Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Last of the Good ones???

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

Author Topic:   Last of the Good ones???
Jim Turnbull posted 11-01-2001 04:59 PM ET (US)   Profile for Jim Turnbull   Send Email to Jim Turnbull  
I had the opportunity of facing off against a new 13 Sport with a 40 4 stroke Mercury. I have a 2000 13 GLS, with a 40 2 stroke 2 cylinder Mercury.....
The new 13 Sport has the new hull design, which I don't like as much as the classic twin sponson design...in any event, I figure I was about 5 miles per hour faster at the top end.....and tighter in the turns as well.
I wonder if the GLS 13 was the last of the good ones??
JBCornwell posted 11-01-2001 06:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for JBCornwell  Send Email to JBCornwell     
Close, Jim. IMHO the last, and greatest of them all, is the Montauk. I weep to see the real classic 13 pass into history. I have no idea what possesses those #$%^&* at the BIG "B" in designing these boats. It seems that almost everything that made Whalers great (except fit and finish) has been discarded in favor of Vanilla-ness.

Red sky at night. . .
JB :)

tbyrne posted 11-02-2001 09:39 AM ET (US)     Profile for tbyrne    
What's so vanilla about the new 13 Sport? It's not as hard riding as the classic 13? Or because, by your own reckoning, its's faster and tighter turning? Or maybe having useful storage areas and some room to stand behind the pilot's seat (with the battery and fuel tank under the seat) is too vanilla? If so, I'll take a double scoop of that kind of vanilla.

Obviously, I don't agree with you that the newly designed 13 Sport is inferior to the classic 13. I have owned them both and in my opinion, the new 13 Sport is superior to the classic 13. The classic 13 passed into history for a variety of reasons: there are thousands of them out there and these old ones seem to last forever, the new ones had become too expensive to buy new, and there were better options for your new boat dollar out there.

The old 13 was and is a great boat, but its impossibly hard ride limits its usefulness on anything other than flat calm days. Once the wind gets up into the 10 kt. range on an open body of water, the ride becomes too much to take. Yes, many people on this forum have owned the classic 13, but honestly, how many of us have sold one because it lacked room and was too hard riding?

JBCornwell posted 11-02-2001 10:15 AM ET (US)     Profile for JBCornwell  Send Email to JBCornwell     
I'll defer to you, TByrne. I haven't even ridden in a new 13, but have had a couple of Classic 13s (one blue and one smirker) and loved them dearly.

How they ride in rough water is more a matter of skill at the helm than an inescapable punishment. If one chooses a heading that is incompatible with what the water is doing, and tries to stick to it, one gets a sore butt. If one cooperates with the seas and settles for a "course made good" one gets a carnival ride and maybe a good shower.

When the Outrage is back in commission I will be looking for a smirker 13.

Red sky at night. . .
JB :)

Bigshot posted 11-02-2001 10:47 AM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
I've had 3 classic 13's and blame all my back problems on them. Yes they are the best 13' boat made but do NOT even try and tell me they ride well in chop. Get a 15 and save yourself some money at the Chiropractors. PS I thought about a new 13' but found my Montauk.
jameso posted 11-03-2001 12:52 AM ET (US)     Profile for jameso  Send Email to jameso     
Totally agree with the "shot" the 15 is a different breed of whale. Was with a classic 13 last week off Sapelo Is,,GA. Guy was beat in what I consider a moderate chop,,,
Jim Armstrong
WantaWhale posted 11-03-2001 01:22 AM ET (US)     Profile for WantaWhale  Send Email to WantaWhale     
My dad has always had the hots for a 15. He almost bought one in the late 80's. I wouldn't be surprised if one shows up in his yard next summer. He has always said the hull design is better for choppy water than even the Montauk. But the Montauk has it by 2 feet. So which of these is less of a beater in the rough stuff?
Eric posted 11-03-2001 03:55 PM ET (US)     Profile for Eric  Send Email to Eric     
I went from a 68 13 to a 62 Nauset 16, and while I loved the 13 I wouldn't want another one. Often, there was just no way to get the boat up on plane without getting beaten up. If it's choppy there's no way you can plane in a flat bottom boat and get any kind of acceptable ride.
TightPenny posted 11-03-2001 04:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for TightPenny  Send Email to TightPenny     
Hey Wantawhale

My first Whaler was a 1977 Sport 15. I gave it to my son. I just couldn't part with it totally.

My current Whaler is a 2000 Montauk.

As to comparison, there isn't any, at least as far as this 50 year old overweight Engineer is concerned. The Montauk takes the pounding a lot better than the Sport 15 ever did.

I'll leave the 15 to the younger and more supple bodies.

where2 posted 11-05-2001 12:57 PM ET (US)     Profile for where2  Send Email to where2     
So here I sit and wonder. I can understand the comments that the larger hulls ride better than the smaller ones, but I fail to understand how anyone can consider the 15' hull to ride "nice" in any sort of a chop. Maybe its the fact that I have a 70Hp engine on the back, so I cannot plane at 12mph. I don't have a doel fin, so I cannot force the bow down. Either way, my 15' Sport is a rough ride (IMHO) in any "real" chop. (what the NWS considers "Choppy to rough". In Florida, anything less than that is "calm")

Curious what Bigshot is using on his 15 to keep the bow in the waves in a chop. The rounded part of the hull is no knife to waves, and pounds unmercilously.

bc posted 11-05-2001 06:53 PM ET (US)     Profile for bc    
How is the stability of the 15' hull? I went in half with Dad on a 1981 15'er. Haven't had it out but once. It seemed to "list" toward the side the weight was on while at stand-still. Is this a typical complaint with the 15' for fishing purposes, where people are walking all around on the boat? Thanks.
Bigshot posted 11-06-2001 09:42 AM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
where2.....the 15 is no Cadillac mainly because it is only 15'. Can't get blood from a stone. Compared to the 13' it IS a caddy and rides 100 times smoother. If you have never experienced an older 13 in chop, you have nothing to compare. The difference is like a 15-17 Montauk. 2 feet makes a huge difference and the hull design is a major factor. The 13 is a flat tri-hull. The 15 & 17 are mod-v's. That is the difference between oooh and OUCH! PS I had 3 15's a sport, super sport and a center console(my favorite). I had 1-50hp, 1-60hp. and 3-70's(my favorite). Don't bother with the doelfin unless you love to go barely on plane which is unefficient anyway.
jbtaz posted 11-06-2001 12:36 PM ET (US)     Profile for jbtaz  Send Email to jbtaz     
As an owner of the New 13 Sport with a 40hp 4-stroke, as well as being a previous owner of a 13 classic with a 35hp Johnson, I'd take the new one all over the old one. Smoother ride, beamier boat, nice trailer and quiet engine...All that with the quality construction Whaler is known for.

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.