Smirk or smirkless? - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  Smirk or smirkless?

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Smirk or smirkless?

newt posted 07-01-2002 06:53 AM ET (US)
Hi all. I am still browsing for a Whaler of my own. I looked at a couple this weekend. One of which was a '73 Cohasset. The hull was in mint condition (better than the two '84's I looked at), and the console wood was recently rebuilt. All in all it was a great looking boat except for the power ('84 johnson 70--no power tilt or trim.
My question: is there a noticable difference in the ride with the newer "smirk" hulls vs the older ones?
As a sidebar, the guy wanted $8200 for the boat which I thought was a little steep as I would want to repower with a more modern engine. Any thoughts on the price? Boat also had a new battery, and twin 12-gallon aluminum tanks under the seat.
Thanks!
jimh posted 07-01-2002 08:38 AM ET (US)
A COHASSET has a molded console that looks like a wash basin. If the boat has a wooden center console from 1973 it is probably a NAUSET or EASTPORT. (See the Reference section on 16/17 for more info.)
There was a change in the hullform with the "smirk" re-design. The ride has been reported to be smoother in the newer hulls. There are some comments about this in the Reference section article.
As for the price, it is hard to judge. If a fellow has a boat in excellent condition and has it equiped with all the right accessories, the value can add up pretty fast.
newt posted 07-01-2002 09:57 AM ET (US)
The Cohasset I looked at had the same console as the one shown on page 52, the wood on the console I mentioned was the hatches/doors (new mahogony - sharp looking). the rest of the console was molded.
As I mentioned, the boat was in fine shape. I was amazed at how good it looked for a 30 year old hull.
The cost issue is one I am still mulling over, as I would need to add a windsheild, covers, sun shade, new power (although the engine fired right up and he said the water pump and carbs were just re-built), and maybe a bow cushion.
Thanks for the input.
Barry posted 07-01-2002 10:08 AM ET (US)
Newt, the price seems high to me with that power.
I've got a '74 Montauk (no smirk) with '89 Merc and '77 EZ Loader trailer that I purchased 2 years ago. Unfortunately I can't comment on the difference in ride. I've ridden in the newer Montauks but that has been many years ago.
Good luck!
Seabrook posted 07-01-2002 10:23 AM ET (US)
The ride: I ride in both styles on a regular basis, as I have a 1983 with the smirk and my friend has a 72 (I think) without the smirk. I think the older boat will plane on less power and may be a little more stable at rest, but we both agree that there is no comparison in the ride. The "smirk" style rides much better in choppy conditions and is much dryer.
Bigshot posted 07-01-2002 10:38 AM ET (US)
DEFINATELY dryer.
$8200.....I saw a 1995 montauk with a 95 100 merc and trailer in last weeks boat shopper for $8995 in FL. I was tempted! That is extreme or maybe even a misprint or engine is shongo....who knows but for 48k you should be able to get something from the mid 80's in great shape.
Bigshot posted 07-01-2002 10:39 AM ET (US)
That should be $8k not 48k of course.
Hobie1981 posted 07-01-2002 11:16 AM ET (US)
Newt: My smirkless Nauset (1969)has without a doupt what one would call an "aggressive" ride. It would be a perfect boat for a narcoleptic, nobody's gonna fall asleep on this ride. As the others have mentioned, it can also be very wet. A good set of canvas would eliminate that aspect of the ride.
Arguably, you are located in the heart of Whaler country. The $8200 seems a bit on the high side. If you looked around some more I'm sure you could find something similar, though needing a little work.
Hobie

whaletail posted 07-01-2002 11:16 AM ET (US)
With regards to my '75 Menemsha, the shape she's in, new teak throughout, and a new 90 hp Honda, I wouldn't even consider an offer under $15,000. So the value of an older hull in excellent shape is at the top of my list.
I just have two words to say about the new whalers... STARBOARD TRANSOMS!
Tom W Clark posted 07-01-2002 11:51 AM ET (US)
newt,
A 1973 Cohasset for $8200 is too high a price with that power. Actually a 1984 Johnson 70 is a great motor but even if it runs perfectly it still has very little resale value. You also don't say if the boat comes with a trailer. If it doesn't then the price is way out of line.
There is a huge difference in the ride of the original non-smirk hull (1961-1976) and the newer, Dougherty designed smirked hull (1977-2002). The newer hull has just enough V at the entry to help slice into waves and the wrap around smirk of the sponsons really help capture the spray generated by the hull bashing through the waves. Because of this I would say the dryness of the ride is the biggest difference between the hulls. Night and day.
If you really have your heart set on a Cohasset (or Nauset, Eastport or Sakonnet) then you are stuck with the older hull. If what you want is a Montauk then I would strongly recommend holding out for a 1977 or newer model.
Tom W Clark posted 07-01-2002 11:54 AM ET (US)
whaletail,
I'm not sure what you mean by "STARBOARD TRANSOMS" but if it's a reference to the construction material in the transoms of the new boats, rest assured that they still use good old plywood in there.
newt posted 07-01-2002 12:56 PM ET (US)
Thanks for all who responded! I think I have come to the conclusion that I would prefer to see the "smirk" on whatever whaler I buy, especially if there is a premium cost associated with buying a collectable older hull.
