Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  What HP for a 13' BW

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

Author Topic:   What HP for a 13' BW
HondaDude posted 12-28-2003 10:44 PM ET (US)   Profile for HondaDude   Send Email to HondaDude  
I have a 1971 13' BW in excellent original condition. It is powered by a 30hp Yamaha, but since I sell Honda's, the Yami's got to go. I repowered a customer's 13' whaler with a Honda 30hp, and it seemed adequately powered. Do you think this boat could handle a Honda 50hp?

Eric Peterson
Specialty Marine
hondamarine@cox.net

JBCornwell posted 12-28-2003 11:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for JBCornwell  Send Email to JBCornwell     
I think it would be inappropriate for a dealer to overpower the boat, HondaDude.

Max rated hp is 40, and that assumed a 2 stroke weighing in at around 250lb.

I have powered my 13s with 25, 40 and 50hp engines and found best all round balance, performance and agility from the 25.

If I were powering a 13 today, it would be with the new lightweight Honda 25.

Red sky at night. . .
JB

andygere posted 12-29-2003 02:35 AM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
I had a '72 13 with a Mercury 40 hp on it and performance was great. A friend had one of similar vintage with a Mercury 50 and it was just plain fast. I wouldn't be as concerned with the extra power as I would be with the weight. Also, the '71 requires a 15" shaft length unless you use a jackplate. My general sense is that the Honda 50 would be fine, but you may need to redistribute some weight forward (fuel tanks, battery) so it's not too stern heavy. There are some older threads discussing 4-strokes on older 13's that may help you decide if the weight is something you can live with. Also see http://www.continuouswave.com/whaler/cetacea/cetaceaPage56.html for some additional perspective.
Peter posted 12-29-2003 08:41 AM ET (US)     Profile for Peter  Send Email to Peter     
I think the assumed maximum weight for 40 HP was something less than 175 lbs. A 13 with a 190 lb 40 HP Johnson exhibits poor static trim.

With a 198 lb 50 HP Honda, it would be quite stern heavy. With a notched transom and 15 inch shaft length (do they make a Honda 50 with a 15 inch shaft length?) you will get considerable wake wash running over the transom if you quickly slow down from plane.

David Jenkins posted 12-29-2003 09:13 AM ET (US)     Profile for David Jenkins  Send Email to David Jenkins     
I had a 1972 13' with a 1987 20" 198-pound, 40 hp Johnson. The weight in the stern was not a problem. I carried two 12 gallon tanks, one under each seat. I would run the stern one dry, then use the forward one.

The only problem with the boat is that there were times when I could have used more power. It went fast enough (36 mph with average load), but had trouble getting on a plane when pulling a slalom skier or when loaded to maximum capacity.

If I had kept the boat I would have re-powered it with a 50 hp Honda, which weighs the same (203 lbs) as the 40 hp Honda. Some might argue that such a configuration would push the boat dangerously fast (maybe 45 mph) so you need to make sure that the boat is driven responsibly. Who will drive the boat? Will you feel any responsibility for the next owner's safety? By the same token, would you want to give you teenager an automobile that goes 160 mph? Do you even have a teenager?

If your concern is just the weight, go for the 50 but do not use a jackplate as it makes a huge difference in weight distribution on the 13 and 15' Whalers. Just mount the engine as high as you can directly on the transom.

Let us know what you decide and how it works out. Best of luck, David.

Bigshot posted 12-29-2003 02:00 PM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
71 and older 13's have the old bulkhead stle transom. This was later replaced(1972) with the modern and stronger transom. I would NOT push the older style transom that hard, especially with a 33 year old boat. I would do a 25 or 30hp.
witsendfl posted 12-29-2003 04:28 PM ET (US)     Profile for witsendfl  Send Email to witsendfl     
Agreement with Nick
Older HULLS Less is better 30 HP MAX. 25 Will push you and 1 passenger with (2) 6 gal tanks along just fine. Newer hulls 40 HP, which is the MAX that they are designed for.

