6.2 kc v 2400kc

[rosco1974]

have been lookin at the 2400kc now for a month or so but have noticed the 6.2 models ar a fair bit cheaper than the 2400..i know the 6.2 is the older model but how do they compair in the ride and performance department...just looking to save a few bucks....i really want the 2400 but is hard to justify the extra 40k on a boat...anyone been on both ...
cheers rosco

[Noelm]

the 2400 compared to a 6.2 is a HUGE boat! not really fair to compare the two, but, that being said, the 6.2 will get you anywhere you want to go (and back) be easier to tow and store and a heap of other pluses as well.

[boatboy50]

Noel,

I believe you have your wires crossed.

The 2400 is the same hull as the 6.2, with the pods added into the boats measurement (where its not on the 6.2). I have been told this by a few different sources.

I recently had a 6.2 trailer made, and they used the specs for a 2400 to make it.

That 6.2 is now sold.

The difference between the boats I believe to be minimal. I think the 6.2 is probably the same or heavier than the 2400.

I had no complaints about mine. It rode well and did everything I asked of it.

Darren

[Noelm]

maybe correct, but to see the two boats side by side, the 2400 is gigantic by comparison.

[finding_time]

Darren

Mate it's not the same hull, it may be the same length but they do handle very differantly, I've spent time both but more in a 2400. The 6.2 only had 115's on it and this could account for some differances but given a choice i would take the 2400 every time, weather it's worth 40 grand extra ....well i'll leave that to you but with a bit of hunting you should get a good 2400 for 95 000 to 100 000 and you'll struggle to get a great 6.2's for less than 70, 000 with good motors with low hrs. I think the 6.2's are more of a streached 5.2 with reguard to hull shape and there helm is more foward than a 2400, the 6.2 has a very rustic fitout compared to a 2400, the 2400 has sharper forfoots than a 6.2 Less resale as well. Both will be a huge step up in ride to Rosco's avtar picture though and he'll really enjoy either boat!

[finding_time]

Ps

The 2400 has higher sides , higher floor and without doubt is a much heavier boat than a 6.2

[Flex]

Isnt the 2400 a 6.5m long boat? so its 300mm more hull than the 6.2?But i know for a fact they are different moulds

I've never been in a 2400, but I have spent alot of time in a 6.2 and its an awesome boat.

Either you wouldnt be dissapointed

[Noelm]

not too sure of exact measurements, but I know side by side, the 2400 looks like an ocean liner compared to a 6.2, and I agree either boat will be fine, the 2400 is a much more modern looking boat with a very high standard of fitout. Assuming the 2400 actually means 24', then even including the built in pods, it is well over 7M long, whether it is worth the added cash is up to the buyer, but if I had that sort of loot to be spending on a boat, then the 2400 would be my choice.

[rosco1974]

cheers for the info fella's.like i said i got my heart set on the 2400 but the extra 40k is holding me back a bit.i think i might have to have a look at the 6.2 and go from there..have only had a good look over and a test run in the 2400.was an awsome boat and the ride well havn.t been in a boat that rode that wel
cheers rosco

p.s can any1 tell me if the earlier model 2400's have ply floors and transoms

[Smithy]

Never been in a 2400 or the older 6.5 but have been in a 6.2 a few times. They certainly remind you of a stretched 5.2 and that extra metre really helps. They are a class above a 5.2. There are some bargains to be had. Mate just sold a fully tricked up 6.2 with 140 Suzukes for $50G odd I think it was to another guy I know. That was with alloy trailer and the works. Market is terrible. I wouldn't be paying in the $100s anymore for a 2400.

[bbss]

I have driven both plenty of times and they both perform differently. I think 6.2 is easier to drive and feels a lot more docile and more relaxing to drive. The 2400 rides softer and is a ball to drive fast but requires a bit more skill to do so. ( a lot more trim sensitive)The 6.2 has more room inside than a 2400. If you want it purely as a fishing boat I would go the 6.2 but if you want looks and longer range go the 2400 both are great boats just depends on what you want.

[rosco1974]

really sounds like most would be happy with either...

[rosco1974]

want to use the boat as a weekender as well as a fishing boat

[finding_time]

want to use the boat as a weekender as well as a fishing boat

2400!;) better set up for longer trips!

But as stated earlier , there both such a big step up in comfort from what your used to you'll be happier with either!

You may find picking up a good 6.2 and throwing a few dollars at it in terms of electronics gives you a better fishing rig! I know that fitting a 1kw transducer to a 2400 is very difficult but you can fit one to a 6.2 easily enoughthrough the spin out! Trying to do this on a 2400 involves some tricky glass work! The big thing will be finding the right 6.2 set up with the right engines (eg 115 four strokes) dont be tempted by ones with 90's on the back they dont work real well and stay away from 2 strokes as they'll kill your range.

