2001 13' Sport - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  2001 13' Sport

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   2001 13' Sport

hardensheetmetal posted 01-04-2001 04:29 PM ET (US)
I happened to ride by my most hated SeaRa...uh, I mean Whaler dealer today and spotted a 2001 13 sport with a 40 Merc. I don't really like this dealer so I didn't stop in to get any pricing or info, but I would be interested to know what package price they came up with.
CDN posted 01-04-2001 08:10 PM ET (US)
Dealers in my area (Northern Ohio) are selling both the 40hp and 25hp four-stroke packages for from $8795 to $9495, depending on the dealer. Seems the package price is the same for either outboard. Lots more 40hp packages are available than 25hp four-stroke. Also, one local dealer has two leftover 2000 30hp packages for $7995, including anchor, PFDs, fire extinguisher, etc. All these prices include freight and prep.
hardensheetmetal posted 01-04-2001 08:54 PM ET (US)
I'm curious as to what all the sudden ups the maximum HP rating of this boat from 30 to 40. How does the 30hp Merc compare to the 40 as far as weight is concerned? the hull is actually 30 lbs heavier than the classic, so it should be able to handle the motor without any problem, I just wonder why it was'nt spec'd that way originally. If the owner of a 2000 wanted to upgrade to a 40, could they, or would they nullify the warranty because they went over the max. rated HP?
Easy E posted 01-04-2001 10:57 PM ET (US)
As far as i know the max.hp rating for the 13' whaler has been 40hp for quite a while. As for the 30 and 40hp merc engines they are both the same engines with diffrent carbs so the weight is the same.
The modern whaler and classic whaler as far as i know has alot more than 30lb. weight diffrence.The modern 13 weighs 580lbs(according to the whaler site)and the classic whaler weighs 320lbs (according to this website's reference section)so the weight diffrence is more like 260lbs.Thats the main reason i wouldnt but a modern whaler.To me 580lbs is way to heavy for a little 13 footer.As for the warranty it shouldnt be nullified cause your not going over the max.hp with a 40.Hope this helps-Easy E
hardensheetmetal posted 01-04-2001 11:23 PM ET (US)
Easy-e
Your absolutely right about the weight of the classic, I should have realized, but I got the number out of the 2000 catalog and they mistakenly show the boat weight as 550 lbs. But they do also show the max hp rating for the new 13 as 30hp. I would be interested to hear from someone that owns one of these boats to see what it says on the CG tag. What makes the new so much heavier than the old?
Easy E posted 01-05-2001 12:50 AM ET (US)
If my memory serves me correctly back when Boston Whaler had there 2000 website up there was two models for the 13 footer.A GLS model and a Sport model.The GLS model did have a max.hp of 30hp and the sport had a max.hp of 40.Maybe it was the other way around but im pretty sure it was this way.I dount no why the max.hp was lowered for the GLS i find that strange.
As for the sudden increase in weight of the newer whalers,I was talkin to a friend of mine who had recently bought a new 17' montauk. He said that boston whaler is starting to pack a couple hundred more pounds of flotation in there newer boats. So i guess thats where the increase weight is coming from.Prehaps someone else can verify all this information.Until later-Easy E
Mako posted 01-05-2001 02:28 AM ET (US)
I've got a 2000 13' Sport and the C.G. tag says 30hp. I would assume that the same boat in a 2001 model is rated for 40hp, however.
eolson posted 01-05-2001 07:00 AM ET (US)
Easy E mentions that the 2000 whalers were "Sport" and "GLS" with different HP ratings.
The "GLS" was the classic 13' Whaler, lightweight, 40HP, etc.
The "Sport" is the new hull, overweight, underpowered, unimpressive.
By the way, I drove past the Gainesville, FL Whaler dealer a week or 2 ago and they had a $7995 price on the new Sport; saw a $8995 price in Sarasota, FL for it last week.
For those who demand the "reliability" of a new boat, I'd suggest a classic 13' hull with a brand new engine. Best of both worlds!
Eric
15' Sport w/ 70HP Johnson
Gainesville, FL
jimh posted 01-05-2001 08:46 AM ET (US)
Easy-E writes:
"As for the sudden increase in weight of the newer whalers... Boston Whaler is starting to pack.. more... flotation in ...newer boats."
