Bought used Sept 05, paid around $35k. Not kept in the water. Pulled it out of storage May 07 to find these blisters and this stress crack (below the waterline) on the hull. <BR> <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65921/464159.jpg" alt="Upload"> <BR> <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65921/464160.jpg" alt="Upload"> <BR> <BR>My factory told me they would not warranty/fix the hull but wanted to offer me a "good will gesture" to keep me happy as a customer. <BR> <BR>Approximate repair cost: $1,000 - $2,000 <BR> <BR>If this was your boat, what would you do?

Find a guy that specializes in fibreglass and get a quote from him. This will likley cost less then havig your dealer fix that up. Bummer on the situation though. Good luck.

Why did they tell you they would not cover it?

do you store your boat in the water? i assume they said they would not cover it cause you are second owner and did not have the warranty transfered? <BR>That is a bummer and if this is your boat SC is a stand up company and will help you in any way possible. Definitely transfer the warranty when you buy a used boat though... Good luck man!!!

If this was your boat, what would u do? <BR> <BR>CRY!!!

They told me the hull was warrantied for 1 year and being a 2004, there was nothing they could do. They have to follow their warranty terms. <BR> <BR>No, I NEVER stored the boat in the water. <BR> <BR>The fiberglass person I asked to give me an estimate on repair believes it's definitely a manufacturers defect with the gelcoat. Apparently the manufacturer doesn't care. But they've offered me a bimini to keep me as a happy customer! <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/crazy.gif" border=0> <BR> <BR>Diggs, I was under the impression SC was a stand up company also, which is why I originally bought the boat, but apparently not.

Ronia, <BR> <BR>Have you contacted Rick Tinker? If it is a factory defect, I highly doubt he would leave you without resolve.

is that blistering where the trailer bunk is or is it just out in the open? Did you look at the other side of that stress crack? Almost looks like something is pushing it out like a screw head or something? <BR>Good luck getting it all squared away.

Supra only warranties the hull for one year? Is that because you are the second owner? I hope so. Otherwise it shows little faith in their product.

one year warranty on Supra hulls? <BR> <BR>I don't think that's right? I'd push the issue for sure <BR> <BR>If so, wow Bayliner has a better warranty on their hulls then...<img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/rofl.gif" border=0>

They cover the hull for longer than a year. However just about every company doesn't cover blisters. The cracks I would push but the blisters your on your own. I don't agree with it but your I don't think they'll cover it. <BR> <BR>Your right blisters are caused by to thin of a layer of something when they spray the boat. I can't think of the name.

Warranties don't mean anything if the dealer and manufacturer are not behind you. All warranties, even CC and MC, have many, many loopholes in them. For just about any defect out there they can say it's from owner abuse, etc... <BR> <BR>I know CC covers blisters for five years... <BR> <BR>Also, blisters are commonly caused by cheap grade resin, but can be caused by a whole slew of reasons... <BR> <BR><b>My first step would be to have a respected surveyor check the hull out and try to determine what the cause of the blisters is and then go from there. No reason to say it's a manufacturer's problem when the previous owner might have left it stored in the water or the crack that you found let moisture in. You could also have a much more severely damaged hull than you think! Have a professional surveyor check the hull out, not a guy down the street that does fiberglass work on Corvettes and motorhomes!</b> <BR> <BR>(Message edited by bocephus on June 18, 2007)

CC does cover blisters and cracks, but only for three years. <BR> <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65921/464304.jpg" alt="Upload">

From Tommy Boy "Because they know all they solda ya was a guaranteed piece of <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font> all it is, isn't it? Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time. But for now, for your customer's sake, for your daughter's sake, ya might wanna think about buying a quality product from me.

NautiqueJeff, <BR>My warranty packet for my '06 CC says 5 years not three...<img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/proud.gif" border=0>

That's cool! The manual that I pulled that info from was a 2007. They seem to change things around every year...

