 | | | | | ||||||||
| ||||||||||||
            
| Maxum 3300 Vs. Larson 330 In this head-to-head of price-point express cruisers, we prefer the Maxum's excellent maintenance features and better helm over the Larson's cozier cockpit and smarter sleeping quarters.
With such similarities, how do we determine the victor in this clash of express cruisers? Simply by examining how well they execute these characteristics. Construction: Nothing Fancy We’d rather see Larson use a PVC foam instead of balsa wood for coring in its hull bottom. It may have greater sheer strength, but balsa has a tendency to absorb water and allow migration in the event of poor quality control or subsequent hull damage. Both builders use treated wood, encapsulated in glass, for stringers and bulkheads. We suggest they use XL 10, one of the best woods available for marine uses. (Maxum does use it in areas exposed to weather, such as exterior seating.) Larson glasses these components with knitted glass, Maxum with woven roving. Larson also uses wood in its transom, while Maxum only uses it where the engines are mounted; elsewhere, a PVC foam is used. Hull-to-deck joints of both seem commendable. Each utilizes a polyurethane adhesive to structurally seal the joint. Fuel-Tank Access Larson surprised us with its tank installation because engineer John Deurr, who had applauded the merits of accessible fuel tanks when we interviewed him for our August 1999 editorial on fuel tanks, seemed to break his own rule with the 330. Here, access to the saddle tanks is only possible by cutting the bulkheads in the aft stateroom. Deurr did not want to install removable hatches here because, if the tanks ever loosened (they’re bolted through flanges into wooden cleats), they could force open the hatches. We’d like to see Larson find a way to provide accessible tanks, as it does with its other boats. Two large, 45"-by-35" hatches lift easily to provide excellent all-around access to the Maxum’s twin MerCruisers below. Accessibility is among the best we’ve seen on a boat of this class, with plenty of room between, outboard and forward of the engines. Larson provides decent access, but the twin Volvos are tucked under the cockpit sole, aft, making it difficult to reach the outboard sides of the engines. Its single hatch has about the same dimensions as the Maxum—but the latter has two of them. We suggest extending the hatch farther aft to the transom. The bilges in both engine rooms were clean and painted white for better visibility. On the Maxum, we’d move the sterndrive hydraulic pumps (and their exposed wiring and hydraulic lines) outboard of the engines. They’re mounted forward of the engines right where they’re most likely to be stepped on. Or, we’d at least cover them with boxes for protection against errant feet and any water dripping from above when hatches are open. The gutters around each engine hatch are adequately sized, although the Maxum’s are wider (1”, compared to the Larson’s 1/2”). The Maxum also provides thicker overboard drain lines. In addition, the Maxum’s hatches are gasketed to keep rattles to a minimum and help trap engine noise inside. But this gasketing had already started to detach near one of the hinges. Wider Sidedecks Wanted The Larson also has a centerline walkthrough. It’s sidedecks are wider, albeit only by 2” with a 13”-high deck rail outboard of the side windshield, which has no handrail. We much prefer wide 10" to 12", flat sidedecks with a bow railing and grab rails extending all the way aft to the cockpit. You don’t get that with either of these boats, so we’d advise you to use their centerline passageways. Of the two, we prefer the Maxum’s because its larger and shorter steps make it an easier climb. (The Larson has only two 17”-deep steps, compared to the Maxum’s three 12” steps.) We also prefer the Maxum’s raised diamond nonskid, substantially more aggressive than the Larson’s. While walking forward on the Maxum, we noticed a puzzling label at the centerline steps: “Warning. Do not board foredeck when boat is underway. Can cause injury or death.” How does the manufacturer expect you to drop the hook, or toss a bowline to someone on the dock? It looks like you have to be anchored, aground, or tied to the dock before Maxum approves forward access, which are technically the only exceptions to being under way. Not a very smart plan, in our book, and it only points out how far from good deck safety principles manufactures have strayed in maximizing interior room by eliminating sidedecks.
