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.

Whaler Hull Construction
gullythumper	#1  Posted on 05/11/10 - 6:35 AM
Member Posts: 3 Comments: 0 Joined: 05/11/10	Hi, I'm new on here and think it's a GREAT site. I am seriously interested in buying a used Whaler. I recently overheard a conversation that has me confused and need it clarified. A very good used boat dealer was saying that you should NOT buy a Whaler older than 1978. Something about a single layer hull that could rupture if hitting an object, but I couldn't hear the entire conversation. Am I wise to stay above a 1978 or is he just blowing smoke? I've seen many Whalers older than 1978 and have never heard of a problem or potential problem. Any and all advice will be greatly appreciated. Edited by Tom W Clark on 05/11/10 - 7:17 AM
Tom W Clark	#2  Posted on 05/11/10 - 7:18 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 4280 Comments: 7 Joined: 09/30/05	Welcome. You either misunderstood the dealer or the dealer is mistaken. Whalers today use the exact same hull construction as they did in 1978...and 1958.
gullythumper	#3  Posted on 05/11/10 - 9:15 AM
Member Posts: 3 Comments: 0 Joined: 05/11/10	What I THINK I heard was that prior to 1978 the foam was only in the sides and the bottom of the hull was only one thin layer and could be breached by even minor impacts with objects in the water. But, I lived in Baltimore for 11 years, fished and even chartered on the bay, and had never heard of any concerns like this. Just trying to find out how safe my money will be putting it into a boat older than the 1978 figure the dealer talked about. I'd love to find someone who has pics of a cross section of hulls before 1978 and after. He seemed to indicate the later one have more plys or foam or something in the bottom of the hull.
Blue_Northern	#4  Posted on 05/11/10 - 9:21 AM
Member Personal Page Project Albums Posts: 532 Comments: 5 Joined: 09/04/07	Look at my 1973 lopro project photos. The hull and deck are both normal thickness of glass and the entire boat was foam like a sandwich. There are no void areas I found to be any different than they way the are produced today. Rob 1973 Outrage/Lo-Pro Conversion
Tom W Clark	#5  Posted on 05/11/10 - 9:41 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 4280 Comments: 7 Joined: 09/30/05	...prior to 1978 the foam was only in the sides and the bottom of the hull was only one thin layer and could be breached by even minor impacts with objects in the water. No, that is completely false.
gullythumper	#6  Posted on 05/11/10 - 10:31 AM
Member Posts: 3 Comments: 0 Joined: 05/11/10	well, the replies here have strengthened my trust in buying a pre-1978 Whaler. I hope to get one sometime in the near future, as soon as I get my present boat sold. You guys really know your Whalers. Thanks for the input
Eastflorida	#7  Posted on 05/13/10 - 8:08 PM
Member Posts: 12 Comments: 0 Joined: 11/22/09	All that has changed is the foam and possibly some laminate lay up. Otherwise, the construction is the same. Someone is sharing with you incorrect info...
acassidy	#8  Posted on 05/16/10 - 6:17 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 268 Comments: 1 Joined: 11/21/05	If that were true the how could the 1958 13 whaler be cut in half and still float. That dealer was clueless and has no idea what he is talking about. There are all solid. Archie
TommyWhaler	#9  Posted on 05/16/10 - 6:36 AM
Member Posts: 69 Comments: 0 Joined: 12/02/09	What he probably meant was "not to buy a Whaler built before sometime in 1972", because of the foam used-open vs closed cell. Open absorbs water, closed doesn't. But if the outer and inner hull have not been breached, there should be no problem. Another difference was when freon was outlawed in the 90's in the US, Whaler had to change how they built their hulls, because the freon was used to keep something (not sure if it was the foam or not) cool durning the process of sandwiching the inner and outer hull over the foam. But I will concur with everyone else. What you "heard", is totally false. I am on my 6th Whaler, and I have been both pleased and amazed at the hull quality. Buy one.
Tom W Clark	#10  Posted on 05/16/10 - 9:22 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 4280 Comments: 7 Joined: 09/30/05	What he probably meant was "not to buy a Whaler built before sometime in 1972", because of the foam used-open vs closed cell. We really do not know what he meant because he is not here to tell us himself. We do know that is reported he said, is false. It is also completely false that the foam used on Boston Whalers changed in 1972. It did not change in 1972 or any other year. It has always been closed cell polyurethane foam used in the Whaler Unibond construction process. This is a myth I really want to stamp out so I am going to emphasize this point. I've heard all sorts of silly things like Whalers originally used Styrofoam (which, by the way, is closed cell too) Whaler's foam changed in...[insert year of your choice] and now we have the assertion that Whaler hulls were not originally filled completely with foam. The entire reason Boston Whalers exist is because Dick Fisher was curious about a new material in the 1950s, two-part polyurethane foam, and he set out to create a boat using this new material. He did not create a boat and then decide what to fill it with. What is true is that the Whaler hull construction process has evolved over time and gotten better. In general there has been in increase in foam density for a variety of reasons, first to ensure help ensure the hulls did not "pucker" by adding more foam in the pour, and then later by using foam that had stronger cell walls. It is also true that the blowing agents used during the foam introduction changed in the 1990s due to the Montreal Protocol which imposed higher air pollution standards but also meant factory workers labored in a safer, less stinky environment. I do no believe Freon was ever used. The color of the foam changed slightly at his time from white to a yellowish tint. Note that all polyurethane foam turns brown on prolonged exposure to sunlight. Edited by Joe Kriz on 07/29/16 - 6:49 PM
Terp	#11  Posted on 05/17/10 - 8:15 PM
Member Posts: 21 Comments: 0 Joined: 08/11/09	TommyWhaler wrote: because of the foam used-open vs closed cell. Open absorbs water, closed doesn't. So set my mind at ease here.... I was removing a number of parts on our '90 Montauk today for refinishing purposes and discovered some old screw holes that were left un-repaired. Additionally I found the fuel line access cut under the fuel tank was left unfinished (exposed foam on the side walls of the cut.) My first thought was "great, I've probably got soaked foam under there." Is water soaked foam a non-issue w/ Whalers? Edited by Terp on 05/17/10 - 8:15 PM John 1990 Montauk w/ 100H Evinrude V4
Derwd24	#12  Posted on 05/17/10 - 9:10 PM
Member Posts: 1607 Comments: 9 Joined: 05/09/07	Click on the words Chain Saw Whaler in the post right above your last one, it'll set the record straight on whether closed cell foam can absorb water or not.... Dave - 1983 Outrage 22
Tom W Clark	#13  Posted on 05/17/10 - 9:25 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 4280 Comments: 7 Joined: 09/30/05	Closed cell can most definitely take on water over time through freeze/thaw cycles, vapor drive or hydrodynamic pressure.