Damn!!! Bocyphliis was wrong? <BR>Ronia are you sure the blisters were not on the hull when you bought it, and maybe just missed it?

Wrong about what? <BR> <BR>Having a surveyor check out the hull? What would you suggest Billy?

Cliff, I have not contacted Rick Tinker yet. I was hoping the guy I was talking to at SC would step up to the plate before it got to that point. But sending Rick an email is my next step. <BR> <BR>Diggs, the blistering is EXACTLY where the trailer bunk lies. How did you know that? It's happening on the other side of the boat as well (in the same spot) but it's not as bad yet. I will also check the other side of the stress crack. Thanks. <BR> <BR>Bo, I will have a professional look at it. Thanks for that advice. <BR> <BR>Billy, my boat sits in a highrise all season (not on the trailer). After every use, it gets pulled from the water and I wash it down from top to bottom. I am positive the blisters were not on the hull when I bought it or when I put it away for the season last fall. I crawl under the boat all the time and would have noticed them immediately... which is what I did the day it was pulled down from the highrise this season.

I'm sorry about the problem, but I think jumping on the manufacturer is a little unreasonable here. The boat is at least 3 years old (perhaps nearly 4), it's out of warranty, and it's not the original owner. <BR> <BR>SC is supposed to "step up to the plate" on this? Suppose you went into a car dealership (any make of car) with a 3-year-old, out-of-warranty car you bought used and demanded a free repair. What do you think would happen? Why should the results be any different with a boat? <BR> <BR>Moreover, according to some comments above, even the best warranty available for these problems is non-transferrable, so it wouldn't help here. <BR> <BR>A big reason used boats cost less than new ones is that problems can arise that would not occur with a new boat or would be covered by a warranty if they did arise. <BR> <BR>Again, sorry about the problem, but I don't see how it's the manufacturer's responsibility.

Ronia, usually blisters are from keeping the boat in the water too long. That doesnt seem to be your case though. There is a lake here in Fl named Lk Tarpon that is very high in tanic acid and I have seen 5 or 6 boats blister after being in that lake for a short time. <BR>If its fixed by the dealer I wouldnt worry about it though, just make sure they have a warranty on their work.

ronia <BR>i have heard of other people having issues right where the bunks are. not neccesarily SC boats, but any boats that are loaded up on wet bunks and left for a long period of time. not really a fiberglass guy, but have heard of it... I would talk to the SC guys and see their stance on it. It really is tough as the boat is out of warranty and if you did not have the warranty transferred, but if there is a manufacturers defect I bet they would help you out in anyway possible...

Jeff, <BR>When you pay $35k for a two year old boat, you don't expect the hull to be covered in blisters less than two years later. If it was something mechanical, it would be different, but blisters on a boat this young is a result of poor manufacturing. I'm sorry. <BR>I'm not trying to get the 100 stress cracks above my rub rail fixed. <BR>If I bought a 2 year car and the paint started peeling for no apparent reason ... IE, I wash it and wax it regularly, then I would expect the car manufacturer did a bad job painting the car.

Diggs, <BR>The SC guy I talked to specifically said he wasn't going to do anything about it and he's sorry. That's their policy. It was almost like if I yelled and screamed, he may have considered it but I was calm and practically in tears (to be honest) .... I am really really surprised at this and maybe I should yell and scream, but honestly I just want them to show me some customer service. Maybe once I get it surveyed, I can come back to them and say it's definitely a defect. I get the impression they just don't want to help me.

Jeff, I'm sorry, but that is ridiculos. So, I guess we should all expect our boats to fall apart and sink after three years. <BR> <BR>While technically the boat may be out of warranty, the dealer and manufacturer should still exhibit goodwill toward the customer. If the boat has been maintained as stated, this is, in my opinion, a direct reflection of the craftmanship. Not to mention, its no secret that this company has had problems with there fiberglass-gel coat apllications in the past.

