Whaler Central - Boston Whaler Boat Information and Photos

Posted by bradsc on 07/15/16 - 4:58 AM

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

Posted by bradsc on 07/15/16 - 10:40 AM

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

Posted by Phil T on 07/15/16 - 11:09 AM

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.

Posted by Marko888 on 07/15/16 - 1:57 PM

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

Posted by mb466 on 07/15/16 - 3:21 PM

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.

Posted by bradsc on 07/16/16 - 6:32 AM

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?

Posted by mb466 on 07/16/16 - 6:27 PM

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.