What(39)s the difference 1950CL or a 185?-gctid820212

[Doubled50]

In terms of length. I bought my 1950 assuming it was 19 feet and some inches, hence 1950 or 19.50", but upon purchasing, the title states it's 18ft 8". So then what's the difference in a 185? I assume it's 18ft 8" as well?

I tried to research and all I saw was the 185,175, etc are all outboards and my 1950 is an inboard? Any insight?

[Download_Complete]

Bayliner used to run a 4 digit naming convention from the early 1970s through the early 2000s. It went like this:

XXXX [Model Line][Qualifier]

First two numbers are the length. Third number is the drive type (0 is outboard, 5 is stern drive, 7 would be L Drive, etc..), and the last one would denote body type, 0 would be bowrider, 2 would be Cuddy, etc...

In your case, you have a 1950 Capri Classic. It;s the 19 foot classic Capri hull that's been around since 1982, and Bayliner reactivated the mold back in 1992 to have a low cost, classic-style runabout.

The 185 (and earlier 1850) is the 18 foot "Euro" style Capri that they sold allong side the Classic Capri line. Swoopier styling, more expensive, better features, less room.

Around 2002, they dropped the 4 digit naming convention and switched to a 3 digit convention, so the 1950 became the 195.

Even now, however, the last (formerly 3rd) digit denotes the engine type - 0 for outboard, 5 for stern drive. So if you see a 195 Outboard, it's labelled incorrectly. And frankly, there's a lot of people out there who don't cal these boats their proper model names.

I swear if I see another person call a Ciera a "Cierra" I am going to blow a gasket.

[Doubled50]

Ah, thank you much for clearing that up. Very insightful.

[Guest]

I think it should be added that the length is a 'marketing' length. For the smaller boats it was normally pretty close but some of the cruisers had LOA's that were different by up to 2 or 3 feet.......typically the marketing length was shorter than the actual length.....(don't ask me why, I was in engineering) which made for interesting conversations sometimes. The 23' Bayliner Capri was 23' 11" long, as that was the shortest length you could fit everything in but they did not believe that a customer would buy a 24' runabout (this was back before the big bowrider craze started)

Typically though a185 or 1850 could be anywhere from 17'7 to 18'5" long, a 1950 from 18'7 to 19'5" etc.

The Classic line started when the new model year of Capris were determined by the dealers to be too expensive and the old tooling was pulled out and called classic.....didn't change for years....I remember being involved in a meeting about whether we could swap the ski tow cleat for a real ski tow ring (total cost increase about $4) .....cost was watched very closely.

I always think Bayliner missed the boat on the classics....when the names was changed to Explorer I (and others who worked there) though we should have done the whole line (not just the 246, that was really 26' long and finally got called a 266) and would have been alone in the market place, lengths of 17' 19' 21' and 23' bowriders/cuddys and then cruisers up to the low 30's all with I/O's. People forget that at one time Bayliner Classics (by themselves) sold over 8,000 boats a year. If someone has a few million $$ (actually maybe $10M) hanging around and wants to get into the boatbuilfing business this would be the market I would pick.

[djhinca]

Thank you Ex-B for a very interesting review of early Capri history. Since you were in engineering, perhaps you can shed some light on a structural question that presented itself to me recently. I'm the original owner of a 1986 1952 Capri with AQ 131A/275. Due primarily I believe to our mild climate here in Northern California and the fact that we kept our boat in covered storage for the past 25 years, there are currently no signs of rot or degradation of the wood superstructure - except for one. As you may recall, just forward of the passageway to the cuddy cabin, there is a small depression in the floor where a portapotty was originally placed. In the floor of that depression, there is a small hatch cover that allows access to the forward-most leech line in the bilge. Due to the shape of the hull, water collects in this area. We have always been careful to sponge out water from this area after every use. Consequently, the wood is still sound. Recently however, someone stepped on the little hatch and the two wooden plates that support the aft side of the cover broke off. Actually, it's more accurate to say they separated. I removed them and examined them carefully, including probing with an ice pick for soft spots. There were none; aside from some discoloration, the plywood was as sound as new. Why then did they break off?? Careful inspection revealed the reason: on the surface of each plate, there were several little "bumps". Picking them off and examining revealed that they were the last remaining remnants of staples! The rest of the staple had been completely consumed by rust. So, to my question: I assume that during manufacture, staples were used to temporarily secure the plywood structure until the chopper gun did its thing. How much then, does the stapling contribute to the overall strength of the hull superstructure? Since after 30+ years, I have to assume that most of the original staples have met the same fate as those in the two little plates, what is the effect on the overall strength of the hull? I'd greatly appreciate an expert opinion.

[Norton_Rider]

In the 80s the smaller Bayliners tended to be quite a bit longer than their name implied. This started changing in the 90s, when the name and LOA became "closer" to each other. For example, I had a 1988, 2455. It's length on deck was very close to 24' but it's LOA was close to 28'. A friend had a 2001, 2455 and it was much smaller than my boat, with a LOA was close to 24'. Another examplwe was my 1989, 2858 that had a LOA of 32'. Later 2858s had a LOA close to 28'.