HAVE FUN They (13 footers) are a blast

Happy New Year

witsendfl

Jim K

HondaDude posted 12-29-2003 09:14 PM ET (US)     Profile for HondaDude  Send Email to HondaDude     
Thanks for all the advice. Just for the record, This is not a notched transom, I have a full 20" transom height and the boat IS rated for 40hp. Second, this is my personal boat, so am not worried about liability issues (I would not repower a customers boat with a motor greater than recommended by the manufacturer). Lastely, the Honda 30 with elecric start and power trim weighs in right around 178 lbs (the advertised weight of 153lbs is for the manual start/tilt model. The 50hp only weighs about 200lbs with electic start and trim, so the weight difference isn't all that much. The Honda 50 probably doesn't weigh any more, maybe less, than a 50hp 2-stroke of the 1971 vinage (it's the lightest 4-stroke 50hp engine on the market). BTW, most of you probably already know this but the Honda 25/30 weigh the same as do the 40/50. Thus, the only thing I would be gaining by going "illegal" is a HP gain, not a weight gain.

Here's the real dilema: I can buy a 2003 Honda 50 (non-current) for about the same price as a 2004 30. If you could have either engine for the same price, would that change anything in your mind????

Again, thanks for any and all advice. If anyone out there is within driving distance of Ventura, CA and wants a great deal on a new, albeit non-current 2003 Honda 50LRTA, email me. The Mira Loma warehouse still has 18 left at last count, and there is a $200 rebate for engines purchased between Jan 1 and March 31,2004.

Eric Peterson
Specialty Marine
hondamarine@cox.net

David Jenkins posted 12-29-2003 09:56 PM ET (US)     Profile for David Jenkins  Send Email to David Jenkins     
The 1971 13' Whaler came with a 15" transom so either you do not have a 1971 Whaler or someone has made a significant modification to the stern of your boat.

If you will be taking it fishing by yourself or with one buddy, carrying some light gear and 12 gallons of fuel, the 25 or 30 will be just fine. But if you intend to load the boat to its maximum capacity (6 people or their weight equivalent) or if you intend to use the boat for water skiing, 40 hp is the minimum you need, and 50 would be better.

David Jenkins posted 12-29-2003 10:05 PM ET (US)     Profile for David Jenkins  Send Email to David Jenkins     
By the way, when you measure that transom, you need the distance from the top of the transom to the plane of the bottom the boat, measured straight down (90 degrees to the plane of the bottom of the boat). If you lay your tape measure against the fiberglass you will get more like 17 or 18 inches, but this is because of the sharp angle of the transom and it is irrelevant to the distance you are measuring.
HondaDude posted 12-30-2003 01:05 AM ET (US)     Profile for HondaDude  Send Email to HondaDude     
Thanks again. I will measure the transom again, but it is definitely not a cut away, and I know I have a 30hp Yamaha long shaft on it now. Will double check the year, the transome sure looks original. The boat has never been LP'ed and has all original woodwork, including a wood bench seat. You've just about convinced me to install the 30hp Honda. Most of my use will be around the harbor, so I won't need the extra power, but I sure would like to "fly" on some lakes when the water's calm, and maybe pull the kids on a tube/skis. I have both a 30 and 50hp engine in stock, both are just begging to be put on a boat and taken out for a run. Tueday's the day, derigging starts and the new engine should be on by evening.

Eric

Bigshot posted 12-30-2003 10:28 AM ET (US)     Profile for Bigshot  Send Email to Bigshot     
If you have the Montauk style transom and not the bulkhead, go with the 50. I personally do not trust the older bulkhead style to overpowering.
Tom W Clark posted 12-31-2003 01:48 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
Eric, David, et al.,

If the 13 foot Whaler in question does not have a notched transom, it is Desert Tan on the inside. If it has a notched transom, it is blue on the inside.

If it has a wrap-around (Montauk style) splashwell, it is no older than a 1971 model and if the transom is notched (and the interior is blue) then it is a 1971 model. If it is Desert Tan, it is a 1972 model or later.

