Beneteau Swift Trawler 34

[Sunspot Baby]

Actually u4's comments are well thought out. Doesn't' mean you can't fall in love with one of these, but . . .

Why pay for power you aren't going to use. Are you going water skiing?

If it is a weekender, great. But if you want to cruise then maybe more open space. Ease of maintenance, etc.

There is a (are) good boat(s) for each of us. No one answer is right for all.

I am a cruising cat sailor, but could get the fever for one of these at a boat show.

George

[CarlF]

I think the review was less than fair. The great great majority of new trawlers today (e.g. Grand Banks) are semi displacement and have fuel burns similar to the Beneteau. The few full displacement manufacturers such as Kady-Krogan tend to build longer boats since the hull speed of a 34' full displacement hull is very slow.

If this boat does do 1.5 miles per gallon at 12 knots that's better than most.

This fuel burn problem is why I decided against a trawler and bought a motorsailer -- not any faster but it seems faster and you can't beat the fuel economy and engine noise when sailing.

Carl

[Prerequisite]

I've actually slept on one of these so I can attest to the staterooms- the second stateroom is small and there probably should be an option to delete it and make it either storage or a full shower. That being said, it's not horrible and will completely fit the need of some owners. Other than than I think think U4's comments are a bit unfair. If you've actually been on one of these boats forgive me, but from your comments I'm assuming you haven't. I don't honestly recall the fuel burn numbers but I seem to remember them being reasonable at reasonable speeds- the video posted is probably not the best sort of advertising for this boat. Showing the boat going those speeds would most likely only help convince the target audience if there were a raging storm in the background. I didn't fall in love enough with this boat to sell my sailboat and switch over. Neither did it convince me that I'd rather have one of these than a Grand Banks 30-something. I was, however, far more impressed with it than I had expected. I admit that I mentioned to my wife the target buyers were a rather small group of people and I think this thread is only proving my point. I submit that this is as good as any boat for doing a trip like the great loop. Trawler-ish for the good parts, powerboat-ish for the parts you just want to get past.

Also not mentioned in this thread is that the boat has a non-symetrical cabin structure (which I don't love) though it does assist with creating an interesting layout.

[u4ea32]

Self serving? I haven't seen such a posting yet.

Just trying to pass on wisdom and insight based on experience. Take 'em or leave 'em, these opinions cost the same ;-)

[Sail2Power]

Well, I guess I'm the guinea pig in this forum. After 35 years of owning sailboats from 35 to 53 ft., I have ordered a Swift Trawler 34 for delivery in the fall. I like the design and the execution, the ability to go fast if needed or desired, and I found the fuel consumption at 8 knots to be only 2X what my 53 ft sailboat used at 7 knots. Yes, it will use more fuel, but it will get me places my sailboats never could, and I can see outside from inside the boat!
Beneteau has designed this more like a sailboat than most powerboats I have seen, and the pricing is very competitive (for a powerboat). We will see in a few months how it feels to actually own one!

[BoatTESTChris]

This boat does handle far better than you would expect.

[swagman]

We investigated several second hand Swift 42's a year back and like Dave, found it relatively well built and certainly of modern interior design. We liked it. Wanting to crsuie inland it's air draft and engines (not suited for slow speeds) meant we dismissed it - but nice boat. Good lucjk to those who get one.
JOHN.

[ASKAER]

You get what you pay for .... Guess that the kilo price for a Swift irrespective of model is about the same as for any classical boat of more solid build. It is not a trawler while trying hard to appeal and sell as such. Often the best way to judge the overall quality and build of a boating brand is time. The few Swifts that I have been onboard reminded me about my observations with France cars - great appealing cars when new! Perhaps you have a careful look at the rudder system/design of a the new B52 and you may rightfully wonder if this is a safe boat for long distance cruising. Personally not too impressed - except a lot of room for the money in all models. Design matters are more difficult to discuss - however on a positive note - the France producers are innovative and refreshing. But that is not the same as proven quality that often comes at a price. Hope not to have sounded too harsh.

[sgkramer]

I just bought one!

Last week I placed the order, and my Beneteau Swift Trawler 34 will be delivered in April, 2012, and be cruising the Delaware River and South Jersey waterways soon thereafter.

For me, she will more than meet the requirements of a great boat; one that sails six, eats four, and sleeps two. I retire in five years and chose the Beneteau over several other boats with a voyage around the Great Loop in mind.

[djmarchand]

I owned a 2006 Mainship 34T with the 370 hp Yanmar which is a lower cost competitor to the Beneteau. Some contra observations to the above complaints:

1. The engine was relatively quiet. Mainship designed it with no cabin floor access, so soundproofing wasn't compromised, but had easy access from a flip up ladder from the aft cockpit.

2. Engine access for the single engine was great. You couldn't stand up in the engine room but you could sit on an overturned bucket and work from each side.

3. Fuel consumption was high. At 12 kts it got 1 NM per gallon. But at 7 kts it burned about 3 gph or about 2+ NM/gal.This is definitely higher than a round bottom displacement hull. You can run these engines slow for extended periods with no problem. Ask Tony Athens who runs a Cummins/Yanmar dealership in SoCal that question. He is one of the moderator/gurus on boatdiesel.