Ian

[DALEPRICE]

hey ian, do these 2400 need to be driven all the time with the engines trimmed
right out? or can you tuck them in a fair bit? went for a run in one the lother week and the motors were right out to the point they were breaking free sometimes in the following sea?
thanks
dale

[finding_time]

No mate that shouldn't happen! If the sea is comming from say the rear port corner the port motor should be trimmed out but the starboard motor will be trimmed right in to balance the boat. If it was comming directly from astern i would have both motors out but not so much as they were cavitating all the time. ( much the same as a mono!) I personally find 2400 very very easy to drive as they are way way less trim sensitive than a 5.2, the longer the boat the less trim sensitive ( this applies to most boats)

ian

[rosco1974]

hey ian when i buy a cat i will proberly pm u a heap of question in regards the proper way to drive them.lol
cheers rosco

[rosco1974]

had a look at a 6.2mtr yesterday,as said it has a bigger deck but the real down side on this boat for me was the cabin,would struggle to sleep 2 in it let alone 2adults and a 12yr old so will have to be the 2400

[Mister]

the 2400 compared to a 6.2 is a HUGE boat! not really fair to compare the two, but, that being said, the 6.2 will get you anywhere you want to go (and back) be easier to tow and store and a heap of other pluses as well.

Crossed wires is a bit of an understatement :P

There is bugga all difference between a 6.2 (2300) and a 6.5 (2400) KC and is in no way a HUGE difference at all.

Yes moulded length is 6.2m v 6.5m but if you have ever taken much notice of these hulls (and somehow I doubt it) then you should have realised the main difference is in the rake of the bow resulting in almost the same waterline length which is where it all happens anyway.

2400 LOA is 180mm longer which as previously mentioned is all to do with the rake of the bow.

2400 coaming height is a whole 20mm higher but your eye isn;t that good anyway.

2400 draught is 0.4m, yes identical to the 2300 :o

2400 max power is 140HP and the same as what the 2300 could handle even though it is an abuse of power in both hulls.

2400 beam is maximum trailerable as was the 2300

Fuel capacity is the same which shouldn't be surprising either :-*

Towing weights as per trailer spec 2400 3100kg ATM, 2300 2800kg GTM basicaslly identical ;D

What have I missed that makes this so called HUGE difference ::)

[Greg P]

6.2 is butt ugly but there sure are some bargains around

[Noelm]

seeing the two boats side by side, I still say the 2400 looks huge by comparison, regardless of how they actually measure, the 24 is a BIGGER boat, Mister, you seem to think I am knocking the 6.2 or something, nothing could be further from the truth, I just (in my opinion) reckon the 24 is a so much bigger LOOKING boat, and the cabin setup is much better suited to over nighting.

[finding_time]

The 2400 does look bigger side by side with a 6.2 ,and for a few reasons. the first being the cabin comes back much further giving it a bulkier look in the front half of the boat also you'll find that the 2400 hard top is higher and bigger than the older 6.2 bimini and targa bar! Also the sides of the 2400 are a fair bit higher and the floor is also higher also to aviod the wet feet with water lapping in through the scupper syndrome. The higher sides and higher floor ( deeper sponsons) give the boat a much bigger appearance on the trailer . Mister's sum up of the messurements is great info and as he suggests and i mentioned earlier the big differance in hull shape is in the forefoots the 2400 are much sharper. I think the ride is quiet differant but this could mainly be due to the much more forward helm on the 6.2! As stated earlier if you want an extended trip boat the 2400 will be the better option because of cabin size.

[rosco1974]

the weights are a bit different in the newer models.. from 2005 models they are 2.9t fully loaded for the offshore version and 3.2t for the weekender model...they are lighter as they got rid of the ply floors and transoms...a better selling point i recon...no ply to rot away...
cheers rosco

[OPTI]

Crossed wires is a bit of an understatement :P

There is bugga all difference between a 6.2 (2300) and a 6.5 (2400) KC and is in no way a HUGE difference at all.

Yes moulded length is 6.2m v 6.5m but if you have ever taken much notice of these hulls (and somehow I doubt it) then you should have realised the main difference is in the rake of the bow resulting in almost the same waterline length which is where it all happens anyway.

2400 LOA is 180mm longer which as previously mentioned is all to do with the rake of the bow.

2400 coaming height is a whole 20mm higher but your eye isn;t that good anyway.

2400 draught is 0.4m, yes identical to the 2300 :o

2400 max power is 140HP and the same as what the 2300 could handle even though it is an abuse of power in both hulls.

2400 beam is maximum trailerable as was the 2300

Fuel capacity is the same which shouldn't be surprising either :-*

Towing weights as per trailer spec 2400 3100kg ATM, 2300 2800kg GTM basicaslly identical ;D

What have I missed that makes this so called HUGE difference ::)
good to see KERRY back on a kevla cat thread;)