Eric, there should be a hull identification number (HIN) molded (embossed) into the gel coat on the exterior of the transom near the top edge. The last three digits will tell you what model year and month it was built. There will also be a stenciled serial number on the inside of the transom in the splashwell and this number can be cross referenced to the list of serial numbers listed in the Reference Section of this site. http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/13/

As to what size outboard to put on such a boat, I think you can do whatever you like. Personally I think the 13 performs nicely with only 25 hp on it, but I spent much time in a neighbor's 1971 with a Mercury 50 hp when I was a teenager. No problem there either.

Nick,

I have to disagree with you one the transom strength. While I understand the logic and reasoning behind thinking the newer splashwell design might be stronger (it probably is) The old design will more than strong enough for whatever motor one wants to put on it so long as the transom is sound.

I know you once had a bad experience with the transom on a 13, but if I remember correctly, that was caused by the transom being rotten.

If your transom is rotten, you've got bigger problems than deciding between a 30 hp and a 50 hp motor.

Having personally and deliberately destroying a 1970 13 foot Whaler (and one which was VERY beat up and abused), I can tell you that old transom design is strong as hell.

In reality, the transom will probably be stressed more by the weight of the outboard motor than by its horsepower rating. probably the greatest stress will be put on it while trailering the boat down the road and going over bumps with the weight of whatever motor levering the transom.

The actual stress put on the transom by the motor while running will have more to do with how the boat if operated. I can assure you a teenage boy running a 13 with a 25 hp motor will stress it far more than an level headed adult running a 13 with a 50 hp motor!

Also, a 25 hp motor pushing a 13 footer at 25 mph is putting EXACTLY the same stress on the transom as a 50 hp motor pushing the same boat at the same speed.

Now a teenage boy running a 13 with a 50 hp motor all day long at wide open throttle is another story, but either way a sound hull and transom can take it. No worries.

David Jenkins posted 12-31-2003 02:49 PM ET (US)     Profile for David Jenkins  Send Email to David Jenkins     
That makes good sense, Tom. I only disagree on one minor detail: in 1972 it was possible to get a smirked sourpuss-model 13' Whaler with blue interior. I owned one until last summer.
AZdave posted 01-01-2004 01:27 AM ET (US)     Profile for AZdave  Send Email to AZdave     
I replaced the old 40hp on my '68 13 Sport with a 30hp Yamaha two stroke. The boat did not seem to lose any top end. It feels very agile and turns like a cat. Just the thing for pulling a tube. It almost keeps up with the jetskis with two aboard, but is slow to get on plane with a full load. It works great with light skiers, but will not plane a 200 lb skier, even if starting on two skis. I would not put a heavier engine on my boat with its notched transom, but it appears that you have the straight transom and have less of a problem with shipping water when backing down or taking wakes. I guess you need to decide based on the way you use your boat. Ain't it great to have the luxury of choice! Dave
AZdave posted 01-01-2004 01:51 AM ET (US)     Profile for AZdave  Send Email to AZdave     
I replaced the old 40hp on my '68 13 Sport with a 30hp Yamaha two stroke. The boat did not seem to lose any top end. It feels very agile and turns like a cat. Just the thing for pulling a tube. It almost keeps up with the jetskis with two aboard, but is slow to get on plane with a full load. It works great with light skiers, but will not plane a 200 lb skier, even if starting on two skis. I would not put a heavier engine on my boat with its notched transom, but it appears that you have the straight transom and have less of a problem with shipping water when backing down or taking wakes. I guess you need to decide based on the way you use your boat. Ain't it great to have the luxury of choice! Dave
auwhaler posted 01-01-2004 06:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for auwhaler  Send Email to auwhaler     
I just installed the Honda 30 on my 88 13 sport 2 weeks ago. I am not through with the break in period but have run it at full throttle for short periods and register 30 mph on gps. This is with a full 12 gallon tank and my ten year old son. I think I will be pleased with performance although the dealer mounted the motor as low as it could go and bolts placed where it can't be adjusted without re-drilling the transom. If you install the 30 I would like to compare performance.
HondaDude posted 01-01-2004 08:51 PM ET (US)     Profile for HondaDude  Send Email to HondaDude     
The deed is DONE. I installed the 30HP Honda on Tuesday (2 days before Christmas). Haven't taken it out yet, but will within the next week or so. I know it will perform OK as I have repowered 2 other 13'BW's, one with a 30, the other with a 50 (actually the 50hp was put on a BW look-alike). Will report on the performance. When I have some #'s.

