Experience w/ 17 Outrage I (89-95) - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  Experience w/ 17 Outrage I (89-95)

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Experience w/ 17 Outrage I (89-95)

PSW posted 11-05-2002 08:57 PM ET (US)
Interested in hearing opinions on the 17 Outrage (I) that was produced between 89-95. I was talking with one of Canada's largest whaler dealers on the phone recently and he was saying that this was a great model, it was just thrown out when the "Coleman" corporation briefly owned boston whaler. My family has done business here in the past and this gentleman has owned this dealer since the 70's and is very knowledgeable. Anyone who has owned this model or is familiar with this model please give me some input.
PSW
jimh posted 11-05-2002 11:09 PM ET (US)
You might want to recommend to your dealer friend that he read my article on the history of Whaler's owners. As far as I can tell, Whaler was never owned by Coleman.
See http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/history/whaler.html
PSW posted 11-05-2002 11:47 PM ET (US)
Your article was very good jim. Everything I was told by the dealer and just read in the above referenced article go hand in hand, except he called that company "coleman" rather than the "meridian" group. He even referenced mastercraft and nordic track. Maybe coleman was a subdivision or vice versa. Either way the great whaler hulls of the past are not showing any signs of returning unless this new 170 is as good as some say, but only time will tell. I am just looking for a classic that I can repower with a new direct injection outboard. All this talk of the super charged 4 stroke we have is amusing, but how about a 100-115 horsepower optimax. The 150 optimax is on my brother-in-law's 98 17 Outrage and is just the sweetest motor. Now the boat is nice too, but after having it on a few long runs in rough water leave me looking for an earlier style whaler. I like the integrated seats and the overall fit and finish, but the performance is just not quite right. That is why I am curious about the Outrage I.
PSW
Tom W Clark posted 11-06-2002 12:48 AM ET (US)
PSW,
The Outrage 17 is a great boat as far as I can tell. I've never owned one but have owned a couple of Montauks and an Outrage 18. The Outrage 17 is really just a slightly scaled down Outrage 18 and as such is sure to be a nice ride and a step up in smoothness from a Montauk.
The 17 Outrage is the smallest Deep-V hull that Whaler ever produced. I do not think they made a whole lot of them because for just a little more you could get an Outrage 18. This is still true of these two boats on the used market.
The stern of the Outrage 17 is finished differently than an Outrage 18, but other than that they are very similar. One advantage of the Outrage 17 is that it may be able to fit into a garage where an 18 might not.
The Outrage 17 is comparable in size to a new MT 170 but actually weighs a little less, can handle much higher horsepower and has the classic lines of the Dougherty era Whaler hulls and includes a built in fuel tank and the classic Whaler reversible pilot seat.
It’s definitely worthy of your consideration if you are thinking of moving up from a Montauk, but then again, so is an Outrage 18.
raydent99 posted 11-06-2002 10:25 AM ET (US)
I just bought a 1994 17' Outrage w/ a 2000 evinrude 90 hp. It's a terrific boat. I've owned a 1962 13'Whaler, a 22' Revenge (which was stolen), a 14' Rage (sucks), and my brother has an 18 Outrage. I agree that the 17' Outrage is very similar (but slightly scaled down) to the late 80's 18 Outrage (which was renamed the 19 Outrage in 1990 or 1991). I chose it over an 18/19 Outrage because of the ability to store it in a standard garage. The overall length of boat and trailer is 20'6" without a swing-tongue trailer. However, after buying it, I discovered that the windshield height is too tall for my garage by about 3 inches. Since my current house doesn't fit the Whaler, I'm going have to get rid of it (the house, of course...not the Whaler).
PSW posted 11-06-2002 10:30 AM ET (US)
I am very familiar with the 18 Outrage and it is obviously one of the best hulls ever made by whaler.I actually use your pic of the 18 airborne as my wallpaper at work. I just like the fit and finish of the 17 in the rear and the size will be perfect for the sound. We have a pursuit to do the bigger water stuff. Although there is not much I didn't do in the Montauk. An integrated fuel system and finished off rear end would be nice to have along with a little deeper V. Although I am curious to know how it takes side chop being that short of a hull. The 170 may be the only choice once supply is there, although I would prefer a classic. Thanks for the input Tom.
PSW
jimh posted 11-06-2002 01:02 PM ET (US)
To make things even more confusing, Whaler's current corporate owners, Brunswick, have just created a new boat line, Meridian Yachts. This line of boats is a re-design of the larger Bayliner boats.