This seems almost like a conundrum. If the volume of the hull interior of the two boats (Classic -v.- New Sport) is similar, then in order to "pack" more floatation in there you would have to increase its density.
If the density of something increases, it becomes less bouyant.
The hull structure might become stronger with higher density foam, but I wonder how it can become more buoyant (i.e., have more "flotation") with higher density foam.
--jimh
george nagy posted 01-05-2001 09:24 AM ET (US)
You know, I also have wondered why whalers have increased in weight. My theory is that the newer models have wider beams, higher gunnels, more compartments, etc..... This results in larger overall dimensions (meaning more fiberglass, more weight). The new 18' outrage for instance is much heavier than the old and needs much more hp to make it go. Just a thought!
tbyrne posted 01-05-2001 11:02 AM ET (US)
I have a 2000 Sport 13 (the new modified-V hull model) and I suspect the weight difference can be attributed to the larger space between the keel and deck. Since the V hull is much deeper than the hull on the Classic 13, there is a greater volume of space which must be filled with foam, hence the greater weight.
As to those who are bashing the new hull, I suggest they test drive it first. I owned a 1975 Classic 13 and the new Sport 13's ride is VASTLY superior in the conditions I normally see in the Connecticut River and Long Island Sound. Yes, my old Classic 13 with a 40 hp Suzuki ran a bit faster in the pre-8:00 am flat calm, but once the usual 10 kt wind picked up, it bashed my brains in. Most of the time, I couldn't use all 40 hp due to the short wind chop that regularly develops.
The new Sport 13, even with the 25hp 4-stroke, lets me run comfortably until the wind gets up to 20 kts or so. At least where I use the boat, I bet the Sport 13 with a 25 can keep up with a Classic 13 with a 40 and can do it more comfortably since the hull rides so much better in a chop.
If I used the boat on a sheltered lake, the Classic hull would be superior, but on bigger bodies of water which develop a wind chop, the 2000 Sport 13 is the boat for me.
CDN posted 01-05-2001 12:01 PM ET (US)
thyrne,
You have it right. The new 2000 or 2001 13' has a modified vee hull with outer sponsons. Deeper vee means more foam and fiberglass, which means more weight. The Legend magazine from last February (still on the www.whaler.com website under Press Box) claims the new hull is more efficient witpower than the old, and with 30hp, is almost as fast as the old hull with 40hp.
I think the 30hp rating in 2000 was for marketing reasons to keep the price at that $7995 number. I have looked at the yellow CG tags on both, and a 2000 says 30hp and the 2001 says 40hp. The 30hp Merc is a slightly detuned 40hp; otherwise identical. The 40hp 2-stroke ELPTO and a 25hp 4-stroke ELPTO weigh about the same; hence the package choices.
whalernut posted 01-05-2001 10:13 PM ET (US)
I would have to agree about the new Whalers being too heavy, too much V-hull, they look a little bloated due too the wide beam, and take more horespower to opperate. As far as the harsh ride in a chop, that is something some of us are willing to give up for the awsome stability of a semi-v or tri-hull design, especially if you`re a diehard fisherman. It`s a personal choice. I also agree the that the new `13 Sport is no replacement for the Classic `13. They should offer both if anything so both crowds of people have a choice in what they prefer, but as we know Brunswick doesn`t think like that. They cater to the "NEW" style of Boston Whaler buyer. Regards-Jack Graner.
tbyrne posted 01-10-2001 06:14 PM ET (US)
Jack,
Again, you're attacking a boat you don't know enough about. You insinuate that the new 13' needs more power than the Classic 13' to perform well. What do you base this claim upon? Have you test driven one?
As to your thought that Brunswick should offer both, I think that they are in a better position than you to decide how to run their business. If they were selling as many Classic 13's as you think they should have, they would not have discontinued it. From what I hear, the new Sport 13 has sold quite well, far better than the Classic 13' did in its last few years.
The Classic was (and is) a great little boat, but that doesn't mean that its replacement can't be a worthy successor. Your repeated bashing of newer Whalers, especially those about which you have never owned or used for any length of time, is tiresome and insulting to those who do own a post-1990 boat.
