1. Use the full 4 digit year for everything you are asking your question about. Example: 1962, 1988, 2000, 2011
2. Include the correct name of your Whaler model. Example: Montauk 17, Montauk 170, Outrage 26, Outrage 260
3. Include the length when necessary. Example: 16, 17, 18, 20, 22
4. Do not post your email address anywhere on this site as it is already in your user profile.

23' - 24' Outrage Questions
bradsc	#1  Posted on 07/15/16 - 4:58 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 118 Comments: 0 Joined: 01/15/11	I am in the "I think I need a bigger boat" mode, so beginning to do a lot of research. I read that the 2002 - 2008 had the best riding hulls. Why? What are your thoughts on this? What is the difference between the Outrage 230 and Outrage 240? Same boat but different years? It has been tough to find tank sizes on these boats. I have seen 156 to 160 gallons, do this sound correct? Any other thoughts and comments would be greatly appreciated! Brad
Phil T	#2  Posted on 07/15/16 - 9:17 AM
Administrator Personal Page Personal Album Project Albums Posts: 6985 Comments: 6 Joined: 03/26/05	Brad - Where did you read the comment on ride? The Outrage 240 was made from 2000 - 2008. The Outrage 220 was offering starting in 2009. When was the 230 offered?
bradsc	#3  Posted on 07/15/16 - 10:40 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 118 Comments: 0 Joined: 01/15/11	Phil, I don't remember, that is why I was inquiring. Something about the "accutrack hull" was a drier riding boat. What were the years for the accutrack hull? Boat trader has a "2002 Boston Whaler 230 Outrage" for sale that I might be interested in. So should that be a "240 Outrage"? http://www.boattrader.com/listing/200...-102652417 Edited by Phil T on 07/15/16 - 10:58 AM
Phil T	#4  Posted on 07/15/16 - 11:09 AM
Administrator Personal Page Personal Album Project Albums Posts: 6985 Comments: 6 Joined: 03/26/05	The boat in question does match with the Outrage 230 drawings as shown on www.whalerparts.com The Accutrack hull is universally better riding than the prior hull designs. In addition to the hull form, the models dry weights increased and that also helped. I recall the "Accutrack" hull design change came about shortly after Brunswick purchased Boston Whaler from Meridian in 1996.
Marko888	#5  Posted on 07/15/16 - 1:57 PM
Member Project Albums Posts: 413 Comments: 10 Joined: 05/26/08	Brad, It's not noted what you wish to upgrade from, but I see a 1990's Montauk on your personal page. Having spent a lot of hours in that generation of 17' hull, and now owning a 1985 Outrage 18 and 1984 Outrage Cuddy 22, I can assure you any one of the newer Outrages will provide a significant improvement. The 1980's Outrages in 18-25' ride significantly better, and the 1990's 21 and 24 better still. I know nothing about the models that followed the mid 1990's Outrage 21 and 24. Try for some test rides to see what you prefer. Edited by Marko888 on 07/15/16 - 1:58 PM
mb466	#6  Posted on 07/15/16 - 3:21 PM
Member Posts: 76 Comments: 0 Joined: 07/27/09	I have a 2004 Outrage 240. The tank is 154 gallons not that I ever keep it full. I've got the 225HP which is a little underpowered. I don't go on many long cruises so I keep the tank less than half full, just because of the weight. Likewise, I don't keep a lot of water in the freshwater tank. It is a very dry ride and it just cuts through waves. I think it feels like an old Cadillac chopping through the waves at speed - making for a comfy ride. I'm looking to hang a F350 on it when the Yamamerc dies, if ever... There are lots of pumps and gizmos on the boat that need to be replaced over time (2 bait box, 2 bilge pumps, fresh water pump, raw water pump, head macerator, trim tabs...) . I replaced both bait box pumps this year and need to replace the trim tab pumps as well. The bait box pumps seem to last about 2 years. Prepare to spend $120 on each pump and bust your knuckles up a little. It is a pleasure to drive and feels extremely stable and safe. Its obviously a well built boat. I get lots of comments on it.
bradsc	#7  Posted on 07/16/16 - 6:32 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 118 Comments: 0 Joined: 01/15/11	Thanks mb.......that is great intel!!! So even at 2 mpg that is a 300 mile range boat. I was thinking of a F300 which should be 2.5+ would would be around 375 mile range. Would you be comfortable going out 30-40 miles on a decent weather day?
mb466	#8  Posted on 07/16/16 - 6:27 PM
Member Posts: 76 Comments: 0 Joined: 07/27/09	I did a 60 mile trip last week, but not offshore. I'd feel better with twins doing that and a pretty clear weather forecast... I guess it depends how much you trust your engine and your safety equipment. I'd probably do it with a new F300. I'm guessing a F350 would get you close to 50mph and get you there faster. At full throttle, I get about 1.8 mpg at 37mph. Cruising is about 2.5 mpg like you stated.