So now we have Meridian, a line of boats in the Brunswick family, and Meridian, the company that used to own Whaler.
I did a cursory search on www.google.com for Meridian and Coleman, but didn't find anything. However, your guess that perhaps Coleman (as in lantern, etc.) was part of Meridian is a reasonable one. Can someone fill us in on that?
PSW posted 11-06-2002 04:04 PM ET (US)
Jim after reading everything and doing some research this is what I came up with. The owner of MP Mercury that told me this is in his 60's I presume, so during the last decade when giving historical reference to the ownership of whaler he probably used association to remember the different owner's of boston whaler and instead of remembering Meridian he would think of something more close to our everyday lives that would help us paint a picture. So like you did earlier in mentioning Nordic Track as a product of theirs he probably did the same thing until one day he drew a blank and his mind said....hmmmm. sporting good/fitness product...haha..coleman you know the lantern company they temporarily owned whaler before...
After that his brain just kept saying Coleman instead of Nordic Track (Meridian). The rest is history. That is all that I can think of because the rest adds up. Tho only thing that matters is that some great hulls were lost along the way.
Some more personal experiences/thoughts on this boat would be great also.
PSW
msullivan006 posted 11-06-2002 11:21 PM ET (US)
I have just acquired a '93 OR 17, so I don't have a lot of actual experience with it yet. My original target was a Montauk, withe the thought that it was the biggest boat I wanted to trailer behind a Volvo wagon. I've had lots of time in Montauk's and really like them, but they do have a pretty hard ride in the ocean lots of the time. While checking out specs, I discovered that the OR I is only about 50 pounds heavier than the Montauk, at 1020. The OR's 120HP max outboards will mostly run the same weight as the 90-100's, as far as I could learn, and the trailer is likely to be the same.( I think the 18 is over 1400, plus more for the motor and each of the other pieces like the trailer). At the same time, it is a much more open water oriented hull, handles 120 HP, has a built in 34 gallon tank under the floor for great stability, a nicely finished stern with live well, two quarter seats, taller console with electronics box and more spray protection, etc., and ovdeerall seems like a lot more boat. I don't really see how the weight is so close, although the Montauk does have more material in the hull structure in the forward sections. One interesting thing is that the capacity of the OR is 6 people, versus 7 for the Montauk, which I think has to do with the extra buoyancy in the bow section as compared to the deeper V. The original price lists (at least the 1995 ones I have) show a difference of about $4500 (+45%)for the OR versus the Montauk, which may explain why there were so few compared to the Montauk. You can really see where this money went when you put them side by side. On my limited time out in Boston harbor in the OR, it is really very good in a windy chop. I was amazed at how dry it rode as well. Even my wife, a confirmed landlubber, was pretty comfortable, and she is very happy with the puchase as well. Best of luck with whichever you choose - they are all great boats.
jimh posted 11-06-2002 11:32 PM ET (US)
Sorry we got off on a tangent--back to the 17-Outrage hull:
I think the potential for that boat to fit in a standard garage is a great feature. Having your boat in your own garage can save money and time.
In contrast, to fit an 18-Outrage in a garage you have to have a rather generous garage.
raydent99 posted 11-07-2002 08:19 AM ET (US)
jimh,
I agree that the 17 is short enough to fit in most garages on a trailer. However, the buyer needs to check the height of the top of the windshield when the boat is sitting on a trailer...my 17' would not fit in my garage.
Marc posted 11-07-2002 10:30 AM ET (US)
PSW:
I also just purchased a 91' 17 Outrage after owning a Montauk for 10 years. msullivan006 is correct in saying they are both great boats.
I had read some comments in other posts that the Montauk was a more stable platform but I have found the Outrage 17 to be a very stable boat also.
With the 17 Outrage I feel you get a much bigger boat feel. It trailers easily too just like the Montauk.
The built in tank is nice in respect to saving space under the RPS. The built in gunnel rod racks are another nice feature. Plus all the things mentioned above!
Regarding the garage: I bought a swing away tongue so it would fit length wise. However, height was an issue. I had to lower the tongue jack all the way down and remove the trim to get mine to fit. It clears the top by maybe an 1/8 inch. But it fits!
Let me (us) know if you have any other questions that we can answer. Love to talk Whalers!