Peter posted 01-10-2001 08:22 PM ET (US)
Jack,
I think that if Whaler was going to sell any 13' boats at a profit it had to make a move to the new sport because, in part, it was a victim of its own success. Selling a new original 13' must have become very difficult in view of the numerous 10, 20 and 30+ year old hulls still around and still very seaworthy. On top of that, in the last decade, they have had to compete with the waverunner craze.
Brunswick did a fairly good job of differentiating the new 13 from the old 13. Whether it will be the wild success that the old 13 was and is, only time will tell.
While the weight of a hull is important, it is not the only factor that determines efficient performance. Although the new 13 may weigh more than the old, it is possible that it could perform better if its planning characteristics are such that there is less drag created. You'd be very surprised at how just a few small little surface phenomena on a hull, like barnacles for example, that change it's hydrodynamic profile can create an extraordinary amount of drag.
What would really be interesting to know is how the old 15' performs relative to the new 13' with the same horsepower since I think both weigh about the same and the old 15' has more vee.
whalernut posted 01-10-2001 08:57 PM ET (US)
Peter, I think you`re right about the PWC compition in a way, but I think the PWC business is slowing way down and you buy used ones for very good prices, the PWC doesn`t hold their value very well it seems. The new `13 Sport probably has a smoother ride in a chop due to the more aggresive V hull compared to the Classic `13. Also with the hard chines on the new `13 Sport they should be pretty stable too. So I do conceed those even without riding in a new `13 Sport. But I did go to a dealer and went over a new `13 Sport with a fined tooth comb for about an hour. Also test drove a new Montauk. The first thing I will conceed is that the new gelcoat seems to be very nice and smooth without that wave of alot of the old Whaler hulls. I acctually punch a Whaler hull to test them. I punched a new hull and went ouch! Very good sign. After that, I wasn`t happy with the fit mostly, and the white gelcoat is ver bright, didn`t care for that, just a personal thing, doesn`t constitute bad quality. I don`t like the new rubrails at all, very fat and ribbed, I like the old Barbour better, just personal again. The rubrails seem a little sloppy in the fit department, kind of crooked and sloppily put on. The gauges are kind of cheap and fit wasn`t good on both models. I don`t put new Whaler buyers down, but some people get upset when I try to give an honest opinion on the newer Whalers, just giving an honest opinion, don`t mean to upset people, just talking. I want to love the new Whalers believe me, but theere are a few things that I can`t get by. Also the fact that there is only the choice of Merc. engines, not that their bad, I just like the choice, even if that means no engine option, which you don`t have anymore. I know people who can`t stand the looks of the old blue interior, mahagany filled early models, and they own late seventies to eighties models, I don`t get upset, just because I like the older ones, I just say thats you`re opinion and option, no big deal. So let`s all talk about the old, middle, and newer Whalers without getting so upset. Anyone can say bad things about my 73` `16 Currituck, and it won`t bother me, I`ll understand, everyone has their opinion and you just have to take it with a business attitude. Regards-Jack Graner. P.S. tbyrne, as I always say, enjoy you`re new Whaler, it`s you`re choice and I respect that.
Dick posted 01-10-2001 09:41 PM ET (US)
Amen!
My first experience with Whaler was as sales manager at a Whaler dealership in Alaska in the early 80s. I fell in love with the boats. It wasn't untill 1999 that I could fit one into my budget. I bought a 1999 17 Montauk, it's the greatest boat I have ever owned. I see a few minor things that are not quite up to the old Whaler standards, but things change, you can't buy an Olds 442 anymore either.
I have run most of the new Whalers and they are good boats, not for me but there is a market for them.
I think the most importent thing is that Brunswick recognizes what the market is and continues to build a quality boat and keep the Whaler name up at the top.
I spent the last three years at the Whaler dealership in Seattle and the new designs sell. Let's get boaters running Whalers classic or not.
Dick
whalernut posted 01-10-2001 10:33 PM ET (US)
I agree Dick, the new ones do sell and very well. Maybee their not for me, but their for someone, and I hope Whaler is always in business and maybee what comes around goes around and the shape changes and quality overall in the future will be more to my likeing. Chris-Craft is already talking about going back to their roots and makeing the future Chris`s very traditional again, and I am seeing slowly the transoms squareing off again on some brands, very good promise! Regards-Jack Graner.
whalernut posted 01-10-2001 10:39 PM ET (US)
I agree Dick, the new ones do sell and very well. Maybee their not for me, but their for someone, and I hope Whaler is always in business and maybee what comes around goes around and the shape changes and quality overall in the future will be more to my likeing. Chris-Craft is already talking about going back to their roots and makeing the future Chris`s very traditional again, and I am seeing slowly the transoms squareing off again on some brands, very good promise! Regards-Jack Graner.
