Compare 230 and 240 Outrage

A conversation among Whalers
Redmanf1
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 12:02 pm

Compare 230 and 240 Outrage

Postby Redmanf1 » Thu Aug 23, 2018 1:12 pm

I just sold my Montauk 17 and purchased an Outrage 18, but I am thinking about moving up to a little bit larger Outrage. I like the Outrage ride. I have seen single-engine and twin engine 230 Outrage boats.

I am looking for someone that might have experience with a 230 Outrage. I know the twin engine boats will be better to maneuver around the docks. fuel cost and maintenance cheaper on the single.

Are there advantages to spending a little more and moving up to a 240 Outrage?

Are there any significant differences?

Thank you for any help--Nelson

vze2gbs4
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:34 pm

Re: Compare 230 and 240 Outrage

Postby vze2gbs4 » Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:34 pm

Nelson - I have owned both.

I disliked the 230 Outrage because of its over-sized euro-transom. The transom took so much real estate that the boat felt more like a 20-footer.

The 240 Outrage was a much better boat, not only in size but the ride was much better. My only complain about the 240 Outrage I had was its OptiMax 225-HP was not enough to move the heavy hull. A 240 Outrage needs at least 300-HP to move nicely.

Redmanf1
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 12:02 pm

Re: Compare 230 and 240 Outrage

Postby Redmanf1 » Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:50 pm

The 2004 240 Outrage has about the same transom as the 2000 230 Outrage. Am I missing something?

Thanks for the reply

Redmanf1
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 12:02 pm

Re: Compare 230 and 240 Outrage

Postby Redmanf1 » Mon Aug 27, 2018 4:58 pm

It looks like Boston Whaler went back to the 230 Outrage and no longer makes the 240 Outrage. Why did Boston Whaler do this?

Are twin engines a better option on either boat?

Thanks

vze2gbs4
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 9:34 pm

Re: Compare 230 and 240 Outrage

Postby vze2gbs4 » Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:04 pm

Well every hull has life span.

Whaler discontinue old hulls and introduce new ones that are sleeker,more efficient ,have more features and higher sticker price of course.

Having single or twin engines is a personal preference and reflects your boating needs.

I like single engine for less maintenance.

If you make 50 to 100-miles offshore trips ten twin engines are a must. If one engine dies you have another one to come home.

The buyer of my 2003 240 Outrage re-powered with a Yamaha F300 and did many upgrades on her. I just found out he is upgrading to bigger boat and will be selling her. let me know if you have any interest, located in New Jersey.

Redmanf1
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 12:02 pm

Re: Compare 230 and 240 Outrage

Postby Redmanf1 » Tue Aug 28, 2018 12:10 am

Thank you for the info. I sent you an email.

Thanks
Nelson

Redmanf1
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 12:02 pm

Re: Compare 230 and 240 Outrage

Postby Redmanf1 » Tue Aug 28, 2018 12:17 am

I just like the maneuverability of the twins. I will not be offshore that far to worry about. Just something about twins that I like. Maybe I keep thinking that twins will give better performance. A lot of these outrages seem to be under powered for me.


I found a nice 230 but it only has twin 135-HP engines which to me is under powered: 40 to 42-MPH top speed is just too slow for a 23-foot boat.

jimh
Posts: 8810
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: Compare 230 and 240 Outrage

Postby jimh » Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:33 am

I look at the question of twin engines like this: if the boat was designed with a transom notch wide enough for twin engines then the designer must have thought twin engines would be suitable.

Boston Whaler has made some 23-foot boats that have a small transom and can only be powered with a single engine. The 235 Conquest is an example.

Redmanf1
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 12:02 pm

Re: Compare 230 and 240 Outrage

Postby Redmanf1 » Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:19 am

Thanks Jim...

Nelson

Acseatsri
Posts: 190
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:46 am

Re: Compare 230 and 240 Outrage

Postby Acseatsri » Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:20 pm

""I found a nice 230 but it only has twin 135-HP engines which to me is under powered: 40 to 42-MPH top speed is just too slow for a 23-foot boat.""

Unless you're boating on a lake, there are very few instances where you can run above 30mph in a 23' boat. I have a 1993 23 walk around with Honda 250. 40 mph top speed, normally cruise 27-28 mph at 4200 rpm, occasionally 4500 rpm at 30-31. Offshore runs usually can't run above 23 without getting beaten up.

BTW, owners manual recommended operating range on this motor is 2000-4500 rpm, max 6300

jimh
Posts: 8810
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: Compare 230 and 240 Outrage

Postby jimh » Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:22 pm

If you need a boat that can spend most of it time underway at speeds greater than 42-MPH, and by greater I mean substantially greater as in 50-MPH, you won’t find any Boston Whaler 23-foot boat to be suitable. Boston Whaler boats are just not intended to run all day and every day at 50-MPH.