How do you know the first owner didnt leave it in the water or abuse it in any way? You dont, unless you personally knew the previous owner or owners. Also, the crack looks more like an impact than stress crack from the pic above. Ronia was there any cracks when you bought it?

Billy, <BR>There were a ton of stress cracks above the rub rail when I bought it but I knew there was nothing you could do about that. There were no cracks under the waterline. Our local gelcoat repair says it's a stress crack as there are actually more in the same area but this one needs to be addressed asap. <BR> <BR>I don't know the first owner personally, but I know the owner was a promo guy and gets a new boat every season so he didn't have the boat for too long to begin with.

If that was my boat, I would raise hell. The hull is the part of the boat that is suppose to last the longest. A boat that new shouldn't have that problem, and the Dealer, or SC should be chomping at the bit to correct it. One thing is for certain. I would never buy another SC product.

The guys I know with "promo" baot they are turning every 9-12 month don't take the greastest care of them. There is no incentive. You'd be surprised at what a beating some of the promo boats I've seen taken from neglect...nothin a $200 detail can't fix on the outside.

Ridiculous? I don't think so. And I didn't read anything about a boat falling apart or sinking, so I don't know where that horror scenario came from. <BR> <BR>What does "technically" out of warranty mean? Either it's in warranty, or it's not. A warranty is just an insurance policy. The underwriting cost of the factory warranty is built into the boat price; and if you want more coverage, you can pay for it when you buy the boat. <BR> <BR>As with any insurance, there is no coverage after the policy expires, or when problems develop that are excluded from insurance. That's the way it is everywhere else, from toasters to trucks. What's the basis for expecting the boating industry to be the sole exception? <BR> <BR>You say the manufacturer "should" exhibit "good will" toward the "customer." It sure would be nice if they did. But the owner is not an SC customer -- she bought the boat used. And, oh yeah ... SC STILL has offered a "good will gesture," according to her. So, they're doing exactly what you suggest, even though she did not buy the boat from them. <BR> <BR>That's without knowing how many owners or users the boat has had, how long previous owners left it in the water, or where, and whether there have been any collisions or hull repair. It's also without knowing what kind of chemicals may have been deposited the bunks, which seems like a critical fact in this case. <BR> <BR>Sounds like they're stepping up way beyond any obligation and without requiring any proof of negligence or defect on their part. Good for them! <BR> <BR>As for blistering caused by manufacturing defects... take a look at your boat insurance. Is blistering a covered risk? My guess is no, because it's a widespread phenomenon. Go to any marina and look at cruisers in their slips. What do you see? Bottom paint on everyone single one, is my guess. Why? Is it because every cruiser has gelcoat manufacturing defects, or is it because blistering is a common problem? <BR> <BR>I don't think my comments are "ridiculous." But I'm willing to learn why I should change my mind.

Good Job Jeff! Why not just roll up your law degree and bash them over the head with it. You could also have your legal aid check your posts prior to posting... <BR> <BR>The horror scenario comes from owing good money on a defective boat! The number one reason for blisters is cheap resin, period! Yes, there are other reasons, but the number one reason is cheap resin! <BR> <BR>I object to your comparison of a warranty to an insurance policy. Yes a warranty can be described as a insurance policy or promise, however when you then go on to ask if their insurance policy covers blistering you are co-mingling the definitions. Blistering is not covered by your insurance policy because it's out of an individuals control and fault is difficult to determine. <BR> <BR>Bottom paint on "everyone single one" (what did you say?)....bottoms are usually painted to stop both growth and osmosis which is one possible cause of blistering. Bottom paint actually holds moisture in and is one of the major causes of blisters.... <BR> <BR><u>THE BOTTOM LINE</u> <BR>Hire a surveyor and get a written statement regarding the cause of the blisters. If the boat has excessive stress cracks at three years it has either been heavily abused or improperly layed up...

I have already spoken with a surveyor and he agrees its a defect. Now I have to decide whether or not I want to pay this person $300 to give me a written statement to that fact in order to TRY and get the hull repaired under warranty or put that $300 toward fixing it, lick my wounds, and move on to another boat manufacturer.