Dick posted 01-10-2001 11:36 PM ET (US)
Jack
Chris-Craft is a prime example of what happens when the classic design is pushed aside for sleek styling. Probably more Chris dealers go out of business every year than any other.
I think Brunswick has more smarts than that, but the have to build what the market wants.
Spent some time in Maryland in the early 60s and some of the most beautiful boats I have ever seen were the old wooden Chesepeake Bay built cruisers.
It's sad but times change.
Dick
andygere posted 01-11-2001 01:29 AM ET (US)
Selling a lot of boats does not make you much money if your margins are too small (costs are high compared to revenues generated). Similarly, the number of new vs. old 13's sold does not mean much if they are offered at substantially different price points. If both boats perform substantially the same function, are sold under the same very strong brand, and are generally manufactured to a high quality standard, the average buyer is going to buy the less expensive boat. By reducing manufacturing costs and passing some of the savings on to the consumer in lower price, while at the same time increasing sales,BW is doing exactly what every investor owned company is charged with doing: Increasing profits and therefore increasing shareholder value. Here's the caveat: If they put a substantially lower quality product on the market, it erodes the value of the brand and in the long run hurts shareholder value. It's a fine line, and if I knew exactly how to do it I'd be very wealthy by now. In terms of boats, own and enjoy what you like. My first Whaler was a '72 13 that is still in my family. I love the boat and think it is something of a timeless classic. At the same time, I think it's pretty neat that you can walk into the local Whaler dealership, plunk down $8K and go home with a very solid, safe, fun little boat that will produce all of the same great times my old 13 did.
whalernut posted 01-11-2001 05:21 PM ET (US)
Very good point andygere, I never heard that viewpoint before and makes alot of sense. It still won`t change my mind totally, but sheds new light on an old subject. Regards-Jack Graner.
hardensheetmetal posted 01-11-2001 10:57 PM ET (US)
I have never driven or ridden in a 2000 13 sport, so my comments are strictly as an observer.
1. The helm seems like it is up very high above the gun'l.
2. BW should make the boat with some type of wood seating, possibly with an epoxy coating to reduce upkeep, it would really set the interior of the boat off.
3. I am glad to see a boat that more than less resembles the classics, they could have made a much greater departure from the old style hull, but you can definately see some of the old design in the new boat.
tbyrne posted 01-12-2001 09:29 AM ET (US)
HSM,
You are correct - the helm is fairly high and the gunwale low. I don't mind, however, since it lets you comfortably run the boat while standing. This really helps soften the ride.
When I had my 1975 Classic 13 the console was too low to run standing up and I had to squat on the balls of my feet to keep my butt from getting a pounding, which got pretty tiring. One day, I actually ended up with blisters on my feet! ( better than loose molars, I guess)
I like the look of the wood on the Classics, but don't miss the sanding and varnishing I used to do every other year. I think it would also be difficult to stylistically integrate the glass console with wood seats. (BTW, I LOVE the console - it has good space to stow a flare kit, handheld VHF, hat and lunch. My old 13 had no place to stow anything.
andygere posted 01-12-2001 11:25 AM ET (US)
One advantage of being short (5'-7")is that I could manage to drive my 13 standing. The technique was to stand along the centerline (my '72 had a slight curved depression down the middle) with knees bent slightly, reaching down to the top of the wheel to steer. I had often consdiered raising the helm station 2 or 3 inches to make this a little easier, but never got around to it. It was not as easy to reach the throttle in a hurry, so in really gnarly conditions, I used the balls of the feet technique.