If being able to get to 42-MPH is not enough for you then you probably should look at a completely different type and brand for your next 23-foot boat.

Redmanf1
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 12:02 pm

Re: Compare 230 and 240 Outrage

Postby Redmanf1 » Thu Aug 30, 2018 8:09 pm

The problem is [a Boston Whaler 230 Outrage or perhaps other models] run 40 to 42-MPH only when just one person is aboard and about half-tank of fuel.

I talked with a guy that has a 2000 23 with twin 135-HP engines, and he told me it will run 42 with just him and half-full tank of fuel. I cannot say how the 230 Outrage does but—as my 18 Outrage with a 135—it is underpowered.

The problem: when you have four adults, a large cooler, and 3/4 to full tank of fuel, [a Boston Whaler 230 Outrage or perhaps other models] will not get close to 42-MPH, will not plane very well, and will not hold plane without using a lot of throttle.

I have a 42 [unclear] that will hit low 90-MPH, so that is not what I am looking for [from a Boston Whaler 230 Outrage], but neither do I want a pig.

I want something I can get through the canal (short cut, cannot be a large boat due to shallow depth, low bridge) and boat on lake Huron.

If equipped with a T-top I would have to remove or cut it, due to height.

My 1992 17 Montauk with a 100-HP Johnson was plenty fast and planed great, but I was looking for something with a better ride on the lake. My 18 has that but is a pig with a 135.


Thanks again
Nelson

jimh
Posts: 8810
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: Compare 230 and 240 Outrage

Postby jimh » Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:23 am

The performance on all boats is a direct function of the ratio of horsepower to weight. On smaller boats where the weight of added passengers, gear, and fuel will be a significant percentage of the boat’s weight, the performance will decline as those pounds are added. Three more people could be an extra 600-lbs, 40-gallons of fuel could be an extra 250-lbs, and a really big cooler with 15-gallons of water could be an extra 100-lbs. When you add about 1,000-lbs to any 23-foot boat, there is going to be a decrease in performance; it is not something unique to a Boston Whaler 230 Outrage.

The lighter the boat was without the added 1,000-lbs, then the greater the effect on performance when it is added.

Acseatsri
Posts: 190
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:46 am

Re: Compare 230 and 240 Outrage

Postby Acseatsri » Fri Aug 31, 2018 10:58 am

""My 1992 17 Montauk with a 100-HP Johnson was plenty fast and planed great, but I was looking for something with a better ride on the lake. My 18 has that but is a pig with a 135.""

An 18 with a 135 should do around 42 to 43-MPH. I had an 18 Outrage with 115-HP, and I found it to be quite satisfactory for ocean use, hitting almost 40-MPH at WOT.

Perhaps you should look at a totally different style of boat as Jim said. It doesn't sound like you'll be happy with something that can't cruise at 50-MPH. In an 18 40-MPH in anything but flat calm seas requires wearing a mouthpiece and will make you shorter over time due to the pounding.

Jefecinco
Posts: 1213
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 6:35 pm
Location: Gulf Shores, AL

Re: Compare 230 and 240 Outrage

Postby Jefecinco » Fri Aug 31, 2018 11:28 am

Which 135 HP engine are we referring to in this thread?
Butch

Redmanf1
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 12:02 pm

Re: Compare 230 and 240 Outrage

Postby Redmanf1 » Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:08 pm

My 2000 Outrage 18 has a Mercury OptiMax 135 and might run 40–but I doubt it, I will check boat speed with GPS on the river this weekend.

As stated above the problem is when [the Outrage 18] is loaded there is no way it will even get close to 40-MPH, and it will not ride on plane with out a lot of throttle.

Before questioning the engine [know that] it runs perfectly and starts first crank even when cold.

A part of the problem is I am using [the Outrage 18] more as a family boat instead of a lone fisherman boat.
[Two extra periods have been deleted.]

I do like the ride of the Outrage over the Montauk and especially in rough water.

I will try to figure out the power to weight ratio for both. The Outrage hull will have more drag due to the deeper v-hull.

jimh
Posts: 8810
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: Compare 230 and 240 Outrage

Postby jimh » Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:17 pm

How will you measure hull drag for the two hulls?

Redmanf1
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 12:02 pm

Re: Compare 230 and 240 Outrage

Postby Redmanf1 » Fri Aug 31, 2018 3:06 pm

No way that I have to do actual comparison.

Ok. GPS speed check. Half-tank of fuel, no cooler, and one person. 39. Would touch on 40-MPH. 5300 RPM. Clean, no bottom paint.




.