You don't want the surveyor to "agree" with you. They should not be making statements over the phone about your problem. They should reserve opinion till after they look at it. Call a local insurance agent (not yours) and ask them for a couple names of respected surveyors. Pay the $300 and send the manufacturer the statement with a letter describing your problem certified mail or what ever you have in Canada. See what they say and what they do. It's really not their problem anymore but it will be interesting to see what they do. Post up the results positive or negative. Most likely the surveyor will find all sorts of interesting stuff that you can have addressed when you fix the boat, then provide the new owner when you sell the boat with the survey.

There was a "ton" of stress/impact cracks when you bought it!!? That should of been a red flag from the get go. Stress cracks or gel cracks in general can be fixed, I would of asked the the dealer to fix the "ton" of cracks as part of your deal.

I would pay the $300 and go to war.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>By Billy (woreout) on Monday, June 18, 2007 - 1:04 pm: <BR> <BR>There was a "ton" of stress/impact cracks when you bought it!!? That should of been a red flag from the get go. Stress cracks or gel cracks in general can be fixed, I would of asked the the dealer to fix the "ton" of cracks as part of your deal.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR> <BR>Hindsight is always 20/20...

Boqueeface said "Blistering is not covered by your insurance policy because it's out of an individuals control and fault is difficult to determine." <BR> <BR>So if a boulder rolls down a hill and hits your car, your insurance company will not cover it because it was out of your control? BS <BR>Warrantys are insurance policys. Warranty means it was provided by the mfg at no additional charge. Thats why its not, an "Extended Warranty" you purchase but a "Extended Service Agreement", which is also an insurance policy regulated by the state you live in. <BR>The boat had excessive cracks at 1 year not 3. Abuse or Defect? Once again, the one pictured above looks like a impact crack to me.

Well not a ton of stress cracks but there are stress cracks. I thought it was normal. <BR> <BR>The surveyor didn't agree with me. He explained blistering is a tough thing to deal with. But because the blisters are where the boat sits on the wet trailer bunks, and now the boat is off the trailer .... well I can't explain the whole thing he said but he didn't just agree with me. This was an independent surveyor, my insurance company is not even involved here.

Billy, <BR>I'm not even arguing the crack, I'm arguing the blistering.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>So if a boulder rolls down a hill and hits your car, your insurance company will not cover it because it was out of your control? BS<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR> <BR>The lawyer dude knows exactly what I am talking about! <BR> <BR>No, fault could easily be determined; either you parked in an area that you legally should not have, or the municipality in charge of the rock/parking space is at fault due to improper maintenance, or the person at fault was mother nature. Incidentally the rock on car could possibly not be covered if you have a natural catastrophy clause in your insurance. The warranty in question is not defined as a insurance policy, it is better described as a promise or contract. Don't make start quoting legal cases now Billy! <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/biggrin.gif" border=0>

Go ahead, start with Roe vs. Wade. <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/biggrin.gif" border=0>

By Ronia Nash (ladythump) on Monday, June 18, 2007 - 12:50 pm: <BR><b>I have already spoken with a surveyor and he agrees its a defect.</b> Now I have to decide whether or not I want to pay this person $300 to give me a written statement to that fact in order to TRY and get the hull repaired under warranty or put that $300 toward fixing it, lick my wounds, and move on to another boat manufacturer. <BR> <BR>By Ronia Nash (ladythump) on Monday, June 18, 2007 - 1:21 pm: <BR>Well not a ton of stress cracks but there are stress cracks. I thought it was normal. <BR> <BR><b>The surveyor didn't agree with me.</b> He explained blistering is a tough thing to deal with. But because the blisters are where the boat sits on the wet trailer bunks, and now the boat is off the trailer .... well I can't explain the whole thing he said but he didn't just agree with me. This was an independent surveyor, my insurance company is not even involved here. <BR> <BR> <BR>Wait so has the survivor actually seen the boat? Something doesn't add up here, and the crack in the picture looks like an impact to me as well.