Clark Roberts posted 01-13-2001 08:13 AM ET (US)
I have converted several classic 13's to center consoles (sit/stand) and driving a classic 13 standing erect is a blast (legs for shock absorbers. I t can be steered totally by merely shifting weight... closest thing to driving a motorcycle on the water.. Seating has been (may still be) one of Whaler's few shortcomings... happy Whalin'/// Clark... The Old Man and the sea

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Author	Topic: 2001 13' Sport
hardensheetmetal	posted 01-04-2001 04:29 PM ET (US) I happened to ride by my most hated SeaRa...uh, I mean Whaler dealer today and spotted a 2001 13 sport with a 40 Merc. I don't really like this dealer so I didn't stop in to get any pricing or info, but I would be interested to know what package price they came up with.
CDN	posted 01-04-2001 08:10 PM ET (US) Dealers in my area (Northern Ohio) are selling both the 40hp and 25hp four-stroke packages for from $8795 to $9495, depending on the dealer. Seems the package price is the same for either outboard. Lots more 40hp packages are available than 25hp four-stroke. Also, one local dealer has two leftover 2000 30hp packages for $7995, including anchor, PFDs, fire extinguisher, etc. All these prices include freight and prep.
hardensheetmetal	posted 01-04-2001 08:54 PM ET (US) I'm curious as to what all the sudden ups the maximum HP rating of this boat from 30 to 40. How does the 30hp Merc compare to the 40 as far as weight is concerned? the hull is actually 30 lbs heavier than the classic, so it should be able to handle the motor without any problem, I just wonder why it was'nt spec'd that way originally. If the owner of a 2000 wanted to upgrade to a 40, could they, or would they nullify the warranty because they went over the max. rated HP?
Easy E	posted 01-04-2001 10:57 PM ET (US) As far as i know the max.hp rating for the 13' whaler has been 40hp for quite a while. As for the 30 and 40hp merc engines they are both the same engines with diffrent carbs so the weight is the same. The modern whaler and classic whaler as far as i know has alot more than 30lb. weight diffrence.The modern 13 weighs 580lbs(according to the whaler site)and the classic whaler weighs 320lbs (according to this website's reference section)so the weight diffrence is more like 260lbs.Thats the main reason i wouldnt but a modern whaler.To me 580lbs is way to heavy for a little 13 footer.As for the warranty it shouldnt be nullified cause your not going over the max.hp with a 40.Hope this helps-Easy E
hardensheetmetal	posted 01-04-2001 11:23 PM ET (US) Easy-e Your absolutely right about the weight of the classic, I should have realized, but I got the number out of the 2000 catalog and they mistakenly show the boat weight as 550 lbs. But they do also show the max hp rating for the new 13 as 30hp. I would be interested to hear from someone that owns one of these boats to see what it says on the CG tag. What makes the new so much heavier than the old?
Easy E	posted 01-05-2001 12:50 AM ET (US) If my memory serves me correctly back when Boston Whaler had there 2000 website up there was two models for the 13 footer.A GLS model and a Sport model.The GLS model did have a max.hp of 30hp and the sport had a max.hp of 40.Maybe it was the other way around but im pretty sure it was this way.I dount no why the max.hp was lowered for the GLS i find that strange. As for the sudden increase in weight of the newer whalers,I was talkin to a friend of mine who had recently bought a new 17' montauk. He said that boston whaler is starting to pack a couple hundred more pounds of flotation in there newer boats. So i guess thats where the increase weight is coming from.Prehaps someone else can verify all this information.Until later-Easy E
Mako	posted 01-05-2001 02:28 AM ET (US) I've got a 2000 13' Sport and the C.G. tag says 30hp. I would assume that the same boat in a 2001 model is rated for 40hp, however.
eolson	posted 01-05-2001 07:00 AM ET (US) Easy E mentions that the 2000 whalers were "Sport" and "GLS" with different HP ratings. The "GLS" was the classic 13' Whaler, lightweight, 40HP, etc. The "Sport" is the new hull, overweight, underpowered, unimpressive. By the way, I drove past the Gainesville, FL Whaler dealer a week or 2 ago and they had a $7995 price on the new Sport; saw a $8995 price in Sarasota, FL for it last week. For those who demand the "reliability" of a new boat, I'd suggest a classic 13' hull with a brand new engine. Best of both worlds! Eric 15' Sport w/ 70HP Johnson Gainesville, FL
jimh	posted 01-05-2001 08:46 AM ET (US) Easy-E writes: "As for the sudden increase in weight of the newer whalers... Boston Whaler is starting to pack.. more... flotation in ...newer boats." This seems almost like a conundrum. If the volume of the hull interior of the two boats (Classic -v.- New Sport) is similar, then in order to "pack" more floatation in there you would have to increase its density. If the density of something increases, it becomes less bouyant. The hull structure might become stronger with higher density foam, but I wonder how it can become more buoyant (i.e., have more "flotation") with higher density foam. --jimh
george nagy	posted 01-05-2001 09:24 AM ET (US) You know, I also have wondered why whalers have increased in weight. My theory is that the newer models have wider beams, higher gunnels, more compartments, etc..... This results in larger overall dimensions (meaning more fiberglass, more weight). The new 18' outrage for instance is much heavier than the old and needs much more hp to make it go. Just a thought!
