Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
|Author||Topic: 13' dimensions|
posted 05-31-2002 11:23 PM ET (US)
Hello--I'm a new member, looking at 13' Whalers, old and new (don't have one yet). Although their sizes are largely the same, I'm a little puzzled about the differences, say, between a mid-80s and a late 90s boat.
For instance: Older boat = 13'4" L, 65" beam, 320 pounds dry wt.
Newer boat = 13'3" L, 71" beam, and 600 lbs. dry wt.
Newer boat appears to weigh about twice as much, but has less maximum weight cap. (935 pounds vs 1200 lbs older boat). I assume that the extra width adds more weight to the newer boat, but why does it have less carrying capacity?
One more stats-type question: I see that newer 13' boats list a maximum engine weight of 210 lbs. Would anyone know what the max. engine wt. should be for an '85-'94 13' Sport?
By the way, your web site has been an invaluable guide to learning about the various models and choices available. It has also been a lot of fun to read people's stories and tips.
Thanks in advance for your time....Mike
posted 06-02-2002 12:20 PM ET (US)
You are comparing the "classic" 13-foot hull with the much more recent 13-foot hull.
The new hull weighs more probably because it has more glass/resin and less foam. That also explains the reduced floatation rating. The modest increase in buoyancy of the larger hull was more than eaten up by the higher weight.
I don't know that a maximum engine weight rating was ever applied to the 13-foot classic hull, but outboards weighed much less in 1960 than they do today. Of course, the 1960 Whaler was much lighter weight, too, so it needed a smaller motor.
It is not unusual to see a motor rated 40-HP at the prop on a modern 13-foot Whaler. In the 1960 it was much more typical to see an engine rated as 25-HP (at the power head) on a 13-Whaler.
Maybe it's because the people got bigger! I think my Dad only weighed about 175# in the 1960's, while I'm struggling to get under 215# these days--that might explain the bigger motors.
We used to have an 18-HP JOHNSON that he could easily lift into the trunk of the car. I am sure that motor weighed less than 100#.
Welcome to the forum,
posted 06-02-2002 12:33 PM ET (US)
Also meant to say:
Another factor in those 1960's motor weights was the pratically universal lack of electric start, power tilt or trim, and battery charging. That cuts about 100# off the weight of the engine right there, plus it eliminates a 50# lead-acid battery.
We used to operate the running lights on a lantern battery cell. The engine was pull start. Trim was set by a mechanical stop pin. Life was simpler.
posted 06-02-2002 01:39 PM ET (US)
I had a 1982 13' for 12 years. It had a 35 Johnson.No power tilt or trim. It was plenty of power. Very stable. A pounder in rough water. I loved the boat, but sold it in 1994 for a new Montauk. I wanted to be able to stand up and walk around in the boat. Both of them have fit in my garage. But I feel much more comfortable in the Montauk.
By the way. I bought the 13 new in 1982 for $5,000 with the works, trailer, top, cover etc, kept it 12 years and sold it for $4200.
Can't beat these things.
posted 06-02-2002 06:48 PM ET (US)
jimh and AllanR--Thanks for the replies. I was especially interested to learn about the differences in classic and new 13' hull construction in terms of proportions of glass vs foam.
Re engine weight: I had not considered in any depth the differences between new and old engine weights, and had also not factored in the various extras (e.g., t/t) that add to the weight of modern engines.
Thanks again for the great info....Mike
posted 06-02-2002 07:14 PM ET (US)
i am selling a 1980 hull 1989 yamaha 30 hp and trailer in great condition if you are intersested let meknow
posted 06-03-2002 11:05 AM ET (US)
was wondering what you were looking for pricewise for that boat of yours.
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.