I (read: the wife) definitely would like to see some wood on the hull. At what point did the teak/mahogany dissapear? 1991?
Bigshot posted 07-01-2002 02:50 PM ET (US)
Some late 76's have the smirk...mine did. The teak was optional on 91 and later models and then GONE in like 97 or so. I like the wood but no wood would not bother me either. I do like 89 and up because they have the fiberglass front hatch which is bulletproof.
whaletail posted 07-01-2002 06:14 PM ET (US)
According to the salesmen at the Whaler dealership in Portland OR , the transoms are made of starboard in the new Montauks. I thought that's the reason for downgrade in hp, and no kicker.
If it's true, I'll take an older model anyday.
whalernut posted 07-01-2002 06:37 PM ET (US)
I agree Whailtail, give me an older one too!! Anyway, I paid $4750 for my 73` `16 Currituck with a 75` 85 h.p. Johnson(no P/T/T) and a trailer. Everything is in very good condition. $8200 is a little high. I prefer the Smirkless hulls myself, but they do ride hard and wet, but very stable, my number one reason for my choice. Jack.
Tom W Clark posted 07-01-2002 09:48 PM ET (US)
My own preference would be for a 1986 or later Montauk with all the teak.
1986 saw the advent of the final incarnation of the Montauk console which had the significant if subtle modification of the instrument or dash panel to a less vertical angle. The 1983 to 1985 consoles were the same but with the wheel and dash panels almost vertical which was a bit awkward.
The first Montauk console with louvered teak came out in 1978 and had a comfortable angle as well, but with a less robust attachment of the console to the floor of the boat.
The first smirked Montauk produced in August of 1976 as a 1977 model had the fiberglass console of the Outrages of that era with the varnished mahogany plywood doors and little "wings" on either side of the helm. Not as nice as the later versions.
whaletail,
Your dealer is wrong. The transom is made with a marine grade plywood core just as it always has. No starboard is embedded in the new Whaler hulls, though they do use a phenolic resin board called Whaleboard. Whaleboard is nothing like Starboard.
There is no less strength in the new Whaler transoms. The low hp rating of the MT 170 has nothing to do with the transom's strength. The inability to mount a kicker on the MT 170 is because there was no plywood in there to support it. This oversight will be corrected shortly. Whaler will begin producing MT 170s with plywood for the kicker by the middle of the month.
Bigshot posted 07-02-2002 10:06 AM ET (US)
Tom....my 76 smirked hull was a 76...not a 77.

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: Smirk or smirkless?
newt	posted 07-01-2002 06:53 AM ET (US) Hi all. I am still browsing for a Whaler of my own. I looked at a couple this weekend. One of which was a '73 Cohasset. The hull was in mint condition (better than the two '84's I looked at), and the console wood was recently rebuilt. All in all it was a great looking boat except for the power ('84 johnson 70--no power tilt or trim. My question: is there a noticable difference in the ride with the newer "smirk" hulls vs the older ones? As a sidebar, the guy wanted $8200 for the boat which I thought was a little steep as I would want to repower with a more modern engine. Any thoughts on the price? Boat also had a new battery, and twin 12-gallon aluminum tanks under the seat. Thanks!
jimh	posted 07-01-2002 08:38 AM ET (US) A COHASSET has a molded console that looks like a wash basin. If the boat has a wooden center console from 1973 it is probably a NAUSET or EASTPORT. (See the Reference section on 16/17 for more info.) There was a change in the hullform with the "smirk" re-design. The ride has been reported to be smoother in the newer hulls. There are some comments about this in the Reference section article. As for the price, it is hard to judge. If a fellow has a boat in excellent condition and has it equiped with all the right accessories, the value can add up pretty fast.
newt	posted 07-01-2002 09:57 AM ET (US) The Cohasset I looked at had the same console as the one shown on page 52, the wood on the console I mentioned was the hatches/doors (new mahogony - sharp looking). the rest of the console was molded. As I mentioned, the boat was in fine shape. I was amazed at how good it looked for a 30 year old hull. The cost issue is one I am still mulling over, as I would need to add a windsheild, covers, sun shade, new power (although the engine fired right up and he said the water pump and carbs were just re-built), and maybe a bow cushion. Thanks for the input.
Barry	posted 07-01-2002 10:08 AM ET (US) Newt, the price seems high to me with that power. I've got a '74 Montauk (no smirk) with '89 Merc and '77 EZ Loader trailer that I purchased 2 years ago. Unfortunately I can't comment on the difference in ride. I've ridden in the newer Montauks but that has been many years ago. Good luck!
Seabrook	posted 07-01-2002 10:23 AM ET (US) The ride: I ride in both styles on a regular basis, as I have a 1983 with the smirk and my friend has a 72 (I think) without the smirk. I think the older boat will plane on less power and may be a little more stable at rest, but we both agree that there is no comparison in the ride. The "smirk" style rides much better in choppy conditions and is much dryer.