Marc
PSW posted 11-07-2002 10:32 AM ET (US)
msullivan I agree with everything that you said except the weight consideration. When thinkning of how much added features and depth this boat has there is no way it can way that close to a montauk. I agree it states this in the brochure, but remember recently we were reading about whalers mistated weihgts in some later boats. I don't have any clue as to how much it weighs, but would love to know. It does not matter too much to me since I like it either way as long as it is less than 1600 lbs. If you ever have time to go to a weigh station and pay the $7.50 to get a printout I would love to here the breakdown. As far as the garage factor is concerned it makes no difference to me since it will be sitting in my fathers new 40X40 Shop along side a pursuit. I just think this looks to be a good boat that was not produced long enough and I want to find one before I buy another montauk or 18 OR.
PSW
Bigshot posted 11-07-2002 11:12 AM ET (US)
Marc....you can let the air out of the tires and get a couple inches.
Marc posted 11-07-2002 03:11 PM ET (US)
Bigshot:
I think that would ruin the rims. :-)
Marc...
ShrimpBurrito posted 11-07-2002 03:20 PM ET (US)
Just deflate them until you get the boat in the garage, then pump 'em back up. It would take 5 minutes, and then both the rims and the sidewalls of the tires would be fine.
Marc posted 11-08-2002 10:15 AM ET (US)
I thought BS was just kidding about letting air out of the tires. Like I said earlier, the center console just fits under the garage by about an 1/8 inch so no need to deflate tires. :-)
However, we are getting off the original post. So let me add one more thing: I haven't used it in the ocean yet so I can't speak on its stability but in light to medium chop it handles very well and seems to be a dry ride.
Marc...
alpinearabian posted 11-11-2002 02:04 PM ET (US)
I have a 93 17 Outrage with a 95 115 Evinrude that I purchased after having a 15 SS with a 75hp Suzuki. I to was looking for a Montauk when the oportunity to buy the 17 OR came along. All I can say is I am glad I got the OR instead of the Montauk. A friend has a Montauk and for the type of fishing we do here in the Northwest, ocean, bay, columbia river,the OR is much dryer and more stable. I have owed the boat for 5 years and have only gotten wet from spray twice. It will go through nasty 3 foot box-car chop found in Grays Harbor as well as a 25 Grady White, then when it flattens out, hit the gas and bam you are doing 50. With the itegral tank, fish boxes, nice center console you can't do much better for a small easy to handle boat. Side by side with the Montauk you can really see the difference, the best of the Montauk only a little bigger.

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: Experience w/ 17 Outrage I (89-95)
PSW	posted 11-05-2002 08:57 PM ET (US) Interested in hearing opinions on the 17 Outrage (I) that was produced between 89-95. I was talking with one of Canada's largest whaler dealers on the phone recently and he was saying that this was a great model, it was just thrown out when the "Coleman" corporation briefly owned boston whaler. My family has done business here in the past and this gentleman has owned this dealer since the 70's and is very knowledgeable. Anyone who has owned this model or is familiar with this model please give me some input. PSW
jimh	posted 11-05-2002 11:09 PM ET (US) You might want to recommend to your dealer friend that he read my article on the history of Whaler's owners. As far as I can tell, Whaler was never owned by Coleman. See http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/history/whaler.html
PSW	posted 11-05-2002 11:47 PM ET (US) Your article was very good jim. Everything I was told by the dealer and just read in the above referenced article go hand in hand, except he called that company "coleman" rather than the "meridian" group. He even referenced mastercraft and nordic track. Maybe coleman was a subdivision or vice versa. Either way the great whaler hulls of the past are not showing any signs of returning unless this new 170 is as good as some say, but only time will tell. I am just looking for a classic that I can repower with a new direct injection outboard. All this talk of the super charged 4 stroke we have is amusing, but how about a 100-115 horsepower optimax. The 150 optimax is on my brother-in-law's 98 17 Outrage and is just the sweetest motor. Now the boat is nice too, but after having it on a few long runs in rough water leave me looking for an earlier style whaler. I like the integrated seats and the overall fit and finish, but the performance is just not quite right. That is why I am curious about the Outrage I. PSW
Tom W Clark	posted 11-06-2002 12:48 AM ET (US) PSW, The Outrage 17 is a great boat as far as I can tell. I've never owned one but have owned a couple of Montauks and an Outrage 18. The Outrage 17 is really just a slightly scaled down Outrage 18 and as such is sure to be a nice ride and a step up in smoothness from a Montauk. The 17 Outrage is the smallest Deep-V hull that Whaler ever produced. I do not think they made a whole lot of them because for just a little more you could get an Outrage 18. This is still true of these two boats on the used market. The stern of the Outrage 17 is finished differently than an Outrage 18, but other than that they are very similar. One advantage of the Outrage 17 is that it may be able to fit into a garage where an 18 might not. The Outrage 17 is comparable in size to a new MT 170 but actually weighs a little less, can handle much higher horsepower and has the classic lines of the Dougherty era Whaler hulls and includes a built in fuel tank and the classic Whaler reversible pilot seat. It’s definitely worthy of your consideration if you are thinking of moving up from a Montauk, but then again, so is an Outrage 18.