tbyrne	posted 01-05-2001 11:02 AM ET (US) I have a 2000 Sport 13 (the new modified-V hull model) and I suspect the weight difference can be attributed to the larger space between the keel and deck. Since the V hull is much deeper than the hull on the Classic 13, there is a greater volume of space which must be filled with foam, hence the greater weight. As to those who are bashing the new hull, I suggest they test drive it first. I owned a 1975 Classic 13 and the new Sport 13's ride is VASTLY superior in the conditions I normally see in the Connecticut River and Long Island Sound. Yes, my old Classic 13 with a 40 hp Suzuki ran a bit faster in the pre-8:00 am flat calm, but once the usual 10 kt wind picked up, it bashed my brains in. Most of the time, I couldn't use all 40 hp due to the short wind chop that regularly develops. The new Sport 13, even with the 25hp 4-stroke, lets me run comfortably until the wind gets up to 20 kts or so. At least where I use the boat, I bet the Sport 13 with a 25 can keep up with a Classic 13 with a 40 and can do it more comfortably since the hull rides so much better in a chop. If I used the boat on a sheltered lake, the Classic hull would be superior, but on bigger bodies of water which develop a wind chop, the 2000 Sport 13 is the boat for me.
CDN	posted 01-05-2001 12:01 PM ET (US) thyrne, You have it right. The new 2000 or 2001 13' has a modified vee hull with outer sponsons. Deeper vee means more foam and fiberglass, which means more weight. The Legend magazine from last February (still on the www.whaler.com website under Press Box) claims the new hull is more efficient witpower than the old, and with 30hp, is almost as fast as the old hull with 40hp. I think the 30hp rating in 2000 was for marketing reasons to keep the price at that $7995 number. I have looked at the yellow CG tags on both, and a 2000 says 30hp and the 2001 says 40hp. The 30hp Merc is a slightly detuned 40hp; otherwise identical. The 40hp 2-stroke ELPTO and a 25hp 4-stroke ELPTO weigh about the same; hence the package choices.
whalernut	posted 01-05-2001 10:13 PM ET (US) I would have to agree about the new Whalers being too heavy, too much V-hull, they look a little bloated due too the wide beam, and take more horespower to opperate. As far as the harsh ride in a chop, that is something some of us are willing to give up for the awsome stability of a semi-v or tri-hull design, especially if you`re a diehard fisherman. It`s a personal choice. I also agree the that the new `13 Sport is no replacement for the Classic `13. They should offer both if anything so both crowds of people have a choice in what they prefer, but as we know Brunswick doesn`t think like that. They cater to the "NEW" style of Boston Whaler buyer. Regards-Jack Graner.
tbyrne	posted 01-10-2001 06:14 PM ET (US) Jack, Again, you're attacking a boat you don't know enough about. You insinuate that the new 13' needs more power than the Classic 13' to perform well. What do you base this claim upon? Have you test driven one? As to your thought that Brunswick should offer both, I think that they are in a better position than you to decide how to run their business. If they were selling as many Classic 13's as you think they should have, they would not have discontinued it. From what I hear, the new Sport 13 has sold quite well, far better than the Classic 13' did in its last few years. The Classic was (and is) a great little boat, but that doesn't mean that its replacement can't be a worthy successor. Your repeated bashing of newer Whalers, especially those about which you have never owned or used for any length of time, is tiresome and insulting to those who do own a post-1990 boat.
