posted 08-02-2004 08:42 PM ET (US)            

---

The conventional wisdom is those published weights are on the light side of the real weight.

I recently weighed my 1990 Revenge 22 WT WD, the motor, the trailer, and all the rest of the stuff, including fuel and gear. I then deduced a hull weight that was about 400 pounds greater than that shown in the catalogue. This figure was deduced by working with the other published weights of major items and by estimating some of the gear weight.

The only way to get an accurate hull weight is to weight just the hull, but that, of course, is quite a problem once the boat has been commissioned and is in use.

posted 08-03-2004 03:34 PM ET (US)         

---

To disagree with you guys, I don't think BW back then intentionally misrepresented boat weights, as it would cause liability and failure risks with boat lifts and trailers.

This was done, however, about 6 years ago, and resulted in many problems for the company, including failed davits and trailers. Some of you may remember the catalog with new stickers over the previous, lighter, hull weights.

I do think there is some variation in hull to hull weight, depending on how much glass and resin was used when the boat was built.

Slower speeds with Whaler Drive models has always been a known factor, and this may cause some to think the boat is heavier than it is. Evidently, there is considerable extra drag. I was even told about it by the factory when I was ordering my 1989 25 Outrage. With the same power, the WD 22 or 25 will run about 5 mph slower than same rig in notched transom version. That's why they received higher twin engine ratings and recommendations. The single engine installations were only a concession to Dealer complaints about the excessively high selling and rigging prices of the V-6 twin powered WD's