Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
  Performance Info on BW's Website

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

Author Topic:   Performance Info on BW's Website
Marlin posted 03-31-2004 10:38 AM ET (US)   Profile for Marlin   Send Email to Marlin  
Sorry if this has been talked about before and I just missed it, but today I noticed that BW's website now contains extensive performance information for each boat, with most or all of the motors available for each boat.

Go to the page of the boat of interest, and click on the blue "Performance Data" box in the upper right. You'll get an RPM/boat speed table and graph for each engine. Many (but unfortunately not all) of the graphs show fuel consumption and MPG over the RPM range, and also list time-to-plane and zero-to-thirty times, important information to fully evaluate different engines. Thorough test scenario information is specified, including props, weight, fuel, etc.

For example, for the 190 Nantucket (for which we've previously seen the engine comparison chart), the data shows relatively minor differences in speed, acceleration, and fuel usage between the 135 and 150 OptiMax (just over 5 MPG for either), but a very dramatic increase in acceleration times for the 115 4-stroke. Unfortunately, the 115 classic 2-stroke, which has been widely discussed here as being the best "bang-for-the-buck", does not list acceleration information, and neither of the 115s show fuel usage.

For the 160 Dauntless, the data shows that the boat can indeed achieve about 7 MPG with the 90 Opti at 22 MPH and 3500 RPM. No other engine combos for this boat have fuel consumption data. The time-to-plane numbers for the various engines are not especially intuitive.

On the always-a-favorite 170 Montauk, the 90 Opti gets similar fuel economy, but over a broader speed and RPM range, perhaps because of a more efficient hull underbody. As has been reported subjectively, the Montauk's time-to-plane is significantly less than the Dauntless.

I took a quick look at some of the big boys, like the 320 Outrage and the 305 Conquest, and a quick look convinced me that I don't want to pay that kind of gas bill!

Kudos to Boston Whaler for this extensive information! Keep up the good work (and fill in that missing fuel data when you get a chance).


WT posted 03-31-2004 11:22 AM ET (US)     Profile for WT  Send Email to WT     

Thanks for the tip. I never knew about the performance data on the BW site.


Moe posted 03-31-2004 11:27 AM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
This is great! Ask and ye shall receive!

But be careful. When looking at the 150 Sport, I was a bit confused as to why the 60HP BigFoot was showing so much less mph/rpm than the 60HP 2-stroke, and less mph/rpm than has been reported here.

On closer examination, the tests shows the 60HP BigFoot with a 14" Vengeance prop and all the 150s shipped so far come with a 15" Black Max prop.


prm1177 posted 03-31-2004 01:33 PM ET (US)     Profile for prm1177  Send Email to prm1177     
Looks like they are also responding to the competition. Edgewater has published performance info for their models for over a year now.
kbshoaps posted 03-31-2004 05:39 PM ET (US)     Profile for kbshoaps  Send Email to kbshoaps     
The new 150 Sport is now being shipped with the Vengeance prop.
kbshoaps posted 03-31-2004 05:45 PM ET (US)     Profile for kbshoaps  Send Email to kbshoaps     
Just noticed that the BigFoot engine was run up to 6200 rpm--my owner's manual states maximum rpm is 6000. Interesting?
Barney posted 03-31-2004 08:22 PM ET (US)     Profile for Barney  Send Email to Barney     
The prop quoted on the 170 with the 4-Stroke 90, a 16 Vengeance, is different than what came on my 2003 model which is an 18 Vengeance. But this is a great start. The time to plane on all combinations is very close. Looks like the Optimax is very quiet compared to the 4-Stroke. This will make LHG's day. Dang it. Jim
jimh posted 03-31-2004 08:37 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Marlin--Thanks for giving the FIRST NOTICE of these additions to the Boston Whaler website.

Posting of this performance information was a goal set by Boston Whaler for their website. It is great to see this has been realized.

Marlin posted 03-31-2004 09:34 PM ET (US)     Profile for Marlin  Send Email to Marlin     
I hadn't noticed the noise figures. That's interesting and useful, but as it happens my own boat/motor combo doesn't show that data.

Also, be sure to look at the weights and fuel loads carefully. For the 160 Dauntless, the 90 2-stroke, 90 Opti, 115 4-stroke and 115 Opti were tested with a full 45 gallon fuel load, while the 90 4-stroke was tested with only 6 gallons on board (and it was still the worst performer).

I think that there's just about no limit to the amount of data mining that one could do in here- comparing engines on the same hull, comparing hulls with the same engine, etc. If I were selecting a new boat/motor combination right now, I'd personally be looking for the combination that delivers the best fuel economy at about planing speed + 5, without beating its brains out doing it. Some of these combinations, like the 180 Dauntless with the 115 Opti or the Nantucket with the 115 4-stroke, look like they're working too darn hard to keep the boat on plane.


cmarques posted 03-31-2004 10:57 PM ET (US)     Profile for cmarques  Send Email to cmarques     
Just checked out the site and test for the 160 Dauntless . The numbers they show for the 90 classic and 13x19 prop as mine is, are pretty much dead on to what I see on gps. Too bad there were no gph/mpg figures. Pretty interesting reading.