I don't have the boat here to check the hull #, but it is tan inside and out, has a full transom, and a little "tube" of a splashwell (not full transom height). I thought it was a 71, but maybe I'm wrong. At any rate, it looks like new.

BTW, AUWHALER, why have 12 gallons of gas on-board when running a Honda, isn't that overkill??? You must have a 300 mile range! I did notice that the wooden bench seat has rounded notches in it whereby 2 6.5 gallon tanks will fit in nicely between the seat and the transom (one on each side of the splashwell).

Thanks for everyone's input.

Eric Peterson
Specialty Marine
hondamarine@cox.net

auwhaler posted 01-01-2004 10:30 PM ET (US)     Profile for auwhaler  Send Email to auwhaler     
Hondadude
The tank was from when I had the two stroke and it also is a Pate Tank which fits under the back bench seat and moves that weight a little forward. Will you be using the stock prop? I would like to E-mail you some pictures and compare set-ups. Is your E-mail in the your profile up to date?
Thanks
Auwhaler
David Jenkins posted 01-09-2004 11:07 PM ET (US)     Profile for David Jenkins  Send Email to David Jenkins     
Tom W Clark,

I am only following up on this because I recognize you to be the expert on Whaler models and I thought that you would find this interesting.

You wrote,

quote:
If it has a wrap-around (Montauk style) splashwell, it is no older than a 1971 model and if the transom is notched (and the interior is blue) then it is a 1971 model. If it is Desert Tan, it is a 1972 model or later.
But on the first page of Cetacea there is a 1972 13' and it has a blue interior.

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/cetacea/cetaceaPage01.html

There is another 1972 13' Whaler on page 10. It also has a blue interior.

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/cetacea/cetaceaPage10.html

There is a third 1972 13' on page 19. Once again, it has a blue interior.

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/cetacea/cetaceaPage19.html

So it seems to me that 1972 was the last year of blue interior for the 13', not 1971.

The 1972 was also the first year of the smirk in the 13'. Prior to the 40th anniversary special edition, 1972 was the only year that you could have a 13' Whaler with a blue interior and a smirked hull. Its only drawback was that it had a 15" transom (unlike the 40th anniversary model, which had a 20" transom).

Right?

Mumbo Jumbo posted 01-09-2004 11:19 PM ET (US)     Profile for Mumbo Jumbo  Send Email to Mumbo Jumbo     
I have a 1972 13' Whaler with a blue interior and a smirk hull. It originally had a 15" transom but the transom has since been modified to 20".
Tom W Clark posted 01-11-2004 11:51 AM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
David,

Yes, you are quite right. It was the 1972 model year that saw the first "smirked" 13 foot hull. It was this year that had the smirk, the blue interior and the 15" transom.

I believe the first of these smirked 1972 models were manufactured in late 1971.

It was the following model year that saw the Desert Tan color come to the 13 footers along with the 20" transom. Again, these first 1973 models were manufactured in 1972 (Whaler's model year production commenced August 1st back then. It has since moved up to June 1st)

David Jenkins posted 01-11-2004 05:35 PM ET (US)     Profile for David Jenkins  Send Email to David Jenkins     
Thanks, Tom. I love reading about Whaler history and statistics. I have been putting off ordering your CD because I am afraid that once it is in my computer I will not get any work done.

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.