But when we wanted to go fast, maybe one third of our usage, we could. So the extra hp wasn't wasted on us. But I do appreciate the go slow/efficient perspective.

4. It was reasonably well built. No rattling underway.

5. The layout was ideal for a couple- queen size berth forward, large cabin, galley down, huge, full beam width flybridge. We could party 8 people on the flybridge- but only at anchor!!! The Beneteau has a different layout, not to my liking.

So I would never consider it a boat built to be sold, but not used. We used ours for trips back and forth to Catalina very succesfully for 4 years.

David

[JudgeNY]

I have a 2006 Beneteau ST-42. I've had it for 3 years and I like it very much. I don't see many of them, but I like that too.

[Whoosh]

Since others may find this older thread about the Swift Trawler 34 (or updated 35), I’ll add some actual information here to offset the conjecture and bogus comments. And for a large subset of cruising folks, I’ll show why this boat could serve as a good alternative to a sailboat. But let’s first revisit the gripes and assumptions stated above...and apologies for some videos not carrying over (but the links do work).

Engine under cabin = lots of noise and poor access: Compared to what? Compared to the contortionist nightmares that exist on many sailboats?

Consider this video

which measures actual engine noise at idle in decibels and pegs it as below conversational level noise. (More on this later). This same video evaluates engine access. Watch the video and see what you think.

Or…view this video

which gives further views of the engine access along with a survey of the entire boat after a 6,000 mile Great Loop.

Parts are not “glassed down”: For example? Known failures? For starters, consider the last video above. Did the survey find any working, gelcoat crazing or other hints of structural weakness. Not at all.

Then take a look at this video

showing the 34’s smaller Swift Trawler 30 sister ship banging into a head sea off Palma in the Med. Same hull form, same build details. Was the reviewer concerned for the boat? No, quite the contrary.

Too much horsepower and too inefficient at slow speeds: Well, let’s look at some tables for the almost identical 35 that replaced the 34. Motoring down the ICW or across Puget Sound at ~6.3 kts, this 10 ton boat’s fuel burn is ~2 gph, or about twice my 10 ton ketch. So yes, the 34/35’s engine is thirstier. Why? Because it has 6.5 times more horsepower on tap, and for a reason. (The sound level measured in the main cabin at 6.3 kts is 72 dba, comparable to a conversational level). It’s main underway tactical advantage for the cruiser, over the sailboat, is the ability to run at planing speeds when needed or desired. That is part of its defined mission. (More on that later).

That Cummins engine won’t last if kept to low rpm’s: That’s opinion absent fact. How about hearing

what this British yachtsman and reviewer has to say

based on his knowledge of the engine and while using it in both the 34 & 35.

It has too many cabins: Really? We’ve had an occasional guest on all four of our sailboats while cruising, even our little 20’ Flicka. Beyond that, cruisers have another use for the 2nd sleeping cabin and its two bunk beds. Moving the top mattress to the bottom berth, they line the top berth with large plastic bins. What an easy peasy way to provision for the Bahamas before jumping off.

Not a ‘real’ cruising boat: Take a look at

this short video clip shot in the English Channel

, and also

this clip shot in the North Sea

. I’ve sailed in both these waters and I can tell you what you’re seeing. This is the kind of sea that European cruising folks get stuck with when they have to cross between Britain and the European mainland, they have left their departure too late, and they must accept the weather they are given. Also, don’t miss the amount of engine noise being recorded. While these examples are anecdotal, those boats don't seem to be any noisier at displacement rpm's than any of my sailboats were. There’s a reason Beneteau has sold hundreds of the 34/35 in Europe and the UK with resale prices remaining high.

So why do I claim this is a reasonable choice for a large subset of cruisers? Because like some of you, I’ve been up and down the ICW enough times to know that slow motor boating run becomes tedious, the engine noise day after day dulls the senses, and there are long stretches that become boring. Because we get tired of drifting around the Chesapeake during the summers, stewing in our own juice. Because it takes us way too long to get to Great Exuma since we have to plan the legs around our average 5 kt cruising speed. I would run this boat primarily at displacement speeds and enjoy 400-600 mile ranges with reserves. But for me, on occasion time can be more precious than fuel. Because I’d like more choice in where I ride out forecasted bad weather. Because there are times I’d much rather be working my way over the banks or running a channel from up on a fly bridge rather than down in a sailboat cockpit…or be inside in inclimate weather…or have the option to extend my boating season absent significant discomfort. Reread Sail2Power’s post above; he gets it. This is a capable cruising boat in its own right and has its own set of benefits. It’s just not a sailboat.

Jack

[lasun]

This boat is the best I have ever owned. Extremely large layout, well built, reliable and cost effective to run.No larger 34 ‘ on the market with. 4 m beam. Nice wooden interior on my 2010. Easy to handle with the side door.. I did many trips by myself and with bow and stern thruseter docking is essy. The Cummins engine is very reliable and easy to maintain. Good space in the engine room. Large lazarette with lots of storage. We did not have a dingy so the space on the flybridge for social events. Enourmos space up there when there is no dingy.
Dont listen to people that talks down a boat they never owned.