Perry posted 04-01-2004 02:27 AM ET (US)     Profile for Perry  Send Email to Perry     
Marlin what do you mean by the 90 4 stroke being the worst performer on the 160 Dauntless?

If I read it correctly, the 90 4 stroke was quicker to plane and quickest to 30 mph than any of the other motors tested. It also had a faster top speed than the 90 classic and was as fast as the 90 OPTIMAX. It may of had 39 gallons less fuel but it still performed well.

Marlin posted 04-01-2004 01:21 PM ET (US)     Profile for Marlin  Send Email to Marlin     

When I said that, I was looking at the speed vs. RPM chart, where the 90 4-stroke has the lowest speed at every planing RPM. However, you're quite right that it has best acceleration numbers. Lower-pitch prop combined with a higher gear ratio, I guess.

Shame on me, first talking about all the information that's available, then reaching a conclusion that isn't well-supported by it!


Barney posted 04-01-2004 06:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for Barney  Send Email to Barney     
Perry, I did the same thing as Marlin on the Montauk. I didn't see the fine print with the 4-Stroke 90 doing well against the Optimax from idle to 30 MPH. Jim
kamie posted 04-01-2004 11:58 PM ET (US)     Profile for kamie  Send Email to kamie     
Now if they would just do performance tests with some of the CPD hull's. It would be great to see the performance of the new engines on say a nice 19 Guardian. I wonder if BW actually has that data?
bkovak posted 04-02-2004 09:43 AM ET (US)     Profile for bkovak  Send Email to bkovak     
Kamie, I would like to see the info on the CPD 19 as well since that hull is very similar to the classic 18/19 Outrage which I have. I am considering mounting a new Mercury 115 classic 2-stroke on my 18 Outrage based in part on the performance of the 190 nantucket with that motor. My 18 hull is only 1250 lbs compared to the 190 Nantucket weight of 2050. The classic 18 hull should do very well with the Merc 115 and be more economical than the 150. Brian
kamie posted 04-02-2004 10:04 AM ET (US)     Profile for kamie  Send Email to kamie     

looks like we are out of luck. No performance data on CPD products. Got the email from BW this morning.

Moe posted 04-02-2004 11:00 AM ET (US)     Profile for Moe  Send Email to Moe     
If you look at the 190 performance graphs at:

you'll see that the 115 2S, and 135 and 150 Optima, rpm/mph lines all cross at 30 mph and 4,000 rpm.

This doesn't mean they accelerate the same, as some would have you believe. Note the 0-30 mph time for the 135 is 8.0 seconds vs 5.6 seconds for the 150. That's the difference only 10% more horsepower makes.

Unfortunately, the time to plane and 0-30 mph times aren't shown for the 115 2S, but you can bet the 0-30 mph time for the 115 2S in this test was on the order of about 12 seconds, compared to the 17% more powerful 135.


LHG posted 04-02-2004 02:46 PM ET (US)     Profile for LHG    
Brian, very recently I saw a new 19 Guardian with a Mercury 115 2-stroke on it. I have no idea how it ran. But I can tell you a 115 will give the 18 Outrage about 40-42 MPH top end, depending on brand and set-up. Twin 115's will push it a little over 60 with 24" Merc Laser II props.

Instead, I would VERY seriously consider the Mercury 125 HP 2-stroke, same engine, same weight, but stronger performance, with only negligible additional cost. This engine is one of the biggest sleepers around, probably because of it's unconventional HP rating.

I have wondered why BW doesn't offer it on the Nantucket.
Then I figured it out.

1. It would raise the base price by $400, a place where every dollar counts.

2. It would blow away the only 4-stroke offering Mercury has for the boat, the 115, and the new Optimax 115 also, but still for alot less money. Hey, what's a little idle smoke?

3. It would probably run very close to the 135 Opti, but for a lot less money. Remember, with the demise of conventional 2-strokes looming, Mercury probably wants to sell all of the clean engines it can. I think BW only offers the cheaper 2-strokes as an incentive to move the Whalers. Note only one is offered per boat model. Everything else is "clean".

Plotman posted 04-02-2004 05:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for Plotman  Send Email to Plotman     
In the Nantucket data, the 115 classic looks to me like it gives virtually the same performance as the 135 opti in almost every respect - I would assume that the 125 classic would outperform the 135 opti. They omitted time to plane on the classic, but top end is identical (well 0.6mph apart)


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.