Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
Can this be?
|Author||Topic: Can this be?|
posted 03-17-2001 08:33 PM ET (US)
In honor of the new poll. I invite everyone to go to Post-Classics and read the thread with the same Topic, I found it very interesting.
posted 03-18-2001 11:55 AM ET (US)
Bear, the test were done well it appears on the 23OR and 28 C, frankly on the 28 Conquest all of the fish/boat "rags" were impressed with them in their reviews.
Now on the 28 Conquest would like to see a test run comparing say a 27 WA '91-'94 all the same boat,so it would be what they could get their hands on, with similar engines or maybe 225 Optimax or 225 Ficht since the EFI Mercs they used really have poor fuel economy!
The weights are the same 28C to 27WA just the hull difference would be the key factor in testing --- even the accommodations on the 27 WA and 28 C are similar --- 27 WA isn't as cramped as the 28 C since it holds its beaminess almost to the bow --- 28 C tapers quickly.
Might be an eye opener to the designers on the hull designs!
posted 03-18-2001 04:37 PM ET (US)
I have looked closely at the 28 Conquest and the 27 Walkaround that Tom is referring to. Even have seen them sitting side by side. The 27 WA is definitely a superior craft, with a lot more useable room on it. Weighs a lot less, too.
posted 03-18-2001 07:53 PM ET (US)
Larry, I`ve never been on either, but I am not suprised at you`re assesment. Not only do the older Clasics look better, I believe they are better functionally, especially for the Fisherman and Diver. Regards-Jack Graner.
posted 03-18-2001 08:58 PM ET (US)
I can understand why you would favor the 91-94 27 WA over the current 28 C design.
Even though the reviews a several years old and will most likely stand until there is another change in design. I felt the 23 OR was more on the money for fishing, just a personal choice. Though the reviews were based on each model without comparsions.
I am not sure how long BoatTest has been around. If it has been a while they might have a review of the 91-91 27 WA in their archives.
Concerning the Hull there is a give and take. The give (positive side) are well described in the review. The take (negative side) as pointed out is that the cuddy has lost space and storage.
As for functionally better for fishermen and or divers, only experience will tell what each design lacks or has. I personaly have no experience on any of these models. I most certianly wouldn't mind finding out about the fishing half of it though.
posted 03-19-2001 12:06 AM ET (US)
Just for funsies I looked up a Bayliner. They gave a great report on it also. Its possible all boats tested tested by them pass in flying colors. Doesnt mean anything good or bad, but you do have to consider the source.
posted 03-19-2001 12:55 AM ET (US)
I agree with the Toms. I have always assumed that all of the boat magazines "boat tests" are nothing but disguised (as cruising trips) paid advertisements. I don't even bother reading them, unless I'm interested in the cruising destination and scenery! Powerboat Reports is about the only place you can get some kind of a true opinion. And sometimes I even wonder about them, in spite of what they say.
It's also almost impossible to find comparisons & opinions on outboards. The advertising dollars are too important.
posted 03-19-2001 06:41 AM ET (US)
Hey fellows I guess I didn't get by test idea across very well.
What I meant to convey was a performance, handling and ride test between the 27 hull and the 28 hull designs.
The 27 hull was kept in the recreational line as the Offshore till '98 but this configuration as a tester wouldn't be fair.
The 27 WA of the '91-'94 period would be because the "dry" weights are pretty close 6140 to 6600, they both have a "bracket" type motor mounting set up, carry about the same super structure, and hold similar amounts of fresh water and fuel.
The test really wouldn't be about the accommodations since they are somewhat similar but as stated the differences in hull design as it effects the mentioned criteria --- now this would in my mind be the real test between the Dougherty hull and the Accutrac --- Tom
posted 03-19-2001 08:19 AM ET (US)
I am not so sure that the test are not objective. In the review of the 28 C BoatTEST did not like the high step down into the cuddy and the cockpit with the radar arch in place also they mentioned the need to use the trim tabs to bring the bow down from it's "heads up position". These are comments that you would not find in a commercial.
I don't believe any review from any source would be over critical on any product being tested, yet these reviews will point out short comings.
As for the Bayliner, the review most likely reflects how it fairs in its class and price range. Lets face it Bayliner has gotten better, it is inexpensive and is geared to a specific economic nitch. On other Forums there are plenty of Bayliner owners that love their boats.
There is no such thing as a perfect hull, that is why there is such a diversity in hull design. And why there are so many different boats made of different applications and conditions. So there will always be positves and negatives to each hull. Including the Dougherty and the Accutrack Hulls.
posted 03-19-2001 10:39 AM ET (US)
So Bear what's your point? Sorry I didn't get it -- probably just this old mind though!
All I am saying it would be nice to experience the difference in the hull designs under varying conditions --- not saying one is superior to the other, each I'm sure would show advantages and disadvantages based on sea conditions --- then one could form an opinion to which style of hull would best fit/suit their needs ---
posted 03-19-2001 03:37 PM ET (US)
You are on the money! That is something I would like to experience also. I guess I took the long way around.