Peter	posted 01-10-2001 08:22 PM ET (US) Jack, I think that if Whaler was going to sell any 13' boats at a profit it had to make a move to the new sport because, in part, it was a victim of its own success. Selling a new original 13' must have become very difficult in view of the numerous 10, 20 and 30+ year old hulls still around and still very seaworthy. On top of that, in the last decade, they have had to compete with the waverunner craze. Brunswick did a fairly good job of differentiating the new 13 from the old 13. Whether it will be the wild success that the old 13 was and is, only time will tell. While the weight of a hull is important, it is not the only factor that determines efficient performance. Although the new 13 may weigh more than the old, it is possible that it could perform better if its planning characteristics are such that there is less drag created. You'd be very surprised at how just a few small little surface phenomena on a hull, like barnacles for example, that change it's hydrodynamic profile can create an extraordinary amount of drag. What would really be interesting to know is how the old 15' performs relative to the new 13' with the same horsepower since I think both weigh about the same and the old 15' has more vee.
whalernut	posted 01-10-2001 08:57 PM ET (US) Peter, I think you`re right about the PWC compition in a way, but I think the PWC business is slowing way down and you buy used ones for very good prices, the PWC doesn`t hold their value very well it seems. The new `13 Sport probably has a smoother ride in a chop due to the more aggresive V hull compared to the Classic `13. Also with the hard chines on the new `13 Sport they should be pretty stable too. So I do conceed those even without riding in a new `13 Sport. But I did go to a dealer and went over a new `13 Sport with a fined tooth comb for about an hour. Also test drove a new Montauk. The first thing I will conceed is that the new gelcoat seems to be very nice and smooth without that wave of alot of the old Whaler hulls. I acctually punch a Whaler hull to test them. I punched a new hull and went ouch! Very good sign. After that, I wasn`t happy with the fit mostly, and the white gelcoat is ver bright, didn`t care for that, just a personal thing, doesn`t constitute bad quality. I don`t like the new rubrails at all, very fat and ribbed, I like the old Barbour better, just personal again. The rubrails seem a little sloppy in the fit department, kind of crooked and sloppily put on. The gauges are kind of cheap and fit wasn`t good on both models. I don`t put new Whaler buyers down, but some people get upset when I try to give an honest opinion on the newer Whalers, just giving an honest opinion, don`t mean to upset people, just talking. I want to love the new Whalers believe me, but theere are a few things that I can`t get by. Also the fact that there is only the choice of Merc. engines, not that their bad, I just like the choice, even if that means no engine option, which you don`t have anymore. I know people who can`t stand the looks of the old blue interior, mahagany filled early models, and they own late seventies to eighties models, I don`t get upset, just because I like the older ones, I just say thats you`re opinion and option, no big deal. So let`s all talk about the old, middle, and newer Whalers without getting so upset. Anyone can say bad things about my 73` `16 Currituck, and it won`t bother me, I`ll understand, everyone has their opinion and you just have to take it with a business attitude. Regards-Jack Graner. P.S. tbyrne, as I always say, enjoy you`re new Whaler, it`s you`re choice and I respect that.
Dick	posted 01-10-2001 09:41 PM ET (US) Amen! My first experience with Whaler was as sales manager at a Whaler dealership in Alaska in the early 80s. I fell in love with the boats. It wasn't untill 1999 that I could fit one into my budget. I bought a 1999 17 Montauk, it's the greatest boat I have ever owned. I see a few minor things that are not quite up to the old Whaler standards, but things change, you can't buy an Olds 442 anymore either. I have run most of the new Whalers and they are good boats, not for me but there is a market for them. I think the most importent thing is that Brunswick recognizes what the market is and continues to build a quality boat and keep the Whaler name up at the top. I spent the last three years at the Whaler dealership in Seattle and the new designs sell. Let's get boaters running Whalers classic or not. Dick
whalernut	posted 01-10-2001 10:33 PM ET (US) I agree Dick, the new ones do sell and very well. Maybee their not for me, but their for someone, and I hope Whaler is always in business and maybee what comes around goes around and the shape changes and quality overall in the future will be more to my likeing. Chris-Craft is already talking about going back to their roots and makeing the future Chris`s very traditional again, and I am seeing slowly the transoms squareing off again on some brands, very good promise! Regards-Jack Graner.
whalernut	posted 01-10-2001 10:39 PM ET (US) I agree Dick, the new ones do sell and very well. Maybee their not for me, but their for someone, and I hope Whaler is always in business and maybee what comes around goes around and the shape changes and quality overall in the future will be more to my likeing. Chris-Craft is already talking about going back to their roots and makeing the future Chris`s very traditional again, and I am seeing slowly the transoms squareing off again on some brands, very good promise! Regards-Jack Graner.