raydent99	posted 11-06-2002 10:25 AM ET (US) I just bought a 1994 17' Outrage w/ a 2000 evinrude 90 hp. It's a terrific boat. I've owned a 1962 13'Whaler, a 22' Revenge (which was stolen), a 14' Rage (sucks), and my brother has an 18 Outrage. I agree that the 17' Outrage is very similar (but slightly scaled down) to the late 80's 18 Outrage (which was renamed the 19 Outrage in 1990 or 1991). I chose it over an 18/19 Outrage because of the ability to store it in a standard garage. The overall length of boat and trailer is 20'6" without a swing-tongue trailer. However, after buying it, I discovered that the windshield height is too tall for my garage by about 3 inches. Since my current house doesn't fit the Whaler, I'm going have to get rid of it (the house, of course...not the Whaler).
PSW	posted 11-06-2002 10:30 AM ET (US) I am very familiar with the 18 Outrage and it is obviously one of the best hulls ever made by whaler.I actually use your pic of the 18 airborne as my wallpaper at work. I just like the fit and finish of the 17 in the rear and the size will be perfect for the sound. We have a pursuit to do the bigger water stuff. Although there is not much I didn't do in the Montauk. An integrated fuel system and finished off rear end would be nice to have along with a little deeper V. Although I am curious to know how it takes side chop being that short of a hull. The 170 may be the only choice once supply is there, although I would prefer a classic. Thanks for the input Tom. PSW
jimh	posted 11-06-2002 01:02 PM ET (US) To make things even more confusing, Whaler's current corporate owners, Brunswick, have just created a new boat line, Meridian Yachts. This line of boats is a re-design of the larger Bayliner boats. So now we have Meridian, a line of boats in the Brunswick family, and Meridian, the company that used to own Whaler. I did a cursory search on www.google.com for Meridian and Coleman, but didn't find anything. However, your guess that perhaps Coleman (as in lantern, etc.) was part of Meridian is a reasonable one. Can someone fill us in on that?
PSW	posted 11-06-2002 04:04 PM ET (US) Jim after reading everything and doing some research this is what I came up with. The owner of MP Mercury that told me this is in his 60's I presume, so during the last decade when giving historical reference to the ownership of whaler he probably used association to remember the different owner's of boston whaler and instead of remembering Meridian he would think of something more close to our everyday lives that would help us paint a picture. So like you did earlier in mentioning Nordic Track as a product of theirs he probably did the same thing until one day he drew a blank and his mind said....hmmmm. sporting good/fitness product...haha..coleman you know the lantern company they temporarily owned whaler before... After that his brain just kept saying Coleman instead of Nordic Track (Meridian). The rest is history. That is all that I can think of because the rest adds up. Tho only thing that matters is that some great hulls were lost along the way. Some more personal experiences/thoughts on this boat would be great also. PSW
msullivan006	posted 11-06-2002 11:21 PM ET (US) I have just acquired a '93 OR 17, so I don't have a lot of actual experience with it yet. My original target was a Montauk, withe the thought that it was the biggest boat I wanted to trailer behind a Volvo wagon. I've had lots of time in Montauk's and really like them, but they do have a pretty hard ride in the ocean lots of the time. While checking out specs, I discovered that the OR I is only about 50 pounds heavier than the Montauk, at 1020. The OR's 120HP max outboards will mostly run the same weight as the 90-100's, as far as I could learn, and the trailer is likely to be the same.( I think the 18 is over 1400, plus more for the motor and each of the other pieces like the trailer). At the same time, it is a much more open water oriented hull, handles 120 HP, has a built in 34 gallon tank under the floor for great stability, a nicely finished stern with live well, two quarter seats, taller console with electronics box and more spray protection, etc., and ovdeerall seems like a lot more boat. I don't really see how the weight is so close, although the Montauk does have more material in the hull structure in the forward sections. One interesting thing is that the capacity of the OR is 6 people, versus 7 for the Montauk, which I think has to do with the extra buoyancy in the bow section as compared to the deeper V. The original price lists (at least the 1995 ones I have) show a difference of about $4500 (+45%)for the OR versus the Montauk, which may explain why there were so few compared to the Montauk. You can really see where this money went when you put them side by side. On my limited time out in Boston harbor in the OR, it is really very good in a windy chop. I was amazed at how dry it rode as well. Even my wife, a confirmed landlubber, was pretty comfortable, and she is very happy with the puchase as well. Best of luck with whichever you choose - they are all great boats.
