believe the early to mid nineties hit a sweet spot. This time period gave the new design (plywood core being du jour on earlier boats, and balsa coming in around the 1987 transition) time to improve and wrinkles in the current CD22 design ironed out for a few production years.

This time period also accompanies an era at the factory where there weren't as many boats going out the door as there were in more recent years. On the order of dozens each year, whereas the production runs are now in the hundreds. Smaller production runs are very different operations than larger production runs, and top quality products can come out of either process, however I believe boats benefit from time, and being fussed over, and even when they are all literally coming out of the same mold, each one is different. Smaller runs allow builders to treat each boat individually.

Further, it seems to me like in these early/mid 90 models, they weren't quite sure how thick a balsa core they needed so they went big. I think my core is about an 1 1/2" thick. From what I've seen of post 2000 boats, the core is thinner.

Add to all of this, the substantially reduced price of purchase, and you get a clear idea of why I chose a 1993.

I also chose a boat that didn't have much at all installed on it besides a heater. It had a terrible sounder, and some cheap downriggers. So, I didn't have to find a boat set up for me, I found a relatively blank canvas and am setting it up myself with all the bits and pieces just where I want them.

I added a bilge pump at the transom sump. It was a must.

I also added a windlass right away, and a dinghy shortly thereafter. I just put a second battery and associated circuitry to keep them happy, and changed my kicker setup, and added a davit with a hauler on the way soon. If I had spent an extra $10 I'd have had a "nicer" newer boat to start, but everything would be set up for someone else's preference and uses.

So that's what guided my thinking once I settled on a CD22.
 
Good points Kushtaka. I also love the varnished wood handrails on my 1990 and wished they still offered those (an easy aftermarket upgrade I suppose!).

Just to add some details to a couple of your points regarding the newer boats, having just returned from a factory tour today...

The core in current generation of 22' built by NMI are still 1.5". Maybe it was thinner at previous factories.

Regarding production numbers, there is one 22 sitting in the factory today, finished about a month ago awaiting pickup by the dealer, and another one currently being built (Big C), so I don't think current production is anywhere near the 100's per year, although I didn't ask. But if you factor in the Sea Sports, Tom Cats, Orcas, and Ospreys also being built that number could be true. I certainly didn't see any evidence of boats being rushed or corners being cut at NMI. They said it takes about 40 days to build a 22.

Also regarding water intrusion under the cockpit liner, I asked Greg (prodution manager) about this and he said they got so tired of receiving calls about this on older boats they have changed the design to make that virtually impossible on current boats...I did not ask when that change occurred, but obviously Bob's point is valid and has been confirmed by the factory, yet shouldn't be a problem if buying a relatively new boat.

-Mike
 
Ours is a 2000 model with 1999 motors & while in Auke Bay, Alaska this year we received the compliment of it was the best condition, C-Dory 22, he had seen yet. As our Hunkydory has most certainly been used, it was taken as a welcome compliment & shows at least this 2000 model up to being well used & still looking good with her hull strong & many more adventures apt to flow under her keel.

Jay
 
My opinion is that by now (since it sounds like you are buying a used boat), each 22 should be judged on its own merits as far as quality and condition. So there is no year to buy or to stay away from across the board.

Where years may matter (they did to me) is that there has been a steady progression of small changes over the years (speaking of '87 and newer 22's). You may have a combination of things you like or don't like. For me the features that made my best combination were in the early 2000's. Not that I wouldn't have bought another year, but if I found equally good boats of all years, that would be my chosen range. Not because of "good" or "bad"; but rather because of the combination of small details that I like.
 
One of the small changes is that in 1991 the cleat located just outside the helm/passenger side windows was recessed. This removed a trip hazard when going forward along the cabin side.

The opening center front window was also added , but I am not sure what year.
 
Any 22 Cruiser (or Angler) from 1987 to the present will have the newer hull shape. 1986 was the last year for the "flat" bottom type shape. Between 1987 and now the differences are smaller details and feature changes, so I'd say it's between how you feel about those (which ones you like, don't like, or don't care about) plus the condition of any one boat you are looking at.
 
