Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  Outrage 270 v. Outrage 280

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Outrage 270 v. Outrage 280
jcwhaler posted 09-05-2015 08:33 AM ET (US)   Profile for jcwhaler  
Hi All. I plan to move up to a 27 to 28-footer from my twin-engine 25-foot center console boat. I have only owned Grady-White boats and Boston Whaler boats, and the last Whaler was a 230 Outrage. I've done a lot of research and both the 270 Outrage and 280 Outrage look great. I'm interested to hear if anyone has real world experience on these models. I haven't got to sea trial yet and so just wanted to do a bit of preliminary inquiry here. I fish off the south shore of Long Island, New York, and make six to eight offshore trips a year ranging from 20-miles to 60-miles out.

270 Outrage:

LOA: 27'
Beam: 8' 6"
Hull Draft 1' 8"
Dry Weight: 5,160-lbs
Fuel: 200-gallons
Water: 20-gallons
Max HP: 450
Deadrise Aft: 22-degrees

280 Outrage:

LOA: 27'7''
Beam: 9' 4"
Hull Draft: 1' 8"
Dry Weight: 6,100-lbs
Fuel: 200-gallons [186-gallons per Boston Whaler website--jimh]
Water: 28-gallons
Max HP: 600
Deadrise Aft: 23-degrees

I'm interested to know opinions on either boat, including differences with the slightly wider beam and length on the 280. I would expect the wider beam and slightly deeper deadrise aft to provide for a smoother ride in the ocean and also added stability at rest (wider beam). Any thoughts are greatly appreciated.--JC

Ventura posted 09-05-2015 10:20 AM ET (US)     Profile for Ventura  Send Email to Ventura     
[A Boston Whaler 280 OUTRAGE boat] is 1000-lbs heavier [than a 270 OUTRAGE] from the start. [A Boston Whaler 280 OUTRAGE boat] will be more sluggish to helm control. I suggest not using [minimum] power on either. [Avoidance of using minumum power] comes into play when you are trying to come in on one engine in rough seas. Try to find a real rough day to test and bring some friends like the number you would fish with. See how both boats behave in following sea. The one with the steeper entry angle will probably try to broach quicker than the other. [A helmsman] just needs to be aware. Please post how your trials go.

JJC

jimh posted 09-05-2015 02:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Do you plan to move the boat on a trailer on the highway very often? A boat with a beam greater than 8-foot 6-inch may require special permits to be hauled on a trailer on the highway, and that could be a consideration in your decision.
jcwhaler posted 09-05-2015 08:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for jcwhaler    
Ventura - thanks and agree re: sufficient power to adequately be able to operate on one engine if needed.

Jimh - agree - I don't trailer the boat - stays in a slip from April to October and on dry land other months.

I may not sea trial until next spring but curious to know other people's opinion's if they own either of these two vessels...Interested in knowing the good the bad and the ugly.

The 270 is now less expensive to acquire used since the model years are a bit older than the 280. Just not sure how much better than 280 rides with the extra bit of length and beam for the money.

Thanks all.

JC

msirof2001 posted 09-10-2015 12:48 AM ET (US)     Profile for msirof2001  Send Email to msirof2001     
Have you considered an Everglades 265cc/275cc? Same boat, 265 vs. 275 were different designations depending on the model year. This is a real battlewagon. I figure if Whaler never sold out and Bob D. never left, and they stayed on the trajectory they were on in the very early 1990's, this is what the Outrage line would have been today. I have been on these and they are Sherman Tanks. They are not tied to an Engine manufacturer although most that I have seen have Yamahas.

Specs:
LOA w/o Engine 26' 7"
LOA w/Engine 28' 11"
Beam 9' 9"
Draft Hull Only 20"
Draft Engine Down 33"
Deadrise at Transom 21°
Deadrise Average 37°
Transom Height 25"/25"
Weight (no engine, approx) 6,700
Max HP Capacity 600
Max Persons Capacity 12
Max Weight Capacity 3,800 lbs
Fuel Capacity 184 gal
Water Capacity 25 gal
Waste Capacity 9 gal
Bridge Clearance w/Hardtop 8' 0"
Fishbox Capacity - Fwd 105 gal
Livewell Capacity 34 gal
Cockpit Area 95 ft ²

kwik_wurk posted 09-10-2015 07:01 PM ET (US)     Profile for kwik_wurk  Send Email to kwik_wurk     
If ride is king, the Outrage 280 is going to eat the ocean compared to the 270: 6,100-lbs (dry), dual 250's or 300's (maybe triples), and 23 degrees at the transom. Without going for a ride these numbers imply it will cut through a bit better than the other two boats.

Also the Everglades may be a wide load at 9' 9", and I am not sure on trailering regulations where you are.

jimh posted 09-13-2015 02:34 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
JCWHALER has indicated above that trailering of the boat on the highway is not a factor in the decision.
jimh posted 09-21-2015 11:29 AM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Regarding the possible difference in the quality of the ride in rough seas between a Boston Whaler 270 OUTRAGE and a 280 OUTRAGE, I don't know that you'd find them to be astonishingly different. Let's look at two metrics of analysis: waterline length and length-to-beam ratio.

In general, it is believed that a longer hull water line contributes to better ride in seas. In the case of these two hulls, the water waterine length is not specified. Perhaps we can infer the water line length from the length overall, which differs by only 7-inches. Let us assume the waterline length is nearly in the same proportion, so it may differ by about 6-inches. This seems like a small increment in waterline length, and it will be hard to judge precisely how much the ride characteristics of the longer boat will improve due to this slight advantage in hull waterline length.

There is also a notion that length-to-beam ratio contributes to ride quality in seas, with higher ratios being better. We explore the length-to-beam ratio of the two boats under consideration, and find:

280 OUTRAGE: 2.955:1

270 OUTRAGE: 3.176:1

On the basis of length-to-beam ratio, the OUTRAGE 270 would appear to offer a slight improvement in ride quality.

As these two metrics demonstrate, it may be hard to predict which boat will have superior ride characteristics based on simple analysis of their dimensions. I suspect the two boats may have very similar ride characteristics.

Post New Topic  Post Reply
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.