jimh	posted 11-06-2002 11:32 PM ET (US) Sorry we got off on a tangent--back to the 17-Outrage hull: I think the potential for that boat to fit in a standard garage is a great feature. Having your boat in your own garage can save money and time. In contrast, to fit an 18-Outrage in a garage you have to have a rather generous garage.
raydent99	posted 11-07-2002 08:19 AM ET (US) jimh, I agree that the 17 is short enough to fit in most garages on a trailer. However, the buyer needs to check the height of the top of the windshield when the boat is sitting on a trailer...my 17' would not fit in my garage.
Marc	posted 11-07-2002 10:30 AM ET (US) PSW: I also just purchased a 91' 17 Outrage after owning a Montauk for 10 years. msullivan006 is correct in saying they are both great boats. I had read some comments in other posts that the Montauk was a more stable platform but I have found the Outrage 17 to be a very stable boat also. With the 17 Outrage I feel you get a much bigger boat feel. It trailers easily too just like the Montauk. The built in tank is nice in respect to saving space under the RPS. The built in gunnel rod racks are another nice feature. Plus all the things mentioned above! Regarding the garage: I bought a swing away tongue so it would fit length wise. However, height was an issue. I had to lower the tongue jack all the way down and remove the trim to get mine to fit. It clears the top by maybe an 1/8 inch. But it fits! Let me (us) know if you have any other questions that we can answer. Love to talk Whalers! Marc
PSW	posted 11-07-2002 10:32 AM ET (US) msullivan I agree with everything that you said except the weight consideration. When thinkning of how much added features and depth this boat has there is no way it can way that close to a montauk. I agree it states this in the brochure, but remember recently we were reading about whalers mistated weihgts in some later boats. I don't have any clue as to how much it weighs, but would love to know. It does not matter too much to me since I like it either way as long as it is less than 1600 lbs. If you ever have time to go to a weigh station and pay the $7.50 to get a printout I would love to here the breakdown. As far as the garage factor is concerned it makes no difference to me since it will be sitting in my fathers new 40X40 Shop along side a pursuit. I just think this looks to be a good boat that was not produced long enough and I want to find one before I buy another montauk or 18 OR. PSW
Bigshot	posted 11-07-2002 11:12 AM ET (US) Marc....you can let the air out of the tires and get a couple inches.
Marc	posted 11-07-2002 03:11 PM ET (US) Bigshot: I think that would ruin the rims. :-) Marc...
ShrimpBurrito	posted 11-07-2002 03:20 PM ET (US) Just deflate them until you get the boat in the garage, then pump 'em back up. It would take 5 minutes, and then both the rims and the sidewalls of the tires would be fine.
Marc	posted 11-08-2002 10:15 AM ET (US) I thought BS was just kidding about letting air out of the tires. Like I said earlier, the center console just fits under the garage by about an 1/8 inch so no need to deflate tires. :-) However, we are getting off the original post. So let me add one more thing: I haven't used it in the ocean yet so I can't speak on its stability but in light to medium chop it handles very well and seems to be a dry ride. Marc...
alpinearabian	posted 11-11-2002 02:04 PM ET (US) I have a 93 17 Outrage with a 95 115 Evinrude that I purchased after having a 15 SS with a 75hp Suzuki. I to was looking for a Montauk when the oportunity to buy the 17 OR came along. All I can say is I am glad I got the OR instead of the Montauk. A friend has a Montauk and for the type of fishing we do here in the Northwest, ocean, bay, columbia river,the OR is much dryer and more stable. I have owed the boat for 5 years and have only gotten wet from spray twice. It will go through nasty 3 foot box-car chop found in Grays Harbor as well as a 25 Grady White, then when it flattens out, hit the gas and bam you are doing 50. With the itegral tank, fish boxes, nice center console you can't do much better for a small easy to handle boat. Side by side with the Montauk you can really see the difference, the best of the Montauk only a little bigger.