3227 stringers, etc

[James.smith]

Good afternoon!

I’m going to look at an 88 3227 (with mercruisers) this Thursday and need some advice on what to look at as I’m still new in the boating community. I do plan to get a survey but have been burnt on a few carvers that have wet stringer or transom issues before and getting a survey each time is becoming costly. I love the 3227s because of the layouts and fit my budget pretty nicely. Any tips on what to look for/ common issues on them before I invest in another survey is greatly appreciated

[Cooler]

James - be careful when you determine if stringers are wet. Carver used a process of marine plywood coring for the stringers. When an infrared moisture meter is used to determine condition, the plywood core may show high readings. These cores were used for molding only, not for strength. The strength is determined by the fiberglass of the stringer. Ask your surveyor to assess the strength of the stringer based on the physical evidence near the motor mounts. Carver paints the bilge in gray, so you can easily see evidence of flex, if there is any. That evidence would be small spider cracks or chipping at the base. The plywood providing the "wet readings" is saturated with resin before the fiberglass is molded around it. The remainder of the hull, below the waterline should be solid fiberglass. I doubt you are ever going to find an 80's age model that does not present some elevated moisture readings in the stringers. That is 30+ years of age. My stringers had high readings, but absolutely no evidence of structural degradation, so I contacted Carver for that info. Good luck! er

[tomschauer]

Cooler, are you sure about that? Any wood encapsulated within the fiberglass of the stringers would provide additional strength. Maybe by design, its more than needed?
I do know from experience, the older vintages, 1988 included need the wood inside the stringers to hold the engine mounts, and when the wood got wet the mounts would pull out along with a good chunk of the fiberglass.

[Viper]

We've had this discussion before and I have since talked to a marine architect of another brand. He was of the opinion that there's no way just the glass alone in that type of stringer system would be enough to support weight and prevent the hull from twisting and warping under some running conditions, there really isn't that much glass over the wood. Now compare the cored stringer system with Carver's Top Hat hollow system that has no core, and one can tell right away that the difference is no comparison. Much wider, about 3-4 times wider, and the glass construction is way thicker. You can tell that it was designed to support without a core and maintain structural integrity in all running conditions. If the wood's only function was to use as a mold for glassing, I don't think they'd be using expensive marine ply either. They'd probably use a foam board for that.

[tomschauer]

I don't believe my 1988 montego had much more than a 1/4" of glass over the wood stringers (I believe 4" thick) 3/8 at most. It was just there to "protect" the wood. In comparison, when I added rod holders to the gunwhales, there was at least a 1/2 of glass on either side of the 3/4 ply.

[Viper]

Tom, I've replaced a lot of stringers and I can tell you that if you had a 1/4" glass thickness over the core, you were lucky, or maybe that's just Carver but usually there's not even that much. The glass mat looks thick coming off the roll but once it's wetted out, it's much thinner. Even the Woven Roving mat thins out quite a bit and it's thick stuff prior to applying resin and rolling out. I've also cut a lot of core samples into stringers of many brands and again, not much glass there. It's basically enough to encapsulate, tie in and make the wood stringer one with the rest of the hull to stabilize and structurally support.

[tomschauer]

Viper, I was most likely generous with the 1/4 inch or more, that was 20 years ago. LOL. Come to think of it the boat was only 12 years old at the time, I was the second owner and the original owner kept it on a lift behind his house since new.
So it kind of sucks that I had to yank an engine and replace part of the stringers on the starboard side.

There is no way a 1/4 or even 3/8 of glass could provide the support needed for the stringer system.

[Viper]

There's no question that even less than 1/4" of glass is strong on its own without a core and can support some weight. The question is can it maintain structural integrity and prevent the hull from flexing under all running conditions for the life of the boat without fracturing over time. I'm no marine structural engineer but I've seen what can happen not just with the engines but structurally when the stringer core crumbles. Were it not for the problems that causes, we'd never have to worry about replacing rotten stringers if the glass alone was still doing the job after the wood turned to dust.

[bud37]

Source of the post Good afternoon!

I’m going to look at an 88 3227 (with mercruisers) this Thursday and need some advice on what to look at as I’m still new in the boating community. I do plan to get a survey but have been burnt on a few carvers that have wet stringer or transom issues before and getting a survey each time is becoming costly. I love the 3227s because of the layouts and fit my budget pretty nicely. Any tips on what to look for/ common issues on them before I invest in another survey is greatly appreciated

Welcome to the forum.......I would check closely at the aft section of the main stringers....look at the joints there from the fore and aft stringer to the side to side.....just aft of the engines ....also the rudder and especially the strut support area. Which by the way is the same for any manufacturers boat.

Really, this is worth having a qualified surveyor check these areas. The savings alone is worth it if you miss something like this, it can cost from 10k to more than double that to repair.

It is also worthy to note that some of the newer versions use composite board as the stringer core in certain areas ( engine areas ) with the top hat elsewhere. It is obvious to see, as the top hat is much, much wider than the other.