Larry H":o1yqudeh said:
One of the small changes is that in 1991 the cleat located just outside the helm/passenger side windows was recessed. This removed a trip hazard when going forward along the cabin side.

The opening center front window was also added , but I am not sure what year.
Click to expand...

It seemed to me that the cleat is recessed slightly deeper in my 2006 22 than in the 1993 boat I owned previously,

The core thickness seems the same in both boats.
 
I helped someone do a couple core penetrations on a newer CD22 and totally subjectively thought it had a slightly thinner core than mine, but it seems that they are the same thickness from 1987 through today.
 
Kushtaka":5eg1202j said:
I helped someone do a couple core penetrations on a newer CD22 and totally subjectively thought it had a slightly thinner core than mine, but it seems that they are the same thickness from 1987 through today.
Click to expand...

Kushtaka-

I think you're probably correct as far as the hull is concerned.

The deck, roof, and cabin bulkhead may have varied in lay-up, if I remember some of the discussions here over the years, such as in regard to windlass , air conditioner, or other installation, but I doubt anyone knows exactly what all those variations were, or which ones were stronger, etc.

Just check out any potential purchase carefully and proceed with reasonable due caution.

Regards!

Joe. :teeth :thup
 
I just want to put this out there as well:

Wet core is not the end of things. I've had a bit of it to deal with but have consistently noted that soaked, even rotten balsa is VERY strong while compressed on it's end grain, and I haven't seen rotten core that was also delaminated. It's still strong! Just a little heavy. My poor boat goes through a freeze/thaw cycle most days from Halloween til Mother's Day, and no delamination anywhere.

It's common to have these issues at any screw penetration into the hull. IT'S OKAY! It can be addressed.

Honestly, even if you had to recore the boat completely, you could do so pretty easily. The fuel tanks and furniture are easy to remove: we are talking about disassembling the plumbing (for fuel or water depending) and then there are six screws for fuel tanks (maybe different for poly tanks. I have the "single" aluminum tank. and I count maybe six screws on the furniture on each side of the cabin. If I were to recore my boat I would probably cut out the top skin, add small composite stringers, just to establish my final deck height. I would put a composite block in every place I was planning to re-fasten to the deck so that I could avoid having to overdrill and plug.

Then I'd add foam (the new foams on the market are very good and actually don't get waterlogged very easily) halfway up the stringers, and glass the foam in, followed by a second course of foam and a final top layer of glass for the deck.

Double hull, super bomb proof, and really not as much work as you might worry about. I'm not saying this would be easy, but I've seen more heroic lengths taken on boats where all of this is under a deck. The accessibility, in this case, makes this a much less daunting task than on many cored fiberglass boats.
 
Kushtaka":1732yyld said:
I just want to put this out there as well:

Wet core is not the end of things. ... Honestly, even if you had to recore the boat completely, you could do so pretty easily.
Click to expand...

I'll grant you that a bit of wet core is not the end of the world, and is relatively easily addressed. But I have to disagree on it being easy to re-core the whole boat. So much of it is cored. (why it can be stiff and still relatively roomy inside). The cored areas include the whole hull up to about 10" forward of the helm bulkhead, most of the deck, the transom, the cabin/cockpit bulkhead, all of the "side walls" that surround the windows, the V-berth flat, the helm bulkhead, and parts of the roof on some boats. I've done a lot of re-coring, but at that point I'd give up and buy a different boat.

Now, I can't imagine any boat that would have that much core damage; but just saying that re-coring the whole boat would be a nightmare.

OTOH, a few spots here and there can be done relatively easily, and the outcome is literally "better than new." And that's the most likely scenario. Plus, some prophylactic core isolation is not too bad, and can be done a bit at a time (I do some each year).
 
I agree, a lot of work, but I guess my point is that if one were to recore a boat, this would probably be the easiest one to do of any that afford you the opportunity to go out in rough water, sleep three to four people, cook a real meal, and fish two to three easily.