How about the boat was damaged and repaired before it was re-sold. Something to consider before blaming SC.

The surveyor just seen the pics .... <BR> <BR>Kevin, again... I am not arguing the stress crack, I am arguing the blisters.

A manufacturer's warranty is their show of confidence in their product to the buyer that the product is of such quality that they will "fix or replace" it if it fails in the "warranty period". Todays consumers are so acustomed to being offered "service contracts" (insurance) on the products that they buy that they have become confused about the difference between the two. <BR> <BR>Jman

Walmart has created the "just return it no matter what" mind set with consumers. Now when someone/Mfg sticks to their guns they are instantly seen as no good a$$hles.

Actually it is the consumers who have created this mind set. Stores like Costco and Walmart have tried to have a very liberal and customer friendly policy, but some consumers will take advantage of this and ruin it for everyone else. Just like a friend that you would do anything for, if they repeatedly take advantage of your kindness, you will eventually get tired of it and no longer be so eager to help them out. <BR> <BR>Jman

I have to agree with jeff. This far out, on a used boat, the manufacturer is not shafting anyone by saying no. There is no way in the world that it can be proven the boat was not mistreated, or if this is even from a bigger accident that was repaired by someone besides SC. Agreeing to fix it at a discounted price is a very solid offer. <BR> <BR>Their solution to the problem would not seem to discourage me from buying a SC product in the future. The fact the problem occurred does bother me, but not the fact that they deny the claim. I doubt that a Nautique with a 3 year warranty would pay for it on a 4 year old boat.

When they sold the boat new it had a lifetime hull warranty. How do you know he does not take better care of it than the original owner? How can you prove the boat was mistreated by blistering? To me if you say something has a lifetime warranty it should not matter how many people have owned it. If there is a defect it should be fixed for the life of that item. Other wise it's not a lifetime warranty it is a limited warranty. Just my thoughts. SC did step up to the plate on a problem with my old boat.

That is a hard way to start a summer for sure! You tried to get it covered and it isn't so now bite the bullet and get it fixed. I would also consider changing boats.

CRY<img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/sad.gif" border=0>

I've been crying for the past month and a half. <BR> <BR>I don't see how I a person can spend $35k on a boat, use it for one summer, then the following summer have to dish out another $3k to fix the hull. That just doesn't seem right to me ..... <BR> <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/uhoh.gif" border=0>

Thats still ends up cheaper than a new one.

Ronia, <BR> <BR>Sorry to hear about this. You should move back to LSL, we approved 3 vdrives. <BR> <BR>Tim

GET OUT??!!! Serious?? or are you pulling my leg??

The Tigé LifePlus Lifetime Replacement Warranty fully covers the entire laminated construction of your Tigé. Buy a new Tigé, and if there is ever any structural failure, degradation, or delamination for as long as you own your boat, Tigé will replace it with a new boat at no charge. Other boat manufacturers offer hull warranties that cover only the repair of defective lamination or structure. This usually means that the owner is responsible for transporting the defective boat to the manufacturer for repair. The owner is then left with a repaired boat that seldom performs as well as the original. <BR> <BR>There has never been a single incident of structural failure in any Tigé hull, floor, or stringer component. This is one important reason that Tigé is the only manufacturer that can offer the most solid, far-reaching warranty in the business. In addition to the LifePlus Lifetime Replacement Warranty, Tigé backs the nonlaminated components in our boats with Three-Year Bow-to-Stern Limited Warranty. This covers upholstery, steering, and throttle assemblies, TAPS2 and other Tigé-installed components and accessories.

Many manufacturers my consider the blistering illustrated in Ronia's pic is a cosmetic defect. I'm almost certain that tige does not consider osmotic blistering a "structural defect." Does anyone know for sure whether the tige guarantee cited above applies to blisters? If your tige develops osmotic blisters, do you get a new boat?