Dick	posted 01-10-2001 11:36 PM ET (US) Jack Chris-Craft is a prime example of what happens when the classic design is pushed aside for sleek styling. Probably more Chris dealers go out of business every year than any other. I think Brunswick has more smarts than that, but the have to build what the market wants. Spent some time in Maryland in the early 60s and some of the most beautiful boats I have ever seen were the old wooden Chesepeake Bay built cruisers. It's sad but times change. Dick
andygere	posted 01-11-2001 01:29 AM ET (US) Selling a lot of boats does not make you much money if your margins are too small (costs are high compared to revenues generated). Similarly, the number of new vs. old 13's sold does not mean much if they are offered at substantially different price points. If both boats perform substantially the same function, are sold under the same very strong brand, and are generally manufactured to a high quality standard, the average buyer is going to buy the less expensive boat. By reducing manufacturing costs and passing some of the savings on to the consumer in lower price, while at the same time increasing sales,BW is doing exactly what every investor owned company is charged with doing: Increasing profits and therefore increasing shareholder value. Here's the caveat: If they put a substantially lower quality product on the market, it erodes the value of the brand and in the long run hurts shareholder value. It's a fine line, and if I knew exactly how to do it I'd be very wealthy by now. In terms of boats, own and enjoy what you like. My first Whaler was a '72 13 that is still in my family. I love the boat and think it is something of a timeless classic. At the same time, I think it's pretty neat that you can walk into the local Whaler dealership, plunk down $8K and go home with a very solid, safe, fun little boat that will produce all of the same great times my old 13 did.
whalernut	posted 01-11-2001 05:21 PM ET (US) Very good point andygere, I never heard that viewpoint before and makes alot of sense. It still won`t change my mind totally, but sheds new light on an old subject. Regards-Jack Graner.
hardensheetmetal	posted 01-11-2001 10:57 PM ET (US) I have never driven or ridden in a 2000 13 sport, so my comments are strictly as an observer. 1. The helm seems like it is up very high above the gun'l. 2. BW should make the boat with some type of wood seating, possibly with an epoxy coating to reduce upkeep, it would really set the interior of the boat off. 3. I am glad to see a boat that more than less resembles the classics, they could have made a much greater departure from the old style hull, but you can definately see some of the old design in the new boat.
tbyrne	posted 01-12-2001 09:29 AM ET (US) HSM, You are correct - the helm is fairly high and the gunwale low. I don't mind, however, since it lets you comfortably run the boat while standing. This really helps soften the ride. When I had my 1975 Classic 13 the console was too low to run standing up and I had to squat on the balls of my feet to keep my butt from getting a pounding, which got pretty tiring. One day, I actually ended up with blisters on my feet! ( better than loose molars, I guess) I like the look of the wood on the Classics, but don't miss the sanding and varnishing I used to do every other year. I think it would also be difficult to stylistically integrate the glass console with wood seats. (BTW, I LOVE the console - it has good space to stow a flare kit, handheld VHF, hat and lunch. My old 13 had no place to stow anything.
andygere	posted 01-12-2001 11:25 AM ET (US) One advantage of being short (5'-7")is that I could manage to drive my 13 standing. The technique was to stand along the centerline (my '72 had a slight curved depression down the middle) with knees bent slightly, reaching down to the top of the wheel to steer. I had often consdiered raising the helm station 2 or 3 inches to make this a little easier, but never got around to it. It was not as easy to reach the throttle in a hurry, so in really gnarly conditions, I used the balls of the feet technique.
Clark Roberts	posted 01-13-2001 08:13 AM ET (US) I have converted several classic 13's to center consoles (sit/stand) and driving a classic 13 standing erect is a blast (legs for shock absorbers. I t can be steered totally by merely shifting weight... closest thing to driving a motorcycle on the water.. Seating has been (may still be) one of Whaler's few shortcomings... happy Whalin'/// Clark... The Old Man and the sea