Compare to recoring, say a 25 or a 27 with the entire structure underneath a deck, and all the work it would take just to get started. A nightmare.

So, having to remove and address some wet core here and there, likely where old penetrations went too long and too much trust was put in 5200 being "permanent" is really not that bad. And the worst case scenario, recoring entirely is definitely some serious work, but most of the CDory 22's competition (seasport, osprey, skagit, etc) would be waaay worse to do.

If my core was shot I would absolutely empty my boat out and recore it as I mentioned previously. I'll admit this as well: sometimes I get excited about the very thought. It would be better than new (unless I screwed up, but I'm confident!), and I'd literally know every little bit of my boat intimately afterwards. There would not be anything in there that I didn't install, and install right. Now, I'd rather leave things as they are and spend my time ON my boat, but some small part of me relishes the idea of a total strip down and recore.

I'm nuts. I know. But I've done bigger jobs on boats that weren't even mine! If my boat needed it, it would get it. At this point it may be til death for Kusthaka and me. I'm feeling married.
 
Isn't life grand when you love your boat? :thup :D

I hear what you're saying. Since I'd done a bunch of other re-cores, I wanted to find a boat that only needed prophylactic core work, but that's different for everyone. And I especially hear you on the simplicity and accessability of a basic 22 (especially without the glassed in cockpit sole). I get excited every time I think of how little there is that's hidden. Maybe it's a bit plain and unsophisticated inside, but I love it for that.
 
Kushtaka:

With all due respect, I don't think the supposed ease of re-coring a compromised hull is any kind of enticement. It's true that a few soft spots can be pretty easily repaired, and preventative maintenance can be a fun discipline to really know your boat. But speaking from (hard) experience I would strongly recommend avoiding any boat with known hull damage unless you really enjoy fiberglass repair. Instead of spending your time boating you'll be spending your time repairing or paying someone to repair your boat. Fiberglass is nasty and toxic to work with when grinding is involved. I have personally found that the best initial "deals" can end up being by far the worst economic disasters. For CD 22 boat vintage, I like the features of raised coaming/overlapping lid rear lazarettes, the hand -built gunnel storage cubbies, the opening center window, and stainless top and rear grab rails, as well as plywood-based interior cabinetry. Inlaid fuel tank attachment cleats (vs. screws into the balsa core) are a longevity plus. I guess this would put me into the late 1990's -> mid 2000's? I agree that almost any vintage can be a good purchase if the boat was used regularly and well cared for. Regards, Mike
 
I'm not sure why anyone would think I'm advocating that rotten core is an enticement. I repeat again:

"Wet core is not the end of things"

That's a big difference from seeking it out, and a further big difference from being willing to recore the perfectly great boat I have now if time and use ever necessitated it. It do understand how much work it is, but I further understand it could be made better than new, and having done some major recore work down in voids and after tearing out perfectly good decks, all I'm saying is that as far as recore jobs go, this one would be among the easiest, especially compared to any other production boat that does what a CD22 does. That's really all.
 
"Wet core is not the end of things. ... Honestly, even if you had to recore the boat completely, you could do so pretty easily."
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree with the above, and it would be the end of things for me if I discovered wet core during a buyer's survey. I apologize if I came across as abrasive or unfair in expressing my views. I am prejudiced by my last CD purchase: a very inexpensive "creampuff" that only needed some fiberglass hull/core repair to make Bristol. That fiberglass repair was anything but easy, kept the boat on the trailer for most of a boating season, and helped take the real cost above the cost of an already sound boat to begin with. Of course I'm not so crazy as to think you're advocating for wet core. I do understand and admire your commitment to connecting with your boat! Best, Mike.
 
I believe the point being made is that some folks go to more trouble putting in new stringers $ deck, which can be more than a record. Either is a lot of work, but if you have the exercise to build fiber glass boats it can be done. We built a 38 ft boat in 2 years start to ready to go to Hawaii. The record would be easy in comparison. If you don't have the skills, record would be a nightmare. Some like working on boats.
 
Back
Top