BOATING Magazine Tests 240 DAUNTLESS PRO

Optimizing the performance of Boston Whaler boats
jimh
Posts: 11672
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

BOATING Magazine Tests 240 DAUNTLESS PRO

Postby jimh » Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:28 pm

I was browsing through the "Boat Buyer's Guide 2018" published by BOATING magazine, and came across their review of the Boston Whaler 240 DAUNTLESS PRO.

Whenever I see test report data, I like to look at the boat's fuel economy in miles-per-gallon, particularly if the boat is similar in size and horsepower to my boat. Here is a comparison of my boat, a REVENGE 22 W-T Whaler Drive, to the 240 DAUNTLESS PRO:

LOA = 24-feet 3-inch / 24-feet 8-inch
BEAM = 7-feet 5-inch / 8-feet 6-inch
DRY WT = 2,600-lbs / 3,300-lbs

The 240 DAUNTLESS is 5-inches longer, a foot wider, and 700-lbs heavier.

My 1990 Boston Whaler REVENGE 22 W-T Whaler Drive with a 225-HP E-TEC gets its best fuel economy at a cruising speed of about 27-MPH, when the engine and propeller and hull seem to be quite happy to operate; the fuel economy is 2.7-MPG and sometimes a bit higher, maybe 2.8-MPG.

According to the BOATING MAGAZINE report in the buyer's guide, the best the DAUNTLESS 240 PRO with VERADO 350 can do is 2.2-MPG at 25.5-MPH. That number seemed really low. Usually I am admiring newer boats for their better fuel economy, as my old classic with a Whaler Drive is somewhat known for not being optimized for best fuel economy (but the ride is fantastic). The big gap between 2.2 and 2.7-MPG got me to visit BOSTONWHALER.COM to see what their test data showed.

Surprise, surprise, but at BOSTONWHALER.COM their test data shows the 240 DAUNTLESS PRO fuel economy peaks at 3.3-MPG at 27-MPH. That is what I expected: a modern hull, wider, no Whaler Drive appendage, should be more fuel efficient, even if a bit heavier.

It is troublesome that a magazine could get such divergent data from their testing compared to Boston Whaler's test data. I understand they might have been busy--they tested 97 boats for this special edition of the magazine. But what's the point of testing if the data is not very reliable? The difference between 3.3-MPG and 2.2-MPH is 1.1-MPG, and that is an error of 50-percent. Who puts any faith in data that is off by 50-percent?

I have more faith in Boston Whaler's performance data. They have been publishing detailed performance reports for years, and I have never heard of one of their boats being so far off from their published performance as BOATING Magazine suggests in their latest boat test report.

This is not the first time I have found performance data in BOATING Magazine tests that was questionable. In one test report about a boat powered with a VERADO, the engine was claimed to consume only 1-GPH of fuel at full throttle, making 300-HP. That mistake was so far off that it was rather easily spotted, but the data in the 240 DAUNTLESS PRO seem to be just off--off by 50-percent in the case of fuel economy--and might not be as easily noticed.

I haven't checked the data in the other 96 boat tests to see how it compares to manufacturer testing.

msirof2001
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 11:23 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: BOATING Magazine Tests 240 DAUNTLESS PRO

Postby msirof2001 » Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:59 pm

How did the "Weight as tested" compare between the Boston Whaler test and the Boating Magazine test? I often find manufacturer's performance reports to be on the optimistic side. For example, minimal fuel, one or two people, very little extra gear. Oftentimes, the tests are performed on flat water, minimal wind and chop. In reality, extra fuel, people, gear, wind and chop seriously affect MPG.

On my old 1995 21 OUTRAGE re-powered with the Yamaha F200XB I achieved 4.3 to 4.7-MPG with just myself, 1/4-FULL tank of fuel, in calm water. With a full tank, two adults plus two teens, a lot of fishing equipment, I got 3.3-MPG. When the water got choppy with 15-20-nautical mile-per-hour headwinds and 2 to 3-foot wind chop, with the heavy load, fuel economy sank to about 2.5-MPG.

I wonder: were there other factors causing the differential you observed?
Current: 2017 Everglades 295cc, Previous1: 1995 Boston Whaler Outrage 21, Previous2: 1974 Sevylor Caravelle 3-man liferaft.

jimh
Posts: 11672
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: BOATING Magazine Tests 240 DAUNTLESS PRO

Postby jimh » Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:29 am

msirof2001 wrote:...were there other factors causing the differential you observed?


No other factors from my observation; I had my glasses on when I read both reports.

The BOATING magazine test report notes: crew weight 800-lbs; fuel load 80-gallons.

Boston Whaler notes: personnel 390-lbs; fuel 50-gallons.

If we figure gasoline weighs 6.25-lbs/gallon, then 30-gallons weighs 188-lbs. Add that to the 410-lbs crew differential, and the magazine boat may have had 598-lbs more weight, say 5783-lbs test weight. The Boston Whaler test weight was 5,185-lbs.

It seems hard to imagine that a weight decrease of 10-percent would improve the fuel-economy by 50-percent. I would not think the hull performance was that sensitive. I base this on my own experience with my own boat.

My usual data for MPG is collected with a crew of two. I have had six or seven people aboard, and the fuel economy at optimum plane changed perhaps to 2.5-MPH from 2.7, or less than 7-percent. It did not change by 50-percent.

I don't think Boston Whaler performance test data is particularly tweaked or hard to duplicate. If it were, there would he more discussion about it, and particularly if Boston Whaler published fuel economy that was consistently 50-percent improved over real-world experience.