Posted by djm3801 on 06/23/14 - 7:05 PM
#1
I am looking at ads for a whaler I believe to be a Sakonnet project boat. Very cheap. Hull needs work and has soft spots and console on boat looks to be original mahogany CC - not sure it is salvageable and i need to see it. Before I go look at it, I have never owned a boat of this type. I am not afraid of work. That said, transom work is not part of restoration I want to be anywhere near so if that does not check out as solid, I would not take it for free.
I have heard that here are pros and cons to smirked and smirkless hulls. Based on what I have read, assuming I am not pushing the performance envelope it seems either would be a fine performer but either can be a rough rider. The question here is - how much better is a smirked hull for a person who does not intend to push performance envelopes? I have read that there is less wet ride and pounding with smirked at the expense of some stability and speed - I am not a speed demon anyhow. Would plan to power it with a 90HP 2 stroke.
I have looked at MANY threads on whaler repair and, while whaler is one of several choices I have (looking at Mckee 16's and 17's that have a whaler like ride and have seen a KMV 528 17 footer that seems interesting but these are very rare and there are support concerns), availability of parts and information is amazing on whalers.n And then there is the Boston Whaler name....
Bottom line, other than transom or obvious issues on outer hull, if glass is essentially intact, is there a point where separation of glass from foam becomes irreparable? A few spot I believe I can deal with. not afraid to sand and have spray painted before - just not gelcoat. I guess I can expect, even with a workmanlike job, that past issues may cause future ills to crop up.
Thoughts on smirked vs smirkless and degree of repairabilty within reason welcome, and thanks.
Edited by djm3801 on 06/23/14 - 7:30 PM
Posted by Finnegan on 06/23/14 - 7:31 PM
#2
I would not buy any Whaler hull with soft spots in the floor. "Very Cheap" is often no deal at all, and could become very costly, more so than finding a better hull for more up front. From your description, I would keep looking.
I have owned both, and the later 1976 smirked hull is definitely a better, softer entry ride.
Posted by djm3801 on 06/23/14 - 7:47 PM
#3
Well that is about at straightforward a response as I can ask for. Thank you. I am not "looking for" very cheap but happened to stumble on it.
Posted by Paulsv on 06/24/14 - 7:38 AM
#4
I have owned both as well- a 1975 Sakonnet and a 1976 Montauk. I didn't notice any speed difference. If anything, the Sakonnet was faster at WOT. Both boats had 1986 90 HP Johnsons, running the same prop. The Sakonnet got more splash over the front end going into chop at low speeds. Other than that, I didn't notice any difference in ride. The Sakonnet had more side-to-side stability. The Montauk is better for kids- I never liked them up on the front platform of the Sakonnet at speed, whereas the Montauk has good seating up front. All that mahogany on the Sakonnet was sure pretty, though.