I know technically blistering is a "cosmetic defect" ... but doesn't anyone find it sort of odd that it is only blistering where the trailer bunks lay? I mean, guys are arguing the first owner may have left it in the water all season long, but if that was the case, the hull would be blistered other places including where the trailer bunks lay. The fact it's blistering ONLY where the trailer bunks lay is proof enough the boat hasn't sat in the water, it's been sitting on the trailer.

Danny, <BR>Good to know about Tige. I'll keep that in mind when I'm looking for my new boat.

Keep the TAPS system in mind too. Correct Craft or Sanger is theo nly way to go on a new boat.

Why is that exactly Bocephus??

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>By Tyler McCurdy (tyboarder03) on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 - 4:07 pm: <BR> <BR>Why is that exactly Bocephus??<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR> <BR>It's my opinion that you can't go wrong with Quality that has been tested by time; backed up by a company that has been around for 82 years in Correct Craft's case or 52 years in Sanger's case. In order for a company to last that long in the boat business you have to do something right, you have to stand behind your product, you have to build a good product, you have to have satisfied customers, who like myself tell others about their satisfaction. Both Correct Craft and Sanger know how to build a boat, Correct Craft built the boats that Allied Forces crossed the Rhine in and Sanger comes from a high performance heritage. But more importantly both companies are family owned and operated, meaning that they have their families blood in the boat in the history and future of the company, they have pride and heritage. No bean counter is going to look at the books of their successful and company and decide to shut it down and leave you hanging like Toyota for example. The company in part or whole won't be sold to investors like BU, they won't change their name to avoid bankruptcy, future warranty claims, or corporate take over like MB. I can go on and on, but in the end it's only my opinion, which we all have and are entitled to. You might like Tige' because that is what you bought or it is what your buddy or dad has and that's your opinion which is fine. Any boat company that is in operation today will either produce a decent product or face customer dis-satisfaction (like in this thread) and either react and change or go bust. I keep hearing how Tige' has really stepped up in the quality, fit and finish, and design departments which is great, but they are a relatively young company and have a lot of lessons to learn. Correct Craft and Sanger have already learned them! I personally don't care for fancy marketing like TAPS or 4,000 lbs of ballast, I personally like functionality and efficiency which I think both CC and Sanger have. <BR> <BR>Much of my opinion has been formed over all the troubles I had with a popular boat company and by the extensive research I performed investigating build quality. I talked with all the major fiberglass and boat repair shops in my area and got their opinion on build quality, company and dealers and formed my opinion accordingly. I am not rich and can't throw $50K away on a boat so I needed a quality product that someone would stand behind with a dealer with good people who would help me, my dealer has been around for more than 30 years!

Well unless CC changes some desings they'll continue to lose more and more of the market shares. Sanger is a quality boat as is CC but to say they're the only way to go in a new boat is pretty narrow minded. I guess I'm just more open minded than you.

Maybe you have more money than me and can afford to gamble with another company or maybe you haven't had the experiences that I have had. Until you owe $35K on a 15 year loan on a boat that is falling apart and been told by the manufacturer sorry, it's not our problem I guess you can be more "open minded".<img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/wink.gif" border=0> <BR> <BR>I have a question for you though, have you ever ridden in a Correct Craft 220, 234 or an '07 210 or a Sanger?

Yeah Ive ridden behind 2 different V210' and one was a 97 one was a 2003. <BR>I've never ridden behind any nautique but have ridden in one many times. <BR>But based on your argument the year really shouldn't matter.

I was replying to your statement about current designs. The rear facing seating is the best in my opinion! BTW, I feel sorry for you, you have never been behind an Nautique?