It is the individual that determines the kind of hull or boat that is best suited to thier requirements in the kind of boating and waters that they will be boating on.
ie. Bayliner-someone that wants something new not to spend alot of money, maybe sking on a lake.
You know what I mean.
posted 03-19-2001 04:23 PM ET (US)
Tom: Boston Whaler has had to tell the truth about the 28 Conquest weight, finally. It is now correctly shown as 8400lbs (dry) in the 2001 catalog (a correcting sticker is applied in the weight column)!! That's too much weight in comparison the the 27's weight ranges of 4500 (for a Guardian) to 6100 for the Walkaround.
The Conquest may ride better by virture of its 2300lb weight advantage. But, like the US Military and others, I'll still prefer the 27 over the 28 any day! Haven't seen a lot of US Navy 28 Conquest patrol boats out there lately. This is another boat they need to get on a diet. That's why it's fuel consumption is so great (even with the Mercs!). Never liked it's lines, and never will.
posted 03-19-2001 08:51 PM ET (US)
Clearly Larry does not like the 28 Conquest, and that is fine. I have not looked at this boat. The Outrage or the Walk Around is more to my liking.
Maybe in a few years I will start looking toward something bigger, and at that time I will remember the what was said about the 27 Walk Around and I will definitly try to find one. It must be extraordinary. I have had an older 23 WA before and had enjoyed it before becoming too ill to take care of it. So I sold it and recently bought a new 16 Dauntless, easier on the ol body. Needless to say I love the water! Thankfully after recieving my transplant I am regianing my health again. Maybe I'll be ready for one in the future.
Thanks BigZ, Larry.
posted 03-19-2001 09:46 PM ET (US)
B Bear: To see the 27 Walkarounds, go to Cetacea Page 29 (also see the Forum for discussion on this page). These are the "lightweights" (compared to the 28 Conquest) that we are talking about. I prefer the 1990 model shown, and BigZ prefers the 93 model shown, but they are all great Whalers, and every bit as much boat as a 28 (which is really a 26 in keel length). These Walkarounds, incidentally, are of the same period as your 23 Walkaround, also a very nice Whaler. I think they were all so expensive to build that the Company was losing money on them, hence they were discontinued. Why does Boston Whaler keep discontinuing their good models? It seems they all get more in demand, and are more appreciated, once they are out of production!
Bigz, have you found a 27 WA yet? I'm sorry I let the one I had my hands two years ago get away. Now they seem to be scarce.
posted 03-20-2001 09:18 AM ET (US)
You bring up an interesting point on weight, Larry!
It isn't at all clear how Whaler is calculating weight these days --- but it appears that they are now including the engines in the calculation since they are sold as "packages"! You state this sticker says "dry" was this defined? Since the website also states this weight but the standard package includes the motors
I even came across the 26 C review where it is stated as a displacement figure!
A better weight statement might be light displacement the weight of the vessel only including propulsion and the vessel’s loaded displacement the weight of the vessel and all cargo, stores, fuel, water, etc. on board.
So I have asked BW for clarification.
If they are using the "package" weight then the difference in the 27 WA and the 28 C wouldn't amount to much.
When I get clarification on this will post it.
posted 03-20-2001 12:43 PM ET (US)
Tom: The fine print in that catalog says "Weight is standard dry weight and does not include engines". And a note on the sticker says the 5600lb weight (shown in the catalog for the 28 Conquest) is superceded by the new 8400 Lb figure.
A pair of Merc Optimax 225's, Mercury's heaviest engine, weigh 1100 lbs, so that is not the increase of 2800 lb. I still say the boat's too heavy, resulting in poor efficiency. I think you're too hard on those 225 Merc EFI's! That's a lot of boat to push.
The same sticker shows the dry weight of the 26 Outrage as 4350, and I know that is the boat only weight, directly from a Dealer who sold one on a trailer that was too light (boat originally shown as 3600lbs).
The 28 Outrage is shown dry at 7700lbs, a boat very similar in concept to the 27 Offshore, which weighs 5800 (I think).
It could be that they had to "beef up" this 28' hull, thereby adding weight. There were structural problems with the first 28 Conquests, which in turn held up the 28 Outrage introduction a full year.
posted 03-20-2001 01:28 PM ET (US)
Mercury® dual pre-rig
225 CXL OptiMax™ Mercury engines (dual)
OptiMax™ Smart Craft deluxe gauge package
3-gallon remote oil tanks with deck fills
I am still waiting on clarification on how they compute the weights.
posted 03-20-2001 03:39 PM ET (US)
Confirmation on weight --- Larry your right and brother as my source said one heavy boat!
Gee wiz they must be doing a very thick lay up and a lot of "Whaler Board" sure ain't the foam --- :)
Still would like to get a ride comparison between the 27WA and the 28 C ---
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.
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000