Bigshot	posted 07-01-2002 10:38 AM ET (US) DEFINATELY dryer. $8200.....I saw a 1995 montauk with a 95 100 merc and trailer in last weeks boat shopper for $8995 in FL. I was tempted! That is extreme or maybe even a misprint or engine is shongo....who knows but for 48k you should be able to get something from the mid 80's in great shape.
Bigshot	posted 07-01-2002 10:39 AM ET (US) That should be $8k not 48k of course.
Hobie1981	posted 07-01-2002 11:16 AM ET (US) Newt: My smirkless Nauset (1969)has without a doupt what one would call an "aggressive" ride. It would be a perfect boat for a narcoleptic, nobody's gonna fall asleep on this ride. As the others have mentioned, it can also be very wet. A good set of canvas would eliminate that aspect of the ride. Arguably, you are located in the heart of Whaler country. The $8200 seems a bit on the high side. If you looked around some more I'm sure you could find something similar, though needing a little work. Hobie
whaletail	posted 07-01-2002 11:16 AM ET (US) With regards to my '75 Menemsha, the shape she's in, new teak throughout, and a new 90 hp Honda, I wouldn't even consider an offer under $15,000. So the value of an older hull in excellent shape is at the top of my list. I just have two words to say about the new whalers... STARBOARD TRANSOMS!
Tom W Clark	posted 07-01-2002 11:51 AM ET (US) newt, A 1973 Cohasset for $8200 is too high a price with that power. Actually a 1984 Johnson 70 is a great motor but even if it runs perfectly it still has very little resale value. You also don't say if the boat comes with a trailer. If it doesn't then the price is way out of line. There is a huge difference in the ride of the original non-smirk hull (1961-1976) and the newer, Dougherty designed smirked hull (1977-2002). The newer hull has just enough V at the entry to help slice into waves and the wrap around smirk of the sponsons really help capture the spray generated by the hull bashing through the waves. Because of this I would say the dryness of the ride is the biggest difference between the hulls. Night and day. If you really have your heart set on a Cohasset (or Nauset, Eastport or Sakonnet) then you are stuck with the older hull. If what you want is a Montauk then I would strongly recommend holding out for a 1977 or newer model.
Tom W Clark	posted 07-01-2002 11:54 AM ET (US) whaletail, I'm not sure what you mean by "STARBOARD TRANSOMS" but if it's a reference to the construction material in the transoms of the new boats, rest assured that they still use good old plywood in there.
newt	posted 07-01-2002 12:56 PM ET (US) Thanks for all who responded! I think I have come to the conclusion that I would prefer to see the "smirk" on whatever whaler I buy, especially if there is a premium cost associated with buying a collectable older hull. I (read: the wife) definitely would like to see some wood on the hull. At what point did the teak/mahogany dissapear? 1991?
Bigshot	posted 07-01-2002 02:50 PM ET (US) Some late 76's have the smirk...mine did. The teak was optional on 91 and later models and then GONE in like 97 or so. I like the wood but no wood would not bother me either. I do like 89 and up because they have the fiberglass front hatch which is bulletproof.
whaletail	posted 07-01-2002 06:14 PM ET (US) According to the salesmen at the Whaler dealership in Portland OR , the transoms are made of starboard in the new Montauks. I thought that's the reason for downgrade in hp, and no kicker. If it's true, I'll take an older model anyday.
whalernut	posted 07-01-2002 06:37 PM ET (US) I agree Whailtail, give me an older one too!! Anyway, I paid $4750 for my 73` `16 Currituck with a 75` 85 h.p. Johnson(no P/T/T) and a trailer. Everything is in very good condition. $8200 is a little high. I prefer the Smirkless hulls myself, but they do ride hard and wet, but very stable, my number one reason for my choice. Jack.
Tom W Clark	posted 07-01-2002 09:48 PM ET (US) My own preference would be for a 1986 or later Montauk with all the teak. 1986 saw the advent of the final incarnation of the Montauk console which had the significant if subtle modification of the instrument or dash panel to a less vertical angle. The 1983 to 1985 consoles were the same but with the wheel and dash panels almost vertical which was a bit awkward. The first Montauk console with louvered teak came out in 1978 and had a comfortable angle as well, but with a less robust attachment of the console to the floor of the boat. The first smirked Montauk produced in August of 1976 as a 1977 model had the fiberglass console of the Outrages of that era with the varnished mahogany plywood doors and little "wings" on either side of the helm. Not as nice as the later versions. whaletail, Your dealer is wrong. The transom is made with a marine grade plywood core just as it always has. No starboard is embedded in the new Whaler hulls, though they do use a phenolic resin board called Whaleboard. Whaleboard is nothing like Starboard. There is no less strength in the new Whaler transoms. The low hp rating of the MT 170 has nothing to do with the transom's strength. The inability to mount a kicker on the MT 170 is because there was no plywood in there to support it. This oversight will be corrected shortly. Whaler will begin producing MT 170s with plywood for the kicker by the middle of the month.
Bigshot	posted 07-02-2002 10:06 AM ET (US) Tom....my 76 smirked hull was a 76...not a 77.