My point was that many including myself find the new CC towers disgusting to look at, as well as their somewhat cluttered interior layouts. <BR>"Maybe you have more money than me and can afford to gamble with another company or maybe you haven't had the experiences that I have had." <BR>Ummmmmm CC has some of the most expensive boats out there along with MC and BU, and I'd take any V-Drive even a price point V-Ride or Mobius V-Drive over a CC of any new model simply because if it's mine it better be aesthetically pleasing to me as well as ergonomically pleasing inside.

Well if you're ever in Central Oregon we can exchange pulls.

So you care less about functionality and efficiency than looks? Ever hear of one of those disgusting new CC towers cracking? That's because they learned their lessons.. <BR> <BR>I have a signature series '06 CC SAN 210 and I will bet that I paid less for it than V-Ride and in another year when I trade it in on a '08 or '09 I will guarantee you that I will get more for it than any V-Ride (I priced out a V-Ride when I bought my boat). <BR> <BR>BTW, I will take a new Ford Fusion over a Hyundai Azera, looks are not everything! <BR> <BR>I done arguing son, you have your opinion and reasons behind it and I have mine!

I was told by my local dealer you could only transfer the warranty on the engine only?

No I havent heard of a CC tower cracking nor have I heard of an Illusion tower cracking or seen pics to proove it. If you're referring to the CFT Blade then that's an entirely different tower and not produced anymore. P.S. I'd take the Fusion too.

just to chime in here, danny posted his thing about tige warranty. Did you notice it states (or he typed) to the 1st indiv who purchased the boat new. after that you are out of luck on the lifetime warranty on the hull. <BR> <BR>not trying to cause any arguements, especially between bocephus and tyler who are going back and forth, but it seem like most company's are pretty close when it comes to 2nd and 3rd owners of boats.

Agreed- The majority of manufacturers wont transfer the warranty of most parts of the boat to the second owner. Perks of buying new, you spend a hell of a lot more and take abig hit the next year but you're still covered.

Paul and Tyler <BR> <BR>Supra/moomba will transfer the lifetime hull/striger warranty. It must be done through a dealer and with in 1 or 2 yrs from original sale date. I think its 2 yrs. I just bought our 2005 ssv and they were able to transfer the lifettime hull/stringer warranty for me.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>fancy marketing like TAPS or 4,000 lbs of ballast<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR> <BR>Correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am, just 'cause I'm 14), but I'm sure 4,000 lbs of ballast isn't marketing, its just fact because if it was marketing they would have given it a special name like TAPS in order to be identified instantly. <BR> <BR>EDIT: I am NOT trying to argue, just pointing this out. <BR> <BR>(Message edited by pwningjr on June 20, 2007)

Aaron, <BR>Which lifetime hull/stringer warranty are you speaking of because I was specifically told by SC there is only a one year warranty on the hull and that was up before I even bought the boat.

ronia <BR>so at this point is any of your stuff going to get fixed? <BR>at your expense? <BR> <BR>seems like alot of these posts are not really helping your situation much...

Cut your losses get what you can from the dealer. You can not and will not win this fight. Fix it and hit the water

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>By Dan (pwningjr) on Wednesday, June 20, 2007 - 7:51 pm: <BR> <BR> <BR>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <BR>quote: <BR>fancy marketing like TAPS or 4,000 lbs of ballast <BR> <BR> <BR>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>Correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am, just 'cause I'm 14), but I'm sure 4,000 lbs of ballast isn't marketing, its just fact because if it was marketing they would have given it a special name like TAPS in order to be identified instantly. <BR> <BR>EDIT: I am NOT trying to argue, just pointing this out. <BR> <BR>(Message edited by pwningjr on June 20, 2007)<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR> <BR>I consider it marketing. Everyone is trying to be bigger and have more ballast than the next guy...If you have a well designed hull it shouldn't take 4,000 lbs. All that weight is a band-aid in my opinion, keep in mind that I'm no Randall Harris though, although all of my tats are spelled correctly...

Bocephus- Not picking a fight but have you seen the Epic thread? Did you not think that was a nice looking wake without ballast?