Crowned foredecks are tricky enough even with good nonskid; but the Larson’s is even trickier because the gloss-white color makes it hard to discern where the crown ends and the sidedeck begins. We’d prefer a chopped-off trunk cabin with a vertical side that you can see. Here’s another gripe. The Larson’s bow railing extends more than a foot over the water and beyond the bow itself, which doesn’t make much sense to us. Bow rails, in our opinion, should be even—or a few inches inboard of—the rubrail for two reasons: So the rubrail makes contact with pilings or other objects before the rail; so the rail catches you sooner than later if you lose your balance and fall against it. Larson Cockpit Cozier The Maxum’s transom door screws on our test boat (a new demo) were already stripped out of their holes. The hinges should have been bolted to the fiberglass liner, not screwed. Maybe that’s why the door, which was cut unevenly at the factory, was hitting the liner at the top edge. It took a shove to close it securely. We found cockpit lounge seats on both to be nicely upholstered. But the Larson’s U-shaped settee on starboard is a cozier arrangement, in our opinion. The Larson also provides more seating at the bridgedeck level, with an inboard-facing companion seat that can fit two. Maxum chooses to position the settee on the backside—and, subsequently, at the same height—of the companion seat. This provides more height below in the mid cabin, but this settee is so high the feet of one of our 6’2” editors were dangling. And there’s no handrail in sight. The Larson is equipped with a similar seat, but on the same level as the other cockpit seats. Helm Ergonomics The Maxum also gives you more room behind the wheel. Our thighs were right up against the Larson’s wheel while the boat was at rest. And things can get worse, for your legs, as the bow rises a few degrees once on plane. The skipper should be able to step back another three to four inches from the wheel. If not, he must hold onto it while standing to keep his balance when the boat is running at any significant trim angle. The Maxum’s single-lever engine controls—mounted about 30 degrees from vertical—would be easier to operate, both while seated and standing, if they were in a flatter position, in our opinion. Overall, while seated, the position of the Larson’s wheel and throttle are pretty good—and there’s plenty of leg room. We’d move the throttles forward two or three inches so they’re easier to reach while standing. And the tab controls should be aft of the throttles, in our opinion. As is, you have to reach over the throttles to get to them. The Maxum’s are placed directly below the throttles, allowing a quicker and easier reach. We think the windshield wipers and horn switches on the Larson ought to be repositioned, aft of the throttles or some other place where you can reach them quickly. They’re inboard of the wheel on the Maxum, just below the rocker switches. We prefer the compass on the Maxum for two reasons: First, it’s entirely black, aiding with the aforementioned windshield glare; the Larson’s is white; Second, the Maxum’s compass is positioned at a comfortable height, making it readable for people of different heights. While seated, we couldn’t see the Larson compass’ indirect display. We’d make a few changes in the arrangement of gauges on each of these cruisers, as well. The Larson’s tachs are nearly 15 inches apart—and outboard of the speedometer and engine synchronometer (we’d move the latter, and it doesn’t need to be so big). Tachs need to be next to one another for easier reading, in our opinion, and we’d raise them a few inches while we're at it. The same goes for the Maxum. The speedometer is stuck between the tachs. For short helmsmen, the rim on the dash inhibits visibility of the bottom half of the gauges while seated. In any case, we’d like to see the Maxum’s gauges angled down for a better view when seated. We found the order of the middle row of instruments of this three-tiered panel a bit confusing. Left to right: two drive trim meters, voltage, temperature, oil pressure, fuel level, oil pressure, engine temperature and voltage. You’ll likely find it difficult to spot an overheating engine with this arrangement, as the gauges are small and not paired by function with the port and starboard engines. Larson Sleeps 6 Adults, Maxum 4 and 2 Kids On the Maxum, we found the outboard cabinet door very hard to open; and the head door rattled. The Larson toilet paper holder had no cover, and the drain in the Larson we tested needed to be relocated aft because that’s where the water puddles, according to an owner we talked to. The drain itself is forward, so the owner had to use a squeegee to push the water down the drain—not a job you should have to do on a $140K boat. Larson gives you two handrails on your walk down, compared to the Maxum’s one. Be careful on both; step heights are not identical. Maxum’s galley has more countertop space and a large shelf above. The Larson’s countertop is rimmed with a handrail, which the Maxum should also have, in our opinion. We thought the microwave ovens on both were too small, although the owner of Larson said he was satisfied with his. We found better fit & finish on the Larson. The Maxum’s drawers were tough to open and its cabinet doors above were uneven. The Larson’s forward berth is much larger, with an average length of 6’4”, compared to the Maxum’s 6’2” average. The minimum should be 6’4”, in our opinion. The Maxum’s dinette seating (two seats facing one another) provides more room than the Larson’s L-shaped arrangement, which may be tight for four adults. However, the Larson’s convertible berth is 6’2-1/4” long, compared to the Maxum’s 5’2”, which relegates the latter's to children. There’s reason for Larson’s advantage: Maxum places its head just aft of this area, while the Larson’s head is starboard. Both mid cabins are large, with table inserts and sliding glass windows that shed plenty of light. You can even stand up in the aft section of this area on the Maxum. Maxum Has Overall Edge As always, we selected comparable propulsion (twin 5.7L sterndrives) and options to make our price comparison. The Larson totaled $127,765 with genset ($7,555), 12K BTU air conditioning/heating ($4,145), two burner stove ($730), cockpit cover ($685), mid-cabin couch ($570), macerator discharge ($615), foredeck sunpad and rails ($450) and remote control spotlight ($750). The electric toilet is standard. The Maxum weighed in at $126,195 with a 16K BTU AC/heat system ($6,030), genset ($8,631), macerator discharge ($414) and Vacuflush electric toilet ($1,479). The two-burner stove, cockpit cover, mid-cabin couch, spotlight and sunpad are all standard. Besides their likeness in price, these two slightly above-average express cruisers both offer nice accommodations, plenty of storage, a reasonable amount of creature comforts and large, nicely upholstered cockpits. They also share many of the drawbacks inherent in this class, including foredecks that could be a lot safer. Both exhibited marginal rides, and helm ergonomics need improvement. Neither has the edge when it comes to construction or design. The Larson has a stepped hull, but we did not think it gave it a significantly better ride than the Maxum. Maxum has addressed maintenance issues better, with its huge engine room and excellent fuel tank installation (one of the best we’ve seen on this type of boat). But its fit and finish isn’t on a par with Larson, which also has a slightly better ride, and a cabin with larger forward and mid-cabin berths that can truly sleep six adults and a bigger head. If it weren’t for maintenance considerations—particularly with regard to fuel tank access—our clear choice would be the Larson. But maintenance is a consideration, and a very important one, we feel. We just don’t think that the Larson’s better accomodations in the cabin make up for the Maxum’s superior fuel-tank and engine accessibility.
Also With This Article Contacts | |||||||||||
| Contact Us / Privacy Policy / Site Map Copyright Belvoir Media Group, LLC. All rights reserved. | ||||||||||||
